DRC-2021-004931 - 0901a06880e60a6f

Div of Waste Management
and Radiation Control
APR 1 2 2021
ENERGYSOLUTIONS DRC- Zo 21 - 001+931
April 9, 2021 CD-2021-052
Mr. Ty Howard, Director
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Subject: Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005 Modification Request
Mr. Howard:
In response to pre-file comments received from the LLRW Section Manager of the Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control,' Energysolutions herein formally submits for official
consideration a Radioactive Material License Application for a proposed Federal Cell Facility
(Application) to authorize EnergySolutions to construct a federal cell for the permanent disposal
of concentrated depleted uranium from the U.S. Department of Energy. Application revisions in
response to comments from the Section Manager Director are herein summarized. Additional
interrogatories were also received from the LLRW Section Manager regarding the performance of
the cover system design for the proposed Federal Ce1l,2 the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study of
October 2020 and long-term the stability4 of the proposed Federal Cell (also summarized here
and specifically addressed in the Application).
1) Division's Comments on General Facility Description (Section 1.2):
a. Comment 1: Following the guidance in the SRP 1.2, NUREG-1200, the general
descriptions of the facility should be cross-referenced to the more detailed
descriptions elsewhere in the application.
EneruSolutions' Response: Cross references to more detailed facility
descriptions are presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.
b. Comment 2: Section 1.2 states, "A current site layout is provided in Figure 1-4,
including the location of the Federal Cell Facility in relation to other site
Willoughby O.H. "Utah Radioactive Material License Application for a Federal Cell Facility" Letter
from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions.
February 11, 2021.
2 Willoughby O.H. "Comments on EnergySolutions Cover System Described in the DU PA, Draft Federal
Cell License application." Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern
Rogers of EnergySolutions. December 3, 2020.
3 Willoughby O.H. "Interrogatories for Basal-Depth Aquifer System Study Submitted October 3, 2020."
Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of
EnergySolutions. January 15, 2021.
Willoughby O.H. "Technical Report" Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control to Vern Rogers of Energy Solutions . January 28, 2021.
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
[phone] • Fax: [phone] • www.energysolutions.com
Peter Martinez <[e-mail]>
Fwd: Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License
Application and Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005 Modification Request (CD-2021-052)
1 message
LLRW DWMRC <[e-mail]> Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:49 AM
To: Peter Martinez <[e-mail]>
DRC
This is a big one.
Forwarded message
From: Vern C. Rogers <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 9:07 PM
Subject: Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application and Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005 Modification Request (CD-2021-052)
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
You have received access to a file from Vern C. Rogers. The link to transfer your file(s) will
expire on Sunday, May 9, 2021 8:58 PM.
https://servu.energysolutions.com/?ShareToken=CABE3FA5AF8A354A9F9412D1A4BFB8
5EDDF30563
Linked to this message is EnergySolutions Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material
License Application (CD-2021-052). An earlier attempt at submitting the application in three
pieces (due to their size) was blocked by EnergySolutions' SERVU system.
Please confirm you have received this second link and can successfully download the
single application file.
Sorry for any confusion.
Vern

April 9, 2021 CD-2021-052

Mr. Ty Howard, Director
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880

Subject: Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005 Modification Request

Mr. Howard:
In response to pre-file comments received from the LLRW Section Manager of the Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control,1 EnergySolutions herein formally submits for official
consideration a Radioactive Material License Application for a proposed Federal Cell Facility
(Application) to authorize EnergySolutions to construct a federal cell for the permanent disposal
of concentrated depleted uranium from the U.S. Department of Energy. Application revisions in
response to comments from the Section Manager Director are herein summarized. Additional
interrogatories were also received from the LLRW Section Manager regarding the performance of
the cover system design for the proposed Federal Cell,2 the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study of
October 20203 and long-term the stability4 of the proposed Federal Cell (also summarized here
and addressed in
1) Div General Facility Description (Section 1.2):
a. Comment 1: Following the guidance in the SRP 1.2, NUREG-1200, the general
descriptions of the facility should be cross-referenced to the more detailed
descriptions elsewhere in the application.
Energy Response: Cross references to more detailed facility
descriptions are presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.
b. Comment 2: -4,
including the location of the Federal Cell Facility in relation to other site

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions.
February 11, 2021.
2
Cell License application agement and Radiation Control to Vern
Rogers of EnergySolutions. December 3, 2020.
3
Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of
EnergySolutions. January 15, 2021.
4
Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions. January 28, 2021.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 2 of 41

ility is not specifically identified on the site
layout, as is the CAW Facility. Although the application states that the Federal
Cell Facility is conceptually the same as the previously approved CAW
embankment except for a smaller footprint and height, the site layout should
identify the Federal Cell Facility per Section 1.2 of Areas of Review in the SRP.
location of the Federal Cell Facility, conceptually shown as the Class A West
Embankment, in relation t
Energy Response: Figure 1-4 and the Applicable references in
Section 1.2 have been updated, as requested.
2) Schedules (Section 1.3):
a. Comment 1: of the Federal Cell Facility will take
place during normal operations. As fill and waste are placed in the Federal Cell
Facility Director-approved design height, these areas will be covered to meet
final design specifications before being closed. Prior to final cover construction,
closure activities will include settlement monitoring, as required by the CQA/QC
since EnergySolutions would only be allowed to dispose of DU waste in the
Federal Cell. That is, under this Application, non-DU Class A waste could not be
used to fill the space between the top of the DU and the bottom of the ET cover.
EnergySolu Response: The narrative in Application Section 1.3 has been
limited to placement of concentrated depleted uranium, below grade backfilling
with controlled low-strength material and placement of approved fill to the
licensed design height of the Federal Cell Facility.
b. Comment 2: General personnel requirements and/or resource commitments as
they relate to major work steps (e.g., construction, operation, closure activities)
are not mentioned or referenced per SRP Section 2, Areas of Review.
EnergySolut Response: A description of the personnel and resource

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

narrative in Application Section 1.3.
3) ents on Institutional Information (Section 1.4):
a. Comment 1: This section ergySolutions and DOE entered into an
Agreement that establishes covenants and restrictions related to DOE long-term
stewardship of the Federal Cell Facility. EnergySolutions and the State of Utah
are negotiating a similar agreement (see Appendix C). This Agreement
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 3 of 41

contemplates transfer of ownership of the closed Federal Cell Facility (including
land and disposed waste) from EnergySolutions to DOE for long-term
maintenance a te
Transfer Agreement (Agreement or Transfer Agreement) for the Federal Cell
(FC) between EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) and the U.S. Department
EnergySolutions will transfer real property to the DOE at no cost, estimated to
It appears that stating a similar agreement with the State of Utah is being
negotiated contradicts Appendix C, which states the State of Utah is not a party
to this Agreement (i.e., transfer of real property to DOE).
Energy Response: The narrative in Section 1.4 of the Application has
been revised to reflect the agreement executed between DOE and
EnergySolutions.
4) mments on Conformance to Regulatory Guides (Section 1.6):
a. Comment 1: Consider adding NUREG-
Low- t of regulatory guides

EnergySolu Response: The requested reference has been added to Section
1.6 of the Application.
5) Conformance to Summary of Principle Review Matters
(Section 1.7):
a. Comment 1: This e a
new Radioactive Material License to authorize management and disposal of
with the Appendix A Proposed Radioactive Material License for the Federal Cell
Facility, Section 9.A that requests authorizat
material as naturally occurring, and accelerator produced material (NARM) and

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: See the responses to th s
related to revision of Appendix A.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 4 of 41

6) Site Location and Description (Section 2.1.1):
provided in Section 11, Refere
Note: this comment applies to the entire Application, which contains a total of 52

Energy Response: The reference in Section 12 (prior renumbered as
Section 11) of the Application has been corrected.
7) the Basal-Depth Groundwater (Section 2.4.2):
a. Comment 1: Regarding the quoted paragraph, please indicate which of the
specifically requested by the Director and referenced in the study Plan, have
already been met, and which requirements still need to be met, and explain why.

Application.
b. Comment 2: Please (i) provide an update on plans to obtain this missing
information and subsequently report it to the Division, or (ii) justify the absence
of the missing information despite having indicated previously in the Plan that
EnergySolutions would obtain and report this information.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
c. Comment 3.1: For depths down to 275 ft bgs, which conceptual model, if either,
appears to be correct? Please provide justification for your answer.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Application.
d. Comment 3.2: e, 2015b) describes a single
deep aquifer at depths beyond 275 ft bgs. Stantec (2020b) describes two
aquitards, as well as a leaky aquifer, in this depth range. Which description is
correct?
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 5 of 41

Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
e. Comment 3.3: Please represent the correct types and locations of all aquifers
and aquitards in a revised Figure 3 for the Report.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
f. Comment 4.1: The calculations for hydraulic gradient in Table 3-4 appear to
have been done differently, using instead the freshwater mid-screen interval,
corrected for buoyancy. Please clarify what was done for what purpose, and
justify why.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
g. Comment 4.2: The text refers to mid-points of the saturated zone elevations,
whereas Table 3-3 gives the mid-points of the filter pack elevations as well as the
mid d zone elevations, and the calculations in Table 3-4 are
based on the mid-screen elevations. Why?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
h. Comment 4.3: It appears that some part of each range of what are called the
buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients associated with the shallow aquifer well
(I-1-30) indicate downward flow to any of the wells in what Neptune (2015) has
called the deep aquifer (i.e., I-1-50, I-1-100, and I-1-700). This is because some
part of each range has negative values, which, according to the Stantec (2020b)
sign convention, represents downward flow. Is this also how EnergySolutions
interprets this?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

i. Comment 4.4: Looking at Table 3-4, for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, how
does the sum of 0.041, the freshwater mid-screen gradient, and 0.040, the
buoyancy correction, supposedly equal 0.002?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 6 of 41

j. Comment 4.5: What is the overall range of vertical gradients calculated for the
well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, when accounting for well geometry and water level
elevations, as indicated in the last column of Table 3-4? Do the negative values
given for some of these data combinations indicate (according to the Stantec
convention) the possibility of downward flow?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
k. Comment 4.6: What is the overall calculated range of corrected vertical
gradients for the well pair consisting of I-1-50 and I-1-100? Do the negative
values given for each of these data combinations indicate (according to the
Stantec convention) downward flow?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
l. Comment 4.7: Please look at density and specific gravity values found in
Neptune (2015) and indicate based on this much-larger sample what fraction of
the calculated flow-direction values would indicate upward flow, and what
range for each aquifer.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
m. Comment 4.8: Please justify, if possible, why it would be valid to do what
Stantec (2020b) has done, i.e., apply an analytical model designed for
homogeneous conditions to the heterogeneous site at Clive, where aquitards are
known to exist between aquifers.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

buoyancy corrected vertical gradient range varies from -0.002 to 0.005. The
lower part of this range, i.e., from -0.002 to slightly below zero, represents
downward flow, based on the Stantec (2020b) sign convention. Why is Stantec
not using the values in the negative range?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 7 of 41

o. Comment 5: Does a lack of discernible drawdown response in Well I-1-30
throughout the pumping test show limited hydraulic connection between Well I-1-
700 and Well I-1-30 over the duration of the pumping test or for all time?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
p. Comment 6: Is there a reason why EnergySolutions would continue to choose to
conduct the analysis using a value of 325 feet?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
q. Comment 7: Please justify use of the Hantush (1960) method in the Report
without utilizing data from an observation well or a piezometer.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the

r. Comment 8: Please justify implementation of the Hantush (1960) method of
analysis for analyzing drawdown test data in Well I-1-700.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
s. Comment 9: Please justify the lack of use of drawdown data from the aquitard
when implementing the Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) method..
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

should be considered accurate, or even approximate.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 8 of 41

u. Comment 11: Please justify presenting a low storativity value.
Application.
v. Comment 12: The assumptions required by the analysis for the confined aquifer
(e.g., Cooper-Jacob method assumptions) were not met during testing. Is this not
the case?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
w. Comment 13: Please provide jus
chemistry of I-1-
What set of data is identified in the Report that indicates that the groundwater in
the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is isolated from, or is typical of groundwater
isolated from, recharge?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
x. Comment 14: ved most permeable
-5
indicating that the most permeable zone is the one covering a depth range of 90-
100 ft bgs. Please provide justification for this statement.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
y. Comment 15: Please provide justification for the assessment given that results
of lab tests indicate hydraulic conductivities for samples being two to three
-test calculated values.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 9 of 41

z. Comment 16: The Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states, The vertical
hydraulic gradient, calculated using fresh water equivalent heads for I-1-700
and three nested wells, indicates an upward direction of vertical groundwater

Please provide justification for this conclusion.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
aa. Comment 17:
position that this groundwater still needs to be protected.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
bb. Comment 18: What is the evidence or justification for assuming that there is
ted connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at
statement quoted above? What is the significance of the hydraulic connection
that is shown to exist in the upper aquifer, owing to the measured drawdown in
the groundwater observed in it during the aquifer test?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
8) Comments on Construction Considerations (Section 3.3):
a. Comment 1:
more detailed schedule for cover construction over the proposed Federal Cell
Facility; nor is there a regulatory basis to require on
is true so long as EnergySolutions does not desire to dispose of non-DU Class A
waste within the Federal Cell. However, if EnergySolutions desires to dispose of

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

the Director would need to approve a PA that accounted for both DU and non-
DU waste.
Energy Response: EnergySolutions is applying for a license to
dispose of depleted uranium in a Federal Cell Facility. Anything beyond that is
outside of the scope of this Application. Having been licensed for various
operations over more than 30 years, EnergySolutions is well aware and has
demonstrated its abilities to revise the necessary performance assessments and
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 10 of 41

amend the licenses necessary to expand disposal capacity and waste stream
authorizations. Any decision by EnergySolutions to request amendment to any
Federal Cell License will be subject to business opportunities and industry
factors. This comment requires no revision of the Application.

a. Comment 1: Suggest characterizing the flood potential at the site in the
introduction of the section per NUREG-1200, standard review plan (SRP) 3.4.4.
Energy Response: The discussion of flood potential in Section 3.4.4
has been expanded, as requested.
b. Comment 2: In the introduction, differentiate the use of run-on and run-off
berms at the Federal Cell Facility. The Construction Quality Assurance and
Quality Control (CQA/QC) Manual provides run-on and run-off control
requirements during the project for both in Specifications 6 and 7, however only
run-on construction requirements are referred to in the CQA/QC Manual.
The discussion of run-on and run-off controls
berms has been expanded, as requested.
c. Comment 3: The CQA/QC Manual requires monthly berm inspections in
accordance with Specification 8 to verify compliance with height requirements.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 discuss annual inspection requirements. Suggest adding this
requirement to the discussion for completeness.
Energy Response: The discussion of berm inspections has been added
to Section 3, as requested.
d. Comment 4: The analysis needs to conclusively document how surface features
have been designed to direct surface drainage away from disposal units at
velocities and gradients that will not result in flooding or erosion per NUREG-
1199, 3.4.4 and NUREG-1200, 4.1. The analysis refers to general engineering

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

requirements in NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200 are being met. Provide a
reference to the specific drawing(s) that provide the design details discussed in
this section.
Energy Response: References to specific drawings that illustrate the
surface features that serve to direct surface drainage away from the disposal
embankments have been added to the Section, as requested.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 11 of 41

e. Comment 5: Table 3-
application.
Energy Response: The reference has been corrected, as requested.
10) omments on Waste Disposal Operations (Section 4.3):
a. Comment 1: In the Federal Cell, there would need to be two distinct types of
waste disposal operations: 1) during the DU disposal period, when no other
LLW could be disposed of and 2) after DU disposal has been completed, when
the remaining volume of the embankment is filled with non-DU Class A waste. In
LLRW will be placed above the DU. It will not be placed below or between the
co Solutions stated:
Federal Cell until a Performance Assessment can be compiled that includes both
DU and other Class A wastes. Until that time, EnergySolutions will only dispose
of d

Energy Response: See response to comment 1 of Section 3.3.
b. Comment 2
contain concentrated depleted uranium will be controlled according to the type
of
placement of radi

Energy Response: See response to comment 1 of Section 3.3.
c. Comment 3: The Application state
distributed throug
in the DU layer, then to comply with the DU PA, the debris/soil must be

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

radiologically clean.
EnergySolutio Response: See response to comment 1 of Section 3.3.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 12 of 41

11) Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection (Section 5.1.1):
Code (UAC) R313-25-7(7). UAC R313-25-7, General Information, does not have
a subsection (7). The subsections end at (4). Revise reference accordingly.
Energy Response: The regulatory reference quoted in Section 5.1.1
has been corrected to UAC R313-25-8(7).
b. Comment 2: Characterize the flood potential at the site in the introduction of the
section per SRP 5.1.1 and SRP 6.3.1, Section 2.1 or refer to characterization if
performed in Sections 2.4.1 and/or 3.4.4. The characterization includes
determination of precipitation potential, precipitation losses, runoff response
characteristics of the watershed, the accumulation of flood runoff through river
channels and reservoirs, the magnitude of the probable maximum flood (PMF) or
project design flood (if a flood less than the PMF was used) at the site, and the
critical water levels and velocity conditions at the site. Provide the probable
drainage areas adjacent to the site.
Energy Response: The description and impact of flooding and the
PMF has been expanded in Section 5.1.1, as requested.
c. Comment 3: Provide an evaluation of possible geomorphic changes that could
affect the potential for flooding and erosion at the site per SRP 6.3.1, Section 2.2.
This includes: (1) types of geomorphic instability, (2) changes to, and effects
associated with, flooding and flood velocities resulting from geomorphic
changes, and (3) mitigative procedures to reduce or control geomorphic
instability.
Energy Response: The description and impact of geomorphic changes
that could affect flooding and erosion has been expanded in Section 5.1.1, as

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

d. Comment 4: Provide a discussion on dam failure considerations, such as a
conclusion from an existing analysis that states seismic or hydrologic events will
not cause failures of upstream dams that could produce the governing flood at
the site per SRP 6.3.1, Sections 2.3 and 3.2.3.
Energy Response: There are no dams, streams or other surface water
features located upgradient of the Federal Cell Facility.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 13 of 41

e. Comment 5: Provide information on what methods and data were used for
estimating flood peaks, such as the peak discharge rates, water levels, and flood
velocities, that formed the design basis for the erosion protection measures in
accordance with SRP 5.1.1 and SRP 6.3.1, Section 2.4.

narrative in Section 5.1.1.
f. Comment 6: Per SRP 6.3.1, Sections 2.4 and 3.2.4, provide a discussion on
erosion protection against the effects of flooding from nearby large streams (or
indicate there are none if that is the case) and durability of the erosion protection
features.
Energy Response: The description and impact of flooding and the
protections inher have
been expanded in Section 5.1.1, as requested.
g. Comment 7: Provide information on the monitoring and observation period of
the engineered features to ensure proper functioning and no degradation per
SRP 5.1.1.
Energy Response: The information presented in Section 5.1.1 has
been expanded regarding the monitoring and observation period of the Federal
engineered features.
h. Comment 8: Provide information to ensure significant windblown or
waterborne sedimentation will not occur based on engineering features per SRP
5.1.1.
Energy Response: The Clive basin is a cumulative depositional
environment. The analysis in Appendix H addresses the deposition and its
beneficial impact on the performance of the engineering features of the Federal
Cell Facility.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 14 of 41

i. Comment 9: Provide a discussion on the ability of the site design to meet
applicable long-term stability requirements. Include the sensitivity of the site
design to small increases in the peak flood magnitude (as the magnitude of the
uncertainties associated with the magnitude and occurrence of rare floods, meets
stability requirement per SRP 6.3.1, Section 4.3.2.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Section 5.1.1
j. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1: Models of erosion of rock-armored side
slopes on a similar analog embankment show erosion as deep as 23 feet in 1,000
years. This apparent outcome needs to be addressed to show stability of erosion
protection for the appropriate period of time.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
expanded in Appendices K, M and N.
k. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.1: The DU PA needs to account for
degradation resulting from erosion and discontinued functioning of the
engineered barriers after they have been in service for 500 years or more.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
l. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.2: The EnergySolutions/Neptune note that
rip-rap is now proposed for the side slopes of the Federal Cell. EnergySolutions /
long-term response
to erosional forces and explain the analysis mechanistically.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 15 of 41

m. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.3: Erosion modeling for the new hybrid
cover must be performed.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
n. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.4: The following discrepancy needs to be
clarified. Section 2.0 states the ditch length along each side of the Federal Cell
Facility is 30.6 feet farther than what is described in Figure D-1. The Section
3.0, Storm Events, references are not provided. The Drainage Areas drawings
were not available. In Section 4.1, Table 7, there is no reference for the Cover
Test Cell (CTC) Run-Off Coefficient Data. In Section 5.1.1, there is not enough
information to determine how the rainfall intensity was determined and
extrapolated for 105.8 minutes. The calculated peak flow rates for the 25-year
and 100-year storm event could not be replicated since the rainfall intensities
calculated during the review are different than what were determined in this
section. The iterative process for the maximum height of water in the CAW ditch
how the rainfall intensity was determined and extrapolated for 154.4 minute..
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
12) January 2012 Comments on Geotechnical Stability (Section 5.1.2):
a. Comment 1.4: A more complete description of structural design and
performance is requested.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

the long-term geotechnical stability of the disposal site along with explaining the
analysis mechanistically.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 16 of 41

c. Comment 2.1: More discussion is needed about calculating and/or estimating
the long-term deep-seated slope stability of the proposed Federal Cell
embankment considering the uncertainty of design assumptions.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.
d. Comment 2.2: More discussion and information is needed that explains how the
disposal site responds in the long-term to the results from the settlement analyses
of the proposed Federal Cell embankment and how the DU PA modeling has
considered the uncertainties associated with geotechnical mechanisms out
beyond 500 years.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.
e. Comment 2.3: More discussion and information are needed that explain how the
disposal site might respond if ground water rises below the proposed Federal
Cell embankment and how the DU PA modeling has considered the uncertainties
associated with geotechnical mechanisms out beyond 500 years.
x M.
f. Comment 3: EnergySolutions/Neptune need to explain quantitatively and
mechanistically how the DU PA has accounted for the potential for enhanced
infiltration due to the potential erosion of the cover.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.
13) D Decontamination and Decommissioning (Section 5.2):
a. Comment 1 e second paragraph references the CQA/QC
Manual for approved disposal methods for soil contaminated with depleted
uranium (DU). Under Construction Activities, Item 35A, the CQA/QC Manual
states, -25-8, the Licensee shall not dispose of
significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium prior to the approval by

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

CQA/QC Manual does not discuss disposal methods for soil contaminated with
DU during decommissioning.
Energy Response: A Construction Quality Assurance / Quality
Control manual specific to the Federal Cell Facility (FCF CQA/QC Manual) has
been added to Appendix B.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 17 of 41

b. Comment 2:
any on-site support structures and contents dedicated to supporting Federal Cell
reference to the survey methods proposed for characterizing and identifying
equipment and structures requiring decontamination to meet applicable
dismantlement, transfer, release for unrestricted use, or disposal on-site take
place per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. In accordance with SRP 4.3.2,
be placed on the sensitivity and accuracy of the survey instruments, the
competency of the personnel conducting the survey, and the reasonableness of
the proposed technique to accurately survey a structure or a specific piece of
equipment
Energy Response: Section 5.2 has been expanded to address the
survey methods proposed for characterizing and identifying equipment and
structures requiring decontamination to meet applicable regulatory limits and
guidelines before the activities associated with dismantlement, transfer, and
release for unrestricted use or disposal on-site.
c. Comment 3: Provide a discussion or reference to information on the procedures
and the details of the final means of disposal per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. In
applican cost-
benefit considerations for the various methods of decontamination and
decommissioning are similar to the alternative approaches recommended in
NUREG/CR-
EnergySolutions Response: Section 5.2 has been expanded to include the
procedures applicable to dismantlement of equipment of aboveground structures.
d. Comment 4: Provide an estimate of the volume activities (waste class for
significant radionuclides) and a description of the anticipated waste that will be
generated during decontamination and decommissioning per SRP 5.2, Section
3.2.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergySolut Response: The volumes of waste expected to be generated
during closure of the Federal Cell Facility are included in the surety estimates for
premature closure of the Cell (see Appendix R).
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 18 of 41

e. Comment 5: Provide a discussion on the procedures for processing waste
generated during decontamination and decommissioning operations to provide
reasonable assurance that they meet waste form, packaging, and acceptance
CFR 61 and per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. Approved disposal methods are referenced
to the CQA/QC Manual; however, processing and packaging procedures are not
discussed.
Energy Response: In addition to the specifications included in the
QC Manual, Section 5.2 has been expanded to
discuss the procedures for processing waste generated during decontamination
and decommissioning operations that provide reasonable assurance that they
meet waste form, packaging, and acceptance criteria, and that the final waste
disposal operations are in accordance with 10 CFR 61.
f. Comment 6: Provide a discussion on the assessment of occupational exposure
anticipated during decommissioning operations to determine that these levels are
in accordance with applicable regulations and are as low as is reasonably

Energy Response: The anticipated occupational exposures from
closure of the Federal Cell Facility have been included in Section 5.
g. Comment 7: Provide a discussion on procedures for site surveys to ensure that
fixed and removable contamination of buildings and grounds are at acceptable
levels. The contamination could potentially result from: (1) surface
contamination on waste packages, (2) routine release of gases and particulates
from partially breached waste packages, and (3) accidental spills not completely
removed per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. In accordance with SRP 4.3.6, information
should include: (1) The background characteristics of radioactivity in the soil for
the significant radionuclides determined in item (3), below, should be evaluated.
(2) A site map indicating soil sampling and gamma survey points on square grid
locations should be provided. Each grid location should contain at least five

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

spacing should be based on considerations of site radiological conditions,
necessary adequacy of survey meter measurements, and the level of confidence
necessary for required measurements. (3) Direct radiation dose rates and
radionuclide concentrations should be reported for each of the locations
indicated in item (2) above. Direct radiation measurements should be taken 1
meter above the ground surface. Soil samples taken for determining radionuclide
concentrations should characterize the soil concentrations down to 15
centimeters.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 19 of 41

Energy Response: The narrative in Section 5.2 has been amended to
discuss Energy procedures for site surveys of buildings and grounds
supporting the Federal Cell Facility.
h. Comment 8: Provide a discussion on proposed limits on residual contamination
restrictions on land use and the estimated dose to the maximally exposed
individual following decommissioning per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2.
Energy Response: Section 5.2 has been expanded to discuss residual
contamination and external gamma radiation levels and their influence on
eventual land use.
i. Comment 10 (comment 9 was not included in the LLRW Section Manager
February 2021): Provide a discussion on the commitment and procedures to
maintain records for transfer to the custodial agency per Section 5.2 of NUREG-
1199 and SRP 5.2, Sections 3.2 and 4.4.9.
Energy Response: The process of transferring the Federal Cell
Facility is presented in Section 10.4.
j. Comment 11: Per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2, provide a discussion or reference for the
estimate of required funding for the decontamination and decommissioning
activities to ensure that sufficient funds are available for closure as required by
10 CFR 61.62.
Energy Response: Justification for the fund amounts to support
closure and post-closure of the Federal Cell Facility are included in the surety
estimates for premature closure of the Cell (see Appendix R). The Director and
DOE will review the sureties annually to assess their sufficiency.
14) Post-Operational Environmental Monitoring and
Surveillance (Section 5.3):

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

compliance with concentration limits. There is no subsection 420 in Utah
Administrative Code, Rule R313-15, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
Revise accordingly.
Energy Response: Section 5.3 has been revised, as requested.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 20 of 41

b. Comment 2: SRP 5.3, Section 2, Areas of Review, includes quality assurance
and quality control as an evaluation aspect of the environmental monitoring
program. Provide a discussion or reference on the quality assurance and quality
con
surveillance.
Energy Response: Section 5.3 has been revised, as requested.
c. Comment 3: There is no discussion or reference to plans for EnergySolutions to
remain at the site for the 5-year post-closure and observation period (SRP 5.3,
Section 3.2.1). Suggest providing a brief discussion on the 5-year post-closure
and observation period plan or reference the discussion provided in Appendix C,
Long-Term Stewardship Agreement for the Federal Cell Facility.
Energy Response: See Appendix T and Application Section 10.
15) Performance of the Cover (Section 6):
a. Comment 1: A new hybrid-cover design is proposed and included in the
Federal-Cell license application. EnergySolutions and its contractor, Neptune
and Company, Inc., need to submit a supplemental document that describes and
justifies with supportive analysis and calculations how results from the modeling
of an evapotranspiration (ET) cover as presented in Clive DU PA Model v1.4 are
applicable to this new hybrid-cover design.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
b. Comment 2: A validation of the snowmelt algorithm utilized by HYDRUS is
required and has not been presented.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

c. Comment 3: Provide a comparison of the engineering properties determined for
the individual components of the rock-armored Cover Test Cell as studied in
connection with its deconstruction to the properties used in the current model of
an evapotranspiration (ET) cover system in the Clive DU PA Model v1.4.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 21 of 41

d. Comment 4: Explain why the regression model used for abstraction of HYDRUS
results into the GoldSim model is insensitive to Ksat of the cover soils.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
e.
large scale to generate appropriate saturated hydraulic conductivities and
SWCC data and submit these results. If this is not possible at this stage of the
project, EnergySolutions needs to incorporate the new snapshot-in-time SWCC
data obtained from the recent Cover Test Cell deconstruction, at least for the
radon barrier.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
f. Comment 6. Show that the hydraulic properties assigned to the Frost Protection
Layer of the evapotranspiration cover, which were obtained from the Rosetta
database, are representative of long-term conditions naturally developing at the
Clive site. Compare the hydraulic properties assigned to the Frost Protection
Layer with the measured and/or described properties of the Sacrificial Soil Layer
from the Cover Test Cell deconstruction.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
g. Comment 7: Document and explain mechanistically why the water content
below the Evaporative Zone appears insensitive to meteorological conditions,
based on the HYDRUS simulation outputs. Document and explain what is / are
the controlling mechanism(s) responsible for the apparent lack of flow across
these interfaces, and how will these mechanisms be maintained or remain
operative throughout the required service life and the compliance period
associated with the cover.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
h. Comment 8. Provide annual water balance graphs over a 10-year period for

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 22 of 41

i. Comment 9. Demonstrate the efficacy of the abstraction model used to
determine percolation rates used in GoldSim by conducting an independent set of
blind-forward simulations with HYDRUS over a broader range of conditions to

Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
j. Comment 10. Provide the rational basis for the appropriateness of this
approach to characterize uncertainty, including appropriate documentation of
supporting information from the hydrologic literature specific to unsaturated
flow and vadose-zone processes.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
k. Comment 11. Explain mechanistically why tails of the distribution for water
content predicted in GoldSim differ from those predicted by HYDRUS.

l. Comment 12. Explain mechanistically why the percolation rates predicted with
the original DU PA, Model v1.4, and those utilizing the 1000-year precipitation
record differ.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
16) Divi mments on Stability of Slopes (Section 6.3.2):
a. Comment 1: NUREG/CR-4620, also known as ORNL/TM-10067 and OSTI
5348444, is not readily available as a reference for the D15/D85 criteria
discussed in this section. It is not listed or provided in the U.S. Nuclear
-Series publications and was

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Ridge National Lab online library. Suggest providing this reference as an
appendix and more detail regarding the D15/D85 criteria.
Energy Response: As suggested, NUREG/CR-4620 has been
included as an appendix to the Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 23 of 41

b. Comment 2: It is not clear what calculations are used to demonstrate that the
filter layer underlying the side-slope riprap meets the D15/D85 criteria as
concluded. Provide a title and full reference for the calculation, design, and
Section 2.
Energy Response: Gradation and rock quality are amongst several
specifications dictating the process for mining, staging, sorting/processing and
validation of riprap material prior to its use in construction of filter layers in
embankment cover. In addition to required validation that materials gathered
meet the contractually-designated specifications, the Federal Cell Facility
Construction Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manual (FCF CQA/QC
Manual) further requires application of ASTM D 5519, ASTM D 422, ASTM D
75, ASTM C 702, ASTM C 535, ASTM C 136 and ASTM C 131 to confirm
filter materials are mined and processed to meet the necessary specifications.
c. Comment 3: Provide a discussion or reference on the provisions for quality
control during construction of the Federal Cell side-slope cover to provide long-
SRP 6.3.2, Section 2. Discuss or reference any geotechnical and geophysical
investigations conducted in the vicinity of the slopes that are designated for
stability analyses per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.2.
Energy Response: As is demonstrated with the stable rock armored
side slopes of the closed LARW embankment, final cover portions of the Class A
West embankment, covered regions of the 11e.(2) cell, EnergySolutions has
extensive experience in constructing stable rock armored side slope covers on
embankments. Quality control that specifications created for material mining,
processing, staging and placement are included in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
d. Comment 4: Provide a reference and the values determined for the comparison
of calculated interstitial velocities to permissible velocities from NUREG/CR-
4620, worst case scenario.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: The context surrounding the interstitial velocity
analysis summarized in Appendix K has been expanded. Additionally,
NUREG/CR-4620 has been included as an appendix to the Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 24 of 41

e. Comment 5: Reference the calculation and/or analysis used for demonstrating
the selected characteristics of the proposed riprap materials that would be
placed in and used to line the Federal Cell perimeter ditches would be adequate.
Energy Response: The context surrounding the specification selection
for clay and rock materials used in ditch construction presented in Appendix K
has been expanded. Additionally, NUREG/CR-4620 has been included as an
appendix to the Application.
f. Comment 6: Provide a reference for the precipitation values used in the
performance assessment (PA) for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the
normal condition and the 1-hour abnormal storm event.
Energy Response: References have been added, as requested
g. Comment 7
stability of the Federal Cell and other disposal embankments at the Clive Facility
on short-term stability and more detail or reference regarding the testing and
soil parameters used in the stability analysis per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.3, as
well as slope characteristics, method of analysis, and liquefaction potential per
SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.2 to support this conclusion.
Energy Response: Analysis of slope stability, impact of seismic
events and liquefaction potential have been expanded, as requested.
h. Comment 8: Provide a discussion or reference to groundwater conditions at the
site including: (1) the location of the groundwater table and the elevation range
of its seasonal fluctuation in the vicinity of the slope area, (2) the presence of
perched, artesian, and aquifer conditions, groundwater movement, etc. at the site
location of the slopes being analyzed, (3) design water level in the vicinity of the
slope area as determined by design-basis events, such as the probable maximum

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergySolut Response: The discussions of the groundwater beneath the
Federal Cell Facility have been expanded. Recent annual groundwater reports
have also been added as appendices to the Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 25 of 41

i. Comment 10 (comment 9 was not included in the LLRW Section Manager
February 2021): Provide a discussion or reference to the fill borrow material
exploration program and testing per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.5.
Energy Response: Validation that mined borrow materials meet their
applicable specifications is addressed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
j. Comment 11: Provide a discussion or reference to compaction and quality
control that ensures it is feasible to compact the materials to the compaction
specifications per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.6.
Energy Response: Validation that compaction of materials meet their
applicable specifications is addressed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. As is
required with performance-critical components of the Federal Cell Facility
design, EnergySolutions will demonstrate that equipment, materials and
construction processes are appropriate to meet the necessary specifications
through construction of test pads.
k. Comment 12: Provide a reference for the normal (static) and abnormal
(seismic) condition analysis and values presented in the conclusion. The
of drained shear strength values for the embankments and foundation materials,
was previously determined to
sta -term and long-term static
stability analyses under the worst combination of water levels and pore pressures
should be 1.30 and 1.50, respective s how or if the calculated static
safety factor (greater than 1.5) meets the static stability criteria in SRP 6.3.2,
4.3.2.2 and clarify whether these safety factors are for short-term or long-term
stability.
Energy Response: The analysis of static and seismic stability of the
Federal Cell Facility has been expanded, as requested.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

17) Settlement and Subsidence (Section 6.3.3):
a. Comment 1: The CQA/QC Manual specifications are referenced for settlement
prior to the final cover placement. SRP 6.3.2, Section 2, Areas of Review,
indicat -term settlement are
identified and are modeled (representative sections and design parameters)
reasonably and conservatively; the uncertainties are considered and addressed
appropriately in the settlement analyses; the applicant has committed to monitor
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 26 of 41

settlement and/or subsidence and to perform remedial actions if long-term
settlement should be a potential problem that would adversely affect
specifications to monitor and measure prior to cover placement; however, there
is no discussion or information presented prior to the conclusion stating that the
settlement
review above have been evaluated.
Energy Response: Discussion of the application of data collected
from settlement monitoring analysis has been expanded, as requested.
b. Comment 2: AMEC study is referenced for demonstrating that most
embankment settlement occurs during operations in the waste-placement phase.
Is this the same reference provided in References, Section 12: AMEC, Report:
date Report, Energy Solutions Clive Facility, Class A West
nt & Infrastructure, Inc., February 15,
2011. (AMEC, 2011)? Provide the complete title of the reference and how it
supports this section.
Energy Response: The reference and discussion of its application has

c. Comment 3: Section 6.3.3 references the conclusion of the settlement analysis
for the neighboring Class A West (CAW) embankment and concludes that since
the Federal Cell has identical 5H:1V side-slope inclinations yet a smaller design
height, settlement would be expected to be less in the Federal Cell relative to the
CAW embankment. As referenced, the CQA/QC Manual provides specifications
to monitor and measure settlement prior to cover placement, however this
reference does not provide the details of the method of analysis used or
settlement evaluation to reach this conclusion. Information on the site
characteristics, construction and operations phase data should be discussed or
referenced to an analysis performed per SRP 6.3.3, Section 3.2.1 for the
settlement evalu
discussion should be included on how the magnitudes of settlements calculated at
various locations have been used to estimate the magnitudes of differential
settlement (on both a short- and long-term basis) and the potential for cracking

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: The discussion of the site characteristics,
construction and operations phase data has been expanded to include the impact
of settlements calculated at various locations are used to estimate the magnitudes
of differential settlement (on both a short- and long-term basis) and the potential
for cracking of the disposal unit excavation cover.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 27 of 41

d. Comment 4: Provide a reference for the results of differential settlement
discussed in the second paragraph of this section. What methodology and data
were used to determine the maximum distortion amounts in the liner of the
Federal Cell provided?

related to differential settlement has been expanded, as requested.
e. Comment 5: Discuss modeling of the site characteristics that was conducted for
the settlement analysis per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.2 and NUREG-1199, 6.3.3.
Energy Response: The discussion of settlement analysis has been
expanded, as requested.
f. Comment 6: There is no discussion on subsidence in this section in accordance
with NUREG-1199, 6.3.3. Per SRP 6.3.3, Section 3.2. re any areas of
subsidence caused by total settlement instead of areas of cracking caused by
differential settlement? Is there a potential for cracking of the disposal unit
excavation cover in the long term? If so, is there an estimate of the probable
openings or pathways in the cover that would inhibit flow and/or infiltration of

Energy Response: The discussion of subsidence has been expanded,
as requested.
g. Comment 7: Discuss any commitment to monitor settlement and/or subsidence
and to perform remedial actions, if necessary, per SRP 6.3.3, Section 3.2.4.
Energy Response: Mitigating actions that EnergySolutions will take if
excessive settlement is detected are included in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
Examples of application of these steps with other embankments located at the
Clive site have been added to the Application.
18) Premature Closure (Section 10.1):

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

a. Comment 1: In both NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200, Section 10.1 is entitled
-1200 requires the regulator to
qualifications of the applicant: (1) a legal description of the applicant
(individual, corporation, or public entity) (2) a description of the applicant
operations from all of its business activities, including those proposed to be
conducted under the license. (3) a detailed financing plan. (4) information, if
applicable, with regard to parent or holding company activities, U.S. Securities
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 28 of 41

and Exchange Commission (SEC) forms submitted, bond ratings, or involvement
the application.
Energy Response: Section 10.1 has been retitled and expanded to
.
b. Comment 2: Table 10-
RSMeans (no
and demobilization costs are not included in equipment rental costs and must be
73 specify the percentage of direct labor to be assigned to Mobilization /
Demobilization. Please clarify.
Energy Response: Table 10-1 has been revised and expanded for
clarity.
c. Comment 3: The Federal Cell column of Table 10-1 includes phases such as
used for fe
please explicitly state. If not, please explain.
Energy Response: Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) allows a Licensee
to determine closure and post closure costs: (A) for an initial financial
assurance determination and for each financial assurance determination every
five years thereafter, a competitive site-specific bid for closure and post-closure
care of the facility at least once every five years; and (B) for each year between a
financial assurance determination described in Subsection (12)(f)(ii)(A), a
proposed financial assurance estimate that accounts for current site conditions
and that includes an annual inflation adjustment to the financial assurance
determination using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator of the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, United States Department of Commerce,
calculated by dividing the latest annual deflator by the deflator for the previous
year. As has been the Director-approved practice since 2015, EnergySolutions

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

associated with all premature closure and post-closure activities for the Clive
Disposal Facility (including the proposed Federal Cell Facility). This process
included third-party calculation of direct and indirect costs and was completed in
March 2021 and is currently under evaluation by the Director. The information
in Section 10 has been revised to reflect the 2021 third-party comprehensive cost
estimates.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 29 of 41

d. Comment 4: On page 10-
-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of 10%
of the sum of direct costs will be required as contingency for unanticipated
2300249, Table 73 both specify the
contingency to be 15%. Please clarify.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been retitled and expanded to
address the information requested.
e. Comment 5: On page 10-
acco -party surety estimate, a contractor
charge of 15% of the sum of direct costs will be required for contractor profit
Table 35 and UT 2300249, Table 73 both
specify the profit and overhead to be 19%. Please clarify.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been retitled and expanded to
address the information requested.
f. Comment 6: Page 10- eer and one CAD designer
(utilizing AutoCAD Land Desktop or similar software) will redesign, including
twelve (10- Appendix G, item 303, Engineering and
Redesign shows that a flat rate of 2.25% of the Sub-Total cost was used. Please
clarify.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been retitled and expanded to
address the information requested.
g. Comment 7: NUREG-119 shing to
us so establish a standby
ll. No response required.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been expanded to address the
Standby Trust Agreements, as requested.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 30 of 41

19) Site Transition (Section 10.2):
transition. Rather, EnergySolutions obtained the format and content for this
section from the U.S. Dep
Framework for Long-
required.
Energy Response: Energy agrees that no further response is
required to address this comment.
b. Comment 2: As written, the fourth bullet in Section 10.2.1 is incomplete.
relating to Institutional Controls are further discussed in Section 10.2.4.
Energy Response: The section (now labeled as 10.2.2) has been
.
c. Comment 3: The fourth bullet in Section 10.2.3 indicates that there will be a
time when engineering controls are no longer necessary. Since this license is for
DU, what is the basis for making this determination? Also, what engineering
controls are envisioned?
Energy Response: Section 10.2.3 has been clarified.
d. Comment 4: The fifth bullet in Section 10.2.5 needs to refer to the UDEQ license
that is the subject of t
application, EnergySolutions will be the license holder and does not need to be
identified.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.5 has been clarified.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

e. Comment 5: Section 10.2.6, first bullet, development of this Technical Basis
does not appear to be included in the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.5 has been revised.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 31 of 41

f. Comment 6: Section 10.2.7, fifth bullet, costs associated with the development
and approval of a Facility Information and Records Transition Plan do not
appear to be included in the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.7 has been revised.
g. Comment 7: Section 10.2.8, last bullet, costs associated with public involvement
do not appear to be included in the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.8 has been revised.
h. Comment 8: In genera ite
Transition Framework for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintena
2019) have been inserted into Section 10.2, with only a limited attempt to make
them Federal Cell specific. Section 10.2 needs to be revised to ensure that all of
its bullets are specific to the Federal Cell, and that the information it presents is
consistent with other parts of the application, e.g., the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.2 has been revised, as suggested.
i. Comment 9: In addition to DOE 2019, EnergySolutions needs to incorporate the
ideas and informa
Tailings Radiation Control Act Title Il Disposal Sites to the U.S. Department of
Energy Office of Legacy Management for Long-Term Surveillance and
ifies a four-tack
transition process: 1) Project management, 2) Regulatory closure, 3) Real
property, and 4) Information management, including records and environmental
and geospatial data. The individual step in each track are displayed in a
flowchart, reproduced here as Figure 1. (Note: The numbers that appear in the
activity boxes in Figure 1 refer to sections in DOE 2016.)
Energy Response: EnergySolutions appreciates the reviewers

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

requested that EnergySolutions address the guidelines and requirements in their
Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance in
Application Section 10.2.2 and not the references suggested in DOE, 2019.
j. Comment 10: Conduct a NEPA evaluation is one transition action identified in
Figure 1, but not in Section 10.2 or elsewhere in the license application. Please
explain why a NEPA evaluation would not be required as part of license transfer.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 32 of 41

Energy Response: Section 10.2 has been expanded.
k. Comment 11: The calculated cost of routine perpetual care activities (i.e.,
$770,290.82) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 multipliers (see
also Appendix G comments). When the Table 35 multipliers have been included,

Energy Response: The premature closure and post-closure costs
included in Section 10 have been revised to reflect the third-party estimates
conducted March 2021, as authorized in Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii).
20) Divis Perpetual Care (Section 10.3):
a. Comment 1: The first three bullets of Section 10.3.1 simply repeat information
from R313-25-20, the fourth and fifth bullets simply repeat information from
R313-25-22, the sixth bullet repeats information from R313-25-21, and the last
bullet repeats information from R313-25-23. Instead of simply repeating the
regulations, this section needs to describe how EnergySolutions intends to meet
these regulations at the Federal Cell.
Energy Response EnergySolutions has determined that perpetual care
funding are not required by Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) and UAC R313-25-
33. This section and discussion have been removed from the Application.
b. Comment 2: The reference to UAC R313-15-1008(2)(a) in the Section 10.3.2
heading is incorrect. The correct reference is UAC R313-15-1009(2)(a).
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
c. Comment 3: UAC R313-15-1009(2)(a) contains nine bullets that define waste
characteristics that are acceptable for disposal. Section 10.3.2 repeats four of the
nine 1009(2)(a) bullets (i.e., (i), (ii), (iv), and (ix)). What was the rationale for
not including the remaining five 1009(2)(a) bullets in the Federal Cell waste

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

this section needs to describe how EnergySolutions intends to meet these
regulations at the Federal Cell. The Section 10.3.2 fourth bullet indicates that
EnergySolutions may need to treat the DU prior to its disposal. What capabilities
are available to EnergySolutions to treat DU?
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 33 of 41

d. Comment 4: Section 10.3.3, the evaluation of the DU PA to meet the
requirements of UAC R313-25-9 is being performed under a separate effort and
will not be repeated here.
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for

e. Comment 5: Section 10.3.4 repeats the 11 site suitability requirements
contained within R313-25-24. Section 10.3.4 differs from Sections 10.3.1 and
10.3.2 in that each of the 11 Section 10.3.3 bullets contain a reference to a
section elsewhere in the application where compliance with the R313-25-24
criteria is addressed. However, it is observed that in some of its criteria, R313-
25-24 -
-25-20 and R313-25-
for the General Population and for Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion,
respectively. Please explain why EnergySolutions has excluded the inadvertent
intruder performance objectives from Section 10.3.4.
Energy Response: See EnergySoluti response to comment 1 for
this section.
f. Comment 6: Section 10.3.5 repeats the six design requirements contained within
R313-25-25. Section 10.3.5 differs from Sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 in that the
title of Section 10.3.3 contains a reference to Section 3 of the application where
compliance with the six requirements are addressed. As in Section 10.3.4, when
referring to the R313-25 performance objectives EnergySolutions has chosen not
to include the inadvertent intruder performance objectives from R313-25-21.
Energy Response: See EnergySoluti response to comment 1 for
this section.
g. Comment 7: The nine bullets of Section 10.3.6 contain criteria (4) through (10)
of R313-25-26. Instead of simply repeating the regulations, this section needs to
describe how EnergySolutions intends to comply with the R313-25-26
regulations at the Federal Cell.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergyS Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 34 of 41

h. Comment 8: Please explain why EnergySolutions chose not to include R313-25-
g or contaminated with radioactive
material shall be dispos
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
i. Comment 9: The three bullets of Section 10.3.7 contain the four criteria of
R313-25-27. Instead of simply repeating the regulations, this section needs to
describe how EnergySolutions intends to comply with the R313-25-27
regulations at the Federal Cell.
EnergySolutions Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
j. Comment 10: Sections 10.3.1 to 10.3.7 repeat essentially verbatim selected
portions of UAC R313-25, and in some cases refers the reader to elsewhere in
information to present, SC&A does not understand the rationale for including it
in Section 10.3, which is entitled Perpetual Care. It is recommended that the
information contained within Sections 10.3.1 to 10.3.7 be moved to a more
appropriate location(s) within the application. For example, 1) a new section on
regulatory compliance could be added, or 2) each subsection could be placed in
the main section that is most applicable (e.g., Section 10.3.5 could be moved to
Section 3, Section 10.3.4 could be moved to Section 2, etc.), or 3) these section
could be re-located to Section 1.1 were Table 1-
included under the appropriate UAC rule in Table 1-1 (e.g., in Table 1-1 R313-
25-26 does not include Section 10.3.6).
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 35 of 41

k. Comment 11: The fourth sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10.3.8
state ticulate and
groundwater leachate monitoring are provided for the entire Clive Disposal
-2 shows that
Funds for Routine Monitoring is zero. Please explain this apparent discrepancy.
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
l. Comment 12: The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10.3.8
ted annually to reflect additional depleted
uranium disposa
Table 10-2 that states that the Perpetual Care Funds for Routine Monitoring will
djustment for the amount of
DU or for inflation or both?

this section.
m. Comment 13: The calculated cost of highly unlikely catastrophic events (i.e.,
$2,383,386) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 multipliers (see
also Appendix G comments). When the Table 35 multipliers have been included,
the cost increases to $3,664,456.
Energy Response: See EnergySolutio response to comment 1 for
this section.
21) Division Annual Adjustments (Section 10.4):
a. Comment 1: NUREG-1200, SRP 10.2, Section 4.2(1) requires the regulator to
unt for

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

This section meets that requirement.
Energy Response: Energy agrees that no further response is
required to address this comment.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 36 of 41

b. Comment 2: Elsewhere in Chapter 10, reference is made to Utah Code §19-3-
104(12)(f)(ii) for the method to be used to perform the annual cost adjustments. It
is recommended that Section 10.4 also include this information.
Energy Response: Reference to Utah Code 19-3-104(!2) has been
added to the narrative in Section 10.4.
c. Comment 3: NUREG- -step adjustment
procedure because of an inherent time delay (of 9 to 18 months) that exists in the
publication of a historical annual Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National
Product (AIPD-GNP) by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The procedure will
use both the latest published historical figure for AIPD-GNP as well as the latest
forecast of AIPD- -1199 suggested two-step procedure be
used for the Federal Cell adjustments? If not, why not.
Energy Response: EnergySolutions has proposed the same method of
annual inflationary adjustments for the Federal Cell Facility as the Director has
annual sure
22) Proposed Radioactive Material License for the Federal Cell
Facility (Appendix A):
a. Comment 1

Energy Response: Section 6 of the suggested Radioactive Material
License in Appendix A has been revised, as requested.
b. Comment 2
by land burial, radioactive material as naturally occurring, and accelerator
produced material (NARM) and concentrated depleted uranium radioactive
e all non-DU waste was excluded from the DU PA (i.e., Section 6

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

removed from the Proposed Radioactive Material License.
Energy Response: Section 9.A and the remainder of the suggested
Radioactive Material License in Appendix A have been revised, as requested.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 37 of 41

23) Engineering and Construction Drawings (Appendix B):
however they are not provided as part of Appendix B.
Energy Response: Appendix B has been revised, as requested.
24) Cover / Liner Construction Estimates (Appendix E):
a. Comment 1: The ET Cover, Surface Zone (gravel) entry needs to indicate that
gravel only composes 15% of the surface zone layer.
Energy Response: The volume and cost estimated have been revised
to reflect the p rint and amended cover
design.
b. Comment 2:
that clay/loam only composes 85% of the surface zone layer.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
c. Comment 3: The Side Slope (apply slope factor=1.0198) indicates that a slope
factor of 1.0198 was applied to the side slope area. It was not.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
d. Comment 4: For the Federal Embankment Liner - Phase 1, Total Construction
Cost, 20% inflation was added instead of 2%.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

e. Comment 5: Various Top Slope Surface Layer thicknesses are reported and
used at various locations in the Application, i.e., Appendix E: 1 ft; Drawing
10014, C05: 12 inches; Table 2-4: 2 ft; Appendix F, NAC-0018_R4 (p 34): 6
inches; and Appendix F, NAC-0015_R4 (p 13): 6 inches. Also, Table 2-4 shows a
Top Slope Erosion Barrier (0.5 ft) that is not shown or discussed elsewhere.
Please clarify this confusion regarding the Top Slope.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 38 of 41

f. Comment 6: The Cover System Cost Estimates sheet states:
(40 m Appendix G, it is clear that the 40.75% does not include any
allowance for Mobilization/Demobilization. Please explain how the
Mobilization/Demobilization costs have been included.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
g. Comment 7: Some of the data provided in Appendix E is identified as being the
same as data presented in Appendix G. However, the numerical values are not
always the same between the two appendices for the same data. Table 2 presents
a comparison of the Appendix G data used to calculate the installation of the
Premature Closure (Phase 1) cover to similar data provided in Appendix E. The
cells in Table 2 that show differences between the Appendix E and G data are
highlighted in red.
EnergySolutions Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
25) Financial Surety Calculations (Appendix G):
a. Comment 1: Some of the data provided in Appendix G is identified as being the
same as data presented in Appendix E. However, the numerical values are not
always the same between the two appendices for the same data. Table 2 presents
a comparison of the Appendix G data used to calculate the installation of the
Premature Closure (Phase 1) cover to similar data provided in Appendix E. The
cells in Table 2 that show differences between the Appendix G and E data are
highlighted in red.
Energy Response: Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) allows a Licensee
to determine closure and post closure costs: (A) for an initial financial
assurance determination and for each financial assurance determination every
five years thereafter, a competitive site-specific bid for closure and post-closure
care of the facility at least once every five years; In March 2021,
EnergySolutions submitted to the Director results of an analysis that was
commissioned for a third-party to estimate the process and activities associated

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Facility (including the proposed Federal Cell Facility). The information in
Appendices A and G have been revised to reflect the 2021 third-party
comprehensive cost estimates.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 39 of 41

b. Comment 2: Table 3 shows that the Contingency and Overhead and Profit direct
labor multipliers used in Appendix G differ from those specified in both Appendix
A, Table 35 and UT 2300249, Table 73. Also, Appendix G included no allowance

Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix G.
c. Comment 3: The assumptions used to estimate item 320, Facility Stewardship
Transfer, appear to be optimistic. For example, it only assumes that 2 inspectors
will be involved, that implies only a single individual each from UDEQ and
EnergySolutions. It seems unlikely that transfer would involve only a single
individual from each organization. Also, the assumed transfer duration of 90
will begin the structured process to complete the real property, records, and
administrative transition functions, which generally require about 2 years to
Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), a number of sites have been tra
of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) for long-term management, maintenance, and
necessary to transfer a closed and decommissioned site to DOE-LM?
Energy Response: To secure an April 2020 execution of the Real
Estate Transfer Agreement for the Federal Cell by and between EnergySolutions,
LLC and the U. S. Department of Energy (Appendix C), DOE mandated that
Clause 6.1.7 reflect an appropriate transition time period by requiring that
lutions shall observe, monitor, and carry out necessary maintenance
and repairs at the [Federal Cell] disposal site for at least five years, prior to
transfer of ownership to DOE and termination of the License by UDWMRC.
d. Comment 4: The calculated cost of item 400, Routine Perpetual Care Activities,
(i.e., $770,290.82) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 direct labor
multipliers, shown in Table 3. When the Table 35 multipliers have been included,
the cost increases to $1,184,322.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergySolution Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix G.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 40 of 41

e. Comment 5: The calculated cost of item 450, Highly Unlikely Catastrophic
Events, (i.e., $2,383,386) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 direct
labor multipliers, shown in Table 3. When the Table 35 multipliers have been

Energy Response: Following a legal review of the statutory
requirements in Utah Code 19-3-104 regarding closure and post-closure sureties
and the perpetual care requirements of Utah Code 19-3-106.2, EnergySolutions
has determined that perpetual care funds is not required from licensees of federal
depleted uranium disposal facilities. See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix
G.
EnergySolutions Radioactive Material License UT2300478 authorizes management and disposal
of 11e.(2) byproduct on the same footprint herein being considered for the Federal Cell Facility.
In preparation for this Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application,
EnergySolutions previously requested Radioactive Material License UT2300478 be amended
license a smaller footprint.5

To support this Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application, EnergySolutions
requests Table 3 of the Discharge Permit be amended to reflect the corner coordinates for the
proposed Federal Cell Facility (as found in Condition 10.B of the suggested License language in
Appendix A). Similarly, EnergySolutions requests a 10,000-year performance period for the
Federal Cell Facility be included in the Table in Discharge Permit I.D.1. EnergySolutions also
requests Table 2D be added to the Discharge Permit with references to the Engineering Drawings
included in Appendix H of this Application. Finally, several groundwater wells were constructed
along the original byproduct license footprint (several of which are no longer located at the small
footprint of the byproduct perimeter). Therefore, EnergySolutions requests that Discharge Permit
Part I.F.1.2 by modified and Part I.F.1.4 be added, as herein illustrated.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

5 Rogers, V.C. Radioactive Material License UT 2300478 - Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005; Revised Amendment and Modification Request to Reduce Capacity and Disposal
Footprint. (CD-2021-030) Letter from EnergySolutions to Ty Howard of the Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. February 26, 2021.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 41 of 41

2) 11e.(2) Cell existing wells GW-19A, GW-20, GW-24, GW-25, GW-26, GW-27, GW-
28, GW-29, GW-36, GW-37*, GW-38R*, GW-57, GW-58, GW-60, GW-63, GW-126,
monitored only for ground water elevations.

4) Federal Cell Facility existing wells GW-19A, GW-25, GW-26, GW-27, GW-28, GW-
29, GW-57, GW-58, GW-63.

EnergySolutions also requests authority to abandon groundwater wells GW-36, GW-37 and GW-
38R. As groundwater beneath the proposed Federal Cell Facility generally flows toward the
north-north east, existing groundwater wells surrounding the combined future Federal
stewardship footprint (11e.(2) and Federal Cell Facility) will be adequate for early detection of
any unlikely leakage beneath the two adjacent cells (11e.(2) and Federal Cell Facility).
Supporting this claim is the recognition that regulatory oversight for both the 11e.(2) byproduct
cell and the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be transferred to a single regulatory agency (the
U.S. Department of Energy-Legacy Management) following their closure.

Please contact me at [phone] if you have further questions regarding this License
Application.
Sincerely,

Vern C. Rogers
Director of Regulatory Affairs

Digital exhibits by SERVU ftp

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

FEDERAL CELL FACILITY APPLICATION FOR A
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LICENSE
CLIVE, UTAH

APRIL 9, 2021

STATE OF UTAH RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
LICENSE APPLICATION FOR A
FEDERAL CELL FACILITY

April 9, 2021

By
EnergySolutions, LLC
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

For
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Post Office Box 144880
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page i Revision 0 April 9, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page
SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-2
1.2 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION 1-3
1.3 SCHEDULES 1-19
1.4 INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION 1-21
1.5 MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 1-21
1.6 CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDES 1-21
1.7 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLE REVIEW MATTERS 1-22
SECTION 2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2-1
2.1 GEOGRAPHY, DEMOGRAPHY AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 2-1
2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2-1
2.1.2 Population Distribution 2-2
2.2 METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY 2-5
2.3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY 2-7
2.3.1 Geologic Site Characteristics 2-8
2.3.2 Seismology 2-9
2.4 HYDROLOGY 2-12
2.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology 2-12
2.4.2 Groundwater Characterization 2-14
2.5 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2-17
2.6 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2-19
2.7 NATURAL RESOURCES 2-21
2.7.1 Geological Resources 2-22
2.7.2 Water Resources 2-22
2.8 BIOTIC FEATURES 2-22
2.9 SITE CHARACTERISTIC PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING 2-26
SECTION 3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 3-1
3.1 PRINCIPAL DESIGN FEATURES 3-3
3.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR NORMAL AND ABNORMAL/ACCIDENT CONDITIONS 3-5
3.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 3-15
3.3.1 Construction Methods and Features 3-15
3.3.2 Construction Equipment 3-16
3.4 DESIGN OF AUXILIARY SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES 3-17
3.4.1 Utility Systems 3-17
3.4.2 Auxiliary Facilities 3-17
3.4.3 Fire Protection System 3-19
3.4.4 Erosion and Flood Control Systems 3-19
SECTION 4. FACILITY OPERATIONS 4-1
4.1 FEDERAL GENERATOR CERTIFICATION 4-1
4.2 FEDERAL WASTE PROFILE RECORD 4-2
4.3 RECEIPT AND INSPECTION OF FEDERAL WASTE 4-2
4.4 WASTE HANDLING AND INTERIM STORAGE 4-4
4.5 FEDERAL WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 4-5
4.6 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE 4-6
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page ii Revision 0 April 9, 2021

SECTION 5. FEDERAL CELL FACILITY CLOSURE PLAN AND CONTROL 5-1
5.1 SITE STABILIZATION 5-1
5.1.1 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection 5-2
5.1.2 Geotechnical Stability 5-3
5.2 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING 5-5
5.3 POST-OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE 5-5
SECTION 6. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 6-1
6.1 RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVITY 6-1
6.1.1 Determination of Types, Kinds, and Quantities of Waste 6-2
6.1.2 Infiltration 6-2
6.1.3 Radionuclide Release - Normal Conditions 6-3
6.1.4 Radionuclide Release – Accidents or Unusual 6-4
6.1.5 Radionuclide Transfer to Human Access Location 6-6
6.1.6 Assessment of Impacts and Regulatory Compliance 6-12
6.2 INTRUDER PROTECTION 6-16
6.3 LONG-TERM STABILITY 6-17
6.3.1 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection 6-17
6.3.2 Stability of Slopes 6-17
6.3.3 Settlement and Subsidence 6-18
SECTION 7. OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION 7-1
7.1 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES 7-1
7.2 RADIATION SOURCES 7-1
7.3 RADIATION PROTECTION DESIGN FEATURES 7-5
7.4 RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM 7-6
SECTION 8. CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 8-1
8.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 8-1
8.2 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANT 8-1
8.3 TRAINING PROGRAM 8-1
8.4 EMERGENCY PLANNING 8-2
8.5 REVIEW AND AUDIT 8-3
8.6 FACILITY ADMINISTRATIVE AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 8-4
8.7 PHYSICAL SECURITY 8-4
SECTION 9. QUALITY ASSURANCE 9-1
9.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 9-2
9.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING THE OPERATIONS PHASE 9-2
SECTION 10. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE 10-1
SECTION 11. HOUSE BILL 220 11-1
SECTION 12. REFERENCES 12-1

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page iii Revision 0 April 9, 2021

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Title
A Suggested Radioactive Material License for the Federal Cell Facility
B 2020 Annual Meteorologic Report (MSI, 2021)
C Hydrogeologic Report – Bingham Environmental (1992)
D Phase 1 Basal-Depth Study Report and 2021 Interrogatory Responses
E Revised Hydrogeologic Report – Waste Disposal Facility Clive, Utah
F 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
G SWCA Vegetation Study (2011)
H Federal Cell Facility Engineering Drawings
I Proposed Federal Cell Facility Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Manual
(FCF CQA/QC Manual)
J Cover/Liner Construction Estimates
K Drainage Ditch Calculations
L Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs (NUREG/CR-4620)
M Geosyntec Federal Cell Engineering Evaluation (Geosyntec, 2021)
N Neptune Erosion Analysis (Neptune, 2021a)
O Federal Cell Facility Waste Characterization Plan
P Neptune Cover infiltration Analysis (Neptune, 2021b)
Q Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment
R Financial Surety Calculations
S Example Standby Trust Agreements
T Long-Term Stewardship Agreement for the Federal Cell Facility
U Draft Memorandum of Agreement

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page iv Revision 0 April 9, 2021

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1-1 EnergySolutions Site Location 1-12
1-2 EnergySolutions Property Ownership 1-13
1-3 Tooele County Hazardous Industrial District Zoning 1-14
1-4 EnergySolutions’ Clive Facility General Site Plan 1-16
2-1 EnergySolutions Wind Rose January 1993 – 2020 (MSI, 2021) 2-6
2-2 EnergySolutions Fault and Seismicity Map (AMEC, 2012) 2-11
11-11 Tooele County Subdivision Parcel Map 11-4

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page v Revision 0 April 9, 2021

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1-1 Utah Radiation Control Rules Compliance Matrix 1-4
1-2 NUREG-1199 Compliance Matrix 1-8
2-1 12-Kilometer Population Wheel 2-3
2-2 Tooele County Growth Projection: 2010-2030 2-4
2-3 Selected data from 26 earthquakes within 100 km of the Clive site. Data from catalogs 2-13
maintained by the University of Utah and the University of Nevada-Reno.
2-4 Geotechnical Properties of Clive Site Surface Soils 2-20
2-5 Preoperational Radioactivity Concentrations in Soil 2-27
3-1 Design Criteria of the Principle Design Features 3-4
3-2 Pertinent Characteristics of the Principle Design Features 3-6
3-3 Projected Performance of the Principle Design Features 3-9
6-1 Peak TEDE: Statistical Summary 6-8
6-2 Peak Groundwater Activity Concentrations within 500 years, Compared to GWPLs 6-10
6-3 Cumulative Population TEDE: Statistical Summary 6-11
6-4 Statistical Summary of Lake Water Concentrations at Peak Lake Occurrence 6-13
6-5 Statistical summary of Sediment Concentrations at Peak Lake Occurrence 6-14
6-6 Quantitative Assessment Results for Model Analyses 6-15
7-1 EnergySolutions Employee Annual Dose Summary 7-7

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-1 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION

In accordance with applicable requirements, the Director of the Utah Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control (Division) has issued several permits and licenses to EnergySolutions, LLC to receive,
store, and dispose, by land burial, the following categories of radioactive materials and waste:
• Naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive material (NORM) waste,
• Low-activity radioactive waste (LARW),
• Class A low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) (including concentrated depleted uranium prior to
2010),
• Special nuclear material (SNM),
• 11e.(2) waste, and
• Radioactive waste that is also determined to be hazardous (mixed waste).

EnergySolutions now holds the following licenses and permits that have been issued by the Director:
• State of Utah Radioactive Material License UT2300249, Amendment 25, under timely renewal;
• State of Utah Radioactive Material License, 11(e).2 Byproduct Material License UT2300478,
Amendment 2;
• State of Utah Part B Permit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Identification Number
UTD982598898, under timely renewal; and
• State of Utah Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (GWQDP) Number UGW450005, under
timely renewal.

To comply with applicable regulatory requirements and thereby justify granting the permits and licenses,
EnergySolutions’ applications documented, and the Director found acceptable site characteristics, facility
operations, occupational radiation protection, waste management operations, and a quality assurance program.
Via routine inspections, the Director ensures that these characteristics continue to function and promote
satisfaction of required performance objectives. Many site, facility, and administrative characteristics
applicable to this Application reflect conditions have already been subject to extensive review during other
licensing activities and approved by the Director.

The proposed Federal Cell Facility will be used for the disposal of federally generated or otherwise owned
radioactive waste and materials. The Director is responsible for regulating activities in the State of Utah that
involve radioactive materials, some types of radioactive waste, and radiation. As part of this responsibility,
the Director enforces requirements promulgated by the State of Utah in Utah Code 19-3, “Radiation Control
Act.” Requirements applying to land disposal of radioactive waste are contained in UAC Rule R313-25,
"License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste – General Provisions." Additional applicable
rules are contained in UAC Rule R313-15 "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," which defines
requirements for protecting individuals from the effects of radiation and UAC Rule R313-22, "Specific
Licenses," which identify licensing requirements, many of which are met by compliance with or superseded
by the provisions of UAC Rule R313-25. Additional chapters of the UAC are also applicable.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-2 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The Radiation Control Act also includes specific requirements herein addressed that are prerequisite to
receiving license authority to dispose of concentrated depleted uranium. In order to be licensed to dispose of
concentrated depleted uranium, Utah Code §19-3-103.7(3) requires that the Director (a) approve a depleted
uranium performance assessment; (b) agree to a Federal Cell Facility designation and (c) enter into an
agreement wherein the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) accepts perpetual management of the Federal Cell
Facility, title to the land on which the Federal Cell Facility is located, title to the waste in the Federal Cell
Facility, and financial stewardship for the Federal Cell Facility and waste in the Federal Cell Facility.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The framework for the technical analysis of the disposal of radioactive waste was developed in the 1980s with
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) issuance of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.” Part 61 establishes a
waste classification scheme based on the role that radionuclide concentrations and waste forms play in the
long-term performance of disposal facilities. When initially suggested for 10 CFR 61.55, concentrated
depleted uranium was considered Class A LLRW. Although included in the draft analysis, depleted uranium
was removed from the final Part 61 rule, because the nominal amounts of depleted uranium in need of disposal
were not found to create elevated risk to human health and the environment. Additionally, there were no
commercial facilities producing large quantities of depleted uranium at that time and depleted uranium in store
at Federal facilities was not regulated by the NRC; instead, it was controlled and managed by DOE as a
potential future resource. Because Utah is an Agreement State with the NRC, the Utah regulations for the
issuance of licenses for the land disposal of low-level radioactive wastes closely follow the NRC’s Part 61
regulations.

On February 28, 1988, EnergySolutions, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, (known then as Envirocare
of Utah, Inc.) was first issued a license by the Utah Bureau of Radiation Control to dispose of naturally
occurring radioactive material (NORM). On March 21, 1991, the Utah Bureau of Radiation Control granted
EnergySolutions a license to dispose of LARW. The license authorized receipt and disposal of a select group
of 44 radionuclides (including depleted uranium) with specific concentration limits less than the Class A limits
promulgated in UAC R313-15-1009. On October 5, 2000, EnergySolutions was issued Radioactive Material
License UT2300249 by the Utah Division of Radiation Control to manage and dispose of LLRW (including
depleted uranium) up to the Class A limits promulgated in UAC R313-15-1009. The Radioactive Material
License UT 2300249 was later renewed by the Director on January 25, 2005 and is currently in effect, under
timely renewal status.

On January 31, 2005, Envirocare of Utah, Inc. was sold and became Envirocare of Utah, LLC. On February
2, 2006, Envirocare of Utah, LLC became EnergySolutions, LLC, which is a subsidiary of EnergySolutions,
Inc. On January 7, 2013, EnergySolutions, LLC announced it had entered into agreement to be acquired by
Energy Capital Partners II, LLC. EnergySolutions, LLC is a privately held Utah limited liability company
with Corporate Headquarters at 299 South Main Street, Suite 1700, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. All references,
attachments, and appendices to this Application that were performed for, or in support of, Envirocare of Utah,
Inc. or Envirocare of Utah, LLC, are pertinent to this EnergySolutions Application.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-3 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

In October 2008, 5,408 drums of depleted uranium were sent to the EnergySolutions facility at Clive from
DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) for authorized disposal under Radioactive Material License UT2300249
(out of a total inventory of 33,000 drums needing final disposition). EnergySolutions was also informed that
DOE further intended to dispose of the large quantity of depleted uranium expected to be generated in facilities
in Ohio and Kentucky [~700,000 megagrams (Mg) or 700,000 metric tons; Neptune 2015]. Because depleted
uranium concentration limits were excluded when the final Part 61 rules were promulgated, the State of Utah
initiated formal rulemaking on March 2, 2010 to amend UAC R313-25 and Radioactive Material License
UT2300249, significantly limiting further disposal of concentrated depleted uranium until a site-specific
depleted uranium performance assessment (“DU PA”) could be completed.

In 2011, EnergySolutions submitted a DU PA to meet Condition 35 of License UT2300249 and requested
approval of the DU PA from the Director. EnergySolutions and the Director have worked in good faith on the
DU PA in the ensuing years. In 2018, the Director decided that EnergySolutions should apply for a unique
radioactive material license for a dedicated Federal Cell as the facility ultimately destined for receipt of DOE’s
concentrated depleted uranium. Therefore, EnergySolutions herein applies for a new Radioactive Material
License authorizing disposal of DOE-generated concentrated depleted uranium in a dedicated Federal Cell.
This Application is governed by Utah Administrative Code R313-25-9(5)(a), the applicable sections of Utah
Administrative Code R313-22, et seq., and Utah Code section 19-3-103.7 (among other applicable law)—but
not Condition 35 of License UT2300249.

To the extent practicable, the information presented in this Application was prepared in accordance with UAC
R313-25-13 and conforms to the format and outline suggested by NRC (NRC, 1991). Table 1-1 provides a
compliance matrix relating requirements found in the Utah regulations for the issuance of licenses for the land
disposal of radioactive wastes (UAC R313-25) to the location of this information in the Application.
Similarly, Table 1-2 provides a matrix relating this Application’s information to guidelines set forth by NRC
(1991), “Standard Format and Content of a License Application For a Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Facility.” A suggested Radioactive Material License for the Federal Cell Facility is provided in
Appendix A.

1.2 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION

The Clive site is on the eastern edge of the Great Salt Lake Desert, three miles west of the Cedar Mountains,
2.5 miles south of Interstate 80, and 1 mile south of a switch point called Clive on the tracks of the Union
Pacific system. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the site in relation to Salt Lake City and surrounding towns.
The disposal site is a parcel of land, consisting of one square mile in Tooele County, Utah. The land was
owned by the State of Utah, and, except for approximately 100 acres used in the Vitro Remedial Action
project, has been purchased by EnergySolutions. DOE owns the 100 acres used in the Vitro Remedial Action
project. The property owned by EnergySolutions, is Utah SLB&M, Section 32 of Township 1 South and
Range 11 West, Section 29 of Township 1 South, Range 11 West, and Section 5 of Township 2 South, Range
11 West, Tooele County, Utah.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-4 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 1-1

Utah Radiation Control Rules Compliance Matrix

Rule Definition Application References
R313-25-1 Purpose and Scope
R313-25-2 Definitions
R313-25-3 Pre-licensing Plan Approval Criteria
for Siting of Commercial Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facilities.

(1) Persons proposing to construct or operate
commercial radioactive waste disposal
facilities shall obtain plan approval from
the Director before applying for a
license.
1.1
(2) The siting criteria and plan approval
requirements in R313-25-3 apply to pre-
licensing plan approval applications.
1.1
(3) This license requirement delineates
where treatment facilities, including
commercial radioactive incinerators
cannot be located. It specifies the
hydrogeologic, seismic, archeological,
and federal criteria that would prevent
the licensing of a disposal facility.
2.1-2.9
(5) Facilities may not be located within a
distance to existing drinking water wells
and watersheds for public water supplies
of one year ground water travel time plus
1,000 feet for incinerators and of five
years groundwater travel time plus 1,000
feet for land disposal facilities.
2.4
(6) The plan approval application shall
include hydraulic conductivity and other
information necessary to estimate
adequately the groundwater travel
distance.
2.6
(7) The plan approval application shall
include the results of studies adequate to
identify the presence of ground water
aquifers in the area of the proposed site
and to assess the quality of the ground
water of all aquifers identified in the area
of the proposed site.
2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-2 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application References
(9) This license requirement specifies plan
approval requirements pertinent to
emergency response and safety during
operations at the disposal facility.
4.5
R313-25-4 License Required 1.1
(1) Persons shall not receive, possess, or
dispose of waste at a land disposal
facility unless authorized by a license
issued by the Director pursuant to R313-
25 and R313-22.
1.1
(2) Persons shall file an application with the
Director pursuant to R313-22-32 and
obtain a license as provided in R313-25
before commencement of construction of
a land disposal facility. Failure to
comply with this requirement may be
grounds for denial of a license and other
penalties established by law and rules.
1.1
R313-25-5 Content of Application
(1) In addition to the requirements set forth
in R313-22-33, an application to receive
from others, possess, and dispose of
waste shall consist of general
information, specific technical
information, institutional information,
and financial information, as set forth by
R313-25-6 through R313-25-10.
Section 1, Section 2, Section
3, Section 5, Section 10
R313-25-7 General Information
(1) Identity of the applicant. 1.1
(2) Applicant qualifications. 1.1
(3) Description of site location, waste and
technical abilities.
1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.3 - 2.10, 6.1,
6.2
(4) Proposed schedules for construction,
receipt, and waste emplacement.
1.3, 4.2, 4.3
R313-25-8 Specific Technical Information
(1) A description of the natural and
demographic disposal site characteristics
shall be based on and determined by
disposal site selection and
characterization activities. The
description shall include geologic,
geochemical, geotechnical, hydrologic,
ecologic, archeological, meteorological,
climatologic, and biotic features of the
disposal site and vicinity.
1.2, 2.1 - 2.9
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-3 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application References
(2) Design feature descriptions, including:
water infiltration; cover integrity;
structural stability; contact water
management; disposal site drainage,
closure, and stabilization; elimination to
the extent practicable of long-term
disposal site maintenance; inadvertent
intrusion; occupational exposures;
disposal site monitoring; and adequacy of
buffer zone size.
1.2, Section 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, Section 5, Section 7
(3) Description of principal design criteria. Section 3
(4) Description of natural events or
phenomena on which the design is based
and their relationship to the principal
design criteria.
1.2, 2.1-2.9
(5) Description of codes and standards which
the applicant has applied to the design,
and will apply to the construction of the
land disposal facility.
1.1, 1.5, 1.6, Section 3, 6.2,
6.3, 4.8
(6) Description of construction and operation
of land disposal facility, including:
disposal unit construction methods, waste
emplacement and segregation methods,
types of intruder barriers, onsite traffic
and drainage systems, survey control
program, methods and areas of waste
storage, surface and groundwater waste
access control, and methods to be
employed in handling chelating agents or
other non-radiological substances which
might affect meeting the performance
objectives.
1.2, Section 2, Section 3,
Section 5, Section 7, 4.1-4.9
(7) Description of site closure plan,
including those design features which
will facilitate disposal site closure and
eliminate the need for active maintenance
after closure.
Section 5
(8) Identification of natural resources that
could lead to inadvertent intrusion.
2.9
(9) Description of radioactive waste (kind,
amount, classification, and
specifications).
6.2
(10) Description of QA program. Section 9
(11) Description of radiation safety program. 4.4, Section 7
(12) Description of environmental monitoring
program.
2.11, 4.9
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-4 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application References
(13) Description of administrative procedures. 4.8, 9.5
(14) Description of the facility electronic
recordkeeping system as required in
R313-25-33.
4.2
R313-25-9 Technical Analyses
(1) Air, soil, groundwater, surface water,
animal burrowing will be considered in
general population protection. Analysis
will differentiate between roles
performed by the natural site
characteristics and roles performed by
design features.
1.2, 2.1, 6.4, 4.7
(2) Inadvertent intruder protection. 1.2, 6.4, 4.7
(3) Expected exposure to workers during
operation.
4.4, 6.3, 7.2
(4) Long term stability. Analysis based on
natural processes including erosion, mass
wasting, slope failure, settlement,
infiltration, and surface drainage.
Section 3, 6.4
(5) Performance Assessment that
demonstrates that the performance
standards will be met for the total
quantities of concentrated depleted
uranium for 10,000 years.
Appendix Q
R313-25-10 Institutional Information 1.4, 5.4, 10.3
(1) A certification from the agency which
owns the disposal site that the agency is
prepared to accept transfer of the license
when the provisions of R313-25-16 are
met and will assume responsibility for
institutional control after site closure and
for post-closure observation and
maintenance.
1.4
(2) Evidence, if the proposed disposal site is
on land not owned by the federal or state
government that arrangements were
made for assumption of ownership in fee
by the federal or state agency.
1.4
R313-25-11 Financial Information 1.4, 5.4, 10.1-10.3
R313-25-12 Requirements for Issuance of a
License by the Director

(1) Won’t cause unreasonable risk to public
safety or health.
2.1, 2.4, 2.7
(2) Applicant is qualified. 1.1
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-5 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application References
(3) Disposal site is adequate: to protect the
public health and safety.
5.1, 6.3, 4.4, 4.6-4.9
(4) Disposal site is adequate: to protect from
inadvertent intrusion.
1.2, 4.7
(5) Disposal site is adequate: to protect
public post-closure.
1.2, 2.1, 2.4 - 2.8, 4.7
(6) Disposal site is adequate: long-term
stability.
2.1-2.10, 3.1, 4.3, 5.1, 6.4
(7) Applicant provides reasonable assurance
that the requirements of R313-25 will be
met.

(8) Demonstrate adequacy of institutional
controls.
4.6, 5.4, 9, 10.3
R313-25-13 Conditions of License
(5) Requirement to confine waste and waste
handling equipment to approved areas
only.
4.1-4.3
R313-25-14 Application for Renewal or Closure
(1) An application for renewal or an
application for closure shall be filled at
least 90 days prior to license expiration.
1.1
(2) Application requirements. 1.1
(3) If a licensee has filed an application in
proper form for renewal of a license, the
license shall not expire unless and until
the Director has taken final action to
deny application for renewal.
1.1
(4) In evaluating an application for license
renewal, the Director will apply the
criteria set forth in R313-25-11.
1.1
R313-25-15 Contents of Application for Site
Closure and Stabilization

R313-25-16 Post-Closure Observation and
Maintenance
4.9, 6.4
R313-25-17 Transfer of License: Following closure
and the period of post-closure
observation

R313-25-18 Termination of License
R313-25-19 General Requirement: Land Disposal
Facilities shall be sited, designed,
operated, closed, and controlled after
closure so that reasonable assurance
exists that exposure to individuals do
not exceed the limits stated in R313-
25-19 and 25-22.
Section 2, Section 3, Section
7
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-6 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application References
R313-25-20 Protection of the General Population
from Releases of Radioactivity.
6.3, 6.4, 7.3
R313-25-21 Protection of Individuals from
Inadvertent Intrusion
1.2, 4.7, 6.4, 7.3
R313-25-22 Protection of Individuals During
Operations
6.3, 4.4, 7.3, 7.4
R313-25-23 Stability of the Disposal Site After
Closure
2.1, 2.3
R313-25-24 Disposal Site Suitability Requirements
for Land Disposal-Near-Surface
Disposal

(1) Primary emphasis: Isolation of wastes
and disposal site features that ensure that
the long-term performance objectives are
met.
2.1-2.10, 3.1-3.3
(2) The disposal site shall be capable of
being characterized, modeled, analyzed,
and monitored.
1.2, Section 2, 5.1, 5.3
(3) Future population growth considerations. 1.2, 2.1
(4) Natural resource considerations. 1.2, 2.9
(5) Flooding considerations. 2.5, 6.3
(6) Minimization of upstream drainage areas. 2.5
(7) The disposal site shall provide sufficient
depth to the water table that groundwater
intrusion, perennial or otherwise, into the
waste will not occur.
2.6, 2.7
(8) The hydrogeologic unit used for disposal
shall not discharge groundwater to the
surface within the disposal site.
2.5-2.8
(9) Seismic considerations. 2.4, 5.1
(10) Geologic process considerations. 2.4, 5.1
(11) Environmental considerations. 1.2, 2.10, 2.11, 4.9
R313-25-25 Disposal Site Design for Near-Surface
Land Disposal

(1) Primary emphasis: Long-term isolation. 2.1, 2.3-2.8, 5.1
(2) Design compatible with closure plan. 5.1
(3) Disposal site design requirements. 6.4, 4.3
(4) Cover requirements. 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.1
(5) Ditch requirements.
(6) Water and waste contact issues. 2.5, 2.6, 5.1
R313-25-26 Near Surface Land Disposal Facility
Operation and Disposal Site Closure

(1) Segregation of Class A wastes. 1.2
(3) Waste acceptance requirements. Section 6, Section 7
(4) Waste emplacement requirements. 4.3
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-7 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application References
(5) Void space minimization requirements. 4.3
(6) Radiation dose minimization
requirements.
4.4
(7) Boundary marking requirements. 1.2, 2.1, 6.3
(8) Buffer zone requirements. 4.3
(9) Closer and stabilization requirements. Section 5
(10) Disposal operation requirements. 4.3
(11) Waste specifications.
(12) Director authority. 1.1
R313-25-27 Environmental Monitoring
(1) Requirement for pre-operational
monitoring.
2.11, Section 2
(2) Maintenance of an environmental
monitoring program.
4.9
(3) Post operational monitoring. 5.3
(4) Emergency cleanup plans. 4.5
R313-25-29 Institutional Requirements Section 4, Section 6, 5.4,
10.1-10.3
R313-25-30 Applicant Qualifications and
Assurances
1.1, 9, 10.3
R313-25-31 Funding for Disposal Site Closure and
Stabilization
10.1-10.3
R313-25-32 Financial Assurances for Institutional
Controls
1.1, 5.4, 10.1-10.3
R313-25-33 Maintenance of Records, Reports, and
Transfers
1.1, 1.2, 5.4, 9.4-9.6
R313-25-34 Tests on Land Disposal Facilities 5.1

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-8 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 1-2

NUREG-1199 Compliance Matrix

Rule Definition Application
References
1.0 General Information
1.1 Introduction 1.1
1.2 General Facility Description 1.2
1.3 Schedules 1.3
1.4 Institutional Information 1.4, 5.4
1.5 Material Incorporated by Reference 1.5
1.6 Conformance to Regulatory Guides 1.6
1.7 Summary of Principle Review Matters 1.7

2.0 Site Characteristics
2.1 Geography, Demography, and Future
Developments 2.1
2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2.1.1
2.1.2 Population Distribution 2.1.2
2.2 Meteorology and Climatology 2.2
2.3 Geology and Seismology 2.3
2.3.1 Geologic Site Characterization 2.3.1
2.3.2 Seismic Investigation 2.3.2
2.4 Hydrology 2.4
2.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology 2.4.1
2.4.2 Groundwater Characterization 2.4.2
2.5 Geotechnical Characteristics 2.5
2.6 Geochemical Characteristics 2.6
2.7 Natural Resources 2.7
2.7.1 Geologic Resources 2.7.1
2.7.2 Water Resources 2.7.2
2.8 Biotic Features 2.8
2.9 Site Characterization Monitoring 2.9

3.0 Design and Construction
3.1 Principle Design Features 3.1
3.2 Design Considerations for Normal and
Abnormal/Accident Conditions 3.2
3.3 Construction Considerations 3.3
3.3.1 Construction Methods and Features 3.4.1
3.3.2 Construction Equipment 3.4.2
3.4 Design of Auxiliary Systems and
Features 3.4
3.4.1 Utility Systems 3.4.1
3.4.2 Auxiliary Facilities 3.4.2
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-9 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application
References
3.4.3 Fire Protection System 3.4.3
3.4.4 Erosion and Flood Control System 3.4.4

4.0 Facility Operations
4.1 Receipt and Inspection of Waste 4.1
4.2 Waste Handling and Interim Storage 4.2
4.3 Waste Disposal Operations 4.3
4.4 Operational Environmental Monitoring
and Surveillance 4.9

5.0 Site Closure Plan and Institutional
Controls
5.1 Site Stabilization 5.1
5.1.1 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection 5.1.1
5.1.2 Geotechnical Stability 5.1.2
5.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning 5.2
5.3 Post Operational Environmental
Monitoring and Surveillance 5.3

6.0 Safety Assessment
6.1 Release of Radioactivity 6
6.1.1 Determination of Types, Kinds, and
Quantities of Waste 6
6.1.2 Infiltration 6
6.1.3 Radionuclide Release - Normal
Conditions 6
6.1.4 Radionuclide Release - Accidents or
Unusual Operating Conditions 6
6.1.5 Radionuclide Transfer to Human Access
Location 6
6.1.6 Assessment of Impacts and Regulatory
Compliance 6
6.2 Intruder Protection 6
6.3 Long-Term Stability 6
6.3.1 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection 6
6.3.2 Stability of Slopes 6
6.3.3 Settlement and Subsidence 6

7.0 Occupational Radiation Protection
7.1 Occupational Radiation Exposures 7.1
7.2 Radiation Sources 7.2
7.3 Radiation Protection Design Features 7.3
7.4 Radiation Protection Program 7.4

8.0 Conduct of Operations
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-10 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Rule Definition Application
References
8.1 Organizational Structure 8.1
8.2 Qualifications of Applicant 8.2
8.3 Training Program 8.3
8.4 Emergency Planning 8.4
8.5 Review and Audit 8.5
8.6 Facility Administrative and Operating
Procedures
8.6
8.7 Physical Security 8.7

9.0 Quality Assurance
9.1 Quality Assurance During the Design and
Construction Phase
9.1
9.2 Quality Assurance During the Operations
Phase
9.2

10.0 Financial Assurance
10.1 Financial Qualifications of Applicant 10.1
10.2 Funding Assurances 10.2
10.3 Corporate Guarantees 10.3
10.4 Assets Held by a Third Party Such as in a
State Fund
10.4
10.5 Trusts and Standby Trusts 10.5
10.6 Other Financial Assurances 10.6
10.7 Adjustment to Surety Amounts 10.7
11.0 References Section 11

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-11 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Most of the land within a 10-mile radius of the site is predominantly within the public domain, as administered
by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As is illustrated in Figures 1-2 and 1-3, the non-federally
owned lands around the Clive facility have been designated as a Hazardous Industrial District MG-H by
Tooele County. This designation limits, through zoning, the future uses of land in the area of the disposal
facility to heavy industrial processes (General Industrial District M-G type uses) and to industries dealing with
hazardous wastes, by the issuance of conditional use permits. Because the Hazardous Industrial District MG-
H designation does not authorize any other types of land-use, it also reduces the potential for population
encroachment near EnergySolutions’ Clive facility. In fact, previous to the Vitro project, there were no
industrial, residential, or municipal activities near the site. Since that time, three hazardous waste facilities
have located in the Clive area:
• Clean Harbors’ Grassy Mountain facility, a commercial, hazardous waste, treatment, storage and
disposal facility located greater than ten miles north-northwest of EnergySolutions’ Clive facility;
• Clean Harbors’ Aragonite facility a 140 million Btu slagging rotary kiln with a vertical afterburner
chamber located approximately 8 miles east-northeast of EnergySolutions’ Clive facility; and,
• Clean Harbors Clive facility, a defunct incinerator site currently permitted for transfer and storage of
hazardous waste located one mile west of EnergySolutions’ Clive facility.

No new industrial facilities have been established in this area of Tooele County’s West Desert since June 30,
1988. Individuals who work at these facilities do not live on site, nor do they represent permanent residential
population centers.

The remoteness of the site from the urbanized areas of Tooele County makes the surrounding area an
improbable location for any other significant industrial use which might be impacted by the disposal project.
BLM has seasonal sheep and cattle grazing allotments near Clive. Additionally, the low precipitation and high
evaporation rates are not conducive to any sustainable crop yields.

The groundwater at Clive is classified as Class IV, saline ground water according to UAC R317-6-3 Ground
Water Classes, with total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations ranging from 30,000 mg/L to 100,000 mg/L.
Because of the naturally poor quality and high salinity, the underlying groundwater in the vicinity of the Clive
site is not suitable for most human uses or potable for humans (Lundberg, 2014). Because of this, residential
population cannot be centered in this area as the groundwater dramatically exceeds the Utah Division of
Drinking Water primary and secondary drinking water standards.

EnergySolutions operates an LLRW disposal facility west of the Cedar Mountains in Clive, Utah. Clive is
located along Interstate-80, approximately 3 miles south of the highway, in Tooele County. The facility is
approximately 50 miles east of Wendover, Utah, and approximately 60 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah.
The facility sits at an elevation of approximately 4,275 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and is accessed by
both road and rail transportation.

Separate than that herein considered, EnergySolutions has licensed four disposal facilities. In addition, DOE
constructed and owns the Vitro Federal Disposal Facility located adjacent to EnergySolutions’ facilities. A
current site layout is provided on Figure 1-4, including the location of the Federal Cell Facility in relation to
other site facilities. A brief description of these five facilities follows.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-12 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 1-1. EnergySolutions Site Location
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-13 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 1-2. EnergySolutions Property Ownership
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-14 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 1-3. Tooele County Hazardous Industrial District Zoning.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-15 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Vitro Federal Disposal Facility: The Vitro Federal Disposal Facility was constructed between 1984 and 1988
and is owned by DOE. It contains waste generated by the cleanup of the Vitro Chemical Company site in
South Salt Lake City, Utah. This plant had processed uranium and vanadium ore from 1951 through 1968.
Total capacity of the Vitro Federal Disposal Facility is approximately 2.5 million cubic yards.

LARW Disposal Facility: The LARW Facility was EnergySolutions’ first disposal facility at the Clive
Disposal Complex. Disposal operations began in 1988 as a Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(NORM) Disposal Facility, with Low-Activity Radioactive Waste later included for disposal. The LARW
Disposal Facility is completed and covered, with final waste placed on May 26, 2004 and final cover
completed June 12, 2006. Environmental monitoring activities continue, as described in this Application.
Total capacity of the LARW Disposal Facility is approximately 2.2 million cubic yards.

Mixed Waste Disposal Facility: Disposal operations in the Mixed Waste Disposal Facility began in early
1992, as authorized by a state-issued Part B Permit (EPA ID Number UTD982598898), originally issued to
EnergySolutions by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste on November 30, 1990. Mixed wastes
contain both hazardous and radioactive constituents. EnergySolutions also disposes of select non-hazardous
radioactive wastes in the Mixed Waste Disposal Facility. Total design capacity of the Mixed Waste Disposal
Facility is approximately 1.3 million cubic yards.

11e.(2) Federal Byproduct Facility: Disposal operations in the 11e.(2) Federal Byproduct Facility began in
fall 1994 and are restricted to the disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material (uranium and thorium wastes), as
authorized by Byproduct Material License (UT 2300478) issued to EnergySolutions by the Director on
November 30, 2003. Prior to 2021, the total design capacity of the 11e.(2) Federal Byproduct Facility was
approximately 5.0 million cubic yards. In conjunction with this Application, EnergySolutions filed a request
on February 26, 2021 (via CD-2021-030) to reduce the licensed footprint of the 11e.(2) facility from
5,048,965 yd3 to 1,629,255 yd3 to accommodate the Federal Cell Facility footprint herein proposed. That
amendment request is currently under review by the Director.

Class A West Facility: Disposal operations in the Class A Facility (a predecessor to the Class A West Facility)
began in summer 2000. A second LLRW Disposal Facility was initially licensed in 2005 (the Class A North
Disposal Facility). The Class A and Class A North disposal facilities were combined into the Class A West
Disposal Facility in late 2012. EnergySolutions also licensed the Clive Containerized Waste (CWF) disposal
concept to manage radioactive waste shipments with higher contact radioactivity (but with relatively low
volumes) in contrast to the LLRW typically disposed at Clive (higher volumes of low activity waste). The
CWF is wholly contained within the Class A West Disposal Facility. In addition to the CWF, a footprint has
been designated as a clean restricted area reserved for disposal of large components. Total design capacity of
the Class A West Disposal Facility is approximately 8.7 million cubic yards.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-16 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 1-4. General Clive Disposal Complex Layout
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-17 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Section 29 Railyard Facility: In 2018, EnergySolutions received permission to receive, store and transload
railcars containing radioactive materials or having residual surface radioactivity above unrestricted release
levels within a new railyard facility constructed in Section 29 of their owner-controlled property (immediately
adjacent and north of the property licensed for management and disposal of LLRW (Section 32).
EnergySolutions’ Railcar Facility includes 10 Ladder Tracks (approximately 3 miles), creating a capacity to
store an LLRW-dedicated rail fleet of approximately 300 railcars, maintenance / repair support facilities and
infrastructure to transload intermodals, sealands and other bulk containers.

On January 4, 2008, EnergySolutions requested a design change to the 11e.(2) Cell that would allow LLRW
to be disposed of in the western portion of the 11e.(2) Cell, which was and still is unused. That configuration
was known as the Class A South (CAS) Cell proposal. That LLRW disposal area was to be 1,472 feet by
1,860 feet in size. Following consideration of operational efficiencies, interest in a separate CAS cell was later
amended to request combination of the legacy Class A and Class A North embankments into the currently
licensed single Class A West embankment. EnergySolutions herein proposes that a Federal Cell Facility be
licensed in the area originally considered for the CAS cell and be physically separated from the 11e.(2) Cell.

The Clive Complex is served by Rocky Mountain Power for electric power. Electric service includes three-
phase 440-volt service. Additionally, EnergySolutions has installed a telephone cable. EnergySolutions does
not have a public supply of water, and transports potable water to site storage tanks from Grantsville, Utah.
Non-potable groundwater (provided by a well owned by EnergySolutions north of Interstate 80) and collected
storm water are used for decontamination and dust suppression. Sanitary sewage is handled via septic tank
drainage fields.

Many of the Clive facilities, buildings, and infrastructure are common to the operating areas of the facility
and will support EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility disposal operations. Key facilities and buildings (with
building numbers from Figure 1-4 parenthetically noted) that will be utilized to support Federal Cell Facility
disposal operations include:
• Track #4 Rail Wash Facility (12): A railcar decontamination facility within the Clive Facility
Restricted Area.
• Intermodal Unloading Facility (16): This facility is used for unloading bulk intermodal
containers.
• 1997 Evaporation Pond (19), 1995 Evaporation Pond (23), 2000 Evaporation Pond (42) and
Northwest Corner Evaporation Pond (51): Storm water collected from non-hazardous waste
management and disposal facilities is contained and evaporated in these ponds.
• LARW Container Storage Pad (24): This facility is used for the short-term storage of waste filled
containers (boxes, drums, etc.).
• East LLRW Truck Unloading Facility (41): Trucks carrying containers of waste can be unloaded
without bringing the truck into the restricted area. Large equipment reaches over the Restricted
Area boundary to transfer the containers of waste from the trucks into the Restricted Area.
• Batch Plant (62): The batch plant produces concrete for construction and waste disposal
operations.
• Waste Haul Roads (65): Waste haul roads are used to haul waste from receiving areas to final
placement within the Federal Cell Facility. Also used for general operations within the facility.
• Perimeter Road (66): The perimeter road provides general site access.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-18 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• Rotary Dump Facility (Thaw, Rotary & Wash) (67): This facility is used to thaw and offload
bulk rail shipments received in gondola type railcars. It is also used for the decontamination of
railcars after waste is offloaded.
• Meteorological Station (68): Weather station equipment is used to gather wind, temperature,
evaporation, and precipitation data.
• QC & GW Laboratories Building (70): Offices and laboratories for quality control (QC) and
groundwater/environmental monitoring.
• Outside Maintenance Building (57): Maintenance facilities for equipment not used in the
Restricted Area. Offices for quality control (QC) and groundwater and environmental monitoring.
• Shredder Facility (75): The shredder facility is utilized to size reduce waste debris.
• Intermodal Container Wash Facility (78): Supports decontamination of waste shipping
containers.
• Administration Building (1): The Administration Building houses office space for Security,
Shipping and Receiving, Health Physics, Engineering and Quality Assurance.
• LLRW Operations Building (82): This building houses administrative offices, laboratories, and
locker rooms; as well as the principal access control point to the Restricted Area.

The storage and concentrated depleted uranium handling areas will include, but are not limited to, the LARW
storage pad (24), the Rotary Dump Facility (67), the Truck Unloading Facility (41), and the Federal Cell
Facility.

Decontamination of workers, if needed, takes place at the Operations Building (5). Railcars are
decontaminated at the Railcar Decontamination Facilities (12). Containers, other than railcars, transported
via rail are decontaminated at the Intermodal Container Wash Facility (78). Vehicle maintenance inside the
Restricted Area is performed at the Inside Maintenance Shed (8), or in the north bay of the Mixed Waste
Operations Building (32). Decontamination and wastewater management facilities also include the Intermodal
Container Wash Building (78), East Side Drainage and Gray Water System, and Northwest Corner
Evaporation Pond (51). Design and operation of these facilities will be unaffected by this Application. No
new support facilities are proposed in this Application to specifically serve the Federal Cell Facility.

Site security procedures for the Clive facility are provided in the Site Radiological Security Plan referenced
in Condition 54 of License UT2300249. The Site Radiological Security Plan requires that personnel enter the
Restricted Area through designated access control points in the LLRW Operations Building. Traffic is
allowed to enter the site through one of the approved access gates.

The entire controlled area of the Clive Facility is fenced to ensure that intruders do not gain access to the site
inadvertently. The fences are posted with appropriate warning signs, and all entrances into the work areas are
locked or guarded by personnel when unlocked. All fences are of the chain link type. Temporary fencing is
constructed with “T” posts located at least every 12 feet. Permanent fencing is built with permanent posts
cemented in concrete and topped with 3 strands of barbed wire. In order to assist security personnel in
identifying material or equipment that has been removed from the Restricted Area without authorization, the
Site Radiological Security Plan requires vegetation near the fence lines to be removed.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-19 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The Site Radiological Security Plan requires that signs be present to guide visitors to the Administration
Building. Because some visitors to the Clive facility remain within the Administration Building or are
required to always be accompanied by an authorized escort, visitors desiring unescorted access beyond the
Administration Building are briefed on radiation posting, security measures and general risks found at the
Clive Facility.

Standard heavy construction equipment will be used for the operation of the Federal Cell Facility. The actual
equipment will vary, but it will normally consist of rock trucks, bulldozers, track mounted backhoes, front-
end loaders, water trucks, and other equipment as required. The Federal Cell Facility will utilize the same, or
similar, equipment currently used at the Clive Complex. Daily service and maintenance of the equipment is
performed in the Restricted Area. If required, major service may be performed outside of the Restricted Area.
Equipment serviced outside of the Restricted Area is decontaminated and surveyed to applicable release
standards prior to release from the Restricted Area.

Excavated materials will be used in the construction of the Federal Cell Facility. Clays and other soil materials
are excavated from Sections 5 and 29, for use in disposal facility liner and cover construction, as required.
Other borrow materials are excavated from publicly-available sources nearby. Excavated materials are often
stockpiled on EnergySolutions property to the north and south of the disposal facilities.

1.3 SCHEDULES

A schedule for construction, placement of depleted uranium and eventual closure of the Federal Cell Facility
is subject to receipt of a Radioactive Material License, execution of the prerequisite long-term stewardship
agreements, successful construction, and rate of generation and shipment by DOE of concentrated depleted
uranium. Much of the necessary excavation for the Federal Cell Facility has already been completed through
clay and sand material excavation activities supporting construction of other EnergySolutions Clive disposal
facilities. Additionally, EnergySolutions’ existing equipment has been demonstrated as appropriate for
embankment construction and personnel experienced in construction to the applicable specifications. No
additional personnel or equipment will be necessary to construct and operate the Federal Cell Facility. Upon
awarding of a License for the Federal Cell Facility, foundation preparation and liner construction is anticipated
to commence during the next available construction season. The Director will be notified prior to liner
construction activities in order to facilitate inspection. Additionally, EnergySolutions will continue to provide
the Director with detailed weekly construction schedules during clay liner construction projects.
EnergySolutions’ Annual As-Built Reports will provide detailed information regarding each year’s progress
in Federal Cell Facility construction activities.

In construction of Federal Cell Facility’s liner, between 4 and 8 equipment operators will excavate within the
Federal Cell Facility’s footprint to a depth of approximately seven to ten feet below native grade with existing
equipment. Overburden removed in reaching foundation elevation will be stockpiled for future use in liner
construction, capping the embankment, or as fill material. Between 4 and 8 equipment operators will then
compact the Federal Cell Facility’s foundation from in-situ soils to meet design, grade, and compaction
specifications. Excavation and foundation preparation of the Federal Cell Facility is projected to be completed
within 2 months of commencing construction. The Federal Cell Facility’s clay liner will then be constructed
by compacting clay using methods demonstrated with a Clay Liner Test Pad. Between 4 and 8 equipment
operators will place and compact clay liner materials in lifts. Clay liner construction within the Federal Cell
Facility footprint is projected to require approximately 3 months.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-20 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Once the approved footprint has been excavated to foundation and clay liner built, existing EnergySolutions
operators using existing equipment will commence disposal of concentrated depleted uranium. Immediate
placement of the 5,408 drums of SRS depleted uranium already in storage at the Clive Disposal Complex is
expected in the Federal Cell Facility in 2022 (following construction of sufficient clay liner). Waste placement
will be conducted in accordance with the specifications. Following acceptance and unloading, concentrated
depleted uranium containers will be placed in order to minimize the volume of void spaces between
containers. Containers will be placed to minimize entrapped air in the disposal lift. Quality Control Inspectors
will visually inspect the placed waste for compliance with the specifications. After an acceptable quality
control inspection, the lift will be backfilled by pouring CLSM over the waste. Standard concrete mixing and
delivery equipment will be used to pour CLSM in the disposal region. The flowability of the CLSM will be
controlled to ensure adequate filling of the voids. Quality Control Inspectors will test the CLSM against the
specifications. The schedule and required manpower for placement of concentrated depleted uranium will be
a function of receipt rate. EnergySolutions projects receipt of approximately 50% of DOE’s remaining
projected volume of depleted uranium over a 20-year period (i.e., 50% of 700,000 metric tons). The Federal
Cell Facility’s waste volume and nuclide-specific disposed activities will be reported annually to the Director.
It is not anticipated that additional personnel or equipment will be necessary to operate the Federal Cell
Facility.

Closure of the Federal Cell Facility will take place after the concentrated depleted uranium has been placed
within the approved, below-grade disposal areas. Once the available disposal capacity for concentration
depleted uranium (below grade and beneath the Embankment’s top slope) has been consumed and backfilled
with CLSM, fill meeting the required specifications will be placed in the Federal Cell Facility to the Director-
approved design height and covered to meet final design specifications before being closed. Fill placement
will be completed with existing operators and equipment and expected to require a minimum of 2 years.

Prior to final cover construction, closure activities will include settlement monitoring. Settlement monitoring
includes a requirement that temporary cover be placed and monitored for at least one year prior to final cover
construction, with evaluation of differential settlement. If differential settlement exceeds or is projected to
exceed the established criteria, surcharging of affected areas is required. Settlement will be completed using
existing operators and equipment and expected to be completed within 18 months.

Following completion of settlement monitoring, the final cover will be constructed, and the Federal Cell
Facility closed, using existing equipment and labor. It is projected that cover construction of the Federal Cell
Facility will require 4 years. Upon final closure of the Federal Cell Facility, the prerequisite activities required
for transition of the closed Federal Cell Facility to DOE will commence. It is expected that the transition
activities will require 5 years to complete. Following completion, the decommissioned Federal Cell Facility
will be subject to DOE for long-term surveillance.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-21 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

1.4 INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION

EnergySolutions has 30 over years of experience with the design, construction, management, engineering, and
operation of radioactive waste disposal at the Clive site. Since receiving its first radioactive material license
in 1988, EnergySolutions has completed construction on a low-activity radioactive waste (LARW) Facility
and is currently constructing a RCRA mixed radioactive and hazardous waste (Mixed Waste) Disposal
Facility, the Class A and Class A North Disposal facilities (which have now been combined into the Class A
West Disposal Facility), and a uranium- and thorium-mill radioactive tailings 11e.(2) Byproduct Disposal
Facility.

Division regulations UAC R313-25-3(8) and UAC R313-25-9(2) require that “that if the proposed disposal
site is on land not owned by state or federal government, that arrangements have been made for assumption
of ownership in fee by a state or federal agency.” EnergySolutions and DOE entered into an Agreement that
establishes covenants and restrictions related to DOE long-term stewardship of the Federal Cell Facility. This
Agreement requires transfer of ownership of the closed Federal Cell Facility (including land and disposed
waste) from EnergySolutions to DOE for permanent maintenance and monitoring. In support of this transfer,
EnergySolutions will pledge surety for use at the Federal Cell Facility, to allow the complete decontamination,
decommissioning, closure and other reasonably expected activities following closure.

Funds for the closure, decommissioning and long-term surveillance of the facility will be made available
through surety bonds, established by EnergySolutions and a Standby Trust Agreement established with Zions
First National Bank. EnergySolutions will also establish funds with Zions First National Bank for the post-
closure care of the closed and stable Federal Cell Facility. Following closure, post-closure care monies will
be released to address costs required for stewardship of the closed Federal Cell Facility. As is already required
for its other disposal facilities, EnergySolutions will annually review and revise the amount of funds required
to close and for post-closure care of the Federal Cell Facility. Results of this annual review and any
adjustments in funding conducted will be reported to the Director and DOE by March 1 of each year.

1.5 MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Section 11 of this Application lists the references herein cited. Other references supporting the information
that the Director has previously found acceptable (noted in “blue”) can be found in EnergySolutions’ other
radioactive material license applications, requests, permits and permit modification requests.

1.6 CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDES

To the extent practicable, the information presented in this Application was prepared in accordance with UAC
R313-25-13. Additionally, EnergySolutions strives to meet and exceed all requirements applicable to its
operations, including
• NUREG-0902, “Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization;”
• NUREG-1199, “Standard Format and Content of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facility;”
• NUREG-1200, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility;”
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 1-22 Section 1 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• NUREG-1293, “Quality Assurance Guidance for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Proposal Facility;”
• NUREG-1300, “Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility;”
• NUREG-1388, “Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility;”
• NUREG-1623, “Design of Long-Term Erosion Protection Covers for Reclamation of Uranium Mill
Sites;”
• NUREG/CR-2700, “Parameters for Characterizing Sites for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive
Waste;”
• Regulatory Guide 1.8, “Personnel Selecting and Training;”
• Regulatory Guide 1.28, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Design and Construction);”
• Regulatory Guide 1.33, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operational);”
• Regulatory Guide 1.74, “Quality Assurance Terms and Definitions;”
• Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 0, “Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at
Uranium Mills”.
• Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal
Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment;”
• Regulatory Guide 4.18, “Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface
Disposal of Radioactive Waste;”
• Regulatory Guide 8.10, “Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposure As
Low As Is Reasonably Achievable;”
• Regulatory Guide 8.15, “Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection;”
• NRC’s “Final Standard Review Plan for Review and Remedial Action of Inactive Mill Tailings Sites
under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Revision 0;” and
• NRC’s 1982 “Technical Position on Near-Surface Disposal Facility Design and Operation.”

1.7 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLE REVIEW MATTERS

This Application addresses the principal matters required for Director’s review. EnergySolutions requests the
Director issue a new Radioactive Material License to authorize management and disposal of concentrated
depleted uranium in a Federal Cell Facility.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-1 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS

EnergySolutions’ overarching objective for its Federal Cell Facility siting and design decision focuses on the
permanent isolation of concentrated depleted uranium. These decisions target minimizing disturbance and
dispersion by natural forces, without the need of ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting
decisions and design standards involve finite times [a compliance period of 10,000 years for depleted uranium
has been promulgated in UAC R313-25-9(5)]. The Director has previously reviewed and approved that Clive
general site characteristics are appropriate for siting disposal facilities (UDRC, 2012). The information
justifying License UT2300249 and other relevant documents, (engineering reports, supplemental data
submissions and interrogatory responses) indicate that the requirements of UAC R313-25-3 are met for
facilities licensed at Clive, Utah. The legal location of the operating Clive radioactive waste disposal facility
as Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 11 West, Salt Lake Basin and Meridian (SLB&M), Tooele County,
Utah.

The proposed disposal site and activities for the Federal Cell Facility are conceptually similar to those of the
licensed Class A West embankment, with the exception of including a smaller Federal Cell Facility footprint
size and height. The Federal Cell Facility is designed as a primarily below-grade disposal embankment (with
fill placement between grade and design height of the Federal Cell Facility final cover. The following site
features are considered in judging the adequacy of the Federal Cell Facility:
a. Remoteness from populated areas;
b. Hydrology and natural conditions that contribute to immobilization and isolation of contaminants
from groundwater resources; and
c. Minimal impact of erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long-term.

2.1 GEOGRAPHY, DEMOGRAPHY AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The geography, demography and the limited potential for any future residential developments are appropriate
for siting disposal facilities at the Clive site. The Federal Cell Facility will be situated in a remote area of
Tooele County in the western portion of Utah. The nearest resident is a person acting as caretaker at a rest
stop along I-80, roughly 7 miles to the Northeast, with the nearest community being approximately 35 miles
from the site. Strict access control and security provide additional assurance of protection to the public. The
Federal Cell Facility is designed to minimize dispersion of fill material and subsurface waste by resisting
water erosion, wind erosion, geotechnical instability and other natural events. All features are designed to
promote Federal Cell Facility stability.

2.1.1 Site Location and Description

The site’s location is appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The Clive site is on the eastern edge of the Great
Salt Lake Desert, three miles west of the Cedar Mountains, 2.5 miles south of Interstate 80, and 1 mile south
of a switch point called Clive on the tracks of the Union Pacific system. The Clive Disposal Complex is
located on a parcel of land, consisting of one square mile in Tooele County, Utah. The land is owned by
EnergySolutions, with the exception of approximately 100 acres owned by DOE for the Vitro Remedial
Action project. The licensed property owned by EnergySolutions, is Utah SLB&M, Section 32, Township 1
South, Range 11 West, Tooele County, Utah, except for the following legal description of the Vitro site:

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-2 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Beginning at a point located 1120.32 feet N 89 degrees 56' W., along the section line, and 329.49 feet
South from the Northeast corner of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 11 West, Salt Lake Base
and Meridian and running thence: N 89 degrees 56' 32" W 1503.72 feet, thence S 0 degrees 03' 28"
W 2880.50 feet, thence S 89 degrees 56' 32" E 1503.72 feet, N 0 degrees 03' 28" E 2880.50 feet to the
point of the beginning.

Operations are conducted in Sections 5, 29, and 32 (Township 1 South, Range 11 West, SLB&M), of Tooele
County, Utah. These locations are known as Clive, Utah. Most of the land within a 10-mile radius of the site
is public domain administered by BLM. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the Site will not be affected
by granting of the License, since the Federal Cell Facility and associated licensed actions are located entirely
within the licensed area of Section 32.

While EnergySolutions also owns property adjacent to the licensed area, properties outside of Section 32 are
not licensed for active LLRW management. The south portion of the site contains EnergySolutions’ Class A
West Federal Cell Facility, LARW Facility, Mixed Waste Landfill Cell, and the 11e.(2) Facility.
EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility will be located to the west of the 11e.(2) Facility and south of the Class
A West Facility.

The low precipitation and high evaporation rates at the site are not conducive to sustainable crop yields.
Further, because the groundwater is saline with high TDS, it is not conducive to support of a permanent,
residential population center in the site area.

2.1.2 Population Distribution

The site’s isolation from population centers is appropriate for siting disposal facilities. While 67,397 people
resided within 50 miles of the Clive site at the time of the 2020 Census, most of the immediate area is
uninhabited (Census, 2020). The closest resident lives roughly seven miles to the northeast of the site, and
acts as a caretaker for the rest stop just off I-80. As is illustrated in Table 2-1, the largest group of people lives
48 - 80.5 miles to the east and southeast of the site in the Tooele-Grantsville area.

Table 2-2 summarizes a study projecting that Tooele County will continue to increase its population at the
annual average rate of 3.74 percent until the year 2040 (most recent three-year average). It is projected that
Tooele and Grantsville Cities will continue to be the areas of greatest growth, with growth rates of 3.74 percent
through the year 2040 (Census, 2020).

The remoteness of the site from the urbanized area of Tooele County makes the surrounding area an
improbable location for any other significant industrial use. This was one of the chief reasons for its selection
as a disposal site for the Vitro project. The Tooele County Commission has designated the Clive site and
surrounding areas as hazardous industries zones. This designation prohibits all residential housing in the
vicinity of the Clive site. Also, NRC identified the absence of any culinary water sources at the Clive Facility
as a major deterrent to any potential population growth within a 12-kilometer radius (NRC, 1993c).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-3 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 2-1

12-Kilometer Population Wheel

0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12
N - 0.0
NNE - 22.5
NE - 45.0
ENE - 67.5 1
E - 90.0
ESE - 112.5
SE - 135.0
SSE - 157.5
S - 180.0
SSW - 202.5
SW - 225.0
WSW - 247.5
W - 270.0
WNW - 292.5
NW - 315.0
NNW - 337.5
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1
Direction Distance (km)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-4 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 2-2

Tooele County Growth Projection: 2020-2040

Year
County
Population*+
2040 140,464
2039 135,400
2038 130,519
2037 125,813
2036 121,278
2035 116,905
2034 112,691
2033 108,628
2032 104,712
2031 100,937
2030 97,298
2029 93,790
2028 90,409
2027 87,149
2026 84,007
2025 80,979
2024 78,059
2023 75,245
2022 72,533
2021 69,918
2020 67,397
* from the 2020 U.S. Census
+ Forward growth rate computed as average of that from three years available (2016 – 2018)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-5 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

2.2 METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY

The site’s meteorology and climatology are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. EnergySolutions has
operated a weather station at Clive since April 1992. The station monitors wind speed and direction, 2-m and
9-m temperatures, precipitation, pan evaporation and solar radiation. Annual meteorological reports are
submitted to the Director for Clive data collected from July 1992 to December 2020, (MSI, 2021 attached as
Appendix B). Since the Federal Cell Facility is located entirely within Section 32, this information adequately
characterizes the site.

The site region is in the Intermountain Plateau climatic zone that extends between the Cascade-Sierra Nevada
Ranges and the Rocky Mountains and is classified as a middle-latitude dry climate or steppe. The climate is
characterized by hot dry summers, cool springs and falls, moderately cold winters, and a general year-round
lack of precipitation.

While neighboring mountain ranges generally restrict the movement of weather systems into the area, there
are occasional well-developed storms in the prevailing regional westerlies. The mountains act also as a barrier
to frequent invasions of cold continental air. Precipitation is generally light during the summer and early fall
and reaches a maximum in spring when storms from the Pacific Ocean are strong enough to move over the
mountains. During the late fall and winter months, high pressure systems tend to settle in the area for as long
as several weeks at a time.

In the 26-year period of time (July 1992 through December 2020) the most frequent (and predominant) winds
were from the south-southwest direction, with the second most frequent direction being the east-northeast,
followed by the south. Wind Rose data summarized in Figure 2-1 has been obtained from the on-site weather
station and checked for accuracy by a certified meteorologist (MSI, 2021). Temperatures at Clive range from
an hourly minimum of -31.5 oC to an hourly maximum of 41.3 oC.

The Clive site receives an average of 8.37 inches of precipitation per year. Measurements taken at the Clive
site showed that the lowest monthly precipitation recorded was 0 inches, during several distinct months. The
highest recorded monthly precipitation was 4.28 inches, in May 2011.

Pan evaporation measurements are taken from April through October when ambient temperatures remain
above freezing. Maximum hourly evaporation values usually occur in July. The 24-year average annual
evaporation at the Clive site is 53.4 inches (excluding 2 years of reported instrument malfunction).

Historically, a severe weather phenomenon in the west desert-region of Utah has taken one of four forms:
tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, damaging hail, or dust devils. Tornadoes are rare in the State of Utah
primarily due to the lack of atmospheric moisture and the presence of mountainous terrain. Utah tornadoes
tend to be much weaker and smaller than their central U.S. counterparts. Utah tornadoes stay on the ground
for an average of only a few minutes and their path widths are usually one-eighth of a mile or less. Five
tornadoes were observed in Tooele County for the period 1847–2017 (Lietz, 2017). Based on this historic
record, the probability of a tornado strike at any one point in Tooele County is extremely low. Although
tornadoes are very rare and not statistically likely to strike the Clive site, they are amongst weather phenomena
that can occur in the State of Utah.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-6 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 2-1. EnergySolutions Wind Rose January 1993 – December 2020 (MSI, 2021).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-7 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

While thunderstorms are fairly common over Utah, especially in the late summer months, these storms are
typically not severe. The Dugway, Utah station records an average of 20 thunderstorm-days per year. Historic
records suggest than approximately 10% of these thunderstorms develop into the severe category, equating to
two annual high-speed wind events (50 knots or greater) at the Clive site.

Large damaging hail is another rare phenomenon in the State of Utah, primarily due to the lack of atmospheric
moisture needed to develop strong thunderstorms and related hail. During the last 60 years there have been
four severe thunderstorm events in Tooele County with reported hail damage (Brough, et.al; 2010). Two of
these reports indicated hail with a diameter of one inch or greater. These reports also suggest a return interval
of 10–15 years for such storms with potential damaging hail for the EnergySolutions site.

Dust devils are quite common throughout the west desert of Utah. They are caused by local thermally induced
updrafts and do little more than stir up dust and other light objects. Wind speeds associated with dust devils
are normally less than 50 miles per hour and are short-lived. The highest recorded wind speed for a west
desert dust devil is 60 miles per hour.

2.3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY

The site’s geology and seismology are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The Federal Cell Facility will
be located on the eastern fringe of the Great Salt Lake Desert. Geophysical surveys performed in the
surrounding region included (1) a regional gravity survey conducted over a study area that included the eastern
half of the Great Salt Lake Desert - performed by the University of Utah Geophysics Department between
1957 and 1961 (Cook et. al, 1964); and (2) an earth resistivity survey (Bisdorf and Zohdy, 1980) conducted
in the Fish Springs area, about 50 miles south of the site to delineate faults and their influence on springs in
the area. Many basin and range faults, grabens and horsts are indicated in Cook’s report on the Great Salt
Lake Desert study area. The gravity data was used to determine regional geologic conditions (Cook et. al,
1964). In addition to these regional surveys, the Utah Department of Natural Resources has prepared two
hydrologic reports for the Great Salt Lake West Desert area (Stephens, 1974; UDNR, 1981). These reports
provide a description of physiographic conditions, regional characteristics, groundwater aquifers, flow
characteristics and water quality. The U.S. Geological Survey has also prepared geologic and surface water
resources maps for the same areas (Moore, 1979; Bucknam, 1977). These historic surveys and studies have
been combined with characterization of the site geology and hydrogeology, in the Revised Hydrogeologic
Report prepared by EnergySolutions (EnergySolutions, 2019).

The EnergySolutions Clive facility is located in the extreme eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert,
which is part of the Basin and Range Province of North America. The Basin and Range topography is typified
by block-faulted (normal fault) mountain ranges that generally trend north to south. This predominant
geologic structural feature with alluvial filled basins is discontinuous and was created by extensional normal
faulting. The basins consist primarily of sediments originating from Quaternary lacustrine Lake Bonneville
deposits and Quaternary and Tertiary colluvial and alluvial materials eroded from adjacent mountains. The
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated valley fill is generally about 800 to 1,000 feet thick throughout the central
portions of the valleys in the Great Salt Lake Desert.

The block-faulted mountains mainly consist of Paleozoic limestones, dolomites, shales, quartzites, and
sandstones. Tertiary extrusive igneous rocks of basaltic lava flows and pyroclastics are also found in isolated
areas of the Great Salt Lake Desert. The valley sediments are composed of alluvial fans, evaporites and
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-8 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

unconsolidated and semi-consolidated valley fill (Stephens, 1974). These sediments consist of intercalated
colluvium, alluvium, lacustrine, and fluvial deposits with some basalt flows, pyroclastics and deposits of
eolian material. Generally, the colluvial and coarse alluvial deposits are near the mountain ranges where they
contain a wide range of grain sizes, varying from boulders to clay. Extending to the center of the valleys, the
deposits grade into well sorted beds of sand and gravel interlayered with alluvial and lacustrine silt and clay.
Thick beds of alluvial fans generally fringe the mountains ranges. The alluvial fans grade laterally into fine-
grained alluvium and thin toward the center of the valleys where it is present as a veneer overlying and
adjacent to fine-grained Lake Bonneville lakebed deposits.

The ranges are affected by mass-wasting and fluvial erosion where ephemeral streams that enter the desert
basins deposit their load as they evaporate or infiltrate. The desert mountain perimeters of the basins are
therefore impacted by the deposition and erosional processes of alluvial fans. The central portions of the
basins, which typically demonstrate relatively flat topographic relief, are unaffected by surface fluvial
activities, and therefore mechanical and chemical weathering processes advance at very slow rates. These
geomorphic processes are typical of the proposed Federal Cell Facility’s semiarid to arid desert setting.

Natural resources in Tooele County include limestone, metallic minerals, potassium salts, tungsten, salt, clays,
and sand and gravel. Gravel quarries have been located in the alluvial fans that flank the Cedar Mountains
(DOE, 1984). Mineral extraction by evaporation of brine occurs near Knolls, about 10 miles northwest of the
site. Limestone is quarried in the Cedar Mountains about five miles east of the site. Presently no oil and gas
production takes place in the area. The classification of the area as prospectively valuable for oil and gas is
based solely on general criteria. Even so, there has been little interest in the western desert for oil and gas
exploration. Previous exploration near the west side of the Great Salt Lake revealed a low-grade product with
little or no yield. There is no coal production in the area or geologic formations with coal resources. No
active or pending mining claims or mineral leases are located on the site.

2.3.1 Geologic Site Characteristics

The site’s geologic characteristics are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The proposed Federal Cell
Facility is located in the eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert, part of the Basin and Range Province.
This province is characterized by north-south trending mountain ranges with discontinuous alluvium-filled
valleys found between the ranges. The mountains are composed of mainly Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks,
but can also be composed of volcanic rocks. Metamorphic rocks do not outcrop in the vicinity of the facility,
with the closest occurring in the Granite Peak area, approximately 40 miles south of Clive. The
intermountain troughs are filled primarily with unconsolidated alluvial, lacustrine, fluvial, and evaporite
deposits; but pyroclastics, aeolian sediments, and basalt flows also occur (Bingham Environmental, 1992 –
[see Appendix C] and Stephens, 1974). Sediments near the mountains are predominately colluvial and
alluvial, and are generally coarser grained than the lacustrine deposits found in the center of the valleys.
The proposed Federal Cell Facility is situated on Quaternary-age lacustrine lakebed deposits associated with
the former Lake Bonneville. These surficial lacustrine deposits are generally comprised of low-permeability
silty clay. Surficial sand and gravel outcrops are mapped in the sections adjacent to the facility.

Beneath the proposed Federal Cell Facility, the sediments consist predominantly of interbedded silt, sand,
and clay with occasional gravel lenses. The depth of the valley fill beneath the facility is unknown; a 2019
exploratory investigation confirmed their presence at the Clive Facility down to 620 feet below ground
surface (bgs); with estimates ranging from 250 to 3,000 feet bgs (the Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study
Report and responses to related interrogatories received from the Section Manager (Willoughby, 2021) are
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-9 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

included as Appendix D). The deepest borehole within Section 32 (well I-1-700) was drilled to a depth of
620 feet bgs without encountering bedrock. An exploratory borehole for a potential water-supply well on
Section 29 north of the EnergySolutions facility did not encounter bedrock at a depth of 700 feet bgs. Up
to 3,000 feet of basin fill sediment are present in the Ripple Valley (the basin immediately north of
Interstate-80, east of the Grayback Hills).

The Grayback Hills are located approximately four miles north of the proposed Federal Cell Facility and are
outcrops of extrusive igneous and sedimentary rocks. Igneous extrusive rocks (trachyandesite lava flows)
form a resistant cap on the Grayback Hills, and volcaniclastic rocks are mapped in the area. The lava flows
and volcaniclastics have been dated as latest Eocene to earliest Oligocene (38-35 million years before
present). Exposed sedimentary rocks in the Grayback Hills are Permian and Triassic Grandeur, Murdock
Mountain, Gerster, Dinwoody, and Thaynes Formations consisting of predominantly carbonate units. Lake
Bonneville cycle lakes have inundated and modified the outcropping rocks of the Grayback Hills.
Lacustrine deposits are present, including sands and gravels associated with bars, splits, and beaches.
Petrographic examination of gravel from the Grayback Hills determined the gravel is composed almost
entirely of acidic to intermediate volcanic rock. Rock types were identified as trachyandesite,
dacite/andesite with a coriaceous texture, pyroclastic, rhyolite, and a small volume of limestone. Many of
the gravel particles are partially or completely coated in caliche (see EnergySolutions, 2019 in Appendix
E).

2.3.2 Seismology

The seismic activity at the site is appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The Clive site does not have any
known active faults in its vicinity. NRC (1993c) indicates that the nearest fault is located 29 km (18 miles) to
the north, having occurred between 1 million to 25 million years ago. Although the site is not located near
any active faults, isostatic rebound is suspected to be the cause of any recent seismic activity in the Lake
Bonneville area.

NRC (1993c) cites two seismic investigations that were conducted for the Vitro tailings disposal facility and
a proposed site for a supercollider that was to encompass a 15-mile elliptical ring around the Clive site. Based
on these studies, NRC (1993c) indicated that nearby structures and seismogenic areas that could pose a hazard
include the fault zones within a 45-mile radius of the site. These include the eastern flank of the Cedar
Mountains, western flank of the Lakeside Mountains, Northwest Puddle Valley, eastern flank of the
Newfoundland mountains, and the western flank of the Stansbury Mountains. However, NRC (1993c)
concluded that no active fault zones lie beneath the Clive site, and there is no macroseismic evidence of a
capable fault in the vicinity of the site.

The lack of Quaternary and/or capable faults in the vicinity of the Clive site is not sufficient evidence to
dismiss seismic activity as a potential issue of concern. While the absence of surface faults in the site is
consistent with a low probability of surface-fault rupture, ground shaking associated with background
earthquakes require assessments (i.e. moderate-size earthquakes (M5.5 – 6.5) that do not cause surface
rupture, (Wong, 2013).

Seismic hazard assessments have been evaluated previously for the Clive site including assessments of active
or potentially active faults in the region and background earthquakes. The peak ground accelerations for both
seismic sources is 0.24 g. The peak ground accelerations for the Clive site are within the range of estimated
ground accelerations for two DOE regulated and approved low-level waste disposal sites (Area G, Los
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-10 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Alamos, New Mexico (LANL, 2008). Performance assessments for these sites conclude that the impacts of
ground shaking on waste disposal systems are minor and are overshadowed by the longer-term effects of
subsidence.

The negligible effects of the peak ground accelerations on the long-term stability of Clive’s embankments has
previously been demonstrated and found acceptable by the Division. No new information on seismic hazards
has been identified that would change or require revisions of the previous work.

The seismic hazard for the faults near the proposed Federal Cell Facility (as illustrated in Figure 2-2) was
evaluated using methodology consistent with the requirements of UAC R313-25-8(5) (AMEC, 2012). The
seismic hazard assessment included analysis of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with the
Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for known active or potentially active faults in the proposed Federal
Cell Facility region. The PGA was obtained from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) to assess
the seismic hazard for earthquakes that may occur on unknown faults in the area surrounding the proposed
Federal Cell Facility (i.e., background seismicity). For fault sources, the PGA was based on the maximum
rupture length and rupture area for each fault. The return period for ground motions resulting from a
background earthquake was estimated at 5,000 years (i.e., equal to a one percent probability of exceedance in
50 years).

The approach of selecting an MCE PGA from the larger of the values associated with the deterministic MCE
for faults or the PSHA result for background earthquakes at a 5,000 year return period is consistent with
recommendations of the Utah Seismic Safety Commission (2003) and requirements promulgated by the Utah
Division of Water Rights (Dam Safety Section) for assessment of dams (AMEC, 2012).

The maximum PGA value that was calculated for the maximum events on neighboring fault sources was
projected as 0.28 g, (which is the largest PGA from the deterministic assessment of fault-specific sources and
the probabilistic assessment of the background earthquake). The maximum magnitude of the MCE varies
from 7.0 to 7.3 for the sources that result in the maximum PGA. The largest value of 7.3 is considered
conservatively appropriate for use in the seismic stability analyses for the proposed Federal Cell Facility.

The liquefaction/cyclic softening potential of the subsurface soil profiles below the proposed Federal Cell
Facility have also been evaluated (AMEC, 2012). The potential for liquefaction of sand-like soil has been
determined to be low and the potential for seismic settlement to be on the order of one to two inches. The
potential for cyclic softening was also found to be low.

Historical Earthquake catalogs for the site region were obtained from the seismological observatories at the
University of Utah and the University of Nevada. The Utah catalog begins in 1850, whereas the Nevada
catalog begins in 1852. The two catalogs combined contain 1277 epicenters within 100 km of the proposed
Federal Cell Facility. The earliest earthquake occurred in 1915 and the latest in September 2005. The smallest
was M 0.0 and the largest M 5.2. The closest was 9.9 km from the site and the farthest was 99.9 km. Selected
Data for 26 Earthquakes are presented in Table 2-3 which is sorted by increasing distance from the site. These
26 earthquakes are located within 100km of the site, but a magnitude and distance filter was applied to the
catalogs to produce the data shown in Table 2-3 because most of the epicenters represent small earthquakes
more than 50 km form the site.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-11 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 2-2. EnergySolutions Fault and Seismicity Map (AMEC, 2012)
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-12 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Most of the faults in the site region that cut deposits of Quarternary age were identified a number of years
ago. Most of them had not been studied in detail by the time the USGS was conducting their 1996 seismic
hazard mapping project, and the USGS omitted them as line sources because key parameters (maximum
magnitude and recurrence or slip rate) were not available. Subsequently, a systematic inventory of
Quaternary faults was completed in the Western United States, and more complete information was
available for the 2002 USGS update. In addition, faults in the Skull Valley were discovered and
characterized. Ten Quaternary faults are included in the USGS database within about 70km of the proposed
Federal Cell Facility. The closest Quarternary fault to the site is the Cedar Mountains fault at a distance of
23km to the east.

2.4 HYDROLOGY

Other than characterization of the site’s basal-depth groundwater (which is still under review), the site’s
unconfined aquifer-region groundwater characterization are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The
proposed Federal Cell Facility is located in the semi-arid desert of western Utah. The area containing the site
lies within the Great Basin drainage, a closed basin having no outlet. The proposed Federal Cell Facility
drains into the normally dry Ripple Valley depression on the eastern fringe of the Great Salt Lake Desert. The
nearest usable body of water east of the Clive site is 28.1 miles away. At this location, a perennial stream
flows from Big Spring (1,000 feet south of I-80) to the Timpie Springs Waterfowl Management Area, about
2,000 feet north of I-80. Stream flows from higher elevations evaporate and infiltrate into the ground before
reaching lower, flatter land. The watershed up-gradient of the site covers approximately 46 square miles.
There are no perennial surface-water systems associated with the proposed Federal Cell Facility. Activities at
the proposed Federal Cell Facility will have no effect on surface-water quantities or quality at the Clive
Disposal Complex. Water necessary for construction is provided by existing wells in the vicinity, or
impounded water.

2.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology

The site’s surface water hydrology is appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The proposed Federal Cell
Facility is located in the eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert, part of the Basin and Range Province.
This province is characterized by north-south trending mountain ranges with discontinuous alluvium-filled
valleys found between the ranges. The mountains are composed of mainly Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks,
but can also be composed of volcanic rocks. Metamorphic rocks do not outcrop in the vicinity of the facility,
with the closest occurring in the Granite Peak area, approximately 40 miles south of Clive. The
intermountain troughs are filled primarily with unconsolidated alluvial, lacustrine, fluvial, and evaporite
deposits; but pyroclastics, aeolian sediments, and basalt flows also occur (Bingham Environmental, 1996
and Stephens, 1974). Sediments near the mountains are predominately colluvial and alluvial, and are
generally coarser grained than the lacustrine deposits found in the center of the valleys.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-13 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 2-3

Selected data from 26 earthquakes within 100 km of the Clive site. Data from Catalogs
Maintained by the University of Utah and the University of Nevada-Reno.

Month/Day/Year North Latitude West Longitude Earthquake
Magnitude
Site Distance
(km)
April 03, 1998
October 23, 1976
March 29, 1979
November 15, 1979
June 10, 1975
40.7568
40.6723
40.4807
40.8668
40.5408
-113.1897
-112.8315
-113.2092
-112.9173
-112.8650
2.0
1.30
2.20
2.00
1.20
9.87
23.81
24.69
25.58
26.71
July 11, 1981
April 26, 2004
December 06, 1996
January 04, 1975
August 05, 1988
40.4573
40.4685
40.4627
40.6602
40.9568
-113.1952
-113.2412
-113.2773
-112.7690
-113.0798
1.70
1.07
2.32
1.20
1.90
26.82
26.95
28.89
29.20
29.71
August 11, 1915
October 23, 1987
September 25, 1987
October 26, 1987
September 25, 1987
40.5000
41.1963
41.1957
41.2008
41.2068
-112.6500
-113.1693
-113.2137
-113.1777
-113.1357
4.30
4.20
4.30
4.70
4.10
44.46
56.39
56.77
56.95
57.38
September 26, 1987
September 25, 1987
September 28, 1987
February 16, 1967
September 05, 1962
41.2090
41.2135
41.2267
41.2733
40.7153
-113.1500
-113.1318
-113.1808
-113.3338
-112.0888
4.00
4.80
4.00
4.00
5.20
57.68
58.12
59.84
67.37
86.52
February 22, 1943
April 10, 1992
March 16, 1992
November 04, 1992
September 08, 1983
40.7000
40.7000
40.4702
41.5098
40.7480
-112.0800
-112.0800
-112.0448
-113.3878
-111.9927
5.00
4.30
4.20
4.80
4.30
87.23
87.23
93.60
93.91
94.78
October 05, 1915

40.1000 -114.0000 4.30 99.91

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-14 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The lack of surface water bodies, the sparse precipitation and the high evaporation rate make it unlikely that
any condition creating a permanent body of standing water will occur. Standing water at the Clive Site is
managed during the operational life of the facility according to Condition I.E.7 of GWQDP
UGW450005,“Run-on and Run-off Control Requirements” and “Waste Water, Runoff, and Storm Water
Management Requirements.” Standing water in depressions outside waste management areas is not actively
managed. UAC R313-25-23(5) states: “The disposal site shall be generally well drained and free of areas of
flooding or frequent ponding.” Federal Cell Facility areas will be similarly managed to remove standing
water, when necessary. EnergySolutions uses a mobile pumping truck to access and remove water from
disposal site areas which are not designed to free-drain into an evaporation pond or equipped with permanent
pumps. Other areas of the property are channeled to the southwest. The site has also been designed to drain
any water that may accumulate during flooding.

There is no data indicating that historical floods have impacted the Clive site. Analyses prepared in support
of Radioactive Material License UT2300249 modeled the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Clive Disposal Complex. The largest “instantaneous” value of
runoff from the watershed was 29,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) and was associated with the six-hour PMP.
Modeling shows a PMP of 10.10 inches for the six-hour storm and 6.1 in. for a 1-hour storm. The Probable
Maximum Flood expected at the site from a six-hour Probable Maximum Precipitation event is 13,100 cfs, as
compared to an estimated 100-year flood of 1,300 cfs. Additionally, EnergySolutions Federal Cell Facility
disposal operations will not take place in a 100-year flood plain (UGS, 1999).

The Probable Maximum Flood would most likely flow into the south and east borders of the site with the
fringes of the flow encroaching on EnergySolutions' Clive Disposal Complex. The maximum depth of flow
at the site was calculated to be between 2 and 4 feet and last for 6 hours. Thus, the Probable Maximum Flood
would not infiltrate into groundwater beneath the proposed Federal Cell Facility. These events demonstrate
that for post-closure, a short-term flood of any depth is likely to have no impact on the Federal Cell Facility’s
performance. Additionally, short-term flooding of any depth on the order of days or even weeks can
intuitively be seen to have minimal impact on long-term performance.

Runoff from such a hypothetical event as the Probable Maximum Flood will be diverted from encroaching
into the Federal Cell Facility by using a berm surrounding the disposal area. Flow would be diverted around
the site to the south and away from the Federal Cell Facility. With prior licensing actions, the Director
concluded that

“Based on the information summarized above, the Licensee has discussed how the facility’s surface
features have been designed to direct surface water away from the disposal units at velocities and
gradients which would not be expected to result in erosion that would require ongoing active
maintenance in the future.” (UDRC, 2012).

These same design features will continue to direct surface water away from the proposed Federal Cell in a
manner that does not result in erosion.”

2.4.2 Groundwater Characterization

Other than characterization of the site’s basal-depth groundwater (which is still under review), the site’s
unconfined aquifer-region groundwater characterization are appropriate for siting disposal facilities.
Numerous geologic and hydrogeologic studies have been performed within and adjacent to Section 32. DOE
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-15 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

performed the first detailed hydrogeologic investigations within Section 32 in the 1980s. Since
EnergySolutions’ operations began in 1988, additional studies were performed at the site in order to
characterize the hydrogeology. In January 2019, EnergySolutions prepared a Revised Hydrogeologic Report
that summarizes the hydrogeology of the site based upon historical data (EnergySolutions, 2019 – see
Appendix E).

Alluvial and lacustrine sediments that fill the valley floor are estimated to extend to depths of greater than 620
feet with unconsolidated sediments ranging from 300 to over 600 feet (as demonstrated in boring
investigations completed by EnergySolutions in 2019). North-south trending mountains and outcrops define
the hydrogeologic boundaries for the aquifer system. Lone Mountain located two miles east of the site, rises
approximately 950 feet above the valley floor. The Grayback Hills located to the north with outcropping
features to the west rise 500 feet and 230 feet respectively above the valley floor.

The site aquifer system consists of a shallow unconfined aquifer that extends through the upper 40 feet of
lacustrine deposits. A confined aquifer begins around 40 to 45 feet below the ground surface and continues
through the valley fill. Due to the low precipitation and relatively high evapotranspiration, little or no
precipitation reaches the upper unconfined aquifer as direct vertical infiltration. Groundwater recharge is
primarily due to infiltration at bedrock and alluvial fan deposits which then travels laterally and vertically
through the unconfined and confined aquifers. Groundwater flow in this area is generally directed
northeasterly to northwesterly.

Fresh water from the recharge zones along the mountain slopes develops progressively poorer chemical
quality in response to dissolution of evaporite-minerals during its travel through the regional-scale flow
systems and through concentration by evaporation at the points of discharge. The groundwater quality in the
unconfined aquifer at the Clive Facility is considered saline with concentrations of several chemical species
(sulfate, chloride, total dissolved solids, iron, and manganese) significantly exceeding EPA’s secondary
drinking water standards.

The groundwater flow regime beneath the Federal Cell Facility has been evaluated extensively and defined
based on (1) information collected from water level measurements, (2) the aquifer hydraulic properties which
were calculated from slug out tests and laboratory testing, (3) isotope dating of groundwater, and (4) hydraulic
testing performed for wells in the shallow and deep aquifers. Water levels obtained from monitoring wells
between 1991 and present day were used to develop contour maps and flow nets to define the direction of
groundwater flow and hydraulic gradients within the aquifers. These data are combined with measured
hydraulic conductivities to develop estimates of groundwater velocities.

Horizontal ground water gradients in the shallow aquifer below the proposed Federal Cell Facility range from
1.9 x 10-5 to 5.4 x 10-3 ft/ft. The site-wide average gradient is 8.9 x 10-4 ft/ft. Using these gradients, average
horizontal velocities ranging from 0.004 ft/day to 0.009 ft/day are calculated (EnergySolutions, 2019). A
hydraulic conductivity of 2.98 x 10-4 cm/sec has been observed for Unit 2; with minimum and maximum
values of 2.3 x 10-6 cm/sec and 4.3 x 10-3 cm/sec, respectively. The Unit 3 sandy materials exhibit a saturated
hydraulic conductivity of 3.2 x 10-4 cm/sec. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of Unit 1 was measured in
the laboratory using soil core samples obtained from 43 to 60 feet below ground surface in Unit 1 ranged from
2.2 x 10-8 to 1.6 x 10-6 cm/sec, with an arithmetic mean of 2.9 x 10-7 cm/sec.

Data characterizing the shallow, unconfined groundwater surface are provided to the Director in the Annual
Groundwater Quality Reports. The groundwater level data indicates that the water level fluctuations at any
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-16 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

given well are generally less than one foot (with the exception of areas with localized mounding). The
groundwater surface is relatively flat in Section 32, with elevations varying about two feet per mile.

The aquifer system investigated in the area of the EnergySolutions Clive Facility consists of unconsolidated
basin-fill and alluvial-fan aquifers which extend to depths on the order of 620 feet below Section 32. The
lacustrine deposits, which comprise the majority of the aquifer system below the Clive Facility, are somewhat
variable in depth and thickness, which makes the exact delineation of aquifers and aquitards difficult.
Characterization of the aquifer system as a whole is based on subsurface stratigraphy and potentiometric data.

A shallow, unconfined aquifer has been identified in the upper 40 feet of lacustrine deposits, with groundwater
surfaces ranging from 19 to 31 feet below the ground surface (with a historic minimum depth of approximately
24 feet). The unsaturated zone consists of an upper 8- to 15-foot-thick silty clay and clayey silt (Unit 4) that
overlies a 10 to 20 foot thick silty sand layer (Unit 3). Groundwater occurs within the lower part of Unit 3
below the approximate western half of Section 32 and the primary movement of groundwater is assumed to
be in the silty sand lenses and layer of the shallow, unconfined aquifer here. Below this silty sand layer, a
silty clay deposit (Unit 2) is present at variable depths and thickness. It appears that this silty clay layer is
continuous based on exploratory boreholes and monitoring well installations. The top of Unit 2 generally
slopes down from east to west across Section 32. In the eastern half of Section 32, groundwater in the shallow
unconfined aquifer occurs in Unit 2, and Unit 3 is above the water table. Unit 1, which consists of a relatively
thick silty sand layer, is present below the silty clay (Unit 2) at depths ranging from 40 to 45 feet below the
ground surface. Wells and piezometers, which penetrate into Unit 1, typically exhibit higher freshwater
equivalent heads than wells screened shallower in Units 2 and/or 3.

Because the shallow aquifer contains saline water with TDS concentrations ranging from approximately
30,000 mg/L in monitoring wells GW-26 and GW-63 to 100,000 mg/L in monitoring well GW-19A, it is
classified as Class IV groundwater based on the criteria of TDS greater than 10,000 mg/l of the Utah Ground
Water Quality Protection Regulations. Additionally, the saline water typically exhibits a specific gravity
averaging 1.033.

The majority of the recharge to the shallow aquifer appears to occur as vertical leakage from the deeper
confined aquifer. In addition, a small amount of vertical infiltration from the surface and some lateral
movement of water from the recharge zone to the east occurs. Movement in the shallow aquifer is primarily
laterally to the north, northeast and/or northwest.

The confined aquifer consists primarily of lacustrine deposits in Unit 1, which occurs below a depth of 40 to
45 feet. This deeper aquifer primarily consists of silty sand deposits with occasional silty clay layers and is
overlain by one or more silty clay layers. Wells completed with screened intervals located at least 70 to 100
feet below the ground surface have static fresh water equivalent levels ranging from 3 to 18 inches above
wells screened in the shallow, unconfined aquifer. Similarly, a well completed with screened interval located
between 320 and 350 feet below the ground surface have static fresh water equivalent levels ranging up to 20
inches above wells screened in the shallow, unconfined aquifer. In the vicinity of the GW-19A/B well nest,
increased water levels in the shallow aquifer have caused a downward switch in gradients at the southwest
corner of the site. It has been observed that as the mound decreases, and the site conditions return to normal,
the vertical gradient in GW-19A/B has decreased. It is anticipated that the gradient in this area will eventually
return to regional conditions.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-17 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

This deeper, confined aquifer also contains saline water with TDS concentrations well above 20,000 mg/l,
also classifying it as Class IV groundwater. However, it is generally better quality than the shallow
groundwater. The deeper saline groundwater typically exhibits a specific gravity on the order of 1.019.
Recharge to the deeper confined aquifer probably occurs south and east of the facility in the coarser alluvial
deposits adjacent to Lone Mountain.

Water level measurements from deeper monitor wells screened in Unit 1 between 70 and 350 feet below the
ground surface have also been obtained and analyzed. When comparing water levels within deep and shallow
monitor well clusters, the deep wells exhibit higher piezometric levels than the shallow wells, indicating an
upward vertical gradient of approximately one foot based on fresh water equivalent heads. While this is offset
somewhat by the downward density gradient of 0.2 feet, overall groundwater flow is from the confined to the
unconfined aquifer. Based on the historic minimum depth to groundwater, groundwater levels would need to
rise some 20 feet below the Federal Cell Facility to begin to threaten contact with disposed waste. The historic
minimum depth to shallow groundwater for this area is roughly 24 feet below original contour. The Federal
Cell Facility will be constructed by excavating approximately eight feet below the ground surface, then
constructing a two-foot-thick liner of compacted low-permeability clay. Therefore, the groundwater would
need to rise 18 feet and pass through the liner to threaten disposed waste.

2.5 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The site’s geotechnical characteristics are appropriate for siting disposal facilities (Geotechnical Analysis
included in Appendix E). Analyses have been conducted to measure the geotechnical characteristics and
features of the proposed Federal Cell Facility in accordance with the requirements of UAC R313-25-7(1) and
UAC R313-25-23. Information evaluated demonstrates that the geotechnical and geophysical field
investigations and laboratory and field testing are adequate; interpretations of the data to develop typical soil
and rock laying, typical cross-sections, and design parameters for use in design are reasonable and
conservative; and geotechnical characterization of the Clive site meets the applicable guidance and acceptance
criteria

A significant amount of field and laboratory information has been developed for the site and surrounding area,
as a result of studies and investigations conducted in and adjacent to Section 32. Available geotechnical data
adequately characterizes the subsurface soil conditions below the site. DOE collected initial geotechnical and
hydrogeologic information to locate and dispose of the Vitro uranium waste in the north central part of Section
32. Dames & Moore, Jacobs Engineering Group and CSU collected information for DOE between 1982 and
1984 (DOE, 1985b). Additionally, Delta Geotechnical collected geotechnical and hydrogeologic information
for EnergySolutions between 1988 and 1990 as part of the permitting process for the Mixed Waste landfill
cell. EnergySolutions has further updated and revised the data collected in the Revised Hydrogeologic Report
(Appendix E) and a Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan (Appendix D).

Lacustrine deposits typically comprise the soils encountered at the site. These soils consist of silty clays and
clayey silts, and oolitic silty sands and sands. Calcium carbonates in the form of aragonite and calcite
contribute as much as 60 percent of the total mineralogy of the clayey materials. The remaining mineralogy
consists of smectite, quartz, dolomite, K-feldspar, plagioclase, kaolin, illite and a trace of gypsum. Calcareous
n nature the oolitic silty sands and sands, ranging in size from approximately 0.08 mm to 4.0 mm, will fizz
when put in contact with dilute HCl.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-18 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Four hydrostratigraphic units have been delineated for the Clive site soils (extending from the surface, through
the unsaturated zone, and into the shallow aquifer). This upper most layer consists of an upper silty
clay/clayey silt (labeled Unit 4). Below the Unit 4 materials is an upper silty sand layer (Unit 3). Beneath the
Unit 3 materials is a middle silty clay layer (Unit 2). Finally, below the Unit 2 material is a lower sand/silty
sand layer (Unit 1).

The clayey soils, typically encountered from the surface down to a depth of 10 feet and between depths of 30
to 45 feet, typically are medium stiff, to stiff and moderately compressible. The majority of these clayey soils
exhibit low to moderate plasticity and moisture contents ranging from 20 to 40 percent by weight.

The silty sand and sand layers, typically encountered between a depth of 10 and 30 feet and below a depth of
45 feet, are medium dense and low to moderately compressible. Moisture contents of the silty sands above
the water table typically range from 5 to 15 percent by weight. Field investigations did not observe any adverse
conditions due to site characteristics that would affect the long-term performance of any of the Clive facilities
(AMEC, 2011). This assessment is also applicable to the Federal Cell Facility.

Basal-depth geotechnical analysis found carbonate mud; insoluble residue clayey material; sand-size grains
of quartz, muscovite; manganese dioxide; and weathered volcanic rock from 356 to 359 feed bgs. (Oviatt,
2020). Similarly, carbonate mud; insoluble residue clayey material; brown clay in vein-like bodies that range
in width from much-less-than 1 mm, to several mm; larger clay bodies, 1-2 cm in diameter; crystalline material
secondary or un-weathered phenocrysts; manganese dioxide; weathered volcanic rock; clays; and Mn-
dioxides at depths from 360 feet to 382 feet bgs. Breccia consisting of conglomerate, rounded to sub-angular
pebbles; calcareous cement; carbonate coated pebbles; clasts of coarse sand grains, well rounded; tiny quartz
crystals line some vugs; composition of clasts: sandstone, chert, limestone, soft carbonate mud, soft,
weathered volcanic rock; sand-sized dark mineral, feldspar, quartz, chert; most clasts sub-rounded to well
rounded; some clasts angular; well sorted, overall (no fines); and gravel cemented by calcium carbonate and
silica from 607 to 617 feet bgs (Oviatt, 2020).

EnergySolutions, (2019) describes the geologic information, shallow hydrogeologic cross-sections, shallow
groundwater elevation contour maps, and structure and isopach maps and evaluates current conditions at the
facility. EnergySolutions, (2019) also contains a complete and thorough evaluation of all groundwater and
vadose zone water quality available. It features graphs of temporal concentration trends for all compliance
monitoring parameters in each compliance monitoring well. It contains the number of water quality data
available for all compliance monitoring parameters in each compliance monitoring well. There has been
significant water quality data collected for the groundwater below Section 32. Since groundwater conditions
were characterized for all of Section 32, this information is applicable to the Federal Cell Facility.

EnergySolutions Clive Disposal Complex is an operational site that has access to adequate amounts of borrow
material for proposed operations in adjacent Sections (Sections 29 and 5) owned by EnergySolutions. The
rock and borrow material is abundant in the Grayback Mountains and EnergySolutions has a contract for
removal of sand and gravel from this site. EnergySolutions will continue to work with BLM and other
commercial vendors to ensure sufficient amounts of material are available to complete operations. The rock
must meet the construction quality assurance/quality control specifications prior to use.

EnergySolutions uses native clay materials from adjacent land owned by EnergySolutions for liner and radon
barrier construction. In other liner and cover construction activities, EnergySolutions has demonstrated that
the clays can be placed with a hydraulic conductivity as low as 1 x 10-6 cm/sec without any additives being
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-19 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

used. Similarly, a hydraulic conductivity as low as 5 x 10-8 cm/sec can be achieved with the use of a
deflocculant.

The calculations prepared in support of Radioactive Material License UT2300249 conservatively estimated
nearly 3.2 million cubic yards of available clays from borrow areas located within EnergySolutions’ property.
Similarly, at least 1.6 million cubic yards of mineral materials is available in the Grayback Hills source (BLM,
2012a).

As is summarized in Table 2-4, the four stratigraphic units beneath the site are comprised of alternating clayey
and sandy layers. All the units are Lake Bonneville lacustrine deposits and are part of the Lake Bonneville
Formation. Unit 4 is the upper silty clay layer and is unsaturated across the site. The Unit 3 silty sand layer
and Unit 2 silty clay layer comprise the upper aquifer. A confined aquifer extends from the top of the silty
sand, Unit 1, down several hundred feet to bedrock.

Hydrogeologic cross-sections that illustrate the distribution of these units beneath Section 32 are shown in
(EnergySolutions, 2019). The cross-sections are based on stratigraphic information from well, borehole,
piezometer, and lysimeter soil classification logs. Cross sections are included in EnergySolutions (2019).

2.6 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The site’s geochemical characteristics are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. A significant amount of
water quality data and geochemical information has been assembled for the subsurface soil and groundwater
below Section 32 (EnergySolutions, 2019). Since groundwater quality is well characterized for all of Section
32, this information is applicable to the facility (see Appendix F for EnergySolutions’ 2020 Annual
Groundwater Monitoring Report).

Federal Cell Facility design minimizes the potential for transport of contaminants away from the waste. The
cover reduces the potential for infiltration, which is already believed to be minimal in the area due to the low
incident precipitation and high potential evapotranspiration. Additionally, seepage is not expected to reach
the groundwater as a result of moisture redistribution within the disposal materials. The impact of this seepage
on the groundwater is expected to be minimal for several reasons:
1. Waste must not exhibit free liquids at the time of disposal;
2. The volume of seepage is small, generally occurring over a long period of time;
3. There are no receptors for groundwater contamination, due to the existing poor quality of the
groundwater;
4. The hydraulic head gradient in the groundwater is small, limiting the velocity of groundwater
movement away from the site to a maximum of 1.1 feet per year; and
5. Analyses project that it would take approximately 400 to 600 years for leachate to move through the
unsaturated zone and then another 800 years to travel to the nearest off-site groundwater well
(EnergySolutions, 2019).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-20 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 2-4

Geotechnical Properties of Clive Site Surface Soils

Approx.
Range of Particle Sizes (%)

Atterberg
Limits

Unit
Name

USCS

Thickness
(feet)

Sand

Silt

Clay

LL

PL
Bulk Density
(g/cc)
Unit 4 CL 8 - 15' 2 - 11 42 -56 38 - 56 35 22 1.37-1.66
Unit 3 SM 10 - 16' 46 - 89 8 - 39 8 - 16 NA NA 1.55-1.67
Unit 2 CL 12 - 20' 0 - 32 27 - 52 40 - 48 36 20 1.32
Unit 1 SM 100 + 40-60 20-30 10-20 NA NA NA
NA: Not Analyzed
Source: (DOE, 1984)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-21 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Available groundwater quality data indicates that the shallow, unconfined aquifer exhibits variable quality
within Section 32. Seasonal variations in water quality appear to be relatively small. However, spatial
variations appear to be significant. One indicator parameter, TDS, had concentrations ranging from
approximately 30,000 mg/L to 100,000 mg/l. Deeper screened wells below 70 feet exhibit lower TDS values
than the shallow screened wells. There are significant water quality variations in the shallow, unconfined
aquifer possibly due to the variations in subsurface soils that leach salts to the groundwater and the small
gradients and corresponding velocities in the shallow groundwater system, which limit the mixing of the
groundwater. Variations may also be related to groundwater mounding, which may dilute concentrations or
may increase some concentrations.

The water quality data collected for Section 32 includes results of laboratory analyses for organic, inorganic
and radionuclide constituents and is reported in annual monitoring reports to the Director. The inorganic
parameters analyzed indicate that many naturally present concentrations are above the Criterion 5C limits for
groundwater. Sulfate, chloride, and TDS concentrations in all wells also exceeded the EPA secondary
drinking water standards. Analytical results for the radionuclide parameters also indicate that gross alpha,
gross beta, sum of radiums, and total uranium have exceeded Utah’s Division of Drinking Water standards in
two or more of the wells. Because of this, it is concluded there would be a minimal potential for degradation
of water quality in the vicinity of the Clive site. The groundwater at the site is characterized as “a brine.”
The water is suitable for limited industrial uses, without prior extensive treatment. The nearest current use of
groundwater is located over three miles from the site and up-gradient.

EnergySolutions has performed geochemical compatibility testing of the brown and white Unit 4 clay
materials being utilized for the clay bottom liner of the Federal Cell Facility (Bingham, 1994). In addition to
the geochemical compatibility testing, EnergySolutions has also performed numerous permeability tests of
both the clay liner and radon barrier materials to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity and stability of the clay.
Physical and chemical analyses, designed to approximate 80 years of leachate contact with the Federal Cell
Facility liner material, show minimal loss of liner integrity for approximately 80 years, (demonstrating more
than adequate performance for the time period during which the Federal Cell Facility is open for operations).
This testing indicated that leachate will not reduce the hydraulic conductivity performance of the clay liner
below design specifications. At the conclusion of the testing, the samples stabilized at hydraulic conductivity
ranging from 5.0 x 10-8 to 1.0 x 10-7 cm/sec, comparable to their initial pre-test conductivities (Bingham,
1994). Once final cover is placed, infiltration will be minimized, and leachate will not build up on top of the
Federal Cell Facility liner.

Laboratory permeability tests of Clive’s clay indicated that no significant volume of soil was leached out
(even though approximately half is characterized as water soluble). Cation exchange capacity for the Unit 4
clay was determined to be 13.4 MEQ/100 g. In previous evaluations of distribution coefficient (kd) values
(calculated from available koc values), the organic percentage for Unit 3 was assumed to be 2 percent. This
percentage is the recommended value for “clean” soils without significant organic content.

2.7 NATURAL RESOURCES

The site’s natural resources are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. Continued exploitation of such
resources will not negatively impact the Federal Cell Facility’s ability to meet the performance objectives of
UAC R313-25-19 through -22.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-22 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

2.7.1 Geological Resources

The site’s geological resources are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. Natural resources in Tooele
County include limestone, metallic minerals, potassium, salts, tungsten, salt, clays, sand and gravel. Gravel
quarries are located in the alluvial fans that flank the Cedar Mountains (DOE, 1984). Limestone is quarried
in the Cedar Mountains about five miles east of the site. Presently, no oil or gas production takes place in
the area. Although the area has been classified as possibly valuable for oil and gas, the classification is
based on very general criteria. Additionally, little interest has been historically shown in the western desert
for oil and gas exploration. Previous exploration near the west side of the Great Salt Lake revealed a low-
grade product with little or no yield. There is neither coal production in the area nor geologic formations
with coal resources. No active or pending mining claims or mineral leases are located on the site.

2.7.2 Water Resources

The site’s water resources are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. In general, the use of groundwater and
surface water in the Great Salt Lake Desert is concentrated along mountain fronts where the majority of fresh
groundwater and spring discharge occurs. This water is obtained from wells located up-gradient of the
shallow aquifer below the site. Without extensive treatment, uses of the groundwater in the Clive area are
confined to limited industrial uses.

Other than the monitoring wells installed for the Vitro project, and wells used for construction and makeup
water during the Vitro project, there are no existing groundwater wells near the proposed Federal Cell Facility.
The closest known wells are approximately two to three miles west, northwest and east of the site. However,
the well west of the site has been destroyed. While one of the two wells east of the site is in current use to
water livestock, the second well has been destroyed.

2.8 BIOTIC FEATURES

As is recorded SWCA 2011 Study provided in Appendix G, the site’s biotic features are appropriate for siting
disposal facilities. In August 1993, NRC concluded an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and generated a
report detailing the potential impacts associated with the siting of EnergySolutions’ 11e.(2) disposal facility
in Utah’s West Desert. Subsequent to NRC’s EIS, EnergySolutions compiled an Environmental Assessment
in support of its application to renew Radioactive Material License UT2300478. In the process of creating
the EIS and EA, extensive research was performed into the vegetative and terrestrial populations in and around
Section 32. Even though it was originally conducted in support of the 11e.(2) Federal Cell Facility, the
analysis is applicable to this Application. Data from the EIS was later revisited by SWCA (SWCA, 2011).
This section summarizes ecological findings of SWCA and NRC.

The vegetation of the proposed Federal Cell Facility is a homogeneous, semi-desert low shrubland, primarily
composed of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia). The shrubland is part of the Northern Desert Shrub Biome of
the Cold Desert Formation and is described as a Saltbush (Shadscale)-Greasewood Shrub complex. Plant
communities identified on the site are Shadscale-Gray Molly (Kochia americana var. vestita), a transitional
community type of Shadscale-Gray Molly-Black Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and Black
Greasewood-Gardner Saltbush (Atriplex nuttallii). Dominant shrubs on the proposed Federal Cell Facility
include shadscale, Nuttall’s saltbush, and winterfat (SWCA, 2011). All three communities are low in species
diversity. The proposed Federal Cell Facility occurs in the Desert Alkali range site, which is rated by BLM
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-23 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

as being poor for grazing or forage production. However, the vegetation forms an important ground cover
and deterrent to soil erosion and provides habitat for wildlife species. Annual production of the three
community types ranged from 152 to 517 pounds per acre, air dry. Annual production for the range site is
given as 50 to 200 and 500 to 1,500 pounds per acre during unfavorable and favorable years, respectively.
Livestock carrying capacity with such production would range from 3 to 80 acres per animal-unit month.
Representative of the desert shrub/saltbush community are low widely spaced shrubs, totaling approximately
10 percent ground cover (Cronquist et. al, 1972).

Dominant shrubs on the proposed Federal Cell Facility include shadscale, Nuttall’s saltbush, and winterfat
(SWCA, 2011). Vegetation patterns of the proposed Federal Cell Facility are correlated with soil salinity and
corresponding shifts in presence or abundance of species. All three communities are low in species diversity.
Seep-weed or inkweed (Suaeda torreyana) and scattered perfoliate pepperweek (Lepidium perfoliatum) are
the only prominent understory species of the Shadscale-Gray Molly community. This community occurs over
most of the proposed Federal Cell Facility, although black greasewood becomes prominent enough in the
eastern quarter to form a Shadscale-Black Greasewood-Gray Molly community. Except for black greasewood
and occasional stands of halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), the composition is similar to the more prominent
Shadscale-Gray Molly community. Maximum root depth of the late successional shadscale species is reported
to be 39 inches, while fourwing saltbush roots generally extend to a maximum depth of 20 inches (SWCA,
2011).

Black greasewood may have tap roots that extend beyond 11 feet beneath the surface. The Black Greasewood-
Gardner Saltbush community type is floristically the most diverse, but only occurs in the extreme northeast
corner and eastern edge of the proposed Federal Cell Facility. In addition to Gardner saltbush, the flora is
composed of all species found in the other communities except halogeton.

In the SWCA Study (2011), forty-one plant species were identified. However, because many desert forbs are
spring ephemerals and field sampling was conducted at the end of a growing season, the plant species diversity
and cover, particularly for herbaceous forbs, was underrepresented. Of the few forb species that were
detected, all were dead or senesced, with the exception of Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), a late-season
invasive annual weed. Biological soil crusts are a dominant feature of vegetation communities throughout
the Great Salt Lake basin. Soil crusts were present in all vegetation associations sampled, but were more
prevalent in the low desert vegetation associations (e.g., black greasewood, haltogeton-disturbed, and
shadscale-gray molly) present on and adjacent to the proposed Federal Cell Facility.

SWCA also examined the root density and maximum rooting depth of dominant plant species on the proposed
Federal Cell Facility. Excavations were performed to obtain cross-sections of the rooting mass of dominant
plant species. The roots were carefully exposed by gradual removal of vertical layers of soil with the backhoe
and hand tools. Root density measurements were collected by measuring the width of the rooting mass and
by counting visible roots across a set of sample widths or for the entire width of the root mass. Observed root
densities were higher near the surface of the soil, where roots were mostly fibrous with few woody structures.
A few large, woody roots were encountered in deeper soils. Rooting depths were shallower than expected,
with the maximum rooting depth of dominant woody plant species ranging from 40 to 70 cm. Woody plant
species maximum rooting depths were proportional to aboveground plant mass with an above-ground height
root depth ratio of 1:1 and an above-ground width root depth ratio of approximately 1.4:1. The halogeton had
higher ratios of plant height and width to maximum rooting depth (1.4:1 and 1.7:1, respectively). The low
proportion of roots to above-ground biomass is expected for annual plants, which invest the bulk of their
energy in reproduction and little energy in root systems.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-24 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The proposed Federal Cell Facility is located within the year-long range of the pronghorn antelope. The West
Desert Herd Unit 2A occurs south of I-80 and includes the Clive site (BLM, 1988). Pronghorns are rare in
the project area south of Interstate-80. The area is considered poor pronghorn habitat. Interstate-80 acts as a
pseudo-barrier to most pronghorn movement south from the Puddle Valley Herd Unit.

Mourning doves are summer residents, arriving in February or March and migrating out of the area in August
or September. Doves are most abundant in edge or ecotone areas, particularly interspersions of agricultural,
sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper types. Mourning doves are the only game bird occurring on the proposed
Federal Cell Facility.

A variety of other non-game mammals, birds, and reptiles are supported by habitats found in the area and
associated utility, railroad, and access road rights-of-way. Species that may occur include the Townsend’s
ground squirrel, Ord’s kangaroo rat, desert woodrat, western harvest mouse, side-blotched lizard, gopher
snake, Brewer’s sparrow, black-throated sparrow, and horned lark (BLM, 1987).

Supplemental terrestrial life analysis, conducted by SWCA (2011), also observed species of small mammal:
deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), northern grasshopper mouse (Onchomys leucogaster), and Great
Basin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps). Deer mice accounted for 22 of the 24 captured mammals (92%).
One northern grasshopper mouse and one Great Basin kangaroo rat were captured. At a second sampling
location, SWCA observed deer mice comprised 84% of the captures, Great Basin kangaroo rats 14%, and
Ord’s kangaroo rat 2%. Ord’s kangaroo rats were captured only at this site.

SWCA also observed several ant mounds near the proposed Federal Cell Facility. A total of 1,624 ants in the
genus Pogonomyrmex was collected in SWCA Sample Locations and determined to be the western harvester
ant. Four other ants collected were determined to be in the genus Lasius, with species not positively
determined but most likely niger. The western harvester ant is a widely distributed ant occurring throughout
most of Utah and many other western states. It frequently occurs in areas that are relatively flat and have been
recently disturbed by human activities.

Aquatic ecosystems do not occur on or near the proposed Federal Cell Facility.

No important plant or animal species, as identified in NRC (1980a), are known to occur on the proposed
Federal Cell Facility and no known important habitats have been identified in the area. Furthermore, no
threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Federal Cell Facility.
However, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources reports that the area is used for foraging by bald eagles
and American peregrine falcon, which are federally listed endangered species, during the winter (SWCA,
2011). The bald eagle is a winter resident from late November to mid-March in the project vicinity. The
majority of wintering eagles are found in Rush Valley with others occurring in Skull and Cedar Valleys. No
bald eagle roosts are located within the proposed project area. However, the black-tailed jackrabbit is the
primary food source utilized by bald eagles in Tooele County (BLM 1988), and eagles potentially hunt within
this area.

One historical aerie of the American peregrine falcon was located near Timpie Springs Wildlife Management
Area in the northern end of the Stansbury Mountains. The nest site became inactive following the construction
of Interstate-80 in the late 1960s (BLM, 2012a). In an attempt to re-establish a breeding pair of peregrines,
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-25 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

erected a hack tower at the Timpie Springs Wildlife Management Area, approximately 26 miles from the
Clive site. The hack tower became active in 1983 and 1984. EnergySolutions monitored the site between
2005 and 2012, seeing no peregrine activity. Due to the distance between the proposed Federal Cell Facility
and the aerie, it is unlikely any peregrines utilize the project area.

The Great Basin fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus pubispinus) is currently under review for threatened status.
This species is associated with gravelly beach terraces of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville in western Tooele
County and is not expected to occur in the proposed Federal Cell Facility.

The Cedar Mountain has previously hosted approximately 362 horses or a range of 290 to 434 horses,
protected under the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (BLM, 2012b). This number
fluctuates due to horse movement between the Cedar Mountains, the Onaqui Mountains, and Dugway Proving
Grounds. Fences that might preclude horse movement between the three areas are generally insufficient to
deter movement. The current established appropriate management level for the Cedar Mountains is set at 190
horses on the low end and 390 at the upper level (BLM, 2012b). Dependable summer water sources are a
major problem. In drought years, natural water sources may dry up, generating the need for water to be trucked
in. Hauling water is a financial impact to BLM and the transportation infrastructure. In times of reducing
budgets, there is no certainty that BLM will be able to continue to haul water to wild horses in sufficient
quantity to insure the quality of their existence and avoid mortality. During drought, increased stress is also
placed on the water sources and adjacent vegetation as horses congregate around troughs whether or not water
is in the spring. Wild horses are seldom encountered on the proposed Federal Cell Facility (BLM, 2012b),
and are monitored so that the herd population does not exceed more than the environment could sustain
(Grams, 2009). No wild horses have been observed in the proposed Federal Cell Facility since 2012. The
state sensitive kit fox may occur throughout the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area (UDWR, 2010).

Because nationwide populations have been declining for the past 25 years, the Greater sage-grouse have been
designated a Federal Candidate species and heightened monitoring efforts are being conducted (UDNR,
2009). On March 5, 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced that greater sage-grouse now have a
“warranted, but precluded” status, meaning the Service considers the Sage-grouse warrant listing on the
Endangered Species Act, but that other species are a higher priority (BLM, 2012b). Because Sage-grouse
require large tracts of sagebrush plant communities for their life cycle, a range-wide Assessment of Greater
Sage-grouse included potential distribution in the West Desert, but noted that, “barren habitats west of the
Great Salt Lake and forested and alpine areas in mountainous areas were not historically occupied by sage-
grouse,” (UDNR, 2009).

The Assessment further noted that the most favorable Sage-grouse habitat is located near Vernon (eastern
Tooele County) and in the Ibapah (western Tooele County), (UDNR, 2009). In 2006, a total of 190 males
were counted on six mating sites in Vernon. In Ibapah, a total of 93 males were counted on five mating sites.
The Assessment notes that a variable but stable pattern in sage-grouse numbers has been observed near Vernon
since the late 1960s. However, because there has been difficulty in accessing private and Tribal lands, the
Assessment has not been able confirm a similar trend for Sage-grouse mating sites near Ibapah. No Sage-
grouse mating sites have been observed near the Clive facility. Additionally, the viable hazards identified
Assessment’s threat analysis (e.g., altered water distribution for irrigation, home and cabin development, tall
structure construction, and aggressive road construction) have negligible to no likelihood of occurrence at the
proposed Federal Cell Facility.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-26 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

2.9 SITE CHARACTERISTIC PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING

EnergySolutions’ preoperational characterization of the site is appropriate for siting disposal facilities. As is
summarized in Table 2-5, EnergySolutions and DOE have collected extensive radiological preoperational
environmental samples before starting major construction of its various licensed and permitted disposal
facilities and continues operational sampling according to the requirements of Radioactive Material Licenses
UT2300249 and UT2300478. Environmental results are reported semi-annually to the Director. In addition
to the proposed Federal Cell Facility, EnergySolutions also operates an adjacent Class A West Facility and
11e.(2) byproduct disposal facility under Agreement-State licenses issued by the Director. Because of the
facilities’ close proximity, locations used for monitoring both facilities will also inform environmental
monitoring for the Federal Cell Facility. Subsequently, the results of environmental monitoring performed at
those locations that are common to both facilities are reported to the Director.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 2-27 Section 2 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 2-5

Preoperational Radioactivity Concentrations in Soil

RADIONUCLIDE
CONCENTRATION RANGE
(pCi/g)
Curium-244 0.0 +/- 0.1 - 0.1 +/- 0.1
Plutonium-238 0.0 +/- 0.1 - 0.0 +/- 0.1
Plutonium-239/240 0.0 +/- 0.1 - 0.1 +/- 0.2
Plutonium-241 0.0 +/- 0.1 - 0.0 +/- 1.6
Plutonium-242 0.0 +/- 0.1 - 0.3 +/- 0.4
Uranium-238 0.7 +/- 0.1 - 1.1 +/- 0.1
Thorium-232 0.9 +/- 0.1 - 1.1 +/- 0.2
Thorium-230 1.1 +/- 0.2 - 1.6 +/- 0.2
Radium-226 0.9 +/-0.1 - 1.2 +/- 0.1
Lead-210 1.1 +/- 0.1 - 1.8 +/- 0.2
Polonium-210 1.5 +/- 0.6 - 2.6 +/- 0.6
Cesium-137 0.4 +/- 0.1 - 1.1 +/- 0.2
Iodine-129 0.4 +/- 3.6 - 0.0 +/- 6.6
Technetium-99 0.0 +/- 0.7 - 0.7 +/- 1.0
Strontium-90 0.3 +/- 0.3 - 0.3 +/- 0.4
Nickel-63 0.0 +/- 3.1 - 5.0 +/- 1.4
Iron-55 0.0 +/- 2.1 - 0.0 +/- 2.9
Potassium-40 12.3 +/- 0.4 - 13.4 +/- 0.5
Carbon-14 0.0 +/- 6.6 - 3.1 +/- 8.9
Source: (DOE, 1984)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-1 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

As is depicted on the Engineering Drawings included as Appendix H, EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility
design is a near-surface landfill. EnergySolutions’ proposes that the Federal Cell Facility be constructed using
materials native to the site or found in close proximity to the site (see material calculations reported in
Appendix J). Engineered features of the Federal Cell Facility, documented in the Federal Cell Facility
Construction Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manual (FCF CQA/QC Manual), and are designed based
upon State of Utah regulations, NRC guidance, EPA guidance, and EnergySolutions’ past experience at this
location (see Appendix I). Principal design features of the Federal Cell Facility include: clay liner, waste
placement, backfill placement, final cover, drainage systems, and a buffer zone. Adequate auxiliary systems
and facilities already supporting EnergySolutions’ other disposal facilities include utility systems, operational
support facilities, fire protection systems, and water management systems.

The general design requirements for the licensing the Federal Cell Facility are set forth in the UAC R313-25,
administered by the Director. UAC Rule R313-25-25 outlines six design requirements for near-surface land
disposal of radioactive waste as follows:
1. Site design features shall be directed toward long-term isolation and avoidance of the need for
continuing active maintenance after closure;
2. The disposal site design and operation shall be compatible with the disposal site closure and
stabilization plan and lead to disposal site closure that provides reasonable assurance that the
performance objectives will be met;
3. The disposal site shall be designed to complement and improve, where appropriate, the ability of the
disposal site’s natural characteristics to assure that the performance objectives will be met;
4. Covers shall be designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, water infiltration, to direct percolating
or surface water away from the disposed waste, and to resist degradation by surface geologic
processes and biotic activity;
5. Surface features shall direct surface water drainage away from disposal units at velocities and
gradients which will not result in erosion that will require ongoing active maintenance in the future;
and
6. The disposal site shall be designed to minimize to the extent practicable the contact of standing water
with waste during disposal, and the contact of percolating or standing water with wastes after disposal.

UAC R313-25-23 requires that the Federal Cell Facility be sited, designed, used, operated, and closed to
achieve long-term stability of the disposal site without the perpetual need for ongoing active maintenance.
Radiation protection standards are set forth in UAC R313-25-19, R313-15-301 and R313-15-302.

The Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has adopted performance based Best Available Technology
(BAT) standards for EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility, requiring that groundwater protection standards
will not be exceeded at compliance wells within 200 years for non-radioactive hazardous constituents and
within 500 years for radioactive constituents (where 10,000-year compliance period is required by UAC
R313-25-9(5)(a)).

Where required design criteria set forth specific criteria, the facility has been designed to meet that
requirement, such as the DWQ water quality protection levels. However, the general criteria that the facility
design must “achieve long-term stability... to eliminate, to the extent practicable, the need for ongoing active
maintenance of the disposal site after closure,” requires a determination of the meaning of “long-term.” UAC
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-2 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

R313-25-9(5) requires a performance assessment successfully demonstrate that the performance standards
specified in 10 CFR Part 61 and corresponding provisions of Utah rules will be met for the total quantities of
concentrated depleted uranium for a compliance period of 10,000 years. EnergySolutions has adopted this
standard to determine the design criteria for long-term stability.

Site characteristics that influence the extent to which radioactive material may be released to the general
environment and potentially cause radiation exposure to members of the general public include: precipitation
rate, depth to groundwater, dissolved solids content of groundwater, and probable maximum magnitude of
flood events. Proposed Federal Cell Facility design, operating, and closure features complement and improve
the ability of the site to limit the release of radioactive material from the site and potentially cause radiation
exposure to members of the general public include the following: multi-layer engineered cover system; waste
emplacement procedures and configurations that produce a stable disposal embankment; clay liner under
disposed waste with permeability greater than that of the cover system; inventories of radionuclides disposed
in the Federal Cell Facility will meet limitation requirements determined through the performance assessment
analyses and final cover will not be constructed until settlement is shown to be within acceptable limits. The
site characteristics that influence the extent to which individuals may be exposed to radiation during facility
operations include a sparse population density in vicinity of the disposal embankment.

Design, operating, and closure features complement and improve the ability of the site to limit the extent to
which individuals may be exposed to radiation during facility operations include: waste with highest
radioactive concentrations and hazards are contained in shipping containers that are disposed of without
opening them; and waste handling and placement operations are conducted so as to limit the release of
radioactive materials during operations.

The site characteristics that influence the extent to which long-term stability of the disposal site is achieved
and to which the need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal site following closure is eliminated
include: average annual precipitation rate is less than 9 inches per year; and concentration of dissolved solids
in groundwater is greater than 20,000 mg/L.

Design, operating, and closure features provided that complement and improve the ability of the site to limit
the extent to which long-term stability of the disposal site is achieved and to which the need for ongoing active
maintenance of the disposal site following closure is eliminated include: the final cover will not be constructed
until the Federal Cell Facility settlement has been demonstrated to be within acceptable limits The cover
system is designed to limit the potential for water erosion and wind erosion. Internal erosion between layers
of the cover system side slope will be minimized or prevented by adhering to specified design (e.g., filter)
criteria during construction The proposed cover system slopes have been demonstrated to be stable under
static and dynamic conditions; and the permeability of the cover system is designed and would be constructed
to be lower than that of the liner system.

Based on the information herein summarized, the proposed Federal Cell Facility is designed to complement
and improve, where appropriate, the ability of the disposal site's natural characteristics to assure that the
performance objectives will be met.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-3 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

3.1 PRINCIPAL DESIGN FEATURES

As is summarized in Table 3-1, the Federal Cell Facility is designed with cover, backfill placement, waste
placement configurations, liner, drainage systems and a buffer zone as critical principal features that provide
long-term isolation of disposed depleted uranium, minimize the need for continued active maintenance after
Facility closure, and improve the Facility’s natural characteristic in order to protect public health and safety.
These principal design features minimize the infiltration of water into the Federal Cell Facility; ensures the
integrity of the Facility’s cover; provides for structural stability of backfill, concentrated depleted uranium
and cover; minimize contact of concentrated depleted uranium with standing water, provide adequate drainage
during operations and after Facility closure, facilitate site closure and stabilization, minimize the need for
long-term maintenance, provide barrier against inadvertent intrusion, maintain occupational exposure as low
as is reasonably achievable, provide adequate disposal site monitoring, and provide an adequate buffer zone
for monitoring and potential mitigative action.

Cover System
The Federal Cell Facility’s cover design is engineered to reduce infiltration, prevent erosion, and protect from
radionuclide exposure by limiting water flow to monitoring wells (for at least 500 years in compliance with
the Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit conditions and 10,000 years in compliance with UAC R313-25-
9.5.a), increasing evapotranspiration from the top slope and promoting runoff via steeply sloped sides. The
general design aspect of the Federal Cell Facility is that of a hipped cover, with relatively steeper sloping sides
nearer the edges. The upper part of the Federal Cell Facility, known as the top slope, has a moderate slope,
while the side slope is markedly steeper. The top slopes of the cell will be finished at a 2.4% grade, with side
slopes at 20%. The depleted uranium waste disposal region of the Federal Cell Facility is also constructed
such that a portion of it lies below-grade. The overall length of the Federal Cell Facility is 1,920 ft, and the
overall width is 1,226.5 ft. Since depleted uranium waste is only placed beneath the top slope of the Facility’s
cover, the depth of the waste below the top slope is a maximum of 37.8 ft. As shown within the drawings in
Appendix H, the design includes both a low-angled top slope and steeper side slope section of the cover. The
layers to be used in the Federal Cell Facility top slope (constructed to 2.4%) cover consist of the following,
from top to bottom:
• Surface layer: This layer is composed of native vegetated Unit 4 material with 15 percent gravel
mixture. This layer is 12 inches thick. The functions of this layer are to control runoff, minimize
erosion, and maximize water loss from evapotranspiration. This layer of silty clay provides storage
for water accumulating from precipitation events, enhances losses due to evaporation, and provides a
rooting zone for plants that will further decrease the water available for downward movement. A
residual moisture content meeting or exceeding 3.5% is required for surface layer soils (as required
by Condition 1.D.4.a(3) of the GWQDP), with gradations meeting the specifications reported on
Drawing 10014-C04.
• Evaporative Zone layer: This layer is composed of Unit 4 material. The thickness of this layer is 12
inches. The purpose of this layer is to provide additional storage for precipitation and additional depth
for plant rooting zone to maximize evapotranspiration. A residual moisture content meeting or
exceeding 3.5% is required for evaporation zone layer soils (as required by Condition 1.D.4.a(3)
of the GWQDP), with gradations meeting the specifications reported on Drawing 10014-C04.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-4 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 3-1: Design Criteria of the Principle Design Features

Principal
Design
Feature
Required
Function
Complementary
Aspects
Design Criteria Design Criteria Justification Conditions

Liner

Minimize contact
of wastes with
standing water

Minimize contact of
wastes with standing
water during
operations

Permeability
 1 x 10-4 cm/sec
Prevent contact of water with waste.
Operational experience shows that 10-4
cm/sec permeability promotes runoff and
allows accumulation of water to occur. Water
is then removed by pumping.
normal 25 yr. 24 hr. storm
abnormal 100 yr. 24 hr. storm
accident Heavy equipment damage to liner
Minimize contact of
wastes with standing
water after closure

Liner permeability  cover permeability

Inflow into embankment < outflow out of
embankment.
normal Liner and cover retain design permeability over time
abnormal Degraded cover
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

Ensure cover
integrity

Mitigate differential
settlement

Maximum allowable distortion in
cover = 0.02

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)
normal Settlement completed during operations
abnormal One area to cover height with adjacent area less than 25 feet
high
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

Waste
Placement

Ensure cover
integrity

Mitigate differential
settlement

Maximum allowable distortion in
cover = 0.02

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive
Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”
normal All primary and portion of secondary settlement in soil layers
complete during construction and 100-year institutional control
period
abnormal Creep of compressible waste and additional secondary
settlement of soils after 100-year institutional control period.
accident Not required per NUREG-1199
Ensure structural stability
Maintain slope stability
Static safety factor  1.5
Seismic safety factor
 1.2
State of Utah Statutes and Administrative Rules for Dam Safety, Rule R625-11-6

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)
normal Static conditions
abnormal Earthquake
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

Backfill

Ensure cover
integrity

Mitigate differential
settlement

Maximum allowable distortion in
cover = 0.02

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive
Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”
normal All primary and portion of secondary settlement in soil layers
complete during construction and 100-year institutional control
period
abnormal Creep of compressible waste and additional secondary
settlement of soils after 100-year institutional control period.
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-5 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal
Design
Feature
Required
Function
Complementary
Aspects
Design Criteria Design Criteria Justification Conditions

Ensure structural
stability

Maintain slope stability

Static safety factor  1.5
Seismic safety factor  1.2

State of Utah Statutes and Administrative
Rules for Dam Safety, Rule R625-11-6

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

normal Static conditions
abnormal Earthquake
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

`

Cover

Minimize
infiltration

Minimize infiltration
Average Infiltration  0.036
inches/year
(0.09 cm/year) top
slope0.066 inches/year
(0.168 cm/year) side slope

Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
Neptune 2015 (Appendices Q)
normal Average annual precipitation (7.92 ")
abnormal All abnormal conditions related to the Complementary Aspects
of "Encourage Runoff", "Desiccation", "Frost Penetration", and
"Biointrusion".
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

Encourage runoff
Maintain positive drainage;
Maximum design velocity within
drainage layer > calculated
drainage velocities;
Do not allow water accumulation

Drainage (flow) needs to be maintained under
all conditions
normal 100 yr. 24 hr. storm
abnormal PMP (1-hour = 6.1 inches)
accident Downstream blockage
Prevent desiccation No desiccation cracking in Radon
Barrier Clay
Ensure infiltration design criteria is attained normal Historic weather patterns
abnormal Drought
accident NA

Limit frost penetration
Thickness of rock/filter/sacrificial
soil zones  maximum depth of
frost (3 feet)
Ensure infiltration design criteria is attained normal Historic weather patterns
abnormal Monthly average minimum temperatures below those
predicted by the 500 year return frequency
accident Not required per NUREG-1199
Limit biointrusion Biointrusion shall be discouraged and shall not cause increased infiltration
Ensure infiltration design criteria is attained normal Desert plant growth (shallow rooted)
abnormal Desert plant growth (deep rooted)
accident Not required per NUREG-1199

Reduce Exposures

Surface dose rates

100 mrem TEDE

R313-15-301
normal Low to moderate gamma emitters
abnormal High gamma emitter at top of waste
accident NA

Ensure Cover Integrity
Mitigate Differential Settlement
Maximum Allowable Distortion = 0.02
Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive Facility (Appendix M) AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”
normal All primary and portion of secondary settlement in soil layers complete, no container deterioration up to 100 years
abnormal Container deterioration after 100 years, allowing creep of
compressible waste and additional secondary settlement of
soils. Earthquake.
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199

Prevent NUREG/CR-4620 normal 100 yr. 24 hr. storm
abnormal PMP (1-hour = 6.1 inches)
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-6 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal
Design
Feature
Required
Function
Complementary
Aspects
Design Criteria Design Criteria Justification Conditions

Cover

Ensure
Cover
Integrity
Internal
Erosion
Water velocity < 5.41 ft/sec on
Radon Barrier Clay
(see Appendix L) accident Not Required per NUREG-1199

Prevent Piping:
D15(filter)/D85(soil)  5 AND
D50(filter)/D50(soil)  25

Prevent Upward Migration of
Fines
D15(Lower Layer)/D85(Upper
Layer)  4
Reduce plugging of lower filter layer.
Cedergren, H.R., (1977), "Seepage,
Drainage, and Flow Nets" second edition,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 178-182.

DOE, 1989. Technical Approach Document,
Revision II, UMTRA-DOE/Al 050425.0002,
pp. 82-83
normal
Performance calculations are developed for saturated
conditions within dams. Conditions at Clive are much less
severe.

DOE ratios have been developed for abnormal saturated
conditions within an UMTRA embankment.
abnormal
accident
Material Stability / Endure Weathering, External Erosion
10,000 year life NUREG-1623 NUREG/CR-4620 (Appendix L)
normal Historic Weather Patterns
abnormal PMP (1-hour = 6.1 inches)
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199

Ensure
Structural
Stability
Settlement
Long Term Cover Drainage (No Slope Reversal)
Minimize Ponding
normal Evenly Distributed Weight Loading
abnormal Creep of compressible waste and additional secondary
settlement of soils after 100-year institutional control period.
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199
Maximum Total Settlement
 15% of Embankment Height

Highway embankments and major waste
storage embankments have settled up to 15%
of their height and performed adequately

normal Evenly Distributed Weight Loading
abnormal Creep of compressible waste and additional secondary
settlement of soils after 100-year institutional control period.
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199
Maintain
Slope
Stability

Static Safety Factor  1.5
Seismic Safety Factor  1.2

State of Utah Statutes and Administrative
Rules for Dam Safety, Rule R625-11-6
normal Static Conditions
abnormal Earthquake
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199

Drainage Systems

Provide Site Drainage

Facilitate flow away
from the embankment
Depth of water < depth of ditch.
Promote free flowing conditions.
Freeboard  0.5 foot under
normal conditions.

Minimize potential infiltration into the waste.
normal 25 yr. 24 hr. storm
abnormal 100 yr. 24 hr. storm
accident Downstream Blockage

Minimize Infiltration
under flood conditions
Flood water shall dissipate faster
than water travels through the
cover system.
Ponded flood water would promote infiltration.
So long as flood water drains or evaporates
faster than the travel time through the cover,
increased infiltration will be minimized.
normal 100 year flood (3,802 cfs)
abnormal PMF (48,500 cfs)
accident Downstream Blockage
Ensure Ditch
Integrity
Prevent
Internal
Erosion

Size of rock able to handle
stresses related to flow

NUREG/CR-4620 - (Appendix L)
NUREG-1623
normal 25 yr. 24 hr. storm
abnormal 100 yr. 24 hr. storm
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-7 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal
Design
Feature
Required
Function
Complementary
Aspects
Design Criteria Design Criteria Justification Conditions

Buffer
Zone

Provide Site
Monitoring

Not applicable

Sized adequate for monitoring
and corrective measures

Compliance monitoring
normal No releases
abnormal Contaminant releases
accident Not Required per NUREG-1199

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-1 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• Frost Protection Layer: This material ranges in size from 16 inches to clay size particles. This layer
is 18 inches thick. The purpose of this layer is to protect layers below from freeze/thaw cycles,
wetting/drying cycles, and to inhibit plant, animal, or human intrusion. (as required by Condition
1.D.4.a(3) and the rock scoring specifications in the FCF CQA/QC Manual). Environmental
sampling and performance modeling demonstrates that the frost depth will not exceed the
cumulative depths of the surface, evaporation zone, and frost protection layers (Montgomery
Watson, 2000; Western Regional Climate Center, 2000; RBG 2020).
• Upper Radon Barrier: This layer consists of 12 inches of compacted clay with a low hydraulic
conductivity. This layer has the lowest conductivity of any layer in the cover system. This is a barrier
layer that reduces the downward movement of water to the waste and the upward movement of gas
out of the disposal cell. The as-built saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of this layer is 5x10-8 cm/s.
Modeling further demonstrates that the steady-state moisture content of the clay radon barrier will
remain constant throughout the life of the Facility.
• Lower Radon Barrier This layer consists of 12 inches of compacted clay with a low hydraulic
conductivity. This is a barrier layer placed directly above the waste that reduces the downward
movement of water. The as-built Ksat of this layer is 1x10-6 cm/s. Modeling further demonstrates that
the steady-state moisture content of the clay radon barrier will remain constant throughout the life of
the Facility.

The layers used in the Federal Cell Facility side slope cover (constructed to 20%) consist of the following,
from top to bottom:

• Rip Rap cobbles. Approximately 18-inches of Type-A rip rap will be placed on the side slopes
above the Type-A filter zone. The Type-A rip rap ranges in size from 2 to 16 inches (equivalent to
coarse gravel to boulders) with a nominal diameter of 12 inches. Engineering specifications indicate
that 100% of the Type-A rip rap would pass a 16-inch screen and not more than 15% would pass a
4½-inch screen (as required by Condition 1.D.4.a(1) and the rock scoring specifications in the FCF
CQA/QC Manual).
• Filter Zone. The thickness of the Type B filter in the side slope will be 12 inches. The Type B filter
material in the side slope will consist of granular material with a particle size ranging from 0.3125
to 3.0 inches in diameter (coarse sand to fine cobble) and a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 42
cm/sec. In order to promote drainage and avoid ponding, the filter zone is constructed with a
specification that its permeability exceed 3.5 cm/sec, with strict gradation specifications (as
reported on Drawing 10014-C04) and rock scoring testing exceeding 50 (as required by
specifications of the FCF CQA/QC Manual and Condition I.D.4.a(5) of the GWQDP).
• Frost Protection Layer (Sacrificial Soil). This material ranges in size from 16 inches to clay size
particles. This layer is 18 inches thick. The purpose of this layer is to protect layers below from
freeze/thaw cycles, wetting/drying cycles, and to inhibit plant, animal, or human intrusion. A
residual moisture content meeting or exceeding 3.5% is required for sacrificial soils (as required
by Condition 1.D.4.a(3) of the GWQDP), with gradations meeting the specifications reported on
Drawing 10014-C04. FCF CQA/QC Manual specifications frost protection layer require runoff
water velocities not to exceed 2.3 x 10-2 ft/sec during typical rainfall events and 8.0 x 10-4 ft/sec
during Probable Maximum Precipitation events (Whetstone, 2005; Neptune 2020). Environmental
sampling and performance modeling demonstrates that the frost depth will not exceed the
cumulative depths of the rip rap, filter zone, and frost protection layers (Montgomery Watson,
2000; Western Regional Climate Center, 2000; RBG 2020).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-2 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• Upper Radon Barrier. This layer consists of 12 inches of compacted clay with a low hydraulic
conductivity. This layer has the lowest conductivity of any layer in the cover system. This is a
barrier layer that reduces the downward movement of water to the waste and the upward movement
of gas out of the disposal cell. The as-built Ksat of this layer is 5x10-8 cm/s. Modeling further
demonstrates that the steady-state moisture content of the clay radon barrier will remain constant
throughout the life of the Facility.
• Lower Radon Barrier This layer consists of 12 inches of compacted clay with a low hydraulic
conductivity. This is a barrier layer placed directly above the waste that reduces the downward
movement of water. The as-built Ksat of this layer is 1.x10-6 cm/s. In order to ensure cover long-
term performance, clays are selected for radon barrier construction that have 85% fines (< 0.075
mm), a plasticity index between 10 and 25, and a liquid limit between 30 and 50. The clays must
also demonstrate an ability to be compacted to 95% of a standard proctor when moisture contents
are maintained between optimum and optimum plus 5% (as required by specifications of the FCF
CQA/QC Manual and Condition I.D.4.a(5) of the GWQDP). Modeling further demonstrates that the
steady-state moisture content of the clay radon barrier will remain constant throughout the life of the
Facility.

Backfill Placement
Since depleted uranium can only be placed beneath grade and then entombed by Controlled Low-Strength
Material (CLSM), unit 3 soils will be placed above grade to the design height of approximately 38 feet above
grade. Above grade backfill placement in the Federal Cell Facility will be controlled in accordance with the
FCF CQA/QC Manual, Work Element – Backfill Placement. No other novel engineering designs or
construction methods will be required for backfill placement within the Federal Cell Facility.

Waste Placement Configurations
When placing depleted uranium waste in the proposed Federal Cell Facility, EnergySolutions will utilize
construction specifications detailed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. The specifications methods within this
manual have been previously approved in other CQA/QC Manuals, and successfully implemented in the
construction of other waste embankments at Clive. No other novel engineering designs or construction
methods will be required for management of waste or construction of the Federal Cell Facility, nor will the
waste disposed in the Federal Cell Facility differ from waste currently being disposed in other disposal
facilities in EnergySolutions’ Clive Disposal Complex in regard to radioactivity, physical form, or potential
hazard.

The principal objectives of the Federal Cell Facility design are to: (1) provide long-term isolation of disposed
depleted uranium waste, (2) minimize the need for continued active maintenance after site closure, and (3)
augment the site’s natural characteristics in order to protect public health and safety. EnergySolutions has
designed the Federal Cell Facility to effectively control any radioactive release for at least 10,000 years.
Accordingly, the principal design features include those elements of the completed Federal Cell Facility that
impact long-term performance of the facility.

Concentrated depleted uranium disposal in the Federal Cell Facility will be limited to the bottom of the
Facility, below native grade and only under the cover’s top slope. Dimensions for the depleted uranium
disposal zone are approximately 7.4 feet thick by 877 feet wide (east–west) by 1570 feet long (north–south)
(see design drawings in Appendix H). This equates to a design capacity for depleted uranium disposal of about
10.2 million cubic feet, all below native grade. To ensure stability, EnergySolutions commits to placing
controlled low-strength material (CLSM) backfill between the depleted uranium cylinders and drums. The
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-3 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

addition of the CLSM matrix fills voids and prevents subsidence. FCF CQA/QC Manual specifications further
limit the differential settlement of placed wastes to 0.01 under abnormal conditions. Similarly, waste
placement configuration is designed to ensure a static safety factor meets or exceeds 2.1 (with a minimum
static factor of safety of 1.5) and a seismic safety factor (abnormal conditions) meets or exceeds 1.2. Other
construction specifications for application of CLSM are provided in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. No revision
to this specification will be needed for construction of the proposed Federal Cell Facility.

Liner
The general design aspect of the Federal Cell Facility is that of a hipped cover, with relatively steeper sloping
sides nearer the edges. The embankment is constructed such that a portion of it lies below-grade into the native
Unit 4 silty clay soil (8 feet). Waste will be placed above a constructed liner consisting of a two-foot-thick
layer of compacted Unit 4 clayey soils, covered by 1 foot of liner protective media (using Unit 4 clayey soils).
Groundwater does not need to be directed away from the proposed Federal Cell Facility, since the lowest top
of liner elevation is more than 13 feet above the highest recorded elevation for the upper, unconfined aquifer.
The lowest top of liner elevation will be at approximately 4,262 feet above sea level (see Drawing 14004-C02
in Appendix H); the highest recorded elevation for the upper, unconfined aquifer, based on available data
from recent years for wells near the proposed Federal Cell Facility is 4,251.3 feet above sea level. FCF
CQA/QC Manual specifications limit in-service liner performance to a maximum distortion of 0.001 under
normal conditions and 0.007 under abnormal conditions.

The clay liner proposed for the Federal Cell Facility is identical to that approved for EnergySolutions’ other
disposal embankments. The proposed Federal Cell Facility liner system consists of a prepared foundation
overlain by a two-foot-thick layer of compacted clay having a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-6
cm/sec or less. The permeability of the Federal Cell Facility liner will be less than or equal to 1 x 10-4 cm/sec
and greater than that of its cover system. Existing terrain has been excavated to a depth of approximately
seven to ten feet below native grade. Excavation depth is determined based on the top of liner elevation shown
on design drawings. The minimum excavation depth is two feet deeper than the top of liner elevation shown
on design drawings. Overburden removed in reaching foundation elevation is stockpiled for future use in liner
construction, capping the embankment, or as fill material. The embankment foundation is prepared from in-
situ soils to meet design, grade, and compaction specifications. Specifications and inspection activities for
foundation preparation are detailed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. Clay liner construction methods are
approved with the satisfactory construction of a clay liner test pad, as detailed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
The equipment and procedures used for the test pad are reviewed and approved by a professional engineer
qualified to certify such soil considerations. The test pad method is then reviewed and approved for
construction by the Director.

Drainage Systems
The post-closure drainage system surrounding the proposed Federal Cell Facility has been designed to direct
flow from ambient precipitation away from the side slope of the disposal unit. The current drainage system
routes the flows from the proposed Federal Cell Facility beginning from a high point at the northwest corner,
around both sides, to the south-east corner. From that point, the combined flow runs south to the westward
flowing ditch that runs along the south boundary of Section 32. That south ditch currently carries stormwater
from all embankments in Section 32. The revised drainage system depicted on the drawings isolates
stormwater flows from the proposed Federal Cell Facility and route them to the southwest corner of proposed
Federal Cell Facility, then southward along the west edge of Section 32, where the flow will discharge at the
southwest corner of Section 32.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-4 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Drainage system design for the proposed Federal Cell Facility is a minimum of 4 feet deep. Rock armoring
of the drainage ditches consists of Type A filter material and rip rap (with a D50 of 4.5 inches as required in
the FCF CQA/QC Manual). A site-wide drainage evaluation was performed, and total ditch flow calculations
have been included as Appendix K. The ditch flow calculations were devised to determine whether ditch
designs associated with the proposed Federal Cell Facility were rigorous enough to withstand both the normal
(25-year, 24 hour) and abnormal (100 year, 24 hour) storm conditions. Flow calculations were also performed
for the drainage ditch system along the southern edge of Section 32 as water for all of the embankments will
flow through these ditches before reaching the drainage system outlet.

Flow velocities for the proposed Federal Cell Facility drainage ditches were calculated based on the drawings
provided in Appendix H. Upon obtaining flow velocities, storm events were calculated using isopluvial maps
and calculations provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Atlas 14,
Volume 1, Version 5). Drainage areas, previously calculated for other designed embankments at the Clive
facility, have been included with that from the proposed Federal Cell Facility. These drainage areas, and ditch
volume equations were used to ascertain whether upstream storage would cause ditch overflow given the
normal (25-year, 24 hour) and abnormal (100 year, 24 hour) storm conditions.

Drainage calculations were performed first for the proposed Federal Cell Facility ditches and the Section 32
southern ditches (as a representation of total site drainage). These calculations illustrate that current ditch
designs meet drainage systems design criterion for the proposed Federal Cell Facility, and are adequate to
handle site-wide flows associated with both the normal and abnormal storm events during operations.

Buffer Zone
Following completion of the construction and closure of all embankments at the Clive Facilities,
EnergySolutions’ licensed area (Section 32) will be permanently fenced and posted, leaving a buffer zone
between the toe of waste from each embankment and the Section 32 perimeter fence. This allows room inside
of the fence for an inspection roadway and groundwater monitoring wells. With the exception of the Vitro-
EnergySolutions property line, a buffer zone of at least 300 feet will be maintained between the closest edge
of any Facility (i.e., toe of waste) and the outside site boundary or property line. This 300-foot buffer zone is
a requirement of the facility’s Conditional Use Permit issued by Tooele County and ensures ground water
protection limits are not exceeded at offsite monitoring wells within 10,000 years of Facility closure (Neptune
2020).

Permanent site boundary markers are affixed to provide documentation of the exact location of the disposal
facilities. The markers are United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrant “brass cap” markers, whose
design disposal facility locations have been verified by licensed surveyors. All locations have been tied into
the USGS survey control stations. Upon closure, permanent markers will be placed at the head and toe of
each disposal facility.

EnergySolutions controls all access to property at the Clive facility, through fences, gates, and security
monitoring. Drawing set 14004 (provided in Appendix H) shows the relationship between the Federal Cell
Facility and the property boundaries. All areas utilized for depleted uranium material receiving, unloading,
hauling, handling, and placement in the Federal Cell Facility will be considered a Restricted-Access (or
Controlled) Area, (as defined in UAC R313-15-2). As such, any person entering the Controlled Area must
check in and out through Access Control, or through a truck/vehicle entrance gate. Radiation exposure to
persons working within the controlled area is monitored using Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters (TLD), or
equivalent monitoring devices. The fence is conspicuously posted with “Caution -- Radioactive Materials”
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-5 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

signs bearing the standard radiation symbol. Other signs are posted as appropriate. The Restricted Area
boundary may change as waste placement proceeds in the Federal Cell Facility. There are not, however, any
changes proposed to the requirements for control of the Restricted Areas as part of this Application.

3.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR NORMAL AND ABNORMAL/ACCIDENT CONDITIONS

In this Application, each of the aspects of the Federal Cell Facility principal design features has been analyzed
for normal conditions, abnormal conditions, and potential accident conditions (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3). The
review demonstrates that each aspect of the facility remains stable through these conditions.

In NUREG-1199 (section 6.3.2), NRC contemplates evaluation of design against a factor of safety only in the
area of slope stability analysis. In the context of retention systems at uranium recovery facilities, Regulatory
Guide 3.11 (Revision 3, November 2008) further elaborates on the factors of safety considered in slope
stability analysis. Importantly, Regulatory Guide 3.11 defines allowable minimum factors of safety for
earthquake and liquefaction analyses as being 1.0. As with previous licensing actions that consider disposal
facility performance against various design criteria, a minimum factor of safety of 1.0 is applied to the Federal
Cell Facility.

Although factors of safety are not required by NRC to be developed for each aspect of the design, a factor of
safety is calculated for each design criteria where supporting analyses provides a value for comparison. This
approach is consistent with EnergySolutions’ other major licensing actions. Thus, only the slope stability
analysis has a regulatory basis for the minimum factor of safety evaluation; other factors of safety provide
information about relative robustness of the design. In each case, cited references should be consulted in order
to understand and evaluate the basis for the reported safety factor.

Cover System
The Federal Cell Facility’s design functions of the cover are to minimize infiltration, reduce exposures, ensure
cover integrity and ensure embankment structural stability. The Federal Cell Facility’s cover system is
designed to:
1) Minimize infiltration by encouraging evapotranspiration from the top slope (by slowing vertical
infiltration to maximize its time of concentration), promoting run-off away from the side slope
(by ensuring the slope and design will maintain positive drainage; that the maximum calculated
design velocity within the side-slopes drainage layer is greater than the predicted maximum
drainage velocity for extreme storm events; and that no accumulation of water occurs on the
surface of the Federal Cell Facility side slope); and protecting the radon barrier from desiccation
(by protecting the layer from frost damage and ensuring that the thickness of cover layers placed
above the radon barrier exceeds the maximum projected depth of frost penetration).
2) Reduce exposures through limiting occupational exposures at the cover surface (by ensuring the
dose rate at cover surface is less than 100 mrem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) per year).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-6 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 3-2: Pertinent Characteristics of the Principle Design Features

Principal Design
Feature
Principal Design Element Pertinent Characteristics References

Liner

Clay Liner under Embankment
2 feet thick
Permeability  1 x 10-6 cm/sec

Compacted to 95% of a standard proctor
Moisture between optimum and optimum +5%
85% fines (<0.075 mm)
10 < plasticity index < 25
30 < liquid limit < 50
Thickness, permeability: GWQDP Condition I.D.4.(c)

Compaction and Moisture in FCF CQA/QC Manual Work Element - Clay Liner Placement; Compaction specification; Fines, plasticity index, and liquid limit in FCF CQA/QC Manual Work Element - Clay Liner Borrow Material, Material specification.

Waste Placement

Waste Placement
Waste below grade and under top slope
Entombed in CLSM

FCF CQA/QC Manual, Attachment II-A, Work Element – Waste
Placement

Backfill

Backfill Placement
Backfill lift average lift thickness  24 inches
Compacted with at least 4 machine passes of a CAT 826 compactor, and
must meet CAES acceptance criteria.
First one foot of material above liner debris-free native soil
Last one foot before radon barrier debris-free

FCF CQA/QC Manual, Attachment II-A, Work Element – Backfill Placement With Compactor
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-7 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal Design
Feature
Principal Design Element Pertinent Characteristics References

Cover

Clay Radon Barrier

1 foot of 1x10-6 cm/sec clay 1 foot of 5x10-8 cm/sec clay 85% fines (<0.075 mm) 10 < plasticity index < 25 30 < liquid limit < 50
Compacted to 95% of a standard proctor
Moisture between optimum and optimum + 5%

Top Slope: 2-4%
Side Slope: 20%

Thickness, permeability, slope: GWQDP Condition I.D.4.a(5)
Compaction and Moisture in FCF CQA/QC Manual Attachment II-A, Work Element - Radon Barrier Placement, Compaction specification
Fines, plasticity index, and liquid limit in FCF CQA/QC Manual, Attachment II-A, Work Element - Clay Liner Borrow Material, Material specification.

Lower Filter Zone
Type B Filter
6 inches thick on the top slope and 18 inches thick on the side slopes

Permeability  3.5 cm/sec Type B filter and Sacrificial Soil gradations must meet specified ratios Rock Scoring Test > 50
Thickness, permeability: GWQDP Condition I.D.4.a(4)

Gradation criteria on drawing 10014-C04

Rock Scoring Criteria in FCF CQA/QC Manual, Work Element - Filter
Zone, Quality of Rock specification

Sacrificial Soil
12 inches thick

Residual moisture content  3.5% Type B filter and Sacrificial Soil gradations must meet specified ratios

GWQDP Condition I.D.4.a(3)

Gradation criteria on drawing 10014-C04

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-8 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal Design
Feature
Principal Design Element Pertinent Characteristics References

Cover

Upper Filter Zone Type A Filter

6 inches thick
D100  6 inches
D70  3 inches
D50  1.57 inch (40 mm)
D15  0.85 inch (22 mm)
D10  No. 10 Sieve (2.0 mm)
D5  No. 200 Sieve (~ 0.075 mm)

Rock Scoring Test > 50

Thickness, gradation: GWQDP Condition I.D.4.a(2) Rock Scoring Criteria in FCF CQA/QC Manual, Work Element - Filter Zone, Quality of Rock specification

Erosion Barrier
24 inches thick

Top Cover (Type B riprap):
D100  4.5 inches
D50  1.25 inches
D10  0.75 inch
D5  No. 200 Sieve (~ 0.075 mm)

Side Cover (Type A riprap):
D100  16 inch
D90  12 inch
D50  4.5 inch
D10  2 inch
D5  No. 200 Sieve (~ 0.075 mm)

Rock Scoring Test > 50

Thickness, gradation: GWQDP Condition I.D.4.a(1)

Rock Scoring Criteria in FCF CQA/QC Manual, Work Element - Filter
Zone, Quality of Rock specification

Drainage Systems

Drainage Ditches

4 feet deep
“Irregular quadrilateral” with a 2% bottom slope and 5:1 (H:V) sides slopes
Borrow Material = CL or ML soils
Natural Ground or Imported Borrow Material Compacted
to 95% of a Standard proctor
6 inches of Type A filter material
18 inches of Type A riprap material

Drawing 10014-C03

Borrow Material in FCF CQA/QC Manual,
Attachment II-A, Work Element - Drainage Ditch
Imported Borrow, Material specification

Buffer Zone
Buffer Zone
94 feet from toe of waste to fence <90 feet from toe of waste to compliance well 300 feet from toe of waste to property line 97.7 feet from toe of waste to Vitro property line
Section 5.3 of this report

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-9 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 3-3: Projected Performance of the Principle Design Features

Principal Design
Feature
Required Function Complementary
Aspects

Design Criteria

Projected Performance

Performance Reference

Safety Factor

Liner

Minimize contact of
waste with standing
water
Minimize contact of
wastes with standing
water during
operations

Permeability
 1 x 10-4 cm/sec

Design permeability = 1 x 10-6 cm/sec

FCF CQA/QC Manual

100
(all conditions)
Minimize contact of wastes with standing
water after closure
Liner Permeability  Cover Permeability
Liner design permeability = 1 x 10-6 cm/sec
Cover design permeability = 5 x 10-8 cm/sec
FCF CQA/QC Manual

20
(all conditions)
Ensure Cover Integrity Mitigate Differential Settlement
Maximum Allowable Distortion in Cover = 0.02
Normal maximum distortion = 0.001 Abnormal maximum distortion = 0.007
Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive Facility (Appendix M)

AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive
Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”

Normal = 20 Abnormal = 2.86

Waste Placement
Ensure Cover Integrity Mitigate
Differential
Settlement
Maximum Allowable Distortion
in Cover = 0.02
Maximum differential settlement (distortion) calculated
at 0.01 for bulk waste facility under abnormal
conditions

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive
Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”

Abnormal: 2.0
Ensure Structural Stability
Maintain Slope
Stability

Static Safety Factor  1.5
Seismic Safety Factor
 1.2

Static Safety Factor  2.1

Seismic Safety Factor = 1.2
Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive
Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”

Static  2.5 (exceeds
design criteria of 1.5)
Seismic = 1.2 (meets
design criteria of 1.2)

Backfill
Ensure Cover Integrity Mitigate
Differential
Settlement
Maximum Allowable Distortion
in Cover = 0.02
Maximum differential settlement (distortion) calculated
at 0.01 for bulk waste facility under abnormal
conditions

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M) AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”

Abnormal: 2.0
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-10 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal Design
Feature
Required Function Complementary
Aspects

Design Criteria

Projected Performance

Performance Reference

Safety Factor
Ensure Structural Stability
Maintain Slope Stability

Static Safety Factor  1.5
Seismic Safety Factor
 1.2

Static Safety Factor  2.1

Seismic Safety Factor = 1.2
Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive Facility (Appendix M)
AMEC, 2012a,b “EnergySolutions Clive
Facility – Clay Distortion Study.”

Static  2.5 (exceeds
design criteria of 1.5)
Seismic = 1.2 (meets
design criteria of 1.2)

Cover

Minimize Infiltration

Minimize Infiltration Average infiltration  0.036 inches/year
(0.090 cm/year) top
slope
0.066 inches/year
(0.168 cm/year) side slope

Infiltration meets performance criteria of transport to
monitoring wells for at least 500 years.

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)

Not applicable
Encourage Runoff
Maintain positive drainage; Maximum design velocity within drainage layer > drainage velocities; Do not allow water
accumulation
Cover design slope = 2.4%. Maximum theoretical velocities: Maximum drainage velocities during PMP:
Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q) Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
Top Slope: 4.01 Side Slope:
28.75

Prevent
Desiccation

No desiccation cracking in
Radon Barrier Clay
Modeling establishes that the steady-state moisture
content of the clay radon barrier will remain constant
through all conditions throughout the life of the
embankment.

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)

1.91
(all conditions)
Limit
Frost
Penetration
Thickness of
rock/filter/sacrificial soil zones
(3.5 ft)  maximum depth of
frost

Top Slope frost depth = 3.4 feet
Side Slope frost depth = 3.2 feet

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
Top > 1.03
Sides > 1.09
(abnormal condition)

Minimize Infiltration

Limit
Biointrusion

Biointrusion shall be
discouraged and shall not
cause increased infiltration

Due to increased evapotranspiration, vegetation
decreases infiltration through the cover under both the
normal and the abnormal conditions.

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)

Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)

Normal = 2.60

Abnormal = 1.86
Reduce Exposure Surface Dose Rates 100 mrem TEDE 3 mrem/year through cover using abnormal event of
high-gamma source at the top of waste.

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
100/3 = 33.33
(abnormal condition)

Mitigate
Differential Settlement
Maximum Allowable
Distortion = 0.02
Maximum differential settlement (distortion) calculated
at 0.01 for bulk waste facility under abnormal conditions

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q) Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)

Abnormal: 2.0
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-11 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal Design
Feature
Required Function Complementary
Aspects

Design Criteria

Projected Performance

Performance Reference

Safety Factor

Cover

Ensure
Cover
Integrity

Prevent
Internal
Erosion

Water velocity < 5.41 ft/sec
on Radon Barrier Clay
Interstitial Velocities at Radon Barrier/Filter Zone
Interface:

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
Top ~ 98
Side ~ 45
(all conditions)
Prevent Piping:
D15(filter)/D85(soil)  5 AND
D50(filter)/D50(soil)  25

Prevent Upward Migration of Fines D15(Lower Layer) /
D85(Upper Layer)  4
Incorporated as construction specification on
drawing 10014-C04

Top Slope: Type A Filter D15/Type B riprap D85 =
0.19
Side Slope: Type A Filter D15/Type A riprap D85 =
0.52

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
Not applicable

Top = 26.3
Side = 9.6
(all conditions)

Material Stability /
External Erosion

1000 year life
Design riprap D50:
Top Slope = 1.25 inches
Side Slopes = 4.5 inches

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)
Neptune 2021 (Appendix P)
Top = 1.13
Side = 1.21
(abnormal condition)
Weighted average quality scoring for specific gravity,
absorption, sodium soundness, and L.A. abrasion.
Reject rock with quality scoring < 50

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

Not applicable

Ensure Structural
Stability

Settlement
Long Term Cover Drainage
(No Slope Reversal)
Even if the total potential settlement were focused at
the crest of the embankment, the drop in elevation
from the crest to the shoulder eliminates the potential
for slope reversal.

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

37.7/3.95 = 9.54
Maximum Total Settlement  15% of Embankment Height
(12.6 feet for 84 foot embankment crest)
Primary foundation settlement 1.25 feet
Secondary foundation settlement 2.0 feet
Waste settlement after cover construction 0.7 feet
Total 3.95 feet
Embankment height at crest 84 feet

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

12.3/3.95 = 3.20

Maintain
Slope
Stability

Static Safety Factor  1.5
Seismic Safety Factor  1.2

Static Safety Factor  2.5

Seismic Safety Factor = 1.2

Geosyntec “Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation for Federal Cell at the Clive
Facility (Appendix M)

Static  2.5 (exceeds
design criteria of 1.5)
Seismic = 1.2 (meets
design criteria of 1.2)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-12 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Principal Design
Feature
Required Function Complementary
Aspects

Design Criteria

Projected Performance

Performance Reference

Safety Factor

Drainage System

Provide Site Drainage

Facilitate flow of
precipitation away
from the embankment

Depth of water < depth of
ditch.
Freeboard  0.5 foot under
normal conditions.
Design ditch height = 4 feet.
Max height of water during normal event = 2.07
feet at downstream limit of ditch system.
Max height of water during abnormal event =
2.47 feet at downstream limit of ditch system. Downstream blockage improves post-closure performance

Appendix K

Downstream:
Normal SF = 1.69
Abnormal SF = 1.62
Minimize Infiltration under flood conditions Flood water shall dissipate faster than water travels through the cover system.
Maximum depth of PMF is approximately one foot across the site. This depth would last about 15 hours. Water travel time through the cover system
is over 89 years.
Appendix K
Abnormal SF > 50,000

Ensure Ditch
Integrity
Prevent Internal
Erosion Size of rock able to handle
stresses related to flow
The type A riprap in the ditches is adequately sized
with a D50 of 4.5 inches.

Appendix K

Normal = 7.65
Abnormal = 6.40

Buffer Zone

Provide Site
Monitoring

NA

Sized adequate for monitoring
and corrective measures
No contaminants will reach the monitoring wells
located approximately 90 feet from the edge of
waste, within the buffer zone boundary
of 94 feet) within 500 years.

Neptune 2015 (Appendix Q)

Not applicable

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-13 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

1) Ensure cover integrity is preserved (by mitigating differential settlement through ensuring a final
maximum allowable angular distortion criteria for the cover will not be exceeded), preventing
internal erosion (limiting run-off water velocity to less than 3 ft/sec on surface of radon barrier
and to minimize piping by requiring particle size specification for Type B Filter Zone material to
D15 (filter)/D85 (soil) below 5; D50 (filter)/D50 (soil) less than or equal to 25; and
D15(filter)/D85(soil) greater than or equal to 4) and exhibiting material stability to resist external
erosion (rock erosion barrier of the side slope must exhibit internal stability and endure
weathering/external erosion).
2) Ensure Federal Cell Facility stability through promoting settlement without damage (total
settlement must be less than 15 percent of Federal Cell Facility height in order to not compromise
drainage capability of the cover) and maintaining slope stability (Federal Cell Facility will be
constructed to meet a minimum global factor of safety against sliding instability of 1.5 under
static conditions and 1.2 under dynamic).

Waste Placement Configurations
Waste placement within the Federal Cell Facility will be placed and entombed within Controlled Low-
Strength Material (CLSM). The Federal Cell Facility’s design functions of the waste placement configuration
are to minimize contact of waste with standing water during operations, minimize contact of waste with
standing waste following closure and to promoting cover integrity by mitigating differential settlement. The
Federal Cell Facility’s waste placement specifications are designed to:
1) Minimize contact of waste with standing water during operations by demonstrating adequate
drainage (if a 25-year, 24-hour storm event occurs; if a 100-year, 24-hour storm event occurs or
if heavy equipment damages the liner).
2) Minimize contact of wastes with standing water following closure without active maintenance
(liner and cover are constructed to retain their respective design permeability’s over time; and
standing water is minimized in the cell waste done if cover conditions become degraded).
3) Ensure cover integrity is protected by mitigating differential settlement (ensuring all settlement
has completed during operations and by demonstrating negligible settlement if a cell area is
constructed to the proposed height of the cover while an adjacent area is constructed to a height
of less than design height).

Liner
The Federal Cell Facility liner will be designed and constructed in accordance with the specifications in the
design drawings and the FCF CQA/QC Manual. The Federal Cell Facility’s design functions of the liner are
justified through development and application of permeability specifications and limiting radon barrier clay
layer distortion. The Federal Cell Facility’s waste liner specifications are designed to:
1) Limit liner permeability to less than or equal to 1 x 10-4 cm/sec (operational experience at the
facility shows that a liner permeability of 1 x 10-4 cm/sec or less is sufficient to discourage
standing water accumulation to occur within the waste zone. Water ponds or pools on top of the
working surface are immediately removed by active means such as pumping).
2) Ensure the liner permeability is greater than the radon barrier cover clay layer permeability to
prevent water from accumulating on the liner (cover design requires a liner permeability of 1 x
10-6 cm/sec or less and greater than the lowest cover component (radon barrier) permeability of
1 x 10-8 cm/sec).
3) Ensure distortion in radon barrier clay layer does not exceed specification (maximum distortion
of the cover due to settlement under abnormal conditions must be projected to be less than or
equal to the specified Maximum Allowable Distortion Criterion).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-14 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Drainage Systems
The Federal Cell Facility drainage system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
specifications in the design drawings and the FCF CQA/QC Manual. The post drainage system surrounding
the proposed Federal Cell Facility has been designed to direct facility precipitation flow away from the Federal
Cell Facility, minimize infiltration under flood conditions and ensure ditch integrity is preserved. The Federal
Cell Facility’s drainage specifications are designed to:
1) Facilitate flow of precipitation away from the Federal Cell Facility. The normal condition
includes an analysis of the drainage ditch design with respect to impacts of the 25-year, 24-hour
storm event for the site. The 25-year, 24-hour storm event was identified as representing the
probable worst-case precipitation event that might be encountered during active site operations.
The abnormal condition considers an analysis of the drainage ditch design with respect to impacts
of the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the site.
2) Minimize infiltration under flood conditions. The results evaluate the depth of water expected
from the abnormal condition PMF for the watershed encompassing the Clive site. That analysis
calculates a depth of the PMF across the site at approximately 1 foot above grade.
EnergySolutions notes that the depth of the 100-year flood is considerably less. Based on the
geometry of water accumulation in the ditch with respect to the Federal Cell Facility the abnormal
flood event would not cause water to accumulate above the toe of the waste in the embankment
and the drainage system is adequately designed to minimize infiltration of water through the
waste under both normal and abnormal conditions.
3) Ensure ditch integrity based on demonstration that the drainage ditch exhibits an ability to resist
disruption under anticipated normal and abnormal surface water flow conditions. The design
criterion that the size of the rock used to line the ditches be able to handle projected peak flows
without movement, was selected based on guidelines contained in NUREG/CR-4620 (see
Appendix L) and NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002).

Buffer Zone
The Federal Cell Facility buffer zone will be designed and constructed in accordance with the specifications
in the design drawings and the FCF CQA/QC Manual. The buffer zone criteria and a buffer zone width is no
less than 94 feet, as included consideration of site monitoring during the 100-year period of institutional
control and sufficient for mitigation in the event of unanticipated migration of radionuclides. The Federal Cell
Facility’s buffer specifications are designed to:
1) Facilitate site-monitoring activities to confirm that no unacceptable releases occur from the
Federal Cell Facility.
2) Facilitate mitigation measures following a hypothetical contaminant release. EnergySolutions
performance assessment shows that no contaminants will reach the compliance groundwater
monitoring wells within 10,000 years. The groundwater monitoring wells are already located
approximately 90 feet from the edge of the waste embankments, within the boundary of the buffer
zone. If contaminants are detected at the monitoring wells within the 10,000-year groundwater
quality discharge permit period, remediation measures could easily be accommodated due to the
extremely slow linear velocity of the groundwater underlying the site area.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-15 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

3.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

EnergySolutions has designed the facility to meet or exceed the performance standards established by
regulatory authority. Engineering evaluations performed on the design confirm that it meets or exceeds the
design criteria. Engineering evaluations have been performed for the normal, abnormal, and accident (as
appropriate) conditions.

3.3.1 Construction Methods and Features

Construction methods for the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be unchanged from current approved
embankment construction practices at the Clive Facility. These methods are provided in the current FCF
CQA/QC Manual.

Site Preparation
Site preparation requirements for the proposed Federal Cell Facility are those provided in the FCF CQA/QC
Manual. The existing surface of the proposed Federal Cell Facility includes areas excavated to near-
foundation elevation and areas that have been disturbed but remain at or near the original native elevation.

Control and Diversion of Water
Surface water is controlled by a system of run-on and run-off berms. A comprehensive discussion of berm
systems for the proposed Federal Cell Facility is provided in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. The highest
groundwater elevation is more than 13 feet below the top of liner elevation; therefore, groundwater control
will not be necessary.

Construction of Disposal Units
The proposed Federal Cell Facility will be constructed to the existing liner, waste placement, and cover
requirements of the FCF CQA/QC Manual. See also engineering drawing series 14004 in Appendix H.

Concrete and Steel Construction
One aspect of disposal at the proposed Federal Cell Facility is the incorporation of concrete as a component
of disposal facility construction: CLSM used to fill voids in depleted uranium waste placement. CLSM use
will be controlled in accordance with existing requirements applicable to disposal in the proposed Federal
Cell Facility. CLSM requirements are located in Specification 84 through 93 of the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
CLSM is a low-strength void filling material; no reinforcing steel is used.

Backfilling
Waste placement in the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be controlled in accordance with Specifications
56 through 100 of the FCF CQA/QC Manual. No changes to existing approved waste placement methods
are requested.

Closure of Disposal Unit
The cover over the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be constructed in accordance with applicable
specifications of the FCF CQA/QC Manual. See also drawing series 14004 provided in Appendix H.
Timing for different areas of cover construction is ultimately controlled by the open cell time limit provided
at Part I.E.6 of GWQDP UGW450005.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-16 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Accordingly, cover construction will proceed in stages. Considerations that will affect the timing and areas
to be covered in a particular construction project include:
1. Open cell time limit: If an area of waste placement is reaching its deadline, it will be a compliance
requirement to complete cover construction.
2. Maintaining continuous progression of cover: Cover should progress in a contiguous manner. In
other words, “islands” of cover surrounded by active waste placement; or conversely “islands” of
waste placement surrounded by cover should be avoided.
3. Scale of construction projects: A number of factors affect the area of cover that can be physically
completed within a construction season. These include the weather, size and experience of the
construction crew, and when in the construction season the project begins.
4. Time required to complete waste placement to the design elevations, slopes, and grades: Cover
construction cannot begin before placement of the waste column is complete for a lift area, with
adjacent lift areas also at or near the design top of waste.

Accordingly, it is not feasible at this time to provide a more detailed schedule for cover construction over
the proposed Federal Cell Facility; nor is there a regulatory basis to require one. The staged approach to
liner and cover construction has been standard practice at the Clive Disposal Complex since its inception,
and dozens of liner and cover construction projects have been successfully completed. The FCF CQA/QC
Manual provides controls for ensuring sections of liner and radon barrier constructed at different times will
perform seamlessly.

Applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications
Applicable codes and standards are discussed concurrent with establishment of design criteria for each of
the principal design features, as referenced above. In addition, ASTM standards applicable to construction
of the proposed Federal Cell Facility are listed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual and referenced in individual
specifications as appropriate.

Construction Materials and Quality Assurance
Construction materials for the proposed Federal Cell Facility will consist of native soils and rock.
Specifications for each component are provided as discussed above. Quality assurance and quality control
measures required for construction are provided in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.

Site Plans, Engineering Drawings and Construction Specifications
Engineering drawing series 14004 details the proposed Federal Cell Facility and are provided as Appendix H
to this Application. In accordance with Condition I.H.6 of GWQDP UGW450005, EnergySolutions is
required to provide an annual as-built report and drawing set documenting embankment construction.

3.3.2 Construction Equipment

Construction equipment will consist of standard heavy construction and earth-moving equipment.
Equipment used construction of the Federal Cell Facility will be identical to that used for the Class A West
Facility that was previously reviewed and approved by the Director. Equipment used to construct the
proposed Federal Cell Facility will be equal to that used in construction of the Class A West embankment.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-17 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

3.4 DESIGN OF AUXILIARY SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES

Auxiliary facilities include buildings and roadways that are designed to support the operational needs of the
multiple Clive Facilities by directly contributing to worker safety, support the construction requirements,
and not adversely affect completed closure measures. The Federal Cell Facility auxiliary systems and
facilities are identical to those for the Class A West Facility that were previously reviewed and approved by
the Director.

3.4.1 Utility Systems

The Federal Cell Facility utility systems will be identical to those for the Class A West Facility that were
previously reviewed and approved by the Director. Due to remoteness, municipal utilities at
EnergySolutions’ Clive facility are limited. Fuel and potable water (culinary water) must be brought in from
off-site locations and stored on-site for usage. Toilet facilities are available at office buildings, outside of
the Restricted Area. No toilet facilities are available inside the Restricted Area. Decontamination showers
are provided in the Mixed Waste Operations Building, and the LLRW Operations Building. Safety showers
are available as detailed in the Contingency Plan, Attachment II-6 of the state-issued Part B Permit.

For personnel working with radioactive materials in the Restricted Area, communication with other workers
is available through two-way radio or cellular phone communication. Radio and cellular range is adequate
to reach all areas of the site at any time. During emergencies on site, personnel contact security via radio or
cell phone; then security issues a general alert to affected personnel.

The site is served with electricity by Rocky Mountain Power. This service includes three phase 440 volt
supply. This service is transformed down to 120-volt single phase service for supply to the administrative
building and for general site conventional electric service.

3.4.2 Auxiliary Facilities

All auxiliary facilities on the site will be removed at decommissioning; accordingly, there will be no adverse
impact on Federal Cell Facility performance due to failure of any of these facilities.

Decontamination Facilities
EnergySolutions has developed an extensive set of decontamination facilities in support of waste disposal
operations. These facilities address decontamination activities necessary for equipment and tools used in
shipping, receiving, managing, and disposal of LLRW. Decontamination procedures have also been
developed to address release of the various shipping containers from the Restricted Area.

At the time of closure, a detailed Decommissioning Plan for the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be
prepared for Director approval, consistent with applicable regulations and requirements. Additional support
facilities are not expected to be required beyond that specified in this Application. It is also assumed that
these support facilities will be decontaminated and decommissioned upon closure. The decontamination
and decommissioning activities include:
a. Decontaminating off-site soils and rail road spur, if necessary, by removing all surface materials
contaminated with LLRW materials such that the contamination in the residual soil or rail road
ballast is ALARA and below the respective cleanup limits. Soil will be disposed of at the Federal
Cell Facility using disposal methods approved in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-18 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

b. Decontaminating on-site soils within EnergySolutions’ property but excluding the disposal Federal
Cell Facility, by removing all surface soils contaminated with LLRW such that the contamination in
the residual soils is ALARA and below the respective cleanup limits. Soils will be disposed of at
the Federal Cell Facility using disposal methods approved in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
c. Decontaminating on-site structures such as the rollover facility, geotechnical laboratory, and rail
spur to meet the unconditional release criteria or, remove and place structures the Federal Cell
Facility.
d. Decontaminating the on-site support structures and contents including the change and laboratory
facilities within the administration building to meet the unrestricted release criteria, or remove and
dispose of contents and structures in the Federal Cell Facility.

Clive waste handling facilities are used for both LLRW and 11e.(2) waste management activities. Since
Federal Cell Facility radionuclides represent a subset of the potential contaminants in LLRW, it is
appropriate to place decommissioning waste from these facilities into the Class A West Disposal Facility.

Waste Handling Facilities
The Federal Cell Facility waste handling facilities will be those used for the Class A West Facility that were
previously reviewed and approved by the Director. EnergySolutions’ waste handling procedures and
associated facilities ensure that 11e.(2) or mixed wastes are not co-mingled with LLRW. These facilities
and procedures outline the necessary precautions required to ensure that vehicle, facility and equipment
cleaning occurs prior to hauling or handling LLRW material. They also address signage requirements for
vehicles, facilities and equipment handling LLRW. Procedures have also been created to require unique
site-specific shipment tracking numbers (Bates Numbers) be assigned used for tracking purposes, and
finally accepted for disposal.

Containers approved for storage in accordance with Condition I.E.10 of EnergySolutions’ GWQDP are
visually inspected to ensure that the containers have structural integrity. Drums and barrels of material are
placed on pallets and stacked a maximum of two (2) high. Storage areas are inspected daily in accordance
with the GWQDP. Containers which are found to be deteriorating are re-containerized or over-packed, i.e.,
placed inside another, larger container of assured structural integrity.

Waste Water Facilities
During operation, EnergySolutions’ Clive Disposal Complex is managed to prevent precipitation from
flowing into the proposed Federal Cell Facility. This is accomplished by construction of a run-on berm
around the perimeter of the disposal Federal Cell Facility. Therefore, there are no design features to
promote deposition during operations since there is no runoff which flows into the impoundment area.
EnergySolutions’ proposed Federal Cell Facility is designed to maintain sheet flow for all precipitation that
falls on it. By maintaining sheet flow, the turbulence and velocity of the water are minimized; thus
improving the deposition of sediment and minimizing the erosion of the cover.

The post-closure drainage system surrounding the proposed Federal Cell Facility has been designed to direct
water from precipitation or sheet flow away from the disposal unit. Drainage systems designed for the
Federal Cell Facility are included in Appendix H. Potentially contaminated standing water at proposed
Federal Cell Facility will be managed during the operational life of the facility according to Condition I.E.7
of the GWQDP. Federal Cell Facility areas are managed to remove any intermediate standing water when
necessary.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 3-19 Section 3 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EnergySolutions will use mobile pumping trucks and other equipment as needed to access and remove water
from the proposed Federal Cell Facility, which are not designed to free-drain into an evaporation pond or
equipped with permanent pumps. Runoff from other areas of the Clive Disposal Complex are channeled to
the southwest. Short-term bodies of standing water on the surface in other areas of the property will not
affect the performance of the proposed Federal Cell Facility. This water dissipates primarily through
evaporation due to the climatic features of the site rather than percolation; and thus will have no impact on
groundwater horizontal gradients.

3.4.3 Fire Protection System

No additional fire protection will be added to support the Federal Cell Facility (as authority to dispose of
federal waste is only being sought for depleted uranium) than has already been developed to support the
Class A West Facility. Due to the remoteness of the Clive Disposal Complex, the availability of municipal
fire protection is limited. The nearest services of this type are in the Tooele-Grantsville area, approximately
35-50 miles away. Fires in offices or other building areas are controlled using portable fire extinguishers
and/or water as available. If necessary, for control, water may be obtained from nearby wells and/or the
non-contact runoff containment pond located to the southwest of the site. Water trucks used for dust
suppression on site roads would also be available in an emergency to provide water for fire control. There is
at least one water truck on site during operations.

3.4.4 Erosion and Flood Control Systems

During operations, the Federal Cell Facility is protected against offsite flood waters by run-on berms.
Construction requirements for run-on berms are provided in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. Run-on berms
surround the perimeter of the Federal Cell Facility at all times. Once a section of the Facility cover is
completed to the design toe of waste, runoff berms for that section will be replaced by drainage ditches.

Run-on berms surround the perimeter of the Facility at all times. They are constructed of native soils to a
minimum height of three feet above the original ground surface of the site (as determined by original
engineering drawings showing site contours) and have a minimum width of 10 feet at the top. The berms
are compacted to 90 percent of a standard proctor to ensure their integrity and often serve as
inspection/travel roads. Run-on berms are inspected regularly during operation of the facility for degradation
or low spots caused by erosion or frequent traffic. In addition, run-on berms are surveyed and improved
annually to verify compliance with height requirements.

Runoff berms are constructed immediately following approval of clay liner construction for a zone to be
opened for depleted uranium placement. Runoff berms are constructed of native soils directly on the clay
liner to a height of three feet above the liner. Runoff berms have a minimum width of three feet at the top
and are compacted to 90 percent of a standard proctor. As with the run-on berms, runoff berms are inspected
regularly for low spots or degradation. All runoff berms are also surveyed and improved annually.

Once the runoff berms are constructed, depleted uranium material may be placed over the clay liner.
However, a minimum separation of 10 feet is maintained between the toe of the runoff berm and the toe of
waste. This 10-foot separation allows for collection of runoff water from the active Facility and minimizes
potential contact of depleted uranium with standing water.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-1 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 4. FACILITY OPERATIONS

EnergySolutions’ waste receipt and inspection procedures and waste acceptance criteria are developed in
accordance with the Federal Cell Facility Waste Characterization Plan (included in Appendix O). Using this
Plan, EnergySolutions ensures that arriving federal waste shipments follow applicable requirements and waste
acceptance criteria of the proposed Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License. This Plan provides
assurance that federal waste receipt and inspection processes are conducted in accordance with UAC R313-
25-35 and in a manner that assists in meeting the performance objectives of UAC R313-25-20 through UAC
R313-25-23. Additionally, EnergySolutions verifies that the classification and characteristics of waste
entering the site are in accordance with UAC R313-15-1009. A primary focus in these procedures is
EnergySolutions’ ability and objective to protect occupational individuals during Federal Cell Facility
operations (in accordance with UAC R313-25-22). In addition to ensuring conformance with applicable
regulations, EnergySolutions demonstrates ability and commitment to identify and respond to Federal Cell
Facility waste packages requiring remediation. As such, federal waste not in compliance with regulations and
License conditions are prohibited from being managed at the Federal Cell Facility.

4.1 FEDERAL GENERATOR CERTIFICATION

Prior to authorization to ship federal waste, EnergySolutions will document its review and acceptance of a
federal generator’s waste management program. EnergySolutions’ review will include a federal generator’s
procedures for radioactive waste characterization, packaging, and transportation. EnergySolutions will assure
and document that these procedures demonstrate that federal waste sent for management at the Federal Cell
Facility meets the License’s radiological requirements, License’s prohibitions, federal waste acceptance
criteria (including the absence of regulated hazardous waste), and receipt and federal waste disposal
requirements. EnergySolutions’ review will also include a federal generator’s programs and procedures for
radiological characterization, hazardous waste exclusion from Federal Cell Facility packages, free liquid
management, inspections, and void space minimization.

In addition, EnergySolutions’ will review and accept a federal generator’s Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) Program to affirm that it demonstrates a federal generator’s ability to correctly characterize,
package and ship federal radioactive waste that does not exceed the Federal Cell Facility requirements.
Furthermore, the federal generator’s QA/QC Program must also demonstrate that the federal generator
understands the prohibitions of the License. QA/QC Program review will include inspection reports or
summaries for the previous three years from agencies with oversight over the federal generator’s program,
responses and corrective actions to identified deficiencies applicable to waste characterization, packaging,
and/or transportation and the concurrence from the oversight agency that deficiencies have been adequately
addressed.

A federal generator will become certified after the reviews are satisfactorily completed. Any changes in
federal facility programs that affect waste management will require additional review and recertification.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-2 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

4.2 FEDERAL WASTE PROFILE RECORD

In order to ship federal waste for management at EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility, a certified federal
generator must provide EnergySolutions with the necessary information for creation of a Federal Waste
Profile, including a description of the federal generator (Agency and Facility Name, mailing address, business
telephone number, a 24-hour emergency telephone number), a description of the federal waste stream, a
determination that the waste does not meet the definition of a hazardous waste as found in R315-261 of Utah
Administrative Code, whether the federal waste contains liquids, a general indication of the federal waste’s
density, any distinguishing color or odor of the federal waste, a statement that characterization samples are
representative of the federal waste, the presence of sorbents and any other additional information necessary
for determining appropriate management of the waste stream (chemical, physical, and general characteristics
and properties, information relating to the federal waste’s generation and history, an indication of the possible
presence of non-hazardous waste constituents such as asbestos, chelating agents, etc. and limits of any non-
hazardous waste constituents, as applicable).

4.3 RECEIPT AND INSPECTION OF FEDERAL WASTE

Receipt and inspection of Federal Facility Waste will be managed similar to that shipments arriving at the
Containerized Waste Facility. Prior to shipment, certified federal generators must inspect the federal waste
to ensure that they meet the incoming shipment inspection requirements of EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell
Facility Waste Characterization Plan. Federal generator sampling of waste must demonstrate that Deferred
Chemical Screening Parameters and Radiological Analytical Parameters meet the appropriate sampling and
analysis requirements of the Federal Cell Facility Waste Characterization Plan. A federal generator will
certify that the appropriate QA/QC objectives have been during their waste sampling. The description made
by the federal generator will include a statement declaring that the federal generator has determined that the
material is within the parameters of the License, that it is depleted uranium, and that the material is not a
hazardous waste as defined by UAC R315-1. The federal generator’s description must include all of the
nuclides, and their general range of activities, that are present in the waste, with supporting laboratory
documentation. These descriptions and information must also include documents and certifications provided
by the federal generator or the federal generator's agents. Each federal shipment must have a certification
statement that it has been properly characterized in order to manifest the shipment as required by UAC R313-
15-1006.

When a federal shipment arrives at EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility, it is not considered to be accepted
to the proposed Federal Cell Facility until the acceptance procedures have been completed and the material
has been accepted for disposal. A transportation vehicle may be physically located on EnergySolutions’ Clive
site and may still not be considered “accepted” for disposal at the proposed Federal Cell Facility.
EnergySolutions does not direct that containers of non-accepted materials be unloaded or that railcars of non-
accepted material be dumped or unloaded. Incoming federal waste shipments are accepted for disposal in
accordance with established procedures.

A completed Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Manifest), or equivalent documentation must
be received by EnergySolutions before a federal shipment is accepted for disposal. The manifest will
accompany the shipment and a copy may be received by EnergySolutions prior to the time that the shipment
arrives. The manifest serves several functions, including:
a. Complies with the requirements of a manifest as outlined in UAC R313-15-1006.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-3 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

b. Describes container types, volumes, number.
c. Provides weights, activities, and isotopes of the waste.
d. Documents federal generator's certification of packaging, classification, markings, labels, condition
of containers, and compliance with the applicable regulations and conditions of the License.
e. Documents federal generator’s certification that the waste is LLRW.
f. Documents federal generator’s warranty that the information provided in the manifest is true and
correct.
g. Provides a checklist for EnergySolutions for inspection of the incoming material and for possible
violations.
h. Documents EnergySolutions’ acceptance or rejection of the federal shipment for disposal.
i. Alerts receiving staff to probable concentrations and gamma exposure rates to be expected.

Upon receipt, the manifest will be reviewed for completeness. The EnergySolutions reviewer also will ensure
that the form is signed as required by regulation. The freight container will be externally surveyed for gamma
radiation readings with a micro-R meter or equivalent, to assure compliance with DOT regulations. Other
portable instruments are appropriate and may be used to measure the external surface contamination.
Container surveys will be performed in accordance with established procedures. Each incoming freight
container will be smear tested for removable contamination for comparison to the standards of 49 CFR
173.443, in accordance with established procedures.

The Director will be notified of material non-compliances observed during inspection of incoming federal
waste, including the name of the federal generator, name of the nonconforming federal waste stream, date
nonconforming waste was received and a plan and compliance schedule for managing the non-conforming
federal material. In accordance with UAC R313-15-906, EnergySolutions will immediately notify the final
delivery carrier and the Director when:
1. Removable radioactive surface contamination exceeds the limits of R313-15-906; or
2. External radiation levels exceed the limits of UAC R313-25-26.

Upon arrival at the proposed Federal Cell Facility, each incoming shipment will be visually inspected for the
following items in compliance with the shipment inspection requirements of UAC R313-25-34(5) and
established procedures:
1. Ensure accuracy of information provided on the radioactive waste manifest (the container/car ID
numbers, number of cars or containers) and ensure that the material is packaged, marked, labeled,
and placarded according to DOT regulations in 49 CFR.
2. Verify whether there is any evidence of physical damage to the container that might jeopardize its
integrity. This will be accomplished by visually examining the containers for any appearance of
packaging breach or any such potential problem.

Should EnergySolutions discover any discrepancies in the documentation, certification, or shipment, the
discrepancy(s) must be resolved with the generator or shipper prior to acceptance of the material.
EnergySolutions will not unload/dispose of a shipment until such discrepancies have been settled, either
through a generator visit to the disposal site or through written documentation that reflects the necessary
changes in the manifest.

If there are any problems with the integrity of an incoming shipment, the problems will be reported to the
shipper within 24 hours of discovery. EnergySolutions will also provide notification to the Director within
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-4 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

24 hours of discovery. If a shipment arrives on site that is unacceptable under the conditions of the license,
EnergySolutions will notify the generator and the Director within seven days.

As a result of these steps, EnergySolutions will either accept or reject a shipment for disposal. If a shipment
meets all acceptance criteria except for possible noncompliance with license conditions, it will be placed into
an approved storage area until additional testing can determine its status. In accordance with established
procedures, waste will not be accepted from a Generator when one or more of the following conditions apply:
• The shipping and disposal documents do not agree with the waste profile record;
• The waste exceeds License limits;
• Generator sends a shipment to the Clive facility prior to receiving a notice to transport from
EnergySolutions.

If the federal shipment is rejected for disposal at the proposed Federal Cell Facility, EnergySolutions will
document the rejection in accordance with established procedures and notify the Director. If the shipment is
accepted, the material will be placed in an approved management area or in the Federal Cell Facility.

Shipments that are not found acceptable or approvable will be returned to the Generator or to another licensed
radioactive waste management facility in accordance with established procedures. A shipment which has
been found to be in violation of DOT shipping regulations, but which is otherwise acceptable, will not be
accepted for disposal until:
1. The Director has been notified of the shipment discrepancy; and
2. The generator or generator’s agent has made necessary corrections to bring the shipment into
compliance with DOT regulations, if possible.

Pending such corrective action, the shipment will remain on EnergySolutions property in order to eliminate
the potential risk associated with transporting the waste, but will not be disposed. If such a shipment is in
violation of DOT regulations due to leakage of radioactive materials, it will be placed over an approved
surface in the Restricted Area or placed in another container until the situation is resolved in order to prevent
contamination of the environment.

4.4 WASTE HANDLING AND INTERIM STORAGE

Upon acceptance to the proposed Federal Cell Facility, each federal shipment will be transferred to an
appropriate federal waste container unloading area. To prevent inadvertent cross-contamination of federal
waste types, all waste containers received will be labeled as to federal waste type, federal generator, receipt
date, and the Federal Cell Facility as ultimate disposal location. Containers of depleted uranium wastes will
be taken to the Federal Cell Facility, placed in storage or emptied into the Intermodal Unloading Facility.
Depleted uranium waste management facilities will be visually inspected on a daily basis in accordance with
the BAT Performance Monitoring Plan, Appendix J of GWQDP UGW450005, to ensure proper storage and
management of the waste. Storm water is managed in accordance with Condition I.E.12 of the GWQDP.

All federal wastes received at the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be entered into and tracked with an
electronic waste tracking system (the System). The System tracks waste type, volume, activity, and placement
location within the disposal Federal Cell Facility. The System also contains waste profile information and
provides automated compliance checks of the waste shipment against license limits, sampling frequency, etc.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-5 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

4.5 FEDERAL WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS

Depleted uranium will be disposed below grade at EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility in accordance with
site procedures and the FCF CQA/QC Manual. Federal waste placement will be controlled in accordance
with the FCF CQA/QC Manual. Drums and metal containers that are to be disposed in the Federal Cell
Facility will be punched and entombed in Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM) in accordance with the
FCF CQA/QC Manual. Whenever the Federal Cell Facility is covered with snow of sufficient depth to impair
the quality of placement of the federal waste, snow will be removed beyond the limits of active construction.
During winter months it may be necessary to stockpile contaminated material. Workers will be protected
during waste emplacement procedures in accordance with the policies of EnergySolutions’ Radiation Safety
Plan and ALARA Plan.

Minimizing void spaces is critical to long-term stability of the Federal Cell Facility. The FCF CQA/QC
Manual provides controls for filling void spaces, including:
a. Depleted uranium waste containers will be distributed throughout a below-grade vault to prevent void
containing materials that minimizes the voids that may occur between two federal waste containers
by distributing the containers throughout each vault.
b. CLSM will be used as fill around depleted uranium containers that maintains minimum flowability
requirements; and QC inspections will be performed to verify the infilling of voids.

Federal waste covering operations will be controlled in accordance with the FCF CQA/QC Manual. The
designed cover has been modeled and found to be sufficiently impermeable to water, structurally sound, and
erosion resistant. The liner will be protected from damage during operations by a minimum one-foot-thick
layer of clean native material (referred to as liner protective cover). The entire Federal Cell embankment
above the disposed depleted uranium to the radon barrier will consist of clean native material (fill). The
construction of both the liner protective cover and clean fill is specified in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.

The design of the proposed Federal Cell Facility enables isolation of the Facility after it has been filled and
covered. Once the Federal Cell Facility is closed it will not be disturbed by other continuing operations at the
site. The final Federal Cell Facility cover integrates long-term water and erosion control methods into the
overall design, thus eliminating the need for active maintenance of the closed Federal Cell Facility.

Once closed, the Federal Cell Facility will be designed to have recognizable features, such as permanent
granite markers placed on the closed Federal Cell Facility. Upon Federal Cell Facility closure, the following
information will be recorded upon disposal unit monuments:
• The total activity of radioactive materials in curies;
• The total amount of source material in kilograms;
• The total amount of special nuclear material in grams;
• The disposal unit Federal Cell Facility name.
• The date the Federal Cell Facility was opened and closed by completing the covering; and,
• The total volume of federal waste in the disposal unit Federal Cell Facility.

Upon completion of the Federal Cell Facility, it will be permanently fenced and posted, leaving a buffer zone
between the toe of waste and the fence. In addition, a 300-foot buffer zone exists between the closest edge of
the Federal Cell Facility and the outer property boundary. Finally, the buffer zone beneath the emplaced waste
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-6 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

will consist of the two feet-thick clay liner, followed by a minimum depth of 10 feet to the unconfined aquifer
water level.

4.6 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE

EnergySolutions’ Environmental Monitoring Plan is appropriate for operation of its disposal facilities. The
Federal Cell Facility will use the existing approved Environmental Monitoring Plan during operation.
EnergySolutions will use the Environmental Monitoring Plan to:
1. Provide an early warning of a release before it reaches the site boundary;
2. Evaluate the need for mitigative measures;
3. Evaluate health and environmental effects;
4. Estimate dose as required by UAC R313-15-301(1)(a), UAC R313-15-101(4), and UAC R313-25-
19; and
5. Assist in emergency response planning if accidental releases are to occur.

Results of environmental monitoring activities at EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility will be reported to
the Director semiannually. Radioactive airborne particulate samples are collected with low volume air
samplers at perimeter locations of EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility and at background locations. Radon
concentrations in outdoor air are similarly collected. Direct gamma exposure rates using TLDs are measured
at EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility perimeter. Surface soil samples are also collected along
EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility perimeter.

EnergySolutions will perform environmental monitoring in accordance with the Environmental Monitoring
Plan in and around its Federal Cell Facility. These measurements provide data that is used to assess the
potential net radiological impact of the licensed activities on the surrounding area, and form the basis for
demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations and license conditions. Data are compiled into a
report and submitted semi-annually to the Director. The Environmental Monitoring Plan is designed to detect
and quantify the net radiological effects in areas accessible to members of the general public that occur as a
result of the licensed activities. The data is also used to proactively adjust work practices and site operations
as necessary to sustain continued compliance.

Because of the site’s physical configuration, its remote location, and the nature of the licensed operations, a
postulated individual member of the public near the site boundary must directly inhale airborne radionuclides
to receive a measurable dose via any internal dose pathway. The results from the environmental soil samples
therefore serve mainly as supplemental indicators of the degree to which otherwise undetected effluents may
be accumulating on surfaces outside the restricted areas, while the airborne radioactivity and gamma
monitoring provide the data used as the basis for dose estimates.

Semi-annual environmental monitoring reports have been compiled following this Plan and submitted to the
Division Director, since 1999, to document and evaluate potential long-term trends in environmental
monitoring parameters and assess potential environmental effects and the need for mitigative measures. Based
on this information, the Director has concurred with EnergySolutions’ conclusion that its operational
monitoring plan provides early warning of releases of waste from the disposal site before they leave the site
boundary. Since EnergySolutions has ongoing waste disposal operations at the site, the operational
Environmental Monitoring Program for those activities has been demonstrated as sufficient for future
operational environmental monitoring program for the Federal Cell Facility.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 4-7 Section 4 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility will operate in accordance with Air Approval Order DAQE-
AN107170021-19, administered by the Utah Division of Air Quality. Prior to the issuance of this Order the
Division of Air Quality performed a review of air quality concerns, including dispersion modeling for
particulate matter. The Utah Division of Air Quality will perform routine audits of EnergySolutions’ Federal
Cell Facility to determine compliance with the Order. The order requires EnergySolutions to maintain
optimum air opacity standards. When these conditions are not met, dust suppression is applied as needed
regardless of the time of year. EnergySolutions demonstrates that with licensing of the Federal Cell Facility,
the monitoring network is situated within (beneath) the existing monitored footprint and buffer zone.
Construction of the Federal Cell Facility will not require removal or construction of current monitoring
locations.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-1 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 5. FEDERAL CELL FACILITY CLOSURE PLAN AND CONTROL

The Federal Cell Facility will be progressively closed once depleted uranium has been placed below grade
and infilled with controlled low-strength material (CLSM). Interim fill will then be placed and compacted, in
accordance with the specifications proposed for the FCF CQA/QC Manual (see Appendix I). An interim
cover system is first applied and allowed to settle, consolidate, and stabilize for at least one year. Once the
interim cover is demonstrated to be stable within acceptable limits, settlement monitors will be placed, and
the final cover system constructed. Before the Federal Cell Facility is closed, any on-site support facilities
will be decommissioned and demolished. Decommissioning and demolition may involve any of the following
activities: decontamination as necessary prior to release, demolition, disposal on site, release for unrestricted
use and restoration to required final condition. Once all federal decommissioning waste requiring on-site
disposal has been placed in the Federal Cell Facility, the interim cover will be placed and monitored as
required for differential settlement.

The design and construction of the Federal Cell Facility will facilitate disposal site closure and are intended
to eliminate the need for active maintenance after closure. Principal design features and their characteristics
are chosen to support the final condition that the facility and its components achieve stability and limit
subsequent environmental releases. The information contained in this Application and relevant documents
demonstrate that the requirements of UAC R313-25-8(7) will have been met. The site closure plan is
acceptable for use in the Federal Cell Facility.

The Federal Cell Facility is designed to eliminate to the extent practicable the need for active maintenance after
closure. Once the Federal Cell Facility is closed, no further maintenance to the Federal Cell Facility is
anticipated. Closure of the Federal Cell Facility is expected to begin well before overall facility
decommissioning. Prior to closure, EnergySolutions will submit a detailed site Decontamination and
Decommissioning Plan. The Plan will address site closure in the context of current site conditions.

5.1 SITE STABILIZATION

EnergySolutions’ site stabilization plans are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. EnergySolutions’
Federal Cell Facility cover system is designed to minimize infiltration of water into the waste, to direct
precipitation away from disposed waste and to resist degradation caused by surface geologic processes. The
principal design systems are classified into two categories: 1) deep infiltration minimization, surface drainage
and erosion protection, and 2) geotechnical stability.

EnergySolutions has modeled the fate and transport of water through this the proposed Federal Cell Facility
cover system using GoldSim. The GoldSim model simulates processes known to have a significant role in
water flow in landfill covers in arid regions and utilize easily measured environmental characteristics as
input to its calculations, including:
• water flow in variably saturated porous media;
• material hydraulic property functions;
• atmospheric surface boundary conditions including precipitation and evapotranspiration;
• root water uptake; and
• free-drainage boundary conditions.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-2 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

5.1.1 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection

The EnergySolutions facility incorporates three separate design systems in directing the surface drainage away
from the site. These systems are designed to meet the requirements of UAC R313-25-8(7), UAC R313-25-
8, UAC R313-25-24, and UAC R313-25-25, in that they are designed and constructed to prevent erosion and
flooding of the disposal unit without active maintenance.
1. The first system consists of the two elements designed to control precipitation that falls on site. This
system includes the perimeter or run-on berms and the drainage ditches. The berms and ditches are
designed to promote stability and protection during normal, abnormal, and extreme storm and flood
events (defined as Probable Maximum Precipitation and Flood events by UAC R313-25). The
perimeter or run-on berms are constructed to sufficient height to contain water created from the worst
storm event that could occur during the design life of the Federal Cell Facility. They will also prevent
offsite floodwaters created during a worst-case flood event from running onto the Federal Cell
Facility.
2. Likewise, the drainage ditches are constructed to a sufficient depth to promote drainage of storm
waters offsite, preventing the waters from backing up and infiltrating into the Federal Cell Facility.
These ditches intercept runoff from the Federal Cell Facility and direct the flow into the natural
drainage patterns to the southwest of the site. Infiltration and erosion barriers cover the drainage
ditches in order to protect them from erosion forces. The run-on berms and drainage ditches are a
key system for the following principal design features: a) they protect against water infiltration by
directing surface water offsite, b) they promote disposal unit/cover integrity by preventing erosion
due to contact with surface water, c) they minimize contact of the radon barrier or emplaced waste
with standing water, and d) they allow the site to be free draining.
3. Upon completion of waste placement, a clay radon and infiltration barrier will be constructed. The
first layer of this cover is the radon barrier, consisting of no more than 1x10-6 permeability clay. The
radon barrier is covered by the infiltration barrier, consisting of 5x10-8 cm/sec permeability clay. The
infiltration barrier is a key system for the following principal design features: a) it encourages
precipitation evapotranspiration rather than infiltrate into the Federal Cell Facility, b) it maintains
cover integrity by protecting it against severe storm events, and c) it protects against inadvertent
intrusion into the radon barrier and emplaced waste.

Immediately over the filter layers is 18 inches of frost protection zone, which protects the infiltration barriers
from the influences of frost. The frost protection zone also serves as a biointrusion barrier, protecting the
Federal Cell Facility from damage. It consists of bankrun borrow material, with boulders larger than 16 inches
removed, to resist the erosive forces caused by severe storm events. It is a key system for the following
principal design features: a) it provides leak resistance for the Federal Cell Facility by protecting the radon
barrier from cracking due to extreme cold/hot weather conditions, b) it maintains disposal unit and radon
barrier integrity by protecting it against erosion, c) it promotes structural stability, and d) it protects against
inadvertent intrusion.

Above the frost protection zones of the Federal Cell Facility’s top slope are the evaporation (12 inches) and
surface layers (12 inches). These layers consist of loam clays that are designed to trap and absorb infiltrating
precipitation. This entrained moisture can then be removed from the cover system by evapotranspiration.
Gravel is added to the surface layer to provide additional erosion protection (15% by volume).

Above the frost protection zones of the Federal Cell Facility’s side slope is a rock filter zone (12 inches) and
rock armor layer (18 inches). These layers serve as erosion barriers (equivalent to the side slopes of the 11e.(2)
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-3 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Byproduct Facility). The erosion barriers will consist of large, fairly well graded rock, of sufficient diameter
to resist the erosive forces caused by severe storm events. The erosion barrier covering the sides and drainage
ditches of the embankment will resistance against flows caused during flood conditions. The erosion barrier
provides principal design features: a) it provides leak resistance for the embankment by protecting the radon
barrier from cracking due to biointrusion and/or extreme cold/hot weather conditions, b) it maintains disposal
unit and radon barrier integrity by protecting it against erosion, c) it promotes structural stability, and d) it
protects against inadvertent intrusion.

5.1.2 Geotechnical Stability

The geotechnical stability of the Federal Cell Facility is contingent upon proper execution of the design bases
and construction procedures for the Federal Cell Facility’s design systems. These systems are also designed
to meet the performance objectives and technical requirements of UAC R313-25. Analyses have been
performed for each of these systems to justify their design and performance. Each of these systems is
completed prior to closure of the Federal Cell Facility and eliminates the need for active maintenance of the
facility after closure.

The clay liner provides a firm construction base for the entire Federal Cell Facility that minimizes contact of
wastes with standing water. It is constructed over a compacted foundation of in situ soils. To ensure long-
term stability of the Federal Cell Facility, the clay liner is compacted to near maximum compaction. It is
constructed with clay materials that will maintain their strength at relatively high moisture contents to ensure
that: it can remain firm under the loads of the emplaced waste; long-term settlement is minimized; and
liquefaction does not occur. In addition, the liner is constructed with a permeability greater than the top foot
of radon barrier, to protect against ponding or “bath-tubbing” that could cause saturation of the bottom of the
Federal Cell Facility.

The structural stability of the Federal Cell Facility is also ensured by proper placement and compaction of
waste materials. As outlined in the FCF CQA/QC Manual, depleted uranium waste placed will be placed
below ground level with CLSM to minimize voids in the Federal Cell Facility. All placed materials will be
tested for density, moisture and thickness to ensure compliance with design bases and construction procedures.
Above depleted uranium waste, soil and soil-like fill materials will be placed in lifts and compacted near
maximum compaction and optimum moisture to protect against long-term settlement. To further protect
against differential settlement, uniformity of the Federal Cell Facility will be developed by terracing or tying
in intersecting sections of the Federal Cell Facility. The Federal Cell Facility will be surveyed annually, and
As-Built drawings produced and submitted to the Director. Settlement will be monitored both before and after
final cover construction in accordance with applicable specifications of the FCF CQA/QC Manual.

Once waste and fill materials have been placed and graded to the design slopes and elevations indicated in the
design drawings, a radon barrier will be constructed. The radon barrier will be constructed with low
permeability clays and will be sloped to promote precipitation runoff. This is also a key element to prevent
against liquefaction as it minimizes water infiltration and saturation of the emplaced fill and depleted uranium
waste. The radon barrier, like the clay liner, will be compacted to almost maximum compaction and near
optimum moisture to protect against long-term settlement. The final cover protects the radon barrier against
cracking due to freezing/thawing, and erosion. The design of the Federal Cell Facility’s side slope of five
horizontal to one vertical was studied in detail to assure that the slopes would not fail due to the expected
maximum seismic event.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-4 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The DOE Technical Approach Document (DOE, 1989), provides data and calculations used in evaluating the
slope stability and liquefaction potential for the Vitro Federal Cell Facility. It was concluded that

“due to the short- and long-term unsaturated Federal Cell Facility conditions, the dense nature of
the granular site soils and a depth to groundwater in excess of 25 feet below existing grade,
liquefaction in the facility or foundation soils will not occur at the site due to [Maximum Considered
Event] acceleration.”

In determination of features and construction specifications that promote long-term stability of the Federal
Cell Facility, EnergySolutions evaluated the effects of erosion, mass wasting, slope failure, foundation
settlement and settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration through the cover and adjacent soils, and surface
drainage at the disposal site. Collectively, the design of the proposed Federal Cell will be stabile over the long-
term. The design methodologies used for designing the Federal Cell are acceptable for ensuring embankment
stability include thickness and gradation of the riprap layer lining the side slopes and the perimeter drainage
ditch adjacent to the Federal Cell; the thickness of, and particle gradation (filter) requirements for, the Type
B Filter Zone layer used in the Federal Cell cover side-slopes; and the maximum allowable distortion
limitation for the Federal Cell cover.

The Federal Cell Facility cover is designed to be capable of resisting damage by erosion resulting from surface
water flows expected to occur during normal and abnormal precipitation conditions at the site. The D50
specification of the rock riprap material to be used on the side-slope cover demonstrate long-term erosional
stability of the embankment. In response to the Director’s additional erosion questions (Willoughby, 2021),
additional erosion analysis and responses are included as Appendix N. The Federal Cell’s external erosion
protection measures are adequate and that long-term stability of the cell against erosion will be achieved with
reasonable assurance.

EnergySolutions has also developed filter criteria (gradation and permeability criteria) recommended in
NUREG/CR-4620 (see Appendix L), that demonstrate that the proposed Federal Cell side-slope cover will
provide long-term stability with respect to minimizing potential long-term internal erosion within the side-
slope cover layers over the Federal Cell’s s design life under normal and abnormal precipitation conditions at
the site. The side-slope riprap D15/D85 specification meets the criteria as described in NUREG/CR-4620 for
minimization of migration of the filter layer into the riprap. Furthermore, specifications on the sacrificial soil
gradations ensure that migration of material between the sacrificial soil layer and the Type A Filter layer of
the side slope will be minimized. Finally, the Type A Filter Zone specifications will minimize internal erosion
of the underlying sacrificial soil layer of the Federal Cell side slope, regarding the projected interstitial
velocities associated with the rock.

EnergySolutions has also selected characteristics of the riprap materials used to line the Federal Cell perimeter
ditches to resist movement (internal erosion) of the riprap materials under flows projected to occur during
normal and abnormal precipitation events at the site. The drainage design calculations have performed in
accordance with guidelines provided in NUREG/CR-4620. A specification for the minimum average D50 of
the riprap lining the ditches is specified in the FCF CQA/QC Manual to prevent failure under abnormal ditch
flow. The analyses of the effects of erosion on long-term stability of the proposed Federal Cell and perimeter
drainage ditches are adequate and that long-term stability of the Federal Cell will be achieved with reasonable
assurance.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-5 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The area of the proposed Federal Cell, at and immediately surrounding the Clive Facility, is relatively flat
with no landforms or soil conditions present that would be prone to landslides, rock toppling or rock falls,
debris flows, or other forms of mass wasting. Analyses of slope stability of the Federal Cell and of other
disposal embankments at the Clive Facility demonstrate that all slopes will be stable in the long term. Based
on this information, the long-term stability of the proposed Federal Cell will not be impacted by mass wasting.

EnergySolutions has proposed FCF CQA/QC Manual specifications to monitor and measure settlement prior
to cover placement appropriately reduces the risk of uncertainties in estimating settlements. By comparison
with the neighboring Class A West cell, the settlement of the Federal Cell will be far less due to the absence
of disposed dry-active waste and the cell’s smaller design height with identical 5H:1V side-slope inclinations.
The fact that the waste type proposed to be disposed in the Federal Cell and waste placement and compaction
procedures are unchanged compared to the Class A West embankment, indicate that settlements would be
expected to be less in the Federal Cell relative to the Class A West embankment.

5.2 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

Decontamination and decommissioning of the Federal Cell Facility will be provided at the time of closure.
EnergySolutions has developed an extensive set of decontamination facilities in support of the Federal Cell
Facility and other waste disposal operations, addressing activities necessary for equipment and tools used in
shipping, receiving, managing, and disposal of depleted uranium. Decontamination procedures have also
been developed to address release of the various shipping containers from the Restricted Area.

In the Decontamination and Decommissioning Plan, it is assumed that additional support facilities will not be
required beyond that specified in this Application. It is also assumed that these support facilities will be
decontaminated and decommissioned upon closure. The decontamination and decommissioning activities
directly related to the Federal Cell Facility include:
a. Decontaminating on-site soils within the Federal Cell Facility property boundary but excluding the
Federal Cell disposal embankment, by removing all surface soils contaminated with depleted uranium
such that the contamination in the residual soils is ALARA and below the respective cleanup limits.
Soils contaminated with depleted uranium will be disposed of at the Federal Cell Facility using
disposal methods approved in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
b. Decontaminating any on-site support structures and contents dedicated to supporting Federal Cell
Facility construction and operation.

In addition to management of depleted uranium destined for placement in the Federal Cell Facility,
EnergySolutions’ waste handling facilities are also used for both Class A and 11e.(2) waste management
activities. Decommissioning waste from all facilities will be placed into the Class A West embankment.
Additionally, GWQDP UGW450005 requires that sludge and other wastes from eventual decommissioning
of the Evaporation Ponds will also be disposed as LLRW in the Class A West embankment.

5.3 POST-OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE

Upon successful licensing of the Federal Cell Facility, EnergySolutions’ has secured financial assurance to
perpetually conduct necessary post-operational monitoring. After decontamination and decommissioning of
the Federal Cell Facility is complete and perpetual stewardship transferred to DOE, post-operational
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-6 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

monitoring will include annual inspections and minor maintenance of the Federal Cell Facility and areas that
may have been impacted by Federal Cell Facility operations, to ensure that the Federal Cell Facility and other
required elements perform as intended and that there are no adverse impacts to the environment or the public
due to degradation of the Federal Cell Facility. Monitoring and surveillance includes inspection and minor
maintenance of the Federal Cell Facility, fencing, roads, and annual groundwater sampling.

The existing program for monitoring airborne particulate radioactivity (Environmental Monitoring Plan) will
continue with air samplers surrounding the operational area and at least one control station remote from the
area for at least one sampling event after final cleanup and closure. Composite samples from each station will
be analyzed by gamma spectrometry and radiochemical techniques. Air sample collection will continue
during the period required for sample analysis. Measured concentrations will be compared with the dose
standards in accordance with the Environment Monitoring Plan.

Passive environmental radon monitors will be used for one year after closure at all air sampling sites employed
during post-closure airborne particulate monitoring. Samplers will be exchanged at the frequency prescribed
by the Environmental Monitoring Plan. If these samples all demonstrate compliance with the concentration
limit of R313-15-420, Table II for Rn-222 no further radon sampling will be required. For the purpose of this
evaluation the concentration will be the measured concentration, minus the sum of the average baseline
concentration, plus three standard deviations.

TLDs will be used for gamma exposure monitoring at the same locations for one-year post-closure and will
be exchanged at the frequency prescribed by the Environmental Monitoring Plan. If the net annual exposure
rate does not exceed the baseline exposure rate, plus three standard deviations as adjusted for changes in
worldwide fallout levels by 25 mR/year, no further monitoring of gamma exposure rates will be required.

EnergySolutions will make a final collection of soil samples at site closure. No further collections will be
necessary post-closure. If any site boundary samples contain concentrations of radionuclides greater than the
mean plus two standard deviations determined for the background samples an investigation will be made to
determine the possible cause and sampling will continue in that area and at the background sites until the
levels return to background.

The Federal Cell Facility design minimizes the potential for transport of contaminants away from the disposed
waste. The cover reduces the potential for deep infiltration, which is already likely to be minimal in the area
due to the low incident precipitation and high potential evapotranspiration. Seepage is not expected to reach
the groundwater as a result of moisture redistribution within the waste. The impact of this seepage on the
groundwater is expected to be minimal for several reasons:
1. Depleted uranium waste must have equal to or less than 1% free standing liquids upon arrival. Most
shipments have no free-standing liquids.
2. Depleted uranium waste must have no free liquids at disposal.
3. Evaporation at the site exceeds precipitation. Accordingly, even waste with some moisture content
upon receipt is likely to dry out during placement.
4. The existing poor quality of the groundwater makes it difficult to significantly degrade it.
5. The hydraulic head gradient in the groundwater is minimal, limiting the velocity of groundwater
movement away from the site to a maximum of about a foot per year.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-7 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Due to the high and variable concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides inherent with depleted
uranium, results for analysis of these radionuclides will be subjected to trend analysis to identify any increase
in ground-water concentrations. Manmade radionuclides are not expected to be found in groundwater as a
result of releases from the Federal Cell Facility, any positive findings will be considered as evidence of
possible contamination from other site operations. Any findings of radioactivity above predicted baseline
values will be reason for increased frequency of sampling at the affected well to determine the reason for the
finding and any possible course of action.

Settlement analyses will be performed for the Federal Cell Facility and cover materials to ensure that total and
differential settlements is within an acceptable range for the cover system. The foundation soils will include
both sand and clay that will settle under the weight of the depleted uranium and cover. The sand layers will
be relatively free draining and will settle rapidly.

EnergySolutions’ Long Term Settlement Monitoring Plan (included in the FCF CQA/QC Manual) was
developed in accordance with the recommendations contained in "Guidance for UMTRA Project Surveillance
and Maintenance" (UMTRA-DOE/AL-350124.000). The Plan specifies that geotechnical monitoring
inspections will be performed by EnergySolutions on the completed Federal Cell Facility to evaluate
settlement of the Federal Cell Facility as well as slope stability. Surveys will be performed annually and will
be made to second order standards.

In accordance with the recommendations contained in “Guidance for UMTRA Project Surveillance and
Maintenance” (UMTRA-DOE/AL-350124.000), annual visual inspections of the completed Federal Cell
Facility will be conducted. Among the items to be observed and/or inspected will be:
1. Adjacent off-site features.
2. Access roads, fences, gates, and signs.
a. Needed maintenance.
b. Breach of integrity.
3. Monuments and wells.
a. Disturbances.
b. Replacement or protection.
4. Crest.
a. Observation of erosion, soil color, vegetation, trails.
b. Subsidence, settling, cracks, etc.
c. Deterioration of cover.
5. Slopes.
a. Settlement, sliding.
b. Animal and/or plant intrusion.
c. Vandalism.
6. Periphery.
7. Diversion Channels.
a. Functional.
b. Erosion, sediment.
c. Vegetation, blockage.
8. Photography

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 5-8 Section 5 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

In addition to the scheduled surveillance, unscheduled inspections may be performed following unusual
events (e.g., tornadoes, extremely high winds, extended or high periods of precipitation, floods, earthquakes,
or human events such as vandalism or inadvertent).

The closed Federal Cell Facility will be marked in the same way as a closed uranium mill tailings cell.
Permanent granite markers, similar to those placed at the Vitro embankment, will be placed at the closed
embankment. Markers will consist of unpolished granite of specified minimum dimensions, inscribed with
lettering of specified characteristics. The markers will be set in a bed of reinforced concrete and slightly raised
from the ground/cover surface. Markers will be placed at the entrance to the site and near the center of the
crest of the completed Federal Cell Facility. They will identify the site; the general location of the disposed
materials; dates of construction and closure; volume, mass, or tonnage of disposed material; kilograms of
source material; grams of special nuclear material; and total activity of radioactive material disposed of in the
Federal Cell Facility. Based on this information, the marking for the proposed Federal Cell Facility satisfies
applicable regulatory requirements.

The horizontal buffer zone will be no less than 97.7 feet between the toe of the disposed waste and perimeter
fence. During construction and waste emplacement operations, a 300-foot buffer zone exists between the
closest edge of any embankment and the site boundary. A vertical buffer zone is provided between the bottom
of the embankment and the underlying unconfined aquifer water table. This buffer zone consists of the 2-foot-
thick clay liner and at least 10 ft of undisturbed soils. Although the water surface elevation may rise slightly
over time, it is not anticipated that this elevation will exceed the 10 feet of buffer zone in addition to the 2-
foot clay liner. Based on this information, the plans to maintain a buffer zone satisfy applicable regulatory
requirements. The dimensions and characteristics of the buffer zone are such that monitoring and mitigative
measures can be undertaken, as needed.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-1 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 6. SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Neptune and Company, Inc., (Neptune) under contract to EnergySolutions developed the Clive depleted
uranium performance assessment model to support decision making related to the proposed disposal of
depleted uranium wastes at a Federal Cell Facility at Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions. Version 1.4
of the Model provides a platform on which to conduct analyses relevant to performance assessment, as
required by the State of Utah in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R313-25, License Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Specifically, a performance assessment is required in UAC R313 25 9,
Technical Analyses. The model may also serve to inform decisions made by the Site operator to gain
maximum utility of the resource that is the Clive Facility.

6.1 RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVITY

The model is written using the GoldSim probabilistic systems analysis software, which is well-suited for the
purpose. In order to provide decision makers with a broad perspective of the behavior and capabilities of the
Facility, the model considers uncertainty in input parameter values. This probabilistic assessment
methodology is encouraged by NRC and DOE in constructing performance assessments and the models that
support them. The model can be run in deterministic mode, where a single set of median model inputs is used,
but running in probabilistic Monte Carlo mode provides greater insight into the model behavior, and especially
into model sensitivity to the distribution of input parameter values. In Monte Carlo mode, a large number of
realizations are executed with values drawn at random from the input parameter distributions using Latin
Hypercube Sampling to ensure equal probability across the range of the input distributions. The distributions
of results, therefore, reflect the uncertainty in these values. To the extent that the model reflects the uncertain
state of knowledge at a site, the model provides insight about how the site works, and what should be expected
if different actions are taken, or different wastes are disposed. In this way, the model aids in decision making,
even in the face of uncertainty.

By examining detailed descriptions of Clive’s physical environment, the engineered disposal facility, the
sources and chemical forms of disposed wastes, potentially affected media, potential release pathways and
exposure routes, and potential receptors were evaluated in the performance assessment. Features and
processes considered that may potentially drive release of radioactivity from the Federal Cell include:
• frost weathering and other meteorological events (e.g., precipitation, atmospheric dispersion,
resuspension);
• resuspension of particulates from surface soils allows redistribution by atmospheric dispersion;
• groundwater transport, inundation, and water table changes;
• chemical sorption and partitioning between phases, aqueous solubility, precipitation, chemical
stability, complexation, changes in water chemistry (redox potential, pH, Eh), fluid interactions,
speciation, interactions with clays and other host materials, and leaching of radionuclides from the
waste form;
• ecological changes and pedogenesis (soil formation);
• Denudation (cap erosion) from pluvial, fluvial or aeolian processes from extreme precipitation,
changes in surface water channels, and weathering;
• Sedimentation/deposition onto the repository;
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-2 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• failure of general engineered features, repository design, repository seals, material properties, and
subsidence of the repository;
• degradation and corrosion of waste packages (fractures, fissures, and corrosion - pitting, rusting);
• leaching;
• radon emanation,
• plant uptake;
• translocation by burrowing animals;
• resuspension;
• atmospheric dispersion;
• biotically-induced transport;
• animal ingestion, both as ingestion of fodder and feed by livestock,

6.1.1 Determination of Types, Kinds, and Quantities of Waste

Depleted uranium is the remains of the uranium enrichment process, of which the fissionable uranium isotope
235U is the product. The leftover uranium, depleted in 235U, is predominantly 238U, but may include small
amounts of other U isotopes. In general, depleted uranium will contain very small amounts of decay products
in the uranium, thorium, actinium, and neptunium series of decay chains. Some specific depleted uranium
waste, resulting from introduction of uranium recycled from used nuclear reactor fuel (reactor returns) into
the separations process, contains varying amounts of contaminants, in the form of fission and activation
products. Since some of the depleted uranium evaluated in this performance assessment includes reactor
returns. The national inventory of depleted uranium is on the order of 700 Gg (700,000 Mg, or metric tons) in
mass as uranium hexafluoride (DUF6), and the bulk of it exists in its original storage cylinders, awaiting
conversion to oxide form for disposal. This conversion is being performed at the Portsmouth, Ohio, and
Paducah, Kentucky gaseous diffusion plant sites, using new purpose-built “deconversion” plants to produce
triuranium octoxide( U3O8). A much smaller mass of depleted uranium waste was generated by the Savannah
River Site (SRS) in the form of uranium trioxide (UO3), a powder stored in several thousand 200 L (55 gal)
drums. While the composition of the SRS depleted uranium is reasonably well known, the content of the
gaseous diffusion plant depleted uranium is not well documented. For the purposes of this assessment, it was
assumed that some fraction of the gaseous diffusion plant depleted uranium waste is contaminated to the same
extent as the SRS the depleted uranium waste. Depleted uranium waste from both sources is considered in the
Clive gaseous diffusion plant depleted uranium performance assessment model.

6.1.2 Infiltration

The Clive Facility is a remote and environmentally inhospitable area for human habitation. Human activity at
Clive has historically been very limited, due largely to the lack of potable water, or even water suitable for
irrigation. The site is located on flat ground, with the bottom of the waste disposal cells shallowly excavated
into local lacustrine silts, sands, and clays. A single waste disposal cell, or embankment, is considered in this
model: the Federal Cell Facility housing depleted uranium. The Federal Cell Facility is modeled with an
engineered cover, as per design documents. As designed, the top of the Federal Cell Facility is above grade,
and the cover has layers of a rock-armored cover system similar to that constructed over the closed LARW
and Vitro cells and under construction on the Class A West embankment. In addition to the infiltration
documented with the Model 1.4 Performance Assessment presented in Appendix Q, Neptune has assembled
additional analysis and information in Appendix P in specific response to the Director’s December 2020 Cover
and Infiltration questions (Willougby, 2020).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-3 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The design criteria selected for encouraging surface water run-off drainage from the Federal Cell Facility are
intended to ensure that (lateral) run-off of precipitation that falls on the surface of the completed Federal Cell
will be maintained under expected and possible extreme, future environmental conditions. Encouraging run-
off helps ensure that the design objective of minimizing the volume of precipitation available to infiltrate into
the embankment can be achieved.

The side slopes of the Federal Cell Facility will be graded at a 5H:1V inclination to help promote lateral run-
off from the Federal Cell Facility side slopes while balancing long-term erosion protection requirements for
the Federal Cell Facility in a manner consistent with published NRC recommendations and guidelines.
Additionally, filter permeability criteria have been established for the Type B Filter Zone layer and Sacrificial
Soil Layer in the side slope portions of the Federal Cell Facility cover to help ensure that the Type B Filter
Zone layer will maintain sufficient permeability (hydraulic conductivity) to retain its ability to function as a
lateral drainage layer in the cover.

Water balance modeling of the cover indicates that some water penetrates the cover system, and this
infiltration has the potential to leach radionuclides from the waste and transport them down through the cell
liner and unsaturated zone to the aquifer. In the saturated zone (aquifer), contaminants are transported laterally
to a hypothetical monitoring well located about 90 feet from the edge of the interior of the Federal Cell
Facility. Since the side slopes of the Federal Cell Facility are modeled to not contain depleted uranium waste,
the effective distance to the well from the depleted uranium waste itself is about 240 ft. This environmental
transport pathway is relevant for long-lived and readily leached radionuclides such as 99Tc. Contributions to
groundwater radionuclide concentrations from the proposed depleted uranium waste are calculated for
comparison to groundwater protection limits (GWPLs) during the next 500 years.

The performance assessment simulations resulted in a distribution of average annual infiltration into the waste
zone, and average volumetric water contents for each cover layer. Infiltration flux into the waste zone ranged
from 0.0067 to 0.18 mm/yr, with an average of 0.024 mm/yr, and a log mean of 0.018 mm/yr. Based on its
analysis, EnergySolutions’ design criteria and justification supporting those design criteria and design basis
conditions acceptably demonstrate infiltration rates through the Federal Cell Facility will be minimized and
run-off will be encouraged.

6.1.3 Radionuclide Release - Normal Conditions

In addition to water advective transport, radionuclides are transported via diffusion in both water and air
phases within the cover system, which can provide upward transport pathways. Gaseous radionuclides, such
as 222Rn, partition between air and water. Soluble constituents partition between water and solid porous media.
Coupled with all these process are the activities of biota, with plants transporting contaminants to their above-
ground surface tissues via their roots, and burrowing animals (ants and small mammals) moving bulk
materials upward and downward through burrow excavation and collapse. Biota do not play a major role in
contaminant transport contributing to human doses or uranium hazard according to model results. The model
does not consider the effects of enhanced radon diffusion from a compromised radon barrier, but the model
does include an expanded assessment of the performance of the radon barriers with respect to infiltration.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-4 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Once radionuclides reach the ground surface at the top of the engineered cover via the aforementioned
processes, they are subject to suspension into the atmosphere and dispersion to the surrounding landscape.
Atmospheric transport of gases (222Rn) and contaminants sorbed to suspended particles are modeled. The
results of this model are abstracted into the Clive depleted uranium performance assessment model, and
contributions of airborne radionuclides to dose and uranium toxicity hazard are evaluated.

The impact of sheet and gully erosion in the model is evaluated by the application of results of landscape
evolution models of hill slope erosion loss and channel development conducted for a borrow pit at the site.
The model domain for the borrow pit includes the borrow pit floor, a 10-foot-high pit face at a 1:1 slope and
several hundred meters of ground surface upslope from the pit face at a slope of 0.003 (0.3 percent). The soil
characteristics are consistent with the Unit 4 silty clay, though the landscape evolution model did not consider
the presence of vegetation or rock cover. The surface layer of the top slope of the cover proposed for the
Federal Cell Facility has a slope of about 2 percent. While the cover on the top slope part of the embankment
has a greater slope than that of the undisturbed area upslope from the borrow pit face, the top slope
characteristics act to minimize erosion and channel formation.

A subset of the borrow pit model domain was selected to represent the cover. Gully depths estimated by the
erosion model were extrapolated to 10,000 years and a statistical model was developed that generated values
of the percentage of the cover where gullies ended within a given depth interval. This model provided an
estimate of the volume of embankment cover material removed by gullies. The depositional area of the gully
fan is assumed to be the same as the area of waste exposed in the gullies, using projections onto the horizontal
plane. If these embankment materials include depleted uranium waste components, then this leads to some
contribution to doses and uranium hazards. No associated effects, such as biotic processes, effects on radon
dispersion, or local changes in infiltration are considered within the gullies.

6.1.4 Radionuclide Release – Accidents or Unusual

Potential releases from an unlikely accident from EnergySolutions’ waste management activities are
negligible for their disposal facilities. EnergySolutions’ operations, by their nature, limit the magnitude of
potential accidental releases. Flammable or explosive fuels are not stored in close proximity to the wastes
and the principal flammable material is in the fuel tanks of the individual work vehicles. As authorization to
dispose of dry active waste (DAW) is not being sought for the Federal Cell Facility, a highly unlikely fire in
a loaded haul truck carrying closed containers of depleted uranium and dry active waste (DAW) could result
in some release of airborne particulate depleted uranium in the scenario discussed below. A fire in the Federal
Cell Facility disposal cell after waste is placed and entombed with CLSM is unlikely. The possible release
scenarios previously evaluated, all of low probability, but ranged in order of decreasing magnitude (based on
probability of happening times impact), are:
1. On-site truck turnover or collision;
2. Train derailment;
3. On-site truck fire;
4. Flooding;
5. Tornado; and
6. Severe wind.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-5 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The following discussion estimates consequences of the above scenarios.

On-site truck turnover or collision:
Any accident involving a truck turnover would be comparable to the same truck releasing bulk depleted
uranium from breached containers in the Federal Cell. For an on-site truck accident immediate assistance is
available to wet down, cover, or clean up any spilled wastes; as well as to provide any necessary respiratory
protection. Assuming a moisture content of five percent, wind speed of 40 mph and spillage of the entire load,
the total release of depleted uranium waste material is calculated at 265 g. Most of the material from the truck
would be deposited on the ground in the immediate vicinity of the truck.

An on-site truck turnover or collision can be compared to normal rail car rollover emissions prior to
construction of the rollover enclosure. The rail car rollover is equivalently close to the site boundary as the
haul roads. Therefore, doses for a hypothetical train derailment are conservative in estimating dose from a
truck turnover or collision. As input to the calculations, it was calculated that the total amount of resuspension
annually from rail car rollover operations is about 65.6 kg with winds blowing toward the nearest site
boundary monitoring station (Station A-14) 5.7 percent of the time. The scenario assumes an average uranium
concentration in rollover waste of 17,000 pCi/g; 820 pCi/g of Ra-226 in equilibrium with its daughter
products; 59 pCi/g of Th-230; and 27 pCi/g of Th-232 in equilibrium with its daughter products. The resultant
committed effective dose equivalent (from annual rail car rollover operations) to a hypothetical receptor at
Station A-14 was calculated to be 0.73 mrem. An enclosure has since been constructed over the rollover to
further minimize fugitive dust emissions.

For the truck accident case, a uranium concentration of 270,000 pCi/g with the other nuclides proportionately
the same as presented above was assumed, with winds blowing toward a receptor at the distance of the fence
line for the duration of the accident. Under those conditions, the committed effective dose equivalent at that
location, scaled from the modeled situation, would be 0.18 mrem. The individual organs receiving the
maximum dose, for the mix of nuclides assumed at the rollover, would be either the lung or bone surface
either of which would receive doses of no more than 10 times the committed effective dose, or less than two
mrem. For on-site workers there would be a very short exposure time since there would be no reason to stand
downwind and respiratory protection would be readily available.

From NUREG-0706 the probability of a truck accident is in the range of 1.0 to 1.6x10-6/km (NRC, 1980a).
There are two kinds of truck movements to be considered at the Clive site. These are arriving waste shipments
and haul trucks moving material from the rollover or storage to the disposal cell. Assuming that there are 3
incoming trucks per day and 50 loaded trucks per day from the rollover or storage to the trench and assuming
that the on-site distance traveled by any loaded truck is one kilometer, the probability of an accident in any
one year is:

1.3 x 10-6/km x 53 loads/day x 260 days/year x 1 km/load
= 1.8 x 10-2 or about 1.8%.

Most of the depleted uranium material from the breached containers on the truck would be deposited on the
ground in the immediate vicinity of the truck. Based on NUREG-0706, for a wind speed of 10 mph, about
0.1% of the material would become airborne immediately (for dry material). Obviously, if the material is
moist, the release fraction would be less. For a 20-ton (40,000 pound) truck, about 40 pounds or less might
become airborne. This compares with about 24 pounds of dust that becomes airborne daily per hectare of a
mill waste pile surface. If the spill is not cleaned up or dust controlled rapidly, the release fraction over a 24-
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-6 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

hour period might increase to as much as 0.9 percent or 360 pounds. This is highly unlikely because of the
presence on-site of crews and equipment that are there for the express purpose of managing bulk wastes.
Because of moisture differences and differences in waste composition from the model mill assumptions, it
would expect to have lower release fractions in an actual accident situation.

For on-site workers, there would be a very short exposure time since there would be no reason to stand
downwind for 24 hours (or even one hour). For this scenario, it is assumed that an accident occurs involving
the spill of a breached load of depleted uranium containers with concentrations of 15,000 pCi/g, a period of
three hours for cleanup with no use of respiratory protection, an airborne concentration of 1 mg/m3, and a
respiratory rate of 1.2 m3/hr a total of 54 pCi of each nuclide would be inhaled. Comparing these to the
Allowable Limit of Intake (ALIs) from Appendix B of 10 CFR 20.1.001 - 4201, the sum of fractions is 0.022.
The external gamma dose, using the relationship of 3.1 mrem/h/pCi/g for Ra-226 and doubling for the
contribution from Ra-228, would be less than 140 mrem. Such a dose added to the projected maximum TEDE
of 1,032 mrem/yr would still be well within the permissible annual exposures for radiation workers. In actual
fact, no workers would be present under such conditions without respiratory protection and would not be
standing on the spilled waste for more than a few minutes.

Radiation doses to non-radiation workers would be limited by promptly evacuating such persons from the
vicinity of such an accident. Non-radiation workers who might respond as part of an emergency team would
be monitored and would spend a limited amount of time in proximity to the waste. It is believed that no
person who is not a radiation worker would remain in the vicinity for more than 30 minutes. Therefore,
comparing inhalation exposures and external doses to those for radiation workers, it is obvious that no non-
radiation worker would receive in excess of 100 mrem

6.1.5 Radionuclide Transfer to Human Access Location

Given the remote and inhospitable environment of Clive, it is not reasonable to assume that the traditional
residential receptors considered in other performance assessments are present. Traditionally, and based on
DOE (DOE M 435.1) and NRC guidance (10 CFR 61), members of the public are evaluated outside the fence
line or boundary of the disposal facility, and inadvertent intruders are assumed to access the disposal facility
and the disposed waste directly, in activities such as well drilling or house construction. For disposal facilities
in the arid west, these types of strictly defined default scenarios do not adequately describe likely human
activities. Their inclusion in a performance assessment for a site in the arid west, such as Clive, will usually
result in unrealistic underestimation of the performance of a disposal system, which does not lend itself to
effective decision making for the Nation’s needs to dispose of radioactive waste.

At Clive, there is no potable water resource to drill for, and historical evidence suggests there is little likelihood
that anyone would construct a residence on or near the site. There are present day activities in the vicinity,
however, that might result in receptor exposures if these activities are projected into the future when the
facility is closed and after institutional control is lost. Large ranches operate in the area, so ranch hands work
in the vicinity. Pronghorn antelope are found in the region, and hunters will follow them. Both of these
activities are facilitated by the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs). OHV enthusiasts also ride recreationally
for sport in areas near the Federal Cell Facility.

In addition to these receptors, there are specific points of exposure within the vicinity of the Clive Facility
where individuals might be exposed. About 8 miles to the west, OHV enthusiasts use the Knolls Recreation
Area. Interstate 80 and a railroad are located to the north, with an associated rest area on the highway. Closer
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-7 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

to the Clive Facility, the Utah Test and Training Range access road is used on occasion. The Model hence
evaluates dose and uranium hazard to these site-specific receptors.

These doses and the supporting contaminant transport modeling that provides the dose model with
radionuclide concentrations in exposure media are evaluated for 10,000 years, in accordance with UAC R313-
25-9(5)(a). After that time, the modeling focus turns to long-term, or “deep time” scenarios. Peak activity of
the waste occurs when the progeny of the principal parent, 238U (with a half-life that is approximately the age
of the earth— over 4 billion years), reach secular equilibrium. This occurs at roughly 2.1 million years (My)
from the time of isotopic separation, and the model evaluates the potential future of the site in this context. At
2.1 (My) the activity of the last modeled member of the chain, 210Pb, is equal to that of 238U, within less than
one half of one percent. While the calculation could be carried out further in time to achieve a greater degree
of accuracy, there is no benefit in doing so for decision-making purposes. This time frame borders on geologic,
and needs to consider the likely possibility of future deep lakes in the Bonneville Basin. The return of such
lakes is understood to be inevitable, and the Clive Facility, as constructed, will not survive in its current
configuration. Many lakes, of intermediate and deep size, are expected to occur in the 2.1 My time frame,
following the climate cycle periodicity of about 100,000 years, based on current scientific understanding of
paleoclimatology. In these timeframes, it is also important to consider processes such as eolian (i.e., wind-
borne) deposition, which can be seen in geologic formations in the Clive area. Deposition builds up the ground
surface over time, such that the ground surface when a lake returns is 2 – 3 m higher than the current ground
surface.

As each lake returns, estimates are made of the radionuclide concentrations in the lake and in the sediments
surrounding and subsuming the site. Because the exact behavior of lake intrusion and site destruction is
speculative, the model makes several conservative assumptions. Upward movement of radionuclides, via
diffusion and biota, is assumed to occur until the first lake returns. At that point in time, the radionuclides that
are above ground are assumed to comingle with sediments, dispersed over an uncertain area approximately
the size of an intermediate lake. In the presence of a lake, the radionuclides migrate into the water, in
accordance with their aqueous solubility. For U3O8, which is considered to be the only form of uranium oxide
remaining by the time the first lake arrives (since UO3 moves out of the waste first and what is left will become
more like U3O8 or UO2 in the presence of a wetter climate), the solubility of U is very low. As each lake
recedes, radionuclides are co-deposited with the sediment, only to be dissolved into the water again with the
next lake. This is a very conservative approach, especially for the lake concentrations, since in reality each
blanket of sediment could entrap constituents, and the concentrations in water and sediment over time should
decrease consequently. The analysis, therefore, focuses on the arrival of the first lake, which will be the most
destructive in terms of sudden release of radionuclides, and would provide the least amount of sediment to
encapsulate them. Subsequent lakes would see progressively less radionuclide activity as the site is slowly
buried under ever-deeper lacustrine deposits through the eons.

The utility of such a calculation, aside from responding to the UAC requirement, is to inform decisions
regarding the placement of wastes in the embankment. With downward pathways influencing groundwater
concentrations, and upward pathways influencing dose and uranium hazard, a balance must be achieved in
the placement of different kinds of waste. No depleted uranium waste has been modeled under the side slopes.
In version 1.4 of the Model, the erosion modeling was conducted under the assumption that gullies will occur
on the embankment. Additionally, the only depleted uranium waste configuration presently evaluated is for
disposal of these wastes in layers of the embankment below the current grade of surrounding soil. Dose results
for each type of potential receptor are presented in Table 6-1.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-8 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 6-1

Peak TEDE: Statistical Summary

peak TEDE (mrem in a year) within 10,000 years
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
Hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-9 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

There is a question of which statistic from the many Model realizations is most appropriate for comparison to
performance criteria. The statistics in Table 6-1 represent summaries of the mean, median, and 95th percentiles
of the dose at 10,000 years for the 10,000 realizations. The peak mean dose is sometimes of interest for
comparison with performance objectives, and in this model, the peak mean dose occurs at or near 10 thousand
years (ky). In effect, 10 ky is the worst-case year in terms of dose. Under these circumstances, the 95th
percentile is analogous to the 95% upper confidence interval of the mean at 10 ky that is commonly used to
represent reasonable maximum exposure in CERCLA risk assessments.

For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, results are shown in Table 6-2. For all such radionuclides
compliance with the GWPLs is clearly demonstrated. The mean values for 99Tc and 129I are much greater than
the median, indicating that the distributions of these concentrations have a very strong degree of skewness.

Sensitivity analyses on the Model results indicate that receptor doses are dominated by radon inhalation,
whereas the downward migration pathway is dominated by groundwater concentrations of 99Tc. A trade-off
is indicated in terms of depleted uranium waste placement. The lower the depleted uranium waste is placed,
particularly the 99Tc-contaminated depleted uranium waste, the greater the groundwater concentrations of 99Tc, but the lower the doses due to increases in the diffusion path length to the ground surface. Conversely
the higher the depleted uranium waste is placed in the embankment, the lower the 99Tc groundwater
concentrations, and the greater the dose to receptors. Placement of depleted uranium waste below surface
grade in the Federal Cell Facility satisfies both dose and groundwater performance objectives. Sensitivity
analyses on the groundwater concentration of 99Tc indicate that these results are primarily sensitive to the α
parameter of van Genuchten equation and secondarily to the molecular diffusion coefficient.

In addition to the dose assessment for hypothetical individuals described above, the structure of the model
allows the cumulative population dose to be tracked. For the objective of keeping doses as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA), estimated dose to the entire population of ranch workers, hunters, and OHV enthusiasts
over the 10,000-year simulation was evaluated. These cumulative population doses are shown in Table 6-3.

The population doses presented in Table 6-3 may be evaluated relative to doses received from natural
background radiation. NRC has suggested value of a statistical life (VSL)-based cost of $5,100 per person
rem. Using such a cost, the total ALARA cost over 10 ky (for example, $61,200 using the mean estimate of
total population dose, or $6 per year.) is very small compared to the cost of waste operations and disposal.
Average annual individual background dose related to natural background radiation in the United States is
approximately 310 mrem, which for the total cumulative receptor population of about 3,200,000 individuals
in 10,000 years is approximately 992,000 rem—a level that is many orders of magnitude greater than the
population doses shown in Table 6-3. ALARA is intended to support evaluation of options to reduce doses in
a cost-effective manner. Given the results of this ALARA analysis, it is not clear that further reduction in
dose is necessary.

The final set of analyses conducted with the Model are the deep-time analyses. As described above, the deep-
time model is very conservative in many ways with respect to dispersal of the depleted uranium waste
material. Deep lakes that obliterate the Federal Cell Facility are assumed to return periodically. Simplified
processes are used to keep the deep time model from becoming overly complicated for the amount of
uncertainty in both parameters and processes.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-10 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 6-2

Peak Groundwater Activity Concentrations within 500 years, Compared to GWPLs

peak activity concentration within 500 years (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-11 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 6-3

Cumulative Population TEDE: Statistical Summary

population TEDE (person-rem) within 10,000 years
receptor type mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
total population 12 11 26
ranch worker 2.8 2.5 5.7
Hunter 1.5 1.3 3.0
OHV enthusiast 8.3 7.4 17
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-12 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Concentrations of 238U in lake water and sediment at the time of peak lake occurrence (90,000 years) are
presented in Tables 6-4 and 6-5. These results simply show the concentrations that might occur in response to
obliteration of the site by wave action during return of a lake to the elevation of Clive and subsequent dispersal
of the waste in a relatively confined system. The concentrations presented would continue to decrease with
each lake and climate cycle as more sediment is deposited with each lake event, and each lake event allows
radionuclides to be dispersed ever further afield.

The deep-time model disperses the above-ground radionuclides that have migrated upward from the depleted
uranium waste prior to the occurrence of the first returning lake. The current disposal scenario has the entire
depleted uranium waste disposed below grade. The model assumes that no material below grade is dispersed.
Based on these results, it is reasonable to expect that the deep-time concentrations could be close to or possibly
less than background concentrations for uranium in soil of about 1 pCi/g and approximately 2 pCi/L for
background uranium concentrations in the Great Salt Lake. In addition, the return of the first lake is
considered likely to be several tens of thousands of years, or even a few hundreds of thousands of years, into
the future, at which point eolian deposition will result in sedimentation deposits around the site of several
meters. This deposition will both stabilize the site and make it even less likely that any below-grade material
will be dispersed.

The quantitative results for all Model analyses are summarized in Table 6-6. Doses to all receptors are
always less than the 500 mrem (IHI) and 25 mrem (MOP) annual performance criteria. Groundwater
concentrations are always less than the GWPLs. Even in the case of 99Tc, the peak median, mean and 95%
groundwater concentrations are well below the GWPL of 3,790 pCi/L.

6.1.6 Assessment of Impacts and Regulatory Compliance

The State of Utah follows federal guidance by categorizing receptors in a performance Assessment in UAC
R313-25-9 and 10 CFR 61.41 according to the labels “member of the public” (MOP) and “inadvertent human
intruder” (IHI). NRC offers two definitions of inadvertent intruders in 10 CFR 61:
• § 61.2 Definitions. Inadvertent intruder means a person who might occupy the disposal site after
closure and engage in normal activities, such as agriculture, dwelling construction, or other pursuits
in which the person might be unknowingly exposed to radiation from the waste.
• § 61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion. Design, operation, and closure of the
land disposal facility must ensure protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the
disposal site and occupying the site or contacting the waste at any time after active institutional
controls over the disposal site are removed.

NRC offers one reference to an MOP in the context of the general population:
• § 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity. Concentrations of
radioactive material which may be released to the general environment in ground water, surface
water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25
millirems [0.25 mSv] to the whole body, 75 millirems [0.75 mSv] to the thyroid, and 25 millirems
[0.25 mSv] to any other organ of any member of the public. Reasonable effort should be made to
maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably
achievable.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-13 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 6-4

Statistical Summary of Lake Water Concentrations at Peak Lake Occurrence

Lake concentrations (pCi/L) at 90,000 years
radionuclide mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
uranium-238 2.1E-5 0.018 0.11
radium-226 0.15 0.54 2.4
thorium-230 0.15 0.55 2.4
Results are based on 1,000 simulations of the Model

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-14 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 6-5

Statistical Summary of Sediment Concentrations at Peak Lake Occurrence

Sediment concentrations (pCi/g) at 90,000 years
radionuclide mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
uranium-238 1.8E-3 2.0E-2 9.5E-2
radium-226 1.2E-3 5.0E-3 2.2E-2
thorium-230 1.2E-3 5.0E-3 2.3E-2
Results are based on 1,000 simulations of the Model

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-15 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 6-6

Quantitative Assessment Results for Model Analyses

performance objective meets performance
objective?
Dose to MOP below regulatory threshold of 25 mrem in a year Yes
Dose to IHI below regulatory threshold of 500 mrem in a year Yes
Groundwater maximum concentration of 99Tc in 500 years < 3790 pCi/L Yes
ALARA average total population cost equivalent over 10,000 years: $61,200

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-16 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

DOE definitions in DOE M 435.1 (the Manual accompanying DOE Order 435.1) are much more specific.
However, the applicable federal agency that regulates disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Clive
Facility is NRC. For the Clive Facility and the Model, based on the NRC definitions, the ranch hand, hunter
and OHV enthusiast are expected to engage in activities both on and off the site. These receptors fit the NRC
definition of inadvertent intrusion because they are assumed to occupy the site, albeit for limited periods of
time, and also because the use of OHVs on the cover may precipitate the creation of gullies. The receptors
that are located at specific offsite locations, instead, fit the NRC definition of MOP. The Model presents
predicted doses to the receptors identified above, under the conditions and assumptions that provide the basis
for the Model. These doses are presented as the results of the Model. A comparison of doses to both MOP
and IHI performance objectives is also presented.

The Model addresses radiation doses to human receptors who might come in contact with radionuclides
released from the disposal facility into the environment subsequent to facility closure. In accordance with
UAC R313-25-9, doses are calculated within a 10,000-year compliance period. The doses are compared to a
performance criterion of 25 mrem in a year for a MOP, and 500 mrem in a year for an inadvertent intruder.
The dose assessment component of the model, like the transport modeling components described above,
supports probabilistic Monte Carlo analysis. Spatiotemporal scaling is a critical component of the Model
development. For example, the Model differentiates the impact of short-term variability in exposure
parameters (values applicable over a few years or decades, such as individual physiological and behavioral
parameters) from the longer-term variability of transport parameters (values applied over the full 10,000-year
performance period, such as hydraulic and geochemical parameters). This distinction facilitates assessment
of uncertainties that relate to physical processes from uncertainties relating to inter-individual differences in
potential future receptors.

The information contained in this Application demonstrates that the requirements of UAC Subsection R313-
25-9(1) have been met. Each of the major media pathways of this requirement is examined. Both normal
operating conditions and accident scenarios are evaluated. The results overall demonstrate that the below-
grade disposal configuration can be used to dispose of the quantities of depleted uranium waste included in
the Model in a manner adequately protective of human health and the environment. Necessary protection is
provided to members of the general public.

6.2 INTRUDER PROTECTION

Utah regulations require special provision to protect inadvertent intruders from disposed LLRW only for Class
C LLRW. Since only Class A waste will be disposed of in the proposed Federal Cell, no special intruder
barrier, as defined by Utah regulations, is required. In a more general sense, however, intruder protection is
required by the performance objective stated in URCR R313-25-20. EnergySolutions’ satisfies intruder
protection requirements by remoteness of the facility from large population centers, lack of resources at the
site, provision of a cover system to separate the waste from the atmosphere, use of CLSM, erection and
maintenance of physical access barriers at the closed facility, maintenance of access controls at the closed
facility and placement of monuments denoting the locations of embankment boundaries.

The NRC evaluated the long-term hazards of LLRW disposal in its draft and final environmental impact
statements of the regulation of LLRW disposal (NUREG/CR-4370). Radiation hazards associated with Class
A waste are such that, should intrusion into disposed waste occur following the 100-year institutional control
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-17 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

period, doses were projected to be within acceptable limits. Since EnergySolutions’ proposes only to dispose
of Class A LLRW, it implicitly complies with this regulatory requirement.

Compliance with the performance objectives for the inadvertent intruder dose of 500 mrem in a year and for
the MOP of 25 mrem in a year is clearly established for all three types of potential future receptors. This
indicates that for the disposal configuration where depleted uranium wastes are placed below grade, doses are
expected to remain well below applicable dose thresholds even if gullies are assumed to occur on the
embankment. None of the 95th percentile dose estimates for these receptors exceeds 1 mrem in a year, and all
of the peak mean dose estimates are at or below 0.1 mrem in a year.

6.3 LONG-TERM STABILITY

As part of the performance assessment, EnergySolutions evaluated the long-term stability of the proposed
Federal Cell, including analyses of the effects of natural processes that include erosion, mass wasting, slope
failure, foundation settlement and settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration through the cover and adjacent
soils, and surface drainage at the disposal site. The analyses provide reasonable assurance that there will not
be a need for ongoing active maintenance of the Federal Cell and associated drainage features following its
final closure. Collectively, the analyses completed for the proposed Federal Cell demonstrate that long-term
stability of the Federal Cell will be achieved with reasonable assurance. The design methodologies used for
designing the Federal Cell are acceptable for ensuring embankment stability include thickness and gradation
of the riprap layer lining the side slopes and the perimeter drainage ditch adjacent to the Federal Cell; the
thickness of, and particle gradation (filter) requirements for, the Type B Filter Zone layer used in the Federal
Cell cover side-slopes; and the maximum allowable distortion limitation for the Federal Cell cover.

6.3.1 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection

EnergySolutions has also demonstrated that the proposed Federal Cell cover has been designed to provide
long-term stability of the embankment and to ensure that the cover will be capable of resisting damage by
erosion resulting from surface water flows expected to occur during normal and abnormal precipitation
conditions at the site. For evaluating potential erosion in the cover, a 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the
normal precipitation condition and a 1-hr value of 6.1 inches of rain, as the abnormal precipitation condition
was evaluated. Erosion calculations were performed in accordance with guidelines provided in NUREG-1623.
These rock side-slope cover calculations demonstrate that the D50‟s of the rock riprap materials, proposed
for use on the side-slopes exceed the minimum D50 rock sizes required for ensuring long-term erosional
stability of the embankment. Additionally, the FCF CQA/QC Manual provided in Appendix I requires that
rock riprap materials used in the Federal Cell Facility side-slope cover have a weighted average aggregate
rock score of 50 or more, in accordance with NRC NUREG-1623 guidelines. In response to the Director’s
additional erosion questions (Willoughby, 2021), additional erosion analysis and responses are included as
Appendix N. The Federal Cell’s external erosion protection measures are adequate and that long-term stability
of the cell against erosion will be achieved with reasonable assurance.

6.3.2 Stability of Slopes

EnergySolutions has also developed filter criteria (gradation and permeability criteria) recommended in
NUREG/CR-4620 (see Appendix L), NUREG-1623 that demonstrate that the proposed Federal Cell side-
slope cover has been designed to provide long-term stability with respect to minimizing potential long-term
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-18 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

internal erosion within the side-slope cover layers over the Federal Cell’s s design life under normal and
abnormal precipitation conditions at the site. The calculations demonstrate that the filter layer underlying the
side-slope riprap meets the D15/D85 criteria as described in NUREG/CR-4620 for minimization of migration
of the filter layer into the riprap. Furthermore, specifications on the sacrificial soil gradations ensure that
migration of material between the sacrificial soil layer and the Type A Filter layer of the side slope will be
minimized. Additionally, the effectiveness of the Type A Filter Zone to minimize internal erosion of the
underlying sacrificial soil layer of the Federal Cell side slope was assessed by calculating the interstitial
velocities associated with the rock. When comparing the calculated interstitial velocities to permissible
velocities from NUREG/CR-4620, worst-case calculated interstitial velocities at the surface of the side-slope
sacrificial soil layer would not be expected to cause erosion of that layer. In response to the Director’s
additional slope questions (Willoughby, 2021), additional embankment stability analysis and responses are
included as Appendix M.

EnergySolutions has also demonstrated that the selected characteristics of the proposed riprap materials that
would be placed in and used to line the Federal Cell perimeter ditches would be adequate to resist movement
(internal erosion) of the riprap materials under flows projected to occur during normal and abnormal
precipitation events at the site. For evaluating potential internal erosion in the ditches, the performance
assessment assumed a 100-year, 24-hour storm event (2.4 inches) for the normal condition, and a 1-hr value
of 6.1 inches of rain as the abnormal condition. The drainage design calculations have performed in
accordance with guidelines provided in NUREG-1623. In the calculations, the minimum average D50 of the
riprap lining the ditches required to prevent failure under abnormal ditch flow conditions was determined
using methods recommended in NUREG-1623. The analyses of the effects of erosion on long-term stability
of the proposed Federal Cell and perimeter drainage ditches are adequate and that long-term stability of the
Federal Cell will be achieved with reasonable assurance.

The area of the proposed Federal Cell, at and immediately surrounding the Clive Facility, is relatively flat
with no landforms or soil conditions present that would be prone to landslides, rock toppling or rock falls,
debris flows, or other forms of mass wasting. Analyses of slope stability of the Federal Cell and of other
disposal embankments at the Clive Facility demonstrate that all slopes will be stable in the long term. Based
on this information, the long-term stability of the proposed Federal Cell will not be impacted by mass wasting.

EnergySolutions has assessed performance of the Clive disposal facilities under normal (static) and abnormal
(seismic) conditions (see Appendices M and N). Slope stability analyses were performed for circular modes
of failure-associated movement. The calculated minimum static factor of safety, based on use of drained shear
strength values for the embankments and foundation materials was previously determined to be greater than
1.5. For assessing stability under seismic conditions, pseudo static stability analyses of embankment slope
stability were completed. The pseudo static analyses considered both drained and undrained foundation soil
strength parameters, and assumed a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) magnitude of 0.28g. The calculated
minimum factor of safety for seismic conditions was determined to be greater than or equal to 1.2. In all cases,
the stability of the embankments was found to be governed primarily by the height of the 5H:1V embankment
side slope.

6.3.3 Settlement and Subsidence

In the Embankment Stability Study included as Appendix M, EnergySolutions demonstrates that most
embankment settlement occurs during operations in the waste placement phase, prior to the final cover
placement. As a result, the FCF CQA/QC Manual specifications to monitor and measure settlement prior to
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 6-19 Section 6 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

cover placement appropriately reduces the risk of uncertainties in estimating settlements. By comparison with
the neighboring Class A West cell, the settlement of the Federal Cell will be far less due to the absence of
disposed dry-active waste and the cell’s smaller design height with identical 5H:1V side-slope inclinations.
The fact that the waste type proposed to be disposed in the Federal Cell and waste placement and compaction
procedures are unchanged compared to the Class A West embankment, indicate that settlements would be
expected to be less in the Federal Cell relative to the Class A West embankment.

Based on the results of the slope stability analyses included in Appendix M, the design of the proposed Federal
Cell Facility will remain stable for global static short-term, long-term, seismic and post-earthquake conditions.
Based on the results of the seismic deformation analysis, the design of the proposed Federal Cell slopes and
cover will not experience significant seismic induced deformations (<5 mm). Additionally, the current load
of the proposed Federal Cell will not result in more than 11-inches of elastic settlement of sand-like soils, 12-
inches of primary consolidation of clay-like soils and 6-inches of secondary compression settlement of clay-
like soils. Elastic settlement and primary consolidation settlement should be complete within one year after
the embankment depleted uranium and CLSM placement (which is within the required settlement monitoring
period in the FCF CQA/QC Manual) and will not interfere with the post-construction performance of the
cover. No more than 6-inches of secondary compression settlement of clay-like foundation soils may occur
over the compliance period of 10,000 years, but are not projected to impact the long-term performance of the
cover and embankment. The magnitude of settlement, estimated for the top slope portion of the Federal Cell
(where the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease linearly over the top slopes
to essentially no settlement at the toe of the embankment). Therefore, settlement of the foundational soils as
a result of construction of the Federal Cell should not adversely impact any adjacent cells.

Based on the results of liquefaction triggering analyses and seismically-induced cyclic softening (summarized
in Appendix M), these hazards will not undermine the stable condition of the proposed Federal Cell.
Seismically-induced settlements of the sand-like soils will be negligible (<1 inch). Cyclic softening of the
clay-like soils is highly unlikely to occur as a result of the design seismic event (0.24g PGA and 7.3 Mw).
While extremely unlikely, a 50% strength degradation of the clay-like soils would still yield a stable slope
condition post-earthquake.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-1 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 7. OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION

EnergySolutions’ occupational radiation protection programs are appropriate for siting disposal facilities. In
compliance with UAC R313-15-101, EnergySolutions has developed a Radiation Protection Program, which
contains procedures and policies to ensure that occupational radiation exposures are controlled within the
limits of UAC R313-15-201, UAC R313-15-207, UAC R313-15-208, and UAC R313-15-301. The Program
also ensures that exposures are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable, in accordance with UAC R313-
15-101(2). EnergySolutions integrates the principles of ALARA into all activities related to exposures of
personnel.

7.1 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

EnergySolutions has created an organizational structure and established personnel responsibilities and
activities to ensure that ALARA policy and procedures are not compromised because of pressures from
operational activities. In support of this position, ALARA principles are incorporated into facility operations,
training, development of radiation protection procedures, and design reviews.

EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program is appropriate for operating disposal facilities.
EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program ensures that all reasonable actions are taken to reduce
radiation exposures and effluent concentrations to levels that are considered ALARA. EnergySolutions’
ALARA management policy is detailed in the ALARA Program. EnergySolutions’ ALARA Program is
appropriate for siting disposal facilities. The ALARA Program is based upon past and continuing experience
with radiation operations. As new waste-handling procedures are developed, the ALARA Program is
modified to reflect the changes. Specific guidelines for operational reviews and modifications to the ALARA
Program are therein detailed.

The radiological risks from the depleted uranium materials received for disposal in the Federal Cell Facility
are comparable with the materials disposed of in the Class A West embankment. In fact, prior to the Utah
Radiation Control Board’s 2010 decision to significantly limit further disposal of concentrated depleted
uranium at the Class A West Facility, EnergySolutions’ Clive staff had extensive experience at safely
offloading, staging, placing and disposing of concentrated depleted uranium in a variety of package types and
waste forms. Therefore, radiation protection, access control to restricted areas, and personnel protective
equipment policies will not change from current policies. Although the Federal Cell Facility will increase the
overall licensed disposal capacity at the Clive Facility, EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program will
continue to be bounded by the protections necessary to support License UT2300249.

7.2 RADIATION SOURCES

In order to produce suitable fuel for nuclear reactors and/or weapons, uranium has to be enriched in the
fissionable 235U isotope. Uranium enrichment in the US began during the Manhattan Project in World War II.
Enrichment for civilian and military uses continued after the war under the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
and its successor agencies, including DOE.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-2 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The uranium fuel cycle begins by extracting and milling natural uranium ore to produce "yellow cake," a
varying mixture of uranium oxides. Low-grade natural ores contain about 0.05 to 0.3% by weight of uranium
oxide while high-grade natural ores can contain up to 70% by weight uranium oxide (NRC, 2010). Naturally
occurring uranium contains three isotopes, 238U, 235U, and 234U. Each isotope has the same chemical properties,
but they differ in radiological properties. Naturally occurring U has an isotopic composition of about
99.2739±.0007% 238U, 0.7204±.0007% 235U, and 0.0057±.0002% 234U (Rich et al., 1988).

The milled ore is refined to remove the decay products (226Ra, 230Th, etc.) that have built up in the material
naturally to the degree of secular equilibrium, leaving more or less pure uranium oxide. This uranium, still at
natural isotopic abundances, is enriched to obtain the 235U, with vast quantities of 238U as a by-product.
Although a variety of technologies exist for enrichment, the most prevalent enrichment process at the time
was by gaseous diffusion, which requires that the uranium be converted to a gaseous form: uranium
hexafluoride (UF6). This gas is introduced to a diffusion cascade, which separates the isotopes, generating
enriched uranium as a product, and depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) as a waste stream. Depleted
uranium isotopic ratio values from gaseous diffusion plants are roughly 99.75% 238U, 0.25% 235U, and
0.0005% 234U (Rich, et al., 1988), but the 235U assay found in the cylinders today varies with fluctuating
enrichment goals, operational conditions, and where in the cascade process the depleted uranium was
removed. Because processing of uranium has been practiced for only about 60 years, there has not been
sufficient time for appreciable in-growth of decay products in this by-product. Depleted uranium is therefore
considerably less radioactive than natural uranium because it has less 234U and other decay products per unit
mass. The bulk of this material is still stored in the original cylinders in which it was first collected at the
gaseous diffusion plants.

Uncontaminated depleted uranium consists principally of three isotopes of uranium (238U, 235U, and 234U) and
a small amount of progeny from radioactive decay of these isotopes. Trace amounts of other uranium isotopes
(232U, 233U, and 236U) may also exist. The bulk of the depleted uranium at the gaseous diffusion plants is
uncontaminated uranium, but a significant amount of contaminated depleted uranium also exists, both at the
gaseous diffusion plants and in all the depleted uranium waste from the Savannah River Site.

The contamination problem arises from the past practice of introducing reactor returns into the isotopic
separations process. Irradiated nuclear fuel underwent a chemical separation process to remove the plutonium
for use in nuclear weapons. Uranium, then thought to be a rare substance, was also separated out, but contained
some residual contamination from activation and fission products. This uranium was again converted to UF6
for re-enrichment, and was introduced to the gaseous diffusion cascades, contaminating them and the storage
cylinders as well.

The types and quantities of depleted uranium materials are sources of external gamma, alpha, beta, and
neutron radiation. Personnel exposure to these materials will happen at various times e.g. while in the delivery
conveyances awaiting unloading; during storage; while being sampled and prepared for laboratory analysis;
while being actively worked in the proposed Federal Cell Facility; and while exposed following disposal.
While unlikely for depleted uranium, dose rate on packages could be in excess of 200 R/hr.

Depleted uranium wastes may also be potential sources of internal exposure during unloading at the rail car
rollover or bulk unloading area; while being sampled and prepared for laboratory analysis; while being worked
in the disposal cell or mixed waste treatment; and while exposed following placement in the Federal Cell
Facility. Internal doses are not expected to exceed 50 mrem per year.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-3 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The most consistent source of radiation dose at the Clive Disposal Complex is external gamma radiation. In
recognition of that, EnergySolutions has set aggressive dose investigation levels for workers, based upon
annual ALARA goals per quarter deep dose equivalent. It is highly unlikely that workers at Clive exceed that
level each quarter. Control of external gamma exposures during waste handling operations is the primary
method of reducing dose. EnergySolutions will continue to rely primarily upon time, distance and shielding
to control employee exposure. EnergySolutions manages shipments under a radiation work permit (RWP) to
keep doses ALARA.

EnergySolutions has an aggressive policy of dose minimization. Waste streams require the preparation of a
Radiation Work Permit (RWP) that lists the specific radiation protection requirements. Common
requirements include clothing to be worn, the use of self-reading personal dosimeters, respiratory protection,
and special monitoring requirements. Special situations may include requiring a Radiation Safety technician
to be present, the use of remote handling equipment, dust suppression requirements, air monitoring or survey
requirements, stay times, or other controls needed to keep exposure ALARA. In addition, all workers are
trained in ALARA principles, especially in maintaining their distances from gamma sources and spending the
least amount of time necessary in gamma fields to get the job done.

EnergySolutions will continue to use standard health physics practices of limiting time in areas with higher
gamma dose rates, using respiratory protection at low airborne radioactivity concentrations, covering higher
activity wastes with lower activity wastes or clean soil to reduce gamma exposures and resuspension of
airborne particulates, and routinely monitoring work area radiation levels to protect workers from chronic
exposure from low level radiation sources.

All personnel entering the Restricted Area are required to wear radiation dosimeters at all times. Permanent
employees are issued a TLD badge or equivalent, as approved by the Clive Facility Radiation Safety Officer.
These badges are exchanged quarterly or read as soon as practical upon termination of employment. Badges
are selected that measure the skin dose equivalent (shallow dose) as well as the deep dose equivalent for
compliance with UAC R313-15-203 and UAC R313-15-502 and are worn in the proper place as instructed
by the Radiation Safety Officer. All badges, along with control badges, are maintained in designated areas at
the Clive site when the employee is not at work.

Should the Radiation Safety Officer determine that it is necessary to measure the shallow dose rather than use
a TLD, or equivalent devices, EnergySolutions implements a procedure to calculate the shallow dose by
applying a correction factor to the TLD, or equivalent reading(s). All exposures will be recorded when
received from the dosimetry vendor to demonstrate compliance with the standards. In the event that an
individual loses their TLD or equivalent, the Radiation Safety Officer or his designee will investigate the
potential exposure conditions and provide a record of the exposure.

Because of the low radionuclide activities in the waste, there is little potential for a significant penetrating or
non-penetrating external radiation dose from airborne radioactive material. The deep dose equivalent
component of this small dose will be included in the employee's personal dosimeter reading. EnergySolutions
allows visiting members of the public to access the Controlled and Restricted Areas of the site for tours, visits,
and inspections. All visitors requiring access to the Restricted Area are provided dosimetry and an
informational briefing appropriate for the expected hazards, and are accompanied by a responsible
EnergySolutions radiation worker. Procedurally, visitors are not allowed in posted radiation areas or areas
where respiratory protection is required. Individuals who are visiting the site on a limited basis will be issued
a pocket dosimeter or other self-reading dosimetry to monitor their external gamma radiation dose. The
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-4 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

dosimeter is read upon exiting the Controlled Area and recorded on the Access Log. In the case of individuals
visiting as a group, one dosimeter may be used providing they stay together.

EnergySolutions pursues a policy of dust prevention to keep airborne particulate radioactivity ALARA.
However, as part of its ALARA Program, EnergySolutions requires all workers, in situations where they may
be unknowingly exposed to airborne particulate radioactivity, to wear respiratory protection providing a
protection factor of at least 10. With the combination of dust control and respiratory protection it is anticipated
that internal doses will never exceed 50 mrem per year.

Ambient air radon concentrations are continuously monitored at the environmental stations on and around the
site. Outdoor radon measurements have not shown any definite elevations above background levels.
Laboratory measurements, where samples are stored and prepared for analysis, show occasional
concentrations approximately 0.5 pCi/L above ambient concentrations (less than two percent of the DAC for
radon with daughters present).

The regulatory requirements for determining the occupational internal dose are in UAC R313-15-204.
EnergySolutions uses the dose calculations methods described in Regulatory Guide 8.34, but uses data based
on the updated Dose Conversion Factors of ICRP 68 in lieu of the ICRP 30 Dose Conversion Factors to
perform these dose calculations. The chemical form of significant dose contributors are determined as needed
from the waste manifests, air sample data, or other available sources of information. The applicable lung
clearance class is determined from the tables in ICRP 68. If the chemical form of significant dose contributors
cannot be determined, the most restrictive class is used in the dose assessment. The Environmental Monitoring
Plan lists the specific method, formula, and dose conversion factors that are used at the Facility to determine
internal dose to workers, based on the Effluent Concentration Limit (ECL) Radionuclide which, if inhaled or
ingested continuously over the course of a year, would produce a stochastic total effective dose equivalent of
50 mrem.

The indication provided by workplace air sampling guides the subsequent assessments of possible internal
doses from inhaled radioactive materials. Regulatory Guide 8.34 provides several acceptable methods for
determining internal doses from inhaled radionuclides. When calculating an employee’s internal dose from
inhaled radioactive material, Regulatory Guide 8.34 guides the dose calculations, with updated data based on
the Dose Conversion Factors of ICRP Publication 68. When initial estimates indicate a potential dose
equivalent in excess of 100 mrem (CDE or CEDE), additional evaluations are performed to further assess the
dose and guide follow-up actions.

The ingestion of radionuclides at the EnergySolutions site is suppressed primarily by prohibiting eating and
drinking inside Restricted Areas (with the exception that drinking from closeable beverage containers is
allowed). In addition, the use of respiratory protection in the most highly contaminated areas minimizes the
potential for facial contamination and subsequent ingestion of radioactive material.

Employees at the EnergySolutions Clive site are normally protected from intake through wounds and skin
absorption by wearing protective clothing. Requirements for wearing person protective equipment included
in each Radiation Work Permit. Should an accident result in an open wound, the Radiation Safety Officer
notifies the attending physician located at the Tooele County or University of Utah Hospitals, of the fact for
his guidance in effecting removal or reduction of the amount of radioactive material remaining in the wound.
The Radiation Safety Officer then performs an investigation and estimates the intake using data from wound
monitoring or other available information.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-5 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

7.3 RADIATION PROTECTION DESIGN FEATURES

EnergySolutions has incorporated the previously approved design and operational experience of its other
facilities into the design of this License’s Federal Cell Facility to minimize the potential for radiation
exposures. As such, the Federal Cell Facility design is directed toward reducing the occupational exposures.
The entire Federal Cell Facility will be enclosed by a fence, and considered a Restricted Area. All personnel
working in the Restricted Area are required to pass through an Access Control point. Access to exposure areas
at the facility is controlled. All vehicles and personnel working in the Restricted Area are monitored for
removable contamination prior to release.

EnergySolutions employs the radiation exposure controls of time, distance and shielding, as appropriate.
Waste receipts with dose rates in excess of 5 mrem/hr are controlled and posted as described in the Radiation
Safety Program. EnergySolutions’ Radiation Safety Program is appropriate for siting disposal facilities.
Radiation Work Permits are used to control worker exposure during waste handling and include time controls
or take advantage of natural shielding afforded by equipment as necessary and appropriate. Higher activity
wastes are covered, except when being actively worked, by lower activity wastes to reduce exposures to
workers in the area. For management of bulk wastes, the primary radiation control factors are time and
distance. Conversely, the use of portable shielding during the waste disposal process is used as needed to
minimize dose to the workers. Additionally, the nuclear density gauges are stored away from active work
areas and are shielded by lead bricks when in storage.

Since waste handling and disposal activities are generally conducted outdoors, no special ventilation
provisions are made for those activities. However, laboratory areas require normal ventilation and hoods.
Work area air samples are collected in the building to confirm the effectiveness of ventilation. External gamma
radiation monitors are used to document gamma radiation exposure levels. Surveys of gamma dose rates and
surface contamination are collected weekly. Any areas meeting the definition of a Radiation Area are posted.

Airborne radioactive particulates are monitored on a continuous basis. The continuous airborne particulate
samplers, operated on-site as part of the Environmental Monitoring Plan, provide an overall average airborne
radioactivity concentration. In addition to the fixed-location environmental stations, work-place samples are
also collected to better assess potential exposure to employees. The work area air samplers are used at
locations such as the rail car rollover, haul roads, the mixed waste treatment building, or near excavation,
disposal and other work activities to collect workday samples. Work area samples are collected several times
a week. In addition to the passive environmental radon monitors used at environmental monitoring stations,
indoor radon concentrations are measured in the LLRW and Mixed Waste Operations buildings.

Radiation Safety instrumentation used for EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program include a variety
of portable and laboratory equipment selected to perform specific functions in monitoring of gross gamma
exposure rates, surface contamination, alpha and beta radioactivity of filters and smear samples and personnel
contamination. Instruments are calibrated, at a minimum every 12 months and are checked each working day
for consistency of response to a known source.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-6 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

7.4 RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM

EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program is appropriate for operation of its disposal facilities.
EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program has been developed to establish Clive Facility requirements
to receive, possess, process, use, transfer or dispose of licensed LLRW. EnergySolutions is committed to
managing its operations involving exposure to ionizing radiation and radioactive materials by incorporating
the philosophy that such doses should be ALARA. EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program
establishes the measures that management uses to ensure that appropriate regulatory requirements and
policies, programs and procedures are met. The Radiation Safety Officer reviews EnergySolutions’ Radiation
Protection Program annually.

EnergySolutions’ Respiratory Protection Program is appropriate for operating disposal facilities. The
Respiratory Protection Program has been implemented, based on NRC guidance (NRC, 1976). The Program
elements include employee training, quantitative fit testing, cleaning and maintenance, written standard
operating procedure covering the program, medical surveillance, and recordkeeping. The Radiation Safety
Officer is responsible for administering the Respiratory Protection Program.

It is the policy of EnergySolutions, to maintain personnel/occupational radiation exposures ALARA. Because
of the nature of LLRW, experience has shown that radiation exposures are normally low and EnergySolutions
is committed to continuing to minimize exposures to the workers and the environment. As is illustrated in
Table 7-1, the employee doses since 1992 have been well below federal standards for radiation workers (as
compared to the average annual dose for 294 workers involved in the Vitro Remedial Action Project during
1986 which was 50 mrem, with maximum exposures of 250 mrem). This maximum value is only 5% of the
radiation dose standard of UAC R313-15-1101. EnergySolutions’ annual employee dose summary since 1992
is presented in Table 7-1. Procedures and methods to keep internal exposures ALARA include:
a. Dust suppression on all operational roads by application of water or other dust suppressant materials
or methods (e.g., Magnesium Chloride) as necessary;
b. Speed limit of 25 mph on all site roads;
c. Stopping operations in high wind conditions (all operations cease at winds of greater than or equal to
35 mph; radiation safety personnel have authority to stop operations at lower wind speeds if dusting
or other safety considerations warrant);
d. Daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly area radiation surveys with investigation of increasing levels to
determine the cause;
e. Requiring workers to wear respirators in areas of potential high dust concentrations, for example, the
rollover and selected heavy equipment operations;
f. Pre-planning tasks that have the potential for higher-than-normal exposures to limit exposures
through efficient use of time and handling procedures; and
g. Reviews of new proposed Waste Profile Records to assure that EnergySolutions’ procedures,
facilities, and equipment are appropriate and sufficient to limit exposures to workers and the
environment.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-7 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Table 7-1

EnergySolutions Employee Annual Dose Summary

Year Dose
(mrem)
<1
Dose
(mrem)
10-50
Dose
(mrem)
51-100
Dose
(mrem)
101-150
Dose
(mrem)
151-200
Dose
(mrem)
201-250
Dose
(mrem)
251-500

Dose
(mrem)
500+
1992 20 40 11 2 1 1 0 0
1993 92 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
1994 93 15 1 0 0 0 0 0
1995 84 62 4 0 0 0 1 0
1996 209 16 0 2 0 0 0 0
1997 325 61 1 0 0 0 0 0
1998 412 104 4 0 1 0 0 0
1999 363 138 19 5 2 1 1 0
2000 431 154 37 6 5 6 5 1
2001 538 85 21 8 5 0 1 0
2002 483 105 27 5 4 3 1 0
2003 520 74 13 3 2 7 0 0
2004 441 142 30 9 6 7 0 0
2005 649 103 26 14 3 9 0 0
2006 495 70 15 6 2 2 6 0
2007 287 59 5 6 2 3 5 0
2008 232 45 8 5 3 2 5 0
2009 239 39 12 3 2 0 6 0
2010 263 42 8 6 2 1 3 0
2011 215 54 14 7 4 4 6 0
2012 240 34 8 3 0 0 6 0
2013 160 25 17 3 1 0 5 0
2014 123 22 9 6 2 1 7 0
2015 136 33 11 3 5 1 6 3
2016 152 42 13 7 4 1 5 3
2017 232 25 17 3 3 2 2 2
2018 216 25 12 1 1 2 2 0
2019 233 32 11 3 2 0 3 0

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-8 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The Radiation Safety Officer has the day-to-day responsibility for maintaining occupational and
environmental radiation exposures ALARA, consulting such guidance documents as NRC Regulatory
Guides 8.31 (NRC, 2002) and 8.37 (NRC, 1993a). The Radiation Safety Officer documents ALARA
activities including:
a. Monthly reviews of work area, perimeter, and environmental air monitoring results noting trends and
adjusting work procedures when practical to further reduce potential exposures; and
b. Monthly reviews of work area gamma-ray exposure rates and advising the General Manager of Clive
Operations on operational changes that will reduce radiation exposure.

An audit of ALARA activities is conducted and documented by the Radiation Safety Officer at least annually.

All personnel working in the Restricted Areas are monitored for potential skin contamination each time they
exit the area. Workers are advised to consider any measurable skin contamination as excessive, and all
personnel must meet release criteria before they leave the Restricted Area. EnergySolutions has set ALARA
limits for personnel contamination monitoring at 100 dpm/100 cm2 gross alpha for skin and clothing, 300
dpm/100 cm2 gross alpha for the soles of shoes, and 1,000 dpm/100 cm2 gross beta for skin, clothing, and the
soles of shoes. A hand and foot monitor, or equivalent, sensitive to both alpha and beta contamination are
used for routine monitoring for personnel contamination.

Personnel are expected to accomplish any necessary decontamination by washing exposed areas of the skin
with soap and water. If this does not reduce the levels below the criteria, the Radiation Safety Officer is
notified, and other attempts made. Special radiation decontamination cleansers may be used to reduce skin
contamination levels as needed. Personnel with skin contamination above the limits are not allowed to leave
the site without approval of the Radiation Safety Officer. All personal contaminated clothing or personal
articles that cannot be decontaminated below the limits are retained at the site and managed as radioactive
waste. All personnel contamination events are documented.

Routine external gamma surveys using a gamma scintillation survey meter are conducted in waste
management and disposal. In addition, random external gamma surveys are performed during daily
operations as considered necessary by Radiation Safety personnel.

Routine smear surveys for surface contamination are conducted in office and laboratory areas. The smears
are analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta contamination. Smear samples are compared to previous samples
from the same area. The Radiation Safety Officer reviews any increase in surface contamination, deciding on
the need for decontamination. In keeping with EnergySolutions’ ALARA goals, any increase in
contamination is normally cleaned when found and the area re-sampled.

Routine worker evaluations demonstrate that it is extremely unlikely that any employee could receive a lung
burden of radioactivity that would require any action. If such an event happens, the individual involved
receives a whole-body count to evaluate the potential dose. Subsequent actions, such as reassignment to a
function not involving radiation exposure are then considered.

A worker might also be injured in an accident that would result in the impaction of radioactive material into
a wound. In such a case, EnergySolutions attempts to monitor injured employees before they are transported
to medical care. In any case, the treating physician is informed that the injury involves possible radioactive
contamination. Because the radionuclides involved are relatively insoluble, normal cleansing of the wound
generally removes most, if not all, of the radioactivity. A radiation survey is used to estimate any remaining
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-9 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

radioactivity and potential doses calculated. The determination of need for additional treatment is based on
monitoring results.

Bioassay samples are used, as necessary, to help determine the body burden of any radioactivity that has
resulted from an unusual inhalation or wound. Any employees who are believed to have received a TEDE of
greater than 100 mrem from any source in one quarter are notified and assist in determining the source of the
exposure and in finding a way to reduce future exposures.

Summation of external and internal doses is required in UAC R313-15-202 when both internal and external
monitoring of an individual are required by UAC R313-15-502(1) and (2). The cumulative operating
experience at the Clive site indicates that the monitoring criteria of UAC R313-15-502(1) and (2) are not
likely to be exceeded. However, should EnergySolutions find that summation of occupational internal and
external doses is necessary, one of the five methods for calculating the Committed Effective Dose Equivalent
(CEDE), as described by NRC (NRC, 1993b), or an equivalent method, will be used. ALI, DAC, and ECL
values based on the ICRP 68 conversion factors will be calculated, as needed for internal dose estimation,
following the methodology described in Appendix B of 10 CFR 20.

If any employee is anticipated to receive an occupational dose in excess of 10 percent of the occupational
limits, EnergySolutions will determine the previous radiation exposure for use in limiting the annual dose
equivalent to the allowable limits and for planning special exposures. Determination of prior occupational
exposures will be done by:
1. Obtaining a written, signed statement from the employee or his most immediate employer, that
discloses the nature and the amount of any occupational dose that the individual may have received
during the current year; or
2. Obtaining or attempting to obtain from the employee's most recent employer, a written, signed
statement in the form of an NRC Form 4 or an equivalent form, showing the life-time occupational
exposure history. In case this cannot be done, the guidance in UAC R313-15-205 will be followed.

EnergySolutions does not anticipate authorizing planned special exposures since the radiation levels and
radioactive constituent concentrations in depleted uranium are low. In the event that circumstances warrant a
planned special exposure, EnergySolutions does so in full compliance with the guidance in UAC R313-15-
206.

The annual occupational dose limits for minors are 10 percent of the annual dose limits specified for adults.
However, in accordance with EnergySolutions’ Radiation Protection Program, minors are not granted access
to the Restricted Area. Similarly, the dose limit to an embryo/fetus is 0.5 rem during the entire pregnancy (in
accordance with UAC R313-15-208). EnergySolutions’ policy is to inform female workers of the regulations
regarding protection of the embryo/fetus and to ask them to inform EnergySolutions in writing, upon discovery
or suspicion of a pregnancy. The Radiation Safety Officer reviews the work assignments and offers the
woman the opportunity to take available positions in non-radiation areas for the duration of the pregnancy. If
no positions are available, the Radiation Safety Officer counsels the individual to assure an understanding by
the individual of the additional risks of continued employment. If the woman continues to work in the
Radiation Area, the Radiation Safety Officer monitors the work assignments and activities to assure that the
Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to the embryo/fetus is ALARA and limited to 0.5 rem.

Operations are conducted such that the resulting dose equivalent to any individual members of the public is
less than the limits of UAC R313-15-301, UAC R313-25, and the ALARA constraint of UAC R313-15-101.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-10 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Compliance with UAC R313-15-301 is demonstrated using the data acquired under the Environmental
Monitoring Plan. Airborne particulate monitoring is performed to confirm those predictions.

The analysis addresses the specific impacts of releases under normal operating conditions. Release
mechanisms were evaluated, exposures to workers and the public assessed, and the results compared to
applicable standards and regulations. It was concluded that with the proposed waste characteristics and
operating procedures, exposures to the workers and the public will be within acceptable limits and the design
limits the radon flux to less than 20 pCi/m2/s as provided in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.

EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility will be operated in accordance with EnergySolutions’ Air Approval
Order (DAQE-AN107170021-19), which requires EnergySolutions to apply dust suppression when minimum
waste moisture conditions as well as optimum air opacity standards do not exist. Air is continuously sampled
at work place locations surrounding the Federal Cell Facility, Restricted Area, and the Clive Facility.
Individual results with a net alpha or net beta concentration above the applicable Particulate Air Sample
Action Level are also analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. Gamma spectroscopy analysis results are reviewed
to determine if any additional actions need to be taken. Air is also continuously sampled for radon.

The following items are surveyed each week,
• Site warning signs must be visually checked weekly to determine that the signs are present, visible
and legible.
• The supply of personal protection equipment is inspected weekly to ensure that each employee has a
proper supply or access to gloves, boots, coveralls, hard-hat, goggles, and respiratory protection.

The daily BAT inspection includes:
• Check roads. The inspector must drive the access and facility roads to visually inspect them for
deterioration, erosion and evidence of spills;
• Loading and Unloading Areas. Visually inspect the loading and unloading areas. Note stains,
residues, and any evidence of a spill or leak;
• Container storage area. The container storage area must be inspected for evidence of a spill; and
• Inspect containers. The inspector visually inspects the exterior surface area for evidence of leaks,
corrosion, deterioration, holes, bulges, and poorly fitting lids.

Daily BAT inspections are to be performed each day that the facility is in operation. Problems are corrected
accordingly:
• Problems that pose an imminent threat to human health or the environment are corrected as soon as
possible but no later than 24 hours from the time of discovery;
• Problems that do not pose an imminent threat to human health or the environment are corrected within
72 hours of discovery; and
• If a longer time period is required to correct the problem, EnergySolutions notifies the Director prior
to the end of the 72-hour period. At the time of notification, EnergySolutions proposes a time
schedule for correcting the problem. The Director must approve the correction schedule.

The daily security inspection includes:
• Check fences. The inspector must inspect the site security devices (fences, gates, doors, and locks)
to check for items such as proper functioning, breaks, gaps, erosion, vandalism or damage to the fence
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-11 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

abric, fence posts, gates, etc. The inspector must also check the gates and doors to ensure that the
gates and doors are locked or attended by a person assigned to control entry; and
• Check communication systems. The inspector performs an audio test on the external
communication system (telephone) by ensuring that dial tone exists and that the phone is operational.
This test may be conducted by placing and completing a telephone call. The inspector tests the
internal communication system (two-way radios, intercom, etc.) by operating the system and
achieving communication through the system.

The facility is considered to be in operation in the following instances:
• When off-site LLRW shipments have been received to the facility;
• When LLRW is being added to or removed from the Federal Cell Facility; or
• When LLRW containers are being added to or removed from the storage area.

All equipment, conveyances, railcars, and vehicles exiting the Restricted Area must be monitored,
decontaminated if necessary, and released before leaving the Restricted Area. Designated Commercial
transports for the exclusive use of waste transport may be released from a Restricted Area as long as the 49
CFR criteria are met. Entrances into parts of the Restricted Area that are not expected to be contaminated
under routine conditions may not require equipment (vehicles, cement trucks, haul trucks, etc.), personnel or
personal item decontamination. These areas include but are not limited to areas of new construction inside
the Restricted Area, unloading docks, and areas in which Federal Cell Facility closure is being performed
inside the Restricted Area.

Depending on individual circumstances, vehicles or equipment leaving the site are surveyed in accordance
with the unrestricted use of release criteria or to the standards of the DOT release. Unrestricted use release
entails decontamination and release to the standards of 49 CFR 173.443. All vehicles, packages, equipment,
or other items leaving the Restricted Area, except conveyances used for commercial transport of radioactive
waste material, are unrestricted use released.

Closed trucks and rail cars used exclusively for transport of radioactive materials are released as described in
Radioactive Material License UT2300249, measuring the removable contamination on the exterior surfaces
only. Transport vehicles that are being released from exclusive use service will be released as described
above, measuring removable contamination on both exterior and interior surfaces. Closed containers used
solely for the transportation of radioactive materials may be released, provided that the radiation level at any
point on the external surface of the container does not exceed 0.5 millirem per hour:
a. The non-fixed (removable) radioactive surface contamination on the external surface of the container
does not exceed the limits of Radioactive Material License UT2300249;
b. The container does not contain more than 15 grams of U-235, the container is in unimpaired condition
and is securely closed so that there will be no leakage of radioactive material under conditions
normally incident to transportation;
c. Internal contamination does not exceed 100 times the limits of the table above; and
d. Any labels previously applied are removed, obliterated, or covered and the “Empty” label prescribed
in 49 CFR 172.450 and the notices are affixed to the container.

Regardless of the type of release, all items must be visibly clean, meaning that all potentially contaminated
material that can be removed by a broom, shovel or other tool must be removed. Typical road dust and grime
that is on a vehicle as it arrives and is not part of the radioactive waste material being carried does not have to
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-12 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

be removed. Trucks, rail cars or reusable containers hauling waste to EnergySolutions are released to the
DOT standards of 49 CFR 173.443, as set forth in Table 7-1, below.

Documentation of release surveys are kept in the operating record, including item identification number, item
type, instruments used, survey results, surveyor’s signature, and reviewer’s signature. A Radiation Safety
Technician performs the release survey and signs the completed form. As a quality control check, a second
Radiation Safety Technician signs the completed forms daily after reviewing them for completeness and
adherence to release policy. Release of waste conveyances may be performed remotely using field
measurements.

Contaminated equipment or vehicles may be decontaminated using brooms, shovels, high pressure water, or
other effective means. The waste water is allowed to drain into tanks and transferred to permitted evaporation
ponds. In accordance with GWQDP UGW450005, wastewater may also be used for dust suppression on the
Federal Cell Facility.

All personnel entering the Restricted Area are required to wear radiation dosimeters at all times. Permanent
employees are issued a TLD badge or equivalent, as approved by the Radiation Safety Officer. Badges are
exchanged quarterly or read as soon as practical upon termination of employment. They are selected to
measure the skin dose equivalent (shallow dose) as well as the deep dose equivalent for compliance with UAC
R313-15-203 and UAC R313-15-502 and are worn in the proper place as instructed by the Radiation Safety
Officer. All badges, along with control badges, are maintained in designated areas at the Clive site when the
employee is not at work.

All employees will notify their supervisor immediately upon discovery that a TLD or equivalent has been lost.
A new dosimeter will be issued prior to the employee’s reentry into the Restricted Area. When the Radiation
Safety Officer or designee determines that extremity monitoring is warranted, appropriate dosimeters will be
obtained from the dosimetry vendor.

All visitors requiring access to the Restricted Area are provided dosimetry and an informational briefing
appropriate for the expected hazards, and are accompanied by a responsible EnergySolutions radiation worker.
Procedurally, visitors are not allowed in posted radiation areas or areas where respiratory protection is
required. Individuals who are visiting the site on a limited basis will be issued a pocket dosimeter or other
self-reading dosimetry to monitor their external gamma radiation dose. The dosimeter is read upon exiting
the Controlled Area and recorded on the Access Log. In the case of individuals visiting as a group, one
dosimeter may be used providing they stay together.

Areas near or at the Access Control points are provided for the donning or doffing of personal protective
equipment and clothing. Lockers are provided for employees inside the Restricted Area for storage of clothing,
personal items, and personal protective equipment. These lockers are located near showers for
decontamination if necessary. Lockers outside the Contaminated Restricted area also available to employees
for storage of personal items or PPE.

Release limits for skin and clothing are based on the removable and fixed contamination limits specified in
Regulatory Guide 1.86. The great majority of alpha-emitting nuclides in the LLRW are uranium and natural
thorium with its decay products. For those nuclides, the appropriate alpha release limit for skin and clothing
is 1,000 dpm/ 100 cm2. Similarly, the removable limit for beta/gamma-emitting nuclides is 1,000 dpm/ 100
cm2. EnergySolutions also uses this level as the release limit for contamination of skin and clothing by
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-13 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

beta/gamma-emitters. Regulatory Guide 8.30 recommends the use of fixed contamination limits for the soles
of shoes. Following this example, the release limit for the soles of shoes has been set at 5,000 dpm/ 100 cm2
for both alpha and beta/gamma activity.

EnergySolutions has set an ALARA goal for alpha-emitting radionuclides on the skin and clothing at 100
dpm/ 100 cm2. Because of the high natural backgrounds associated with beta/gamma monitors, the ALARA
goal is the same as the release limit for beta/gamma emitters - 1,000 dpm/ 100 cm2. The ALARA goal for
contamination of the soles of shoes is set at 500 dpm/ 100 cm2 alpha and 1,000 dpm/ 100 cm2 beta/gamma.

Contamination of personnel in the Restricted Area is controlled through the use of protective clothing, access
control, atmospheric monitoring, and bioassay analysis. Protective clothing is selected according to the
requirements of the Safety and Health Manual. Each employee is responsible to keep contaminated clothing
and other material inside the Controlled Area. Furthermore, access to the Restricted Area is controlled
according to Standard Operating Procedures. While in the Restricted Area, engineering controls and dust
suppression techniques are used to minimize levels of airborne particulates. Work area air samples are
routinely collected and analyzed.

All monitored individuals are required to participate in a whole-body count, with a random selection further
required to follow a bioassay program to assist in evaluating internal deposition of radionuclides. A baseline
sample is taken either through urinalysis or use of a whole-body counter at the beginning of the monitoring
period. A termination sample is taken whenever possible either through urinalysis or use of a whole-body
counter. All in-vivo baseline, and termination samples are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy for naturally
occurring radioactive material, including uranium and Ra-226. Urine samples are analyzed for total uranium
and Ra-226. EnergySolutions evaluates laboratory bioassay analysis results in accordance with NRC
Regulatory Guide 8.9 (NRC, 1993b).

For monitored individuals, a combination of air sampling, personnel contamination monitoring, and bioassay
sampling are used to initiate action levels and assess dose intakes and/or uptakes. The radiation safety staff
is responsible for taking appropriate actions when certain action levels are exceeded. In accordance with NRC
Regulatory Guide 8.9, the action levels for monitored individuals working directly with the waste are:
Evaluation Level: If internal bioassay measurements indicate that an intake is greater than an intake
of 0.02 ALI, additional available data, such as airborne measurements or additional bioassay
measurements, should be used to obtain the best estimate of actual intake.
Investigation Level: If a potential intake exceeds an investigation level of 0.1 ALI, multiple bioassay
measurements and an evaluation of available workplace monitoring data will be conducted.

Special bioassay sampling is done for individuals involved in an incident determined by the Radiation Safety
Officer as having the potential for a significant intake of radionuclides in accordance with the established
action levels. Appropriate samples are collected on a periodic basis until activities are below the minimum
detectable levels or a determination is made that continued monitoring is not necessary. If the waste contained
high Th-232 concentrations, lung or whole-body counting techniques may be employed to measure deposition
in the body.

Specific bioassay sampling is also used on a periodic basis for individual personnel working in areas with an
elevated potential of intake. The potential of an intake is evaluated by review of air sampling results, work
practices, and pre-operational modeling.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 7-14 Section 7 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Excretion models are used along with waste characterization data, bioassay data, and operational data to
estimate the radionuclide intake and the resultant dose to the organs. Methods recommended by NCRP are
used (NCRP, 1987). The guidance of UAC R313-15-201 is followed in cases where significant organ doses
or Total Effective Dose Equivalents are found.

The worker exposure pathway for radionuclides under normal operations is via the inhalation pathway.
Routine chronic exposure to radionuclides is limited by dust control measures and use of respiratory
protection. However, to check the adequacy of these measures, in vivo or in vitro methods may be employed
periodically, as determined by the Radiation Safety Officer or designee, to assure that intakes are a small
fraction of the regulatory limits.

The radiation safety staff under the direction of the Radiation Safety Officer are responsible for selecting
appropriate methods, properly assessing dose intakes and reporting the intakes. The Radiation Safety Officer
directs the Radiation Safety and Health Program. In addition, an Independent Industrial Hygienist conducts
quarterly industrial hygiene audits.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 8-1 Section 8 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 8. CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS

EnergySolutions’ administrative and operational procedures are appropriate for operation of its disposal
facilities. EnergySolutions’ corporate level management and technical organizations provide the technical
resources to support site characterization, facility design, construction, testing, and operation.
EnergySolutions corporate organization and technical staff also provide support for safe facility operation,
closure, and post-closure activities.

8.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Detailed requirements and qualifications for significant organizational positions are described in the
Organization Layout of Radioactive Material License UT2300249. EnergySolutions’ Organization Layout is
appropriate for management of disposal facilities. No organizational changes are proposed in support of the
proposed Federal Cell Facility.

8.2 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANT

Detailed requirements and qualifications for significant organizational positions are described in the
Organization Layout of Radioactive Material License UT2300249 (referenced in Condition 32.A), such as
the Radiation Safety Officer, Assistant Radiation Safety Officer and Radiation Safety Technicians. The
information justifying License UT2300249, include the supporting and relevant documents, (engineering
reports, supplemental data submissions and interrogatory responses) indicated that the requirements of UAC
R313-25-6(2) have been met. EnergySolutions’ system of qualifications is appropriate for management of
disposal facilities. No changes in qualification requirements are proposed in support of the proposed Federal
Cell Facility.

8.3 TRAINING PROGRAM

EnergySolutions’ Training Program is appropriate for management and operation of disposal facilities. No
changes the Training Program are proposed in support of the proposed Federal Cell Facility. EnergySolutions’
Training Program is designed to educate the employees in the fundamentals of handling depleted uranium and
other radioactive materials, to provide information on ways of minimizing exposure, and to inform employees
of practices and programs aimed at preventing possible spread of contamination. During this training,
procedures and precautions are explained and the trainees are required to complete a written or computer-
based examination. In addition to the above training, all EnergySolutions site employees receive periodic
refresher training. This training is tailored to the specific employee needs and duties and covers such topics
as general occupational safety, radiological safety, and training on any specific items such as new procedures
or safety deficiencies. Elements of the training program include evaluation and testing, initial training,
continuing training, required qualifications, documentation and storage, and badging.

General facility training is overseen by the Safety and Health Manager. The Radiation Training Program is
operated under the direction of the Radiation Safety Officer. Radiation safety training is provided to all
persons before they are allowed to enter the Restricted Area. The amount of radiation safety training required
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 8-2 Section 8 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

for persons to enter the Restricted Area is related to the activities for which the person will enter the Restricted
Area. There are three categories of Restricted-Area functions:
1. Permanent Employee. A “Permanent Employee” is an employee of EnergySolutions hired for a
period longer than 20 days, or a long-term employee of a contractor to EnergySolutions;
2. Temporary Worker. A “Temporary Worker” is a service contractor (electrician, welder, consultant,
surveyor, driller, sampler, engineer, fence installer, forklift operator, laborer, mechanic, liner installer,
excavator, etc.) who works inside the Restricted Area under a contract or service order but who is not
an employee on the payroll of EnergySolutions or a long-term contractor performing work inside the
Restricted Area; and
3. Visitor. A “Visitor” is a person whose main interest inside the Restricted Area is to communicate
with personnel in the Restricted Area, to observe and/or inspect the operations, facilities, programs,
location and compliance at the site. Examples of visitors are compliance inspectors, visiting
dignitaries, representatives of organizations and corporations, tour groups, and associates of the
above. Most visitors will be required to be in the presence of a qualified escort while in the Restricted
Area. Certain visitors, such as compliance inspectors or auditors will not require escorts.

Training requirements have been established for each category. Refresher training is provided to review and
update training information. Radiation Safety training is directed by the Radiation Safety Officer. The
training includes the following items and topics:
• radioactive nature of the material being handled;
• fundamentals of handling radioactive materials;
• ionizing radiation and biological effects;
• radiation safety standards, principles and procedures;
• emergency procedures;
• methods of radiation protection; and
• a written or computer-based examination.

Records of training attendance and a copy of the examination provided are maintained by EnergySolutions.

8.4 EMERGENCY PLANNING

EnergySolutions’ Emergency Planning is appropriate for management of disposal facilities. No changes in
emergency planning is proposed in support of the proposed Federal Cell Facility. Clive Facility Procedure
CL-SH-PR-500, Contingency Implementation Plan, and EnergySolutions’ Contingency Plan (Attachment II-
6 of the state-issued Part B Permit) established emergency response requirements to protect personnel and the
environment in the event of an explosion, a fire, or an unplanned release to the environment. In addition to
EnergySolutions Clive staff, the Contingency Plan also applies to contractors and visitors at the Clive facility.
A copy of the current Contingency Plan is located next to every hard-wired telephone at the Clive Facility.

Notification of the implementation of the Contingency Plan is transmitted on the Emergency Channel or EMT
Channel of the Site Radio System and following the protocol established for emergency announcements on
the mobile phone system. Emergency communication lists are established as follows:
• Emergency Coordinators and Site Managers: Notifications are made via Assigned Mobile Phone
and/or e-mail to this distribution list.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 8-3 Section 8 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• Facility EMTs First Responders and Ambulance Drivers: Notifications are made to Assigned Mobile
Phones.
• Spill Response Team Members: Notifications are made to Assigned Mobile Phones.
• Facility Leads: Notifications are made to Assigned Mobile Phones (also include e-mail).
• All facility personnel: Notifications are made to group-assigned radios.

A radio group has been established for all facility EMTs. A radio compatible with transmission between
facility EMTs is also maintained in the security office and on the facility ambulance. Prior to the beginning
of each week the following responsibilities are assigned to qualified personnel:
• Emergency Coordinator
• EMT Leads
• Spill Response Team Leads

These designations are communicated in a weekly coordination meeting among the site management. An
ambulance driver is also specified.

Leaking waste shipments are managed and reported in accordance with the requirements found in the Licenses
and Permits. If the initial identifier observes liquids draining from a waste container or conveyance, the initial
identifier contacts Security and implements the Emergency Response Plan.

If the Spill Response Team Leader or Emergency Coordinator is unable to determine the source of the liquid,
they must direct action to be taken to control the leaking liquid and move the container into the restricted area
(if outside) so that further evaluation can be done to determine the source. The period of time for evaluation
will not exceed twenty-four hours.

If the Spill Response Team Leader or Emergency Coordinator determines that the liquid is potentially
contaminated by means of analytical (pH, radiation detection, etc.) or visual (obvious container integrity
breach, free liquids present inside the waste package, etc.) observation, the Division will be notified of the
incident within 24 hours.

At a minimum, measure the pH of the potentially contaminated liquid and record result(s) on 24 Hour/5 Day
Spill Notification Report. Liquid grab sample(s) for radiological analysis may be taken if at least 500 ml of
volume is collected.

Surface swipe for radiological or chemical analysis may be performed to identify contamination. All samples
submitted to the lab require a Chain of Custody. All reviewed analytical data and Chain of Custodies are
attached to the 24 Hour/5 Day Spill Notification Report.

8.5 REVIEW AND AUDIT

EnergySolutions’ program for facility review and audit is managed by the Quality Assurance Department.
EnergySolutions’ system or reviews and audits is appropriate for management of disposal facilities. No
changes in audit procedures are proposed in support of the proposed Federal Cell Facility. The Quality
Assurance audits and surveillances focus on facility operations staff’s review of operational activities, the
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 8-4 Section 8 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

independent review of facility operations, and the independent assessment of activities pertaining to safety
enhancement:
1. The functioning of the onsite organization with respect to the review of proposed changes to systems
or procedures and of unplanned events that have operational safety significance, including subject
matter to be reviewed, organizational provisions for conducting the reviews, and the documentation
and reporting of review activities;
2. The procedures and organization used to evaluate safety-related operational activities independent of
the operating organization, including how and when such a program is to be implemented, subject
matter to be reviewed, organizational provisions for conducting the review, and the documentation
and reporting of review activities; and;
3. The provisions to perform independent reviews and assessments of facility activities, including the
functions of the review group, organizational provisions for conducting the activities, and the
documentation and reporting of these activities.

8.6 FACILITY ADMINISTRATIVE AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

EnergySolutions’ facility administrative and standard operating procedures are appropriate for management
of disposal facilities. No changes in administrative or operating procedures are proposed in support of the
proposed Federal Cell Facility.

8.7 PHYSICAL SECURITY

The Site’s physical security is managed in accordance with the Site Radiological Security Plan (referenced in
Condition 54 of Radioactive Material License UT2300249), which establish a barrier and a means to control
entry to accomplish the requirements of site security. EnergySolutions’ Site Radiological Security Plan is
appropriate for management of disposal facilities. No changes in the Site Radiological Security Plan are
proposed in support of the proposed Federal Cell Facility. Additional measures are also identified for specific
waste access areas within the Bulk Waste Facility. The Plan and procedures introduce a multi-layer security
model containing specific security controls for site access, Restricted Area boundary, and overall waste access.
This Plan applies to all personnel who access EnergySolutions’ facilities. The Plan and procedures further
define those subjects and locations germane to physical security, responsible individuals for the
implementation and requirements for site security. Security requirements are separated into three general
areas:
1. Site Access Boundary Controls: This area addresses population flow control into and out of the Site.
It includes security measures in place at the entrance gate to the facility and information electronically
gathered from individuals who badge into and out of the Site.
2. Restricted Area Access Controls: All personnel and equipment enter and exit the Restricted Area
through designated Access Control Points monitored by Health Physics personnel.
3. Waste Access Area Control: Security personnel perform daily random security searches on personnel
and vehicles accessing these areas. The railcar rollover and intermodal unloading facility are
monitored by security personnel, security cameras, or qualified access control personnel.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-1 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 9. QUALITY ASSURANCE

EnergySolutions’ Quality Assurance Program is appropriate for operation of its disposal facilities.
EnergySolutions’ Quality Assurance Program addresses design, construction, and operations of the facility.
It includes a description of the management systems, assignments of responsibilities, and the organizational
structure necessary to accomplish the performance objectives of UAC R313-25. EnergySolutions sees the
Program as critical to prevent recurrence of problems. As such, root causes of problems are promptly
identified and corrected.

EnergySolutions’ policy is to perform all of the work activities comprising facility operations in such a manner
that required quality is attained or exceeded. In pursuit of this objective, EnergySolutions has developed a
Quality Assurance Program, which is consistent with guidance provided by the Nuclear Quality Assurance
Standard, ANSI/ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities, and
satisfies the special needs of a LLRW disposal facility. This Program is described in the EnergySolutions’
Quality Assurance Program Document, containing a series of quality methods and procedures that define the
requirements. The EnergySolutions’ Quality Assurance Program is further documented by, and implemented
using more specific and detailed functional procedures. This Program will ensure that risks, safety, reliability,
and performance are maximized through the application of effective management systems commensurate with
the risk posed by the facility and its operations. In addition, this program will provide an environmental
management system to minimize environmental impacts with the prevention of pollution and continuous
improvement of environmental performance.

EnergySolutions’ organizational structure, functional responsibilities, levels of authority and lines of
communication for activities affecting quality are established and documented. The Director of Quality
Assurance is responsible for assuring that the Quality Assurance Program is established and verifying
activities affecting quality have been correctly performed. The Director of Quality Assurance has sufficient
authority, access to work areas and organizational freedom to:
• Identify quality problems;
• Initiate, recommend, or provide corrective actions to quality problems;
• Verify implementation of corrective actions; and
• Control further processing, installation or use of an item or activity until proper disposition of a
nonconformance, deficiency, or unsatisfactory condition has occurred.

The Director of Quality Assurance has direct access to responsible management at a level where appropriate
actions can be effected. The Director of Quality Assurance reports to the President of Waste Management.

Quality is achieved and maintained by those individuals who are assigned responsibility for performing the
work. Quality achievement is verified by other individuals not directly responsible for directing the work.
Where more than one organization is involved in the execution of verifying activities that affect quality, the
responsibility and authority of each organization shall be clearly established and documented.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-2 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

9.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

EnergySolutions’ Quality Assurance Program is appropriate for design and construction of its disposal
facilities. The Quality Assurance Program during construction is detailed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.

EnergySolutions has established measures to define, control and verify design. Applicable design inputs is
appropriately specified on a timely basis and correctly translated into design documents. Design interfaces
shall be identified and controlled. Persons other than those who designed the item verify design adequacy.
Design changes, including field changes, are governed by control measures commensurate with those applied
to the original design. Design documents are adequate to support facility design, construction, and operation.
Appropriate quality standards are identified and documented, and their selection reviewed and approved.
Changes from specified quality standards, including the reasons for the changes, are identified, approved,
documented and controlled.

9.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING OPERATION

EnergySolutions’ Quality Assurance Program is appropriate for operation of its disposal facilities. The Quality
Assurance Program is implemented through the following documents:
• The Statement of Corporate Quality Assurance Policy;
• Quality Assurance Program Document;
• Quality Assurance Procedures; and
• Implementing Procedures – Controlled documents that prescribe processes (a sequence of actions) to
be performed to achieve a desired outcome. Implementing procedures may apply to the entire
company, an organization, a program or a project.

The Program identifies the activities and items to which it applies. The Program includes considerations of
the technical aspects of the activities affecting quality. The Program provides control over activities affecting
quality to the extent consistent with their importance. The Program provides assurance that activities affecting
quality are documented and accomplished in accordance with written procedures, instructions and drawings.

The Program provides for the accomplishment of activities affecting quality under controlled conditions. Such
conditions include the use of appropriate equipment, suitable environmental conditions, and prerequisites for
a certain activity have been satisfied. The Program considers the need for special controls, processes, test
equipment, tools and skills to attain the required quality and verification of quality. The Program provides for
indoctrination and training of personnel performing quality related activities to assure that proficiency is
achieved and maintained.

The Director of Quality Assurance reports to the President, Waste Management and is responsible and
accountable for the effective implementation of the Quality Assurance Program. The CQAM has the
authority, responsibility, and accountability for establishing and maintaining the Quality Assurance Program.
Vice Presidents, Corporate Directors and Managers, and Facility/Department Leads (EnergySolutions
Management) have the authority, responsibility and accountability for establishing and maintaining programs
and procedures consistent with the system description provided in this document. EnergySolutions
Management may delegate tasks to contributing individuals or organizations, but they retain overall
responsibility for:
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-3 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• Providing resources to accomplish quality objectives in each work task;
• Continuously improving processes, products, and services;
• Ensuring that schedule and budget considerations are not used to compromise the attainment of the
requisite level of quality;
• Identifying, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting results of selected performance indicators;
• Providing employees with adequate education and training;
• Participating in recommending specific changes to policy, programmatic, or procedural documents;
• Identifying, preparing and approving procedures necessary to implement requirements applicable to
the scope of work;
• Working with support organizations to resolve concerns and issues; and
• Conducting management assessments.

All employees of EnergySolutions are responsible for achieving quality in their activities. Employees are
empowered by Management to continuously improve their performance, identify and report problems, and
participate in their resolution. For each employee who enters the Clive Facility Restricted Area and is likely
to have received in a year an occupational dose requiring monitoring, Clive management:
• Determines the occupational radiation dose received during the current year; and
• Attempts to obtain the records of lifetime cumulative occupational radiation dose.

Clive management may also:
• Accept as a record of the occupational dose that the individual received during the current year, a
written signed statement from the individual, or from the individual’s most recent employer for work
involving radiation exposure that discloses the nature and the amount of any occupational dose that
the individual may have received during the current year;
• Accept, as the record of lifetime cumulative radiation dose, an up-to-date NRC Form 4, or equivalent
signed by the individual and countersigned by an appropriate official of the most recent employer for
work involving radiation exposure, or the individual’s current employer (if the individual is not
employed by EnergySolutions); and
• Obtain reports of the individual’s dose equivalent(s) from the most recent employer for work
involving radiation exposure, or the individual’s current employer (if the individual is not employed
by EnergySolutions) by telephone, electronic media, or letter. EnergySolutions may request a written
verification of the dose data if the authenticity of the transmitted report cannot be established.

Clive management records the dose history, as required on NRC Form 4 or other clear and legible record, of
all the information required on the form. The form or record shows each period in which the individual
received occupational dose to radiation or radioactive material. For each period for which Clive management
obtains reports, Clive management uses the dose shown in the report in preparing NRC Form 4. For any
period in which Clive management does not obtain a report, Clive management places a notation on NRC
Form 4 indicating the periods of time for which data are not available. Records of all employees whom
monitoring was required and records of doses received during planned special exposures, accidents, and
emergency conditions include, when applicable:
• DDE, EDE, SDE to the skin, and SDE to the extremities;
• The estimated intake or body burden of radionuclides;
• The CEDE assigned to the intake or body burden of radionuclides;
• Specific information used to calculate the CEDE ;
• The TEDE when required; and
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-4 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• The total of the DDE and the ODE to the organ receiving the highest total dose.

Personal dose records are updated at least annually. Personal dose records are maintained on NRC Form 5 or
in clear and legible records containing all the information required by NRC Form 5. Electronic records are
maintained until license termination. Hardcopy records are maintained in accordance with the CL-QA-PR-
005, Quality Assurance Records. Required personal dose records are protected from public disclosure.
Records of dose to an embryo/fetus are maintained with the dose to the declared pregnant woman.
Declarations of pregnancy, including the estimated date of conception, are also kept on file. Radiation dose
records contain information sufficient to identify each person, or employee number.

EnergySolutions’ procurement system ensures that items and services comply with established requirements
and perform as specified. Applicable design bases and other requirements necessary to assure adequate quality
are included or referenced in documents for the procurement of items or services. Design and operational
requirements are incorporated into corresponding purchase requirements so that prospective suppliers are
evaluated before orders are placed; and that items received, and services provided are verified as complying
with purchase requirements.

Procedures provide instructions for identifying, controlling, distributing and approving documents, including
those provided by the supplier. They also specify criteria for purchasing commercial grade items and for
preventing the purchase of suspect or counterfeit material. Procurement documents require that all suppliers
have an established management system that implements appropriate controls for the service of items being
procured. The extent of the program required depend on the type and use of the item or service being procured.

Activities affecting quality are prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type
appropriate to the circumstances and are accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or
drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance
criteria for determining that prescribed activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.

EnergySolutions controls the preparation, approval, issue, and changes of documents that specify quality
requirements or prescribe activities affecting quality. Such documents, including changes thereto, are
reviewed for adequacy, and approved for release by authorized personnel. Document Control is the act of
assuring that documents are reviewed for adequacy, approved for release by authorized personnel, and
distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activities performed.

EnergySolutions’ control system provides for:
• Identification of documents to be controlled and their specific distribution;
• Assignment of responsibility for preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing documents;
• Review of documents for adequacy, completeness, and correctness prior to approval and issuance.

Revisions to documents are reviewed and approved by the same individuals or organizations that performed
the original review and approval.

EnergySolutions assures that only correct and accepted items are used, treated, installed or disposed.
Identification shall be maintained on the items or in documents traceable to the item, or in a manner, which
assures that identification is established and maintained. Physical identification is the preferred method of
identification. Where physical identification on the item is either impractical or insufficient, physical
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-5 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

segregation, procedural control, or other appropriate means are employed. When specified by permits,
licenses, or specifications that include specific identification or traceability requirements, the program is
designed to provide such identification and traceability control.

EnergySolutions plans and executes inspections required to verify conformance of an item or activity to
specified requirements. Inspection results are documented. Persons other than those who perform or directly
supervise the activity perform inspections for acceptance. Inspection requirements and acceptance criteria
include specified requirements contained in the applicable design documents or other pertinent technical
documents. Inspection activities are documented and controlled by instructions, procedures, drawings,
checklist, travelers, or other appropriate means.

Each person who verifies conformance of work activities for the purpose of acceptance is qualified to perform
the assigned inspection task. Inspections by persons during on-the-job training for qualification are performed
under direct supervision of a qualified person and verification of conformance is by the qualified person until
certification is achieved. Inspection of items in process or under construction is performed for work activities
where necessary to verify quality. If inspection of processed items is impossible or disadvantageous, indirect
control by monitoring of processing methods, equipment, and personnel is provided. Both inspection and
process monitoring is provided when control is inadequate without both.

Completed items are inspected for completeness, markings, calibration, adjustments, protection from damage
or other characteristics as required to verify quality and conformance of an item to specified requirements.
Final inspections include a record review of the results and resolution of nonconformance identified by prior
inspections. Inspection and test records as a minimum identify the following:
• Item inspected,
• Date of inspection,
• Inspector,
• Type of observation,
• Results or acceptability, and
• References to information or action taken in connection with nonconformance

EnergySolutions plans and executes tests required to verify conformance of an item or of a computer program
to specific requirements and to demonstrate satisfactory performance for service. Characteristics to be tested
and test methods to be employed are specified. Test results are documented and their conformance with
acceptance criteria shall be evaluated.

Test requirements and acceptance criteria are provided or approved by the organization responsible for design
of the item to be tested. Required tests, including, as appropriate, prototype qualification tests, production
tests, proof tests prior to installation; construction tests, pre-operational tests and operation tests, hardware
integration, verification test, or in-use tests are controlled. Test requirements and acceptance criteria are based
upon specified requirements contained in applicable design or other pertinent technical documents.

Test procedures include or reference test objectives and provisions for assuring that prerequisites for a given
test have been met. In lieu of specially prepared written test procedures, appropriate sections of related
documents, such as ASTM methods, supplier manuals, equipment maintenance instructions, or approved
drawings with acceptance criteria can be used. Such documents include adequate instructions to assure the
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-6 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

required quality of work. Test results shall be documented and evaluated by a responsible authority to assure
that test requirements are satisfied.

Tools, gauges, instruments and other measuring and test equipment used for activities affecting quality are
controlled and at specific periods calibrated and adjusted to maintain accuracy within necessary limits. The
selection of measuring and test equipment are controlled to assure that such items are of proper type, range,
accuracy and tolerance to accomplish the function for determining conformance to specified requirements.

Measuring and test equipment are calibrated, adjusted, and maintained at prescribed intervals or, prior to use,
against certified equipment having known relationships to nationally recognized standards. If no nationally
known standard exists, the basis for the calibration shall be documented. Measuring and test equipment is
calibrated at intervals depending on the required accuracy, intended use, stability characteristics and other
conditions affecting the performance of the instrument.

When measuring and test equipment is found to be out of calibration, an evaluation is performed and
documented of the validity of previous inspection or test results and the acceptability of the items previously
inspected or tested. Out-of-calibration devices are tagged and segregated and not used until they have been
recalibrated. If any measuring or test equipment is consistently found to be out of calibration, it is repaired or
replaced. A calibration is performed when the accuracy of the equipment is suspect.

Calibration and control measures are not required for rulers, tape measures, levels and other such devices;
normal commercial equipment provides adequate accuracy. These items must be treated with care to prevent
damage or excessive wear and be replaced before accuracy becomes questionable. Measuring and test
equipment are properly stored and handled to maintain accuracy. Calibration records are be maintained and
equipment shall be suitably marked to indicate calibration status. EnergySolutions controls handling, storage,
packaging, shipping and preservation of items to prevent damage or loss and to minimize deterioration.

Handling, storage and shipping of items is conducted in accordance with established work and inspection
instructions, drawings, specifications, shipment instructions, or other pertinent documents or procedures
specified for use in conducting the activity. Specific procedures are used when required for critical, sensitive,
perishable or high-value articles.

Instructions for marking and labeling for packaging, shipment, handling, and storage of items are established
as necessary to adequately identify, maintain and preserve the item, including indication of the presence of
special environments or the need for special controls. The status of inspection and test activities is identified
either on the items or in the documents traceable to the items where it is necessary to assure that required
inspections and tests are performed and to assure that items which have not passed the required inspections
and tests are not inadvertently installed, used or operated. Status is maintained through indicators, such as
physical location and tags, markings, travelers, inspection records or other suitable means. The authority for
the application and removal of tags, markings and labels is specified. Status indicators are also provided for
indicating the operating status of systems and components of the facility, such as tagging valves and switches,
to prevent inadvertent operation.

EnergySolutions controls items that do not conform with specified requirements to prevent inadvertent use or
installation. Controls provide for identification, documentation, evaluation and segregation when practical
and disposition of nonconforming items, and for notification of affected organizations. Identification of
nonconforming items is by marking, tagging, or other methods, which do not adversely affect the end use of
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-7 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

the item. The identification is legible and easily recognizable. If identification of each container is not
practical, the container, package, or segregated storage area, as appropriate, is identified.

Nonconforming characteristics are reviewed, and recommended dispositions of nonconforming items are
proposed and approved in accordance with documented procedures. Authorized personnel control further
processing, delivery, installation or use of a nonconforming item pending an evaluation and an approved
disposition. The responsibility and authority for the evaluation and disposition of nonconforming items is
defined. Personnel performing evaluations to determine a disposition are competent and they have an adequate
understanding of the requirements and have access to pertinent background information.

The disposition, such as use-as-is, reject, repair or rework of nonconforming items are identified and
documented. Technical justification for the acceptability of a nonconforming item, dispositioned repair or
use-as-is is documented. Nonconformance to design requirements dispositioned use-as-is or repair is subject
to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design. The as-built records, if
such records are required, will reflect the accepted deviation.

Repaired or reworked items are reexamined in accordance with the applicable procedures and with the original
acceptance criteria unless the nonconforming item disposition has established alternate acceptance criteria.
Conditions adverse to quality are identified promptly and corrected. In the case of a significant condition
adverse to quality, the cause of the condition is determined, and corrective action taken to preclude recurrence.
The identification, cause and corrective action for conditions adverse to quality are documented and reported
to appropriate levels of management. Follow-up action are taken to verify implementation of this corrective
action.

Corrective actions are prescribed in written form that provides adequate control; and are documented in a
manner that permits reviewing, evaluating and verifying the results of the activities. Where corrective or
preventive measures have already been taken to address conditions adverse to quality based on the program
elements covered in design, nonconformance surveillance or audit, no further action is required under that
element unless the conditions are judged to be significant. Conditions adverse to quality are defined as follows:
• Deficiencies in design, manufacturing, construction, testing, or process requiring substantial rework,
repair or replacement.
• Loss of essential data.
• Repeated failure to implement a portion of an approved procedure.
• Deviations from licensing or permit requirements.

Records that furnish documentary evidence of quality are specified, prepared and maintained. Records are
legible, identifiable and retrievable. Records are protected against damage, deterioration, or loss.
Requirements for record transmittal, distribution, retention, maintenance and disposition are established and
documented. An electronic record system is established, and this system is defined, implemented and enforced
in accordance with written procedures or instructions.

The applicable design specification, procurement documents, test procedures, operational procedures or
quality procedures specify the records to be generated, supplied or maintained by or for EnergySolutions’
documents that are designated to become records are legible, accurate, and completed appropriate to the work
accomplished. When required, records are corrected in accordance with procedures, which provide for
appropriate review or approval. The correction includes the date and the identification of the individual
making the correction.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 9-8 Section 9 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Each organization responsible for the receipt of records designates an individual responsible for receiving the
records. This individual or organization is responsible for implementing a receipt control system. Records are
stored in a manner to preclude deterioration or damage of the records. Provisions are made in the storage
arrangement to prevent damage from moisture, temperature, and pressure. Records are firmly attached in
binders, or placed in folders or envelopes for storage in steel file cabinets or shelving in containers.

EnergySolutions performs audits and has audits performed to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality
assurance program and to determine its effectiveness. These audits are performed in accordance with written
procedures by personnel who do not have direct responsibility for performing the activities being audited.
Audit results are documented and reported to and reviewed by responsible management. Follow-up action is
taken where indicated. In support of the Federal Cell Facility, EnergySolutions’ Quality Assurance Program
will largely remain unchanged from that in use for other waste disposal operations. The information
supporting License UT2300249 indicate that the requirements of UAC R313-25-7(10) will be met.
EnergySolutions’ Operating Procedures describe the steps used to ensure and document quality affecting
operational activities. Waste receipt, handling, and emplacement procedures are provided to the Director.
Controls used to ensure the independence, control, and reporting relationships of auditing personnel are
described in the manual. In addition, response to non-conformances and corrective action requests are
described in the manual.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-1 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 10. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

Surety protects the State of Utah and DOE from the need to fund the closure and post-closure care of the Clive
Disposal Complex. The Surety provides adequate monies for site decommissioning, reclamation and ongoing
monitoring in the event that EnergySolutions is unable to provide funds at the time of closure. The amounts
required to be pledged for closure and post-closure sureties are based on third-party closure to the standards
approved by the Director. The Director and DOE can annually review and confirm that EnergySolutions’
financial sureties are appropriate to protect the State of Utah’s citizens from financial burdens in the event of
premature facility closure. The surety funding projections are based on third-party estimates for the amount
of funding required to:
• Decontaminate, treat, and/or dispose of all contaminated equipment, structures, and soils;
• Place all waste material in the appropriate disposal embankment;
• Close the embankment(s) as outlined in EnergySolutions’ Permit and Licenses; and
• Complete required post-closure monitoring and inspections.

10.1 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ENERGYSOLUTIONS

EnergySolutions herein provides information to demonstrate that its financial qualifications are adequate to
carry out the activities contemplated in this Application and the financial assurances required in UAC R313-
25-32.

10.1.1 Legal Description of EnergySolutions

EnergySolutions is an international nuclear services company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, with
operations throughout the United States, Canada and Japan. EnergySolutions is an industry leader in the safe
recycling, processing and disposal of nuclear material, providing a full range of Decommissioning and
Decontamination (D&D) services to shut down nuclear power plants. EnergySolutions’ customers include
the United States Government, all United States Nuclear Power Plants, along with various medical and
research facilities. In May 2013, Energy Capital Partners (ECP) acquired EnergySolutions in a take-private
transaction. As a private ECP subsidiary, EnergySolutions continues its focus on U.S. nuclear power plants’
on-going waste disposal and end-of-life decommissioning needs.

Ken Robuck was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of EnergySolutions in July 2018. Mr.
Robuck joined EnergySolutions in August 2013 as President of the Company’s Disposal and Nuclear
Decommissioning Division. Ken brings a wealth of experience and knowledge of the utilities industry and
in developing and managing new areas and markets. Prior to joining EnergySolutions, Mr. Robuck was
President of Williams Industrial Services Group, LLC, from 2006, where he was responsible for the
management of a multi-regional, industrial construction and maintenance company, serving a broad
customer base including petrochemical, steel, and power (both fossil and nuclear).

Jeff Richardson serves as Chief Operating Officer and is responsible for all aspects of company operations
for decommissioning, waste management, processing, logistics, and disposal as well as companywide
strategic initiatives and execution. Additionally, he leads the environmental, health & safety, regulatory
affairs, project management & controls, and quality assurance functions within EnergySolutions. Jeff has
over 30 years of power generation and nuclear operating experience. Specifically, his background includes
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-2 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

developing, leading, & managing complex, multidiscipline projects, teams, & initiatives ranging from
construction megaprojects, corporate reorganizations, new business development, major engineering
initiatives, supply chain management/alliances, & organizational transformations.

Greg Wood was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of EnergySolutions
in June 2012. He previously served as Executive Vice President and CFO for Actian Corporation, a provider
of database and data analytics software. Prior to joining Actian, Mr. Wood held chief financial officer roles
at numerous public and private companies, including Silicon Graphics, Liberate Technologies, and
InterTrust Technologies.

John Sauger serves as President and Chief Nuclear Officer Reactor D&D and is responsible for all
commercial D&D projects. Mr. Sauger has more than 30 years of commercial nuclear experience covering
the entire nuclear life cycle. John was the original decommissioning manager for the Maine Yankee project
where he developed risk and project management systems, contract acquisition strategy, and led the first
year of decommissioning execution. Since 2013, John has led a fast‑paced transformation of the Zion
Station decommissioning project such that Zion is the benchmark against which future decommissioning
projects will be measured. As a utility executive, Mr. Sauger led the completion of the refurbishment of the
Bruce Nuclear Units 1 and 2 in Canada.

Russ Workman was appointed as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary in 2012. Prior to his
appointment, Mr. Workman had 22 years of experience advising and representing U.S. and international
companies in commercial transactions, litigation, and corporate governance. Mr. Workman is licensed to
practice in Utah and admitted to practice before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Brent Shimada, Senior Vice President Human Resources has been with EnergySolutions since July 2011.
Prior to joining EnergySolutions, Mr. Shimada was Vice President Administration and General Counsel for
Otix Global, Inc. (formerly Sonic Innovations, Inc.) (NYSE: OTIX), from October 2004. Between May
1999 to October 2004, he was Human Resources Director for American Express’ Global Travelers Cheque
Operations Group. Mr. Shimada served as Senior Corporate Counsel for grocery and drug retail
conglomerate, American Stores Company from 1996 to 1999. He was Legal Counsel for Alliant
Techsystems, Inc. (formerly Hercules Incorporated), a government contractor, from 1985 to 1996.

Joseph Heckman is President of EnergySolutions’ Waste Management Division, joining EnergySolutions in
September 1997. He has held various management positions throughout EnergySolutions, including
Operations Director of the Erwin ResinSolutions Facility and General Manager of Bear Creek Processing
Operations. Mr. Heckman began his career at EnergySolutions as a Radiation Safety Technician at the
Clive facility. Prior to joining EnergySolutions, Mr. Heckman held radiation safety positions in commercial
nuclear power plants, Department of Energy facilities, and environmental remediation sites.

10.1.2 Description of EnergySolutions’ Operations

EnergySolutions owns, operates and maintains a network of environmental infrastructure assets critical to
the U.S. nuclear industry that are among the largest commercial disposal facilities, processing facilities and
logistics and transportation businesses for low-level radioactive waste in the United States. Virtually all
nuclear plants in the U.S. and the U.S. Department of Energy use the company service offerings, and the
company is active in decommissioning multiple nuclear plants, including San Onofre Nuclear Generation
Station, Unit 2 of Three Mile Island and the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-3 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EnergySolutions owns and operates the Clive disposal facility, located in the West Desert of Utah
approximately 75 miles west of Salt Lake City. The Clive disposal facility plays a vital role in the nuclear
industry as a safe and compliant option for permanent disposal of radioactive waste, including soil and
debris from clean-up sites; low level waste created nuclear power plants; byproducts and equipment used in
the nuclear power generation; byproducts used in nuclear power plants; radioactive material from DOE
cleanup sites; and radioactively contaminated medical waste. EnergySolutions provides disposal services for
both the commercial and government nuclear industry including nuclear power plants, industrial and
research companies, hospitals, universities, DOE, Department of Defense, and many other companies and
state/federal agencies.

The Clive disposal facility is also permitted to accept Mixed Waste, which is a combination of both RCRA
hazardous and radioactive waste. Treatment technologies include macro encapsulation of radioactive lead
solids and hazardous debris, stabilization of heavy metals, neutralization and solidification of contaminated
liquids, thermal treatment of waste containing organic solvents, amalgamation of elemental mercury, and
treatment of other unique waste streams.

EnergySolutions also operates the Barnwell Disposal Facility, which is owned by the State of South
Carolina. The facility is the host disposal site for the Atlantic Compact which is comprised of South
Carolina, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The Facility began operations in 1971 and has provided continuous
disposal operations for over 45 years. The site is licensed to dispose of Class A, B and C low-level wastes,
including irradiated hardware and large components, steam generators, resins, and reactor pressure vessels.
Located with the Barnwell Disposal Facility, EnergySolutions also owns and operates the Barnwell
Processing Facility at which power plant resins are dewatered, waste is solidified and liquid waste
undergoes an evaporation processes.

EnergySolutions also owns the Bear Creek Processing Facility, located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
facility’s primary function is the safe processing and packaging of radioactive material for permanent
disposal. Volume reduction and repacking of the material is the primary goal of the facility. The facility
houses radioactive materials processing capabilities including bulk waste assay, decontamination, recycle,
compaction, incineration, metal melting, and a variety of specialty waste stream management options. The
facility operates under regulatory authority of the state of Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) Division of Radiological Health (DRH) in agreement with the NRC.

EnergySolutions also owns the Erwin ResinSolutions Facility located in Erwin, Tennessee. This facility
utilizes an innovative solution for spent ion-exchange resins from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.
The patented Steam Reforming Process safely dewaters, chemically reforms, homogenizes and reduces the
volume of spent ion-exchange resins into a solid-phase, stable waste form. Once the Steam Reforming
Process has been applied, the residual solid material is packaged and prepped for transportation to the
EnergySolutions Clive Disposal Facility located in Utah West Desert.

EnergySolutions' subsidiary, Hittman Transport Services, is the premier transporter of low-level radioactive
waste in the country, and one of the largest trucking companies for hauling nuclear fuel in the United States.
Its fleet logs millions of miles per year, transporting shipping casks, vans, and flatbeds throughout the
United States and Canada. Hittman began supporting the nuclear industry in 1977 and since this time has
accumulated over 148 million safely-driven miles. Hittman – as an average – logs over 8 million miles per
year and transports over 300 radioactive shipments per month.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-4 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EnergySolutions also owns Hittman Transport Services, Inc., which supplies the company with logistics
capabilities. Hittman assists customers to efficiently transport materials for processing and disposal in a safe
and effective manner. Hittman’s transport specialists are responsible for delivering these materials over
millions of miles every year, by ensuring that all shipments are routinely inspected during transport to
identify any situation that could compromise the shipment while in transition. To support their logistic
needs, Hittman owns and offers a unique suite of tractor-trailers and containers that are dedicated to
radioactive waste transport.

EnergySolutions’ MHF Services subsidiary owns and operates five permanent transload facilities to enable
safe and secure method of transferring bulk or packaged materials between truck, rail, and marine
conveyance systems. MHF Services also provides flexible and durable packaging products for a wide range
of industrial and environmental applications. Working closely with customers to understand specific
packaging requirements, MHF recommends optimal solutions for individual project requirements.
EnergySolutions’ MHF team comprises the nation’s premiere group of waste transportation, logistics,
packaging, and disposal management experts, with extensive experience managing large volumes of waste
from point of origin to disposal for DOE, USACE, and EPA—as well as commercial clients.

Finally, EnergySolutions Nuclear Plant Services subsidiary provides full design and engineering capabilities
including industry standard 3-D rendering/modeling capabilities, development of specialty water treatment
medias, development of new technologies for the nuclear industry, development of specialized high activity
liquid water processing systems (currently in use at Fukushima, Japan), material balance and process flow
calculations, production of process flow diagrams, piping and instrumentation diagrams and complete
design/build capabilities for radwaste processing systems; coded pressure vessels; remote/automatic
handling equipment maximizing ALARA; complete shielding packages maximizing ALARA; licensed
shielded transport cask; instrumentation and control definition and design for all process and mechanical
systems; process and special radiological instrument design and specification; load analysis and power
distribution and Closed Circuit Television and communication systems.

10.1.3 EnergySolutions’ Detailed Financing Plan

In accordance with UAC R313-25-33(6), EnergySolutions annually submits a copy of its financial
statements within 30 days of its completion and certification (most recently on April 27, 2020 via CD20-
0073). In addition to annual sureties pledged, this information provides the Director with additional
justification for a determination of financial stability. EnergySolutions’ annual Consolidated Financial
Statements are transmitted to the Director under claim of business confidentiality (pursuant to Utah Code
Subsections 63G-2-305(2) through (4), and in accordance with Section 63G-2-306). EnergySolutions asserts
a claim of business confidentiality over the annual financial statements to protect EnergySolutions from
detrimental effects from the release of the information to members of the public, industry and competitors.

10.1.4 Parent Company Activities

In May 2013, ECP acquired EnergySolutions, Inc., in a take-private transaction. ECP focuses on acquiring
existing and new-build energy infrastructure projects primarily in North America. To successfully invest in
the energy sector, ECP provides marshal’s meaningful capital with significant domain knowledge and
extensive industry relationships. ECP’s team focuses extensive industry experience on industry scale, asset
ownership, and facilitated long-term relationships with industry executives and key strategic players. ECP
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-5 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

actively manages its assets and businesses alongside management teams to execute growth strategies and
generate efficiencies. Core to ECP’s infrastructure is a focus of strategies across the entire portfolio to
allocate cash flows and value to protecting the downside of investments in lieu of maximizing upside return
potential. ECP’s applicable financial forms and bond ratings is included in the annual statements
referenced in Section 10.1.3.

10.2 FUNDING ASSURANCES

EnergySolutions herein demonstrates that the requirements of UAC R313-25-32 will be met. Additionally,
the closure and post-closure bonds will be secured from agencies that have legal authority to provide this
financial assurance in the State of Utah (where the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be located). Included
in this Application are third-party generated estimates of the cost of Federal Cell Facility closure and
stabilization. A detailed breakdown and explanation of the assumptions used by the third-party to produce
the cost calculations is also provided.

10.2.1 Premature Closure

EnergySolutions expects to close the Federal Cell Facility and perform the required maintenance and
monitoring. However, in order to protect the State of Utah and DOE from having to fund premature closure
of the Federal Cell Facility (in the event that EnergySolutions is unwilling or unable to do so), additional
monies will be added to the Clive Disposal Facility surety to specifically address the premature closure of the
Federal Cell Facility (in accordance with regulatory requirements).

As is included in Appendix R, the amount of financial surety is the amount estimated for the placement of
applicable contaminated material in storage into the Federal Cell Facility, for decommissioning and
decontamination of the Federal Cell Facility, for premature completion of Federal Cell Facility construction
to the required standards, to perform all required post closure monitoring and maintenance activities and to
transition its long term care stewardship to DOE. The volume of unplaced waste included in the Federal Cell
Facility surety calculations serves as a compliance point, limiting the volume of waste requiring placement to
less than the funds secured in surety. The Decontamination and Decommissioning Plan and the
Environmental Monitoring Plan of Radioactive Material Licenses UT2300249 and UT2300478 form the basis
for surety calculations.

EnergySolutions follows NRC, State of Utah, and EPA guidelines in developing its Clive Disposal Facility
surety.
• NRC instructs that surety calculations should include, “a detailed site-specific cost estimate for
decommissioning, based on the costs of an independent contractor to meet the criteria for unrestricted
use in 10 CFR 20.1402” (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2012), Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness – Final Report,
NUREG-1757, Volume 3, Revision 0, February 2012).
• UAC R313-25-31(1)(b) states “[T]he applicant’s cost estimates shall take into account total costs
that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the closure and
stabilization work.”
• UAC R315-264-142(a)(2) states, “[T]he closure cost estimate shall be based on the costs to the owner
or operator of hiring a third party to close the facility.”

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-6 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Furthermore, Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) allows the following option for a Licensee or Permittee to
determine closure and post closure costs:
“(A) for an initial financial assurance determination and for each financial assurance
determination every five years thereafter, a competitive site-specific bid for closure and post-
closure care of the facility at least once every five years; and
(B) for each year between a financial assurance determination described in Subsection
(12)(f)(ii)(A), a proposed financial assurance estimate that accounts for current site
conditions and that includes an annual inflation adjustment to the financial assurance
determination using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator of the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, United States Department of Commerce, calculated by dividing the latest
annual deflator by the deflator for the previous year;”

Based on these regulatory requirements, EnergySolutions commissioned an independent evaluation by a
facility decommissioning- and closure-experienced third-party entity to estimate the process and activities
associated with all premature closure activities for the Clive Disposal Facility. This process was completed
in March 2021 and the combined surety calculations are currently under review by the Director. Subsequent
annual reviews after 2021 combined surety is approved will account for current site conditions and include
annual inflation adjustments. Clive Disposal Complex annual surety reviews conducted after this licensing
action will include evaluation of the premature closure of the Federal Cell Facility. The calculations and cost
estimates will be included in the Director’s annual review and adjustment to assure that the amount remains
appropriate to account for inflation, construction of new facilities, and other cost adjustments.

A summary of each necessary surety decommissioning activities for the Federal Cell Facility is presented
below. Each summary includes the general location of the item; a brief description of the item; how the item
will be decommissioned; and any major assumptions. References will be included for construction
specifications of the Federal Cell Facility Construction Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manual
(Appendix I). Details of premature embankment closure construction are presented in Appendix R.
31. Placement of Material
This item includes the maximum volume of depleted uranium that is allowed on-site in
container or bulk storage awaiting disposal. This surety item’s volume storage limit is
expected to be reflected as a condition to the Radioactive Material License authorizing
depleted uranium disposal in the Federal Cell Facility. During premature closure, sufficient
funds will be pledged so that all depleted uranium waste in storage or in conveyances at the
site are offloaded and placed in the Federal Cell Facility, in accordance with current
construction requirements. This surety item conservatively assumes the maximum volume
allowed is in storage or on site at the time of closure.
204. Liner/Liner Protective Cover
This item includes the use of clay and soil materials to construct additional cell liner and
cover necessary to complete premature closure of the Federal Cell Facility. This activity will
include the excavation of native clays and soils from surrounding areas and placement in the
embankment to specification and design.
205. Settlement Monitoring of Temporary Cover
In accordance with embankment construction requirements, fill and temporary cover will be
placed to specification over the depleted uranium waste and settlement monuments placed
on a 150-foot grid over the top slope of the embankment. The proposed temporary cover for
the Federal Cell Facility is a one-foot-thick layer of native soil and is monitored for settlement
prior to final cover construction. This item includes the cost of excavation and placement of
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-7 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

the required volume of native soil (and overburden) along with the purchase and placement
of settlement monuments. The item also includes costs of monument surveys and
engineering reviews for the required one year of settlement monitoring.
207. Cover Construction
This item will include construction of the final cover over the Federal Cell Facility, roads and
drainage ditches around the Facility, and the installation of permanent monuments for the
Facility. The final cover consists of several elements including radon barriers, a filter zone,
and a rock erosion control barrier. Radon barrier borrow material will be excavated from
adjacent sections owned by EnergySolutions. Rock will be imported from the BLM quarry
located approximately five miles north of the Facility. The rock will be screened to meet
applicable gradation requirements for the individual cover layers. The final cover area will
be based on the premature closure plan and updated each year as part of the annual surety
review.
211. Final Cover Settlement Monitoring
In accordance with embankment construction requirements, final cover will be placed to
specification over the depleted uranium waste and settlement monuments placed on a 150-
foot grid over the top slope of the embankment. This item includes the cost of excavation
and placement of the required volume of native soil (and overburden) along with the purchase
and placement of settlement monuments. The item also includes costs of monument surveys
and engineering reviews for the required one year of settlement monitoring.
300. SG&A Overhead Costs
In accordance with EnergySolutions’ 2021 third-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of
5.5% of the sum of direct costs will be required for general and administrative expenses.
302. Contingency
In accordance with EnergySolutions’ 2021 third-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of
10% of the sum of direct costs will be required as contingency for unanticipated expenses.
303. Engineering and Redesign
In accordance with EnergySolutions’ 2021 third-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of
2.25% of the sum of direct costs will be required to account for engineering analysis and
redesign for premature closure of the Federal Cell Facility.
304. Profit and Overhead
In accordance with EnergySolutions’ 2021 third-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of
10% of the sum of direct costs will be required for contractor profit and overhead expenses.
305. Management Fee and Legal Expenses
In accordance with EnergySolutions’ 2021 third-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of
4% of the sum of direct costs will be required for project management and legal expenses.
306. DEQ Oversight of Project
In accordance with EnergySolutions’ 2021 third-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of
4% of the sum of direct costs will be required for regulatory oversight during premature
closure.
320. Facility Stewardship Transfer to DOE
Transfer of stewardship from DWMRC oversight to DOE-LM is projected to require 2
individuals for 5 years.
400. Perpetual Surveillance
This item includes the annual inspections and maintenance that will be performed at the
Federal Cell Facility and off-site features that may have been impacted by operations. In
addition to an embankment survey, this section includes costs to annually sample external
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-8 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

radiation exposures from the embankment and atmospheric radon gas flux from the Federal
Cell Facility. The long-term surveillance monitoring includes is intended to ensure that the
Federal Cell Facility and other required elements perform as intended and that there are no
adverse impacts to the environment or the public due to degradation of these elements. This
item includes inspection of the embankments, fencing, roads, etc. and the performance of any
maintenance on these elements. Since funding for soils, airborne dust particulate and
groundwater leachate migration surrounding the Clive Disposal Complex licensed footprint
for low-level radioactive waste and 11e.(2) byproduct disposal, they are not duplicated in
Section 400.

The financial assurance mechanism proposed for premature closure of EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility
will be a Surety Bond pledged for $7,693,454 with a Standby Trust Agreement executed with Zions Bank and
includes the necessary amount of coverage to provide for the following:
a. The Surety Bond will be sufficient to cover all the costs of closure of the Federal Cell Facility. The
Surety Bond includes identification and specification of the types and number of activities required
for each of Clive’s facilities.
b. The amount of the financial assurance will be equal to the cost estimates for premature closure of the
Federal Cell Facility after the first year of operation, and reflects the total costs incurred if an
independent contractor were hired.
c. The Surety Bond provides coverage throughout the term of the License.
d. The Director of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control will be authorized as
beneficiary.
e. As part of the annual review/revision, the Surety Bond will be adjusted so that it represents the current
condition of the Federal Cell Facility (accounting for depleted uranium placed in the embankment
and other related operational changes). As is allowed by UAC R313-25-31(2), activities in common
for premature closure of the Class A West Facility, Mixed Waste RCRA Facility, 11e.(2) Byproduct
Facility and Federal Cell Facility are generally funded in the Class A West Facility calculations.
f. As part of the annual review/revision, the Surety Bond will be adjusted for inflation, using the
inflation factor derived from the annual implicit price deflator for gross national product, as published
in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Survey of Current Business and as reported by the Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control.

The financial assurance mechanism proposed for post-closure of EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility will
be a separate Surety Bond pledged for $1,344,977 with a Standby Trust Agreement executed with Zions Bank
and includes the necessary amount of coverage to provide for the following:
a. The Surety Bond will be sufficient to cover 100-years of post-closure, including stewardship transfer
of the Federal Cell Facility to DOE. The Surety Bond includes identification and specification of the
types and number of activities required for each of Clive’s facilities.
b. The amount of the financial assurance will be equal to the cost estimates for premature post-closure
of the Federal Cell Facility after the first year of operation, and reflects the total costs incurred if an
independent contractor were hired.
c. The Surety Bond provides coverage throughout the term of the License.
d. The DOE via an agreed-upon third party trustee will be authorized as beneficiary.
e. As part of the annual review/revision, the Surety Bond will be adjusted so that it represents the current
condition of the Federal Cell Facility (accounting for depleted uranium placed in the embankment
and other related operational changes).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-9 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

f. As part of the annual review/revision, the Surety Bond will be adjusted for inflation, using the
inflation factor derived from the annual implicit price deflator for gross national product, as published
in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Survey of Current Business and as reported by the Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control.

The design modification and construction for the premature closure of the Federal Cell Facility will be
accomplished by following the approved embankment and cover design principles. These principles will
guide the redesign of the Federal Cell Facility as suggested in the following conceptual redesign plan.
1. Conduct an aerial survey of the embankment and develop current topographical data to be used as the
base of the redesign.
2. Overlay on the aerial survey of the embankment the following areas:
a. Limits of disposed waste,
b. Extents of completed liner,
c. CLSM entombment of placed depleted uranium, and
d. Any additional areas of interest.
3. Determine the best areas for the placement for waste generated from the decommissioning of the
Federal Cell support facilities.
4. Redesign the Federal Cell Facility per the following criteria:
a. Work within the criteria used for the modeling performed for the licensed embankment designs,
b. Side slopes cannot exceed 5:1,
c. Storm water must freely drain off of and away from the embankment, and
d. Final contours (geometry) cannot concentrate storm water flow that may lead to erosion of the
cover materials.
5. Drainage ditches will be designed based on the approved closure ditch designs for the Federal Cell
Facility. In general, the ditches slope from the northeast to the southwest where they connect to the
southwest corner discharge.

Once the aerial survey is completed and converted into an electronic file, a team of one engineer and one
CAD designer (utilizing AutoCAD Land Desktop or similar software) will redesign, including reviews and
revisions, the premature closure embankment design within ten to twelve (10-12) working weeks.

Considering the annual Federal Cell Facility waste configuration at the time of the As-Built survey and design
criteria, a suitable premature closure design will be a reduced Federal Cell Facility within the design Federal
Cell Facility limits. In addition, Rock Cover Design Calculations will be performed, demonstrating that the
Federal Cell Facility riprap design is adequate for the possible varied slope lengths.

Projections of additional debris and soil needed within the prematurely closed embankment will be estimated.
EnergySolutions will ensure sufficient capacity is reserved with the premature closure Federal Cell Facility
for the surety decontamination volumes. This volume will be calculated from a summation of all other closure
cost volumes within the Federal Cell Facility surety calculations.

The proposed location for the clay borrow required for Federal Cell Facility closure is Sections 5 and 29.
There are three work elements identified in the surety calculations that require clay material. The calculated
surety volumes for Clay Liner/Protective Cover, Temporary Cover and Radon Barrier. The current premature
closure Federal Cell Facility embankment design may require the construction of additional clay liner.
EnergySolutions will ensure that sufficient clay materials within the borrow pit limits of Sections 5 and 29 are
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-10 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

reserved for premature closure needs. Similarly, The BLM Community Pit 24 is projected to have a sufficient
remaining reserve of material required to cover the premature Federal Cell Facility embankment.

At completion of premature closure, the final conditions of the Federal Cell Facility, including airborne
particulate monitoring, will be defined and characterized as serve as the baseline for long term surveillance
and maintenance. This information will be assembled into a Federal Cell Facility file that will be reviewed
by the Director and DOE prior to stewardship transition.

As it is reasonable to expect that premature closure of each of Facility in the Clive Disposal Complex will
occur concurrently, a combined surety estimate for the entire Clive Disposal Complex was submitted for
Director approval in March 2021. The next independent third-party evaluation of the combined surety
estimate for the entire Clive Disposal Complex is required to be repeated by March 1, 2026. Premature closure
and perpetual care of the Federal Cell Facility is expected to be included in that combined estimate.

10.2.2 Premature Post-Closure

The Federal Cell Facility will be constructed in a manner that minimizes the need for long-term maintenance.
The containment structure will be made completely of natural materials. The only item at the facility that is
man-made will be the chain link fence that surrounds the site. With the exception of the chain link fence all
of the materials incorporated in the final Federal Cell Facility have been designed to remain intact for 10,000
years. Since the Federal Cell Facility will be resistant to water erosion, wind erosion, and slope failure for the
10,000-year design life of the facility, the need for ongoing active maintenance of the Federal Cell Facility
after closure is minimized. Even so, inspection and custodial maintenance, such as occasional repair of a
damaged perimeter fence is expected to be required at the site is included in the post-closure surety
calculations.

10.2.3 Site Ownership Transition to DOE

Following closure and decommissioning, EnergySolutions and the Director will participate with DOE to
support transition of the Federal Cell Facility and compile documentation required by the Site Transition
Framework for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance, (DOE, 2019). Funding to address transition
activities of the Federal Cell Facility from DWMRC to DOE-LM are included in the premature post-closure
calculations (see Appendix R). The Framework follows a systematic process of identifying a baseline for the
closed Federal Cell Facility to facilitate a smooth transition of Federal Cell Facility stewardship from
Licensee’s and Director’s closure (or premature closure) to DOE’s Office of Legacy Management (DOE-
LM). Site Transition information will be compiled and reviewed by representatives from DOE-LM,
Director’s staff and EnergySolutions.

10.2.3.1 Authorities and Accountabilities will be Assigned and Documented
The Roles and responsibilities of interested parties documented in the Memorandum of Agreement (located
in Appendix U) will be reviewed and revised, as necessary.
• Responsibilities during transition responsibilities and funding sources;
• Applicable federal and state requirements, policies and procedures for managing resources;
• Legal authority authorizing transfer of Federal Cell Facility stewardship to DOE-LM (including any
related reservation of rights); and
• Discussion of authorities related to DOE-LM’s institutional controls.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-11 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

10.2.3.2 Site Conditions will be Accurately and Comprehensively Documented
Federal Cell Facility’s historical uses, characterization and remediation (including Preliminary and Final
Closeout Reports) will be released to the General Public. This information will include a description of the
Federal Cell Facility’s condition at time of closure, including remedies and remaining hazards and associates
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) references, where applicable.
• Physical features of the Facility, including site topography, geology, hydrogeology, geomorphology,
seismicity, site and area boundaries and other features relevant to the long-term performance of the
Facility;
• Locations of active, inactive and decommissioned buildings, structures and surface and subsurface
infrastructure;
• Locations of residual hazards and associated engineered and institutional control systems;
• Locations of groundwater wells, wastewater outfalls and air quality monitoring stations (as depicted
on Facility maps);
• Locations of off-site buildings and structures, important ecological resources and associated potential
receptors in the vicinity of the Facility;
• Characteristics of the remaining contaminants (e.g., radionuclide activity and physical/chemical
forms);
• Descriptions of the initial risk at the Facility and the risk remaining at the Facility following
remediation;
• The existence of and basis for decisions on cleanup levels for the end state;
• A conceptual Facility model, depicting relationships between existing residual hazards,
environmental transport mechanisms, exposure pathways and human/ecological receptors;
• Completion, documentation and Director-approval of all remedial actions; and
• Identification of any Natural Resource Damage Assessment claims (including DOE-LM’s potential
environmental liability at the Facility).

10.2.3.3 Engineered Controls, Operation and Maintenance Requirements and Emergency / Contingency
Planning will be Documented
Engineering controls, any remaining operational or maintenance requirements necessary and the contingency
plans will be documented.
• Engineered controls will be identified and documented, including design and construction drawings,
specifications and completion report; site physical and geotechnical data; locations of engineered
controls on the Facility maps; any ongoing remediation and related waste management activities; and
performance history assessments supporting successful Facility operations;
• A life-cycle cost estimate, including basis and assumptions. The life-cycle cost estimate will be based
on best available data (including reasonable and prudent expectations for future contingencies);
• Master schedule of any ongoing activities;
• Risk-based end state, including exit criteria outlining when engineered controls will no longer be
necessary;
• Operation and maintenance activities (such as surveillance and monitoring) will be documented, and
funding needed and available sources identified; and
• Contingency planning authority and responsibilities will be identified (including uncertainties
associated with residual hazards, fate and transport mechanisms and exposure pathways; scenarios
related to uncertainties; role, responsibilities and procedures to respond to each scenarios; conceptual
Facility model and emergency/catastrophic planning for fires, floods, etc.);
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-12 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

10.2.3.4 Institutional Controls, Real and Personal Property and Enforcement Authorities will be Identified
Land use and institutional controls will be identified and implemented. For those engineered barriers relied
upon as part of a remedy requiring institutional controls, longevity and performance of the barrier will be
projected.
• Engineered controls will be identified and documented, including design and construction drawings,
specifications and completion report; site physical and geotechnical data; locations of engineered
controls on the Facility maps; any ongoing remediation and related waste management activities; and
performance history assessments supporting successful Facility operations;
• Property records will be completed; and
• Personal property transfers will be completed in accordance with 41 CFR 101 and DOE Property
Management Regulations.

10.2.3.5 Regulatory Requirements and Authorities will be Identified
Regulatory requirements regarding residual contamination will be identified. Pertinent regulatory documents
will be maintained and made available to the public, including:
• Regulatory decision documents and Facility characterizations will be identified, completed and
maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements;
• Any remedies will be verified and confirmed as compliant with regulatory requirements;
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five-Year
Review will be made prepared;
• EPA National Priority List status and/or RCRA permit status of state requirements and the basis for
these requirements will be clearly indicated;
• NRC license status will be established. This status information will identify the license holder and the
development of license transfer plans; and
• Locations of documents will be identified, and the documents made accessible.

10.2.3.6 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Budget, Funding and Personnel Requirements will be
Identified
Stewardship transition of the Federal Cell Facility will follow the prescribed guidance, budget, funding and
personnel requirements, including:
• A Technical Basis for DOE-LM management of the Federal Cell Facility will be developed;
• Funding and associated cost-estimates will be compiled;
• Personnel requirements will be identified; and
• A business closeout process will be developed.

10.2.3.7 Information and Records Management Requirements will be Satisfied
EnergySolutions’ information and records management procedures are appropriate for its disposal facilities.
Post-closure disposition plans will reflect records and information for DOE-LM turnover and retention plans,
including
• Agreements in place that will identify the disposition of records transfer to the Facility custodian and
records that transfer to other organizations;
• Information and records needed for DOE-LM, property management, contractor personnel benefits
other than pensions, worker compensation and Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act will be identified;
• Practices and procedures for the transition of information systems and records will be established;
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-13 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• The guidance and operations information for information systems transferring to the Facility
custodian, including metadata, will be identified and transferred along with the information systems;
• A Facility Information and Records Transition Plan will be developed and approved to establish a
framework to address Facility-specific records and information requirements, including storage
locations, special handling needs, geospatial data and access and retrieval requirements;
• The locations for storage and maintenance of Facility records and standards for data formats will be
provided for Facility transfer;
• Information from the transfer Facility’s records tracking systems will be migrated to the tracking
system, along with locator guides and indices;
• Necessary records and record locations will be identified, including points of contact;
• Systems and procedures used for the archival of Facility information will be developed;
• Retention schedules for continuity of benefits, worker compensation and Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act claims will be developed;
• Systems and procedures to establish and facilitate public access to and retrieval of records and
information critical to DOE-LM stewardship of the Federal Cell Facility will be created;
• National Archives and Records Administration will be engaged through the DOE Office of Chief
Information Officer, to approve any transfer of records past their retention schedule;
• The DOE Librarian and Historian will be consulted regarding the transfer of non-record materials;
• User class and access requirements will be identified, and solutions implemented; and
• Information in DOE-approved information systems will be implemented.

10.2.3.8 Public Education, Outreach, Information and Notice Requirements will be Documented and Satisfied
Community involvement and associated Community Relations Plans will be developed from existing
participation standards and systems, including:
• List of Facility stakeholders with associated address information will be developed and a process
created for updating this list;
• Updates (at least annual) of the Administrative Record will be made available to interested parties;
• Community involvement tools will be developed; and
• Costs associated with public involvement will be projected and funds sufficient for public
involvement included in secured perpetual care funds.

10.2.3.9 Natural, Cultural and Historical Resource Management Requirements will be Satisfied
A system or process will be created to protect information about sensitive and natural resources from
unauthorized access or use, including:
• Biological resources, threatened and endangered species, archaeological and cultural resources,
Native American treaty rights and natural and cultural resource requirements will be identified.
• Locations and characteristics of natural and cultural resources will be identified. A management
system will be created and operated.

10.2.3.10 Business Closure Functions, Pension and Benefits, Contract Closeout or Transfer and Other
Administrative Requirements are Satisfied
Actions required by EnergySolutions and DOE-LM related to business closeout functions will be identified
and will reflect requirements, policies and procedures, schedules and cost estimates and budget.
• Responsibilities will be determined for the administration and funding of retiree benefits and pension
funds, work force transition services, National Defense Authorization Act – Section 3161 tuition,
worker compensation claims and EEOIPA claims;
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-14 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

• Contractor pensions and benefits needs will be identified and planned;
• Status of pending litigation and liabilities will be identified;
• Contract closeout actions for closure of restoration contracts and financial agreements will be
identified; and
• Requirements from DOE’s applicable orders will be satisfied.

10.3 CORPORATE GUARANTEES

While EnergySolutions anticipates operating within the bounds of the license hereto requested through
closure and post-closure transition of the Federal Cell Facility to the DOE, neither EnergySolutions nor ECP
pledge any corporate assets nor make any corporate guarantees towards the performance of or payment for
specific closure or post-closure activities of the Federal Cell Facility (other than the collateral necessary for
EnergySolutions to secure the closure and post-closure bonds from the bond issuer).

10.4 ASSETS HELD BY A THIRD PARTY SUCH AS IN A STATE FUND

Other than funds pledged in the closure and post-closure surety bonds (to be held by the Director),
EnergySolutions does not pledge further assets towards premature closure or post-closure of the Federal Cell
Facility.

10.5 TRUSTS AND STANDBY TRUSTS

Funds in surety bonds for Funds in surety bonds for premature closure and post-closure and post-closure
activities are secured and revised annually to assure that the pledged amounts remain sufficient to account
for inflation, construction of new facilities and other cost adjustments. A Standby Trust Agreement with
Zion’s First National Bank (Trustee) for management of the funds from the premature closure surety bond
will cite the Director as beneficiary (see example in Appendix S). Any monies not used by the Director in
the premature closure of the Federal Cell Facility will be returned to EnergySolutions. A second Standby
Trust Agreement with Zion’s First National Bank as Trustee for management of the funds from the post-
closure surety bond will employ a third-party mutually agreed upon by the Director and DOE as beneficiary
(see example also included in Appendix S). The post-closure beneficiary will release funds for post-closure
of the Federal Cell Facility to the DOE-LM Section Manager until they are exhausted.

As a reputable financial entity authorized to act as such, Zion’s First National Bank has been selected as
trustee. The Standby Trust Agreements will be irrevocable, except with the written agreement of the trustee
and the beneficiary. The Standby Trust Agreements will be revised annually to reflect approval of annual
revisions to the premature closure and post-closure cost estimates. The Director will have possession of the
closure surety bond secured in trust by EnergySolutions (Grantor). Similarly, Zion’s First National Bank
will possess the post-closure surety bond secured in trust by EnergySolutions. The agreements’ trustees will
function under fiduciary duty to comply with the terms of the trusts and will be liable for breaches of this
duty.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 10-15 Section 10 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

10.6 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

Closure and post-closure surety bonds are secured for the unlicensed, LLRW, Mixed Waste and 11e(2)
facilities. Other than the closure and post-closure Federal Cell Facility surety bonds, no other financial
assurances will be pledged by EnergySolutions.

10.7 ADJUSTMENTS TO SURETY AMOUNTS

Closure and post-closure surety funding for the Federal Cell Facility will be reviewed annually to account for
inflation and changes in activities or design. This annual review ensures that the amount is adequate to fund
the decommissioning of the Clive Facility in the event that EnergySolutions is unable to close the
embankments. As with the funds secured for premature closure, EnergySolutions will annually revise and
adjust the required funding pledged for DOE’s post-closure care of the Federal Cell funds. The value of the
surety instruments secured to address the amount needed will be adjusted annually, as determined annually as
the result of the Director’s annual review. As is reflected in the stewardship transfer agreements in Appendix
T, EnergySolutions anticipates that the Director will closely coordinate the annual review and revision of the
Federal Cell Facility’s premature closure and perpetual care surety calculations with DOE-LM.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 11-1 Section 11 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 11. HOUSE BILL 220

In May 2019, House Bill 220 promulgated additional requirements in Utah Code §19-3-103.7 for disposal of
more than one metric ton of concentrated depleted uranium. These include: “(a) an approved performance
assessment; (b) designation of a federal cell by the director; and (c) pursuant to an agreement acceptable to
the director, that the United States Department of Energy accepts perpetual management of the federal cell,
title to the land on which the federal cell is located, title to the waste in the federal cell, and financial
stewardship for the federal cell and waste in the federal cell.” Utah Code § 19-3-103.7(3)(a)–(c).

11.1 APPROVED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

As included in Appendix Q, a depleted uranium performance assessment has been conducted to evaluate the
range of likely impacts of disposal of DU in a new Federal Cell to be located in the southwest corner of the
licensed area. The DU PA is created as a systems-level model using the GoldSim probabilistic modeling
platform and is currently at version 1.4. The DU PA v1.4 model and supporting documentation have been
evaluated by the Director of the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control and their
contractor, SC&A Inc.

11.2 DESIGNATION OF A FEDERAL CELL BY THE DIRECTOR

The purpose of the Radioactive Material License application is for designation of a Federal Cell Facility by
the Director. In support of this designation, EnergySolutions has delineated the precise location of the Federal
Cell and filed a request with the Tooele County Planning and Zoning Committee to separately subdivide the
parcel on which the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be housed. See Figure 11-1 (showing the legal
description of the Federal Cell, which is marked “proposed subdivision”).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 11-2 Section 11 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Figure 11-1. Tooele County Subdivision Parcel Map
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 11-3 Section 11 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

11.3 PERPETUAL STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Under Utah Code § 19-3-103.7(3)(C), the Director shall require as a condition of disposal of more than one
metric ton of concentrated depleted uranium that the DOE, pursuant to an agreement acceptable to the
Director, (1) accept perpetual management of the federal cell, (2) accept title to the federal cell and the waste
in the federal cell,1 and (3) accept financial stewardship for the federal cell and waste in the federal cell. For
the reasons discussed below, and those previously provided to the Division, this application meets these
requirements. See June 22, 2020 letter from Vern Rogers to Director Ty Howard, Subject: Land Ownership
Requirements and Long-Term Stewardship Issues Regarding the Forthcoming Federal Cell Radioactive
Material License Application (Appendix T).

On April 30, 2020, Department of Energy and EnergySolutions executed the Real Estate Transfer Agreement
for the Federal Cell by and between EnergySolutions, LLC and the U.S. Department of Energy (Federal Land
Transfer Agreement) (Appendix T). In the Federal Land Transfer Agreement, the DOE agrees to accept
ownership of the Federal Cell subject to the terms of the Agreement. Specifically, the DOE agrees that “all
right, title, and interest in the land and buildings of the [Federal Cell] shall be conveyed to the DOE or its
successor upon decommissioning of the [Federal Cell], regardless of whether the decommissioning is planned
or unplanned.” Federal Land Transfer Agreement (Appx. D) § 3. Following title transfer, the DOE accepts
responsibility for maintaining the closed Federal Cell to protect public health and the environment. Federal
Land Transfer Agreement (Appx. D) § 4.2. Under the terms of this Agreement, DOE has agreed to accept
title to the Federal Cell, the waste therein, and accept perpetual management of the Federal Cell to protect
human health and the environment. The DOE, as the long-term steward, will also be responsible for the
financial stewardship of the Federal Cell after title transfer. As discussed in the Section 10 Financial
Assurances, EnergySolutions is establishing a surety to provide for post-closure management of the cell by
DOE.

The DOE and the Division are also currently negotiating, and if appropriate terms can be reached, will execute
a Memorandum of Agreement Governing the Long-Term Stewardship of the Federal Cell at EnergySolutions
Clive Disposal Facility (MOA). EnergySolutions understands that DOE will submit a draft MOA for the
Division’s consideration in association with this application. Previous versions of the MOA recognized the
federal government’s legal responsibility for the disposal of low level radioactive waste owned by the federal
government and reiterated DOE’s intent to accept all rights and title to the Federal Cell following its closure
and decommissioning.

1 Utah law also requires that the Federal Cell be owned by the state or federal government at the time of disposal.
See Utah Admin. Code R313-25-29(1) (“Disposal of waste received from other persons may be permitted only on
land owned in fee simple by the Federal or a State government.”) EnergySolutions intends to maintain the Federal
Cell in private ownership during the time of disposal until the cell is decommissioned and transferred to DOE—a
period expected to be fifty years. EnergySolutions’ longstanding land-ownership exemption grants an exemption to
Utah Admin. Code R313-25-29(1)’s government ownership exemption requirement and applies to the Federal Cell.
See June 22, 2020 letter from Vern Rogers to Director Ty Howard, Subject: Land Ownership Requirements and Long-
Term Stewardship Issues Regarding the Forthcoming Federal Cell Radioactive Material License Application
(Appendix T) at pp. 3–6 (explaining why the exemption applies to the Federal Cell); See August 4, 2020 letter from
Director Howard to Vern Rogers, re: Preliminary Comments on Land Ownership Requirements and Long-Term
Stewardship Issues Regarding Anticipated Federal Cell Radioactive Material License Application (Appendix T) at pp.
5–6 (expressing preliminary support for EnergySolutions’ position re the land-ownership exemption).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 11-4 Section 11 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

While EnergySolutions believes the Federal Land Transfer Agreement and the MOA are sufficient to meet
the requirements of Utah Code § 19-3-103.7(3)(c), the Division has expressed concerns regarding its ability
to enforce the Federal Land Transfer Agreement to ensure the transfer of title to DOE and ensure that the State
of Utah is not liable for the long-term stewardship of the Federal Cell. See August 4, 2020 letter from Director
Howard to Vern Rogers, re: Preliminary Comments on Land Ownership Requirements and Long-Term
Stewardship Issues Regarding Anticipated Federal Cell Radioactive Material License Application (Appendix
T).2 To address these concerns, EnergySolutions has proposed that it and the State enter into a separate State
Land Transfer Agreement that would provide the Division the ability to pursue a contractual remedy against
EnergySolutions if it fails to transfer title to the Federal Cell pursuant to the Federal Land Transfer Agreement.
See Draft State Land Transfer Agreement (Appendix T). Also, EnergySolutions proposes the following
condition be included in the license for the Federal Cell: “EnergySolutions shall abide by and comply with all
terms and conditions of the Federal Land Transfer Agreement between EnergySolutions and the U.S.
Department of Energy.” This would allow the Division to pursue a remedy through its administrative
enforcement powers if it chose to do so.

Further, in addition to the contractual and administrative remedies available against EnergySolutions to
force transfer of title, the State also has access to the financial assurances described in Section 10; and the
State has the ability to pursue the DOE for any release of hazardous substances under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA grants a right of action
in federal district court by EPA, the states and private citizens for either threatened or actual releases of
hazardous substances into the environment. (See 42 USC §9601 et seq.). Radionuclides are a listed
hazardous substance under EPA and Utah DEQ rules. (40 CFR §302.4); see also Pennsylvania v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 684 F. Supp. 2d 564 (M.D. Penn. 2010) (concluding CERCLA applies to Sr-90—a
radioactive and nuclear byproduct material). Any dispute in the future over title and ownership of the
Federal Cell would likely involve a concern about a threatened release of radioactive waste into the
environment. Further, DOE would likely be a potentially liable party under CERCLA because the agency
would meet the definition of a “generator” under CERCLA §107. (42 USC §107). Thus, if DOE refused to
accept title and EnergySolutions was experiencing financial hardship, Utah could bring a CERCLA action in
federal district court and demand that the court issue an order requiring DOE to accept title and properly
manage the LLRW—or at a minimum pay any response costs incurred by the State. DOE has been
previously sued by States under CERCLA. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 2013 WL 6175830, No.
06-cv-810-JTC (Complaint, dkt 1-1 (alleging first cause of action for CERCLA response costs and second
cause of action for CERCLA natural resources damages) and Consent Decree, dkt. 37 (providing for clean-
up costs to the State of New York)).

Overall, the Federal Land Transfer Agreement, the MOA, the State Land Transfer Agreement, the proposed
financial assurances, and the ability to pursue DOE through CERCLA provide the State with a strong basis to
find that the requirements of Utah Code § 19-3-103.7(3)(c) have been satisfied.

2 In the Division’s August 4, 2020 letter, it raises the issue of the application of § 10171(b) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. § 10171(b). EnergySolutions does not believe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act’s title and
custody subsection apply to agreement states like Utah based on a plain reading of the statute. Further, the DOE has
advised EnergySolutions that 42 USC §10171(b) does not apply in Utah.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 12-1 Section 12 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

SECTION 12. REFERENCES

AMEC, Report: “Geotechnical Update Report, Energy Solutions Clive Facility, Class A West Federal Cell
Facility”, AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., February 15, 2011. (AMEC, 2011).

AMEC. “Response to Interrogatory CAW R313-25-8(4)-16/3: Seismic Hazard Evaluation/Seismic Stability
Analysis Update, EnergySolutions Clive Facility – Class A West Federal Cell Facility, Clive, Tooele County,
Utah.” (Job No. 10-817-05290) AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., 6 April 2012. (AMEC, 2012)

Anderson, S.T. “Response to Question Regarding Tri-Party Agreement for Depleted Uranium Disposal.”
Letter from the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of
EnergySolutions, August 9, 2017. (Anderson, 2017).

Anderson, S.T. “Response to April 2, 2018 Correspondence.” Letter from the Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions, June 13, 2018. (Anderson, 2018).

Bingham Environmental. “HEC-1 and HEC-2 Analysis, LARW Application for License Renewal”,
Envirocare Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah. November 26, 1996. (Bingham Environmental, 1996).

Bingham. “Liner Compatibility Report.” Bingham Environmental, Inc., 8 March 1994. (Bingham, 1994).

Bingham Environmental. Hydrogeologic Report Part 1 & 2 for Clive Facility, Clive, Utah,
July 1992, (Bingham, 1992a).

Bingham Environmental. Hydrogeologic Report Addendum 1 for Clive Facility, Clive,
Utah, June 1992, (Bingham, 1992b).

Bingham Environmental. Hydrogeologic Report Addendum 2 for Clive Facility, Clive,
Utah, July 1992, (Bingham, 1992c).

Bisdorf, R.J., and Zohdy, A.A.R. “Preliminary geologic map of Fish Springs NE and Fish Springs SE
Quadrangles, Juab and Tooele counties, Utah.” USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map: 11476. 1980.
(Bisdorf and Zohdy, 1980).

BLM. Personal communication between Mike LeBaron or EnergySolutions and Kim Hershey of the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, 28 May 2012. (BLM, 2012a).

BLM. “Proposed Pony Express Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement,” Salt Lake
District Office, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S. Department of Interior, May, 1988. (BLM, 1988).

BLM, “Timpie Solar Evaporation Pond System Environmental Assessment,” Salt Lake District Office, Salt
Lake City, UT, Prepared by Bio/West, Inc. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987. (BLM, 1987).

Brough, C., et. al. “Utah’s Tornadoes and Waterspouts – 1847 to the Present.” National Weather Service
Forecast Office, Salt Lake City, Utah 2010. (Brough, et.al; 2010).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 12-2 Section 12 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Bucknam, R.C. “Map of Suspected Fault Scarps in Unconsolidated Deposits, Tooele 20 Sheet.” USGS Open-
file Report 77-495, 1977. (Bucknam, 1977).

Census. “United States Census 2020.” Electronic accessed at https://factfinder.census.gov/ on March 1, 2021.
(Census, 2020).

Cook, K.L., M.O. Halverson, J.C. Steep, and J.W. Berg, Jr. “Regional Gravity Survey of the Northern Great
Salt Lake Desert and Adjacent Areas in Utah, Nevada, and Idaho,” Geological Society of America Bulletin,
Vol., 75, p. 715-741, August 1964. (Cook et. al, 1964).

Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmren, and J. L. Reveal. “Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of
the Intermountain West, U.S.A.” Hafner Publishing Co., New York, 1972. (Cronquist et. al, 1972).

DOE. “Site Transition Framework for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance.” U.S. Department of
Energy, 2019. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/framework.pdf . (DOE, 2019).

DOE. “Technical Approach Document, Revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL 050425.0002.” U.S. Department of
Energy, 1989. (DOE, 1989).

DOE. “Disposal Site Characterization Report for the Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Salt Lake City, Utah”,
(UMTRA-DOE/AL-050102.0001), Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office, January 1985.
(DOE, 1985b).

DOE. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Actions at the Former Vitro Chemical Company
Site, South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah”, (DOE-EIS-0099-F), U.S. Department of Energy Report, July
1984. (DOE, 1984).

EnergySolutions. “Revised Hydrogeologic Report – Waste Disposal Facility – Clive, Utah Version 4.0”
Report from EnergySolutions, January 15, 2019. (EnergySolutions, 2019).

Geosyntec. “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Federal Cell at the Clive Facility, Clive Utah.”
Geosyntec Report. March 11, 2011, (Geosyntec, 2021).

Grams, Kayla. “Hitch a Ride in Wild Horse Country.” The Humane Society of the United States,
(http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/11/hsus_land_rover_wild_horse_country_111909.html)
accessed 30 May 2012, published 19 November 2009. (Grams, 2009).

Lietz, J. “Tornado History Project.” National Climatic Data Center, accessed at
http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com on 15 January 2020. (Lietz, 2017).

Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Performance assessment and composite analysis for Los Alamos National
Laboratory Technical Area G, Revision 4.” LA-UR-08-06764. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
NM. (LANL, 2008)

Lundberg, R. “Policy Regarding the Application of Existing Performance Assessment Rules (R313-25-8,
Technical Analyses, Utah Administrative Code) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Direction
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 12-3 Section 12 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

(SRM-SECY-2013-075) and Applicable Federal Guidance for Performance Assessments (NUREG-1573).”
Memorandum from the Utah Division of Radiation Control. February 25, 2014. (Lundberg, 2014).

Montgomery Watson. “LARW Cover Frost Penetration.” , March 1, 2000. (Montgomery Watson, 2000).

Moore, W.J., Sorensen, M.L. “Geologic Map of the Tooele 10 x 20 Quadrangle, Utah. U.S. Geological
Survey, I-1132,” 1979. (Moore, 1979).

MSI. “January 2011 Through December 2011 and January 1993 Through December 2020 Summary Report
of Meteorological Data Collected at EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility.” Meteorological Solutions, Inc
Project No. 214501.0003 Report, February 18, 2021. (MSI, 2021).

NCRP. “Report No. 87, Use of Bioassay Procedures for Assessment of Internal Radionuclide Deposition,”
1987. (NCRP, 1987).

Neptune. “Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments”. Neptune, April 5, 2021,
(Neptune, 2021c).

Neptune. “Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments”. Neptune, March 31, 2021,
(Neptune, 2021a).

Neptune. “Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model – Clive DU PA Model v1.4”. Neptune, November 24,
2015 (Neptune, 2015).

NOAA. “NOAA Atlas 2 Precipitation Frequency Estimates in GIS Compatible Formats.” Accessed at
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/noaaatlas2.htm on 20 October 2012. (NOAA, 2012).

NRC, “NUREG-1623: Design of Erosion Protection for Long- Term Stabilization. Final Report,” September,
2002. (NRC, 2002).

NRC. “Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate a Facility to Receive, Store, and
Dispose of 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Near Clive, Utah.” (NUREG-1476). Office of Nuclear Materials
Safety and Safeguards. August, 1993. (NRC, 1993c).

NRC. “Acceptable Concepts, Models, Equations, and Assumptions for a Bioassay Program.” (Regulatory
Guide 8.9, Revision 0) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, July 1993. (NRC, 1993b).

NRC. “ALARA Levels for Effluents from Materials Facilities.” (Regulatory Guide 8.37) Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research. July 1993. (NRC, 1993a).

NRC. “Standard Format and Content of a license application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facility” (NUREG-1199), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1991. (NRC, 1991).

NRC. “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, Project M-25.” (NUREG-0706,
Volumes I – III). Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, September, 1980. (NRC, 1980a).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page 12-4 Section 12 April 9, 2021
Revision 0

NRC. “Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection.” (Regulatory Guide 8.15). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, October 1976. (NRC, 1976).

Stephens, Jerry C. “Hydrologic Reconnaissance Of The Wah Valley Drainage Basin, Millard And Beaver
Counties, Utah.” Utah Department of Natural Resources, Technical Publication No. 47, 1974. (Stephens,
1974).

SWCA, Inc. “Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah.” Report
prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants (submitted to the Division - CD11-0153), January 2011.
(SWCA, 2011).

UDWR. “Kit Fox.” Wildlife Notebook Series No. 9, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2010. (UDWR,
2010).

UDRC. “Utah Division of Radiation Control – EnergySolutions LLRW Disposal Facility – Class A West
Amendment Request: Safety Evaluation Report.” Report by URS Corporation for the Utah Division of
Radiation Control. June 2012, (UDRC, 2012).

UDNR. “Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plan 2009.” (Publication 09-17). State of Utah. Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, 4 June, 2009. (UDNR, 2009).

UDNR. “Hydrologic reconnaissance of the southern Great Salt Lake Desert and summary of the hydrology
of west-central Utah.” Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 71:55. 1981. (UDNR,
1981).

UGS. “Utah Geological and mineral Survey, Map 111”, Utah Survey Special Study 96, accessed online at
http://geology.utah.gov/maps/geohazmap/index.htm on 20 October 2012. 1999. (UGS, 1999).

URS. “Evaluation of Closure, Post-Closure, and Perpetual Care and Maintenance for Commercial Hazardous
and Commercial Radioactive Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities.” (URS, 2015).

Willoughby O.H. “Technical Report” Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions. January 28, 2021. (Willoughby, 2021).

Willoughby O.H. “Comments on EnergySolutions Cover System Described in the DU PA, Draft Federal Cell
License Application.” Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers
of EnergySolutions. December 3, 2020. (Willoughby, 2020).

Willoughby O.H. “Interrogatories for Basal-Depth Aquifer System Study Submitted October 3, 2020.” Letter
from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions. January
15, 2021. (Willoughby, 2012)

Wong, I., W. Arabasz, B. Carey, C. DuRoss, W. Lund, J. Pechmann, and B. Welliver, 2013,
Opinion, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 84, 165-169. (Wong, 2013)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-1 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX A

SUGGESTED RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LICENSE

FOR THE FEDERAL CELL FACILITY

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-2 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LICENSE

Pursuant to the Utah Code Annotated, Title 19, Chapter 6 and R313 of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) and in
reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee designated below, a license is hereby issued
authorizing such licensee to transfer, receive, possess and use the radioactive material designated below; and to use
such radioactive material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below. This licensee is subject to all
applicable rules, and orders now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
*********************************************************************************************
LICENSEE ) 3. License Number UT 2300XXX
) Amendment #0
1. Name: EnergySolutions, LLC (the Licensee) )************************************
) 4. Expiration Date
2. Address: 299 South Main Street ) December 31, 2031
Suite 1700 )
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 )************************************
) 5. License Category – 4-a
)
)
)
)
*********************************************************************************************
6. Radioactive material (element 7. Chemical and/or 8. Maximum quantity Licensee may
and mass number) physical form possess at any one time
depleted uranium Packaged or Bulk 2,559,266 Cubic Yards
Radioactive Waste
********************************************************************************************
9. AUTHORIZED USE:

A. The Licensee may receive, store and dispose by land burial, radioactive material as concentrated depleted
uranium radioactive waste. Prior to receiving depleted uranium waste shipments for disposal from a
generator, the Licensee shall obtain documentation which demonstrates that the wastes have been approved
for disposal in the Federal Cell Facility by the U.S. Department of Energy.

B. In accordance with Utah Code Annotated 19-3-105, the Licensee may not receive Class B or Class C depleted
uranium for management in the Federal Cell Facility without first receiving approval from the U.S.
Department of Energy, the Director of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Director),
the Governor for the State of Utah and the Utah State Legislature.

C. The Licensee shall comply with all license conditions and shall meet all compliance schedules stipulated in
the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit, number UGW 450005 (hereafter GWQ Permit), issued by the
Director.

D. The Licensee shall only dispose of depleted uranium radioactive waste below the native grade in the Federal
Cell Facility described in License Condition 10.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-3 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

E. The Licensee shall not accept, possess, store or dispose of any radioactive waste delivered to the Federal Cell
Facility by any conveyance, unless the associated Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest has a
valid Generator Site Access Permit number issued by the Director, thereon affixed.

********************************************************************************************
SITE LOCATION:

10. A. The Licensee may receive, store, transload, and dispose of depleted uranium at the Licensee’s Federal Cell
Facility located in Section 32 of Township 1 South and Range 11 West, SLBM, Tooele County, Utah. The
Licensee may receive, transload closed packages and store licensed materials within certain portions of the
Licensee’s facility located in Section 29 of Township 1 South, Range 11 West, SLBM, Tooele County, Utah.
The Licensee may exempt waste and transfer for disposal within certain portions of the Licensee’s facility
located in Section 5 of Township 2 South, Range 11 West, SLBM, Tooele County, Utah.

B. The Federal Cell Facility is defined by the following points of reference:

Southwest Corner: Latitude 40° 40’ 53.56900” N
Longitude 113° 07’ 24.73673” W
Elevation 4266 feet above mean sea level (amsl)

Southeast Corner: Latitude 40° 40’ 53.22834” N
Longitude 113° 07’ 08.82348” W
Elevation 4266 feet above mean sea level (amsl)

Northwest Corner: Latitude 40° 41’ 12.53333” N
Longitude 113° 07’ 24.03690” W
Elevation 4266 feet above mean sea level (amsl)

Northeast Corner: Latitude 40° 41’ 12.19274” N
Longitude 113° 07’ 08.12240” W
Elevation 4266 feet above mean sea level (amsl)

CONDITIONS:

11. The open cell area within the Federal Cell Facility, where uncovered waste disposal/placement has occurred shall
be limited to a waste surface area of 1,376,113 square feet.

PROHIBITIONS AND WASTE ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS:

12. A. Sealed sources as defined in UAC R313-12 shall not be accepted for disposal.

B. Waste containing untreated biological, pathogenic or infectious material including radiologically
contaminated laboratory research animals is prohibited.

C. Receipt of non-aqueous liquid waste for management in the Federal Cell Facility is prohibited unless
specifically approved by the Director.

D. The Licensee shall not accept for disposal in the Federal Cell Facility any neutron source (e.g., polonium-210,
americium-241, radium-226 in combination with beryllium or other target).

E. Incinerator ash shall be treated, in preparation for disposal, in a manner that renders it non-dispersible in air.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-4 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

F. The Licensee shall not accept depleted uranium waste unless:
i. Each disposal container has been classified in accordance with UAC R313-15-1009 and Utah Code 19-3-
103.7(1). In addition, the Licensee shall require that all radioactive waste received for disposal meet the
requirements specified in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Concentration Averaging and
Encapsulation Branch Technical Position,”, as amended.
ii. Each disposal container is marked as either Class A Stable or Class A Unstable as defined in the most
recent version of the “Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch Technical Position on Radioactive Waste
Classification” issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The marking may be affixed to either
the disposal container or transport package, in accordance with UAC R313-15-1006(4) and Section III of
Appendix G of 10 CFR 20.1001 to 20.2402 (incorporated by reference).
iii. Each disposal container is marked with a unique package identification number, clearly visible on the
package that can be correlated with the manifest for the waste shipment in which the package arrives at
the facility.

G. The Licensee shall not accept waste that does not include depleted uranium.

MANAGEMENT OF FREE LIQUIDS:

13. A. In accordance with UAC R313-15-1009(2)(a)(iv), solid waste received for disposal at the Federal Cell Facility
shall contain as little free standing and non-corrosive liquid as reasonably achievable, but shall contain no
more free liquids than one percent of the volume of the waste.

B. Solid waste received for disposal at the Federal Cell Facility, that contains unexpected aqueous free liquid in
excess of 1% by volume shall have the liquid removed and placed in the evaporation ponds or the liquid
solidified prior to management.

C. Unexpected non-aqueous free liquids less than 1% of the volume of the waste within the container shall be
solidified prior to disposal.

D. Should shipments arrive with greater than 1% unexpected free liquids (total of aqueous and non-aqueous), the
Licensee shall notify the Director within 24 hours that the shipment(s) failed the requirements for acceptance
and manage in accordance with the Waste Characterization Plan (Condition 58 of Radioactive Material
License UT2300249).

RADIATION SAFETY:

14. The Licensee may transport licensed material or deliver licensed material to a carrier for transport in accordance
with the provisions of UAC R313-19-100, “Transportation.”

15. Written procedures incorporating operating instructions and appropriate safety precautions for licensed activities
shall be maintained and available at the location specified in License Condition 10.A. The written procedures
established shall include the activities of the radiation safety and environmental monitoring programs, the
employee training program, operational procedures, analytical procedures and instrument calibration. At least
annually, the Licensee shall review all procedures to determine their continued applicability.

16. The Licensee’s Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) shall review and approve written procedures as stated in License
Condition 15 and subsequent changes to the procedures related to waste disposal operations.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-5 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

ROUTINE MONITORING AND CONTAMINATION SURVEYS:

17. The operational environmental monitoring program shall be conducted in accordance with the current
Environmental Monitoring Plan approved by the Director (Condition 26 of Radioactive Material License
UT2300249).

18. Vehicles, containers, facilities, materials, equipment or other items for unrestricted use shall not be released from
the Licensee’s control if contamination exceeds the limits found in Table 18-A of Radioactive Material License
UT2300249.

REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION:

19. The Licensee shall submit to the Director a quarterly summary report detailing the radioisotopes, activities,
weighted average concentrations, volume and tonnage for waste received for management at the Federal Cell
Facility during the calendar quarter. The report(s) shall be submitted within 30 days after the expiration of each
calendar quarter. Calendar Quarter shall mean:

First Quarter January, February, and March
Second Quarter April, May, and June
Third Quarter July, August, and September
Fourth Quarter October, November, and December

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES:

20. The Licensee shall construct the Federal Cell Facility identified in the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No.
UGW450005 and in accordance with approved engineering design drawings “Series 14004.”

21. Waste placement and backfilling within the Federal Cell Facility shall be conducted in accordance with the
following:

A. The Federal Cell Facility shall conform to the characteristics defined, analyzed and described in the
Engineering Justification Report, Addendum “Fifteen Percent Void Space Criteria” (Revision 1 dated October
10, 2001); and the AMEC letter to Envirocare of Utah, Inc. “Placement of Drums and B-25 Containers with
15 Percent Voids; Envirocare Class A - Containerized Waste Facility Near Clive, Utah” (dated October 2,
2001). Waste containers that have void space in excess of 15 percent shall be filled to the top of the container
opening using Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) in accordance with the C QA/QC manual. The
Licensee is exempt from the CLSM cold weather requirements and the 48-hour notification for void
remediation at the Federal Cell Facility.

B. Waste container configurations, backfill materials and associated placement activities, shall be those approved
by the Director following specifications contained in the Work Element: Federal Cell Facility-Waste
Placement Test Pad and the Work Element: Federal Cell Facility - Waste Placement Sections of the currently
approved LLRW Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Manual.

C. Disposal of non-containerized decomposable or compressible waste at the Federal Cell Facility shall be in
accordance with debris placement requirements of the CQA/QC Manual.

22. The Licensee shall fulfill all requirements and maintain compliance with all License Conditions in the FCF
CQA/QC Manual and engineering drawings currently approved by the Director.

23. All engineering related soil tests conducted by the Licensee to demonstrate compliance with Condition 32 shall be
performed by a laboratory certified and accredited by the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-6 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Said certification/accreditation shall apply to clay liner, clay radon barrier, soil filter layers, sacrificial soils and
riprap materials or other soil or man-made materials as directed by the Director. Certification is not required for the
Director approved sealed single ring infiltrometer permeability test contained in Appendix B to the CQA/QC
Manual.

24. The Licensee shall not initiate disposal operations in newly excavated or newly tied-in areas until the Director has
approved the Federal Cell Facility liner.

SITE OPERATING PROCEDURES

25. A. The Licensee shall apply on a biweekly basis (once every two weeks) between the first day of May and the
last day of September a polymer-based stabilizer in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions on all
exposed contaminated areas and areas of waste within the Federal Cell Facility which have been disturbed in
the previous two weeks. Except when sufficient precipitation has fallen within two weeks to create ground
surface conditions beyond the manufacturer’s recommended specifications (the polymer-based stabilizer
specifications shall be provided to the Director prior to any application thereof), the Licensee shall notify the
Director’s engineering staff via email when enough precipitation has fallen that is beyond manufacturer’s
recommended specifications and the polymer solution will not be applied.

B. The Licensee shall minimize the dust created during the process of placing and moving waste, through the use
of water. Water or other engineering controls shall be placed on roads and in areas which work is being
performed.

C. The Licensee shall cease loading, hauling and dumping of un-containerized waste whenever the five-minute
average wind velocities exceed 35 miles per hour. When both the five-minute average and five-minute
maximum wind velocities are less than 35 mph as observed on the meteorological station, management of un-
containerized waste may resume.

26. The Licensee shall limit disposal of depleted uranium below native grade and beneath the top slope of the Federal
Cell Facility.

MANIFEST/SHIPPING REQUIREMENTS

27. The Licensee shall not accept radioactive waste for storage and disposal unless the Licensee has received from the
shipper a completed manifest that complies with UAC R313-15-1006 and UAC R313-25-33(8).

28. The Licensee shall maintain copies of complete manifests or equivalent documentation required under License
Condition 33 until the Director authorizes their disposition.

29. The Licensee shall notify the Director in writing within seven days 24 hours followed by written notification
within seven days of any waste shipment that arrives at the Licensee’s property and does not comply with
applicable rules or license conditions. Specifically, notifications required under this license condition shall be
made for shipments that:

A. contain wastes prohibited under Utah Code Annotated 19-3-103.7,

B. contains wastes not authorized in Condition 9,

C. do not conform to Generator Site Access requirements found in UAC R313-26-4(5), and

D. contains free liquids (greater than 1% unexpected free liquids) or leaking shipment discrepancies.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-7 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

All other shipment discrepancies (i.e. DOT and waste manifest) shall be noted on the waste manifest and the waste
manifest retained on site for Director review.

30. The Licensee shall not accept radioactive waste from entities not in compliance with UAC R313-15-1006.

31. The Licensee shall acknowledge receipt of the waste within one week of waste receipt by returning a signed copy
of the manifest or equivalent document to the shipper. The shipper to be notified is the Licensee who last
possessed the waste and transferred the waste to the Licensee. The returned copy of the manifest or equivalent
documentation shall indicate any discrepancies between materials listed on the manifest and materials received.

32. The Licensee shall notify the shipper (e.g., the generator, the collector or processor) and the Director when any
shipment or part of a shipment has not arrived within 60 days after receiving the advance manifest.

33. The Licensee shall maintain a record for each shipment of waste disposed of at the Federal Cell Facility. At a
minimum, the record shall include:

A. The date of disposal of the waste;

B. The location of the waste in the disposal site;

C. The condition of the waste packages received;

D. Any discrepancy between the waste listed on the shipment manifest or shipping papers and the waste received
in the shipment;

E. A description of any evidence of leaking or damaged packages or radiation or contamination in excess of
applicable regulatory limits; and

F. A description of any repackaging of wastes in any shipment.

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE/CLOSURE

34. The Licensee shall at all times maintain a surety that satisfies the requirements of UAC R313-25-31 in an amount
adequate to fund the decommissioning and reclamation of the Federal Cell Facility by an independent contractor.

A. At its election, the Licensee’s annual proposed closure and post-closure costs shall be based on either:
i. an annual cost estimate using unit rates from the current edition of RS Means Facilities Construction Cost
Data and other site-specific processes, indirect costs based on the sum of applicable direct costs in
accordance with the indirect cost multipliers in Table 34 or others mutually agreed to by the Licensee and
the Director; or
ii. an initial financial assurance determination and for each financial assurance determination every five
years thereafter, a competitive site-specific estimate using a third party contractor for closure, 100 years
of post-closure active care.
iii. either the method in Condition 34.A.i or in Condition 34.A.ii shall be updated annually as required by
Condition 34.B.

B. The Licensee shall annually review the surety amount and basis of the surety and submit a written report of its
findings by March 1 each year for Director approval. At a minimum, this annual report shall include an
accounting for current site conditions and that includes an annual inflation adjustment to the financial
assurance determination using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator of the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, United States Department of Commerce, calculated by dividing the latest annual deflator by the
deflator for the previous year shall be used.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-8 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

C. The combined annual surety for the Federal Cell Facility is $9,038,431.

D. Electronic Format. The Licensee shall provide the report in both paper and electronic formats, as directed by
the Director.

E. Within 60 days of Director approval of said annual report, the Licensee shall submit written evidence that the
surety has been adequately funded.
Table 34
Surety Reference No. Description Percentage
300 Working Conditions 5.5%
301 Mobilization/ Demobilization 4.0%
302 Contingency 11.0%
303 Engineering and Redesign 2.25%
304 Overhead and Profit 19.0%
305 Management Fee and Legal
Expenses 4.0%
306 DEQ Oversight 4.0%

35. One year prior to the anticipated closure of the Federal Cell Facility, the Licensee shall submit for review and
approval by the Director a Federal Cell Facility decontamination and decommissioning plan. As part of this plan,
the Licensee shall demonstrate by measurements and/or modeling that concentrations of radioactive materials
which may be released to the general environment, during the compliance period after closure, will not result in an
annual dose exceeding 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid and 25 millirems to any other
organ of any member of the public.

SPECIAL HANDLING

36. The Licensee shall notify the Director in writing at the earliest possible date, but no later than 10 days before
scheduled receipt of each shipment with contact radiation levels in excess of 200 R/hr. The notification shall
include the anticipated dates of receipt and plan for disposal in the Federal Cell Facility.

37. The RSO or other qualified person designated by the RSO shall be present for and shall observe the receipt,
processing, handling and disposal of each waste package with contact radiation levels in excess of 200 R/hr.

CLOSEOUT CONDITIONS

38. Except as specifically provided otherwise in this license, the Licensee shall conduct its program in accordance with
the statements, representations, and procedures contained in the documents, including any enclosures, listed below.
The UAC R313 shall govern unless the statements, representations and procedures in the Licensee’s application
and correspondence are more restrictive than the rules.

A. Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2021.

B. Lundberg, Rusty “Policy Regarding the Application of Existing Performance Assessment Rules (R313-25-9,
Technical Analyses, Utah Administrative Code) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Direction
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page A-9 Appendix A April 9, 2021
Revision 0

(SRM-SECY-2013-075) and Applicable Federal Guidance for Performance Assessments (NUREG-1573).”
Memorandum to Division Staff – Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Utah Division of Radiation Control,
February 25, 2014.

DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL

Date Ty Howard, Director

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page B-1 Appendix B April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX B

2020 ANNUAL METEOROLOGICAL REPORT

(MSI, 2021)

Summary Report of Meteorological Data Collected at
EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility

January 2020 through December 2020 and
January 1993 through December 2020

February 18, 2021

Reviewed and Approved:____________________



-$18$5<7+528*+'(&(0%(5
$1'-$18$5<7+528*+'(&(0%(5
6800$5<5(32572)
0(7(252/2*,&$/'$7$&2//(&7('$7
(1(5*<62/87,216¶&/,9(87$+)$&,/,7<
(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&



75,1,7<&2168/7$176
:DVDWFK%OYG
6XLWH
6DOW/DNH&LW\8WDK


)HEUXDU\

3URMHFW

 

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWVL
7$%/(2)&217(176
(;(&87,9(6800$5<(
7HPSHUDWXUH
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
:LQG6SHHGDQG3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ
,1752'8&7,21
%DFNJURXQG
0RQLWRULQJ6WDWLRQ'HVFULSWLRQ
7RSRJUDSKLFDO'HVFULSWLRQRI0RQLWRULQJ)DFLOLW\DQG*HQHUDO&OLPDWRORJ\RI$UHD
-$18$5<7+528*+'(&(0%(5'$7$6800$5< 
:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ
6WDELOLW\
7HPSHUDWXUH
3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ
48$/,7<$6685$1&(
&DOLEUDWLRQ9HULILFDWLRQ&KHFNV
'DWD5HFRYHU\
6WDWLRQ0DLQWHQDQFH
<($5'$7$6800$5< 
:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ
7HPSHUDWXUH
3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ
&203$5,6212)-$18$5<±'(&(0%(5'$7$:,7+<($5216,7('$7$
-$18$5<±'(&(0%(5 
:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ
6WDELOLW\&ODVV
7HPSHUDWXUH
3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ
&203$5,621:,7+2))6,7(&/,0$72/2*,&$/'$7$ 
:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ
7HPSHUDWXUH
3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ
&21&/86,21

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWVLL
5()(5(1&(6
$33(1',;$+285/<:,1'63(('$1'',5(&7,21'$7$-$18$5<±'(&(0%(5
 $
$33(1',;%+285/<6,*0$7+(7$'(/7$7$1'67$%,/,7<&/$66'$7$ %
$33(1',;&+285/<7(03(5$785('$7$ &
$33(1',;'+285/<3$1(9$325$7,21'$7$ '
$33(1',;(+285/<35(&,3,7$7,21'$7$ (
$33(1',;)+285/<62/$55$',$7,21'$7$ )
$33(1',;*<($5-2,17)5(48(1&<2)2&&855(1&(',675,%87,2162):,1'63(('
$1'',5(&7,21±6,*0$7+(7$$1''(/7$7 *

/,672)),*85(6
)LJXUH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV0RQLWRULQJ6WDWLRQ/RFDWLRQ 
)LJXUH/RFDWLRQRI0RQLWRULQJ6LWHVXVHGLQ&OLPDWRORJ\$QDO\VLV 
)LJXUH)LUVW4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH-DQXDU\±0DUFK 
)LJXUH6HFRQG4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH$SULO±-XQH 
)LJXUH7KLUG4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH-XO\±6HSWHPEHU 
)LJXUH)RXUWK4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH2FWREHU±'HFHPEHU 
)LJXUH0RQWK:LQG5RVH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU 
)LJXUH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV:LQG5RVH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU 
)LJXUH0RQWKO\0HDQ(YDSRUDWLRQ%DVHGRQ9DOLG'DWD 
)LJXUH0HDQ$QQXDO(YDSRUDWLRQ%DVHGRQ9DOLG'DWD 
)LJXUH<HDU0RQWKO\0HDQ6RODU5DGLDWLRQLQ:DWWVSHU6TXDUH0HWHUSHU'D\ 
)LJXUH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU0HDQ$QQXDO7HPSHUDWXUH&OLYHYV'XJZD\ 
)LJXUH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU0RQWKO\0HDQ7HPSHUDWXUH&OLYHYV'XJZD\ 
)LJXUH)LVK6SULQJV+LVWRULFDO(YDSRUDWLRQ'DWD 
)LJXUH-DQXDU\'HFHPEHU$QQXDO7RWDO3UHFLSLWDWLRQ&OLYHYV$UDJRQLWH 
)LJXUH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU0RQWKO\0HDQ3UHFLSLWDWLRQ&OLYHYV$UDJRQLWH 

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWVLLL
)LJXUH0HDQ'DLO\6RODU5DGLDWLRQIRU-XQH 

/,672)7$%/(6
7DEOH(,QSXWDQG$FWXDO7HPSHUDWXUH0HDVXUHPHQW&RPSDULVRQLQ'HJUHHV)DKUHQKHLW (
7DEOH0HWHRURORJLFDO3DUDPHWHUVDQG,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV0RQLWRULQJ6WDWLRQ&OLYH8WDK
7DEOH8QLWVIRU0HWHRURORJLFDO3DUDPHWHUV 
7DEOH3HUFHQWDJHRI2FFXUUHQFHRI6WDELOLW\&DWHJRULHV 
7DEOH7HPSHUDWXUHLQ'HJUHHV&HOVLXV 
7DEOH3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQLQ0LOOLPHWHUV 
7DEOH3UHFLSLWDWLRQLQ,QFKHV 
7DEOH6RODU5DGLDWLRQLQ:DWWVSHU6TXDUH0HWHU 
7DEOH'DWD5HFRYHU\(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHU 
7DEOH6WDELOLW\&ODVV6XPPDU\3HUFHQWDJHRI2FFXUUHQFH±6LJPD7KHWD0HWKRG 
7DEOH6WDELOLW\&ODVV6XPPDU\3HUFHQWDJHRI2FFXUUHQFH±'HOWD70HWKRG 
7DEOH<HDU7HPSHUDWXUH6XPPDU\LQ'HJUHHV&HOVLXV 
7DEOH6XPPDU\RI3UHFLSLWDWLRQLQ0LOOLPHWHUVDW&OLYH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU 
7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRI<HDU0RQWKO\0HDQ7HPSHUDWXUH'DWDWR0RQWKO\0HDQ7HPSHUDWXUHVIRU
-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU
7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRI<HDU0HDQ'DLO\6RODU5DGLDWLRQ'DWDLQ:DWWVSHU6TXDUH0HWHUWR0HDQ'DLO\
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ'DWDIURP-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU 

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV
(

(;(&87,9(6800$5<
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV7ULQLW\ZDVUHWDLQHGE\(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVWRFROOHFWPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDRQDPHWHU
WRZHUORFDWHGLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHRSHUDWLRQVDWWKH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVIDFLOLW\DW&OLYH8WDK7KHPRQLWRULQJ
VWDWLRQLVHTXLSSHGWRPHDVXUHKRUL]RQWDOZLQGVSHHGZLQGGLUHFWLRQDQGPHWHUWHPSHUDWXUHDQGGHOWD
WHPSHUDWXUHIRUWKHGHULYDWLRQRIVWDELOLW\FODVVVRODUUDGLDWLRQSUHFLSLWDWLRQDQGHYDSRUDWLRQ7KHREMHFWLYH
RIWKLVPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPLVWRFROOHFWRQVLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDIRUXVHLQRQVLWHRSHUDWLRQVDQGWRVDWLVI\
FRQGLWLRQVRIWKH*URXQGZDWHU4XDOLW\'LVFKDUJH3HUPLW

7KLVDQQXDODQG\HDUVXPPDU\UHSRUWVXPPDUL]HVWKHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDFROOHFWHGDWWKH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV
PRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQORFDWHGDW&OLYH8WDKGXULQJWKHPRQWKSHULRGIURP-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHU
DQGGXULQJWKH\HDUSHULRGIURP-DQXDU\WKURXJK'HFHPEHU

$ VXPPDU\ RI WKH DQQXDO  PHWHRURORJLFDO GDWD ZDV SUHSDUHG WR FRPSDUH WKHVH GDWD DJDLQVW WKH
PHWHRURORJLFDODVVXPSWLRQVWKDWZHUHPDGHLQWKHRULJLQDOLQILOWUDWLRQDQGXQVDWXUDWHG]RQHPRGHOLQJ$
GLVFXVVLRQRIWKLVGDWDFRPSDULVRQLVSUHVHQWHGKHUH

7HPSHUDWXUH

)RULQILOWUDWLRQPRGHOLQJSXUSRVHVWKHDSSUR[LPDWHORQJWHUPPHDQPRQWKO\WHPSHUDWXUHVIURP'XJZD\ZHUH
DVVXPHGWREHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKHWHPSHUDWXUHDWWKH&OLYHVLWH7HPSHUDWXUHGDWDIRULQSXWIRUWKH+(/3
PRGHODUHVXPPDUL]HGLQ7DEOH(7KHPRVWUHFHQWDQQXDOPRQWKO\DYHUDJHWHPSHUDWXUHVIRUWKH
&OLYH VLWH DUH LQFOXGHG VR WKDW D FRPSDULVRQ FDQ EH PDGH RI WKH DFWXDO WHPSHUDWXUHV WR WKH PRGHOHG
WHPSHUDWXUHV'XJZD\¶VPRQWKO\DYHUDJHVIRUDUHDOVRLQFOXGHGIRUFRPSDULVRQWRWKH&OLYHGDWD
7DEOH(,QSXWDQG$FWXDO7HPSHUDWXUH0HDVXUHPHQW&RPSDULVRQLQ'HJUHHV)DKUHQKHLW
0RQWK

'XJZD\
$YHUDJH
0RQWKO\
7HPS

&OLYH
$YHUDJH
0RQWKO\
7HPS

&OLYH
<HDU
$YHUDJH
0RQWKO\
7HPS
+(/3
0RGHO
,QSXW
9DOXH
'LIIHUHQFH
%HWZHHQ
7HPS
DQG+(/3
,QSXW9DOXHV
'LIIHUHQFH
%HWZHHQ
<HDU7HPSDQG
+(/3,QSXW
9DOXHV
-DQXDU\      
)HEUXDU\
0DUFK      
$SULO
0D\      
-XQH
-XO\      
$XJXVW
6HSWHPEHU      
2FWREHU
1RYHPEHU      
'HFHPEHU
$QQXDO$YHUDJH      

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV
(

$VVHHQE\7DEOH(WKHPRQWKO\WHPSHUDWXUHLQDW&OLYHZDVHTXDOWRWKH+(/30RGHOLQSXWYDOXH
ZKLFKLQGLFDWHVWKDWZDVWKHVDPHDVWKH\HDUGDWDXVHGLQWKH+(/3PRGHO&RPSDULVRQVRIWKH
\HDU PRQWKO\ DYHUDJHV ZLWK WKH +(/3 PRGHO GDWD LQGLFDWHG VOLJKWO\ FRROHU FRQGLWLRQV  GHJUHHV
)DKUHQKHLW

3UHFLSLWDWLRQ

7KHEDVHFDVHIRUWKH+(/3PRGHOLQSXWIRUDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQZDVPLOOLPHWHUVPPLQFKHV
7KHVXPRIWKHWRWDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQIRUWKH&OLYHUHSRUWLQJ\HDUZDVPPLQFKHVZKLOHWKH
\HDU SUHFLSLWDWLRQ DYHUDJH IRU WKH &OLYH IDFLOLW\ ZDV  PP  LQFKHV &RPSDULQJ WKH 
SUHFLSLWDWLRQWRWDOVWRWKHEDVHFDVHZDVPXFKGULHUWKDQWKHKLVWRULFDODYHUDJHXVHGIRUPRGHOLQJ
SXUSRVHVZKLOHWKH&OLYHVLWH\HDUDYHUDJHZDVVOLJKWO\ZHWWHU

:LQG6SHHGDQG3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV *URXQG :DWHU 4XDOLW\ 'LVFKDUJH 3HUPLW UHTXLUHV ZLQG VSHHG DQGGLUHFWLRQ DQG SDQ
HYDSRUDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVWREHPDGHDQQXDOO\5HSRUWHGZLQGGLUHFWLRQVUHSUHVHQWWKHGLUHFWLRQVIURPZKLFK
WKHZLQGLVEORZLQJ)RUWKH-DQXDU\WKURXJK'HFHPEHUSHULRGWKHKLJKHVWSHUFHQWRIZLQGVZHUHIRXQG
LQWKHHDVWQRUWKHDVWZLWKWKHVHFRQGPRVWIUHTXHQWGLUHFWLRQEHLQJWKHVRXWKVRXWKZHVW
:LQGVSHHGUHFRUGVVKRZFDOPZLQGVZLWKDQDQQXDODYHUDJHVSHHGRIPHWHUVSHUVHFRQGPSVRU
PLOHVSHUKRXU&DOPVDUHGHILQHGDVZLQGVSHHGVOHVVWKDQPSV

7KHDPRXQWRISDQHYDSRUDWLRQPHDVXUHGIRUWKH\HDUZDVPPLQFKHVEULQJLQJWKH
\HDUDQQXDODYHUDJHDQGQRWLQFOXGHGDWWKH&OLYHIDFLOLW\WRPPLQFKHV

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



,1752'8&7,21
7KLVDQQXDODQG\HDUVXPPDU\UHSRUWSUHSDUHGIRU(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVE\7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWVVXPPDUL]HV
WKHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDFROOHFWHGDWWKH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVPRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQORFDWHGDW&OLYH8WDKGXULQJWKH
PRQWKSHULRGIURP-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHUDQGGXULQJWKH\HDUSHULRGIURP-DQXDU\
WKURXJK'HFHPEHU3ULRUWRWKHUHSRUWFRYHULQJWKHSHULRGHQGLQJ'HFHPEHUDQQXDO
UHSRUWVFRYHUHGWKHSHULRGRI2FWREHUWKURXJK6HSWHPEHUDQGSULRUPXOWL\HDUVXPPDU\UHSRUWVFRYHUHGWKH
SHULRG-XO\WKURXJK-XQH 

%DFNJURXQG

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVKDVRSHUDWHGDPHWHRURORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQDWWKHLU&OLYH8WDKIDFLOLW\VLQFH$SULO
7KHPDLQREMHFWLYHRIWKLVPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPLVWRFROOHFWRQVLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDIRUXVHLQRQVLWH
RSHUDWLRQVDQGWRVDWLVI\FRQGLWLRQVRIWKHLU*URXQGZDWHU4XDOLW\'LVFKDUJH3HUPLW7KHPHWHRURORJLFDOWRZHU
ZDVUHORFDWHGWRDVLWHQRUWKZHVWRIWKHKLVWRULFDOVLWHRQ'HFHPEHU&XUUHQWFRRUGLQDWHVIRUWKHVLWH
DUH

Ź/DWLWXGH GHJUHHVPLQXWHVVHFRQGV   
Ź/RQJLWXGH GHJUHHVPLQXWHVVHFRQGV

)LJXUHLOOXVWUDWHVWKHFXUUHQWORFDWLRQRIWKHPRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQ7KHVHQVRUVDQGGDWDORJJHUIURPWKHROG
WRZHUZHUHWUDQVIHUUHGWRWKHQHZWRZHU7KHHOHYDWLRQRIWKHFXUUHQWPRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQLVPHWHUV
DERYHVHDOHYHO

)LJXUH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV0RQLWRULQJ6WDWLRQ/RFDWLRQ


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



0RQLWRULQJ6WDWLRQ'HVFULSWLRQ

7KH PRQLWRULQJ VWDWLRQ LV HTXLSSHG WR PHDVXUH KRUL]RQWDO ZLQG VSHHG ZLQG GLUHFWLRQ  DQG PHWHU
WHPSHUDWXUH GHOWDWHPSHUDWXUH IRU WKH GHULYDWLRQ RI VWDELOLW\FODVV VRODU UDGLDWLRQ SUHFLSLWDWLRQ DQG
HYDSRUDWLRQ7KHLQVWUXPHQWDWLRQXVHGWRFROOHFWWKHVHPHWHRURORJLFDOSDUDPHWHUVLVSUHVHQWHGLQ7DEOH
7KHXQLWVXVHGIRUHDFKPHDVXUHGSDUDPHWHUDUHSUHVHQWHGLQ7DEOH
7DEOH0HWHRURORJLFDO3DUDPHWHUVDQG,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV0RQLWRULQJ6WDWLRQ
&OLYH8WDK
3DUDPHWHU0DQXIDFWXUHU0RGHO1R6HULDO1R
:LQG6SHHG 50<RXQJ
50<RXQJ




:LQG'LUHFWLRQ50<RXQJ
50<RXQJ




6LJPD7KHWD FDOFXODWHGE\WKHGDWDORJJHU
7HPSHUDWXUHP50<RXQJ
7HPSHUDWXUHP 50<RXQJ  
3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ1RYDO\Q[
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ /L&RU  3<
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ0HW2QH(
'DWD/RJJHU &DPSEHOO6FLHQWLILF &5 
 6HQVRUUHSODFHGZLWK50<RXQJ0RGHOVHULDOQXPEHURQ2FWREHU 

7DEOH8QLWVIRU0HWHRURORJLFDO3DUDPHWHUV
3DUDPHWHU8QLW
:LQG6SHHG PHWHUVSHUVHFRQGPSV
:LQG'LUHFWLRQGHJUHHVIURPWUXHQRUWKƒ
6LJPD7KHWD GHJUHHVƒ
7HPSHUDWXUHGHJUHHV&HOVLXVƒ&
'HOWDWHPSHUDWXUH GHJUHHV&HOVLXVƒ&
3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQPLOOLPHWHUV
6RODU5DGLDWLRQ :DWWVSHUVTXDUHPHWHU
3UHFLSLWDWLRQLQFKHV
7LPH 0RXQWDLQ6WDQGDUG7LPH067
2FFXUUHQFH)UHTXHQF\SHUFHQW

'DWDIURPWKHLQVWUXPHQWVOLVWHGLQ7DEOHZHUHFROOHFWHGDQGVWRUHGE\D&DPSEHOO6FLHQWLILF,QVWUXPHQWV
&6,,QF0RGHO&5'DWD/RJJHU0HDVXUHPHQWVZHUHPDGHHYHU\VHFRQGV$YHUDJHVZHUHFRPSXWHG
E\WKHGDWDORJJHUDQGUHFRUGHGHYHU\KRXU7KHGDWDORJJHUDOVRFRPSXWHVKRXUO\VLJPDWKHWDYDOXHVıLJLV
WKHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRIKRUL]RQWDOZLQGGLUHFWLRQIOXFWXDWLRQVE\ILQGLQJWKHURRWPHDQVTXDUH506RIWKH
IRXUTXDUWHUKRXUYDOXHVRIVLJPDWKHWDSHU8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\(3$JXLGHOLQHV
7KHWZRWHPSHUDWXUHVHQVRUVDUHXVHGWRGHULYHVWDELOLW\FODVVXVLQJWKHGHOWDWHPSHUDWXUH¨7PHWKRG7KH

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



GDWDORJJHUZDVLQWHUURJDWHGE\(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVRQDZHHNO\EDVLVDQGWKHGDWDDUFKLYHGWRFRPSXWHUILOHV
,QDGGLWLRQDFHUWLILHGFRQVXOWLQJPHWHRURORJLVWDW7ULQLW\SHUIRUPHGZHHNO\UHYLHZVRIDOOPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWD
&DOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQVKDYHEHHQSHUIRUPHGDWWKHIDFLOLW\HYHU\VL[PRQWKVVLQFHWKHLQFHSWLRQRIPRQLWRULQJ

7RSRJUDSKLFDO'HVFULSWLRQRI0RQLWRULQJ)DFLOLW\DQG*HQHUDO&OLPDWRORJ\
RI$UHD

7KH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVIDFLOLW\OLHVLQQRUWKZHVWHUQ8WDKZLWKLQWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNH'HVHUWLQWKHQRUWKHUQVHFWLRQ
RIWKH*UHDW%DVLQ7KHIDFLOLW\LVORFDWHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\NLORPHWHUVZHVWRIWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNH7KH
WRSRJUDSK\LQWKHDUHDFRQVLVWVRIWKH/DNHVLGH0RXQWDLQVDQGWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNHORFDWHGHDVWRIWKHIDFLOLW\
DQG WKH *UDVV\ 0RXQWDLQV WR WKH QRUWKHDVW 7KH KLJKHVW WHUUDLQLQ WKHVH PRXQWDLQ UDQJHV ULVHV WR
DSSUR[LPDWHO\PHWHUV7RWKHVRXWKZHVWDQGQRUWKRIWKHIDFLOLW\LVWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNH'HVHUWZKLFK
LVERUGHUHGE\WKH5DIW5LYHUDQG*URXVH&UHHN0RXQWDLQVNLORPHWHUVWRWKHQRUWKZHVW7KH'HHS&UHHN
0RXQWDLQVORFDWHGWRNLORPHWHUVWRWKHVRXWKZHVWFRQWDLQVSHDNVWRPHWHUVRQWKHQRUWKVLGH
QHDUHVWWKHGHVHUWDQGDVKLJKDVPHWHUVRQWKHVRXWKHUQHQGRIWKHUDQJH

7KHDUHDLVFOLPDWRORJLFDOO\FODVVLILHGDV³GHVHUW´DFFRUGLQJWRWKH.RSSHQFOLPDWHVFKHPH'RQQ7KH
FOLPDWRORJLFDOGHILQLWLRQRIDGHVHUWLV³DQDUHDLQZKLFKWKHSUHFLSLWDWLRQWKDWIDOOVHDFK\HDULVOHVVWKDQRQH
KDOIWKHDPRXQWWKDWLVSRWHQWLDOO\HYDSRWUDQVSLUDWHG´'HVHUWVRLOVKDYHKLJKVDOWFRQWHQW9HJHWDWLRQLV
GHYRLG LQ DUHDV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW VDOW FRQWHQW VRLOV ZLWK D ORZHU VDOW FRQWHQWKRVW VDJH JUHDVHZRRG RU
SLFNOHZHHG6KHDUHU

7KHJHQHUDOFOLPDWHRIWKHDUHDLVGULYHQE\LWVHOHYDWLRQUHODWLYHORFDWLRQZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHDYHUDJHVWRUP
WUDFN GLVWDQFH IURP PRLVWXUH VRXUFHV DQG ODUJH PRXQWDLQ EDUULHUV 7KH 6LHUUD 1HYDGD 5DQJH DORQJ WKH
1HYDGD&DOLIRUQLDERUGHULVDVLJQLILFDQWEDUULHUWRVWRUPV\VWHPVDVWKH\SDVVIURPWKH3DFLILF2FHDQLQWRWKH
ZHVWHUQ8QLWHG6WDWHV7KLVPRXQWDLQEDUULHULVLQODUJHSDUWWKHUHDVRQIRUGHVHUWFRQGLWLRQVLQPXFKRIWKH
,QWHUPRXQWDLQZHVWLQFOXGLQJWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNH'HVHUW

7KH FOLPDWHRI WKH DUHDLV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ FROGZLQWHUV ZDUPWRKRW VXPPHUV DQG ODUJHWHPSHUDWXUH
H[WUHPHVSDUWLFXODUO\LQWKHVXPPHU6WRUPV\VWHPVSDVVRYHUWKHDUHDJHQHUDOO\PRYLQJIURPZHVWWRHDVW
$LUPDVVHVPRYLQJWKURXJKWKLVDUHDDUHJHQHUDOO\PDULWLPHSRODUZLWKRFFDVLRQDOPDULWLPHWURSLFDOLQWKHIDOO
DQGHDUO\ZLQWHU

$WLQIUHTXHQWLQWHUYDOVWKLVUHJLRQLVLQYDGHGE\FROGGU\SRODUDLURUDUFWLFDLUPDVVHVLQZLQWHU7KHVHDLU
PDVVHVFDXVHWKHFROGHVWWHPSHUDWXUHVRIWKHVHDVRQ,QVXPPHUWLPHDWKHUPDOORZRFFDVLRQDOO\GHYHORSV
RYHUWKHGHVHUWVRI$UL]RQDDQGVRXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD7KHFRXQWHUFORFNZLVHIORZZKLFKGHYHORSVDURXQGWKLV
ORZSUHVVXUHUHJLRQFDXVHVPDULWLPHWURSLFDODLUPDVVHVIURPWKH*XOIRI0H[LFRWRWKHVRXWKHDVWRUIURPWKH
HDVWHUQ3DFLILFWRWKHVRXWKZHVWWRPRYHLQWRWKHUHJLRQ7KHPRYHPHQWRIWKLVZDUPPRLVWWURSLFDODLU
QRUWKZDUG LV DOVR NQRZQ DV WKH ³PRQVRRQ VHDVRQ´ 7KLV PRLVW VRXWKHUO\ IORZ FDQ FRQWULEXWH WR VWURQJ
WKXQGHUVWRUPDFWLYLW\RYHUPXFKRIWKHVWDWHRI8WDKLQFOXGLQJWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNH'HVHUW7KHPRQVRRQ
VHDVRQJHQHUDOO\GHYHORSVLQHDUO\-XO\DQGFRQWLQXHVWKURXJKWKHPLGGOHRUODWWHUSDUWRI$XJXVW


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



3UHFLSLWDWLRQDPRXQWVIRUERWKUDLQDQGVQRZDUHPLQLPDO:LQGVFDQEHVWURQJGXULQJIURQWDOSDVVDJHVDQG
WKXQGHUVWRUPVSDUWLFXODUO\LQWKHVSULQJDQGHDUO\VXPPHUPRQWKV'XHWRWKHYHU\GU\DLUPDVVWKDWFRYHUV
WKH UHJLRQ GXULQJ WKH VXPPHU WKH SUHFLSLWDWLRQ ZKLFK IDOOV IURP KLJKEDVHG WKXQGHUVWRUPV IUHTXHQWO\
HYDSRUDWHVEHIRUHKLWWLQJWKHJURXQG+DLOFDQDFFRPSDQ\WKXQGHUVWRUPVZLWKWKHPRVWGDPDJLQJKDLOVWRUPV
RFFXUULQJGXULQJWKHZDUPHUPRQWKVRI0D\WKURXJK6HSWHPEHU%URXJKHWDO7RUQDGRHVDQGLFH
VWRUPVDUHUDUHHYHQWVLQWKH*UHDW6DOW/DNH'HVHUWEOL]]DUGVGRRFFXURFFDVLRQDOO\'XVWVWRUPVFDXVLQJ
UHGXFHGYLVLELOLWLHVRFFXUGXULQJPRVWVSULQJPRQWKVDQGDFFRPSDQ\IURQWDOSDVVDJHV$OWKRXJKWKHIDFLOLW\
LVIDUHQRXJKIURPWKH3DFLILFFRDVWQRWWREHDIIHFWHGE\KXUULFDQHVWKHUHPQDQWVIURPWKHVHVWRUPVFDQ
FDXVHRFFDVLRQDOKHDY\UDLQIDOO3RSHHWDO

'XHWRWKHUHJLRQ¶VPLGODWLWXGHORFDWLRQIOXFWXDWLRQVRIDLUPDVVHVRFFXUIUHTXHQWO\LQWKHIRUPRIF\FORQHV
ORZSUHVVXUHV\VWHPVDQGWKHLUDVVRFLDWHGIURQWDOV\VWHPVDQGWURXJKVDQGDQWLF\FORQHVKLJKSUHVVXUH
V\VWHPV)URQWVERWKFROGDQGZDUPUHSUHVHQWWKHERXQGDULHVRIFRQWUDVWLQJDLUPDVVHVDQGWRDFHUWDLQ
H[WHQWSURYLGHWKHPHFKDQLVPVZKLFKJHQHUDWHWHPSHUDWXUHSUHFLSLWDWLRQDQGZLQGSDWWHUQVLQWKHDUHD
0RYHPHQWRIWKHVHIURQWDOV\VWHPVLVXVXDOO\IURPZHVWRUQRUWKZHVWWRHDVWRUVRXWKHDVWZLWKVRPHGHYLDWLRQV
DQGLVFRQWUROOHGE\WKHSUHYDLOLQJZLQGIORZDWXSSHUOHYHOVLQWKHDWPRVSKHUH6XUIDFHZLQGVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
WKHVHIURQWDOV\VWHPVDUHSUHGRPLQDQWO\VRXWKHUO\DQGQRUWKZHVWHUO\

3UHFLSLWDWLRQLQWKHUHJLRQDYHUDJHVIURPDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOOLPHWHUVLQFKHVWRPLOOLPHWHUV
LQFKHVHDFKPRQWKRUDSSUR[LPDWHO\QLQHLQFKHVDQQXDOO\0RQWKVZLWKQRSUHFLSLWDWLRQDUHXQFRPPRQ
3UHFLSLWDWLRQJHQHUDOO\RFFXUVHYHU\PRQWKRIWKH\HDUZLWKVOLJKWO\KLJKHUDPRXQWVLQWKHVSULQJDQGVXPPHU
PRQWKVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKVSULQJWLPHORZSUHVVXUHV\VWHPVDQGVXPPHUWLPHFRQYHFWLYHVWRUPVPRYLQJDFURVV
WKHUHJLRQ7KHPD[LPXPPRQWKO\SUHFLSLWDWLRQJHQHUDOO\RFFXUVGXULQJWKHPRQWKRI$SULOZLWKWKHPLQLPXP
PRQWKO\ SUHFLSLWDWLRQ RFFXUULQJ LQ $XJXVW 7ZHQW\IRXUKRXU SUHFLSLWDWLRQ DPRXQWV LQ H[FHVV RI 
PLOOLPHWHUVRQHLQFKDUHUDUH

'DWDIURPIRXUPHWHRURORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQVZHUHXVHGIRUWKH\HDUFOLPDWRORJLFDOVXPPDU\
VHFWLRQ7KHVHVWDWLRQVDUH'XJZD\)LVK6SULQJV$UDJRQLWHDQGWKH&OLYH)DFLOLW\DQGDUHVKRZQLQ)LJXUH
&OLPDWRORJLFDOWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDIRU'XJZD\DQGSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRU$UDJRQLWHZHUHFRPSDUHGDJDLQVW
RQVLWHGDWD(YDSRUDWLRQGDWDIURP)LVK6SULQJVZHUHUHYLHZHG1RRIIVLWHZLQGVSHHGDQGZLQGGLUHFWLRQ
GDWDZHUHXVHGLQWKLVUHSRUWGXHWRWKHODFNRIPRQLWRULQJVWDWLRQVZLWKUHSUHVHQWDWLYHZLQGGDWD


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH/RFDWLRQRI0RQLWRULQJ6LWHVXVHGLQ&OLPDWRORJ\$QDO\VLV


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



-$18$5<7+528*+'(&(0%(5'$7$6800$5<
7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKHUHSRUWVXPPDUL]HVWKH-DQXDU\WKURXJK'HFHPEHUGDWDUHVXOWVDQGGDWD
UHFRYHU\+RXUO\GDWDIRUWKHSHULRGDUHWDEXODWHGLQWKHDSSHQGLFHV7KHVHDSSHQGL[WDEOHVGLVSOD\WKHKRXUO\
DYHUDJHRIPHDVXUHPHQWVUHFRUGHGLQWKHKRXUHQGLQJWKDWLVWKHILUVWKRXURIWKHGD\LVODEHOHG
PHDQLQJWKHKRXUEHJLQQLQJDWPLGQLJKWDQGHQGLQJDWDPDQGWKHVHFRQGKRXULVODEHOHGPHDQLQJ
WKHYDOXHVFROOHFWHGIURPDPWRDP)RUWKLVUHSRUWGDWDDUHSUHVHQWHGLQFDOHQGDUTXDUWHUV
4XDUWHU  HQFRPSDVVHV -DQXDU\ WKURXJK 0DUFK  TXDUWHU  HQFRPSDVVHV $SULO WKURXJK -XQH 
TXDUWHUHQFRPSDVVHV-XO\WKURXJK6HSWHPEHUDQGTXDUWHUHQFRPSDVVHV2FWREHUWKURXJK'HFHPEHU
'XHWRWKHREVHUYDQFHRI'D\OLJKW6DYLQJ7LPHGDWDIRUWKLVUHSRUWKDYHEHHQDGMXVWHGWRUHIOHFW/RFDO
6WDQGDUG7LPHWKURXJKRXWWKH\HDU

6LJPDWKHWDGDWDZHUHSURFHVVHGZLWKZLQGVSHHGVWRGHULYHKRXUO\VWDELOLW\FODVVHV¨7DQGVRODUUDGLDWLRQ
GDWDZHUHDOVRSURFHVVHGZLWKWKHZLQGVSHHGVWRGHULYHKRXUO\VWDELOLW\FODVVHV

:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ

)LJXUHVWKURXJKSURYLGHGLDJUDPVRIWKHMRLQWIUHTXHQF\RIRFFXUUHQFHGLVWULEXWLRQVZLQGURVHVRI
ZLQGVSHHGDQGZLQGGLUHFWLRQIRUHDFKTXDUWHUDQGIRUWKHSHULRG-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHU7KHVH
ZLQGVDUHVXUIDFHZLQGVFRQWUROOHGLQODUJHSDUWE\WRSRJUDSK\DQGDUHQRWUHODWHGWRWKHV\QRSWLFZLQGV
ZKLFKFRQWUROVWRUPPRYHPHQWDQGDUHGLVFXVVHGLQ6HFWLRQRIWKLVUHSRUW6XPPDU\WDEOHVRIKRXUO\
DYHUDJHZLQGGLUHFWLRQDQGZLQGVSHHGDUHSUHVHQWHGLQ$SSHQGL[$7KHWDEXODWHGMRLQWIUHTXHQFLHVRI
RFFXUUHQFHGLVWULEXWLRQVDUHDOVRLQFOXGHGLQ$SSHQGL[$


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH)LUVW4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH-DQXDU\±0DUFK


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH6HFRQG4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH$SULO±-XQH


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH7KLUG4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH-XO\±6HSWHPEHU




(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH)RXUWK4XDUWHU:LQG5RVH2FWREHU±'HFHPEHU




(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH0RQWK:LQG5RVH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



5HSRUWHGZLQGGLUHFWLRQVUHSUHVHQWWKHGLUHFWLRQVIURPZKLFKWKHZLQGLVEORZLQJ)RUWKHPRQWKSHULRG
WKHKLJKHVWSHUFHQWDJHRIZLQGVZHUHIRXQGLQWKHHDVWQRUWKHDVWZLWKWKHVHFRQGPRVWIUHTXHQW
VHFWRUEHLQJWKHVRXWKVRXWKZHVW)RUTXDUWHUWKHVRXWKVRXWKZHVWVHFWRUZDVWKHPRVW
SURPLQHQWDW(DVWQRUWKHDVWZLQGVZHUHWKHPRVWSURPLQHQWGXULQJTXDUWHUDW)RU
TXDUWHUHDVWQRUWKHDVWZLQGVZHUHWKHPRVWSURPLQHQWDW(DVWQRUWKHDVWZLQGVZHUHWKH
PRVWSURPLQHQWGXULQJTXDUWHUDW

)RUWKHSHULRG-DQXDU\WKURXJK'HFHPEHUZLQGVSHHGUHFRUGVVKRZSHUFHQWFDOPZLQGVZLWK
DQDQQXDODYHUDJHVSHHGRIPHWHUVSHUVHFRQGPSVRUPLOHVSHUKRXUPSK&DOPVDUHGHILQHGDV
ZLQGVSHHGVOHVVWKDQPSV:LQGVSHHGVJUHDWHUWKDQPSVPSKZHUHUHSRUWHGSHUFHQWRI
WKHWLPH$SSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWRIZLQGVSHHGVZHUHJUHDWHUWKDQPSVPSK

'XULQJWKHILUVWTXDUWHUZLQGVIURPWKHVRXWKVHFWRUFRQWDLQHGWKHKLJKHVWDYHUDJHZLQGVSHHGVDW
PSVPSK)RUWKHVHFRQGTXDUWHUWKHKLJKHVWDYHUDJHZLQGVSHHGZDVPSVPSKIURPWKH
VRXWKVHFWRU7KHQRUWKDQGQRUWKHDVWVHFWRUVFRQWDLQHGWKHKLJKHVWDYHUDJHZLQGVSHHGLQWKHWKLUGTXDUWHU
DWPSVPSK)RUWKHIRXUWKTXDUWHUWKHVRXWKVHFWRUFRQWDLQHGWKHKLJKHVWDYHUDJHZLQGVSHHGV
DWPSVPSK

7KHKLJKHVWZLQGVSHHGPHDVXUHGIRUWKHILUVWTXDUWHUZDVPSVPSKWKDWRFFXUUHGRQ)HEUXDU\
DWDQG0DUFKDWWKHKLJKHVWZLQGVSHHGIRUWKHVHFRQGTXDUWHUZDVPSV
PSKRQ0D\DWWKHKLJKHVWZLQGVSHHGIRUWKHWKLUGTXDUWHUZDVPSVPSK
RQ6HSWHPEHUDWDQGWKHKLJKHVWZLQGVSHHGPHDVXUHGIRUWKHIRXUWKTXDUWHUZDVPSV
PSKRQ1RYHPEHUDW

6WDELOLW\
$WPRVSKHULFVWDELOLW\LVDVHPLTXDQWLWDWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHPL[LQJFDSDELOLW\RIWKHORZHUDWPRVSKHUH6WDELOLW\
FODVVHVDUHW\SLFDOO\XVHGDVLQSXWIRUGLVSHUVLRQPRGHOVWRDVVLVWLQFDOFXODWLQJJURXQGOHYHOFRQFHQWUDWLRQRI
JDVHRXVRUSDUWLFXODWHHPLVVLRQV

6WDELOLW\FODVVHVDWWKH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVVLWHZHUHFRPSXWHGXVLQJWKHƩ7WHFKQLTXHDVZHOODVıLJ+RXUO\
UHVXOWVDQGWKHFDOFXODWHGKRXUO\VWDELOLW\FODVVHVIRUERWKWHFKQLTXHVDUHSUHVHQWHGLQ$SSHQGL[%

3DVTXLOOVWDELOLW\FODVVHV$%DQG&UHSUHVHQWXQVWDEOHFRQGLWLRQVZLWK&ODVV$EHLQJPRVWXQVWDEOH&ODVVHV
(DQG)UHSUHVHQWVWDEOHFRQGLWLRQVZLWK&ODVV)EHLQJPRVWVWDEOH&ODVV'UHSUHVHQWVQHXWUDOFRQGLWLRQV
7KHVWDELOLW\FODVVGDWDFROOHFWHGDVıLJGXULQJWKH-DQXDU\WKURXJK'HFHPEHUSHULRGVKRZHG
SHUFHQWQHXWUDO3DVTXLOOVWDELOLW\FODVV'SHUFHQWVWDEOH&ODVVHV(DQG)DQGSHUFHQW
XQVWDEOHFODVVHV&ODVVHV$%DQG&8VLQJƩ7VWDELOLWLHVWKHUHZHUHSHUFHQWQHXWUDOSHUFHQW
VWDEOHDQGSHUFHQWXQVWDEOH7KHVHGDWDDUHVXPPDUL]HGLQ7DEOH࿠

(Q
H
U
J
\
6R
O
X
W
L
R
Q
V
/
/
&



$
Q
Q
X
D
O






6
X
P
P
D
U
\

5
H
S
R
U
W

7U
L
Q
L
W
\

&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
D
Q
W
V





7D
E
O
H





3
H
U
F
H
Q
W
D
J
H

R
I

2
F
F
X
U
U
H
Q
F
H

R
I

6
W
D
E
L
O
L
W
\

&
D
W
H
J
R
U
L
H
V

0R
Q
W
K

6L
J
P
D

7
K
H
W
D

0
H
W
K
R
G

'H
O
W
D

7

0
H
W
K
R
G

$
%
&
'
(
)
$
%
&
'
(
)
-D
Q
X
D
U
\







































































)H
E
U
X
D
U
\


















































0D
U
F
K








































































$S
U
L
O



















































0D
\








































































-X
Q
H



















































-X
O
\








































































$X
J
X
V
W


















































6H
S
W
H
P
E
H
U








































































2F
W
R
E
H
U


















































1R
Y
H
P
E
H
U






































































'H
F
H
P
E
H
U


















































$Q
Q
X
D
O
$
Y
H
U
D
J
H




































































%
D
V
H
G

R
Q

D
O
O

Y
D
O
L
G

K
R
X
U
V

I
R
U

W
K
H

\
H
D
U


Q
R
W

W
K
H

P
H
D
Q

R
I

W
K
H

W
ZH
O
Y
H

P
R
Q
W
K
V

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7HPSHUDWXUH

$PELHQWGDLO\DYHUDJHWHPSHUDWXUHVUDQJHGIURPDORZRIq&RQ'HFHPEHUWRDKLJKRI
ƒ&RQ-XO\7KHKRXUO\PLQLPXPWHPSHUDWXUHZDVq&RQ'HFHPEHUDW
DQGWKHKRXUO\PD[LPXPWHPSHUDWXUHZDVq&RQ$XJXVWDW+RXUO\DYHUDJHV
RIWKHWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDDUHJLYHQLQ$SSHQGL[&DQGWKHVHGDWDDUHVXPPDUL]HGLQ7DEOH
7DEOH7HPSHUDWXUHLQ'HJUHHV&HOVLXV
Month Monthly
Mean
Highest
Daily Average
Temperature
Lowest
Daily Average
Temperature
Maximum
Hour
Minimum
Hour
-DQXDU\     
)HEUXDU\
0DUFK     
$SULO
0D\     
-XQH
-XO\     
$XJXVW
6HSWHPEHU     
2FWREHU
1RYHPEHU     
'HFHPEHU
$YHUDJHPRQWK     

3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ

3DQ HYDSRUDWLRQ PHDVXUHPHQWV ZHUH PDGH IURP $SULO   WKURXJK 2FWREHU   ZKHQ
DPELHQWDLUWHPSHUDWXUHVUHPDLQHGDERYHIUHH]LQJ3DQHYDSRUDWLRQGDWDE\PRQWKDUHSURYLGHGLQ
$SSHQGL['7DEOHSUHVHQWVWKHPRQWKO\WRWDOGDLO\PD[LPXPDQGKRXUO\PD[LPXPVIRUSDQ
HYDSRUDWLRQ7KHWRWDOHYDSRUDWLRQIRU$SULOWKURXJK2FWREHUZDVPP
LQFKHV 

$VLWHYLVLWZDVFRQGXFWHGRQ$SULOWREULQJWKHXQLWEDFNLQWRVHUYLFHDQGWRSHUIRUPD
FDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQRIWKHHYDSRUDWLRQSDQ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKHYHULILFDWLRQLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHJDXJH
ZDVZRUNLQJSURSHUO\DQGZDVZLWKLQWKH(3$UHFRPPHQGHGWROHUDQFH


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



2Q2FWREHUDFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQZDVFRQGXFWHGRQWKHHYDSRUDWLRQSDQDQGWKHXQLW
WDNHQRXWRIVHUYLFH7KHUHVXOWVRIWKHYHULILFDWLRQLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHJDXJHZDVZRUNLQJSURSHUO\DQG
ZDVZLWKLQ(3$¶VUHFRPPHQGHGWROHUDQFH
7DEOH3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQLQ0LOOLPHWHUV
Month Monthly Total Daily Maximum Hourly Maximum
$SULO  
0D\
-XQH  
-XO\
$XJXVW  
6HSWHPEHU
2FWREHU  
7RWDO0D[LPXP
 (YDSRUDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVEHJDQRQ$SULO
 (YDSRUDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVHQGHGRQ2FWREHU

3UHFLSLWDWLRQ

7KHWRWDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQDWWKHVLWHIRUWKHSHULRG-DQXDU\WKURXJK'HFHPEHUZDVLQFKHV
PP3UHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRUWKH&OLYHVLWHVKRZWKDWIRUWKHFXUUHQW\HDUSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
WRWDOVZHUHEHORZDYHUDJH3UHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRU$UDJRQLWH8WDKLQGLFDWHDWRWDORIPP
LQFKHVRISUHFLSLWDWLRQIRUWKHFXUUHQW\HDU7KHPRQWKZLWKWKHJUHDWHVWWRWDORISUHFLSLWDWLRQUHFRUGHG
DW&OLYHZDV-XQHZKHQDWRWDORIPPLQFKHVIHOO

7KHGD\ZKLFKUHFRUGHGWKHJUHDWHVWDPRXQWRISUHFLSLWDWLRQZDV-XO\ZKHQPP
LQFKHVIHOO7KHJUHDWHVWDPRXQWRISUHFLSLWDWLRQGXULQJDQ\RQHKRXUZDVRQ-XO\DW
ZKHQPPLQFKHVIHOO$SSHQGL[(SUHVHQWVWKHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRUWKHSHULRG7DEOH
SUHVHQWVWKHPRQWKO\SUHFLSLWDWLRQWRWDOVDQGWKHGDLO\DQGKRXUO\PD[LPXPV

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7DEOH3UHFLSLWDWLRQLQ,QFKHV
0RQWK0RQWKO\7RWDO'DLO\0D[LPXP+RXUO\0D[LPXP
-DQXDU\   
)HEUXDU\
0DUFK   
$SULO
0D\   
-XQH
-XO\   
$XJXVW
6HSWHPEHU   
2FWREHU
1RYHPEHU   
'HFHPEHU
7RWDO0D[LPXP   

6RODU5DGLDWLRQ

0RQWKO\DYHUDJHVRIVRODUUDGLDWLRQDUHFDOFXODWHGIURPKRXUO\DYHUDJHVWKDWDUHJUHDWHUWKDQ]HUR
:DWWVSHUVTXDUHPHWHU:PGXULQJGD\WLPHKRXUV6RODUUDGLDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVDWQLJKWDUHVHW
WR]HUR

7KHKRXUO\PD[LPXPVRODUUDGLDWLRQUHFRUGHGDWWKHVLWHRFFXUUHGRQ0D\DWDQGZDV
:P7KHDYHUDJHPRQWKO\VRODUUDGLDWLRQLQZDV:PGD\6RODUUDGLDWLRQGDWD
DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ ) 7DEOH  SUHVHQWV WKH PRQWKO\ PHDQ DQG KRXUO\ PD[LPXP VRODU
UDGLDWLRQGDWD


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7DEOH6RODU5DGLDWLRQLQ:DWWVSHU6TXDUH0HWHU
0RQWK0RQWKO\
0HDQ
+RXUO\
0D[LPXP
-DQXDU\  
)HEUXDU\
0DUFK  
$SULO
0D\  
-XQH
-XO\  
$XJXVW
6HSWHPEHU  
2FWREHU
1RYHPEHU  
'HFHPEHU



(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



48$/,7<$6685$1&(
(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV
*URXQGZDWHU4XDOLW\'LVFKDUJH3HUPLWUHTXLUHVVHPLDQQXDOFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQFKHFNV
RIZLQGVSHHGDQGGLUHFWLRQSUHFLSLWDWLRQDQGHYDSRUDWLRQVHQVRUVWRSURWHFWWKHLQWHJULW\DQGYDOXHRIWKH
GDWD

&DOLEUDWLRQ9HULILFDWLRQ&KHFNV

,QGHSHQGHQWFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQFKHFNVZHUHSHUIRUPHG$SULODQG2FWREHUWRDVVXUHWKH
PHWHRURORJLFDO LQVWUXPHQWV ZHUH SHUIRUPLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR PDQXIDFWXUHUV¶ VSHFLILFDWLRQV 7KH FDOLEUDWLRQ
YHULILFDWLRQ FKHFNV RQ (QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ ZHUHSHUIRUPHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK (3$
V 4XDOLW\
$VVXUDQFH+DQGERRNIRU$LU3ROOXWLRQ0HDVXUHPHQW6\VWHPV9RO,90HWHRURORJLFDO0HDVXUHPHQWV0DUFK
DQG(3$
V$PELHQW0RQLWRULQJ*XLGHOLQHVIRU3UHYHQWLRQRI6LJQLILFDQW'HWHULRUDWLRQ0D\

$OOFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQFKHFNVVKRZHGWKDWWKHLQVWUXPHQWVZHUHSURSHUO\FDOLEUDWHGDQGZHUHZRUNLQJ
ZLWKLQ3UHYHQWLRQRI6LJQLILFDQW'HWHULRUDWLRQ36'VSHFLILFDWLRQV

'DWD5HFRYHU\

'DWDUHFRYHULHVIRUWKHSHULRG-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHUDUHSURYLGHGLQ7DEOH
7DEOH'DWD5HFRYHU\(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHU
0RQWK:LQG
6SHHG
:LQG
'LU
6LJPD
7KHWDƩ77HPS3DQ
(YDS3UFS65
-DQXDU\        
)HEUXDU\
0DUFK        
$SULO
0D\        
-XQH
-XO\        
$XJXVW
6HSW        
2FWREHU
1RY        
'HF
PRQWK        
1RGDWDUHFRUGHG


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



$OOSDUDPHWHUVDFKLHYHGGDWDDFTXLVLWLRQRUEHWWHUIRUWKH\HDU3DQHYDSRUDWLRQLVQRWUHFRUGHGGXULQJ
ZLQWHUPRQWKVGXHWRVXEIUHH]LQJWHPSHUDWXUHVDWWKHVLWH

6WDWLRQ0DLQWHQDQFH

2Q $SULO   7ULQLW\ FRQGXFWHG FDOLEUDWLRQ YHULILFDWLRQ FKHFNV RQ ZLQG VSHHG ZLQG GLUHFWLRQ
WHPSHUDWXUHVRODUUDGLDWLRQVHQVRUVSUHFLSLWDWLRQJDXJHDQGHYDSRUDWLRQSDQDWWKH&OLYHPHWHRURORJLFDO
VWDWLRQ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKHFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQFKHFNVLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHVHQVRUVDSSHDUHGWREHRSHUDWLQJ
SURSHUO\DQGWKHGDWDDFTXLVLWLRQV\VWHPZDVUHSRUWLQJDQGVWRULQJGDWDZLWKLQPDQXIDFWXUHUWROHUDQFHVDQG
(3$DSSURYHGJXLGHOLQHV

2Q 2FWREHU   7ULQLW\ FRQGXFWHG FDOLEUDWLRQ YHULILFDWLRQFKHFNV RQ ZLQG VSHHG ZLQG GLUHFWLRQ
WHPSHUDWXUHVRODUUDGLDWLRQVHQVRUVSUHFLSLWDWLRQJDXJHDQGHYDSRUDWLRQSDQDWWKH&OLYHPHWHRURORJLFDO
VWDWLRQ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKHFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQFKHFNVLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHVHQVRUVDSSHDUHGWREHRSHUDWLQJ
SURSHUO\DQGWKHGDWDDFTXLVLWLRQV\VWHPZDVUHSRUWLQJDQGVWRULQJGDWDZLWKLQPDQXIDFWXUHUWROHUDQFHVDQG
(3$DSSURYHGJXLGHOLQHV




(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



<($5'$7$6800$5<
7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKHUHSRUWVXPPDUL]HVWKH&OLYHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDIURPWKHSHULRGRI-DQXDU\WKURXJK
'HFHPEHU7KLV\HDUGDWDSHULRGUHSUHVHQWVWKHSHULRGZLWKWKHPRVWUHFHQWFRQFXUUHQWRQDQGRII
VLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWD)LJXUHVDUHSUHVHQWHGDVGLVFXVVHGLQWKHIROORZLQJVXEVHFWLRQV

:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ

)LJXUHSURYLGHVDGLDJUDPRIWKHMRLQWIUHTXHQF\RIRFFXUUHQFHGLVWULEXWLRQVZLQGURVHVRIZLQGVSHHG
DQGZLQGGLUHFWLRQIRUWKH\HDUSHULRG$SSHQGL[*FRQWDLQVWKH\HDUMRLQWIUHTXHQF\RIRFFXUUHQFH
GLVWULEXWLRQV

)RUWKH\HDUSHULRGWKHPRVWIUHTXHQWDQGSUHGRPLQDQWZLQGVZHUHIURPWKHVRXWKVRXWKZHVW
IROORZHGE\WKHHDVWQRUWKHDVWDQGWKHVRXWK2QDYHUDJHWKHVWURQJHVWZLQGVZHUHLQWKH
VRXWKVHFWRUDWPSVPSK5HSRUWHGZLQGGLUHFWLRQVUHSUHVHQWWKHGLUHFWLRQVIURPZKLFKWKHZLQGLV
EORZLQJ

:LQGVSHHGUHFRUGVVKRZDORZSHUFHQWDJHRIFDOPZLQGVDQGDIDLUO\VPDOOSHUFHQWDJHRIVWURQJ
ZLQGV&DOPVDUHGHILQHGDVZLQGVSHHGVOHVVWKDQPSV)RUWKHSHULRGSHUFHQWRIZLQGVSHHGVZHUH
JUHDWHUWKDQPSVPSKDQGSHUFHQWZHUHJUHDWHUWKDQPSVPSK0RVWRIWKH
VWURQJHUZLQGVSHHGVRFFXUUHGLQWKHGRPLQDQWZLQGGLUHFWLRQV7KHDYHUDJHZLQGVSHHGIRUWKH\HDU
SHULRGZDVPSVPSK7KHPD[LPXPPHDVXUHGZLQGVSHHGIRUWKH\HDUSHULRGZDVPSV
PSKRQ-DQXDU\


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV:LQG5RVH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU



(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



6WDELOLW\FODVVHVDWWKH(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVVLWHZHUHFRPSXWHGXVLQJWKHƩ7DQGVLJPDWKHWDWHFKQLTXHV3DVTXLOO
VWDELOLW\FODVVHV$%DQG&UHSUHVHQWXQVWDEOHFRQGLWLRQVZLWK&ODVV$EHLQJPRVWXQVWDEOH&ODVVHV(DQG)
UHSUHVHQWVWDEOHFRQGLWLRQVZLWK&ODVV)EHLQJPRVWVWDEOH&ODVV'UHSUHVHQWVQHXWUDOFRQGLWLRQV7KHVWDELOLW\
FODVVGDWDFROOHFWHGDVıLJGXULQJWKH-XO\±'HFHPEHUSHULRGVKRZHGSHUFHQWQHXWUDO
3DVTXLOOVWDELOLW\FODVV'SHUFHQWVWDEOH&ODVVHV(DQG)DQGSHUFHQWXQVWDEOHFODVVHVFODVVHV
$%DQG&7KHVHGDWDDUHVXPPDUL]HGLQ7DEOH࿠8VLQJƩ7VWDELOLWLHVWKHUHZHUHSHUFHQWQHXWUDO
SHUFHQWVWDEOHDQGSHUFHQWXQVWDEOH7KHVHGDWDDUHVXPPDUL]HGLQ7DEOH࿠
7DEOH6WDELOLW\&ODVV6XPPDU\3HUFHQWDJHRI2FFXUUHQFH±6LJPD7KHWD0HWKRG
3HULRG$%&'()
-XO\'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ±'HF
<HDU     
%DVHGRQDOOYDOLGKRXUVIRUWKH\HDUQRWWKHPHDQRIWKHWZHOYHPRQWKV

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7DEOH6WDELOLW\&ODVV6XPPDU\3HUFHQWDJHRI2FFXUUHQFH±'HOWD70HWKRG
3HULRG$%&'()
-XO\'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF      
-DQ'HF
-DQ'HF     
-DQ'HF
<HDU     
%DVHGRQDOOYDOLGKRXUVIRUWKH\HDUQRWWKHPHDQRIWKHWZHOYHPRQWKV

7HPSHUDWXUH 

7DEOH  SUHVHQWV D PHDQ WHPSHUDWXUH IRU WKH \HDU SHULRG RI ƒ& 7KH KRXUO\ PLQLPXP
WHPSHUDWXUHGXULQJWKH\HDUSHULRGZDVq&RQ-DQXDU\DQGWKHKRXUO\PD[LPXP
WHPSHUDWXUHZDVq&RQ-XQH


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7DEOH<HDU7HPSHUDWXUH6XPPDU\LQ'HJUHHV&HOVLXV
3HULRG0HDQ
7HPS
0LQLPXP
'DLO\7HPS
0D[LPXP
'DLO\7HPS
0LQLPXP
+RXUO\
7HPS
0D[LPXP
+RXUO\
7HPS
-DQ'HF     

3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ

3DQHYDSRUDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVEHJDQDVHDUO\DV$SULODQGFRQWLQXHGWKURXJK2FWREHUZKHQDPELHQW
DLUWHPSHUDWXUHVEHJDQWRIDOOEHORZIUHH]LQJ(YDSRUDWLRQGDWDIRU-XO\WKURXJK2FWREHU$SULO
WKURXJK-XQHDQG$SULOWKURXJK2FWREHUZHUHQRWXVDEOHGXHWRLQVWUXPHQWPDOIXQFWLRQ
0D[LPXPKRXUO\HYDSRUDWLRQYDOXHVQRUPDOO\RFFXULQ-XO\)LJXUHSUHVHQWVWKHPRQWKO\PHDQ
HYDSRUDWLRQYDOXHVEDVHGRQYDOLGDYDLODEOHGDWDIRUWKHPRQWKVRI0DUFKWKURXJK1RYHPEHU

7KHDQQXDODYHUDJHHYDSRUDWLRQDWWKH&OLYHVWDWLRQEDVHGRQ\HDUVRIYDOLGPRQWKO\GDWD
DQGQRWLQFOXGHGLVPPLQFKHV)LJXUHSUHVHQWVWKHDYHUDJHDQQXDO
HYDSRUDWLRQXVLQJ\HDUVRIYDOLGGDWD
)LJXUH0RQWKO\0HDQ(YDSRUDWLRQ%DVHGRQ9DOLG'DWD









(Y
D
S
R
U
D
W
L
R
Q


L
Q
F
K
H
V

0RQWKO\0HDQ(YDSRUDWLRQ 
&OLYH

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH0HDQ$QQXDO(YDSRUDWLRQ%DVHGRQ9DOLG'DWD
1RWH,Q)LJXUHGDWDIRU-XO\WKURXJK2FWREHU$SULOWKURXJK-XQHGD\VLQ-XQH
DQG-XO\GD\VLQ0D\DQG-XQHGD\VLQ-XQH2FWREHUDQGGD\VLQ-XQH
DUHPLVVLQJ

3UHFLSLWDWLRQ

3UHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIURPWKH&OLYHPRQLWRULQJVLWHZHUHPLVVLQJIURP1RYHPEHUWKURXJK$SULO
7KH\HDUFOLPDWRORJLFDODYHUDJHVIRU1RYHPEHU'HFHPEHU-DQXDU\)HEUXDU\0DUFK
DQG$SULOZHUHXVHGIRUWKHVHPLVVLQJPRQWKVLQRUGHUWRJHQHUDWHDQQXDOWRWDOVIRUDQG
EXWZHUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKH\HDUPRQWKO\DYHUDJHVIRUWKRVHPRQWKV8VLQJWKHVHVXEVWLWXWHGGDWD
DWRWDORIDSSUR[LPDWHO\PPLQFKHVRIUDLQIHOODWWKHVLWHGXULQJWKHODVW\HDUV
7KH\HDUDQQXDODYHUDJHHTXDWHVWRPPLQFKHVSHU\HDU,IWKHVXEVWLWXWLRQGDWD
ZHUHQRWXVHGWKHDYHUDJHZRXOGHTXDWHWRPPLQFKHVSHU\HDUDVVKRZQLQ7DEOH
LQWKHERWWRPFHOORIWKHDQQXDOFROXPQ7KLVYDOXHLVYHU\FORVHWRFOLPDWRORJLFDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQYDOXHV
IURPQHDUE\ORQJWHUPSUHFLSLWDWLRQPRQLWRULQJORFDWLRQV0D\-XQH2FWREHU-XO\
DQG$XJXVWDUHWKHRQO\PRQWKVZLWKRXWPHDVXUHDEOHSUHFLSLWDWLRQLQWKH\HDUSHULRG0D\
KDGWKHKLJKHVWPRQWKO\WRWDORIPPLQFKHV









                           
(Y
D
S
R
U
D
W
L
R
Q


L
Q
F
K
H
V

$QQXDO(YDSRUDWLRQ
 

 3DUWLDO\HDU PLVVLQJ\HDU



(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



'XULQJSHUIRUPDQFHDXGLWVDUWLILFLDODPRXQWVRISUHFLSLWDWLRQDUHLQWURGXFHGLQWRWKHJDXJH7KHVH
DXGLWLQSXWVZHUHUHPRYHGIURPWKHGDWDVHW,QDGGLWLRQFRUUHFWHGSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDUHFRUGHGIURP
-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHUZHUHXVHGLQWKLVUHSRUW7KHGHWDLOVRIWKLVFRUUHFWLRQZHUHFRQWDLQHG
LQD)HEUXDU\OHWWHUVXEPLWWHGWRWKH8WDK'LYLVLRQRI5DGLDWLRQ&RQWURO7DEOHSUHVHQWV
DVXPPDU\RIWKHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWD
(Q
H
U
J
\
6R
O
X
W
L
R
Q
V
/
/
&



$
Q
Q
X
D
O






6
X
P
P
D
U
\

5
H
S
R
U
W

7U
L
Q
L
W
\

&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
D
Q
W
V





7D
E
O
H





6
X
P
P
D
U
\

R
I

3
U
H
F
L
S
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q

L
Q

0
L
O
O
L
P
H
W
H
U
V

D
W

&
O
L
Y
H

-
D
Q
X
DU
\





±

'
H
F
H
P
E
H
U






<H
D
U

-D
Q
X
D
U
\

)H
E
U
X
D
U
\

0D
U
F
K

$S
U
L
O

0D
\

-X
Q
H

-X
O
\

$X
J
X
V
W
6H
S
W
H
P
E
H
U
2F
W
R
E
H
U
1R
Y
H
P
E
H
U
'H
F
H
P
E
H
U
$Q
Q
X
D
O



































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































\
U














































































0
R
Q
W
K
O
\

W
R
W
D
O
V

E
D
V
H
G

R
Q




\
H
D
U

F
O
L
P
D
W
R
O
R
J
L
F
D
O

D
Y
H
U
D
J
H

I
R
U

W
K
HV
H

P
R
Q
W
K
V


$
Q
Q
X
D
O

W
R
W
D
O
V

E
D
V
H
G

R
Q

Y
D
O
L
G

G
D
W
D

D
Q
G




\
H
D
U

F
O
L
P
D
W
R
O
R
LF
D
O

D
Y
H
U
D
HV

I
R
U

W
K
H

P
L
V
V
L
Q
P
R
Q
W
K

$
Y
H
U
D
J
H

E
D
V
H
G

R
Q




\
H
D
U
V

R
I

P
RQ
W
K
O
\

S
U
H
F
L
S
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q

W
R
W
D
O
V




\
H
D
U
V

H
[
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J






R
U





Y
D
O
X
H
V




0
L
V
V
L
Q
J



G
D
\
V

L
Q

-
X
Q
H

D
Q
G



G
D
\
V

L
Q

-
X
O
\


$
Q
Q
X
D
O

D
Y
H
U
D
J
H

L
V

E
D
V
H
G

R
Q




\
H
D
U
V

R
I

D
Q
Q
X
D
O

S
U
H
F
L
S
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q

W
RW
D
O
V





\
H
D
U
V

H[
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J






D
Q
G






D
Q
Q
X
D
O

W
R
W
D
O
V





(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



6RODU5DGLDWLRQ

)LJXUHSUHVHQWVPRQWKO\DYHUDJHVRODUUDGLDWLRQLQZDWWVSHUVTXDUHPHWHUSHUGD\:PGD\IRUWKH\HDU
SHULRG7KHPD[LPXPVRODUUDGLDWLRQRFFXUVLQ-XQHDQG-XO\DQGDYHUDJHVDSSUR[LPDWHO\:PGD\
)LJXUH<HDU0RQWKO\0HDQ6RODU5DGLDWLRQLQ:DWWVSHU6TXDUH0HWHUSHU'D\












-DQ )HE 0DU $SU 0D\ -XQ -XO $XJ 6HS 2FW 1RY 'HF
:
0
'
D
\
0RQWKO\0HDQ6RODU5DGLDWLRQ
-DQXDU\ 'HFHPEHU
&OLYH8WDK

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



&203$5,6212)-$18$5<±'(&(0%(5'$7$:,7+
<($5216,7('$7$-$18$5<±'(&(0%(5
7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKHUHSRUWFRPSDUHVWKHRQVLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDIRUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDU-DQXDU\WKURXJK
'HFHPEHUWRWKH\HDURQVLWHGDWDVHW

:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ

&RPSDULVRQRIWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDURIGDWDDQGWKH\HDURQVLWHGDWDVHWVKRZVWKDWZLQGVSHHGDQGGLUHFWLRQ
IRUERWKGDWDVHWVZHUHVLPLODU)RUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUZLQGVSHHGVDYHUDJHGPSVPSKZKLFKLVVLPLODU
WRWKH\HDUSHULRG&DOPZLQGVDFFRXQWHGIRURIWKHWRWDOZLQGVPHDVXUHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDU
ZKLOHIRUWKH\HDUSHULRGWKH\DFFRXQWHGIRU&DOPVDUHGHILQHGDVZLQGVSHHGVOHVVWKDQPSV7KH
SUHYDLOLQJZLQGGLUHFWLRQVIURPERWKGDWDVHWVJHQHUDWHVLPLODUVXPPDU\ZLQGURVHVDVSUHVHQWHGLQ)LJXUHV
DQG7KHPRVWFRPPRQZLQGGLUHFWLRQVIRUERWKGDWDSHULRGVDUHIURPWKHVRXWKVRXWKZHVWVRXWKHDVW
QRUWKHDVWDQGQRUWKHDVW 
 
6WDELOLW\&ODVV

&RPSDULVRQRIWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUVWDELOLW\FODVVGDWD7DEOHZLWKWKH\HDUGDWDVHW7DEOHVDQG
VKRZVWKDWIRUVWDELOLW\FODVVGHULYHGIURPERWKWKHıLJDQG¨7PHWKRGVWKHUHVXOWDQWVWDELOLW\FODVVGLVWULEXWLRQV
DUHVLPLODU&RPSDULVRQVRIWKHVWDELOLW\FODVVGLVWULEXWLRQIURPERWKPHWKRGVVKRZWKDWDOOVWDELOLW\FODVVHV$%
&'(DQG)IRUZHUHZLWKLQ“RIWKHSHUFHQWDJHYDOXHRIWKH\HDUPHDQIRUHDFKFODVV

7HPSHUDWXUH

2QVLWHWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDIRUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDU7DEOHZHUHFRPSDUHGWRWKH\HDURQVLWHGDWDVHW
7DEOH7KHPHDQWHPSHUDWXUHIRUWKH\HDUSHULRGZDVƒ&ZKLOHIRUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUWKHPHDQ
WHPSHUDWXUHZDVƒ&7KHKLJKHVWKRXUO\WHPSHUDWXUHUHFRUGHGGXULQJWKH\HDUGDWDSHULRGZDVƒ&RQ
-XQHFRPSDUHGWRWKHKLJKHVWKRXUO\WHPSHUDWXUHRIƒ&RQ$XJXVW7KHORZHVWKRXUO\
WHPSHUDWXUHUHFRUGHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUZDVƒ&RQ'HFHPEHUZKLOHWKHORZHVWKRXUO\
WHPSHUDWXUH UHFRUG GXULQJ WKH \HDU SHULRG ZDV ƒ& RQ -DQXDU\   7KH KLJKHVW GDLO\ PHDQ
WHPSHUDWXUHKRXUYDOXHLQWKH\HDUGDWDSHULRGZDVƒ&RQ-XQHFRPSDUHGWRWKHKLJKHVW
GDLO\PHDQWHPSHUDWXUHRIƒ&RQ-XO\IRUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDU7KHORZHVWGDLO\PHDQWHPSHUDWXUH
KRXUYDOXHLQWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUZDVƒ&RQ'HFHPEHUFRPSDUHGWRWKHORZHVWGDLO\PHDQ
WHPSHUDWXUHRIƒ&RQ-DQXDU\IRUWKH\HDUSHULRG7DEOHSUHVHQWVDFRPSDULVRQRI\HDU
PRQWKO\DYHUDJHWHPSHUDWXUHVWRWKH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHUPRQWKO\DYHUDJHWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDǤ

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRI<HDU0RQWKO\0HDQ7HPSHUDWXUH'DWDWR0RQWKO\0HDQ
7HPSHUDWXUHVIRU-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU
Month
2020
28-Year Average
Monthly Temp (ºC)
2020 Average Temp
(ºC) Departure
-DQXDU\   
)HEUXDU\
0DUFK   
$SULO
0D\   
-XQH
-XO\   
$XJXVW
6HSWHPEHU   
2FWREHU
1RYHPEHU   
'HFHPEHU

$VVHHQIURP7DEOHDVPDOODPRXQWRIPRQWKWRPRQWKYDULDWLRQIURPWKH\HDUPHDQZDV
REVHUYHG7KHELJJHVWGHYLDWLRQFDPHLQ-DQXDU\DQG'HFHPEHU-DQXDU\ZDVGHJUHHVZDUPHU
DQG'HFHPEHUZDVGHJUHHVFROGHULQ

3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ

3DQHYDSRUDWLRQGDWDIRUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUZHUHFRPSDUHGWR\HDUVRIYDOLGRQVLWHHYDSRUDWLRQ
GDWD)LJXUH7KH\HDUDQGQRWLQFOXGHGPHDQHYDSRUDWLRQZDV
PPLQFKHVZKLOHWKHHYDSRUDWLRQIRUWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDU-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHUZDV
PPLQFKHVZKLFKLVLQFKHVDERYHWKHORQJWHUPDYHUDJH

3UHFLSLWDWLRQ    

2QVLWHPRQWKO\WRWDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDFROOHFWHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQWGDWD\HDUZHUHFRPSDUHGWR
WKH\HDURQVLWHDYHUDJHPRQWKO\YDOXHV&OLYHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRU1RYHPEHUWKURXJK$SULO
ZHUHQRWXVDEOHDQGWKHUHIRUHZHUHQRWLQFOXGHGDVSDUWRIWKHPHDQDYHUDJHSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
7RWDOHGPRQWKO\SUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDUHFRUGHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQW\HDUZDVPPLQFKHV
ZKLFKZDVZHOOEHORZQRUPDOFRPSDUHGWRWKH\HDUDYHUDJHRIPPLQFKHV

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



6RODU5DGLDWLRQ

2QVLWHVRODUUDGLDWLRQGDWDFROOHFWHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQWGDWD\HDUZHUHFRPSDUHGWRWKH\HDURQVLWH
YDOXHV6HH7DEOH7KHPHDQGDLO\VRODUUDGLDWLRQRI:PGD\PHDVXUHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQWGDWD
\HDULVVOLJKWO\KLJKHUWKDQWKH\HDUDYHUDJHYDOXHRI:PGD\
(Q
H
U
J
\
6R
O
X
W
L
R
Q
V
/
/
&



$
Q
Q
X
D
O






6
X
P
P
D
U
\

5
H
S
R
U
W

7U
L
Q
L
W
\

&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
D
Q
W
V





7D
E
O
H





&
R
P
S
D
U
L
V
R
Q

R
I




<
H
D
U

0
H
D
Q

'
D
L
O
\

6
R
O
D
U

5
D
G
L
D
W
L
R
Q

'
D
W
D
L
Q

:
D
W
W
V

S
H
U

6
T
X
D
U
H

0
H
W
H
U

W
R

0
H
D
Q

'
D
L
O
\

6
R
O
D
U

5D
G
L
D
W
L
R
Q

'
D
W
D

I
U
R
P

-
D
Q
X
D
U
\

±

'
H
F
H
P
E
H
U






<H
D
U


-
D
Q



)
H
E



0
D
U
F
K


$
S
U
L
O


0
D
\


-
X
Q
H


-
X
O
\


$
X
J



6
H
S
W



2
F
W



1
R
Y



'
HF



0
H
D
Q
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































\
H
D
U

$Y
H
U
D
J
H













































































(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



&203$5,621:,7+2))6,7(&/,0$72/2*,&$/'$7$
7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKHUHSRUWDGGUHVVHVWKHRQVLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDZLWKUHVSHFWWRORQJWHUPRIIVLWHGDWDWR
GHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUWKHPHWHRURORJLFDODVVXPSWLRQVPDGHGXULQJWKHRULJLQDOLQILOWUDWLRQDQGXQVDWXUDWHG]RQH
PRGHOLQJZHUHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIDFWXDOVLWHFRQGLWLRQV

3ULRUWRWKHHGLWLRQRIWKLVUHSRUWRQVLWHWHPSHUDWXUHDQGSUHFLSLWDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVZHUHFRPSDUHGWR
WKRVHFROOHFWHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO:HDWKHU6HUYLFH1:6&RRSHUDWLYH&2232EVHUYHU3URJUDPDW'XJZD\3URYLQJ
*URXQGV  8QGHU WKLV SURJUDP GDLO\ PDQXDO REVHUYDWLRQV RI WHPSHUDWXUH DQG SUHFLSLWDWLRQ ZHUH PDGH E\ D
YROXQWHHUREVHUYHUDW'XJZD\DQGUHSRUWHGWRWKH1:6WKHQVXEVHTXHQWO\XVHGLQWKLVUHSRUW,QWKH6SULQJRI
 WKH &223 REVHUYDWLRQ DW 'XJZD\ ZDV GLVFRQWLQXHG GXH WR QHZ 1:6 JXLGHOLQHV WKDW LPSRVHG VWULFWHU
VWDQGDUGVRQWKHHTXLSPHQWXVHGLQWKH&223SURJUDP

,Q-DQXDU\7ULQLW\ZDVDEOHWRFRQWDFWWKHLQGLYLGXDOWKDWSHUIRUPHGWKH&223REVHUYDWLRQDW'XJZD\DQG
YHULILHGWKDWIRUWKHODVWVHYHUDO\HDUVSULRUWRWKHGDWDWKDWFRPSULVHGWKH&223REVHUYDWLRQZDVPRVWO\
EHLQJWDNHQIURPDQDXWRPDWHGZHDWKHUVWDWLRQZKRVHGDWDDUHSXEOLFO\DFFHVVLEOHRQOLQH7KHREVHUYHUDOVR
FRQILUPHG WKDW WKH DXWRPDWHG SUHFLSLWDWLRQ JDJH ZDV QRW KHDWHGDQG GLG QRW HPSOR\ D ZLQG VFUHHQ 7KXV
SUHFLSLWDWLRQWKDWIDOOVDVVQRZLVXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHG,QVXFKFDVHVWKHREVHUYHUFROOHFWHGSUHFLSLWDWLRQIURPD
ODUJHUPDQXDOJDJHORFDWHGDGMDFHQWWRWKHDXWRPDWHGVWDWLRQDQGUHSRUWHGWKDWYDOXHLQOLHXRIWKHDPRXQW
UHSRUWHGE\WKHDXWRPDWHGJDJH

%DVHGRQWKHVHILQGLQJV7ULQLW\FRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHWHPSHUDWXUHPHDVXUHPHQWVPDGHE\WKHDXWRPDWHGZHDWKHU
VWDWLRQDW'XJZD\DUHDFFXUDWHDQGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHKLVWRULFDOWHPSHUDWXUHPHDVXUHPHQWVFROOHFWHGE\WKH1:6
&223SURJUDPDQGZLOOFRQWLQXHWRVHUYHZHOODVDFRPSDULVRQWRRQVLWHWHPSHUDWXUHPHDVXUHPHQWVDW&OLYH

'XHWRWKHLQDFFXUDF\RIZLQWHUWLPHSUHFLSLWDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVUHVXOWLQJIURPWKHORVVRIRFFDVLRQDOPDQXDOJDXJH
GDWDLQWKHFROGVHDVRQ7ULQLW\FRQFOXGHGWKDWIXWXUHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIURP'XJZD\ZRXOGQRWEHDFFXUDWHQRU
FRQVLVWHQWZLWKKLVWRULFDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDFROOHFWHGLQWKH1:6&223SURJUDP7KXV7ULQLW\LGHQWLILHGDQHZ
VRXUFHRIRIIVLWHFOLPDWRORJLFDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRUXVHDVFRPSDULVRQWRRQVLWHGDWD7KH5HPRWH$XWRPDWHG
:HDWKHU6WDWLRQ5$:6QDPHG³$UDJRQLWH´LVORFDWHGNLORPHWHUVVRXWKHDVWRIWKH&OLYHIDFLOLW\DWDQHOHYDWLRQ
RIPHWHUVDQGFROOHFWVKRXUO\PHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDLQFOXGLQJSUHFLSLWDWLRQ+LVWRULFDOGDWDIURP$UDJRQLWHLV
FRPSOHWHEHJLQQLQJLQ7KXVLQWKLVDQGIXWXUHUHSRUWVWKHKLVWRULFDOSHULRGFRPSDUHGWRWKH&OLYHVLWHZLOO
FRYHUWKH\HDUVWKURXJKWKHFXUUHQW\HDU

:LQG6SHHGDQG+RUL]RQWDO:LQG'LUHFWLRQ

7KHUHZHUHQRZLQGVSHHGDQGZLQGGLUHFWLRQPRQLWRULQJORFDWLRQVZLWKLQDPLOHUDGLXVZKLFK7ULQLW\FRXOG
GHHPZKROO\UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKH&OLYHIDFLOLW\

,Q7ULQLW\¶VSURIHVVLRQDORSLQLRQZLQGGDWDIURPWKH&OLYHVLWHDSSHDUUHDVRQDEOHIRUWKHUHJLRQDQGDUHLQKHUHQWO\
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIZLQGFRQGLWLRQVDWWKHVLWH%LDQQXDOFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQVRIWKHPHWHRURORJLFDOVHQVRUVKDYH
EHHQSHUIRUPHGVLQFHVLWHLQFHSWLRQ7KHVHYHULILFDWLRQVLQGHSHQGHQWO\YHULI\WKHDFFXUDF\RIWKHPHDVXUHGGDWD


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



7HPSHUDWXUH

2QVLWHPRQWKO\PHDQWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDZHUHFRPSDUHGWR'XJZD\WHPSHUDWXUHGDWDIRUWKH\HDUSHULRG
)LJXUHSUHVHQWVWKHPHDQDQQXDOWHPSHUDWXUHYDOXHVIRUWKHWKURXJKSHULRGIRUWKH&OLYHDQG
'XJZD\VLWHV)LJXUHSUHVHQWVPRQWKO\DYHUDJHWHPSHUDWXUHYDOXHVIRUERWKVLWHVIRUWKH\HDUSHULRGRI
UHFRUG$OVRSUHVHQWHGLQWKLVILJXUHDUHWKHORQJWHUPPRQWKO\DYHUDJHWHPSHUDWXUHYDOXHVIRU'XJZD\IURP
WKURXJK$VVHHQIURPWKHVHILJXUHVWKHWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDFRPSDUHZHOOEHWZHHQWKHWZRVLWHVDQGWKH
PRQWKO\DYHUDJHVDJUHHZLWKORQJWHUPFOLPDWRORJLFDOYDOXHV
)LJXUH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU0HDQ$QQXDO7HPSHUDWXUH&OLYHYV'XJZD\

)LJXUH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU0RQWKO\0HDQ7HPSHUDWXUH&OLYHYV'XJZD\









                           
7H
P
S
H
U
D
W
X
U
H


'
H
J

&

-DQXDU\ 'HFHPEHU
0HDQ$QQXDO7HPSHUDWXUH
&OLYHYV'XJZD\
&OLYH
'XJZD\








-DQ )HE 0DU $SU 0D\ -XQ -XO $XJ 6HS 2FW 1RY 'HF
7H
P
S
H
U
D
W
X
U
H


'
H
J

&

-DQXDU\ 'HFHPEHU
0RQWKO\0HDQ7HPSHUDWXUH
&OLYHYV'XJZD\
&OLYH
'XJZD\
'XJZD\

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



3DQ(YDSRUDWLRQ

2QVLWH SDQ HYDSRUDWLRQ GDWD ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR )LVK 6SULQJV 8WDK HYDSRUDWLRQ GDWD )LVK 6SULQJV GDWD DUH
DYDLODEOHIURPDQGWKHUHIRUHQRFRQFXUUHQWGDWDDUHDYDLODEOH&OLPDWRORJLFDOO\)LVK6SULQJVVKRZV
DQDYHUDJHDQQXDOHYDSRUDWLRQRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\LQFKHVVHH)LJXUH2IWKH\HDUVRI(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV
HYDSRUDWLRQDYDLODEOHIRUWKLVUHSRUWRQO\\HDUVDUHXVHG'XULQJWKHDYDLODEOH\HDUVDQG
QRWLQFOXGHGWKHDQQXDOHYDSRUDWLRQDW(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQVZDVDSSUR[LPDWHO\LQFKHV$QQXDOYDULDWLRQVLQ
HYDSRUDWLRQFDQEHVLJQLILFDQWDVVKRZQDW)LVK6SULQJV)LJXUHLQZKLFKHYDSRUDWLRQUDQJHGIURPWR
LQFKHVSHU\HDU0XFKRIWKLVYDULDWLRQFDQGHSHQGXSRQZKHQHYDSRUDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWVEHJDQDQGHQGHGGXULQJ
HDFKPHDVXUHPHQW\HDU
)LJXUH)LVK6SULQJV+LVWRULFDO(YDSRUDWLRQ'DWD

3UHFLSLWDWLRQ

2QVLWHPRQWKO\WRWDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDZHUHFRPSDUHGWR$UDJRQLWHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRUD\HDUSHULRG)LJXUH
SUHVHQWVWKHDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQYDOXHVIRUWKHWKURXJKSHULRGIRUWKH&OLYHDQG$UDJRQLWHVLWHV
&OLYHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIRU1RYHPEHUWKURXJK$SULOZHUHQRWXVDEOHGXHWRORZGDWDUHFRYHU\+HQFH
SUHFLSLWDWLRQZDVHVWLPDWHGIRUWKLVSHULRGEDVHGRQORQJWHUPDYHUDJHVDQGZDVLQFOXGHGLQWKHVWDWLVWLFV)LJXUH
SUHVHQWVPRQWKO\DYHUDJHSUHFLSLWDWLRQYDOXHVIRUERWKVLWHVIRUWKH\HDUSHULRGRIUHFRUG

,QJHQHUDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIURPWKHWZRVLWHVFRPSDUHZHOODQGWKHPRQWKO\DQGDQQXDOWRWDOVDUHFORVHWRORQJ
WHUPFOLPDWRORJLFDOYDOXHV,WVKRXOGEHVWDWHGWKDWSUHFLSLWDWLRQWRWDOVIURPLQGLYLGXDOVWRUPVFDQYDU\JUHDWO\RYHU
D VKRUW KRUL]RQWDO GLVWDQFH HVSHFLDOO\ GXULQJ FRQYHFWLYH VXPPHUWLPH HYHQWV DQG WKHUHIRUH SUHFLSLWDWLRQ
FRPSDULVRQVEHFRPHPRUHPHDQLQJIXOZKHQFRPSDUHGRYHUORQJHUSHULRGV


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



)LJXUH-DQXDU\'HFHPEHU$QQXDO7RWDO3UHFLSLWDWLRQ&OLYHYV$UDJRQLWH

$QQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQWRWDOVIRU&OLYHDUHHVWLPDWHGIRUDQG
)LJXUH-DQXDU\±'HFHPEHU0RQWKO\0HDQ3UHFLSLWDWLRQ&OLYHYV$UDJRQLWH

(VWLPDWHVZHUHXVHGIRU1RYHPEHUWKURXJK$SULOWRWDOVEDVHGRQORQJWHUPDYHUDJHV









    

                
3U
H
F
L
S
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q


L
Q

-DQXDU\ 'HFHPEHU
$QQXDO7RWDO3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
&OLYHYV$UDJRQLWH
&OLYH
$UDJRQLWH









-DQ
)HE
0DU
$SU
0D\ -XQ -XO $XJ 6HS 2FW 1RY
'HF

3U
H
F
L
S
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q


,
Q

-DQXDU\ 'HFHPEHU
0RQWKO\0HDQ3UHFLSLWDWLRQ
&OLYHYV$UDJRQLWH&OLYH
$UDJRQLWH

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



6RODU5DGLDWLRQ
2QVLWH VRODU UDGLDWLRQ YDOXHV DJUHHG ZHOO ZLWK YDOXHV GHYHORSHG LQ  E\ WKH 1DWLRQDO 5HQHZDEOH (QHUJ\
/DERUDWRU\15(/)LJXUHSUHVHQWVWKHPHDQGDLO\VRODUUDGLDWLRQLQNZPGD\IRU-XQHIRUWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
7KH15(/YDOXHVIRUQRUWKZHVWHUQ8WDKDUHORZHUWKDQWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJ&OLYH-XQHYDOXHRI:PGD\LQ
WKH&OLYH-XQHYDOXHLVORZHUWKDQWKH\HDUDYHUDJHRI:PGD\
)LJXUH0HDQ'DLO\6RODU5DGLDWLRQIRU-XQH


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



&21&/86,21
7ULQLW\FRPSLOHGDQGDQDO\]HG(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV¶RQVLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDFROOHFWHGIURP-DQXDU\WKURXJK
'HFHPEHU2IIVLWHGDWDFRPSDULVRQVZHUHPDGHZLWKHYDSRUDWLRQGDWDDW)LVK6SULQJV8WDKWHPSHUDWXUH
GDWDDW'XJZD\8WDKDQGSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDIURP$UDJRQLWH8WDK7KHRQVLWHWHPSHUDWXUHGDWDIURPWKHSDVW
\HDUVDSSHDUFRPSOHWHDQGDJUHHZHOOZLWKFRQFXUUHQW'XJZD\GDWD7KHSUHFLSLWDWLRQGDWDZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQ
RIVL[PRQWKVIURP1RYHPEHUWKURXJK$SULOZHUHFRPSOHWHIURPWKHSDVW\HDUV7KHVHGDWD
DOVRDJUHHGZHOOZLWKFRQFXUUHQW$UDJRQLWHGDWD

7KH  \HDUV RI HYDSRUDWLRQ GDWD WKDW ZHUH DYDLODEOH IURP WKH VLWH VKRZ UHDVRQDEOH HYDSRUDWLRQ DPRXQWV
VXJJHVWLQJWKHDQQXDOHYDSRUDWLRQYDOXHVDUHZLWKLQH[SHFWHGUDQJHVIRUWKHVLWH6RPHRIWKHYDULDWLRQVEHWZHHQ
WKHVLWHVFDQEHDWWULEXWHGWRWKHEHJLQQLQJDQGHQGLQJWLPHVIRUHDFKPRQLWRULQJ\HDU

2QVLWHZLQGGDWDZHUHQRWFRPSDUHGWRRIIVLWHZLQGGDWDGXHWRWKHLQKHUHQWWUDQVSRVLWLRQLVVXHVRIWKHVHW\SHV
RIPHDVXUHPHQWV$OOVHQVRUVDWWKHVLWHLQFOXGLQJZLQGVSHHGZLQGGLUHFWLRQWHPSHUDWXUHSUHFLSLWDWLRQDQG
HYDSRUDWLRQ DUH VXEMHFWHG WR 1DWLRQDO ,QVWLWXWH RI 6WDQGDUGV DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ 1,67 WUDFHDEOH FDOLEUDWLRQ
YHULILFDWLRQVHYHU\VL[PRQWKVDQGZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRIWKH-XQHHYDSRUDWLRQDQG$SULOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
FDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQVKDYHVXFFHVVIXOO\SDVVHGWKHVHDXGLWV7KHVHFDOLEUDWLRQYHULILFDWLRQVDFWWRLQGHSHQGHQWO\
FRQILUPWKHDFFXUDF\RIWKHPHDVXUHPHQWVDQGWKHUHIRUHWKHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHQHVVRIWKHUHVXOWDQWGDWD 

*LYHQWKHDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQWKHRQVLWHPHWHRURORJLFDOGDWDDQGWKHORQJWHUPRIIVLWHGDWDLWLVUHDVRQDEOHWKDW
WKH PHWHRURORJLFDO DVVXPSWLRQV PDGH GXULQJ WKH RULJLQDO LQILOWUDWLRQ DQG XQVDWXUDWHG ]RQH PRGHOLQJ ZHUH
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKHDFWXDOFRQGLWLRQVDWWKHVLWH

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV



5()(5(1&(6
%URXJK5&-RQHV'/6WHYHQV'-8WDK¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH:HDWKHU$OPDQDF3XEOLVKHUV3UHVV
6/&8WDK

'RQQ:0HWHRURORJ\WK$GGLWLRQ0F*UDZ+LOO1HZ<RUN

1DWLRQDO5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\/DERUDWRU\'\QDPLF0DSV*,6'DWDDQG$QDO\VLV7RROV$YDLODEOHIURP
KWWSZZZQUHOJRYJLVLPDJHVPDSBSYBXVBMXQHBGHFMSJ

3RSH'%URXJK&8WDK¶V:HDWKHUDQG&OLPDWH3XEOLVKHUV3UHVV6/&8WDK

6KHDUHU'/0HWHRURORJ\'LYLVLRQ7HFKQLFDO6HUYLFHV&OLPDWRORJLFDO5HSRUW1XPEHU'XJZD\3URYLQJ
*URXQG

8QLYHUVLW\RI8WDK0HVRZHVW$YDLODEOHIURPKWWSPHVRZHVWXWDKHGX

86'HSDUWPHQWRI&RPPHUFH1DWLRQDO2FHDQLFDQG$WPRVSKHULF$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ1DWLRQDO&OLPDWH'DWD&HQWHU
&RRSHUDWLYH6XPPDU\'XJZD\8WDK$YDLODEOHIURP
KWWSZZZQFGFQRDDJRY,33JHWFRRSVWDWHVKWPO

:HVWHUQ5HJLRQ&OLPDWH&HQWHU&OLPDWRORJLFDO6XPPDU\'XJZD\8WDK$YDLODEOHIURP
 KWWSZUFFGULHGXFOLPDWHGDWDKWPO 


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV$



$33(1',;$+285/<:,1'63(('$1'',5(&7,21'$7$-$18$5<
±'(&(0%(5

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV%



$33(1',;%+285/<6,*0$7+(7$'(/7$7$1'67$%,/,7<&/$66
'$7$

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV&



$33(1',;&+285/<7(03(5$785('$7$



(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV'



$33(1',;'+285/<3$1(9$325$7,21'$7$





(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV(



$33(1',;(+285/<35(&,3,7$7,21'$7$



(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV)



$33(1',;)+285/<62/$55$',$7,21'$7$

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV*



$33(1',;*<($5-2,17)5(48(1&<2)2&&855(1&(
',675,%87,2162):,1'63(('$1'',5(&7,21±6,*0$7+(7$
$1''(/7$7

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV$



$33(1',;$+285/<:,1'63(('$1'',5(&7,21'$7$-$18$5<
±'(&(0%(5
3
18
2
/
0
1
.
9

1
4
4
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
6
/
0
1
.
3

1
4
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
3
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
4
0
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
0
/
0
3
.
2

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
3
00
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
3
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
7

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
1

1
2
0
/
0
1
.
7

2
9
9
/
0
0
.
4
09
3
/
0
1
.
0

2
0
5
/
0
0
.
8

1
1
9
/
0
1
.
7

1
5
5
/
0
0
.
9

3
1
1
/
0
2
.
2

3
5
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
8
/
0
1
.
8

2
7
5
/
0
2
.
1
19
0
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
0
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
5

2
8
1
/
0
1
.
0

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
1

0
1
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
6
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
5
05
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
4

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
0

0
2
1
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
2
/
0
1
.
3
10
3
/
0
2
.
0

2
1
3
/
0
1
.
5

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
7

3
3
3
/
0
0
.
7

0
5
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
8
/
0
1
.
9

2
0
0
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
1
.
8
21
5
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
6

2
4
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
0
/
0
1
.
7

1
9
2
/
0
1
.
6

1
9
3
/
0
2
.
5

1
9
1
/
0
2
.
8

2
7
3
/
0
1
.
5
31
5
/
0
4
.
7

3
3
1
/
0
3
.
9

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
9

3
6
0
/
0
2
.
9

0
3
7
/
0
2
.
2

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
5
/
0
0
.
4

3
1
5
/
0
0
.
8
11
9
/
0
1
.
8

2
3
6
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
4
/
0
1
.
4

1
5
1
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
7
/
0
1
.
6

3
0
0
/
0
1
.
3

2
8
3
/
0
2
.
0

1
1
5
/
0
1
.
4
18
8
/
0
3
.
2

1
8
7
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
1
.
0

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
4

2
1
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
5
8
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
2
/
0
3
.
0

1
7
3
/
0
4
.
4
19
0
/
0
4
.
0

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
4

2
1
3
/
0
3
.
2

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
9

3
4
7
/
0
2
.
6

0
8
1
/
0
1
.
9

1
8
3
/
0
2
.
5

2
1
2
/
0
1
.
6
19
0
/
0
4
.
9

1
8
8
/
0
5
.
5

2
0
6
/
0
5
.
7

2
1
7
/
0
4
.
8

2
0
7
/
0
5
.
0

1
9
9
/
0
6
.
1

2
0
3
/
0
6
.
3

2
2
9
/
0
6
.
2
04
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
1
0
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
5
9
/
0
4
.
1
09
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
3
/
0
1
.
2

1
5
1
/
0
1
.
2

1
0
3
/
0
0
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
1
.
1

0
6
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
5
3
/
0
0
.
9

0
7
9
/
0
0
.
9
25
7
/
0
6
.
4

3
2
8
/
0
6
.
6

1
6
1
/
0
2
.
2

2
8
9
/
0
2
.
9

2
9
5
/
0
2
.
5

3
0
0
/
0
3
.
3

3
0
0
/
0
5
.
0

0
0
3
/
0
1
.
3
07
5
/
0
1
.
4

3
2
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
6
/
0
0
.
6

0
3
2
/
0
0
.
7

3
3
0
/
0
1
.
3

1
0
4
/
0
0
.
5

0
5
6
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
0
/
0
1
.
0
10
4
/
0
2
.
4

1
4
6
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
2
/
0
1
.
6

1
5
7
/
0
0
.
8

0
2
0
/
0
0
.
6

1
6
1
/
0
0
.
8

2
1
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
1
/
0
1
.
1
10
7
/
0
1
.
1

1
4
9
/
0
0
.
5

1
5
8
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
3
9
/
0
0
.
7

1
0
4
/
0
0
.
5

2
5
2
/
0
0
.
7

2
1
2
/
0
1
.
5
10
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
3
1
/
0
1
.
8

3
5
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
5
6
/
0
1
.
8

1
4
3
/
0
1
.
9

2
2
8
/
0
2
.
0

1
2
0
/
0
2
.
0

2
5
0
/
0
1
.
2
10
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
3
/
0
1
.
3

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
4
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
4

0
2
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
6

0
2
1
/
0
1
.
5
19
5
/
0
2
.
2

1
9
6
/
0
3
.
0

2
2
3
/
0
2
.
2

3
4
4
/
0
0
.
9

1
2
3
/
0
1
.
3

1
4
0
/
0
1
.
3

3
5
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
4
7
/
0
0
.
8
03
4
/
0
0
.
6

1
2
8
/
0
0
.
7

0
8
3
/
0
0
.
8

0
5
4
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

2
8
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
2
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
9
9
/
0
2
.
2
08
9
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
9

0
3
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
8
/
0
2
.
8

0
2
8
/
0
2
.
4

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
5

2
7
4
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
6
/
0
1
.
1
09
3
/
0
0
.
6

0
8
6
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
0
.
6

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
7
/
0
1
.
1

3
5
7
/
0
1
.
1
27
1
/
0
1
.
2

3
5
0
/
0
2
.
5

2
9
6
/
0
1
.
9

3
2
9
/
0
2
.
2

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
6

1
6
2
/
0
1
.
6

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
0

2
9
9
/
0
1
.
1
35
1
/
0
1
.
4

1
6
8
/
0
0
.
9

3
5
2
/
0
0
.
6

0
5
2
/
0
1
.
2

3
1
1
/
0
1
.
1

1
5
6
/
0
1
.
1

2
5
2
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
2
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

3
3
2
/
0
0
.
8
20
2
/
0
2
.
6

2
1
7
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
3
/
0
4
.
2

1
8
2
/
0
3
.
8

1
8
3
/
0
3
.
4

1
9
5
/
0
1
.
7

1
9
4
/
0
1
.
5
02
4
/
0
0
.
9

0
1
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
1

0
3
7
/
0
2
.
1

1
5
3
/
0
1
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
0
.
7

2
3
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
0
2
/
0
3
.
4
3
1
2
3
/
0
2
.
3

1
4
4
/
0
2
.
2

1
1
1
/
0
1
.
9

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
8
0
9
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
3
5
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
1
/
0
2
.
0

2
3
5
/
0
2
.0
2
2
5
7
/
0
6
.
4

3
2
8
/
0
6
.
6

2
0
6
/
0
5
.
7

2
1
7
/
0
4
.
8
2
0
7
/
0
5
.
0

1
9
9
/
0
6
.
1

2
0
3
/
0
6
.
3

2
2
9
/
0
6
.2
6
0
9
3
/
0
0
.
6

1
4
9
/
0
0
.
5

3
5
2
/
0
0
.
6

1
0
3
/
0
0
.
6
0
2
0
/
0
0
.
6

1
0
4
/
0
0
.
5

0
1
5
/
0
0
.
4

2
9
9
/
0
0
.4
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

3
20
1
/
0
3
.
5

1
4
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
9
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
8
4
/
0
1
.
2

0
9
6
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4
07
5
/
0
1
.
9

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
3
/
0
4
.
2

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
7
33
6
/
0
1
.
5

1
0
2
/
0
2
.
3

0
9
5
/
0
2
.
4

1
0
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
8
/
0
0
.
4

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
8
7
/
0
2
.
0
18
9
/
0
3
.
1

1
8
2
/
0
3
.
0

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
0

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
9

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
2
/
0
5
.
6

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
3

2
0
4
/
0
4
.
2
06
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
4
.
0

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
9
31
4
/
0
2
.
2

3
4
5
/
0
1
.
9

1
0
0
/
0
2
.
9

1
1
4
/
0
1
.
9

2
8
8
/
0
1
.
2

1
4
7
/
0
1
.
6

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
2
35
9
/
0
4
.
7

3
5
0
/
0
6
.
4

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
9

0
1
8
/
0
2
.
0

3
5
2
/
0
2
.
1

3
4
5
/
0
4
.
0

3
4
0
/
0
5
.
2
14
4
/
0
1
.
3

1
8
0
/
0
2
.
6

1
7
5
/
0
2
.
9

1
7
7
/
0
2
.
9

1
8
9
/
0
4
.
6

1
8
6
/
0
3
.
6

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
0
/
0
5
.
0
14
3
/
0
2
.
0

2
0
1
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
6
/
0
3
.
7

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
5

1
7
9
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
0
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
1
18
3
/
0
4
.
7

1
7
8
/
0
3
.
7

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
2

1
8
8
/
0
4
.
2

1
8
9
/
0
3
.
8

1
8
5
/
0
4
.
8

2
0
1
/
0
3
.
1

2
3
0
/
0
3
.
0
18
7
/
0
6
.
0

1
7
7
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
6

1
8
7
/
0
4
.
7

2
6
4
/
0
4
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
4

1
7
7
/
0
2
.
9
29
1
/
0
5
.
6

3
1
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
9
2
/
0
2
.
1

1
3
3
/
0
2
.
6

1
3
4
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
9
/
0
0
.
8

2
1
0
/
0
3
.
6

1
8
9
/
0
3
.
6
33
7
/
0
2
.
4

0
4
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
6

0
9
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
4
/
0
2
.
9

1
0
5
/
0
1
.
7
02
1
/
0
1
.
7

2
6
7
/
0
2
.
2

2
2
5
/
0
3
.
8

1
7
5
/
1
0
.
4

1
7
6
/
1
0
.
7

1
7
6
/
1
1
.
4

1
7
9
/
1
0
.
4

1
8
7
/
0
9
.
1
32
5
/
0
3
.
5

3
3
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
7

1
0
3
/
0
1
.
5

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
2
31
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
1
4
/
0
2
.
2

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
0
35
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
4
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
9
/
0
3
.
2

1
1
4
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
9
5
/
0
1
.
9
28
8
/
0
1
.
4

0
3
0
/
0
2
.
5

3
0
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
4
/
0
2
.
3

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
6
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
3
26
4
/
0
2
.
7

3
4
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
9
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
1

3
1
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
0
1
/
0
0
.
7

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
8
03
8
/
0
3
.
1

0
2
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
2
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
2
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
4

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
2
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
9
/
0
0
.
9
01
7
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
9

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
2

0
7
5
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
7
/
0
2
.
0
18
2
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
0
6
/
0
1
.
5

1
3
2
/
0
1
.
3

1
2
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
1
.
9

2
4
4
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
0
/
0
1
.
7
21
9
/
0
0
.
9

3
2
7
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
1
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
4
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
0
8
/
0
2
.
1
33
0
/
0
3
.
3

3
1
7
/
0
4
.
8

0
6
9
/
0
1
.
9

1
3
8
/
0
3
.
1

2
9
4
/
0
3
.
1

2
8
6
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
5
/
0
2
.
5

2
1
9
/
0
3
.
5
32
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
0
/
0
2
.
3

1
1
9
/
0
1
.
7

1
7
1
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
6
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
0
/
0
0
.
8

1
1
8
/
0
1
.
0
20
8
/
0
3
.
2

3
0
0
/
0
2
.
0

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
3

1
1
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
1
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
0
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
0
8
/
0
2
.
3

3
2
2
/
0
3
.
1
10
6
/
0
3
.
0

1
0
7
/
0
2
.
1

1
1
5
/
0
2
.
2

1
5
0
/
0
0
.
8

1
7
3
/
0
0
.
6

0
9
9
/
0
1
.
1

3
1
4
/
0
1
.
4

1
8
1
/
0
2
.
1
04
8
/
0
5
.
2

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
8
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
7

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
0
16
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
0
.
7

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
9

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
8

1
0
4
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
0
/
0
0
.
9

0
5
1
/
0
1
.
5
9
3
1
4
/
0
2
.
9

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
9
2
/
0
2
.
7

1
0
9
/
0
2
.
8
0
9
0
/
0
2
.
8

1
0
1
/
0
2
.
7

1
1
3
/
0
2
.
7

1
4
8
/
0
2
.8
8
1
8
7
/
0
6
.
0

3
5
0
/
0
6
.
4

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
2

1
7
5
/
1
0
.
4
1
7
6
/
1
0
.
7

1
7
6
/
1
1
.
4

1
7
9
/
1
0
.
4

1
8
7
/
0
9
.1
7
2
1
9
/
0
0
.
9

0
6
8
/
0
0
.
7

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
2

1
5
0
/
0
0
.
8
1
7
3
/
0
0
.
6

0
5
8
/
0
0
.
4

2
1
0
/
0
0
.
8

1
4
9
/
0
0
.9
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
3
5

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

9
8.
8
%
3
32
6
/
1
0
.
7

3
2
8
/
1
0
.
0

3
2
5
/
1
0
.
1

3
2
1
/
0
9
.
7

3
2
2
/
0
9
.
2

3
2
7
/
0
7
.
3

3
2
6
/
0
7
.
8

3
2
0
/
0
7
.
3
05
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
0
4
/
0
5
.
2

0
1
3
/
0
5
.
0

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
5

0
2
9
/
0
4
.
2

0
0
1
/
0
4
.
9

3
5
3
/
0
4
.
3

3
5
6
/
0
5
.
5
17
1
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
4
/
0
3
.
1

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
4

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
4

2
1
6
/
0
1
.
7

1
9
4
/
0
4
.
5

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
4
21
0
/
0
4
.
2

2
1
1
/
0
4
.
3

2
1
0
/
0
4
.
8

2
0
8
/
0
5
.
6

2
0
1
/
0
4
.
6

2
0
0
/
0
4
.
5

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
4
.
3
18
9
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
5

2
0
3
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
8
/
0
6
.
1

1
8
9
/
0
5
.
6

2
0
1
/
0
5
.
7

1
9
4
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
5
/
0
6
.
0
18
8
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
9
/
0
1
.
6

2
0
1
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
9
/
0
5
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
5
.
7

1
8
0
/
0
5
.
9

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
4

1
9
6
/
0
6
.
5
04
9
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
7
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
3
3
/
0
6
.
7

0
4
4
/
0
6
.
7

0
4
6
/
0
7
.
1

0
4
1
/
0
6
.
5

0
3
2
/
0
7
.
6
07
1
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
4
/
0
1
.
1

2
5
5
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
0
/
0
1
.
4

1
8
6
/
0
1
.
7

2
0
0
/
0
1
.
8

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
5

2
2
6
/
0
2
.
7
06
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
7

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
8

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
0

1
6
7
/
0
0
.
9

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
3
19
3
/
0
4
.
9

1
8
3
/
0
4
.
0

2
1
1
/
0
3
.
5

2
2
9
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
0

1
6
8
/
0
0
.
7

2
1
5
/
0
1
.
8

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
8
19
6
/
0
3
.
0

1
9
2
/
0
3
.
0

1
9
2
/
0
3
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
2
.
7

3
5
5
/
0
0
.
7

0
4
7
/
0
0
.
4

2
4
2
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
4
/
0
2
.
6
09
7
/
0
1
.
2

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
6
/
0
2
.
3

1
1
0
/
0
1
.
7

0
6
2
/
0
2
.
1

1
7
2
/
0
1
.
8

2
2
0
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
3
/
0
5
.
1
06
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
2
5
/
0
1
.
1

1
0
1
/
0
1
.
2

0
8
8
/
0
0
.
9

2
2
4
/
0
0
.
7

0
9
7
/
0
0
.
6

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
7

2
1
4
/
0
2
.
1
27
1
/
0
1
.
6

1
4
0
/
0
1
.
7

3
4
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
0

1
1
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
3
/
0
1
.
3

0
7
4
/
0
0
.
9

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
2
04
4
/
0
3
.
8

0
5
4
/
0
5
.
7

0
5
5
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
3
9
/
0
2
.
3

0
1
0
/
0
4
.
3

0
0
2
/
0
3
.
9
30
9
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
0
/
0
0
.
9

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
1

0
5
1
/
0
0
.
6

2
8
3
/
0
0
.
8

0
9
6
/
0
1
.
1

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
3
/
0
1
.
3
06
0
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
1
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
4
1
/
0
4
.
2
10
0
/
0
1
.
2

1
9
0
/
0
0
.
8

0
5
8
/
0
0
.
9

0
5
9
/
0
0
.
9

0
3
1
/
0
0
.
4

0
2
4
/
0
0
.
8

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
3

2
5
8
/
0
1
.
1
13
5
/
0
1
.
1

3
5
8
/
0
0
.
7

0
0
7
/
0
0
.
3

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
4

1
5
2
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
6
/
0
0
.
9

2
2
4
/
0
2
.
1

2
2
1
/
0
1
.
2
16
4
/
0
0
.
7

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
2

3
3
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
0
/
0
0
.
8

3
0
8
/
0
0
.
6

1
7
8
/
0
1
.
6

2
5
5
/
0
0
.
9

2
8
2
/
0
1
.
0
07
3
/
0
4
.
6

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
6
/
0
1
.
8

3
2
6
/
0
1
.
6

3
5
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
6
7
/
0
1
.
3
33
2
/
0
8
.
3

3
4
0
/
0
6
.
6

3
3
0
/
0
8
.
9

3
4
8
/
0
5
.
6

3
5
2
/
0
5
.
6

3
4
1
/
0
4
.
8

3
1
9
/
0
7
.
8

3
1
2
/
0
8
.
3
19
2
/
0
1
.
6

2
3
0
/
0
1
.
0

2
8
4
/
0
1
.
2

0
0
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
7

1
4
3
/
0
0
.
5

3
5
3
/
0
1
.
1

0
1
0
/
0
2
.
4
24
7
/
0
0
.
8

3
2
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
3
/
0
1
.
1

0
1
4
/
0
1
.
5

2
5
1
/
0
1
.
2

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
1
6
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
7
/
0
1
.
4
02
3
/
0
1
.
6

1
4
7
/
0
1
.
5

3
2
3
/
0
0
.
8

1
3
1
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
1
.
1

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
4

2
1
4
/
0
1
.
6

2
4
5
/
0
1
.
4
17
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
0

0
6
7
/
0
0
.
7

1
7
6
/
0
1
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
1

0
6
5
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
4
/
0
1
.
0

2
5
1
/
0
1
.
0
06
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
3
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
2
9
/
0
1
.
1

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
1

2
9
2
/
0
2
.
2

2
6
3
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
1
0
1
1
2
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
2
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
9
/
0
2
.
9
1
5
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
1
6
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
9
/
0
2
.
9

2
2
8
/
0
3
.3
3
3
2
6
/
1
0
.
7

3
2
8
/
1
0
.
0

3
2
5
/
1
0
.
1

3
2
1
/
0
9
.
7
3
2
2
/
0
9
.
2

3
2
7
/
0
7
.
3

3
1
9
/
0
7
.
8

3
1
2
/
0
8
.3
4
1
6
4
/
0
0
.
7

3
5
8
/
0
0
.
7

0
0
7
/
0
0
.
3

0
5
1
/
0
0
.
6
0
3
1
/
0
0
.
4

0
4
7
/
0
0
.
4

1
6
7
/
0
0
.
9

2
8
2
/
0
1
.0
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

2
34
3
/
0
5
.
0

3
3
2
/
0
5
.
0

3
4
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
2
7
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
9
/
0
2
.
5

0
4
7
/
0
1
.
8

1
7
7
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
8
/
0
0
.
9
07
1
/
0
4
.
1

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
4

1
0
3
/
0
3
.
8

2
3
5
/
0
1
.
3

3
4
0
/
0
0
.
6

1
8
3
/
0
3
.
0

2
0
0
/
0
4
.
1
19
1
/
0
4
.
8

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
9

1
9
2
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
4

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
9
19
1
/
0
4
.
6

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
6

2
2
4
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
5
/
0
4
.
5

1
7
6
/
0
4
.
0

2
0
4
/
0
4
.
4

2
0
1
/
0
4
.
0

2
2
5
/
0
5
.
2
31
5
/
0
4
.
1

3
1
3
/
0
4
.
5

3
1
5
/
0
2
.
3

3
4
4
/
0
2
.
8

3
5
1
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
6

1
3
2
/
0
1
.
8

1
0
6
/
0
1
.
2
33
6
/
0
7
.
6

0
0
2
/
0
5
.
8

0
1
4
/
0
4
.
1

0
0
2
/
0
4
.
4

3
5
0
/
0
4
.
2

3
3
7
/
0
3
.
4

3
4
9
/
0
4
.
5

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
6
01
9
/
0
5
.
7

0
1
9
/
0
5
.
6

0
2
1
/
0
5
.
0

0
3
5
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
3
/
0
3
.
3

0
4
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
9

3
2
7
/
0
1
.
9
03
2
/
0
5
.
6

0
3
1
/
0
5
.
3

0
2
5
/
0
4
.
1

0
0
8
/
0
4
.
1

0
3
5
/
0
4
.
0

0
2
6
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
7
17
7
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
0

1
6
6
/
0
1
.
6

1
8
5
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
8
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
7
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
1

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
2
32
8
/
0
4
.
4

0
3
1
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
5

1
0
5
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
0

1
9
0
/
0
1
.
5

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
6
20
1
/
0
2
.
0

2
3
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
6
/
0
4
.
6

0
6
7
/
0
4
.
2

0
7
9
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
7
36
0
/
0
3
.
8

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
8

0
4
0
/
0
4
.
5

0
4
1
/
0
5
.
5

0
5
5
/
0
5
.
4

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
3

0
3
3
/
0
3
.
3
29
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
9
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
1

0
3
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
5
26
4
/
0
3
.
2

2
7
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
0
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
5
/
0
0
.
6

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
3
9
/
0
2
.
9

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
7
32
8
/
0
7
.
7

3
0
5
/
0
5
.
1

3
1
6
/
0
4
.
7

3
3
9
/
0
3
.
9

3
5
6
/
0
3
.
4

3
4
7
/
0
3
.
3

3
5
2
/
0
2
.
8

3
3
4
/
0
3
.
1
33
1
/
0
3
.
2

3
5
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
4
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
2

0
5
5
/
0
3
.
2
01
8
/
0
5
.
8

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
6

0
4
7
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
7

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
2
34
0
/
0
3
.
2

3
4
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
1
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
2
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
7
30
6
/
0
3
.
2

3
0
7
/
0
3
.
2

3
3
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
5

1
0
1
/
0
2
.
2
34
8
/
0
3
.
3

3
5
9
/
0
2
.
1

0
0
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
4
/
0
0
.
8

0
7
9
/
0
1
.
6

0
5
9
/
0
1
.
4

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
2
9
/
0
3
.
2
19
4
/
0
2
.
5

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
7
/
0
4
.
8

1
8
8
/
0
5
.
5

1
8
9
/
0
5
.
8

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
3

1
8
5
/
0
6
.
0
02
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
0
2
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
3
/
0
2
.
1

0
4
7
/
0
2
.
9

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
3
6
/
0
2
.
9

3
5
8
/
0
3
.
0
34
3
/
0
3
.
9

0
0
5
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
2

1
0
5
/
0
2
.
4

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
7
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
2
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
9
/
0
1
.
8
26
9
/
0
1
.
5

2
9
5
/
0
2
.
2

3
4
9
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
2
35
1
/
0
1
.
4

2
8
3
/
0
1
.
3

2
9
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
3

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
6

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
9
26
0
/
0
1
.
7

3
0
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
3
1
/
0
2
.
3

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
0

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
3

0
8
6
/
0
1
.
5

1
3
9
/
0
0
.
6

1
1
9
/
0
0
.
5
25
7
/
0
3
.
9

3
4
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
9
3
/
0
3
.
2

1
0
0
/
0
3
.
4

1
4
3
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
3
/
0
4
.
7

0
6
1
/
0
5
.
5

0
5
4
/
0
4
.
9
6
3
2
6
/
0
3
.
7

3
4
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
2
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
0
0
7
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
3
.2
5
3
2
8
/
0
7
.
7

0
0
2
/
0
5
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
6
.
3

0
3
4
/
0
5
.
1
3
3
1
/
0
7
.
9

3
2
5
/
1
3
.
7

3
2
3
/
1
3
.
7

3
2
1
/
1
2
.1
1
2
9
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
9
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
0
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
4
4
/
0
0
.
8
1
7
5
/
0
0
.
6

3
4
0
/
0
0
.
6

1
3
9
/
0
0
.
6

1
1
9
/
0
0
.5
NS

=

6
9
6

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

6
9
6

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
4
23
8
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
2
/
0
2
.
3

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
4

2
2
0
/
0
0
.
9

2
0
3
/
0
2
.
3

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
7

1
8
6
/
0
3
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
4
.
2
10
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
2
0
/
0
0
.
5

2
8
1
/
0
0
.
8

0
3
0
/
0
0
.
8

1
1
7
/
0
1
.
2

1
2
5
/
0
0
.
7

1
8
9
/
0
3
.
2

1
9
8
/
0
6
.
0
02
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
8

1
0
1
/
0
2
.
2

1
2
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
8
/
0
0
.
5

2
5
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
0
/
0
2
.
7
02
7
/
0
2
.
4

1
1
0
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
7

0
3
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
4

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
0
/
0
2
.
0
21
4
/
0
4
.
3

2
3
7
/
0
2
.
0

2
1
7
/
0
2
.
1

1
8
7
/
0
4
.
7

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
7

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
1

1
8
5
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
5
/
1
1
.
0
00
7
/
0
2
.
3

0
3
7
/
0
1
.
4

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
2

0
4
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
0
3
/
0
3
.
6

3
4
0
/
0
3
.
2
17
6
/
0
1
.
6

2
1
1
/
0
3
.
0

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
4

1
9
9
/
0
4
.
1

2
6
3
/
0
0
.
7

0
5
1
/
0
0
.
7

3
0
8
/
0
0
.
7

2
5
6
/
0
2
.
2
05
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
5
/
0
3
.
5

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
0
/
0
1
.
6

2
2
1
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
3
/
0
1
.
1
29
9
/
0
1
.
0

0
7
2
/
0
1
.
5

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
5
/
0
1
.
9

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
6
/
0
2
.
0

2
5
9
/
0
2
.
6

2
1
2
/
0
2
.
6
10
8
/
0
1
.
3

1
7
5
/
0
1
.
0

0
3
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
1
/
0
2
.
5

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
6
/
0
1
.
5

3
5
3
/
0
2
.
9

3
1
0
/
0
4
.
0
04
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
6
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
6
/
0
5
.
6

0
6
8
/
0
5
.
2

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
5

3
5
5
/
0
1
.
8

2
6
5
/
0
1
.
7
18
6
/
0
6
.
9

1
8
3
/
0
8
.
5

1
7
7
/
0
9
.
7

1
7
6
/
0
9
.
5

1
7
7
/
1
0
.
3

1
8
5
/
1
1
.
0

1
8
3
/
1
2
.
8

1
8
4
/
1
2
.
9
18
3
/
0
9
.
1

1
7
7
/
0
7
.
0

1
7
6
/
0
7
.
3

1
7
9
/
0
6
.
7

1
8
2
/
0
9
.
6

1
8
2
/
1
1
.
3

1
8
1
/
1
2
.
8

1
8
8
/
1
2
.
0
20
8
/
0
4
.
5

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
8

2
2
3
/
0
2
.
7

3
0
4
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
0
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
4
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
0
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
6
/
0
5
.
2
10
1
/
0
2
.
5

1
6
8
/
0
0
.
6

3
5
5
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
8

2
0
3
/
0
1
.
7

2
0
2
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
8
/
0
6
.
9

1
9
5
/
0
7
.
1
19
6
/
0
5
.
5

2
1
8
/
0
4
.
6

2
5
5
/
0
4
.
7

1
1
7
/
0
3
.
2

1
9
5
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
1
/
0
2
.
9

1
8
5
/
0
2
.
7

2
3
9
/
0
1
.
3
15
0
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
7
/
0
0
.
5

0
5
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
9
3
/
0
1
.
2

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
6

2
1
0
/
0
2
.
2

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
0

2
2
5
/
0
3
.
3
20
1
/
0
2
.
3

1
4
5
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
6

0
3
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
3

1
8
3
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
5
/
0
3
.
1
01
9
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
6
/
0
1
.
5

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
0

1
0
3
/
0
1
.
2

1
6
2
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
6
/
0
1
.
2

2
3
0
/
0
2
.
4

2
2
0
/
0
3
.
0
31
7
/
0
1
.
0

2
9
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
8
/
0
3
.
1

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
7

1
5
4
/
0
1
.
7

2
1
1
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
9

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
7
04
2
/
0
1
.
2

2
4
4
/
0
0
.
3

1
6
5
/
0
1
.
8

1
7
7
/
0
3
.
0

2
0
2
/
0
2
.
5

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
8
/
0
5
.
1

2
0
7
/
0
5
.
1
19
4
/
0
4
.
9

1
9
4
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
8
/
0
4
.
1

2
0
2
/
0
3
.
1

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
9
/
0
3
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
1

1
8
2
/
0
8
.
0
34
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
0

1
5
3
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
5
/
0
1
.
9

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
0

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
6
/
0
2
.
9

2
8
6
/
0
2
.
6
04
8
/
0
1
.
8

3
2
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
8
6
/
0
1
.
3

0
9
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
9
/
0
0
.
9

0
0
9
/
0
0
.
6

0
8
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
2
4
/
0
3
.
8
07
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
5

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
3

2
9
4
/
0
1
.
1

2
9
7
/
0
1
.
9

3
0
0
/
0
4
.
2
22
3
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
9
/
0
2
.
6

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
1

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
6

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
8

1
9
9
/
0
3
.
2

2
1
5
/
0
4
.
1

2
2
8
/
0
2
.
5
14
6
/
0
1
.
9

1
6
5
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
8
2
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
4
/
0
1
.
5

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
6

2
3
3
/
0
2
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
3
.
0
18
3
/
0
3
.
8

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
7

1
8
6
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
6
/
0
3
.
2

2
1
0
/
0
4
.
0

2
1
3
/
0
4
.
6

2
0
6
/
0
4
.
9
18
1
/
0
5
.
3

1
8
1
/
0
5
.
2

1
8
1
/
0
5
.
2

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
7
/
0
5
.
6

1
9
9
/
0
6
.
8

2
0
1
/
0
7
.
1

2
0
7
/
0
8
.
2
1
1
2
1
/
0
3
.
0

1
4
1
/
0
2
.
7

1
1
7
/
0
3
.
1

1
3
6
/
0
2
.
9
1
5
8
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
4
/
0
3
.
0

2
1
1
/
0
4
.
0

2
2
0
/
0
4
.6
4
1
8
3
/
0
9
.
1

1
8
3
/
0
8
.
5

1
7
7
/
0
9
.
7

1
7
6
/
0
9
.
5
1
7
7
/
1
0
.
3

1
8
2
/
1
1
.
3

1
8
3
/
1
2
.
8

1
8
4
/
1
2
.9
6
3
1
7
/
0
1
.
0

2
4
4
/
0
0
.
3

2
8
1
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
1
/
0
0
.
7
1
6
2
/
0
0
.
7

1
7
8
/
0
0
.
5

3
0
8
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
3
/
0
1
.1
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

7
06
9
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
8

1
1
5
/
0
3
.
9

1
1
4
/
0
3
.
2

1
0
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
1

1
1
4
/
0
2
.
7

0
9
4
/
0
0
.
9
19
4
/
0
1
.
9

1
7
1
/
0
2
.
1

1
6
8
/
0
2
.
0

1
1
6
/
0
1
.
7

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
5

1
2
4
/
0
1
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
2
.
0
20
5
/
0
3
.
2

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
9

3
2
6
/
0
0
.
8

3
1
9
/
0
1
.
9

3
0
4
/
0
2
.
4

1
5
3
/
0
1
.
3
18
7
/
0
8
.
6

1
8
6
/
0
6
.
1

1
7
1
/
0
4
.
1

1
6
8
/
0
5
.
5

1
7
3
/
0
5
.
5

1
7
5
/
0
5
.
3

1
7
1
/
0
7
.
3

1
7
6
/
0
6
.
4
19
2
/
1
0
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
8
.
6

1
9
9
/
0
7
.
2

2
0
0
/
0
7
.
4

2
1
2
/
0
8
.
8

2
1
3
/
0
7
.
4

2
3
2
/
0
6
.
6

2
4
1
/
0
3
.
3
29
7
/
0
2
.
7

0
3
7
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
7
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
9
/
0
4
.
3
31
0
/
0
5
.
2

3
3
6
/
0
4
.
6

0
2
0
/
0
3
.
0

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
8

0
5
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
9
33
3
/
0
1
.
8

3
6
0
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
7
/
0
4
.
4

0
8
3
/
0
4
.
9

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
4
.
3

1
0
0
/
0
3
.
1
30
3
/
0
3
.
8

3
0
8
/
0
1
.
9

2
2
0
/
0
1
.
0

1
3
2
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
5
/
0
1
.
1

3
0
8
/
0
0
.
8

0
0
6
/
0
2
.
0

1
4
4
/
0
2
.
7
34
5
/
0
3
.
9

3
5
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
3
1
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
5
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
9
/
0
4
.
2
18
9
/
0
9
.
4

1
8
7
/
1
0
.
1

1
8
0
/
0
7
.
3

1
7
6
/
0
5
.
3

1
4
4
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
3

1
8
7
/
0
7
.
5
19
0
/
1
3
.
0

1
9
4
/
1
2
.
3

1
8
4
/
1
0
.
1

1
7
7
/
0
8
.
7

1
8
0
/
0
9
.
0

1
7
5
/
0
7
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
9
.
1

1
7
9
/
1
0
.
0
18
9
/
0
9
.
8

1
8
5
/
0
9
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
7
.
5

1
8
6
/
0
6
.
6

1
8
0
/
0
5
.
4

1
8
0
/
0
5
.
4

1
8
3
/
0
5
.
5

1
9
7
/
0
4
.
8
14
8
/
0
3
.
2

1
5
4
/
0
5
.
6

1
5
5
/
0
3
.
8

1
4
7
/
0
2
.
4

1
3
9
/
0
1
.
7

1
3
4
/
0
0
.
8

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
8

1
1
2
/
0
4
.
0
19
9
/
1
0
.
0

2
0
4
/
0
9
.
2

2
0
8
/
0
8
.
0

2
1
3
/
0
6
.
4

1
8
5
/
0
5
.
5

1
6
7
/
0
3
.
5

1
8
5
/
0
6
.
0

1
9
7
/
0
6
.
8
05
2
/
0
2
.
8

0
3
6
/
0
4
.
1

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
7

0
0
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
0
/
0
1
.
1

2
9
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
5
02
2
/
0
1
.
4

0
0
3
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
5

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
4

1
7
3
/
0
5
.
8
10
4
/
0
3
.
5

1
2
8
/
0
3
.
5

1
2
2
/
0
1
.
8

1
3
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
7
9
/
0
4
.
4

1
4
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
1
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
1
.
9
09
8
/
0
4
.
5

0
6
1
/
0
5
.
7

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
4

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
1

0
3
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
2
/
0
1
.
2
30
4
/
0
2
.
7

3
3
6
/
0
1
.
7

0
1
2
/
0
1
.
1

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
6

0
9
5
/
0
2
.
9

0
9
9
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
9

0
5
3
/
0
3
.
2
23
2
/
0
5
.
4

2
1
6
/
0
7
.
0

1
8
4
/
0
7
.
9

1
8
4
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
4
/
0
6
.
1

1
7
8
/
0
7
.
3

1
8
0
/
0
4
.
9

1
8
9
/
0
5
.
9
31
2
/
0
4
.
3

3
0
5
/
0
4
.
0

3
3
2
/
0
2
.
0

0
2
6
/
0
3
.
9

3
5
8
/
0
4
.
9

0
0
5
/
0
6
.
5

0
3
9
/
0
3
.
0

1
0
1
/
0
2
.
8
05
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
9
/
0
5
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
4
.
8

0
6
3
/
0
4
.
2

0
9
9
/
0
4
.
1

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
3
5
/
0
5
.
0
34
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
0
2
/
0
2
.
7

3
3
9
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
7
30
0
/
0
4
.
8

3
0
0
/
0
4
.
7

2
7
8
/
0
3
.
4

2
7
6
/
0
1
.
6

2
7
9
/
0
2
.
1

3
4
7
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
5
17
5
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
1
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
2
/
0
1
.
7

1
1
9
/
0
1
.
5

1
1
4
/
0
2
.
3

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
9
/
0
2
.
6

1
0
0
/
0
2
.
5
09
8
/
0
3
.
7

0
9
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
3
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
7
/
0
0
.
7

3
4
9
/
0
0
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
1
.
7

2
4
3
/
0
2
.
8
18
8
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
7
/
0
5
.
0

1
9
6
/
0
5
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
6

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
2

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
9

1
8
7
/
0
5
.
7

1
9
3
/
0
5
.
8
22
9
/
0
8
.
1

2
3
2
/
0
6
.
3

2
5
3
/
0
5
.
7

2
6
8
/
0
5
.
0

2
5
9
/
0
2
.
6

2
8
5
/
0
4
.
8

0
5
9
/
0
4
.
9

0
5
3
/
0
3
.
8
9
2
3
6
/
0
5
.
0

2
3
2
/
0
4
.
9

1
1
5
/
0
4
.
0

1
1
1
/
0
3
.
7
1
1
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
9
5
/
0
3
.
5

0
9
3
/
0
3
.
6

1
1
2
/
0
3
.7
7
1
9
0
/
1
3
.
0

1
9
4
/
1
2
.
3

1
8
4
/
1
0
.
1

1
7
7
/
0
8
.
7
1
8
0
/
0
9
.
0

1
7
5
/
0
7
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
9
.
1

1
7
9
/
1
0
.0
2
0
2
2
/
0
1
.
4

1
8
1
/
0
1
.
5

2
2
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
9
0
/
0
1
.
3
0
5
7
/
0
0
.
7

3
4
9
/
0
0
.
6

0
1
8
/
0
1
.
2

3
2
7
/
0
0
.8
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
6
10
2
/
0
1
.
9

1
7
4
/
0
1
.
5

1
6
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
0
9
/
0
0
.
7

3
2
4
/
0
0
.
7

2
3
8
/
0
0
.
6

2
4
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
3
9
/
0
2
.
1
05
3
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
6
/
0
1
.
0

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
0
7
/
0
0
.
8

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
2

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
0

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
2
07
2
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
9
/
0
5
.
5

0
6
4
/
0
4
.
8

0
6
9
/
0
5
.
2

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
1

2
0
7
/
0
5
.
9
19
0
/
0
6
.
7

1
8
9
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
8
/
0
8
.
0

1
8
6
/
0
7
.
4

1
8
6
/
0
7
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
8
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
7
.
0

2
1
5
/
0
5
.
6
17
5
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
2
/
0
1
.
7

1
4
9
/
0
1
.
6

3
4
1
/
0
2
.
2

3
1
9
/
0
1
.
8

1
4
8
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
9
/
0
6
.
0
06
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
9
/
0
1
.
9

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
8

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
7
06
3
/
0
3
.
2

1
3
1
/
0
3
.
3

1
8
3
/
0
5
.
4

1
7
8
/
0
6
.
7

1
8
1
/
0
6
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
2

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
5
10
5
/
0
1
.
5

2
1
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
1
/
0
1
.
8

3
4
4
/
0
2
.
6

0
1
4
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
2
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
2
/
0
1
.
4

2
6
9
/
0
1
.
5
16
9
/
0
0
.
7

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
7
/
0
4
.
3

2
1
0
/
0
3
.
5

2
0
2
/
0
4
.
2

2
0
2
/
0
4
.
7

2
2
7
/
0
3
.
1
31
0
/
0
5
.
9

3
3
5
/
0
6
.
5

0
0
3
/
0
3
.
0

1
7
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
0
1
/
0
3
.
3

3
2
6
/
0
6
.
7

3
2
8
/
0
6
.
6

3
3
0
/
0
5
.
3
14
0
/
0
1
.
2

2
0
0
/
0
0
.
6

3
5
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
3

0
5
6
/
0
5
.
6

0
3
1
/
0
5
.
8

0
1
2
/
0
5
.
2

3
5
6
/
0
7
.
5
19
4
/
0
1
.
0

1
8
5
/
0
1
.
5

1
8
7
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
2
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
4
/
0
4
.
8

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
6

2
0
2
/
0
4
.
0

2
3
4
/
0
3
.
3
18
0
/
0
5
.
5

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
7
/
0
4
.
1

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
3
/
0
4
.
2

2
0
2
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
1
14
2
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
0
/
0
2
.
5

0
3
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
8
/
0
5
.
5

0
5
0
/
0
6
.
0

0
5
5
/
0
4
.
9

0
6
1
/
0
4
.
1
06
4
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
7

1
4
2
/
0
2
.
7

3
4
9
/
0
1
.
0

3
3
5
/
0
0
.
3

0
4
1
/
0
1
.
5

2
3
5
/
0
1
.
3

2
2
1
/
0
1
.
6
18
1
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
7
/
0
1
.
7

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
7

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
4

3
4
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
1
3
/
0
2
.
4

2
0
1
/
0
3
.
9
19
2
/
0
5
.
6

1
9
5
/
0
4
.
9

1
9
6
/
0
5
.
5

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
5

2
0
0
/
0
3
.
8

2
2
1
/
0
5
.
1

3
2
8
/
0
5
.
4

2
9
6
/
0
4
.
2
00
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
6

0
0
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
4
/
0
1
.
1

2
5
5
/
0
0
.
6

2
2
0
/
0
1
.
3

2
2
7
/
0
1
.
1

2
5
0
/
0
1
.
4
07
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
8

3
4
4
/
0
2
.
1

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
5
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
0
4
/
0
1
.
3

3
5
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
1
3
/
0
4
.
4
08
5
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
9
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
0

3
3
9
/
0
0
.
9

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
3

3
2
9
/
0
5
.
8

3
1
9
/
0
5
.
5

3
2
0
/
0
5
.
0
03
6
/
0
2
.
6

3
5
5
/
0
2
.
2

0
4
0
/
0
1
.
8

3
0
4
/
0
4
.
4

1
9
0
/
0
3
.
8

1
7
6
/
0
2
.
7

2
2
0
/
0
1
.
8

3
1
2
/
0
2
.
6
01
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
6

1
4
7
/
0
1
.
5

2
7
8
/
0
1
.
5

2
3
1
/
0
1
.
4

-
-
-
05
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
1

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
7

3
5
5
/
0
1
.
5

2
2
9
/
0
1
.
8

2
0
2
/
0
2
.
7
05
5
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
0
/
0
2
.
1

1
4
2
/
0
1
.
7

2
6
0
/
0
3
.
1

2
7
9
/
0
1
.
3

3
0
0
/
0
3
.
2

0
0
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
4
31
8
/
0
0
.
9

0
5
5
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
9
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
5

2
4
1
/
0
1
.
5

2
1
7
/
0
2
.
2

2
2
6
/
0
2
.
2

2
7
6
/
0
2
.
6
05
2
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
4

3
5
2
/
0
1
.
4

3
0
8
/
0
1
.
6

3
2
7
/
0
2
.
9

3
3
3
/
0
3
.
1
34
8
/
0
2
.
2

1
0
1
/
0
2
.
0

1
7
6
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
8

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
4
3
/
0
1
.
2

2
7
0
/
0
1
.
6
24
2
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
1
/
0
3
.
4

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
7

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
1

0
1
6
/
0
3
.
7

3
5
6
/
0
6
.
6

3
5
7
/
0
6
.
1

0
3
4
/
0
5
.
5
9
0
8
0
/
0
2
.
7

1
0
5
/
0
2
.
9

1
1
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
3
/
0
2
.
7
0
0
4
/
0
2
.
8

2
5
3
/
0
3
.
3

2
5
0
/
0
3
.
3

2
6
8
/
0
3
.6
0
1
9
0
/
0
6
.
7

1
8
9
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
8
/
0
8
.
0

1
8
6
/
0
7
.
4
1
8
6
/
0
7
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
8
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
7
.
0

3
5
6
/
0
7
.5
4
1
6
9
/
0
0
.
7

2
0
0
/
0
0
.
6

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
0

0
0
9
/
0
0
.
7
3
3
5
/
0
0
.
3

2
3
8
/
0
0
.
6

2
4
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
5
0
/
0
1
.4
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

1
12
3
/
0
1
.
5

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
8
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
4
.
1

0
8
4
/
0
4
.
0
18
4
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
8
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
0
/
0
4
.
2

1
7
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
1
/
0
3
.
0

3
4
8
/
0
2
.
3

3
0
3
/
0
2
.
4

3
4
7
/
0
3
.
4
20
3
/
1
0
.
2

2
9
5
/
0
5
.
4

3
3
3
/
0
2
.
3

1
5
4
/
0
1
.
5

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
3

1
8
7
/
0
7
.
3

1
8
5
/
0
7
.
9

1
9
1
/
0
7
.
0
30
9
/
0
2
.
2

3
1
1
/
0
3
.
3

3
0
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
3
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
1

1
1
0
/
0
2
.
8

2
1
2
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
0
22
8
/
0
3
.
1

2
5
7
/
0
3
.
2

2
8
8
/
0
3
.
2

2
9
4
/
0
1
.
6

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
6
/
0
0
.
7

0
9
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
3
/
0
1
.
3
03
4
/
0
7
.
8

0
4
2
/
0
8
.
0

0
4
3
/
0
6
.
7

0
4
9
/
0
4
.
4

0
6
8
/
0
5
.
5

0
6
1
/
0
6
.
4

0
7
4
/
0
6
.
8

0
5
9
/
0
6
.
3
19
2
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
6
/
0
2
.
8

1
6
8
/
0
2
.
5

1
8
4
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
3
/
0
1
.
1

1
6
9
/
0
2
.
6

1
3
0
/
0
1
.
5
20
6
/
0
2
.
6

2
3
7
/
0
2
.
8

2
5
3
/
0
2
.
4

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
0

1
4
3
/
0
2
.
3

1
9
4
/
0
0
.
8

2
4
3
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
1
/
0
0
.
7
32
0
/
0
6
.
5

2
7
7
/
0
4
.
6

3
1
5
/
0
4
.
0

3
3
5
/
0
4
.
8

3
3
7
/
0
8
.
0

3
3
8
/
0
7
.
4

3
3
3
/
0
8
.
9

3
2
5
/
0
7
.
6
34
1
/
0
3
.
5

0
1
8
/
0
4
.
8

0
5
8
/
0
4
.
5

0
6
5
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
3

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
9

0
5
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
7
/
0
1
.
7
01
0
/
0
5
.
3

0
1
3
/
0
5
.
3

0
4
4
/
0
5
.
6

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
7

0
3
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
2

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
4
21
9
/
0
3
.
5

2
2
9
/
0
3
.
4

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
3

1
7
8
/
0
4
.
0

1
7
9
/
0
5
.
0

1
7
8
/
0
5
.
3

1
8
4
/
0
5
.
2

1
8
1
/
0
4
.
5
34
0
/
0
4
.
8

0
3
0
/
0
4
.
9

3
4
2
/
0
8
.
0

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
9

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
1

3
5
1
/
0
3
.
7

0
0
8
/
0
2
.
5

1
3
9
/
0
2
.
2
02
2
/
0
4
.
6

0
1
9
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
1
/
0
5
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
4
31
0
/
0
2
.
4

3
2
0
/
0
3
.
0

3
2
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
3
4
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
5
30
4
/
0
2
.
7

1
3
7
/
0
1
.
1

0
0
3
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
9
/
0
2
.
2

1
7
2
/
0
2
.
5

1
8
2
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
5
/
0
6
.
7

1
8
2
/
0
6
.
1
30
7
/
0
4
.
4

3
0
0
/
0
6
.
6

2
9
8
/
0
3
.
9

3
4
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
8
7
/
0
1
.
7

1
6
0
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
0
/
0
2
.
5

1
5
6
/
0
1
.
8
33
7
/
0
3
.
5

3
0
7
/
0
4
.
6

0
0
1
/
0
4
.
3

0
5
6
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
4

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
5
30
1
/
0
5
.
8

3
0
3
/
0
7
.
1

3
1
0
/
0
7
.
8

3
1
2
/
0
8
.
5

3
2
2
/
0
7
.
9

3
3
5
/
0
6
.
7

0
1
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
2
25
7
/
0
2
.
8

2
6
1
/
0
2
.
2

3
0
1
/
0
2
.
7

2
6
6
/
0
4
.
1

2
7
9
/
0
1
.
9

2
1
0
/
0
1
.
9

2
2
4
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
6
32
8
/
0
7
.
3

3
4
7
/
0
8
.
9

3
4
3
/
0
9
.
9

3
4
3
/
0
8
.
6

0
1
0
/
0
5
.
2

3
5
7
/
0
5
.
1

3
6
0
/
0
6
.
7

0
0
3
/
0
4
.
4
09
7
/
0
2
.
0

3
2
6
/
0
1
.
8

3
3
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
8
1
/
0
1
.
0

1
1
6
/
0
1
.
8

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
2
0
/
0
1
.
7
15
2
/
0
3
.
0

1
3
5
/
0
2
.
0

1
7
1
/
0
2
.
8

1
1
2
/
0
2
.
5

1
1
1
/
0
3
.
4

1
7
4
/
0
2
.
0

1
9
5
/
0
1
.
5

1
1
9
/
0
2
.
3
03
5
/
0
3
.
1

3
4
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
5
/
0
3
.
5

1
0
2
/
0
3
.
2

1
0
4
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
0
/
0
4
.
2
35
9
/
0
2
.
9

0
2
3
/
0
5
.
0

0
4
1
/
0
6
.
5

0
5
0
/
0
5
.
3

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
4
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
2
/
0
4
.
0

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
0
36
0
/
0
3
.
5

3
4
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
1

1
0
1
/
0
4
.
1

0
9
6
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
4

0
3
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
3
18
2
/
0
2
.
2

1
4
7
/
0
1
.
1

1
1
5
/
0
2
.
6

1
2
8
/
0
2
.
7

1
6
1
/
0
5
.
0

0
1
6
/
0
6
.
0

0
7
4
/
0
5
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
4
.
9
18
9
/
0
3
.
6

1
7
9
/
0
5
.
4

1
8
7
/
0
2
.
6

1
7
9
/
0
2
.
7

1
8
9
/
0
2
.
3

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
4

0
4
9
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
3
/
0
5
.
3
2
3
0
9
/
0
4
.
2

3
1
3
/
0
4
.
3

3
5
7
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
6
0
8
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
9
/
0
3
.5
5
3
4
8
/
1
0
.
5

3
6
0
/
1
0
.
7

3
4
3
/
0
9
.
9

3
4
3
/
0
8
.
6
3
3
7
/
0
8
.
0

3
3
8
/
0
7
.
4

3
3
3
/
0
8
.
9

3
2
5
/
0
7
.6
9
1
2
3
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
7
/
0
1
.
1

0
0
3
/
0
0
.
9

3
4
0
/
0
1
.
0
0
6
0
/
0
1
.
3

0
9
6
/
0
0
.
7

2
4
3
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
1
/
0
0
.7
NS

=

7
2
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
1
6

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

9
9.
4
%
9
05
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
9
3
/
0
1
.
8

3
0
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
4
9
/
0
2
.
8

3
0
8
/
0
5
.
3

3
2
8
/
0
8
.
6

3
3
8
/
0
8
.
5
04
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
4
9
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
9
/
0
2
.
1

1
4
9
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
6
/
0
0
.
8

2
7
7
/
0
1
.
1

3
3
5
/
0
2
.
4

3
0
7
/
0
2
.
9
10
6
/
0
0
.
7

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
8

1
1
7
/
0
1
.
9

2
0
5
/
0
1
.
3

2
7
5
/
0
0
.
9

2
6
2
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
6
09
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
2
7
/
0
1
.
5

1
7
4
/
0
0
.
7

0
9
7
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
5
/
0
1
.
5

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
3

2
1
8
/
0
2
.
8

2
5
8
/
0
3
.
5
01
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
0

0
9
7
/
0
0
.
8

2
6
6
/
0
1
.
4

2
9
8
/
0
1
.
3

3
3
8
/
0
3
.
2

3
1
6
/
0
4
.
4
14
5
/
0
2
.
5

1
2
1
/
0
2
.
4

1
3
1
/
0
0
.
8

2
6
5
/
0
0
.
6

2
1
0
/
0
0
.
9

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
4

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
6
06
0
/
0
4
.
5

0
8
7
/
0
4
.
6

0
6
5
/
0
5
.
7

0
7
3
/
0
5
.
3

0
4
8
/
0
5
.
7

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
6

0
1
9
/
0
2
.
1

1
8
1
/
0
2
.
8
10
0
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
4

1
8
1
/
0
1
.
6

2
7
4
/
0
0
.
9

2
4
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
8
/
0
1
.
5
18
9
/
0
7
.
0

1
9
2
/
0
6
.
9

1
8
6
/
0
8
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
4
.
9

1
9
1
/
0
7
.
0

1
9
5
/
0
7
.
6

1
9
5
/
0
8
.
0

2
0
4
/
0
8
.
2
21
0
/
0
2
.
9

2
8
3
/
0
3
.
3

3
3
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
2
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
0
9
/
0
2
.
8

3
4
2
/
0
5
.
1

3
3
1
/
0
5
.
5

3
2
6
/
0
5
.
5
05
7
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
3
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
3
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
1
1
/
0
2
.
3

3
5
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
2
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
8
03
7
/
0
2
.
0

0
3
7
/
0
2
.
5

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
1

0
4
0
/
0
6
.
0

0
4
8
/
0
5
.
2

0
4
5
/
0
5
.
1

0
3
1
/
0
3
.
9

3
5
9
/
0
2
.
9
06
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
9

0
5
2
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
2
6
/
0
4
.
2

0
1
8
/
0
2
.
5

3
5
3
/
0
3
.
4
05
5
/
0
4
.
5

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
1
/
0
3
.
7

0
3
3
/
0
3
.
8

0
2
7
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
4
/
0
1
.
8

3
3
7
/
0
1
.
7
09
0
/
0
4
.
3

0
9
2
/
0
3
.
3

1
3
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
7
6
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
0
/
0
0
.
7

1
0
4
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
6
/
0
7
.
9

1
9
3
/
0
8
.
7
18
2
/
0
8
.
2

1
7
4
/
0
6
.
7

1
8
4
/
0
6
.
4

1
7
5
/
0
7
.
3

1
7
7
/
1
0
.
2

1
8
2
/
1
1
.
9

1
8
1
/
1
3
.
0

1
8
6
/
1
2
.
1
06
2
/
0
6
.
1

0
5
7
/
0
5
.
9

0
6
6
/
0
5
.
1

1
1
8
/
0
2
.
9

1
1
0
/
0
6
.
3

2
3
9
/
0
5
.
2

2
6
0
/
0
2
.
9

2
3
6
/
0
2
.
9
19
3
/
0
4
.
1

1
7
9
/
0
3
.
8

1
7
9
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
4

2
2
4
/
0
4
.
5

2
3
3
/
0
5
.
1

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
4

2
3
1
/
0
4
.
5
12
2
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
7
/
0
0
.
7

1
5
9
/
0
0
.
9

2
9
9
/
0
0
.
7

2
8
5
/
0
0
.
9

2
1
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
1
0
/
0
2
.
7

2
1
7
/
0
3
.
1
07
1
/
0
5
.
8

0
7
7
/
0
5
.
0

0
7
0
/
0
4
.
1

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
9

1
5
7
/
0
3
.
1

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
8

1
8
3
/
0
3
.
5
19
9
/
0
2
.
8

1
9
8
/
0
2
.
4

1
8
2
/
0
2
.
7

1
8
4
/
0
3
.
2

2
2
0
/
0
3
.
1

2
3
7
/
0
2
.
7

2
7
1
/
0
3
.
6

3
1
7
/
0
4
.
3
04
8
/
0
2
.
2

1
4
9
/
0
1
.
6

3
5
6
/
0
0
.
6

1
2
9
/
0
0
.
9

2
4
6
/
0
1
.
1

2
9
6
/
0
2
.
1

2
9
2
/
0
2
.
6

3
3
9
/
0
1
.
8
06
8
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
2
/
0
2
.
0

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
1
0
/
0
1
.
1

3
0
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
9
3
/
0
1
.
5

3
1
6
/
0
2
.
0

3
4
6
/
0
2
.
1
25
1
/
0
0
.
5

0
5
3
/
0
1
.
4

3
5
4
/
0
1
.
4

3
5
6
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
6
/
0
1
.
1

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
5

2
1
4
/
0
3
.
3
06
8
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
4
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
4
9
/
0
4
.
3

0
5
0
/
0
5
.
5

0
2
2
/
0
3
.
2

3
5
1
/
0
3
.
1
06
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
1

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
4

2
1
4
/
0
1
.
6
12
3
/
0
3
.
6

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
5

0
2
9
/
0
1
.
4

1
7
7
/
0
1
.
0

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
2

2
2
3
/
0
1
.
4

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
0
19
0
/
0
4
.
5

1
8
3
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
9
8
/
0
0
.
8

1
7
3
/
0
6
.
9

1
8
4
/
0
6
.
9

1
9
3
/
0
8
.
2

1
9
3
/
0
8
.
6
23
6
/
0
4
.
8

2
1
8
/
0
2
.
5

1
5
4
/
0
1
.
3

2
8
1
/
0
1
.
4

3
6
0
/
0
5
.
1

0
2
2
/
0
3
.
2

3
0
4
/
0
1
.
7

3
4
0
/
0
2
.
3
5
0
9
0
/
0
3
.
5

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
6
1
0
1
/
0
3
.
3

2
5
3
/
0
3
.
7

2
7
1
/
0
4
.
0

2
5
9
/
0
4
.2
6
1
8
2
/
0
8
.
2

1
9
2
/
0
6
.
9

1
8
6
/
0
8
.
7

1
7
5
/
0
7
.
3
1
7
7
/
1
0
.
2

1
8
2
/
1
1
.
9

1
8
1
/
1
3
.
0

1
8
6
/
1
2
.1
7
2
5
1
/
0
0
.
5

1
4
7
/
0
0
.
7

3
5
6
/
0
0
.
6

2
6
5
/
0
0
.
6
1
6
0
/
0
0
.
7

2
4
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
6
2
/
0
1
.
2

2
3
8
/
0
1
.5
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

4
01
2
/
0
5
.
4

3
4
2
/
0
6
.
8

3
4
5
/
0
6
.
0

3
4
3
/
0
5
.
0

3
3
3
/
0
8
.
7

3
3
3
/
0
6
.
7

3
2
2
/
0
6
.
9

0
0
7
/
0
3
.
2
29
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
0
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
2
/
0
2
.
9

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
1

1
0
0
/
0
2
.
7

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
8
3
/
0
1
.
5

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
5
35
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
8
9
/
0
5
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
0

0
5
6
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
8
/
0
5
.
6

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
2
32
6
/
1
0
.
3

3
4
1
/
1
1
.
3

0
0
1
/
0
9
.
9

0
1
3
/
0
8
.
8

0
3
7
/
0
6
.
4

0
3
6
/
0
6
.
1

0
3
7
/
0
6
.
6

0
3
5
/
0
5
.
2
05
1
/
0
6
.
0

0
5
9
/
0
6
.
1

0
6
4
/
0
6
.
1

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
3
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
9
32
0
/
0
1
.
9

0
2
3
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
1
/
0
4
.
3

0
4
7
/
0
4
.
5

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
6
02
3
/
0
5
.
0

0
4
5
/
0
6
.
0

0
5
1
/
0
6
.
3

0
6
5
/
0
4
.
8

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
6
4
/
0
4
.
6

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
9
26
1
/
0
3
.
9

0
1
0
/
0
2
.
5

2
2
5
/
0
4
.
4

1
8
0
/
0
1
.
9

2
3
3
/
0
2
.
0

1
2
5
/
0
2
.
8

1
7
2
/
0
4
.
3

1
7
8
/
0
4
.
5
24
7
/
0
3
.
2

2
3
9
/
0
5
.
3

2
3
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
3
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
9

0
3
5
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
7
30
3
/
0
3
.
5

3
1
4
/
0
5
.
0

3
5
2
/
0
5
.
4

0
1
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
0
4
/
0
8
.
9

0
1
2
/
0
7
.
5

0
3
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
3
3
/
0
5
.
6
24
6
/
0
2
.
4

2
9
0
/
0
1
.
5

3
5
2
/
0
4
.
6

0
1
5
/
0
4
.
5

0
5
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
4
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
4
5
/
0
4
.
2
23
7
/
0
2
.
3

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
1

3
0
6
/
0
2
.
2

3
2
7
/
0
2
.
6

3
5
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
2
32
1
/
0
3
.
0

3
4
2
/
0
3
.
8

3
2
7
/
0
2
.
5

0
0
2
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
7

0
2
8
/
0
4
.
9

0
2
1
/
0
6
.
3
35
0
/
0
2
.
8

0
3
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
4
/
0
5
.
0

0
5
5
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
2

0
7
4
/
0
4
.
1
18
6
/
1
1
.
7

1
9
0
/
1
2
.
1

1
9
0
/
1
2
.
4

1
8
7
/
1
1
.
5

1
7
7
/
1
1
.
5

1
7
7
/
1
1
.
1

1
7
1
/
0
9
.
1

1
6
9
/
0
8
.
3
19
5
/
1
3
.
7

1
9
3
/
1
2
.
7

2
0
0
/
1
1
.
5

2
1
2
/
0
9
.
6

2
0
5
/
0
7
.
1

2
5
1
/
0
6
.
4

3
3
0
/
0
5
.
4

0
0
7
/
0
2
.
7
20
3
/
1
0
.
0

2
0
2
/
1
0
.
0

2
0
4
/
1
0
.
6

2
1
8
/
0
8
.
2

3
0
5
/
0
5
.
5

2
7
5
/
0
3
.
1

3
0
2
/
0
3
.
6

3
3
5
/
0
1
.
6
19
7
/
0
5
.
2

2
0
2
/
0
5
.
2

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

3
0
4
/
0
2
.
0

2
8
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
1
4
/
0
3
.
6
19
1
/
0
4
.
9

1
9
0
/
0
5
.
7

1
9
5
/
0
5
.
1

2
1
4
/
0
4
.
0

2
1
0
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
7

2
7
9
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
2
34
8
/
1
4
.
9

3
5
4
/
1
0
.
4

0
1
4
/
0
7
.
3

0
2
2
/
0
5
.
6

0
7
2
/
0
5
.
3

0
8
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
2

1
3
7
/
0
1
.
5
30
8
/
0
3
.
2

3
2
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
0
7
/
0
2
.
7

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
8
/
0
2
.
4

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
9
01
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
4
2
/
0
3
.
8

0
8
8
/
0
4
.
5

1
0
1
/
0
4
.
0

0
9
3
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
2

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
6
29
8
/
0
3
.
2

3
5
4
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
4
/
0
5
.
2

0
9
7
/
0
3
.
4

0
9
7
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
0

1
1
0
/
0
2
.
5
24
6
/
0
3
.
6

3
1
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
2
8
/
0
4
.
5

0
5
8
/
0
4
.
2

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
9

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
1

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
9
00
8
/
0
4
.
4

0
1
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
7
1
/
0
5
.
1

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
4

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
7

0
5
0
/
0
3
.
6
35
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
6
/
0
4
.
1

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
4

0
9
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
9

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
4
.
8
23
0
/
0
2
.
8

1
7
0
/
0
3
.
0

0
4
4
/
0
4
.
3

0
8
2
/
0
6
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
5
5
/
0
6
.
1

0
5
7
/
0
5
.
5

0
8
5
/
0
4
.
3
15
2
/
0
9
.
8

1
7
3
/
1
2
.
5

1
7
4
/
0
7
.
5

1
6
4
/
0
9
.
6

1
7
5
/
0
7
.
3

1
7
2
/
0
8
.
6

1
7
2
/
0
7
.
1

1
7
6
/
0
6
.
9
14
5
/
0
4
.
4

0
4
5
/
0
7
.
0

0
3
9
/
0
7
.
0

0
3
0
/
0
4
.
8

1
3
8
/
0
1
.
8

1
8
0
/
0
5
.
6

1
7
8
/
0
5
.
9

1
8
1
/
0
7
.
2
2
2
8
8
/
0
5
.
1

0
0
8
/
0
5
.
4

0
5
4
/
0
5
.
4

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
6
0
7
1
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
1

0
5
8
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
3
.9
2
3
4
8
/
1
4
.
9

1
9
3
/
1
2
.
7

1
9
0
/
1
2
.
4

1
8
7
/
1
1
.
5
1
7
7
/
1
1
.
5

1
7
7
/
1
1
.
1

1
7
1
/
0
9
.
1

1
6
9
/
0
8
.3
9
3
5
3
/
0
1
.
8

2
9
0
/
0
1
.
5

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
6
1
3
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
8
3
/
0
1
.
5

1
3
7
/
0
1
.5
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
3
35
0
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
6

2
7
2
/
0
1
.
6

2
8
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
2
7
/
0
1
.
4

2
2
4
/
0
2
.
1

2
4
9
/
0
2
.
2
18
2
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
0
/
0
3
.
3

1
8
8
/
0
4
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
5
/
0
4
.
6

2
1
0
/
0
4
.
6

2
2
6
/
0
4
.
5

2
4
3
/
0
4
.
2
13
8
/
0
2
.
6

0
1
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
4

1
5
8
/
0
0
.
4

2
4
1
/
0
1
.
4

2
3
2
/
0
2
.
7

2
2
6
/
0
5
.
3

2
0
4
/
0
7
.
2
19
1
/
0
8
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
9
.
2

1
7
7
/
1
0
.
7

1
7
9
/
0
9
.
6

1
8
4
/
1
1
.
8

1
8
4
/
1
1
.
3

2
1
5
/
0
8
.
1

2
5
2
/
0
6
.
9
14
4
/
0
2
.
6

1
7
8
/
0
3
.
4

1
7
7
/
0
4
.
3

1
8
9
/
0
3
.
9

3
0
1
/
0
5
.
2

3
5
0
/
0
6
.
2

3
1
7
/
0
5
.
4

2
9
3
/
0
4
.
4
01
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
1
3
/
0
2
.
4

0
9
4
/
0
2
.
1

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
6

3
1
8
/
0
2
.
0

3
2
6
/
0
5
.
9

3
3
1
/
0
3
.
9

2
3
7
/
0
2
.
9
32
8
/
0
0
.
7

1
8
2
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
7
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
4
/
0
4
.
4

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
7

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
9

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
5
06
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
9
1
/
0
0
.
9

0
4
9
/
0
0
.
5

2
1
6
/
0
2
.
2

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
9

1
9
9
/
0
4
.
7
04
5
/
0
1
.
7

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
0
/
0
2
.
9

0
8
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
1
8
/
0
1
.
0

3
1
7
/
0
1
.
1

2
5
7
/
0
1
.
6

2
1
5
/
0
1
.
9
19
4
/
0
4
.
5

2
5
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
2
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
3
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
8
/
0
4
.
4

1
9
1
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
9
/
0
9
.
4

1
9
0
/
0
9
.
8
18
3
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
3
/
0
9
.
0

1
8
2
/
0
9
.
7

1
9
2
/
1
0
.
1

2
4
0
/
0
7
.
5

2
8
0
/
0
6
.
8

2
8
6
/
0
4
.
0

2
8
6
/
0
4
.
7
08
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
9
9
/
0
1
.
5

2
1
7
/
0
0
.
8

2
6
5
/
0
1
.
2

3
1
0
/
0
1
.
9

2
9
5
/
0
1
.
9

3
1
3
/
0
2
.
1
05
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
3
0
/
0
1
.
8

2
3
8
/
0
1
.
3

2
1
8
/
0
2
.
2

2
3
9
/
0
2
.
1

2
3
6
/
0
2
.
7
05
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
1
/
0
4
.
1

0
5
5
/
0
4
.
8

0
5
7
/
0
7
.
7

0
5
1
/
0
7
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
7
.
6

0
7
4
/
0
6
.
0

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
1
22
4
/
0
0
.
7

2
3
0
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
6
/
0
0
.
8

3
1
6
/
0
1
.
0

3
5
3
/
0
3
.
7

3
4
7
/
0
2
.
7

2
8
9
/
0
2
.
5

2
7
4
/
0
3
.
5
05
0
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
4
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
2
/
0
3
.
4

0
3
1
/
0
4
.
8

0
3
3
/
0
4
.
7

0
3
5
/
0
4
.
5
04
7
/
0
1
.
8

1
2
5
/
0
0
.
7

0
3
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
9
6
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
9
/
0
1
.
8

3
3
2
/
0
1
.
6

3
4
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
2
4
/
0
1
.
9
01
9
/
0
1
.
7

1
3
6
/
0
1
.
4

2
8
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
4

1
9
2
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
7

2
8
0
/
0
1
.
5

2
8
2
/
0
2
.
0
02
6
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
2
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
2
/
0
1
.
1

1
7
5
/
0
1
.
5

2
2
0
/
0
3
.
3

2
6
8
/
0
3
.
8

2
7
1
/
0
2
.
9
07
5
/
0
0
.
9

0
0
3
/
0
0
.
9

3
3
4
/
0
1
.
4

3
0
7
/
0
2
.
7

0
3
6
/
0
2
.
6

3
0
5
/
0
4
.
8

2
8
8
/
0
3
.
9

2
7
6
/
0
3
.
4
06
6
/
0
2
.
3

0
5
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
8
/
0
4
.
2

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
8

3
4
9
/
0
2
.
4

3
1
4
/
0
1
.
8

2
5
6
/
0
2
.
2
08
0
/
0
3
.
8

1
0
3
/
0
3
.
0

1
1
3
/
0
2
.
5

0
2
1
/
0
1
.
6

2
0
8
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
8

2
1
0
/
0
3
.
2

2
5
7
/
0
1
.
8
01
2
/
0
5
.
5

0
3
1
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
7
/
0
1
.
5

3
4
8
/
0
2
.
1

3
2
6
/
0
1
.
0

3
1
7
/
0
3
.
3

3
2
9
/
0
5
.
5

3
3
2
/
0
5
.
3
06
5
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
7
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
3
9
/
0
1
.
9

0
4
8
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
6
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
3
4
/
0
2
.
3
17
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
1
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
0
7
/
0
1
.
0

2
1
8
/
0
3
.
1

2
2
0
/
0
4
.
7

2
1
1
/
0
4
.
1

2
0
0
/
0
3
.
9
35
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
0

3
2
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
6

1
4
1
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
9
/
0
3
.
4

2
2
4
/
0
4
.
6

2
1
1
/
0
5
.
3
12
3
/
0
3
.
0

1
5
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
7
9
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
2
/
0
2
.
8

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
8

1
9
8
/
0
5
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
5
.
8
17
3
/
0
1
.
5

1
9
1
/
0
1
.
5

1
5
8
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
9
/
0
2
.
5

1
7
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
9
9
/
0
2
.
5

2
5
3
/
0
1
.
7

2
4
2
/
0
1
.
5
4
0
7
7
/
0
2
.
9

0
9
3
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
2
/
0
2
.
8

1
0
1
/
0
2
.
7
2
1
9
/
0
3
.
3

2
4
9
/
0
4
.
1

2
6
1
/
0
4
.
0

2
5
5
/
0
3
.9
1
1
8
3
/
0
8
.
5

1
9
3
/
0
9
.
2

1
7
7
/
1
0
.
7

1
9
2
/
1
0
.
1
1
8
4
/
1
1
.
8

1
8
4
/
1
1
.
3

1
8
9
/
0
9
.
4

1
9
0
/
0
9
.8
7
2
2
4
/
0
0
.
7

1
2
5
/
0
0
.
7

1
7
6
/
0
0
.
8

1
5
8
/
0
0
.
4
0
4
9
/
0
0
.
5

3
1
7
/
0
1
.
1

2
8
0
/
0
1
.
5

2
4
2
/
0
1
.5
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

4
25
3
/
0
6
.
2

2
9
8
/
0
3
.
2

2
3
2
/
0
3
.
5

2
2
0
/
0
4
.
4

2
1
7
/
0
3
.
2

1
8
6
/
0
3
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
4

1
7
6
/
0
2
.
3
32
9
/
0
1
.
0

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
5
/
0
5
.
6

0
9
4
/
0
4
.
2

1
0
3
/
0
4
.
9

1
1
2
/
0
4
.
9

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
5
/
0
3
.
8
19
3
/
0
8
.
8

2
0
1
/
0
8
.
9

1
8
1
/
1
3
.
3

1
9
0
/
1
5
.
1

1
8
9
/
1
5
.
0

2
0
6
/
1
1
.
9

2
0
0
/
1
0
.
7

1
8
7
/
0
8
.
4
33
1
/
0
7
.
6

2
6
5
/
0
4
.
8

3
2
8
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
1
/
0
4
.
7

0
6
5
/
0
4
.
9

0
7
8
/
0
4
.
6

0
5
2
/
0
2
.
4

3
3
2
/
0
1
.
6
34
5
/
0
8
.
7

0
2
6
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
9

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
7

1
2
8
/
0
2
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
1
.
5

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
1

3
0
3
/
0
2
.
0
33
2
/
0
7
.
1

3
3
4
/
0
5
.
7

0
0
1
/
0
5
.
5

3
5
5
/
0
4
.
7

0
1
3
/
0
3
.
5

0
3
5
/
0
2
.
4

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
1
02
9
/
0
2
.
3

2
6
6
/
0
2
.
2

2
8
9
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
5
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
5

1
1
1
/
0
2
.
8

1
1
1
/
0
1
.
4

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
1
04
3
/
0
2
.
9

3
5
7
/
0
1
.
5

1
1
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
9
0
/
0
4
.
1

1
0
0
/
0
3
.
7

1
1
2
/
0
4
.
2

0
9
8
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
7
/
0
2
.
7
17
5
/
0
4
.
8

1
9
8
/
0
4
.
7

1
6
9
/
0
4
.
1

1
4
0
/
0
3
.
0

1
2
4
/
0
4
.
8

1
4
3
/
0
4
.
8

1
6
6
/
0
4
.
1

1
8
0
/
0
5
.
0
19
2
/
1
1
.
0

1
9
6
/
0
9
.
4

2
0
7
/
0
7
.
3

2
2
0
/
0
6
.
8

1
8
2
/
0
3
.
7

1
8
4
/
0
3
.
9

1
7
8
/
0
4
.
3

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
2
03
1
/
0
3
.
9

3
6
0
/
0
7
.
4

3
3
1
/
1
1
.
2

3
3
3
/
1
0
.
7

3
4
5
/
0
6
.
8

0
0
7
/
0
5
.
3

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
4
/
0
4
.
1
18
9
/
0
2
.
2

2
7
4
/
0
2
.
1

3
3
5
/
0
3
.
5

0
4
8
/
0
5
.
7

0
5
4
/
0
4
.
8

0
6
5
/
0
5
.
0

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
9

0
5
5
/
0
5
.
2
17
8
/
0
6
.
9

1
8
4
/
0
7
.
5

1
7
2
/
0
5
.
1

2
6
4
/
0
4
.
4

3
4
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
0
7
/
0
6
.
6

0
1
4
/
0
4
.
8

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
5
04
8
/
0
8
.
9

0
4
9
/
0
9
.
2

0
5
2
/
0
8
.
5

0
3
1
/
0
8
.
4

0
1
8
/
0
9
.
1

0
1
8
/
0
8
.
1

0
0
9
/
0
7
.
1

0
0
9
/
0
6
.
9
31
0
/
0
3
.
8

3
3
0
/
0
3
.
7

0
1
0
/
0
5
.
2

0
0
3
/
0
6
.
2

0
2
4
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
1
03
9
/
0
3
.
6

0
2
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
4
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
9
/
0
4
.
8

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
2
34
8
/
0
1
.
6

2
8
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
5
5
/
0
4
.
8

0
8
9
/
0
4
.
1

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
5
8
/
0
4
.
0
19
6
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
8
/
0
1
.
7

1
0
9
/
0
2
.
3

1
1
0
/
0
3
.
2

1
1
7
/
0
3
.
0

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
2

3
2
6
/
0
1
.
8
02
1
/
0
4
.
5

0
1
8
/
0
4
.
9

0
4
4
/
0
6
.
9

0
4
8
/
0
6
.
4

0
4
6
/
0
5
.
2

0
3
2
/
0
4
.
8

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
4
1
/
0
4
.
0
01
3
/
0
4
.
4

0
4
1
/
0
5
.
1

0
5
6
/
0
6
.
0

0
5
8
/
0
5
.
6

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
2
9
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
9
01
5
/
0
3
.
6

0
2
5
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
4
/
0
5
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
6

3
4
2
/
0
1
.
2
33
5
/
0
1
.
9

1
7
3
/
0
2
.
2

3
0
4
/
0
4
.
0

2
7
7
/
0
5
.
8

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
4
1
/
0
2
.
9

0
0
9
/
0
4
.
5

0
4
4
/
0
1
.
5
04
9
/
0
5
.
3

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
8

1
0
0
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
6
30
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
9
7
/
0
4
.
4

1
0
8
/
0
4
.
8

1
0
9
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
1
18
8
/
0
5
.
0

1
9
5
/
0
4
.
8

1
9
2
/
0
5
.
1

2
2
1
/
0
7
.
0

3
2
8
/
1
0
.
1

3
4
1
/
0
6
.
3

3
5
9
/
0
2
.
3

3
3
5
/
0
2
.
0
02
5
/
1
3
.
4

0
2
6
/
1
2
.
4

0
2
9
/
1
0
.
1

0
2
1
/
0
8
.
9

0
0
7
/
0
7
.
7

0
2
2
/
0
4
.
5

0
2
6
/
0
4
.
4

3
4
1
/
0
2
.
4
24
4
/
0
3
.
3

2
7
9
/
0
4
.
9

3
2
4
/
0
3
.
9

3
2
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
0
3
/
0
0
.
7

3
0
6
/
0
3
.
8

2
9
5
/
0
4
.
3

2
8
5
/
0
3
.
0
14
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
1
/
0
6
.
5

0
6
9
/
0
5
.
6

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
4
7
/
0
2
.
8
1
3
3
7
/
0
4
.
9

3
5
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
5
/
0
5
.
2

0
5
1
/
0
5
.
3
0
6
4
/
0
4
.
6

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
7
/
0
3
.3
4
0
2
5
/
1
3
.
4

0
2
6
/
1
2
.
4

1
8
1
/
1
3
.
3

1
9
0
/
1
5
.
1
1
8
9
/
1
5
.
0

2
0
6
/
1
1
.
9

2
0
0
/
1
0
.
7

1
8
7
/
0
8
.4
3
3
2
9
/
0
1
.
0

1
0
1
/
0
1
.
0

1
6
0
/
0
1
.
1

2
7
6
/
0
2
.
0
0
0
3
/
0
0
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
1
.
5

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
8
8
/
0
1
.1
NS

=

7
2
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
8
19
8
/
0
4
.
0

1
9
5
/
0
4
.
9

2
0
7
/
0
4
.
0

2
5
3
/
0
1
.
7

2
1
6
/
0
2
.
7

1
9
0
/
0
5
.
3

1
9
5
/
0
6
.
2

2
0
8
/
0
4
.
3
18
6
/
0
6
.
6

1
9
8
/
0
5
.
7

2
0
2
/
0
3
.
8

2
0
8
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
9

2
1
2
/
0
5
.
2

2
1
4
/
0
5
.
2
07
6
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
9

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
2
4
/
0
2
.
2

2
9
1
/
0
2
.
1

2
6
5
/
0
1
.
7

2
8
6
/
0
1
.
9
07
6
/
0
4
.
9

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
4

0
8
4
/
0
4
.
0

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
1

1
2
8
/
0
3
.
2

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
2
.
1

2
5
3
/
0
1
.
4
19
9
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
4

1
8
0
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
5
/
0
2
.
7

2
9
8
/
0
2
.
2

3
2
6
/
0
4
.
6

3
4
2
/
0
5
.
1

3
5
9
/
0
5
.
0
02
7
/
0
4
.
3

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
8
/
0
2
.
3

3
5
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
0
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
3
8
/
0
4
.
8

0
3
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
6
09
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
9
0
/
0
4
.
3

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
7

1
7
9
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
0
/
0
3
.
8

2
0
3
/
0
4
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
4
.
1
19
5
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
2

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
3

2
8
8
/
0
0
.
8

2
1
8
/
0
2
.
0

2
3
6
/
0
2
.
0

2
7
7
/
0
3
.
0

2
8
6
/
0
2
.
6
08
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
9
3
/
0
4
.
1

1
0
3
/
0
3
.
5

1
9
0
/
0
2
.
2

1
7
8
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
4
/
0
3
.
1

2
0
0
/
0
4
.
6

2
0
4
/
0
3
.
6
12
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
6
/
0
2
.
3

1
3
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
8
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
1
/
0
1
.
5

3
2
3
/
0
2
.
2

3
4
5
/
0
3
.
1

3
4
1
/
0
3
.
5
01
6
/
0
2
.
2

3
1
7
/
0
2
.
1

1
0
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
0

3
6
0
/
0
2
.
9

3
5
6
/
0
3
.
3

3
4
9
/
0
3
.
1
05
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
2
8
/
0
2
.
4

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
7

0
1
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
1
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
1
7
/
0
4
.
1

0
1
0
/
0
3
.
5
05
0
/
0
3
.
5

0
2
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
4
6
/
0
1
.
4

0
1
1
/
0
2
.
4

0
0
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
0
7
/
0
2
.
5

3
4
1
/
0
2
.
3
06
7
/
0
4
.
6

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
2
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
7
/
0
1
.
5

2
2
2
/
0
2
.
3

2
1
6
/
0
2
.
6

2
2
9
/
0
2
.
3
20
0
/
0
3
.
9

2
0
8
/
0
3
.
3

2
3
2
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
6
/
0
1
.
2

1
9
9
/
0
3
.
9

2
0
1
/
0
6
.
6

1
9
9
/
0
7
.
0

2
0
6
/
0
6
.
5
09
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
5

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
5

3
1
1
/
0
1
.
9

3
2
4
/
0
2
.
5

3
5
5
/
0
2
.
5
07
0
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
1
/
0
3
.
5

0
3
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
9

3
2
3
/
0
1
.
7

3
4
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
0
1
/
0
3
.
5

3
1
1
/
0
4
.
6
05
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
3
0
/
0
2
.
7

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
3
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
0
1
/
0
2
.
3

3
5
7
/
0
4
.
4

3
5
2
/
0
6
.
2
10
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
4

1
6
0
/
0
2
.
0

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
1

2
0
6
/
0
2
.
2

2
2
0
/
0
2
.
0
19
3
/
0
2
.
4

2
7
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
6
0
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
2
/
0
5
.
3

1
7
7
/
0
4
.
4

1
4
6
/
0
7
.
5

1
7
4
/
0
6
.
4

1
6
5
/
0
8
.
1
10
2
/
0
2
.
6

1
0
6
/
0
3
.
1

1
0
2
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
1
/
0
0
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
8

2
0
1
/
0
3
.
9

2
0
3
/
0
4
.
3

2
0
5
/
0
4
.
4
08
4
/
0
3
.
4

3
4
5
/
0
2
.
7

1
3
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
1
/
0
5
.
1

2
0
1
/
0
6
.
4

2
3
2
/
0
4
.
9

2
5
5
/
0
3
.
6
11
2
/
0
2
.
0

1
5
7
/
0
4
.
5

2
5
1
/
0
3
.
4

2
1
2
/
0
4
.
3

2
0
9
/
0
3
.
5

2
0
4
/
0
4
.
1

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
8

2
0
3
/
0
2
.
7
07
4
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
2
/
0
2
.
1

2
8
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
3
7
/
0
1
.
9
07
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
9
2
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
3
/
0
2
.
4

1
4
1
/
0
2
.
1

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
7

1
9
7
/
0
2
.
8

1
9
6
/
0
3
.
0
15
6
/
0
3
.
2

3
3
9
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
1
.
5

1
9
3
/
0
2
.
0

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
9
/
0
2
.
5

2
3
7
/
0
1
.
9

2
3
2
/
0
2
.
4
04
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
2

3
0
7
/
0
1
.
9

0
0
6
/
0
2
.
2

3
2
5
/
0
1
.
6
08
9
/
0
3
.
5

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
2

1
4
0
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
4
/
0
1
.
3

1
8
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
3
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
3
6
/
0
1
.
4

2
5
2
/
0
1
.
6
09
9
/
0
1
.
8

2
9
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
5

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
9

2
1
5
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
7
/
0
5
.
6

2
0
9
/
0
5
.
0

2
2
6
/
0
2
.
7
6
0
9
4
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
4
/
0
2
.
6

1
0
8
/
0
2
.
2
1
6
4
/
0
2
.
6

2
3
3
/
0
3
.
4

2
4
8
/
0
3
.
5

2
5
1
/
0
3
.5
3
1
8
6
/
0
6
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
4

0
8
4
/
0
4
.
0

1
8
2
/
0
5
.
3
1
6
1
/
0
5
.
1

1
4
6
/
0
7
.
5

1
9
9
/
0
7
.
0

1
6
5
/
0
8
.1
1
0
5
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
5
/
0
0
.
8

0
7
1
/
0
0
.
6
0
6
1
/
0
1
.
0

2
3
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
8
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
5
3
/
0
1
.4
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

9
19
5
/
0
5
.
9

1
9
8
/
0
5
.
4

1
8
7
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
7

1
6
5
/
0
3
.
4

1
6
9
/
0
3
.
7

1
8
4
/
0
5
.
2

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
1
26
9
/
0
2
.
4

1
5
4
/
0
2
.
5

1
5
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
0

0
2
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
9
31
5
/
0
2
.
9

2
3
1
/
0
1
.
8

3
3
9
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
4

0
3
9
/
0
4
.
1
18
1
/
0
4
.
0

1
8
7
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
9

1
1
1
/
0
3
.
5

0
4
3
/
0
4
.
6

1
7
9
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
8
/
0
6
.
1

2
0
4
/
0
6
.
0
28
9
/
0
2
.
7

3
3
3
/
0
3
.
0

3
5
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
0
/
0
4
.
6

0
4
3
/
0
5
.
9

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
7
00
7
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
0
/
0
5
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
5
.
3

0
7
4
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
9
/
0
5
.
3

0
5
8
/
0
4
.
9

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
0
17
6
/
0
3
.
3

1
8
9
/
0
2
.
8

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
7

1
2
3
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
8
/
0
4
.
5

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
4
4
/
0
3
.
5
25
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
1
9
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
0
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
8
8
/
0
3
.
8

1
0
6
/
0
4
.
5

0
7
1
/
0
4
.
3
25
9
/
0
2
.
1

2
9
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
1
/
0
1
.
9

0
9
1
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
1
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
3
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
0
30
3
/
0
2
.
9

3
0
7
/
0
1
.
5

3
1
9
/
0
2
.
1

3
2
3
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
1
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
5

1
0
3
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
9
31
3
/
0
3
.
9

3
2
8
/
0
4
.
1

3
5
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
1
8
/
0
5
.
6

0
2
9
/
0
7
.
1

0
3
2
/
0
6
.
7

0
3
2
/
0
6
.
9

0
3
4
/
0
6
.
6
01
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
2
1
/
0
4
.
6

0
4
8
/
0
6
.
0

0
4
0
/
0
6
.
5

0
3
8
/
0
4
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
9

0
5
0
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
1
/
0
4
.
2
34
3
/
0
3
.
5

0
1
3
/
0
3
.
7

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
6

0
9
4
/
0
4
.
3

1
0
2
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
8
/
0
3
.
9
24
5
/
0
1
.
8

2
5
8
/
0
3
.
8

2
5
6
/
0
4
.
1

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
2
/
0
4
.
1

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
8

1
8
4
/
0
4
.
8

1
8
6
/
0
5
.
0
23
7
/
0
4
.
4

2
2
5
/
0
4
.
7

2
0
1
/
0
5
.
6

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
9

3
2
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
9

2
1
6
/
0
1
.
5
26
0
/
0
2
.
1

3
0
1
/
0
2
.
9

3
1
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
0
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
3
9
/
0
4
.
6

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
7
34
7
/
0
3
.
4

2
9
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
3
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
9
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
5
/
0
4
.
6
01
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
1
/
0
5
.
3

0
7
3
/
0
5
.
0

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
8
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
2
/
0
5
.
6
26
1
/
0
2
.
7

2
8
8
/
0
2
.
9

3
0
8
/
0
2
.
3

1
1
9
/
0
4
.
5

2
4
3
/
0
4
.
2

2
2
2
/
0
3
.
6

2
2
9
/
0
1
.
6

1
8
1
/
0
2
.
5
21
8
/
1
0
.
0

1
4
9
/
0
5
.
5

2
0
9
/
0
1
.
3

3
2
1
/
0
3
.
3

2
9
5
/
0
2
.
2

1
1
2
/
0
3
.
9

2
0
8
/
0
2
.
4

1
1
4
/
0
3
.
1
16
7
/
0
5
.
5

2
6
3
/
0
7
.
7

3
5
6
/
0
6
.
7

3
2
9
/
0
7
.
3

0
8
3
/
0
5
.
4

0
8
8
/
0
6
.
4

0
9
0
/
0
5
.
9

0
6
5
/
0
4
.
6
29
5
/
0
2
.
4

2
9
7
/
0
2
.
3

3
3
2
/
0
1
.
4

0
4
7
/
0
7
.
1

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
9

0
6
9
/
0
5
.
4

0
6
3
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
0
25
2
/
0
4
.
1

2
6
1
/
0
3
.
1

3
4
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
7

0
5
1
/
0
5
.
2

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
8

0
6
5
/
0
5
.
4

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
4
06
7
/
0
5
.
5

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
3
/
0
4
.
4

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
9
4
/
0
3
.
4
05
1
/
0
4
.
4

1
2
3
/
0
8
.
1

1
2
5
/
1
0
.
2

1
2
3
/
0
6
.
1

2
0
1
/
0
6
.
7

3
1
0
/
0
3
.
3

2
5
1
/
0
2
.
3

2
4
8
/
0
2
.
0
32
3
/
0
3
.
7

0
2
8
/
0
6
.
9

0
5
4
/
1
0
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
7
.
0

0
5
6
/
0
5
.
1

0
3
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
4
6
/
0
5
.
4
05
5
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
8
0
/
0
5
.
8

0
8
4
/
0
4
.
0

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
4
/
0
4
.
9

0
6
6
/
0
5
.
2
29
7
/
0
2
.
9

3
4
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
3
/
0
4
.
5

0
9
3
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
5
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
4
.
9

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
3
29
8
/
0
2
.
5

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
7

0
2
3
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
7
/
0
4
.
0

0
7
9
/
0
4
.
7

0
6
8
/
0
4
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
4
.
8
7
2
7
9
/
0
3
.
8

3
0
5
/
0
3
.
9

0
3
5
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
3
/
0
4
.
0
0
6
8
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
0
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
4
.1
4
2
1
8
/
1
0
.
0

1
2
3
/
0
8
.
1

0
5
4
/
1
0
.
2

3
2
9
/
0
7
.
3
0
2
9
/
0
7
.
1

0
3
2
/
0
6
.
7

0
3
2
/
0
6
.
9

0
3
4
/
0
6
.6
9
2
5
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
0
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
2
3
/
0
1
.
1

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
2
2
9
5
/
0
2
.
2

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
8

2
2
9
/
0
1
.
6

2
1
6
/
0
1
.5
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
0
19
6
/
0
5
.
5

1
9
4
/
0
5
.
5

2
1
0
/
0
3
.
9

1
9
0
/
0
3
.
2

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
0

1
9
3
/
0
4
.
1

2
7
4
/
0
3
.
9

2
6
8
/
0
4
.
3
06
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
1
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
0
6
/
0
2
.
0

3
5
1
/
0
2
.
6

3
3
4
/
0
3
.
0
06
0
/
0
2
.
7

1
9
1
/
0
2
.
2

1
2
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
1
.
5

2
0
1
/
0
4
.
9

1
9
9
/
0
5
.
4

2
0
4
/
0
4
.
2
18
5
/
0
5
.
7

1
8
7
/
0
5
.
4

1
8
4
/
0
5
.
5

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
2
/
0
5
.
7

1
8
8
/
0
8
.
1

1
9
6
/
0
8
.
3

1
9
7
/
0
7
.
4
25
4
/
0
4
.
4

2
5
5
/
0
3
.
4

1
8
5
/
0
2
.
7

1
6
3
/
0
3
.
4

1
9
5
/
0
4
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
3
.
5

1
9
9
/
0
2
.
8

2
0
2
/
0
2
.
6
10
3
/
0
3
.
7

2
0
8
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
4
6
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
4
.
3

2
0
0
/
0
5
.
6

2
0
6
/
0
4
.
8
10
1
/
0
3
.
4

2
1
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
2
/
0
0
.
8

1
6
3
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
3
/
0
0
.
7

2
5
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
1
/
0
1
.
5
09
0
/
0
2
.
8

1
1
9
/
0
2
.
7

2
3
2
/
0
1
.
8

1
9
1
/
0
0
.
7

0
7
9
/
0
1
.
5

0
3
1
/
0
2
.
8

2
5
8
/
0
1
.
8

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
6
07
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
3
6
/
0
2
.
2

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
7

2
0
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
5
4
/
0
2
.
6

2
2
0
/
0
3
.
3

2
2
0
/
0
3
.
3

2
2
7
/
0
3
.
4
17
4
/
0
1
.
4

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
2
/
0
5
.
0

1
8
9
/
0
4
.
1

2
3
4
/
0
3
.
5

2
4
5
/
0
2
.
0

2
4
4
/
0
2
.
1

2
3
4
/
0
2
.
4
18
6
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
5
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
8
8
/
0
1
.
1

3
4
5
/
0
0
.
7

2
6
1
/
0
1
.
9

2
4
1
/
0
2
.
1

2
5
8
/
0
1
.
7
03
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
8
/
0
4
.
0

3
4
2
/
0
1
.
6

0
5
2
/
0
2
.
1

3
5
1
/
0
1
.
6

3
3
7
/
0
2
.
8

3
4
3
/
0
2
.
5
10
2
/
0
2
.
9

1
7
7
/
0
2
.
8

2
1
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
3

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
9

3
4
0
/
0
1
.
5

2
8
7
/
0
1
.
4

2
2
3
/
0
1
.
8
09
0
/
0
2
.
8

2
0
3
/
0
2
.
0

3
0
8
/
0
1
.
1

3
3
9
/
0
1
.
7

3
1
9
/
0
0
.
7

2
9
0
/
0
0
.
7

3
5
9
/
0
1
.
4

3
2
4
/
0
1
.
7
19
1
/
0
2
.
4

2
6
7
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
7

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
1

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
9

1
0
4
/
0
2
.
0

3
0
8
/
0
3
.
4

2
7
7
/
0
2
.
2
32
9
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
8
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
3
/
0
5
.
6

3
3
9
/
0
2
.
5

3
3
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
9
/
0
5
.
9

0
3
3
/
0
5
.
4
04
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
3
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
5
/
0
4
.
4

0
4
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
2

0
5
1
/
0
5
.
2

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
8
08
2
/
0
2
.
3

1
3
7
/
0
2
.
8

2
1
5
/
0
2
.
7

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
9
/
0
1
.
7

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
3
/
0
2
.
8

1
7
1
/
0
2
.
8
06
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
7
9
/
0
4
.
3

0
5
4
/
0
4
.
2

3
3
8
/
0
2
.
4

2
7
8
/
0
1
.
2

2
8
9
/
0
1
.
6

3
2
2
/
0
1
.
5

2
9
4
/
0
1
.
9
19
6
/
0
3
.
7

2
0
8
/
0
3
.
8

1
7
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
1

2
9
2
/
0
1
.
1

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
3

2
2
5
/
0
3
.
5

2
3
5
/
0
2
.
5
16
0
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
9
/
0
1
.
8

2
0
3
/
0
1
.
7

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
8

2
0
2
/
0
3
.
1

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
5

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
4
20
1
/
0
4
.
6

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
7

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
1

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
5

1
9
6
/
0
6
.
6

2
0
0
/
0
6
.
6

2
1
1
/
0
5
.
3
04
0
/
0
3
.
4

3
4
3
/
0
2
.
4

1
8
4
/
0
2
.
6

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
2
/
0
2
.
1

2
2
5
/
0
2
.
0

2
9
1
/
0
1
.
5

2
6
4
/
0
1
.
4
04
6
/
0
3
.
9

1
9
1
/
0
3
.
2

2
0
3
/
0
4
.
4

1
9
8
/
0
4
.
1

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
6

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
5

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
1

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
1
23
8
/
0
0
.
8

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
8

1
6
5
/
0
0
.
8

2
7
8
/
0
2
.
0

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
4

2
8
3
/
0
2
.
3

3
2
1
/
0
4
.
5

3
5
1
/
0
4
.
4
06
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
3
2
/
0
3
.
5

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
0

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
4

3
5
4
/
0
1
.
3

2
6
3
/
0
1
.
4
08
4
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
5
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
3
/
0
3
.
1

2
0
2
/
0
3
.
2

2
0
6
/
0
3
.
0

2
1
4
/
0
3
.
6

2
3
9
/
0
3
.
3

2
5
4
/
0
3
.
1
33
9
/
0
2
.
1

1
1
6
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
3
.
0

3
3
7
/
0
2
.
2

3
1
3
/
0
1
.
0

2
1
4
/
0
2
.
5

2
8
2
/
0
3
.
4

3
0
3
/
0
3
.
7
06
3
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
9
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
1
5
/
0
1
.
8

3
4
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
9
2
0
9
7
/
0
2
.
9

1
6
6
/
0
2
.
7

1
6
6
/
0
2
.
7

1
1
3
/
0
2
.
5
2
0
5
/
0
2
.
3

2
3
3
/
0
2
.
9

2
5
8
/
0
3
.
2

2
4
6
/
0
3
.0
4
1
8
5
/
0
5
.
7

1
9
4
/
0
5
.
5

1
8
4
/
0
5
.
5

0
6
3
/
0
5
.
6
1
9
2
/
0
5
.
7

1
8
8
/
0
8
.
1

1
9
6
/
0
8
.
3

1
9
7
/
0
7
.4
6
2
3
8
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
5
/
0
1
.
1

1
6
5
/
0
0
.
8

1
9
1
/
0
0
.
7
3
1
9
/
0
0
.
7

2
9
0
/
0
0
.
7

2
5
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
6
4
/
0
1
.4
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

1
30
0
/
0
2
.
1

3
0
5
/
0
3
.
0

0
0
7
/
0
2
.
0

0
1
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
1
3
/
0
5
.
8

0
2
3
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
6
/
0
5
.
6
31
3
/
0
3
.
3

0
0
6
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
9

1
0
3
/
0
4
.
5

1
0
4
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
8

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
9
/
0
4
.
7
19
0
/
0
6
.
2

1
9
0
/
0
7
.
2

2
0
3
/
0
6
.
7

1
9
9
/
0
4
.
8

1
5
2
/
0
4
.
4

1
5
8
/
0
3
.
9

1
7
7
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
5
/
0
5
.
5
19
4
/
0
4
.
8

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
1

1
8
1
/
0
4
.
2

1
7
9
/
0
4
.
0

1
6
2
/
0
4
.
4

1
7
0
/
0
5
.
9

1
7
9
/
0
5
.
8

1
8
0
/
0
6
.
3
30
3
/
0
3
.
2

2
8
8
/
0
2
.
5

2
4
6
/
0
1
.
7

0
0
7
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
9
/
0
4
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
6
21
3
/
0
6
.
2

2
0
5
/
0
5
.
4

2
1
9
/
0
3
.
9

1
8
9
/
0
3
.
3

1
1
1
/
0
2
.
1

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
9
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
3
/
0
4
.
8
24
9
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
6
/
0
1
.
9

2
7
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
6
7
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
7
20
4
/
0
2
.
6

2
7
2
/
0
3
.
5

3
1
2
/
0
3
.
3

3
5
0
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
7
/
0
4
.
1

1
0
4
/
0
4
.
6
28
2
/
0
3
.
8

3
0
5
/
0
7
.
4

3
3
0
/
1
0
.
0

3
5
2
/
0
5
.
1

1
0
0
/
0
3
.
8

0
9
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
2

0
5
7
/
0
2
.
0
24
2
/
0
3
.
9

2
4
4
/
0
3
.
9

1
7
1
/
0
2
.
6

1
5
7
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
2
/
0
1
.
0

3
4
6
/
0
1
.
6

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
1
25
0
/
0
2
.
4

2
5
3
/
0
2
.
7

2
5
6
/
0
2
.
6

2
8
8
/
0
2
.
0

3
1
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
8
00
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
2
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
3
/
0
2
.
5

1
0
2
/
0
1
.
6

1
5
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
8
2
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
5
01
0
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
0
/
0
4
.
3

0
8
8
/
0
5
.
4

0
8
6
/
0
4
.
3

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
4
06
7
/
0
4
.
9

0
7
5
/
0
6
.
4

0
7
7
/
0
6
.
1

0
7
1
/
0
4
.
6

0
6
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
1
5
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
9

3
5
5
/
0
3
.
1
00
7
/
0
3
.
0

1
1
5
/
0
2
.
4

0
9
3
/
0
4
.
7

0
8
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
6
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
4
02
1
/
0
3
.
0

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
8
28
5
/
0
3
.
6

2
6
1
/
0
7
.
1

2
2
8
/
0
4
.
8

3
1
3
/
0
4
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
1
.
7

2
5
3
/
0
1
.
2

1
7
1
/
0
1
.
7

1
3
3
/
0
2
.
0
35
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
0
5
/
0
5
.
2

0
5
1
/
0
5
.
1

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
3

1
0
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
7
00
3
/
0
2
.
0

1
1
0
/
0
4
.
7

0
9
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
9
5
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
2

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
0
33
7
/
0
1
.
5

3
3
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
3
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
8
33
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
2
9
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
4

0
9
7
/
0
3
.
2

1
1
3
/
0
3
.
8

1
4
0
/
0
4
.
1

2
0
6
/
0
4
.
4

1
8
8
/
0
4
.
2
24
1
/
0
1
.
8

2
3
9
/
0
2
.
0

3
0
9
/
0
9
.
7

0
0
4
/
0
5
.
3

0
0
4
/
0
4
.
2

1
2
9
/
0
2
.
4

1
1
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
7
24
5
/
0
3
.
2

1
1
4
/
0
2
.
0

3
4
7
/
0
4
.
1

0
2
3
/
0
5
.
1

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
5

0
4
1
/
0
6
.
6

0
3
9
/
0
7
.
2

0
4
4
/
0
5
.
1
18
9
/
0
3
.
9

1
7
9
/
0
2
.
6

1
6
2
/
0
2
.
1

1
0
0
/
0
4
.
9

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
7

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
2

1
9
5
/
0
3
.
0

1
8
4
/
0
5
.
1
31
7
/
0
4
.
4

3
4
8
/
0
5
.
5

0
0
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
2
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
3
0
/
0
4
.
5

0
2
8
/
0
4
.
8

0
5
4
/
0
7
.
0

0
4
3
/
0
5
.
8
24
5
/
0
2
.
3

1
9
1
/
0
1
.
6

2
8
2
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
9
7
/
0
4
.
1

0
3
3
/
0
5
.
5

0
3
2
/
0
5
.
8
33
4
/
0
2
.
4

3
3
7
/
0
1
.
7

0
2
4
/
0
1
.
5

0
8
5
/
0
2
.
7

1
1
9
/
0
2
.
6

2
8
6
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
8
/
0
4
.
2
35
7
/
0
4
.
6

0
1
4
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
3
/
0
5
.
1

0
2
1
/
0
4
.
1

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
4
7
/
0
4
.
0

0
5
6
/
0
3
.
9
04
5
/
0
9
.
2

0
3
9
/
1
1
.
3

0
4
1
/
0
9
.
2

0
5
3
/
0
6
.
2

0
4
5
/
0
7
.
6

0
3
0
/
0
5
.
7

0
4
2
/
0
5
.
2

0
3
7
/
0
3
.
2
5
2
9
7
/
0
3
.
6

3
2
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
2
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
6
0
8
7
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
9
/
0
3
.9
0
0
4
5
/
0
9
.
2

0
3
9
/
1
1
.
3

3
3
0
/
1
0
.
0

0
5
3
/
0
6
.
2
0
4
5
/
0
7
.
6

0
4
1
/
0
6
.
6

0
3
9
/
0
7
.
2

1
8
0
/
0
6
.3
1
3
3
7
/
0
1
.
5

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
6

2
7
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
6
7
/
0
1
.
6
1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
2
/
0
1
.
0

3
4
6
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
8
/
0
1
.3
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
3
18
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
7
9
/
0
1
.
1

1
3
3
/
0
1
.
2

2
5
5
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
5

2
6
9
/
0
1
.
2

2
9
1
/
0
1
.
2
19
1
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
6
/
0
1
.
8

2
2
7
/
0
1
.
1

1
5
6
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
5
/
0
1
.
1

2
1
1
/
0
1
.
4

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
6
0
/
0
1
.
2
04
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
2
9
/
0
1
.
5

2
0
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
9
4
/
0
0
.
8

1
7
5
/
0
0
.
6

2
5
8
/
0
0
.
9

2
2
7
/
0
2
.
5

1
9
9
/
0
3
.
5
18
8
/
0
1
.
4

1
5
7
/
0
2
.
4

0
0
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
6
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
6
/
0
0
.
9

2
2
1
/
0
1
.
9

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
5

2
7
6
/
0
1
.
6
12
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
7
/
0
1
.
3

1
2
0
/
0
0
.
9

1
9
6
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
9
/
0
2
.
3

1
9
7
/
0
4
.
4

2
0
5
/
0
4
.
7

2
2
4
/
0
4
.
5
35
6
/
1
2
.
8

0
0
3
/
1
1
.
8

0
1
2
/
1
0
.
4

3
4
6
/
1
1
.
4

0
0
8
/
1
2
.
7

0
0
7
/
1
2
.
8

0
1
1
/
1
3
.
2

0
1
0
/
1
2
.
3
03
6
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
4
/
0
4
.
3

0
3
0
/
0
5
.
9

0
0
2
/
0
6
.
1

0
2
1
/
0
6
.
7

0
3
8
/
0
8
.
3

0
3
3
/
0
8
.
8

0
3
5
/
0
9
.
3
04
0
/
0
3
.
2

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
1

2
9
9
/
0
2
.
5

3
4
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
2
3
/
0
3
.
8

0
2
5
/
0
2
.
6
04
8
/
0
1
.
9

0
0
7
/
0
1
.
4

1
5
3
/
0
0
.
9

0
8
4
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
3
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
8
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
3
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
5
/
0
4
.
6
20
0
/
0
0
.
9

1
4
1
/
0
0
.
9

0
3
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
4
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
7
1
/
0
1
.
0

2
0
0
/
0
1
.
8

2
3
8
/
0
2
.
5

2
3
8
/
0
2
.
9
17
7
/
0
2
.
0

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
4

0
3
9
/
0
2
.
3

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
5

1
5
8
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
5
/
0
1
.
8

2
2
7
/
0
2
.
0

2
4
1
/
0
1
.
6
04
0
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
8
/
0
1
.
1

1
7
3
/
0
0
.
8

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
5

0
0
3
/
0
1
.
8

3
5
9
/
0
0
.
7

2
4
7
/
0
1
.
5

2
0
8
/
0
4
.
1
12
2
/
0
2
.
2

2
4
7
/
0
0
.
8

0
0
3
/
0
0
.
9

0
3
6
/
0
2
.
1

1
5
2
/
0
1
.
2

1
9
7
/
0
0
.
9

2
2
6
/
0
2
.
9

2
2
3
/
0
3
.
1
08
2
/
0
4
.
3

0
5
8
/
0
3
.
4

1
7
6
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
1
/
0
1
.
3

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
7

2
3
9
/
0
2
.
6

2
3
6
/
0
1
.
9
03
5
/
0
1
.
8

1
5
6
/
0
1
.
9

1
0
7
/
0
0
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
7
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
9
/
0
1
.
4

1
9
0
/
0
0
.
8

2
2
4
/
0
2
.
7
10
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
1
/
0
3
.
5

3
3
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
8

2
5
1
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
4
/
0
1
.
4

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
7
35
9
/
0
7
.
1

0
1
2
/
0
6
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
4

0
6
8
/
0
6
.
0

0
5
6
/
0
4
.
6

0
7
9
/
0
6
.
0

1
1
5
/
0
5
.
8

1
4
8
/
0
3
.
3
06
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
4

2
2
0
/
0
1
.
5

2
3
3
/
0
1
.
1

3
1
0
/
0
1
.
2
23
8
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
1

3
3
6
/
0
0
.
8

0
1
2
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
1
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
8
/
0
3
.
5

2
0
1
/
0
4
.
2

2
0
0
/
0
3
.
2
20
1
/
0
5
.
5

2
1
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
0
3
/
0
2
.
0

0
3
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
0
4
/
0
2
.
0

2
6
7
/
0
0
.
6

1
9
2
/
0
5
.
2

1
9
8
/
0
6
.
9
18
5
/
0
1
.
2

2
4
3
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
4

3
5
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
1
9
/
0
1
.
0

2
0
8
/
0
1
.
5

2
1
4
/
0
1
.
9

2
0
0
/
0
3
.
3
28
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
9

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
5

3
5
6
/
0
1
.
5

3
2
6
/
0
2
.
7

1
8
5
/
0
3
.
1
06
7
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
8

1
3
9
/
0
1
.
6

3
4
4
/
0
1
.
4

2
6
1
/
0
0
.
7

2
4
6
/
0
0
.
8

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
3

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
1
18
2
/
0
3
.
5

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
4

3
1
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
2
5
/
0
2
.
9

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
0
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
0
5
/
0
6
.
6

0
0
2
/
0
5
.
4
05
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
4
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
5

0
4
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
3

0
0
3
/
0
2
.
7

3
5
4
/
0
7
.
2

3
5
5
/
0
5
.
3
06
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
6

3
0
5
/
0
0
.
9

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
5

0
2
3
/
0
4
.
2

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
3
/
0
5
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
4
.
7
06
1
/
0
0
.
7

0
9
4
/
0
0
.
7

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
1

1
3
1
/
0
1
.
2

1
0
1
/
0
0
.
7

2
0
2
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
6

2
3
1
/
0
1
.
8
15
8
/
0
0
.
4

1
1
3
/
0
0
.
6

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
0

1
8
2
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
6
/
0
0
.
7

2
4
9
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
3

2
4
9
/
0
1
.
3
6
1
0
0
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
2

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
4
0
8
1
/
0
2
.
1

2
3
4
/
0
2
.
6

2
3
4
/
0
3
.
4

2
3
7
/
0
3
.5
2
3
5
6
/
1
2
.
8

0
0
3
/
1
1
.
8

0
1
2
/
1
0
.
4

3
4
6
/
1
1
.
4
0
0
8
/
1
2
.
7

0
0
7
/
1
2
.
8

0
1
1
/
1
3
.
2

0
1
0
/
1
2
.3
7
1
5
8
/
0
0
.
4

1
1
3
/
0
0
.
6

1
5
1
/
0
0
.
6

0
9
6
/
0
0
.
6
1
7
5
/
0
0
.
6

2
6
7
/
0
0
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
0
.
8

3
1
0
/
0
1
.2
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

1
00
8
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
5
9
/
0
1
.
4

0
7
7
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
0
30
0
/
0
2
.
9

3
3
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
1
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
2
01
5
/
0
1
.
7

0
8
5
/
0
1
.
8

1
1
7
/
0
3
.
2

1
3
7
/
0
2
.
1

2
9
0
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
9
/
0
4
.
9

0
8
2
/
0
4
.
1
00
5
/
0
3
.
5

3
2
2
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
0
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
8
5
/
0
2
.
3
28
0
/
0
8
.
8

2
8
8
/
0
9
.
4

3
1
0
/
0
9
.
1

3
4
7
/
1
1
.
6

0
0
7
/
1
1
.
1

0
2
3
/
1
0
.
0

0
2
4
/
1
0
.
8

0
0
5
/
1
0
.
7
05
5
/
0
9
.
0

0
8
6
/
0
8
.
2

0
8
7
/
0
7
.
4

0
8
1
/
0
5
.
5

0
6
7
/
0
4
.
2

0
5
8
/
0
4
.
6

0
3
5
/
0
4
.
0

0
5
9
/
0
6
.
3
05
0
/
0
5
.
8

0
5
2
/
0
4
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
5
.
9

0
0
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
3
4
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
1
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
5

3
3
6
/
0
3
.
0
03
0
/
0
4
.
2

0
5
0
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
7

1
0
8
/
0
3
.
3

0
9
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
8
0
/
0
2
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
9
19
9
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
2
/
0
2
.
5

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
9
1
/
0
4
.
5

0
9
6
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
1
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
4
26
1
/
0
1
.
6

2
5
5
/
0
0
.
4

1
1
5
/
0
0
.
7

0
9
8
/
0
2
.
9

0
8
6
/
0
4
.
2

0
7
9
/
0
4
.
5

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
9
29
0
/
0
2
.
8

3
4
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
3
/
0
4
.
1

0
9
1
/
0
4
.
7

0
9
0
/
0
4
.
8

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
3

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
8
23
4
/
0
3
.
3

1
3
1
/
0
2
.
8

1
0
0
/
0
4
.
6

1
1
6
/
0
5
.
2

1
1
9
/
0
5
.
5

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
5

0
5
4
/
0
5
.
0

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
0
34
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
4
6
/
0
0
.
9

1
1
4
/
0
2
.
6

1
1
7
/
0
4
.
3

1
1
5
/
0
4
.
2

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
3

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
6

0
8
3
/
0
4
.
6
27
8
/
0
2
.
1

3
2
8
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
9
/
0
3
.
8

1
1
1
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
2
/
0
5
.
0
22
5
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
4

1
0
3
/
0
3
.
6

1
0
9
/
0
5
.
1

0
9
5
/
0
3
.
8

1
0
2
/
0
4
.
2

3
2
0
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
4
/
0
2
.
4
01
1
/
0
2
.
2

1
7
5
/
0
3
.
8

1
7
4
/
0
3
.
5

1
7
5
/
0
3
.
4

2
0
6
/
0
3
.
2

2
2
8
/
0
3
.
5

2
0
0
/
0
9
.
3

2
7
9
/
0
7
.
2
27
1
/
0
2
.
4

3
4
4
/
0
2
.
7

0
2
9
/
0
5
.
2

0
5
7
/
0
5
.
1

0
7
4
/
0
4
.
3

0
4
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
2
/
0
4
.
3
32
2
/
0
2
.
0

0
0
3
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
1
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
6

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
1
29
8
/
0
2
.
6

3
5
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
3
/
0
4
.
0

0
8
2
/
0
4
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
9

0
6
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
3
28
5
/
0
2
.
8

3
1
4
/
0
1
.
9

3
5
6
/
0
2
.
9

1
2
0
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
6
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
8
20
2
/
0
2
.
4

1
6
2
/
0
2
.
0

1
4
9
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
6
/
0
1
.
5

3
1
4
/
0
1
.
0

2
9
2
/
0
0
.
7
22
1
/
0
2
.
7

3
5
0
/
0
1
.
4

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
7

0
5
3
/
0
4
.
6

0
5
6
/
0
4
.
6
28
4
/
0
2
.
0

2
5
1
/
0
1
.
7

3
5
3
/
0
1
.
3

1
1
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
9
/
0
3
.
2

1
8
4
/
0
2
.
2

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
1
04
2
/
0
7
.
9

0
5
1
/
0
7
.
7

0
4
7
/
0
6
.
0

0
4
8
/
0
4
.
7

0
4
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
4
6
/
0
4
.
2

0
4
5
/
0
3
.
9

0
3
4
/
0
3
.
7
00
5
/
0
4
.
2

0
2
7
/
0
4
.
1

0
4
2
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
2
34
1
/
0
6
.
5

3
4
3
/
0
6
.
1

0
2
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
6

0
0
1
/
0
1
.
0

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
4
33
5
/
0
1
.
6

3
1
5
/
0
2
.
7

3
4
8
/
0
2
.
6

0
9
2
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
3
03
3
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
2
7
/
0
2
.
6

0
2
7
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
4
6
3
2
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
0
9
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
6
0
7
2
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
3
/
0
3
.4
3
0
5
5
/
0
9
.
0

2
8
8
/
0
9
.
4

3
1
0
/
0
9
.
1

3
4
7
/
1
1
.
6
0
0
7
/
1
1
.
1

0
2
3
/
1
0
.
0

0
2
4
/
1
0
.
8

0
0
5
/
1
0
.7
5
0
3
3
/
0
1
.
3

2
5
5
/
0
0
.
4

1
1
5
/
0
0
.
7

1
1
0
/
0
2
.
0
3
5
9
/
0
1
.
3

0
0
1
/
0
1
.
0

3
1
4
/
0
1
.
0

2
9
2
/
0
0
.7
NS

=

7
2
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
8
15
7
/
0
1
.
7

0
2
3
/
0
0
.
7

0
1
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
1

1
3
1
/
0
0
.
5

2
2
4
/
0
1
.
0

2
4
4
/
0
1
.
8

2
4
1
/
0
1
.
9
16
2
/
0
1
.
6

0
5
0
/
0
0
.
9

0
2
0
/
0
1
.
4

3
3
6
/
0
1
.
3

1
5
8
/
0
0
.
9

1
5
7
/
0
0
.
5

2
2
3
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
6
/
0
1
.
3
04
6
/
0
0
.
8

1
2
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
4
1
/
0
1
.
1

1
4
1
/
0
1
.
9

1
5
3
/
0
2
.
2

3
5
1
/
0
0
.
9

2
6
7
/
0
2
.
1

2
5
9
/
0
2
.
3
25
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
8
2
/
0
2
.
5

1
9
6
/
0
3
.
1

1
7
4
/
0
1
.
4

1
4
9
/
0
0
.
6

1
8
5
/
0
2
.
3

2
0
2
/
0
2
.
8

2
0
8
/
0
3
.
5
24
3
/
0
0
.
7

0
3
1
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
6
/
0
0
.
6

0
3
9
/
0
0
.
3

0
5
5
/
0
0
.
5

3
0
8
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
6
/
0
1
.
6

2
4
5
/
0
1
.
6
16
6
/
0
2
.
3

1
1
7
/
0
1
.
0

0
9
6
/
0
1
.
0

0
2
5
/
0
1
.
6

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
2
1
/
0
0
.
8

2
2
9
/
0
1
.
1

2
6
7
/
0
1
.
7
24
6
/
0
0
.
8

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
8

2
4
9
/
0
1
.
1

2
8
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
4

1
5
2
/
0
0
.
6

2
6
6
/
0
0
.
8

-
-
-
33
2
/
0
1
.
0

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
2
6
/
0
1
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
1
.
7

1
7
9
/
0
1
.
0

2
1
0
/
0
4
.
1

2
0
0
/
0
7
.
3
01
1
/
0
6
.
5

0
1
0
/
0
6
.
6

0
4
2
/
0
3
.
0

0
2
9
/
0
3
.
1

3
3
9
/
0
3
.
2

3
2
1
/
0
4
.
7

3
3
1
/
0
8
.
2

3
3
7
/
0
8
.
1
03
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
8
9
/
0
1
.
0

1
1
1
/
0
0
.
8

0
4
7
/
0
1
.
6

2
8
5
/
0
1
.
4

1
4
1
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
2
/
0
3
.
2
07
6
/
0
3
.
1

1
5
8
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
6
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
3
.
4

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
6

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
9

2
1
6
/
0
2
.
1

2
0
0
/
0
3
.
8
21
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
0
9
/
0
6
.
2

0
3
0
/
0
6
.
6

0
2
0
/
0
6
.
8
04
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
4
9
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
6

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
2

2
7
0
/
0
0
.
9

3
2
9
/
0
3
.
6

3
4
4
/
0
4
.
0
04
9
/
0
1
.
0

0
4
4
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
8
/
0
0
.
7

2
0
7
/
0
1
.
9

2
2
0
/
0
2
.
5

2
2
7
/
0
2
.
7
20
9
/
0
5
.
4

1
9
9
/
0
5
.
5

2
0
0
/
0
5
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
0

1
9
8
/
0
6
.
7

1
9
1
/
0
6
.
4

1
8
5
/
0
5
.
9

1
9
4
/
0
5
.
4
07
2
/
0
0
.
9

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
9

1
6
2
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
5
/
0
0
.
9

0
2
1
/
0
2
.
0

3
3
7
/
0
0
.
8

3
0
8
/
0
1
.
4

3
5
1
/
0
1
.
6
05
9
/
0
1
.
3

1
1
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
9
3
/
0
0
.
7

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
8
/
0
2
.
2

1
8
8
/
0
5
.
6

1
8
8
/
0
4
.
9

2
1
4
/
0
3
.
5
16
9
/
0
1
.
0

0
3
9
/
0
0
.
9

2
4
6
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
1
/
0
3
.
3

1
3
4
/
0
0
.
9

2
0
6
/
0
2
.
0

2
2
9
/
0
1
.
1

3
2
1
/
0
1
.
3
16
6
/
0
1
.
4

3
0
0
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
4

0
9
3
/
0
1
.
9

1
1
6
/
0
1
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
0
.
7

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
6

2
3
4
/
0
1
.
8
01
0
/
0
4
.
6

0
1
2
/
0
4
.
5

3
5
8
/
0
4
.
6

0
1
4
/
0
3
.
4

3
5
2
/
0
3
.
7

3
5
6
/
0
3
.
6

3
2
6
/
0
5
.
1

3
3
9
/
0
6
.
0
03
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
2
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
3
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
7

1
0
6
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
6

2
0
8
/
0
1
.
8
03
9
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
8
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
2
/
0
0
.
9

0
1
0
/
0
1
.
1

0
7
7
/
0
0
.
9

2
4
8
/
0
1
.
1

1
7
7
/
0
0
.
9

2
4
1
/
0
1
.
5
03
3
/
0
7
.
5

0
3
3
/
0
6
.
6

0
3
3
/
0
5
.
9

0
2
5
/
0
6
.
1

0
1
8
/
0
5
.
4

0
4
3
/
0
4
.
0

0
4
2
/
0
5
.
1

3
5
8
/
0
4
.
4
01
7
/
0
5
.
1

0
2
4
/
0
5
.
4

0
5
1
/
0
4
.
2

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
0
.
9

3
2
9
/
0
1
.
7

0
1
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
6
03
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
5
2
/
0
2
.
1

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
2
7
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
1
/
0
2
.
1

0
2
2
/
0
2
.
9
17
7
/
0
1
.
4

1
6
7
/
0
0
.
9

0
6
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
5

0
8
5
/
0
0
.
6

2
1
1
/
0
1
.
1

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
0

2
4
0
/
0
1
.
1
16
8
/
0
0
.
8

1
1
7
/
0
0
.
9

3
2
9
/
0
1
.
4

3
5
7
/
0
0
.
8

1
7
1
/
0
1
.
0

2
8
3
/
0
0
.
9

2
5
3
/
0
1
.
1

2
4
2
/
0
1
.
2
14
2
/
0
0
.
5

1
0
6
/
0
0
.
8

2
9
9
/
0
0
.
2

2
1
4
/
0
0
.
9

1
1
6
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
2
/
0
0
.
6

2
5
0
/
0
1
.
4

2
0
9
/
0
2
.
5
07
2
/
0
1
.
7

3
4
3
/
0
1
.
5

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
7

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
9

0
3
7
/
0
1
.
8

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
8

3
0
5
/
0
2
.
7

2
9
1
/
0
2
.
2
5
0
7
8
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
5
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
2
0
9
3
/
0
1
.
9

2
4
8
/
0
2
.
0

2
3
8
/
0
2
.
7

2
5
3
/
0
3
.1
0
0
3
3
/
0
7
.
5

0
1
0
/
0
6
.
6

0
3
3
/
0
5
.
9

0
2
5
/
0
6
.
1
1
9
8
/
0
6
.
7

1
9
1
/
0
6
.
4

3
3
1
/
0
8
.
2

3
3
7
/
0
8
.1
6
1
4
2
/
0
0
.
5

0
2
3
/
0
0
.
7

2
9
9
/
0
0
.
2

0
3
9
/
0
0
.
3
0
5
5
/
0
0
.
5

3
0
2
/
0
0
.
3

2
6
6
/
0
0
.
8

2
4
0
/
0
1
.1
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

6
32
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
0
5
/
0
0
.
9

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
7
/
0
4
.
0

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
5

1
1
3
/
0
1
.
3

0
8
5
/
0
1
.
9

1
2
3
/
0
1
.
9
33
2
/
0
1
.
4

0
8
5
/
0
0
.
7

1
1
5
/
0
2
.
9

1
6
6
/
0
1
.
5

3
1
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
5
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
8
/
0
1
.
9
00
1
/
0
1
.
6

3
5
3
/
0
1
.
7

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
8

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
4
.
6

0
7
0
/
0
5
.
0

1
1
5
/
0
2
.
4

2
1
3
/
0
1
.
6
14
7
/
0
0
.
4

0
2
8
/
0
1
.
2

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
4

0
9
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
6
9
/
0
4
.
2

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
3

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
5
32
0
/
0
1
.
4

3
3
6
/
0
1
.
5

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
5
.
0

0
4
8
/
0
3
.
3

1
0
8
/
0
1
.
7

1
3
3
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
0
31
6
/
0
1
.
0

0
1
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
9
/
0
4
.
3

0
7
5
/
0
4
.
3

0
3
7
/
0
3
.
8

0
7
4
/
0
3
.
0

1
1
3
/
0
2
.
6
29
5
/
0
1
.
7

3
0
9
/
0
2
.
0

0
1
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
9
4
/
0
4
.
2

0
8
6
/
0
3
.
5

1
0
3
/
0
2
.
7

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
3
27
4
/
0
4
.
3

3
1
9
/
0
5
.
2

0
3
4
/
0
3
.
6

0
2
8
/
0
2
.
2

0
6
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
9
/
0
1
.
5

1
3
7
/
0
0
.
9

1
9
5
/
0
2
.
1
05
2
/
0
0
.
6

1
0
3
/
0
2
.
0

1
0
2
/
0
3
.
5

1
6
0
/
0
1
.
8

1
8
9
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
2
/
0
2
.
6

2
6
7
/
0
0
.
9

1
1
3
/
0
0
.
8
28
7
/
0
2
.
1

2
4
1
/
0
1
.
3

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
4
/
0
4
.
0

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
9

0
7
2
/
0
4
.
2
21
2
/
0
3
.
6

2
0
6
/
0
3
.
2

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
6

2
1
3
/
0
2
.
8

2
3
3
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
1
/
0
2
.
7

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
9
07
6
/
0
6
.
0

0
8
4
/
0
5
.
8

0
6
9
/
0
4
.
9

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
0
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
2

0
4
6
/
0
3
.
5

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
7
01
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
9
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
2
/
0
1
.
9
19
3
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
1
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
9
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
4
/
0
5
.
1

1
8
9
/
0
5
.
8

2
0
5
/
0
4
.
6

3
3
2
/
0
2
.
1

0
9
3
/
0
2
.
6
33
1
/
0
1
.
6

3
0
4
/
0
1
.
5

0
1
6
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
2

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
2

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
7
28
0
/
0
2
.
2

2
8
8
/
0
1
.
7

1
7
4
/
0
1
.
6

2
0
1
/
0
2
.
9

3
0
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
6
/
0
3
.
4

1
2
0
/
0
3
.
0

2
4
6
/
0
1
.
6
19
4
/
0
0
.
5

0
2
0
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
3

0
9
3
/
0
4
.
0

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
6

2
4
5
/
0
1
.
1

0
1
4
/
0
0
.
6

0
1
6
/
0
1
.
6
27
7
/
0
1
.
2

3
1
7
/
0
2
.
3

1
0
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
9
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
4
0
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
8
/
0
2
.
3

2
5
4
/
0
1
.
8
30
6
/
0
1
.
6

3
2
8
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
6
/
0
0
.
7

3
5
3
/
0
0
.
7

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
6

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
3
01
1
/
0
4
.
7

0
3
0
/
0
4
.
5

0
5
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
3

0
4
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
4
24
8
/
0
2
.
0

2
5
9
/
0
1
.
4

0
0
4
/
0
0
.
8

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
8
/
0
0
.
7

0
6
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
8
2
/
0
0
.
8

0
4
3
/
0
1
.
2
32
1
/
0
3
.
9

0
0
2
/
0
5
.
5

0
5
1
/
0
5
.
4

0
4
9
/
0
6
.
1

0
3
9
/
0
7
.
7

0
3
4
/
0
6
.
6

0
3
7
/
0
5
.
2

0
3
0
/
0
4
.
7
02
4
/
1
0
.
6

0
2
3
/
0
9
.
3

0
1
2
/
0
7
.
3

0
1
7
/
0
7
.
2

0
0
7
/
0
8
.
1

0
0
5
/
0
7
.
7

0
0
2
/
0
6
.
8

3
5
9
/
0
7
.
5
06
5
/
0
3
.
8

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
0

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
9

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
1
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
0
9
/
0
2
.
4

1
8
3
/
0
1
.
5
06
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
4
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
3
2
/
0
2
.
0

3
3
5
/
0
1
.
5

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
2

3
4
9
/
0
2
.
0
02
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
0
7
/
0
2
.
1

3
6
0
/
0
1
.
2

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
5

0
8
7
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
2
/
0
1
.
8

1
3
4
/
0
1
.
4
31
7
/
0
2
.
9

3
1
2
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
0
/
0
4
.
1

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
3

0
7
9
/
0
2
.
2

1
0
6
/
0
0
.
9
20
6
/
0
3
.
8

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
2

2
0
7
/
0
2
.
6

2
0
9
/
0
3
.
8

2
1
0
/
0
4
.
7

2
3
1
/
0
3
.
5

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
1
/
0
1
.
7
01
1
/
0
2
.
2

0
0
6
/
0
3
.
2

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
4

0
8
2
/
0
4
.
1

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
0
/
0
4
.
4

0
6
0
/
0
3
.
4
9
3
3
0
/
0
2
.
8

3
5
6
/
0
2
.
8

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
3
0
6
9
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
1
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
9
/
0
2
.4
4
0
2
4
/
1
0
.
6

0
2
3
/
0
9
.
3

0
1
2
/
0
7
.
3

0
1
7
/
0
7
.
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
.
1

0
0
5
/
0
7
.
7

0
0
2
/
0
6
.
8

3
5
9
/
0
7
.5
0
1
4
7
/
0
0
.
4

0
8
5
/
0
0
.
7

0
5
6
/
0
0
.
7

3
5
3
/
0
0
.
7
0
6
8
/
0
0
.
7

3
5
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
1
4
/
0
0
.
6

1
1
3
/
0
0
.8
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

9
9.
5
%
3
00
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
2
3
/
0
2
.
2

0
0
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
3
8
/
0
1
.
6

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
9

0
5
2
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
9
/
0
1
.
9

2
3
5
/
0
2
.
0
05
3
/
0
1
.
6

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
0

1
1
9
/
0
0
.
9

2
0
3
/
0
0
.
4

3
3
4
/
0
1
.
1

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
0

2
7
2
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
4
/
0
1
.
3
25
2
/
0
1
.
4

2
2
0
/
0
2
.
9

1
6
2
/
0
1
.
4

1
0
1
/
0
0
.
9

3
1
6
/
0
0
.
7

2
0
4
/
0
0
.
5

2
1
7
/
0
2
.
0

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
9
05
3
/
0
1
.
4

0
9
9
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
8
/
0
1
.
9

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
7

0
5
2
/
0
2
.
8

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
8

1
2
5
/
0
4
.
4

1
8
1
/
0
9
.
3
17
0
/
0
8
.
8

1
6
9
/
0
5
.
5

1
7
0
/
0
7
.
3

1
7
5
/
0
6
.
1

1
7
5
/
0
6
.
4

1
6
8
/
1
0
.
0

1
7
5
/
1
3
.
1

1
7
7
/
1
3
.
5
21
3
/
0
6
.
4

1
9
5
/
0
5
.
8

2
0
1
/
0
7
.
6

2
0
3
/
0
6
.
5

2
6
3
/
0
5
.
3

2
8
8
/
0
3
.
3

3
4
2
/
0
3
.
3

3
4
2
/
0
2
.
0
01
5
/
0
5
.
8

0
1
2
/
0
5
.
3

3
5
8
/
0
5
.
0

0
0
9
/
0
5
.
3

0
0
8
/
0
4
.
9

0
1
4
/
0
4
.
9

0
0
4
/
0
7
.
9

3
4
5
/
0
6
.
8
11
2
/
0
2
.
1

1
7
9
/
0
1
.
1

2
0
5
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
0
/
0
2
.
3

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
1

1
9
8
/
0
3
.
6

1
9
7
/
0
4
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
8
19
9
/
0
4
.
4

2
1
3
/
0
1
.
8

1
9
8
/
0
2
.
9

2
8
9
/
0
4
.
4

1
7
5
/
0
3
.
3

1
8
6
/
0
4
.
0

1
9
9
/
0
3
.
9

2
4
6
/
0
2
.
7
09
5
/
0
3
.
7

0
9
6
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
7
/
0
2
.
2

0
3
0
/
0
1
.
0

2
6
8
/
0
0
.
3

2
2
2
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
7
12
6
/
0
1
.
6

3
5
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
3
/
0
2
.
8

0
1
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
9
3
/
0
2
.
1

3
5
3
/
0
1
.
0

2
0
4
/
0
2
.
5

2
0
8
/
0
5
.
9
28
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
0
5
/
0
0
.
9

3
0
4
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
5

2
5
0
/
0
2
.
6

2
7
9
/
0
5
.
0

2
8
2
/
0
7
.
0
18
9
/
0
6
.
9

1
8
8
/
0
7
.
1

1
8
8
/
0
6
.
1

1
9
0
/
0
6
.
7

1
9
7
/
0
6
.
7

2
0
0
/
0
6
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
6
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
6
.
6
08
8
/
0
3
.
6

1
4
9
/
0
1
.
8

1
7
1
/
0
0
.
9

1
3
3
/
0
2
.
9

1
8
3
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
8
/
0
0
.
4

2
3
7
/
0
2
.
0

2
2
5
/
0
1
.
8
03
1
/
0
0
.
6

3
2
0
/
0
0
.
6

1
4
6
/
0
0
.
9

0
3
7
/
0
1
.
4

0
9
1
/
0
1
.
4

3
3
9
/
0
0
.
9

3
5
1
/
0
1
.
4

0
2
8
/
0
0
.
9
19
3
/
0
6
.
2

1
8
3
/
0
7
.
1

1
8
4
/
0
6
.
8

1
8
4
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
8
/
0
9
.
1

1
9
2
/
0
8
.
1

1
9
4
/
0
8
.
1

2
4
2
/
0
5
.
1
33
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
9
9
/
0
1
.
4

1
0
1
/
0
1
.
4

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
9
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
9

0
5
6
/
0
3
.
4

0
0
9
/
0
4
.
1
05
6
/
0
3
.
3

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
3

3
2
9
/
0
1
.
8

2
7
4
/
0
1
.
8
07
2
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
6

0
7
3
/
0
2
.
2

1
6
0
/
0
1
.
2

1
9
0
/
0
1
.
4

1
9
2
/
0
0
.
8

1
9
6
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
3
/
0
1
.
9
03
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
9
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
1
/
0
1
.
5

1
5
4
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
6
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
1
/
0
0
.
6

2
2
6
/
0
2
.
2

2
0
7
/
0
1
.
5
03
3
/
0
1
.
0

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
5

3
1
6
/
0
1
.
5

1
7
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
8
/
0
0
.
5

2
3
3
/
0
0
.
7

1
0
3
/
0
0
.
7

3
1
9
/
0
1
.
8
08
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
4

0
9
4
/
0
1
.
3

0
9
3
/
0
1
.
6

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
4

0
9
9
/
0
0
.
7

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
8

1
9
9
/
0
2
.
3
03
3
/
0
1
.
6

0
4
3
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
1

0
4
6
/
0
1
.
9

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
2
2
/
0
2
.
3

0
2
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
0
4
/
0
1
.
5
07
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
2
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
8
/
0
1
.
0

3
2
3
/
0
1
.
1

1
6
5
/
0
1
.
4

2
1
8
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
5
/
0
0
.
3

3
4
0
/
0
1
.
9
10
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
2
5
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
5
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
1

1
6
6
/
0
0
.
8

2
3
3
/
0
0
.
3

2
3
6
/
0
0
.
9
27
6
/
0
0
.
6

3
2
3
/
0
0
.
9

0
4
2
/
0
2
.
2

0
3
6
/
0
2
.
0

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
6

2
9
4
/
0
1
.
4
14
6
/
0
1
.
3

2
1
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
8
0
/
0
1
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
8

1
6
7
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
3
/
0
2
.
0

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
3

2
3
7
/
0
1
.
6
03
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
5
0
/
0
0
.
6

0
8
6
/
0
0
.
9

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
1

3
2
2
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
3

3
1
1
/
0
0
.
8

2
5
8
/
0
0
.
8
8
0
7
3
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
3

1
0
5
/
0
2
.
5

1
1
9
/
0
2
.
6
1
2
4
/
0
2
.
4

1
6
2
/
0
2
.
4

2
2
9
/
0
2
.
9

2
4
6
/
0
3
.3
4
1
7
0
/
0
8
.
8

1
8
8
/
0
7
.
1

2
0
1
/
0
7
.
6

1
8
4
/
0
8
.
5
1
8
8
/
0
9
.
1

1
6
8
/
1
0
.
0

1
7
5
/
1
3
.
1

1
7
7
/
1
3
.5
9
0
3
1
/
0
0
.
6

3
5
0
/
0
0
.
6

0
5
7
/
0
0
.
6

1
7
3
/
0
0
.
4
0
1
8
/
0
0
.
5

2
6
8
/
0
0
.
3

2
3
3
/
0
0
.
3

2
5
8
/
0
0
.8
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

8
29
9
/
0
2
.
8

3
2
1
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
4
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
7
9
/
0
3
.
4

1
1
3
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
8
/
0
0
.
3
31
7
/
0
0
.
6

3
3
1
/
0
1
.
0

1
1
3
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
2
/
0
1
.
2

3
4
5
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
3
/
0
2
.
9

0
7
9
/
0
2
.
0

3
0
0
/
0
1
.
5
32
1
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
4
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
5
/
0
3
.
6

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
2

1
1
7
/
0
2
.
4

2
1
9
/
0
2
.
5

1
5
5
/
0
1
.
9

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
3
18
5
/
0
5
.
8

1
7
6
/
0
7
.
7

1
8
1
/
0
8
.
5

1
8
6
/
0
8
.
6

1
8
9
/
0
8
.
3

1
8
7
/
0
5
.
9

1
8
2
/
1
0
.
0

1
8
2
/
1
1
.
6
17
1
/
0
5
.
4

1
8
5
/
0
6
.
2

1
9
6
/
0
8
.
7

1
9
5
/
0
7
.
7

2
1
0
/
0
6
.
4

2
3
0
/
0
4
.
2

1
9
8
/
0
5
.
0

1
9
8
/
0
4
.
9
10
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
9
3
/
0
3
.
9

1
1
1
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
3
/
0
4
.
9

0
2
4
/
0
4
.
7

0
0
7
/
0
5
.
5

0
0
7
/
0
4
.
8

0
2
3
/
0
5
.
5
33
9
/
0
3
.
3

3
5
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
1
9
/
0
2
.
4

0
4
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
6
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
0
/
0
1
.
4
19
2
/
0
6
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
5
.
5

2
1
1
/
0
4
.
9

2
0
5
/
0
3
.
2

2
0
8
/
0
3
.
5

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
5

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
3
.
2
00
8
/
0
5
.
0

0
2
8
/
0
3
.
1

0
3
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
4
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
8

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
3
5
/
0
2
.
7

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
9
20
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
8
7
/
0
1
.
2

0
2
7
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
5
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
1

0
5
3
/
0
1
.
7

1
5
2
/
0
1
.
8
18
7
/
0
8
.
9

2
0
4
/
0
6
.
6

2
7
2
/
0
4
.
8

2
9
9
/
0
3
.
9

2
3
8
/
0
2
.
2

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
4

2
4
1
/
0
7
.
3

2
4
7
/
0
7
.
4
08
9
/
0
1
.
3

1
3
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
1
8
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
9
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
8
/
0
0
.
6

1
7
4
/
0
1
.
2

2
0
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
9
0
/
0
4
.
2
21
1
/
0
2
.
9

3
5
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
7
8
/
0
4
.
4

0
7
6
/
0
4
.
7

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
9

0
6
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
9
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
9
30
2
/
0
3
.
4

0
1
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
3
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
5

1
7
0
/
0
2
.
3

2
0
3
/
0
1
.
6

1
6
6
/
0
0
.
8

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
1
18
0
/
1
0
.
5

1
9
2
/
0
7
.
5

2
4
8
/
0
3
.
1

1
9
4
/
0
7
.
0

1
9
0
/
0
7
.
7

2
0
7
/
0
6
.
1

2
0
1
/
0
5
.
5

1
9
6
/
0
4
.
9
08
1
/
0
2
.
7

0
9
4
/
0
3
.
2

0
9
7
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
0

1
1
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
0
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
9
1
/
0
2
.
7

0
8
3
/
0
2
.
2
00
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
4
8
/
0
3
.
7

0
7
4
/
0
4
.
0

0
7
6
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
1
/
0
3
.
6

0
6
0
/
0
4
.
4

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
8

0
6
0
/
0
4
.
3
05
0
/
0
3
.
6

0
5
2
/
0
2
.
9

0
3
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
2
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
6

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
8
3
/
0
4
.
4

0
9
1
/
0
3
.
8
00
2
/
0
4
.
0

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
7

0
6
3
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
0
/
0
3
.
4

0
8
1
/
0
4
.
0

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
3
.
9

1
1
5
/
0
3
.
0
23
3
/
0
1
.
5

2
8
0
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
2

1
9
4
/
0
0
.
4

1
3
1
/
0
0
.
5

0
4
0
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
2
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
3
/
0
1
.
8
30
4
/
0
3
.
2

3
1
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
2
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
0
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
9
/
0
2
.
0

1
0
0
/
0
1
.
2
30
4
/
0
0
.
9

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
0

1
2
7
/
0
1
.
9

3
4
2
/
0
0
.
9

1
3
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
6
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
1

0
5
4
/
0
0
.
6
27
1
/
0
3
.
5

3
3
4
/
0
5
.
9

0
2
3
/
0
2
.
8

0
0
4
/
0
3
.
8

0
0
4
/
0
3
.
5

0
0
2
/
0
1
.
7

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
9

0
3
4
/
0
3
.
7
35
5
/
0
2
.
9

3
5
9
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
8
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
7
/
0
3
.
5

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
4
9
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
0
/
0
2
.
9
29
9
/
0
2
.
9

3
3
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
1
/
0
3
.
5

1
3
6
/
0
2
.
2

1
4
0
/
0
0
.
8

0
6
4
/
0
1
.
3

0
7
9
/
0
0
.
8
30
5
/
0
2
.
7

3
5
7
/
0
1
.
9

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
7
/
0
2
.
8

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
2

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
7

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
3
30
2
/
0
2
.
8

3
1
3
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
1

0
4
6
/
0
1
.
6

1
1
1
/
0
1
.
6

1
4
6
/
0
1
.
2

2
1
1
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
9
/
0
1
.
5
32
9
/
0
2
.
6

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
1
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
6
/
0
2
.
9

0
4
8
/
0
3
.
8

0
5
2
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
8
/
0
4
.
0
7
3
0
2
/
0
3
.
5

0
0
4
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
0
/
0
3
.
2

0
8
2
/
0
3
.
3
1
0
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
9
/
0
2
.
7

0
9
5
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
2
/
0
3
.0
5
1
8
0
/
1
0
.
5

1
7
6
/
0
7
.
7

1
9
6
/
0
8
.
7

1
8
6
/
0
8
.
6
1
8
9
/
0
8
.
3

2
0
7
/
0
6
.
1

1
8
2
/
1
0
.
0

1
8
2
/
1
1
.6
8
3
1
7
/
0
0
.
6

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
2

1
9
4
/
0
0
.
4
1
3
1
/
0
0
.
5

1
4
0
/
0
0
.
8

1
6
6
/
0
0
.
8

0
6
8
/
0
0
.3
NS

=

7
2
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
7
03
1
/
0
1
.
5

1
2
6
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
6
/
0
0
.
6

1
7
6
/
0
0
.
7

3
4
3
/
0
0
.
5

0
1
7
/
0
0
.
9

2
5
1
/
0
0
.
7

2
2
6
/
0
1
.
0
09
2
/
0
0
.
5

0
5
4
/
0
0
.
8

1
3
4
/
0
0
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
0
.
4

0
9
1
/
0
0
.
6

2
9
9
/
0
0
.
4

2
7
2
/
0
0
.
5

2
2
1
/
0
1
.
0
25
8
/
0
0
.
6

3
4
6
/
0
0
.
6

1
5
2
/
0
0
.
8

1
7
3
/
0
1
.
4

0
3
0
/
0
1
.
4

0
5
3
/
0
1
.
0

2
2
9
/
0
0
.
5

2
4
0
/
0
1
.
1
07
2
/
0
2
.
6

2
4
4
/
0
0
.
7

1
9
1
/
0
3
.
1

1
6
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
2
9
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
6

0
0
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
0
6
/
0
1
.
1
20
3
/
0
1
.
8

1
8
5
/
0
2
.
2

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
3
/
0
1
.
6

1
2
6
/
0
1
.
0

2
1
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
2

1
2
2
/
0
0
.
6
17
5
/
0
0
.
5

0
9
2
/
0
0
.
2

0
6
5
/
0
0
.
5

2
3
0
/
0
1
.
0

0
4
4
/
0
0
.
5

0
3
4
/
0
0
.
3

0
3
7
/
0
0
.
4

2
5
9
/
0
0
.
6
05
9
/
0
0
.
5

0
7
0
/
0
0
.
5

0
5
8
/
0
0
.
7

1
7
2
/
0
0
.
4

1
8
5
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
1

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
1

3
4
5
/
0
1
.
1
05
1
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
3
/
0
2
.
3

1
1
5
/
0
1
.
9

1
8
9
/
0
2
.
5

0
2
2
/
0
2
.
2

1
6
8
/
0
1
.
5

2
2
3
/
0
1
.
1

2
7
3
/
0
0
.
3
16
6
/
0
0
.
7

0
3
0
/
0
0
.
6

0
5
2
/
0
1
.
4

2
7
1
/
0
1
.
1

1
7
2
/
0
1
.
9

1
1
9
/
0
1
.
4

2
4
9
/
0
0
.
8

2
2
1
/
0
2
.
2
05
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
6
7
/
0
1
.
9

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
1

3
5
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
5
9
/
0
1
.
5

0
4
7
/
0
1
.
1

3
2
1
/
0
0
.
8
33
7
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
6

1
0
3
/
0
0
.
6

0
2
3
/
0
1
.
7

1
3
0
/
0
1
.
2

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
2

2
9
6
/
0
0
.
8

0
5
0
/
0
1
.
7
04
5
/
0
1
.
9

0
0
4
/
0
1
.
1

0
8
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
1
4
/
0
1
.
0

3
1
6
/
0
1
.
5

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
0

0
6
9
/
0
1
.
0

3
2
0
/
0
1
.
9
18
4
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
3
/
0
2
.
6

2
1
1
/
0
2
.
4

1
8
4
/
0
2
.
5

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
6

1
9
7
/
0
2
.
2

1
9
2
/
0
3
.
2

1
8
8
/
0
4
.
0
19
0
/
0
3
.
8

1
9
6
/
0
3
.
7

1
9
4
/
0
3
.
7

2
0
8
/
0
3
.
5

1
9
9
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
1
/
0
4
.
6
05
3
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
3
/
0
2
.
0

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
1

0
8
5
/
0
4
.
0

3
5
4
/
0
2
.
6

3
4
4
/
0
2
.
2

0
8
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
3
3
/
0
2
.
5
26
9
/
0
1
.
2

2
0
6
/
0
1
.
1

1
8
9
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
8
/
0
2
.
0

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
4

2
0
0
/
0
2
.
6

1
9
4
/
0
2
.
6

2
0
9
/
0
2
.
9
19
5
/
0
4
.
3

0
3
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
1
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
0
9
/
0
1
.
0

0
9
2
/
0
2
.
7

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
1

1
9
2
/
0
0
.
9

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
2
04
3
/
0
0
.
8

0
6
1
/
0
1
.
8

0
7
1
/
0
0
.
9

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
5
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
2
/
0
1
.
2

1
6
3
/
0
1
.
3

2
2
2
/
0
2
.
2
04
8
/
0
2
.
0

0
3
3
/
0
0
.
7

0
8
0
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
8
7
/
0
1
.
4

1
3
9
/
0
0
.
9

0
1
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
3
7
/
0
1
.
5
06
4
/
0
1
.
9

0
9
5
/
0
2
.
2

2
8
0
/
0
1
.
8

0
8
5
/
0
2
.
1

0
9
0
/
0
2
.
1

2
7
3
/
0
1
.
0

3
1
2
/
0
3
.
0

3
0
9
/
0
2
.
6
34
3
/
0
3
.
3

3
5
2
/
0
4
.
7

3
4
6
/
0
3
.
6

0
1
0
/
0
1
.
5

1
4
2
/
0
1
.
6

1
8
8
/
0
2
.
4

1
9
5
/
0
1
.
0

1
4
6
/
0
0
.
7
05
0
/
0
1
.
6

1
7
2
/
0
0
.
6

1
2
8
/
0
1
.
0

0
3
5
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
6
/
0
3
.
6

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
3

2
2
2
/
0
1
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
0
.
3
17
3
/
0
0
.
8

1
8
7
/
0
1
.
4

0
1
9
/
0
1
.
5

0
5
6
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
7
3
/
0
0
.
8

2
9
1
/
0
1
.
2

2
2
8
/
0
1
.
2
23
1
/
0
1
.
0

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
5

0
6
6
/
0
1
.
4

0
3
9
/
0
1
.
0

0
0
1
/
0
1
.
6

0
6
4
/
0
1
.
2

2
8
7
/
0
1
.
0

2
8
1
/
0
0
.
8
10
1
/
0
1
.
2

0
1
7
/
0
1
.
5

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
6

1
5
2
/
0
1
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
0
.
8

0
9
2
/
0
0
.
6

0
0
2
/
0
0
.
9

0
5
4
/
0
1
.
4
01
2
/
0
1
.
5

1
8
1
/
0
1
.
3

1
8
8
/
0
1
.
0

2
4
5
/
0
1
.
6

1
9
9
/
0
2
.
9

2
0
8
/
0
2
.
7

2
0
5
/
0
2
.
9

2
2
8
/
0
1
.
8
08
1
/
0
4
.
1

0
9
0
/
0
3
.
9

0
9
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
5
/
0
3
.
4

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
8
/
0
2
.
1

1
7
5
/
0
2
.
1

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
8
17
3
/
0
1
.
4

1
8
4
/
0
1
.
0

1
5
5
/
0
0
.
9

3
4
9
/
0
0
.
5

1
7
5
/
0
0
.
5

1
7
0
/
0
0
.
5

1
7
1
/
0
0
.
9

2
1
7
/
0
1
.
0
08
6
/
0
3
.
1

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
8

3
5
7
/
0
0
.
9

1
8
7
/
0
1
.
9

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
5

2
8
4
/
0
1
.
0

3
2
4
/
0
0
.
6

0
3
4
/
0
1
.
5
9
0
7
7
/
0
1
.
9

0
8
5
/
0
1
.
7

1
0
0
/
0
1
.
6

0
7
8
/
0
1
.
6
0
9
6
/
0
1
.
8

1
1
1
/
0
1
.
5

2
5
1
/
0
1
.
4

2
4
5
/
0
1
.7
7
0
3
1
/
0
5
.
1

3
5
2
/
0
4
.
7

0
9
2
/
0
3
.
7

0
8
5
/
0
4
.
0
1
9
9
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
2
/
0
4
.
3

1
9
3
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
1
/
0
4
.6
4
1
7
5
/
0
0
.
5

0
9
2
/
0
0
.
2

0
6
5
/
0
0
.
5

1
7
2
/
0
0
.
4
1
7
5
/
0
0
.
5

0
3
4
/
0
0
.
3

0
3
7
/
0
0
.
4

1
9
3
/
0
0
.3
MI
S
S
I
N
G

D
A
T
A

D
E
N
O
T
E
D

B
Y

-
-
-

9
31
0
/
0
3
.
0

3
2
2
/
0
2
.
4

0
8
2
/
0
2
.
5

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
7

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
0

0
9
4
/
0
0
.
5

2
1
5
/
0
0
.
4

0
2
8
/
0
0
.
5
30
3
/
0
3
.
2

3
2
5
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
6
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
5
/
0
0
.
7

1
0
1
/
0
0
.
6

1
5
9
/
0
0
.
8

0
3
6
/
0
0
.
5

0
3
0
/
0
0
.
5
33
3
/
0
2
.
0

3
4
0
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
6
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
9
/
0
3
.
1

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
7
9
/
0
0
.
8

1
3
0
/
0
0
.
8
33
9
/
0
3
.
3

0
2
8
/
0
1
.
8

0
5
4
/
0
2
.
8

3
3
5
/
0
1
.
9

0
8
7
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
8

1
9
2
/
0
1
.
9

1
9
7
/
0
1
.
1
28
7
/
0
2
.
0

2
4
9
/
0
1
.
6

0
8
6
/
0
2
.
1

0
8
7
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
8
/
0
2
.
8

0
8
9
/
0
2
.
1

3
0
4
/
0
0
.
9

0
7
7
/
0
0
.
9
30
9
/
0
2
.
2

3
5
0
/
0
2
.
3

0
7
1
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
7
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
7
/
0
2
.
3

0
5
9
/
0
2
.
7

1
1
4
/
0
1
.
7

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
8
30
0
/
0
3
.
2

0
1
9
/
0
1
.
7

0
4
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
4
1
/
0
3
.
0

0
5
0
/
0
2
.
1

0
4
3
/
0
2
.
8

0
9
5
/
0
1
.
9

2
0
0
/
0
1
.
2
30
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
2

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
8

1
7
0
/
0
1
.
3

0
3
8
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
4
/
0
1
.
8

0
4
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
6
/
0
1
.
5
22
8
/
0
1
.
2

1
0
6
/
0
2
.
6

1
8
3
/
0
2
.
6

1
7
6
/
0
1
.
0

0
5
8
/
0
1
.
3

0
2
4
/
0
1
.
3

0
4
1
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
5
/
0
2
.
6
30
6
/
0
4
.
0

0
0
3
/
0
2
.
7

0
9
1
/
0
2
.
8

0
0
8
/
0
1
.
3

1
0
7
/
0
1
.
1

3
3
8
/
0
0
.
8

0
7
7
/
0
1
.
0

1
6
3
/
0
1
.
9
09
7
/
0
1
.
5

0
9
7
/
0
2
.
5

0
9
1
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
8
4
/
0
2
.
6

3
5
4
/
0
1
.
7

0
9
6
/
0
2
.
4

3
0
6
/
0
1
.
8
03
4
/
0
1
.
3

0
1
9
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
5
3
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
7

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
7
6
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
4
/
0
2
.
1
18
1
/
0
2
.
0

1
6
6
/
0
1
.
4

1
4
2
/
0
0
.
7

2
0
5
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
8
/
0
2
.
6

2
0
3
/
0
2
.
5

1
9
2
/
0
3
.
3

1
9
2
/
0
3
.
9
19
7
/
0
2
.
3

1
6
4
/
0
1
.
6

1
0
3
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
1
/
0
1
.
1

0
4
9
/
0
1
.
7

0
0
1
/
0
1
.
2

0
7
3
/
0
1
.
8

0
9
1
/
0
2
.
1
03
1
/
0
2
.
0

3
4
5
/
0
2
.
3

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
6

1
0
9
/
0
1
.
4

3
0
4
/
0
0
.
6

0
9
0
/
0
1
.
1

0
3
0
/
0
0
.
8

3
5
1
/
0
4
.
9
11
6
/
0
0
.
7

1
5
1
/
0
1
.
8

1
6
1
/
0
2
.
0

1
3
5
/
0
1
.
5

1
5
9
/
0
1
.
1

2
0
6
/
0
2
.
0

1
9
0
/
0
2
.
3

2
1
8
/
0
1
.
3
31
4
/
0
1
.
1

0
5
2
/
0
1
.
8

0
3
5
/
0
1
.
4

1
0
1
/
0
0
.
6

1
5
4
/
0
0
.
9

0
9
8
/
0
1
.
1

1
1
7
/
0
0
.
9

3
0
9
/
0
1
.
1
19
8
/
0
2
.
3

1
8
8
/
0
1
.
5

2
1
9
/
0
2
.
0

0
6
4
/
0
2
.
4

0
6
1
/
0
2
.
5

0
2
9
/
0
2
.
1

0
3
2
/
0
1
.
3

0
3
6
/
0
1
.
1
00
1
/
0
1
.
9

0
7
3
/
0
3
.
0

0
6
8
/
0
4
.
0

0
8
9
/
0
3
.
3

1
2
2
/
0
1
.
4

1
8
6
/
0
0
.
8

3
3
3
/
0
1
.
2

0
9
2
/
0
1
.
9
35
0
/
0
6
.
6

3
4
2
/
0
6
.
2

3
3
7
/
0
5
.
2

3
0
4
/
0
3
.
7

2
6
6
/
0
1
.
9

2
5
8
/
0
1
.
5

3
3
6
/
0
2
.
3

3
5
7
/
0
2
.
6
20
2
/
0
0
.
3

2
5
1
/
0
0
.
8

1
4
4
/
0
1
.
4

1
1
7
/
0
1
.
6

0
1
4
/
0
0
.
8

1
9
6
/
0
1
.
0

1
9
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
3
7
/
0
1
.
1
01
7
/
0
3
.
0

0
1
6
/
0
1
.
6

0
9
5
/
0
2
.
5

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
1

0
6
5
/
0
3
.
1

0
8
3
/
0
2
.
7

1
4
0
/
0
1
.
8

1
6
9
/
0
1
.
8
30
5
/
0
2
.
9

3
5
0
/
0
2
.
6

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
2

0
3
8
/
0
2
.
1

3
5
1
/
0
1
.
6

3
2
5
/
0
1
.
1

1
5
1
/
0
1
.
2

1
8
2
/
0
1
.
0
22
4
/
0
2
.
0

2
2
8
/
0
2
.
6

1
1
2
/
0
1
.
1

0
2
5
/
0
0
.
9

0
3
9
/
0
1
.
1

1
0
7
/
0
1
.
6

2
0
0
/
0
1
.
7

2
6
8
/
0
1
.
0
18
5
/
0
2
.
0

1
3
7
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
8
/
0
3
.
2

0
7
2
/
0
3
.
3

0
5
5
/
0
3
.
5

0
5
9
/
0
3
.
1

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
9

0
4
3
/
0
3
.
8
35
5
/
0
2
.
5

2
7
5
/
0
1
.
3

1
6
3
/
0
0
.
7

1
7
2
/
0
0
.
8

2
0
0
/
0
0
.
6

0
9
0
/
0
0
.
6

1
3
5
/
0
1
.
1

0
8
3
/
0
1
.
5
21
9
/
0
1
.
3

1
9
2
/
0
2
.
9

1
9
6
/
0
3
.
2

1
4
2
/
0
1
.
6

1
4
6
/
0
0
.
9

0
1
3
/
0
1
.
4

1
1
3
/
0
0
.
6

2
9
7
/
0
0
.
4
18
1
/
0
3
.
9

2
2
8
/
0
1
.
6

2
5
7
/
0
1
.
2

3
5
6
/
0
1
.
4

0
4
3
/
0
1
.
6

3
3
0
/
0
2
.
5

0
7
0
/
0
2
.
0

0
1
2
/
0
2
.
4
07
7
/
0
1
.
3

0
5
2
/
0
0
.
9

0
2
5
/
0
1
.
4

0
6
8
/
0
2
.
1

0
6
6
/
0
2
.
1

3
6
0
/
0
1
.
9

0
6
6
/
0
0
.
4

0
7
3
/
0
2
.
1
5
3
1
3
/
0
2
.
4

0
2
0
/
0
2
.
1

0
9
0
/
0
2
.
2

0
7
2
/
0
2
.
0
0
7
1
/
0
1
.
8

0
6
2
/
0
1
.
9

0
9
1
/
0
1
.
7

0
7
5
/
0
1
.8
5
3
5
0
/
0
6
.
6

3
4
2
/
0
6
.
2

3
3
7
/
0
5
.
2

3
0
4
/
0
3
.
7
0
5
5
/
0
3
.
5

0
7
8
/
0
3
.
9

0
5
7
/
0
3
.
9

3
5
1
/
0
4
.9
2
2
0
2
/
0
0
.
3

2
5
1
/
0
0
.
8

1
6
3
/
0
0
.
7

1
0
1
/
0
0
.
6
2
0
0
/
0
0
.
6

0
9
4
/
0
0
.
5

0
6
6
/
0
0
.
4

2
9
7
/
0
0
.4
NS

=

7
4
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

1
00
.
0
%
rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

2
.
0
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
2

4
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

1
.
8
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

3
.
3

3
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

1
.
9
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
8

5
.
0

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
8

2
.
4
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

2
.
4

3
.
3

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

2
.
2
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

2
.
0

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

1
.
7
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
5
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

1
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

1
.
4
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
0

3
.
9

7
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
1
14
.
3

3
.
5
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

4
.
8

5
.
7

2
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
14
.
4

3
.
6
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
3

1
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

2
.
1
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

1
.
8
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
5

1
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
8
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

2
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

2
.
3
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

1
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

2
.
5
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

3
.
0
0.
5
31
.
2

4
1
.
2

2
1
.
4

4
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
3
5
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
8
.
8
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
7

2
.
3

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

3
.
4
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
9

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

3
.
6
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

3
.
7

2
.
6

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
5

3
.
4
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

3
.
2

7
.
3

3
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
7

2
.
5
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

2
.
3
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

1
.
9
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
3
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
3
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
4

1
.
9

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

3
.
5
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

3
.
4

7
.
5

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
4

3
.
6
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
3

3
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

2
.
2
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

1
.
6
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

2
.
2
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

2
.
2
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6
4.
9

5
.
0
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
3

3
.
4

1
.
3

1
.
1

0
.
4
8.
3

5
.
0
1.
1
23
.
0

3
3
.
5

2
8
.
4

1
1
.
2
1.
7

1
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

6
9
6
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

6
9
6
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
a
r
c
h
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

3
.
2
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
7

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

3
.
8
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

3
.
4

3
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

2
.
5
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

4
.
3

3
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

2
.
9
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
6

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
7
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

2
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
4
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

1
.
8
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
4
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
2

4
.
3

5
.
5

4
.
0

1
.
7
19
.
0

6
.
3
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

4
.
7

5
.
8

3
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
3
16
.
4

4
.
8
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
7

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
0
6.
9

3
.
8
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

3
.
0
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
3

1
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
9
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
2

1
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

3
.
1
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
5
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

2
.
6
0.
4
14
.
1

3
4
.
0

2
9
.
2

1
3
.
8
6.
5

2
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
3

1
.
8

2
.
5

1
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0
7.
4

3
.
9
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
5

1
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

3
.
6
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
9

4
.
3

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

3
.
8
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

3
.
9

6
.
0

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
4

3
.
2
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
0

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
6
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

2
.
3
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
8
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

2
.
0
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

3
.
2

3
.
8

2
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
0
11
.
0

4
.
1
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

3
.
1

3
.
6

2
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3
11
.
0

4
.
0
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
4
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

2
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
5
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

3
.
2
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

3
.
8
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
9

1
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
8

4
.
2
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
5

2
.
7

2
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
0
8.
0

4
.
8
0.
3
13
.
5

3
2
.
1

3
5
.
1

1
6
.
6
2.
1

0
.
3

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
1
6
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
4
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
a
y
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
.
6

2
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
0
5.
1

3
.
8
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
0

3
.
5

1
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
0
7.
9

4
.
1
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

4
.
8

4
.
8

2
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
12
.
4

3
.
7
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

4
.
4

7
.
3

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
8

3
.
7
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
6

4
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

3
.
3
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
5
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

2
.
0
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0
2.
2

3
.
3
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
1

3
.
0

2
.
4

1
.
3

1
.
7
10
.
6

6
.
3
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

3
.
1

1
.
9

1
.
6

1
.
2

1
.
6
9.
9

5
.
9
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
2

2
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

3
.
4
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
9

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

3
.
4
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

2
.
5
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
9

2
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

3
.
0
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
4.
0

3
.
8
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
4
4.
7

5
.
3
0.
0
9.
0

3
1
.
6

3
7
.
2

1
3
.
8

4
.
6

3
.
8

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

J
u
n
e
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
8

1
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0
4.
7

4
.
1
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
2

3
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
6
7.
9

4
.
6
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

4
.
4

3
.
9

2
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0
11
.
9

4
.
0
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

3
.
6

4
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
0

3
.
2
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

2
.
9

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

2
.
8
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

3
.
1
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
3
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

2
.
4
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
2

3
.
1

0
.
7

2
.
4

0
.
7
9.
0

5
.
9
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
7

4
.
2

2
.
5

1
.
5

0
.
3
10
.
8

5
.
2
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
8

1
.
8

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

4
.
0
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
6

1
.
7

0
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

3
.
6
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
0

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

3
.
7
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

2
.
5

2
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
1
5.
7

3
.
6
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

2
.
2

2
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
1
6.
4

3
.
7
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
1
6.
8

4
.
1
0.
1
9.
6

3
2
.
1

3
5
.
4

1
5
.
1

5
.
7

1
.
9

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

J
u
l
y
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
6

1
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
0

3
.
5
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
9

2
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

3
.
5
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

2
.
6

7
.
0

2
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
12
.
2

4
.
0
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

3
.
5

1
0
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
15
.
5

3
.
8
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

4
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

3
.
5
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

3
.
4
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
0

3
.
4
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
3

4
.
5
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

2
.
4

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

4
.
1
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

2
.
8

6
.
5

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
3

4
.
2
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

2
.
6

1
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
9

3
.
3
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

3
.
0

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

2
.
7
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

2
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
8
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

4
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

2
.
5
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

3
.
1

1
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

2
.
9
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

3
.
2
0.
0
5.
0

3
5
.
8

4
5
.
2

1
3
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
u
g
u
s
t
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

1
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

3
.
3
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

3
.
4
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

3
.
6

3
.
6

1
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
1
9.
7

3
.
9
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

4
.
0

7
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
8

3
.
5
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
5

6
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

3
.
6
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
3

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

2
.
9
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

2
.
3
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
4
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
7

2
.
2

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

3
.
8
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

3
.
8

5
.
0

2
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
11
.
6

3
.
8
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

4
.
3

1
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

2
.
7
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

3
.
1

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

2
.
6
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

2
.
4

2
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

3
.
0
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
6

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
8
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

2
.
4

3
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
3

3
.
3
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
8
0.
0
7.
1

4
0
.
7

4
2
.
7

8
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

2
.
1

1
.
4

1
.
2

0
.
1

1
.
0
7.
2

4
.
7
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
5

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
6
6.
2

4
.
4
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

3
.
2

4
.
0

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
1
10
.
8

4
.
0
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

5
.
0

7
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
1

3
.
1
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

2
.
9

4
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

3
.
3
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

0
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

2
.
6
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
7
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

1
.
9
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
4

2
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
4

2
.
0
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
8

2
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
8

3
.
4
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

4
.
3

1
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

2
.
6
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
8

2
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

2
.
3
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
4.
4

2
.
7
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

3
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
4.
6

2
.
6
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
6
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
3
4.
0

3
.
9
0.
3
21
.
1

3
8
.
1

2
8
.
2

8
.
2

2
.
2

1
.
9

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
3

1
.
4

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

3
.
5
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

3
.
8

1
.
1

2
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
1
9.
1

3
.
7
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
4

3
.
6

2
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
5

2
.
7
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

5
.
3

4
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
3

2
.
8
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

2
.
0

2
.
3

2
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

2
.
5
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

2
.
3

1
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
6
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
3
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

1
.
5
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

2
.
6
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

3
.
5

3
.
8

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

3
.
3
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

3
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

2
.
4
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

2
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

1
.
7
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

1
.
8
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
3
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

1
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
7
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
4.
9

3
.
2
0.
9
28
.
9

3
8
.
6

2
1
.
5

9
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
5
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
5

2
.
6

1
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

2
.
8
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
9

2
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

2
.
4
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

4
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

2
.
2
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

5
.
8

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
8

2
.
7
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

2
.
5

2
.
8

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
0

2
.
5
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

2
.
0
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
7
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
9
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

2
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
0
10
.
6

5
.
9
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
2

2
.
8

3
.
2

4
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
1
13
.
3

4
.
3
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

2
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
3
4.
9

2
.
3
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

1
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

2
.
0
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
2
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

2
.
6
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
3

2
.
4
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

2
.
7
1.
1
28
.
6

3
5
.
0

2
0
.
7

1
0
.
0
3.
2

1
.
4

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

rg
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
oi
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
,

2
0
2
0
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

wi
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
it
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
348
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
2

2
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

2
.
2
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

4
.
0

2
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

1
.
8
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

5
.
0

6
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
5

1
.
8
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

3
.
4

5
.
8

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
9

2
.
1
7
8
.
7
5

-

1
0
1
.
2
5

2
.
4

3
.
5

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

2
.
2
101
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
4
123
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

1
.
2
146
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

2
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

1
.
3
168
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

3
.
5

3
.
1

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

2
.
1
191
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

5
.
6

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
1

2
.
5
213
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
3

1
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

1
.
6
236
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

1
.
1
258
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
3
281
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

1
.
9
303
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

3
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

2
.
1
326
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
0
4.
7

3
.
5
3.
8
40
.
3

4
2
.
6

1
2
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
8

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

1
.
8
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

3
.
8

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

3
.
8

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
3

1
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
3

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

1
.
7
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

6
.
3

7
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
2

1
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

7
.
1

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
5

1
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

5
.
9

6
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
1

1
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

2
.
5

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

1
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

4
.
6

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

1
.
6
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
1

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
7
1.
7
51
.
9

4
6
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
5

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

2
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
5

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

2
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

3
.
3

1
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

1
.
9
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

0
.
8
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
6
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

9
.
1

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
7

2
.
7
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
3

5
.
8

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
4

2
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
3

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

1
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
5

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

2
.
6
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
7

2
.
5

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

2
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
5

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

2
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

3
.
5
0.
8
20
.
7

4
1
.
3

3
7
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

5
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

3
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

2
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

3
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
3

4
.
5

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

2
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
1
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

4
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

0
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

3
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

4
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

3
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

7
.
6

9
.
6

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
20
.
4

3
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
8

7
.
0

5
.
7

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
5

3
.
1
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

0
.
6

2
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

3
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

2
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

3
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
6

1
.
3

3
.
8

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

4
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

3
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

5
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

4
.
0
0.
0
12
.
7

3
2
.
5

4
5
.
9

8
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
5
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

1
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

4
.
6
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
9

2
.
4

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

4
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

3
.
0

3
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

3
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

7
.
3

3
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
2

2
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

2
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

2
.
3
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

3
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

2
.
4

5
.
2

7
.
6

4
.
1

1
.
7
21
.
2

6
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

3
.
8

9
.
5

6
.
0

1
.
7

0
.
2
21
.
4

5
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
0
3.
4

4
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

3
.
9
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

3
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

3
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
6

1
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
5
3.
8

6
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

2
.
5

1
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
4
6.
0

5
.
9
0.
0
3.
7

2
7
.
4

3
4
.
0

2
4
.
4

7
.
8

2
.
8

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
3
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
8
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

2
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

2
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

3
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

5
.
6

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
2

2
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

8
.
0

1
0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
20
.
6

2
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

7
.
5

4
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
8

2
.
9
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

4
.
0

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

2
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

3
.
5

1
2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
16
.
3

3
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
5

9
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
1

3
.
7
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
3

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

3
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

1
.
9
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

3
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

2
.
3
0.
0
9.
1

4
4
.
9

4
6
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
7
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
7
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
9

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

1
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

3
.
8

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

1
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

5
.
5

4
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
4

1
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

5
.
3

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
1

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

6
.
4

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

1
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

3
.
1

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

1
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

4
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

4
.
9

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

4
.
7

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

1
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
0

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
1

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

1
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
3
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

1
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

3
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

1
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
5
2.
2
57
.
6

4
0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
5
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
0
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

2
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

2
.
6

1
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

3
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

3
.
6

2
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

2
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
1

5
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
0

2
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

2
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
6
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

1
.
7
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
9

4
.
5

2
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
6
14
.
1

4
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

4
.
3

6
.
3

2
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
1
14
.
8

4
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0
6.
3

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

2
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
3

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2
4.
3

3
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
1
5.
0

4
.
0
0.
7
22
.
7

3
6
.
3

2
6
.
3

1
0
.
0

3
.
0

1
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
7
5
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
8
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
2

3
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

2
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

2
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
6

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

2
.
1
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
1
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
1
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
6
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
7
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

2
.
1
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
2

7
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
6

2
.
2
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
7

7
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

1
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
4

7
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
9

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

3
.
1

5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
0

1
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

7
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

2
.
2
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

9
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

2
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

2
.
1
0.
6
28
.
0

7
1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
2
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
4
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
3

5
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
7

4
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

3
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

3
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

2
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

3
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
3

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

3
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

4
.
3

1
0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
3

3
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
6

6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
6

3
.
0
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

1
.
7

6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

3
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
7

5
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

3
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

3
.
0

1
2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
7

3
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
2

7
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

3
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

7
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

3
.
4
0.
0
4.
3

2
3
.
5

7
2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

4
.
5

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

4
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

9
.
0

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
7

4
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

0
.
8

4
.
5

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

4
.
3
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

2
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

3
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

4
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

1
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

4
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

0
.
8

3
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

3
.
9
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
5

8
.
6

4
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
0

4
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

4
.
9

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
4

4
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
.
5

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

5
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

3
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

4
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

4
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

4
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

1
0
.
9

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
3

4
.
7
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

6
.
4

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
2

5
.
0
0.
0
3.
4

6
.
0

6
5
.
4

2
5
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
6
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
0
5.
1

6
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

2
.
8

2
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
5
7.
0

5
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

4
.
0

6
.
4

5
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
0
16
.
6

4
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

3
.
9

6
.
6

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
9

3
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

3
.
8

2
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

3
.
1
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
7
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0
1.
8

3
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

1
.
1

4
.
2

4
.
7

3
.
7

2
.
1
16
.
0

7
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

2
.
6

4
.
3

2
.
6

1
.
9
12
.
6

7
.
2
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

5
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

5
.
9
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

5
.
5
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
1
1.
9

5
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
7

1
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1
3.
0

6
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

1
.
2

2
.
4

1
.
8

0
.
5
6.
3

7
.
2
0.
0
1.
1

1
9
.
3

3
2
.
4

3
1
.
3

1
0
.
7

5
.
2

1
0
0
.
0

5
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
4
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
8
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

2
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
7
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
4

7
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
9

3
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

9
.
3

2
2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
31
.
9

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

3
.
6

1
3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
17
.
6

3
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
8

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

3
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

2
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

2
.
5

7
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
1

3
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

3
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

2
.
8
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

2
.
5
0.
4
3.
2

3
5
.
5

6
0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
7
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

4
.
6

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
5

1
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
7

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

1
.
9
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
5

8
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

1
.
9
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

4
.
6

7
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
7

1
.
7
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

4
.
6

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
8

1
.
6
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

1
.
8
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

3
.
8

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

1
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

2
.
9

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

5
.
4

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
6

1
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
8

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

1
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
9

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

1
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

1
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
1

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

1
.
8
0.
4
43
.
8

5
5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
5

1
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0
5.
7

3
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
9

2
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2
6.
8

4
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

4
.
1

4
.
4

2
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0
11
.
7

3
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

4
.
0

5
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
8

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
5

3
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

2
.
9
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

2
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

2
.
1
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
8

3
.
3

1
.
9

1
.
4

0
.
8
10
.
2

5
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
6

3
.
2

2
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
7
10
.
6

5
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
1

1
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

3
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

3
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
2

1
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

3
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
8

2
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

3
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
8

2
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
7

3
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
1

1
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
2
6.
5

4
.
7
0.
2
10
.
6

3
1
.
9

3
5
.
9

1
5
.
2

4
.
1

2
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
8
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
8
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
7
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

1
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

1
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
2

1
.
3
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

1
.
8
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
2

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

1
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

2
.
1
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
4

1
0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
9

2
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
4

9
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
2

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

1
1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
7

2
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
9

1
4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
16
.
5

2
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

9
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
8

2
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

6
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

2
.
2
0.
0
20
.
4

7
9
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
1
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
8
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

7
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

3
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

3
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
3
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

3
.
3
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

3
.
9
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

3
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

3
.
1
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
0

4
.
1

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
7

2
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
0

4
.
9

3
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

2
.
6
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

3
.
7

5
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
2

2
.
9
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
9

8
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
1

3
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

3
.
7

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

3
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

7
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

3
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
9

7
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

3
.
2
0.
0
8.
2

2
9
.
5

6
2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
.
1
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
7

5
.
4

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

3
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

3
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

4
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
8

2
.
7

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

4
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

3
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

4
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

3
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

4
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
3

2
.
2

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

3
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
8

1
1
.
2

7
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
21
.
0

4
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

4
.
9

7
.
1

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
3

3
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
8

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

3
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

2
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
0

4
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

4
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

7
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

4
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

4
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

4
.
7
0.
0
1.
3

1
8
.
8

5
8
.
0

2
1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
.
1
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
7

1
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
9
3.
9

7
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
1

2
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
5
6.
5

5
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
6

1
0
.
4

4
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
3
19
.
1

4
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

6
.
1

1
4
.
9

2
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
24
.
0

3
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
3

6
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

3
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

1
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

3
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
9

5
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
0

4
.
2
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

2
.
8

3
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0
8.
1

4
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
5

6
.
5

4
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0
12
.
9

4
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
3

1
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
8

4
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

3
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
9

6
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
5

5
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0
1.
4

4
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3
1.
6

6
.
7
0.
0
0.
7

1
9
.
7

5
0
.
5

2
3
.
6

3
.
5

2
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
3
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
3
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

2
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

2
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

4
.
6

7
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
1

3
.
3
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

6
.
2

2
3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
30
.
4

3
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

4
.
6

2
0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
25
.
5

3
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
6

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

3
.
1
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
3

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

3
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
6

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

3
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

3
.
1
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

2
.
6
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

2
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

2
.
6
0.
0
4.
2

2
9
.
4

6
6
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
0
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

1
.
6
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

5
.
0

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

1
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

7
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

2
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

6
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

2
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

2
.
5

4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

1
.
6
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
7

1
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

2
.
9

6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

1
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

5
.
7

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

1
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

1
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
5

4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

1
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

1
.
3
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

1
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

1
.
8
0.
7
41
.
4

5
7
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
8
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
3
5.
1

4
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
2
5.
4

3
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

3
.
1

4
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
1
10
.
9

4
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

4
.
2

8
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
4

3
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
0

5
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

3
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

2
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
3

1
.
9

1
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

3
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
8

4
.
6

2
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
10
.
6

3
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

3
.
7

1
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

2
.
8

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

3
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
1

3
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

2
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
1
4.
3

3
.
3
0.
1
11
.
0

3
8
.
2

3
8
.
8

1
0
.
1

1
.
2

0
.
7

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
8
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
8
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
4

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

1
.
7
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
4

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
7
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
9
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

1
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
3

1
.
1
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

2
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
1
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

1
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

3
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

1
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

1
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

6
.
8

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

1
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

8
.
8

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
8

1
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

6
.
8

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
8

1
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

8
.
1

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
1

1
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

7
.
1

4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

1
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

1
.
7
4.
1
57
.
4

3
8
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
9
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
7

2
.
6
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
9
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

3
.
3

3
.
3

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

2
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

1
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

1
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

4
.
1

8
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
1

1
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

6
.
6

4
.
9

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
9

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
3

7
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

1
.
9
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

3
.
3

4
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

1
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

6
.
6

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

2
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
5

4
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
0

2
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
9
1.
6
33
.
6

4
9
.
2

1
5
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

5
.
5
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

4
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

3
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

4
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
6

2
.
6

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

2
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

2
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

2
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

2
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

2
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

5
.
8

8
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
17
.
5

3
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
2

8
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
6

2
.
1
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
9

3
.
2

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

2
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

3
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

3
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

3
.
9

3
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

3
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
3

1
1
.
0

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
6

3
.
8
0.
6
16
.
2

3
5
.
1

3
9
.
6

8
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
5
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
.
6

2
.
2

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

4
.
6
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

3
.
3

2
.
2

3
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
1
10
.
5

4
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

6
.
0

3
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
8

3
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

7
.
9

5
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
8

2
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

2
.
5

2
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

2
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

2
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

1
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
5

2
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
7

2
.
1

3
.
6

2
.
7

1
.
0
13
.
3

5
.
9
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

4
.
3

5
.
8

6
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
1
17
.
2

4
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
3
2.
4

4
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

4
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

3
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

3
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
1

4
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0
4.
0

5
.
6
0.
4
8.
2

3
6
.
8

2
8
.
3

1
9
.
6

4
.
9

1
.
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

6
6
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
0
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

2
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

4
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

1
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

4
.
7

7
.
3

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
6

2
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

1
0
.
3

9
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
21
.
8

2
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

3
.
0

6
.
8

9
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
19
.
4

2
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

1
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
7
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

1
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

3
.
0

2
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

2
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

3
.
0

4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
7

3
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

1
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

1
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

2
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

2
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

2
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
2
1.
6
24
.
1

4
4
.
0

3
0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
2
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
9
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
7

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

1
.
6
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

6
.
1

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

1
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

6
.
0

4
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
4

1
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

5
.
0

4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

5
.
8

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

1
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

3
.
7

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

1
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

3
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

5
.
2

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

5
.
2

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

1
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
4

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

1
.
5
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

1
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

1
.
3
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

2
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
2
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

3
.
0

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

1
.
5
3.
5
60
.
5

3
5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

5
3
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

2
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0
7.
6

2
.
7
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

3
.
1

4
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
4

5
.
6

3
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
7

2
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

2
.
3

2
.
9

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

2
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

1
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
6

2
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
3
7.
9

3
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

4
.
0

3
.
3

2
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
11
.
0

3
.
5
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
0

2
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1
5.
0

2
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

1
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

1
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

1
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
2
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
0

2
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

2
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0
4.
7

3
.
1
2.
0
32
.
6

3
8
.
8

1
8
.
1

6
.
5

1
.
5

0
.
5

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
8
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
5
.
0

2
5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
50
.
0

1
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
5

1
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
2
.
5

1
2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
25
.
0

1
.
6
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
5

1
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
0.
0
62
.
5

3
7
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

0
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
0

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

1
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

3
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

1
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

1
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

3
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

3
.
0

3
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

1
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
4

3
.
9

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

2
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

9
.
1

7
.
3

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
19
.
0

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

8
.
6

2
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
6

1
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

4
.
7

4
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
3

1
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

3
.
4

1
.
3

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

2
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

4
.
3

2
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

1
.
7
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
0
1.
3
53
.
4

3
2
.
8

1
2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
5

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

3
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
5

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

3
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
1

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

3
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

3
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

3
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

3
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

3
.
9
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

8
.
6

1
6
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
25
.
3

3
.
5
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

7
.
4

3
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
3

3
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
1

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

2
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

4
.
7

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

3
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
1

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

3
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
3

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

3
.
6
0.
0
0.
0

4
6
.
7

5
2
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
5
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
1

1
.
6

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

4
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
6

2
.
4

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

4
.
9
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

2
.
1

4
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
0

3
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

4
.
7

6
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
4

3
.
3
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

3
.
7

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

3
.
1
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

2
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

2
.
7
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

2
.
7
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

2
.
9

7
.
9

6
.
3

3
.
4

1
.
4
22
.
3

5
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

3
.
9

8
.
7

5
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
2
19
.
7

4
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
0
3.
3

4
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

3
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

3
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

3
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
4
3.
2

6
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

1
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
3
5.
0

5
.
9
0.
2
4.
3

2
3
.
9

4
1
.
0

2
1
.
6

6
.
5

2
.
3

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

9
9
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
5
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
9

2
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
8

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
8
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
20
.
0

2
.
1
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

8
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

2
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

6
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

2
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
1
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

6
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

2
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
0
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

1
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

1
.
8
0.
0
9.
7

9
0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
8
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
.
5
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

4
.
4

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

1
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

6
.
6

5
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
8

1
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

7
.
2

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
8

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

6
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

1
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

3
.
8

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
0

1
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

5
.
4

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

4
.
6

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

1
.
2
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

5
.
0

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

1
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
0

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

1
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
0

1
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

1
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

1
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

3
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

1
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
4

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

1
.
3
2.
0
60
.
9

3
7
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
9
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
5
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

2
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

2
.
6

1
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

3
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

3
.
6

2
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

2
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
1

5
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
0

2
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

2
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
6
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

1
.
7
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
9

4
.
5

2
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
6
14
.
1

4
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

4
.
3

6
.
3

2
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
1
14
.
8

4
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0
6.
3

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

2
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
3

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2
4.
3

3
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
1
5.
0

4
.
0
0.
7
22
.
7

3
6
.
3

2
6
.
3

1
0
.
0

3
.
0

1
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
7
5
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
8
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
7
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

2
.
7
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

2
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

1
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

2
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

5
.
0

1
5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
20
.
0

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

6
.
2

1
1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
17
.
5

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

5
.
0

6
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

1
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

2
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

2
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

2
.
2
0.
0
17
.
5

8
2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

1
.
6

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

3
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
6

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

3
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
8

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

3
.
1
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
1
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

1
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

1
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
3

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

4
.
4

8
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
7

3
.
1
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
6

2
.
1

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
8

2
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
3

2
.
8

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

2
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

2
.
1

3
.
1

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

2
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
8

3
.
6

7
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
7

3
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
3

4
.
7

7
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
2

3
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
8

4
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

3
.
3
0.
5
22
.
2

3
0
.
2

4
7
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
8
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
7
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

3
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

3
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

7
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
3

4
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

4
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

3
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

2
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

3
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

3
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
3

2
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

3
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

3
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
2

6
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
0
8.
8

4
.
1
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

4
.
7

6
.
9

3
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0
15
.
7

4
.
2
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

4
.
1

4
.
7

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

3
.
6
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

1
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

3
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
6

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

3
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
1

4
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
5

3
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
1

3
.
8

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

4
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
3

4
.
1

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

4
.
2
0.
0
0.
0

3
3
.
5

5
2
.
7

1
2
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
1
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
4
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
0

1
.
5

2
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0
5.
5

5
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
9

2
.
8

1
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
4
6.
8

5
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

3
.
8

6
.
9

4
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0
16
.
0

4
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

4
.
0

1
1
.
0

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
17
.
7

3
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

2
.
3

5
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

3
.
6
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

3
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

3
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0
1.
1

4
.
8
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
0

4
.
6

3
.
9

2
.
8

1
.
7
14
.
0

6
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
5

3
.
4

2
.
0

1
.
5
9.
6

7
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
3

1
.
2

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

5
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

6
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

5
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
1
1.
8

5
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
1
3.
0

6
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
7

1
.
2

2
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
4
6.
2

6
.
6
0.
0
0.
9

1
8
.
0

4
1
.
1

2
7
.
5

8
.
3

4
.
2

1
0
0
.
0

5
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
5
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
8
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

4
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
7

2
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

8
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

2
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
8
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
7

2
.
3
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
6

2
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

7
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

2
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

8
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

2
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

2
.
2
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

2
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

2
.
2
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

2
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

5
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

2
.
1
0.
0
2.
4

9
7
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

5
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

5
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

1
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
8

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
8

7
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
1

1
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

6
.
0

6
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
0

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

6
.
0

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
1

1
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

2
.
8

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

5
.
1

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
2

1
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

4
.
1

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

7
.
8

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

1
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

4
.
6

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

1
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
2

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

1
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
6
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

1
.
6
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

1
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
3

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

1
.
4
0.
9
54
.
8

4
4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
8
0
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

A
p
r
i
l

-

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
5

1
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0
5.
7

3
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
9

2
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2
6.
8

4
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

4
.
1

4
.
4

2
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0
11
.
7

3
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

4
.
0

5
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
8

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
5

3
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

2
.
9
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

2
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

2
.
1
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
8

3
.
3

1
.
9

1
.
4

0
.
8
10
.
2

5
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
6

3
.
2

2
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
7
10
.
6

5
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
1

1
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

3
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

3
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
2

1
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

3
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
8

2
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

3
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
8

2
.
4

1
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
7

3
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
1

1
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
2
6.
5

4
.
7
0.
2
10
.
6

3
1
.
9

3
5
.
9

1
5
.
2

4
.
1

2
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
8
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
1
8
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
9
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

2
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
8

1
1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
0

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

5
.
6

2
1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
27
.
1

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

2
.
8

1
5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
17
.
8

2
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

4
.
7

1
5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
20
.
6

2
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
9

9
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

2
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

2
.
1
0.
0
17
.
8

8
2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

2
.
7

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

2
.
8
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

3
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

1
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
2

3
.
5

8
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
0

3
.
2
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
4

8
.
4

4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
3

2
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

4
.
4

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

2
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

5
.
5

4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

2
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

6
.
4

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
1

2
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

5
.
1

5
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
8

3
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

3
.
3

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

3
.
1
0.
0
15
.
7

4
5
.
5

3
8
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
5
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
0
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
5

4
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
5

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

3
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
3

2
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

3
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
9

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
3

2
.
1
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

3
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

3
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

3
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
8

3
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

3
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

4
.
7

8
.
5

5
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
6

4
.
1
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

6
.
0

3
.
2

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
4

3
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
8

3
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

3
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
8

1
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

3
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

7
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

2
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
2

3
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

3
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
8

1
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

3
.
3
0.
0
0.
0

4
6
.
1

4
2
.
6

1
1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
1
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
4
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
6

1
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
7
4.
0

6
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
1

2
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4
5.
8

5
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

2
.
6

1
0
.
0

3
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
2
17
.
9

4
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

5
.
1

1
8
.
1

1
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0
25
.
5

3
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

2
.
6

1
1
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
2

3
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

2
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

3
.
8
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
1

4
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
2

4
.
2
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

1
.
4

2
.
8

3
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
7.
7

4
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

1
.
1

3
.
8

3
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0
8.
7

4
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
6

4
.
1
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

3
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
9

5
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
2

8
.
2
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0
1.
3

4
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
2
2.
3

4
.
8
0.
0
1.
9

1
9
.
6

5
5
.
4

1
8
.
9

2
.
6

1
.
5

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

9
8
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
4
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

2
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
7

5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

2
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
4

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
8
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
5

2
.
3
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

2
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

2
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

2
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
1
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
1

2
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

1
.
9
0.
8
5.
0

9
4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

5
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

4
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

1
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

5
.
8

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

1
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
8

1
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

5
.
3

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

4
.
0

5
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

1
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

4
.
4

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

1
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

4
.
0

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
0

1
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

3
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

6
.
6

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

1
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
7

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

1
.
5
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

1
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
0

1
.
3
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

1
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
2
0.
4
56
.
2

4
3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
u
l
y

-

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
3
5.
1

4
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
2
5.
4

3
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

3
.
1

4
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
1
10
.
9

4
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

4
.
2

8
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
4

3
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
0

5
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

3
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

2
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
3

1
.
9

1
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

3
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
8

4
.
6

2
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
10
.
6

3
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

3
.
7

1
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

2
.
8

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
5
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

3
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
1

3
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

2
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
1
4.
3

3
.
3
0.
1
11
.
0

3
8
.
2

3
8
.
8

1
0
.
1

1
.
2

0
.
7

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
8
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
8
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

1
0
0
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
8
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
28
.
6

1
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
28
.
6

1
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
28
.
6

1
.
6
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
3

1
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
0.
0
42
.
9

5
7
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

0
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
7

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

1
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
7

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

1
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

3
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

1
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

1
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
3

0
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

1
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

1
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
7

3
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
3

1
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

9
.
3

6
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
16
.
3

1
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
0
.
3

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
0

1
.
3
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

7
.
3

3
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
0

1
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

8
.
0

3
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
6

1
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

7
.
6

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

1
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

1
.
5
3.
3
62
.
8

3
2
.
6

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
0
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
1

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

3
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

3
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

2
.
9
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

3
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

3
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
8

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
5

3
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
1
.
4

1
0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
22
.
5

3
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
9

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
5

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

2
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

4
.
7

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

3
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

5
.
9

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
5

2
.
9
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

6
.
8

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
0

3
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
0

7
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
2

3
.
5
0.
0
0.
0

5
7
.
2

4
2
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
3

2
.
7

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

4
.
8
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
6

1
.
9

2
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
1
7.
3

5
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

4
.
5

3
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
9

3
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

7
.
5

1
0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
9

3
.
3
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

3
.
2

7
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
3

3
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

2
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
8

2
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
2

2
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
.
6

1
.
6

3
.
2

2
.
4

0
.
9
10
.
0

6
.
6
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

2
.
8

6
.
1

5
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
1
15
.
3

4
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
3
2.
4

4
.
0
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

3
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

3
.
2
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

3
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
6

4
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
5

1
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
0
4.
3

5
.
3
0.
8
6.
8

2
8
.
3

3
9
.
2

1
9
.
1

4
.
4

1
.
5

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
5
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
4
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

2
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

8
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
7

2
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
1

2
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

2
0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
20
.
9

2
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

9
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

2
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

2
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

7
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

2
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

2
.
1
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

1
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

1
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
9

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

1
.
8
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

2
.
2
0.
5
6.
8

9
2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
0
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

9
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
8

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

1
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

6
.
2

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
2

1
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

7
.
5

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
5

1
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

6
.
1

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

1
.
3
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

6
.
8

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

1
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

4
.
4

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

1
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

3
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

5
.
3

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
4

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

6
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

1
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
4

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

1
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

1
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

1
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
3
3.
8
65
.
6

3
0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
0
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
0
4
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
1
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

2
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

2
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
5

3
.
2

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0
7.
6

2
.
7
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

3
.
1

4
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
4

5
.
6

3
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
7

2
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

2
.
3

2
.
9

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

2
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

1
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
6

2
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
3
7.
9

3
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

4
.
0

3
.
3

2
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0
11
.
0

3
.
5
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
0

2
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1
5.
0

2
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
5

1
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

1
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

1
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

1
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
2
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
0

2
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

2
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0
4.
7

3
.
1
2.
0
32
.
6

3
8
.
8

1
8
.
1

6
.
5

1
.
5

0
.
5

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
4
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
2
0
8
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
4

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
4

1
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

1
.
9
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

1
.
9
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

1
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
3
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
0

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
8

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

2
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

4
.
5

7
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
4

1
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

5
.
0

6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
7

1
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

4
.
0

7
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

1
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

3
.
4

8
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
6

2
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

3
.
6

7
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

1
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

4
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

2
.
0
1.
4
36
.
8

6
1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
7
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
4
.
5
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

2
.
1

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
7

3
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

3
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
4

1
.
5

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

2
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
1

2
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
1

3
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

1
.
3

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

5
.
7

6
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
8

2
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
6

4
.
3

4
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

2
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
8

3
.
9

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

2
.
6
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
8

5
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

2
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

3
.
8

7
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
0

3
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

2
.
2

5
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

3
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

3
.
2
0.
4
13
.
4

3
2
.
9

5
3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
1
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
4

4
.
4

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
5

4
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
9

4
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

4
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
1

2
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
5

3
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

0
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

3
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

3
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
2

1
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

3
.
1
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

4
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
2

2
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

3
.
6
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

3
.
6

9
.
5

4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
2

4
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

4
.
6

5
.
1

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
4

3
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

1
.
2

3
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

3
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

1
.
0

2
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

3
.
8
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
7

3
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

4
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

1
.
4

6
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

4
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

6
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

4
.
4
0.
1
7.
1

2
0
.
3

5
4
.
6

1
7
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
0
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

9
.
1
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
7

1
.
6

2
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2
4.
9

5
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
5

2
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3
7.
9

4
.
9
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

3
.
8

5
.
9

3
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1
13
.
7

4
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

6
.
2

7
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
16
.
1

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

2
.
8

3
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

3
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

3
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0
1.
6

3
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
8

3
.
7

5
.
1

2
.
7

1
.
3
15
.
0

6
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

2
.
7

6
.
1

5
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
6
16
.
0

5
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
2

0
.
1
3.
0

4
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

4
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

4
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

4
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
2
2.
9

5
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
6

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
3
4.
6

6
.
4
0.
1
3.
2

2
5
.
4

3
6
.
3

2
5
.
1

6
.
9

3
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
0
8
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
5
.
1
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

2
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

3
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

2
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

5
.
8

4
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
2

2
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

8
.
6

1
5
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
25
.
4

3
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

5
.
8

1
1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
6

3
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

2
.
2

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

2
.
7
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

2
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

1
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

3
.
0

6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
2

3
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
5

5
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
0

3
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
2
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

2
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

2
.
4
0.
6
11
.
5

3
9
.
3

4
8
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
8
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
5
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
5

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

1
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

4
.
5

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

1
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

4
.
5

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
3

1
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

4
.
6

5
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
1

1
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

5
.
2

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

1
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

3
.
0

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

1
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

3
.
8

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

1
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

4
.
2

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

5
.
2

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

1
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
8

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

1
.
6
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
5

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
8

1
.
6
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
3

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

1
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

1
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

1
.
6
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

1
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
7

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

1
.
6
2.
1
53
.
4

4
4
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
5
0
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
7
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
1
5.
5

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

2
.
3

1
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1
6.
6

3
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

3
.
9

3
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
10
.
2

3
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
5

4
.
8

5
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
2

3
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

2
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

2
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
2

2
.
6

1
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
4
9.
7

4
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

3
.
4

4
.
3

2
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
2
11
.
7

4
.
1
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

2
.
7

1
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
1

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
6
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
1
5.
1

3
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
1
5.
1

3
.
9
0.
7
19
.
2

3
6
.
3

2
9
.
8

1
0
.
4

2
.
4

1
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

8
7
6
7
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

8
7
8
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

2
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

2
.
7
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

2
.
7
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

2
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

2
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

2
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

4
.
5

1
3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
3

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

6
.
4

1
6
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
22
.
8

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

4
.
5

1
1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
8

1
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

3
.
0

1
2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
15
.
8

2
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

8
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
4

2
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

5
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
1
0.
0
20
.
3

7
9
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
0
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
2

2
.
3

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

2
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

1
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
7

2
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

1
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
6

1
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
7

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

1
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
5

3
.
8

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
0

2
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

5
.
1

6
.
1

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
0

2
.
2
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

4
.
7

3
.
7

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
4

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

3
.
2

4
.
2

2
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

2
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

3
.
1

4
.
0

3
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
9

2
.
5
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

3
.
3

3
.
9

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
0

2
.
6
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
3

2
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

2
.
7
1.
1
34
.
3

3
6
.
2

2
8
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
7
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
5
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

3
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

3
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
6

3
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

3
.
6
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
7

2
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

3
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

1
.
6

1
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

3
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
4

2
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
5

3
.
3
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

3
.
2
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

2
.
5

5
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0
8.
0

3
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

7
.
0

1
0
.
3

2
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0
20
.
1

3
.
7
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

5
.
8

3
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
5

3
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

3
.
2

2
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

3
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

3
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

5
.
4

2
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

3
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
0

3
.
9

3
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

3
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
0

2
.
3

4
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
5

3
.
7
0.
0
0.
0

4
5
.
0

4
7
.
7

7
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
2
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
5

2
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2
5.
2

5
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
0

2
.
4

2
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
2
6.
3

5
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

3
.
2

6
.
3

2
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
1
13
.
2

4
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

5
.
2

1
1
.
6

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
6

3
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

2
.
9

6
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
3

3
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

3
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

3
.
1
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
5

3
.
7
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

1
.
7

4
.
4

4
.
2

2
.
2

1
.
0
13
.
8

6
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

2
.
2

4
.
9

4
.
3

1
.
1

0
.
5
13
.
2

5
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1
2.
7

4
.
6
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

4
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

4
.
2
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

4
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1
2.
7

5
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
8

1
.
1

1
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
2
4.
5

5
.
9
0.
2
3.
2

2
2
.
0

4
4
.
4

2
2
.
1

5
.
6

2
.
5

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
7
8
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
3
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

2
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
6

8
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
5

2
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
3

2
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
9
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
19
.
7

2
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

9
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

2
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
0

5
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
7

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
1
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

4
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

2
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

6
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

2
.
2
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
1
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
6

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

1
.
9
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

1
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
6

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

2
.
0
0.
3
6.
5

9
3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

6
3
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

7
.
2
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
6

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
0

1
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

5
.
0

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
6

1
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

5
.
9

5
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

1
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

6
.
3

4
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
2

1
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

6
.
2

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
0

1
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

4
.
0

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

1
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

4
.
5

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

1
.
3
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

4
.
7

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
0

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

6
.
4

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
9

1
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
0

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

1
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

1
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

1
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

1
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
2

1
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

1
.
3
2.
4
61
.
5

3
6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
6
4
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
7
6
7
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
8
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
1
5.
5

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

2
.
3

1
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1
6.
6

3
.
4
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

3
.
9

3
.
2

1
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
10
.
2

3
.
2
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
5

4
.
8

5
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
2

3
.
0
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

2
.
5

3
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

2
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
2

2
.
6

1
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
4
9.
7

4
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
0

3
.
4

4
.
3

2
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
2
11
.
7

4
.
1
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

2
.
7

1
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
1

2
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

2
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
6
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

2
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
1

1
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
1
5.
1

3
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
1
5.
1

3
.
9
0.
7
19
.
2

3
6
.
3

2
9
.
8

1
0
.
4

2
.
4

1
.
1

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

8
7
6
7
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

8
7
8
4
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
9
.
8
%


(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV%



$33(1',;%+285/<6,*0$7+(7$'(/7$7$1'67$%,/,7<&/$66
'$7$
43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
.
8

4
1
.
3

2
4
.
8

4
1
.
8

9
.
3

8
.
9

8
.
0

7
.
6

7
.
4

7
.
3

7
.
2

8
.
0

3
0
.
2

8
.
2

2
1
.
9

8
.
8

5
.
6
9.
0

8
.
4

1
3
.
9

2
1
.
3

2
8
.
3

6
4
.
5

3
9
.
2

2
2
.
2

2
0
.
3

1
5
.
1

1
4
.
0

2
5
.
8

1
4
.
8

1
6
.
9

9
.
8

7
.
6

8
.
4
11
.
0

4
8
.
5

2
5
.
2

5
4
.
6

1
5
.
5

2
7
.
4

1
5
.
8

1
3
.
7
11
.
3

2
3
.
4

1
7
.
0

3
6
.
4

1
8
.
3

1
7
.
9

1
1
.
6

2
5
.
2
4
1
.
5
6.
7

4
9
.
2

5
3
.
9

3
1
.
8

2
0
.
0

1
4
.
6

9
.
8

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
7

9
.
0

7
.
6

1
0
.
5

8
.
0

7
.
0

6
.
2

5
.
8

6
.
7
14
.
9

1
3
.
8

2
7
.
3

1
5
.
6

1
1
.
3

1
4
.
6

3
0
.
1

3
0
.
2

2
9
.
2

3
9
.
5

1
6
.
6

7
.
7

1
5
.
4

8
.
0

5
.
1

5
.
9

1
2
.
6
23
.
6

5
5
.
8

4
3
.
6

3
6
.
9

4
9
.
2

3
2
.
7

4
5
.
1

1
7
.
5

1
1
.
0

1
5
.
3

9
.
6

1
0
.
2

2
8
.
3

1
0
.
4

4
.
5

3
7
.
3

1
8.
1
6.
7

2
5
.
2

2
2
.
2

7
.
7

2
8
.
5

1
7
.
4

2
1
.
0

5
0
.
4

4
1
.
8

2
5
.
2

1
3
.
3

8
.
5

8
.
5

8
.
6

1
1
.
9

1
0
.
9

1
6
.
4
26
.
2

1
6
.
7

2
3
.
1

1
9
.
7

4
5
.
8

6
9
.
1

4
9
.
8

3
4
.
1

5
9
.
2

4
1
.
5

2
8
.
2

1
5
.
8

7
.
1

8
.
0

6
.
9

6
.
7

7
.
1
25
.
2

5
3
.
6

4
6
.
3

4
0
.
9

2
5
.
8

3
1
.
6

1
1
.
3

1
3
.
6

1
7
.
9

1
6
.
8

2
1
.
9

1
1
.
2

9
.
9

1
0
.
2

2
0
.
7

6
.
7

6
.7
6.
9

1
1
.
8

3
3
.
5

2
8
.
4

7
.
3

7
.
1

1
0
.
1

9
.
7

8
.
1

9
.
5

8
.
1

7
.
4

7
.
2

7
.
0

6
.
1

6
.
3

5
.
7
11
.
2

1
3
.
6

2
9
.
3

2
7
.
3

9
.
5

1
8
.
9

1
4
.
3

2
5
.
0

1
9
.
1

1
3
.
2

1
2
.
8

7
.
3

6
.
7

2
0
.
0

9
.
0

2
6
.
4

2
7
.
6
6.
4

6
.
7

6
.
7

7
.
2

6
.
8

1
3
.
2

1
4
.
9

9
.
9

5
0
.
8

4
3
.
5

1
3
.
6

2
4
.
5

1
0
.
9

1
6
.
5

1
1
.
5

1
4
.
8

1
1
.
3
5.
1

2
8
.
5

9
.
3

4
.
8

7
.
1

7
.
0

9
.
2

2
6
.
5

1
5
.
1

1
7
.
1

1
1
.
3

2
5
.
2

8
.
0

1
3
.
6

9
.
1

7
.
1

5
.
2
34
.
0

3
6
.
9

4
4
.
7

2
9
.
7

4
9
.
3

2
8
.
3

1
2
.
6

3
1
.
5

1
9
.
6

8
.
9

1
1
.
5

1
1
.
3

1
9
.
6

2
0
.
8

6
.
5

6
.
6

6
.
8
26
.
8

1
7
.
3

1
6
.
7

1
4
.
4

9
.
1

2
6
.
7

2
7
.
3

1
3
.
9

1
3
.
7

9
.
1

1
0
.
0

9
.
2

1
6
.
2

3
7
.
9

3
8
.
7

1
3
.
3

1
4
.1
4.
7

2
6
.
7

1
6
.
2

1
9
.
1

1
3
.
0

2
4
.
3

3
5
.
4

1
9
.
3

2
1
.
8

2
4
.
3

1
7
.
9

9
.
6

1
5
.
2

5
.
5

5
.
1

5
.
5

5
.
8
9.
9

2
4
.
4

2
4
.
0

1
8
.
6

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
1

1
9
.
5

4
0
.
8

2
4
.
2

3
2
.
0

1
8
.
7

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
9

4
.
4

3
.
7

4
.
2

6
.
4
36
.
8

2
2
.
7

1
8
.
6

1
3
.
9

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
3

2
4
.
1

2
3
.
1
43
.
0

3
0
.
7

4
2
.
2

2
6
.
5

1
3
.
9

4
9
.
4

2
6
.
2

3
6
.
5
2
7
.
4
12
.
6

1
6
.
4

1
6
.
6

2
5
.
8

4
4
.
7

5
2
.
2

1
9
.
7

2
5
.
8
36
.
7

2
8
.
2

1
3
.
0

1
1
.
5

2
6
.
2

6
.
4

2
3
.
2

3
2
.
2
52
.
8
7.
1

9
.
9

9
.
1

7
.
3

1
1
.
7

1
8
.
2

1
4
.
1

1
8
.
2

1
2
.
8

1
3
.
7

1
3
.
9

1
2
.
0

7
.
4

1
4
.
7

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
0

8
.
2
24
.
7

4
3
.
0

4
0
.
1

6
9
.
5

4
9
.
2

4
0
.
2

2
2
.
8

2
9
.
5

3
5
.
1

5
5
.
9

4
0
.
7

2
5
.
5

8
.
2

3
.
4

5
.
7

1
3
.
9

7
.
5
30
.
4

3
0
.
7

3
4
.
7

6
2
.
7

3
0
.
7

3
8
.
7

2
1
.
7

1
3
.
6
22
.
7

1
9
.
9

1
6
.
9

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
6

1
8
.
5

2
6
.
6

4
9
.
8
2
1
.
9
15
.
6

1
2
.
0

2
3
.
9

2
3
.
8

1
3
.
3

3
5
.
0

2
2
.
0

2
4
.
3
30
.
2

3
3
.
8

4
1
.
5

4
2
.
8

2
4
.
4

2
2
.
2

1
5
.
3

1
5
.
3
1
6
.
9
20
.
9

2
4
.
4

1
1
.
7

2
0
.
5

2
2
.
4

3
4
.
6

3
8
.
8

4
3
.
3
31
.
2

4
4
.
4

1
3
.
6

1
0
.
7

7
.
3

1
9
.
7

3
4
.
3

1
1
.
9
13
.
9
33
.
3

4
4
.
5

3
9
.
1

4
2
.
9

2
1
.
8

3
3
.
5

1
3
.
1

1
8
.
3
26
.
4

4
0
.
8

2
5
.
9

1
7
.
2

9
.
2

1
6
.
5

1
7
.
0

2
6
.
5
42
.
0
36
.
6

1
7
.
0

2
3
.
6

3
2
.
8

3
1
.
8

1
6
.
5

1
0
.
0

7
.
5

7
.
7

7
.
1

6
.
9

1
7
.
7

2
3
.
3

4
1
.
8

2
3
.
1

1
5
.
3

3
1
.
5
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

2
3
.
3

1
6
.
5

2
7
.
9

1
0
.
1

2
0
.
6

3
4
.
7

1
0
.
2

5
.
1

3
.
4

1
8
.
4

3
2
.
6

3
6
.
7
7.
9

6
.
1

6
.
8

7
.
1

8
.
8

1
1
.
6

1
0
.
9

1
9
.
7

3
9
.
8

2
8
.
9

1
7
.
8

9
.
1

6
.
1

8
.
0

1
0
.
7

7
.
8

6
.
7
13
.
8

9
.
5

1
7
.
1

4
5
.
0

2
6
.
8

8
.
6

8
.
3

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
1

2
3
.
8

6
.
9

6
.
3

1
1
.
3

1
1
.
7
23.
8

2
5
.
1

2
4
.
5

2
7
.
3

2
1
.
8

2
5
.
1

1
9
.
8

2
1
.
1

2
2
.
9

2
2
.
8

1
7
.
3

1
5
.
5

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
3

1
3
.
9

1
6
.
5
17
.
9.
0

5
5
.
8

5
3
.
9

6
9
.
5

4
9
.
3

6
9
.
1

4
9
.
8

5
0
.
4

5
9
.
2

5
5
.
9

4
2
.
2

4
2
.
8

3
0
.
2

4
9
.
4

3
8
.
7

4
9
.
8
52
.
5.
1

6
.
1

6
.
7

4
.
8

6
.
8

7
.
0

7
.
7

7
.
0

7
.
4

7
.
1

6
.
9

7
.
3

5
.
1

3
.
4

3
.
7

4
.
2

5
.
2
F
F

E

F

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

E

D

E

E

E
F
F

F

F

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

D

F

D

E
F
D

E

F

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

F

E

D

D

D

D
D
F

F

F

C

A

C

C

D

A

C

F

F

F

D

F

F
E
F

F

F

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

D
E
E

F

E

D

C

A

A

A

A

C

D

D

D

E

E

D
F
F

F

F

A

A

A

C

D

C

D

D

F

D

E

F

F
F
F

F

D

A

C

B

A

A

A

C

D

D

D

D

D

E
F
D

F

F

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

E

E

D

E

E

E
F
F

F

F

A

A

D

C

B

C

B

D

D

D

E

E

E
F
D

F

F

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

E

E
D
E

F

F

D

B

C

A

B

C

C

D

E

D

D

D

F
D
E

D

D

D

D

C

D

A

A

C

D

D

E

D

E

D
E
F

D

D

D

D

D

A

C

C

D

F

D

E

D

E

E
F
F

F

A

A

A

C

A

B

D

D

D

F

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

C

D

A

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

F

F

D

D
F
F

E

B

C

A

A

B

B

A

B

D

E

E

E

E

E
D
F

F

B

C

C

B

A

A

A

B

D

D

E

E

E

E
F
F

F

C

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

F

F

F

F
E
E

E

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

C

D

F

E

F

F

F
E
D

D

D

D

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

E

E

D

D

D
F
F

F

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

E

E

D

D
F
F

F

A

A

A

B

C

A

B

C

D

E

F

F

F

F
E
D

F

A

C

A

B

A

A

A

A

F

F

F

E

E

E
F
F

D

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

C

D

E

F

E

D

E
F
F

F

A

B

A

C

B

A

A

A

E

D

E

E

F

F
F
E

F

A

A

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

F

F

E

F
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

A

C

A

D

B

A

D

E

F

F

F

F
D
E

E

D

D

D

D

B

A

A

B

D

E

D

D

D

E
E
D

E

A

A

D

D

D

C

C

C

E

F

E

E

D

D
22
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.
9

6
.
8

6
.
5

7
.
8

7
.
6

7
.
5

1
0
.
9

1
3
.
0

1
1
.
8

1
2
.
0

1
2
.
4

1
2
.
7

6
.
3

1
0
.
1

1
6
.
4

4
.
7

2
3
.
4
14
.
7

1
1
.
1

1
1
.
5

1
1
.
0

1
0
.
2

1
1
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
3
.
7

9
.
5

8
.
3

8
.
2

9
.
0

6
.
2

1
6
.
7

3
.
0

2
1
.
9

4
0
.
1
8.
4

7
.
2

1
0
.
6

1
7
.
0

7
.
9

7
.
2

7
.
8

8
.
0

8
.
6

8
.
9

7
.
8

7
.
2

6
.
9

7
.
6

6
.
8

7
.
0

7
.
5
9.
0

7
.
9

1
0
.
6

8
.
7

7
.
6

9
.
9

9
.
8

1
0
.
4

1
1
.
4

9
.
5

7
.
3

7
.
1

9
.
1

7
.
3

1
8
.
5

1
1
.
3

9
.
9
12
.
7

8
.
2

6
.
8

9
.
3

9
.
2

7
.
3

8
.
1

8
.
9

7
.
7

1
1
.
7

1
1
.
6

8
.
3

5
.
8

2
8
.
2

5
1
.
4

2
4
.
2

1
8
.
7
17
.
3

6
.
9

7
.
4

5
.
8

6
.
3

7
.
9

9
.
0

2
5
.
9

1
3
.
5

1
2
.
4

1
2
.
5

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
6

7
.
8

9
.
1

1
2
.
3

1
7
.
1
15
.
1

8
.
4

8
.
2

8
.
0

8
.
4

8
.
0

1
0
.
1

1
2
.
1

1
1
.
9

1
2
.
2

9
.
3

9
.
8

8
.
6

1
0
.
5

9
.
3

7
.
1

1
5
.
9
27
.
4

2
4
.
0

2
3
.
9

8
.
8

8
.
5

1
0
.
7

1
9
.
2

2
2
.
0

2
2
.
3

1
8
.
3

1
3
.
3

1
1
.
8

6
.
3

1
2
.
4

1
2
.
3

9
.
5

1
3
.
6
4.
5

7
.
3

2
1
.
5

1
7
.
9

1
8
.
5

2
0
.
0

1
9
.
9

4
7
.
6

4
2
.
3

4
8
.
5

3
7
.
4

1
8
.
7

9
.
9

2
2
.
8

2
4
.
9

8
.
0

5
.
6
18
.
4

4
5
.
8

3
6
.
6

4
7
.
4

1
7
.
4

4
1
.
5

1
3
.
1

1
2
.
0
16
.
5

1
5
.
9

2
0
.
6

1
6
.
6

1
7
.
5

8
.
2

5
.
6

2
2
.
9

2
3.
3
6.
3

1
1
.
2

5
7
.
8

2
9
.
8

1
4
.
7

1
3
.
1

1
1
.
8

1
2
.
1
16
.
3

1
9
.
6

2
9
.
9

2
0
.
4

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
9

7
.
6

5
.
3

5
.
9
25
.
2

3
3
.
0

5
3
.
0

3
6
.
0

1
3
.
4

8
.
5

8
.
1

1
0
.
0

1
2
.
7

1
8
.
5

8
.
3

1
4
.
4

1
5
.
4

7
.
4

7
.
4

8
.
2

7
.
2
32
.
2

2
4
.
7

1
9
.
9

4
8
.
6

1
2
.
8

1
0
.
2

1
2
.
8

1
5
.
2
20
.
0

2
1
.
4

1
6
.
0

2
1
.
0

1
0
.
0

1
6
.
3

9
.
0

7
.
1

9
.7
22
.
5

1
4
.
5

6
.
1

1
3
.
7

1
6
.
1

3
4
.
6

9
.
5

1
3
.
5

2
1
.
7

2
2
.
6

2
0
.
0

1
3
.
3

1
8
.
5

1
9
.
0

2
0
.
0

3
5
.
5

1
7.
8
8.
6

8
.
0

1
3
.
6

2
0
.
2

1
1
.
9

1
3
.
3

1
5
.
4

1
7
.
9

1
5
.
0

1
6
.
5

1
3
.
7

9
.
3

1
3
.
9

1
1
.
2

7
.
6

7
.
4

1
1
.
3
11
.
1

5
9
.
5

3
0
.
1

2
4
.
5

1
5
.
2

3
4
.
1

5
0
.
2

7
1
.
4

5
6
.
9

6
6
.
4

3
4
.
0

1
3
.
4

1
2
.
2

9
.
6

5
.
2

6
.
6

1
0
.4
4.
9

5
.
0

5
.
1

9
.
8

1
2
.
7

1
1
.
9

1
7
.
7

2
2
.
6

2
1
.
6

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
5

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
3

6
.
9

8
.
2

8
.
0

1
5
.
0
2.
8

1
0
.
1

2
0
.
9

2
6
.
0

2
7
.
2

3
8
.
9

3
8
.
1

3
7
.
8

6
4
.
9

3
5
.
0

2
4
.
6

1
6
.
1

9
.
1

1
1
.
8

5
.
9

7
.
1

7
.
4
25
.
2

2
0
.
6

3
1
.
4

2
8
.
5

1
1
.
9

2
7
.
4

5
1
.
4

4
8
.
3

3
8
.
4

5
6
.
1

2
1
.
7

1
4
.
0

6
.
6

4
.
4

1
3
.
5

4
.
9

3
.
6
27
.
0

2
0
.
4

3
6
.
1

1
0
.
7

1
9
.
8

3
7
.
2

2
2
.
8

2
7
.
4
17
.
3

2
4
.
0

1
2
.
0

9
.
0

1
7
.
4

1
5
.
2

3
1
.
3

1
6
.
1
23
.
7
24
.
9

4
5
.
9

4
2
.
3

1
0
.
4

1
2
.
5

2
8
.
5

3
0
.
0

2
0
.
5

2
4
.
0

2
6
.
7

5
0
.
4

2
1
.
2

6
.
4

8
.
2

6
.
4

6
.
4

6
.
8
12
.
2

1
6
.
7

2
7
.
3

1
8
.
3

8
.
6

9
.
5

1
1
.
3

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
4
1
5
.
6

2
2
.
7

3
0
.
2

2
3
.
6

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
1

1
7
.
5

1
5.
9
23
.
3

2
4
.
7

1
4
.
1

5
0
.
6

4
3
.
8

2
7
.
0

5
6
.
2

5
2
.
1
28
.
5

2
5
.
5

2
0
.
0

1
8
.
2

1
7
.
2

5
.
3

5
.
8

2
4
.
6

1
2.
6
11
.
7

1
1
.
3

4
7
.
9

1
4
.
8

3
1
.
2

4
2
.
8

3
1
.
2

3
7
.
1
30
.
9

3
1
.
5

3
0
.
1

3
0
.
6

1
2
.
0

1
8
.
8

5
.
2

5
.
9

6
.3
9.
0

1
8
.
4

3
9
.
6

9
.
1

1
4
.
6

2
3
.
4

2
3
.
7

3
9
.
1

6
3
.
2

3
6
.
6

4
0
.
7

3
5
.
9

1
4
.
2

7
.
3

1
6
.
1

1
6
.
0

6
.
6
10
.
4

2
2
.
5

1
8
.
3

1
9
.
3

2
3
.
0

2
1
.
6

2
5
.
0

3
7
.
3
25
.
0

2
5
.
6

1
6
.
6

2
0
.
6

1
1
.
1

1
7
.
6

2
4
.
3

2
6
.
7
1
5
.
9
15
.
8

2
6
.
5

4
5
.
1

1
2
.
3

3
1
.
6

6
.
6

7
.
4

8
.
5

1
4
.
7

1
3
.
8

9
.
7

1
7
.
1

1
0
.
0

1
6
.
3

2
0
.
9

1
0
.
9

4
2
.
9
19.
1

1
8
.
1

2
3
.
5

2
0
.
0

1
5
.
5

1
9
.
6

1
9
.
7

2
4
.
1

2
4
.
3

2
2
.
9

1
9
.
7

1
5
.
7

1
1
.
5

1
1
.
9

1
3
.
7

1
3
.
3
14
.
5
9.
0

5
9
.
5

5
7
.
8

5
0
.
6

4
3
.
8

4
2
.
8

5
6
.
2

7
1
.
4

6
4
.
9

6
6
.
4

5
0
.
4

3
5
.
9

2
3
.
6

2
8
.
2

5
1
.
4

3
5
.
5
42
.
9
4.
5

5
.
0

5
.
1

5
.
8

6
.
3

6
.
6

7
.
4

8
.
0

7
.
7

8
.
3

7
.
3

7
.
1

5
.
8

4
.
4

3
.
0

4
.
7

3
.
6
F
E

D

A

D

C

C

D

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

E

D

E

E

F
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

E

F

F
D
E

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

D

E

E

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

E

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

F

F

E

E
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E
F
F

F

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
E

F

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

F

D

F

F

D

E
D
E

F

A

C

A

C

D

C

C

B

D

D

D

E

F

F
E
D

F

A

C

C

D

D

C

B

A

F

D

E

D

E

E
F
F

F

A

C

D

D

D

C

B

D

D

D

E

E

D

D
F
F

F

A

C

D

C

C

B

B

C

B

D

E

D

E

D
F
E

E

C

C

A

D

C

B

A

B

C

E

F

F

F

F
D
D

D

B

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

E

D
D
F

F

A

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

C

D

D

E

E

D
E
E

E

D

C

D

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

E

D

D

D
F
D

F

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

C

D

D

E

E

E
F
F

F

A

D

A

A

A

A

A

B

C

E

E

D

E

E
F
F

F

D

B

A

A

A

C

A

D

D

E

E

F

E

F
F
F

F

D

D

A

A

B

A

A

A

B

E

D

E

D

D
D
D

D

C

D

D

D

C

C

C

A

A

E

D

D

E

D
F
F

E

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

D

E

E

F

E
D
D

F

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

F

E

E

E
F
F

F

D

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

E

E

E

E

E
D
F

F

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

C

B

D

F

F

F

E
E
F

F

D

A

D

D

D

C

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D
13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
.
1

5
3
.
3

1
4
.
8

8
.
4

1
1
.
0

1
0
.
8

4
3
.
5

5
3
.
0

3
6
.
1

3
1
.
0

3
0
.
9

1
9
.
3

1
4
.
2

6
.
0

4
.
8

1
3
.
1

9
.
9
19
.
8

3
9
.
5

2
0
.
5

2
4
.
2

1
8
.
0

8
.
4

9
.
4

1
1
.
8

1
9
.
8

3
7
.
9

4
6
.
6

3
4
.
8

3
0
.
1

8
.
6

7
.
2

1
8
.
0

1
1
.
4
6.
0

1
3
.
3

4
6
.
4

2
7
.
7

1
8
.
9

1
7
.
9

2
0
.
2

1
8
.
7
18
.
9

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
7

1
9
.
8

3
0
.
8

1
4
.
7

1
8
.
3

3
8
.
3
10
.
4
28
.
7

5
.
0

3
5
.
3

3
0
.
7

1
7
.
9

4
9
.
7

8
.
9

7
.
4

9
.
9

9
.
6

1
0
.
7

9
.
1

6
.
8

4
.
8

5
.
4

5
.
6

5
.
9
15
.
9

6
.
5

8
.
4

4
3
.
7

7
.
6

7
.
2

8
.
0

7
.
7

9
.
3

7
.
8

7
.
6

6
.
8

7
.
4

7
.
2

1
0
.
2

7
.
4

8
.
3
32
.
3

3
6
.
0

7
.
3

1
0
.
5

1
7
.
2

2
2
.
5

3
6
.
6

3
8
.
6

4
3
.
9

3
6
.
3

3
3
.
7

2
7
.
6

3
3
.
0

6
.
4

7
.
3

1
0
.
2

7
.
3
5.
7

7
.
1

2
1
.
2

1
9
.
6

3
0
.
0

1
9
.
4

1
6
.
8

1
4
.
6

1
5
.
1

2
2
.
8

1
6
.
6

1
1
.
9

9
.
8

9
.
7

9
.
9

6
.
0

9
.
1
10
.
3

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
1

1
9
.
3

3
6
.
5

5
2
.
2

5
3
.
8

4
2
.
3

4
6
.
0

4
4
.
0

3
7
.
8

4
7
.
1

2
7
.
0

7
.
1

5
.
6

5
.
5

6
.
1
35
.
4

5
1
.
7

4
1
.
4

1
6
.
7

1
5
.
1

1
8
.
4

2
0
.
1

1
6
.
9
17
.
6

1
5
.
8

1
3
.
6

1
8
.
3

2
1
.
4

2
2
.
5

1
0
.
4

2
9
.
4
2
8
.
0
25
.
6

1
8
.
7

1
3
.
8

2
1
.
0

2
2
.
2

1
6
.
0

3
2
.
3

2
8
.
5
26
.
1

1
8
.
3

2
5
.
5

2
0
.
2

1
3
.
6

1
1
.
0

1
2
.
0

1
7
.
2
1
5
.
8
6.
5

8
.
1

8
.
6

2
7
.
1

2
9
.
3

2
4
.
3

3
3
.
9

1
8
.
2

1
4
.
9

1
1
.
8

1
0
.
9

9
.
2

6
.
4

1
1
.
0

7
.
3

4
9
.
6

1
0
.
2
6.
4

7
.
2

6
.
6

7
.
0

8
.
2

7
.
8

9
.
0

8
.
8

8
.
2

9
.
6

9
.
7

7
.
5

6
.
8

7
.
1

6
.
3

7
.
2

7
.
1
6.
7

7
.
2

7
.
2

7
.
7

9
.
0

9
.
6

1
1
.
0

1
0
.
1

1
4
.
2

1
3
.
4

1
0
.
9

8
.
4

7
.
7

6
.
3

7
.
0

6
.
5

6
.
4
32
.
4

3
4
.
2

3
0
.
6

3
4
.
2

1
5
.
3

1
5
.
3

2
9
.
1

1
5
.
4

1
6
.
4

1
6
.
9

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
5

1
0
.
6

8
.
3

7
.
9

8
.
9

4
0
.1
34
.
6

1
3
.
4

1
3
.
9

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
4

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
2

1
3
.
6

1
3
.
1

1
0
.
5

9
.
6

9
.
9

7
.
0

7
.
4

9
.
8

1
8
.
2
7.
8

2
3
.
4

1
8
.
2

7
.
5

1
4
.
2

2
7
.
1

3
5
.
9

3
3
.
2

1
5
.
6

1
2
.
5

2
7
.
7

1
5
.
6

6
.
9

7
.
4

7
.
5

1
7
.
0

3
0
.
6
14
.
1

1
0
.
5

3
0
.
9

7
.
4

1
1
.
1

9
.
9

9
.
7

1
4
.
1

1
7
.
3

4
8
.
4

4
2
.
3

4
9
.
3

2
9
.
8

1
4
.
3

1
1
.
3

1
5
.
5

1
0
.5
4.
0

7
.
1

6
.
9

2
8
.
6

4
2
.
3

1
9
.
7

1
9
.
6

2
8
.
6

3
0
.
4

1
7
.
7

3
1
.
9

1
0
.
9

1
0
.
7

1
0
.
0

3
3
.
9

9
.
5

3
0
.
3
12
.
0

3
4
.
1

2
6
.
6

1
7
.
2

8
.
8

1
5
.
3

4
2
.
6

5
3
.
0

5
6
.
0

2
8
.
9

3
9
.
2

2
1
.
8

1
1
.
8

6
.
9

8
.
2

2
8
.
8

6
.
6
4.
1

2
5
.
0

3
1
.
7

9
.
7

1
2
.
2

1
5
.
7

2
7
.
2

5
5
.
1

4
2
.
1

2
6
.
3

2
0
.
6

2
4
.
1

3
4
.
2

1
6
.
2

1
2
.
5

8
.
1

8
.
1
24
.
6

4
1
.
3

1
3
.
5

9
.
5

1
0
.
1

1
2
.
9

1
8
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
1

2
2
.
8

1
4
.
4

1
3
.
5

7
.
2

6
.
8

7
.
1

6
.
4
6.
5

6
.
0

8
.
1

9
.
3

9
.
4

1
0
.
5

1
2
.
5

1
1
.
6

1
3
.
5

1
5
.
4

1
3
.
4

1
0
.
3

1
1
.
5

2
9
.
3

1
8
.
2

1
6
.
2

1
5
.
8
24
.
6

7
.
7

7
.
3

1
0
.
1

1
1
.
7

3
2
.
8

2
8
.
4

4
3
.
9

3
5
.
2

2
8
.
2

5
0
.
3

1
9
.
9

8
.
9

7
.
9

1
1
.
1

8
.
2

1
3
.
5
19
.
3

8
.
3

1
9
.
8

2
3
.
1

1
2
.
1

1
9
.
2

3
4
.
7

2
5
.
8

2
8
.
0

3
1
.
3

3
3
.
3

2
7
.
1

1
9
.
4

1
9
.
9

1
3
.
3

7
.
0

1
7.
8
16
.
6

7
.
0

1
2
.
1

2
6
.
7

4
0
.
2

1
8
.
5

2
0
.
9

2
3
.
6

2
4
.
1

2
3
.
7

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
5

8
.
9

1
1
.
6

1
9.
0
6.
3

6
.
5

7
.
7

9
.
8

1
3
.
3

3
2
.
0

2
4
.
3

2
6
.
8

1
9
.
6

3
8
.
6

4
9
.
5

4
0
.
9

3
1
.
7

1
4
.
2

1
2
.
7

8
.
0

7
.
4
0.
1

1
8
.
3

1
4
.
4

1
3
.
1

1
9
.
0

2
2
.
2

1
9
.
0

2
4
.
2
16
.
0

3
0
.
7

1
9
.
4

2
1
.
3

8
.
5

1
5
.
0

2
0
.
9

2
2
.
2

2
4.
6
7.
7

7
.
5

7
.
5

1
0
.
1

1
3
.
5

1
2
.
5

1
9
.
7

1
8
.
7

2
4
.
6

2
3
.
1

2
1
.
7

1
3
.
7

1
1
.
7

9
.
3

6
.
4

7
.
6

7
.
0
6.
3

6
.
0

7
.
0

8
.
6

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
0

1
3
.
6

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
2

1
2
.
3

1
1
.
9

1
0
.
5

7
.
7

8
.
3

7
.
1

7
.
9

1
2
.
7
16.
1

1
8
.
1

1
6
.
6

1
6
.
7

1
6
.
9

1
9
.
2

2
2
.
8

2
3
.
3

2
2
.
6

2
3
.
0

2
3
.
7

1
9
.
3

1
5
.
5

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
1

1
3
.
7
15
.
0
0.
1

5
3
.
3

4
6
.
4

4
3
.
7

4
2
.
3

5
2
.
2

5
3
.
8

5
5
.
1

5
6
.
0

4
8
.
4

5
0
.
3

4
9
.
3

3
4
.
2

2
9
.
3

3
3
.
9

4
9
.
6
42
.
0
4.
0

5
.
0

6
.
6

7
.
0

7
.
3

7
.
2

8
.
0

7
.
4

8
.
2

7
.
8

7
.
6

6
.
8

6
.
4

4
.
8

4
.
8

5
.
5

5
.
9
E
F

D

D

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

F

D

F

D

F
F
F

E

D

D

D

A

A

A

B

A

B

D

E

E

D

D
F
F

F

A

B

D

D

D

B

A

A

A

F

D

E

F

D
E
E

F

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

E

D

F

F

D
F
E

F

A

B

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

D

D
E
E

D

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

E

D

C

B

A

A

A

B

B

A

E

E

E

D

E
E
E

B

B

A

B

C

C

C

A

C

D

D

D

D

E

D
D
D

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

E

E

E
F
F

A

C

C

B

B

C

B

C

C

B

F

F

D

F

F
F
E

C

B

B

C

A

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

A

A

A

A

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

A

A

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

F
F
E

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
E

B

D

C

A

A

B

C

D

C

C

E

E

D

D

F
E
D

A

D

D

D

D

C

C

A

A

A

F

E

D

D

D
E
E

D

A

A

B

B

A

B

B

A

D

D

D

F

D

F
D
F

A

C

D

C

A

A

A

A

B

C

D

E

D

E

E
E
F

A

D

D

C

B

A

A

B

B

A

F

E

D

D

D
F
E

C

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
E
E

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

D

D

D
F
D

D

D

D

A

B

A

B

A

A

B

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

A

D

B

B

A

A

B

B

B

E

F

D

E

E
E
E

D

A

A

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

F
E
E

D

D

C

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

F

E

E

D

E
F
F

C

C

B

B

B

C

C

C

B

B

D

E

F

F

F
D
E

D

D

C

D

C

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

E

D

E
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

D
32
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.
5

3
4
.
1

2
3
.
0

3
1
.
2

4
6
.
0

3
6
.
7

3
3
.
1

2
7
.
1
36
.
4

5
7
.
1

4
6
.
2

4
8
.
5

3
6
.
5

2
1
.
1

8
.
9

5
.
5

8
.
1
24
.
5

2
2
.
5

1
4
.
4

1
3
.
6

1
5
.
3

2
4
.
5

2
4
.
7

2
3
.
4
28
.
6

2
9
.
4

2
5
.
2

1
5
.
7

1
5
.
4

7
.
5

4
8
.
0

2
1
.
0
68
.
1
18
.
9

9
.
2

7
.
8

1
2
.
1

4
1
.
0

1
1
.
8

1
2
.
2

1
7
.
6

1
7
.
9

1
4
.
5

1
0
.
1

1
6
.
6

1
2
.
7

1
0
.
4

4
8
.
5

9
.
8

6
.
9
7.
4

7
.
0

7
.
4

7
.
9

9
.
1

1
3
.
2

1
3
.
5

2
0
.
1

1
5
.
8

2
0
.
7

6
4
.
0

3
9
.
5

2
0
.
5

1
0
.
9

1
1
.
9

9
.
6

2
9
.
4
33
.
5

1
3
.
6

1
6
.
3

3
4
.
7

1
1
.
7

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
6

1
8
.
2
19
.
8

2
1
.
2

2
3
.
7

1
7
.
4

1
7
.
5

1
1
.
0

8
.
7

1
8
.
1
26
.
1
9.
2

7
.
4

1
3
.
7

2
4
.
0

1
9
.
6

1
9
.
5

2
5
.
8

2
8
.
8

2
6
.
8

2
2
.
4

1
0
.
6

1
0
.
1

8
.
3

6
.
2

5
.
8

5
.
3

5
.
5
6.
4

6
.
3

6
.
7

1
1
.
7

1
7
.
2

3
2
.
7

1
7
.
0

1
7
.
2

8
.
5

8
.
3

7
.
5

2
0
.
0

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
1

1
8
.
9

1
9
.
8

1
0
.
3
32
.
4

1
6
.
3

2
8
.
6

2
6
.
2

3
0
.
2

4
8
.
8

4
8
.
6

3
8
.
9
31
.
7

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
7

2
7
.
0

2
1
.
2

1
1
.
4

7
.
8

4
.
2

2
7.
7
5.
8

7
.
0

8
.
9

9
.
3

1
2
.
5

2
9
.
2

1
9
.
4

2
0
.
5

1
3
.
8

2
3
.
7

4
1
.
4

1
9
.
2

2
5
.
4

1
3
.
8

1
4
.
7

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
7
30
.
0

5
0
.
4

3
6
.
3

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
3

2
2
.
5

2
6
.
2

2
3
.
9

3
1
.
4

4
0
.
1

3
4
.
7

2
9
.
1

2
1
.
3

8
.
7

6
.
5

5
.
8

1
4
.2
31
.
5

7
.
2

9
.
1

1
5
.
4

2
2
.
0

1
8
.
1

1
6
.
2

2
5
.
3

2
9
.
0

2
1
.
9

2
5
.
3

2
3
.
0

2
2
.
2

9
.
6

6
.
1

1
6
.
8

1
6
.
4
16
.
7

7
.
2

7
.
3

8
.
2

1
5
.
4

2
4
.
4

3
3
.
6

4
6
.
0

3
1
.
7

2
9
.
9

2
7
.
6

2
1
.
1

1
5
.
2

8
.
6

5
.
6

5
.
5

6
.
7
6.
5

6
.
2

8
.
2

9
.
5

3
6
.
0

2
6
.
2

2
1
.
4

1
6
.
0

1
7
.
9

2
2
.
2

1
9
.
9

2
4
.
4

2
4
.
9

1
9
.
6

1
0
.
0

1
6
.
3

3
6
.
2
9.
0

1
3
.
4

8
.
1

9
.
8

1
1
.
7

1
8
.
9

6
0
.
7

4
7
.
9

2
8
.
8

3
8
.
4

3
4
.
8

2
0
.
3

2
5
.
6

9
.
6

7
.
2

4
.
8

1
9
.
1
22
.
2

5
1
.
6

4
9
.
2

2
5
.
4

4
8
.
2

5
2
.
7

5
7
.
5

6
1
.
8
51
.
7

5
0
.
2

4
7
.
1

3
8
.
8

2
1
.
5

1
4
.
5

1
2
.
4

3
.
9
6.
7
25
.
3

3
9
.
9

2
4
.
1

3
2
.
1

1
9
.
6

2
0
.
5

1
9
.
2

4
1
.
4
60
.
3

4
3
.
9

3
7
.
6

3
3
.
8

7
2
.
6

3
0
.
3

9
.
1

5
.
5

5
.4
6.
6

8
.
6

1
1
.
5

1
5
.
2

1
8
.
3

2
0
.
9

3
9
.
1

3
1
.
4

5
6
.
8
4
8
.
5

3
3
.
8

5
0
.
5

1
6
.
0

1
6
.
4

2
0
.
5

1
1
.
0

4
2.
6
7.
1

1
8
.
9

2
8
.
9

2
1
.
4

4
0
.
5

5
6
.
4

5
2
.
1

3
9
.
6
49
.
2

4
9
.
0

3
8
.
4

2
9
.
2

1
9
.
7

1
8
.
3

5
.
1

5
.
5

6
.
5
26
.
6

3
6
.
8

2
3
.
2

3
9
.
4

2
7
.
0

2
5
.
7

1
8
.
8

2
6
.
0
31
.
6

2
2
.
7

2
1
.
4

2
5
.
3

1
7
.
5

1
1
.
9

1
1
.
1

1
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
3.
1

5
3
.
3

3
4
.
1

1
6
.
5

1
5
.
7

2
4
.
8

2
6
.
4

3
7
.
3
56
.
4

3
8
.
0

2
8
.
8

3
0
.
3

3
7
.
2

1
8
.
7

2
2
.
8

2
5
.
0
27
.
6
24
.
9

1
8
.
5

1
0
.
8

1
4
.
2

2
6
.
9

4
2
.
9

2
4
.
8

3
9
.
1
32
.
9

2
8
.
5

2
9
.
8

3
1
.
0

1
6
.
2

1
6
.
7

1
2
.
5

9
.
0
17
.
7
9.
6

4
0
.
8

2
9
.
4

4
3
.
7

4
3
.
1

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

5
7
.
5

5
2
.
0

5
6
.
5

5
6
.
6

3
0
.
1

3
4
.
4

1
3
.
7

2
4
.
9
12
.
2

1
4
.
4

1
0
.
7

4
5
.
6

3
3
.
1

3
3
.
3

2
1
.
4

2
3
.
2
29
.
2

2
5
.
5

3
5
.
7

2
6
.
4

3
6
.
6

1
2
.
7

2
3
.
1

6
.
6
8.
6
31
.
3

1
9
.
9

4
6
.
0

2
1
.
2

2
3
.
8

4
2
.
3

4
8
.
6

3
7
.
5
28
.
9

5
5
.
4

7
0
.
8

3
8
.
2

4
9
.
4

2
3
.
1

9
.
1

8
.
0

2
1.
8
17
.
5

3
2
.
8

2
0
.
2

1
4
.
4

2
0
.
0

2
6
.
9

2
3
.
6

2
4
.
4

2
8
.
0

3
6
.
4

4
2
.
3

4
0
.
4

1
6
.
7

6
.
8

7
.
0

9
.
4

7
.
2
3.
6

2
2
.
6

1
6
.
4

2
7
.
3

3
4
.
2

3
5
.
9

4
8
.
9

3
1
.
6
41
.
5

4
6
.
4

3
6
.
7

4
3
.
2

3
0
.
2

2
3
.
5

7
.
1

9
.
0

1
1
.4
12
.
9

1
2
.
3

3
4
.
0

2
9
.
1

4
3
.
1

5
4
.
7

4
3
.
4

2
2
.
8
27
.
4

2
8
.
9

3
5
.
7

3
0
.
5

4
9
.
9

1
1
.
9

7
.
0

2
9
.
1
13
.
4
31
.
6

2
7
.
1

1
8
.
3

1
5
.
6

1
7
.
0

1
5
.
1

1
8
.
7

1
6
.
8
38
.
1

2
4
.
5

2
3
.
3

2
9
.
2

1
1
.
2

1
3
.
9

5
.
8

1
7
.
5
48
.
0
19.
9

2
1
.
2

1
9
.
2

2
0
.
9

2
5
.
6

2
9
.
2

2
9
.
6

2
9
.
1

3
1
.
4

3
3
.
1

3
2
.
8

2
9
.
1

2
5
.
6

1
4
.
8

1
4
.
0

1
1
.
5
18
.
7
7.
1

5
3
.
3

4
9
.
2

4
5
.
6

4
8
.
2

5
6
.
4

6
0
.
7

6
1
.
8

6
0
.
3

5
7
.
5

7
0
.
8

5
6
.
5

7
2
.
6

3
0
.
3

4
8
.
5

2
9
.
1
68
.
1
3.
6

6
.
2

6
.
7

7
.
9

9
.
1

1
1
.
8

1
2
.
2

1
3
.
8

8
.
5

8
.
3

7
.
5

1
0
.
1

8
.
3

6
.
2

5
.
1

3
.
9

5
.
4
F
F

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

B

C

E

D

D

D

D
D
F

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

F

F

D

E

D
F
F

C

C

C

A

A

B

A

B

B

C

D

D

F

E

F
D
D

D

D

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

C

A

A

D

D

D

D

F
F
E

C

A

D

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

D

D

D

F

F
D
E

C

A

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

A

C

D

D

D

D

B

C

D

F

F

D
F
D

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

B

D

D

E

F
E
E

D

D

C

B

B

C

C

D

C

D

C

D

D

D

D
E
F

B

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

B

C

D

E

E

D
F
E

D

C

C

D

D

D

C

D

C

C

C

D

E

D

D
E
D

D

D

C

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

E

D
E
D

D

D

A

B

C

C

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

D

D

D

C

A

B

C

C

B

C

C

D

E

E

E
E
A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

D

D

E

E
F
A

A

A

B

B

B

B

A

A

B

A

A

F

D

E

E
D
D

D

C

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

C

D

D

F

D

F
F
B

A

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

E

E
F
A

A

A

B

C

D

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
A

A

C

C

C

C

C

A

B

B

A

A

E

D

F

F
F
C

D

C

A

A

C

B

B

C

B

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
A

A

A

A

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

A

A

A

A

F

F

E

F
D
C

D

A

A

A

B

C

B

B

A

A

A

D

F

E

D
F
B

A

B

B

A

A

B

C

A

A

B

A

E

D

D

F
E
A

B

C

B

A

B

C

B

A

B

A

C

D

D

D

E
E
A

C

A

A

B

B

C

B

B

B

B

A

E

E

D

D
D
D

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

A

A

A

D

E

D

D
F
A

B

D

D

C

D

D

B

C

B

B

D

D

E

E

F
8.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
.
3

9
.
6

1
7
.
0

1
9
.
8

1
7
.
3

1
6
.
0

1
3
.
3

1
6
.
6

2
4
.
0
2
6
.
5

2
4
.
6

2
2
.
2

1
8
.
2

1
3
.
5

7
0
.
3

1
1
.
1
8.
6
20
.
3

3
2
.
8

3
3
.
7

4
3
.
3

4
0
.
4

3
5
.
8

4
5
.
6

4
6
.
0
37
.
5

3
6
.
7

3
7
.
1

5
9
.
4

2
0
.
7

1
7
.
6

5
.
7

7
.
1

2
1.
1
7.
9

1
5
.
4

1
4
.
1

4
2
.
8

4
4
.
1

3
0
.
3

6
6
.
9

6
0
.
2

5
6
.
5

3
3
.
2

4
6
.
9

4
6
.
8

2
4
.
5

9
.
9

1
1
.
6

6
.
4

6
.
3
59
.
9

2
9
.
5

2
2
.
9

1
2
.
5

1
9
.
5

2
4
.
3

2
5
.
2

2
3
.
6
28
.
5

2
0
.
9

2
6
.
4

1
4
.
8

1
2
.
2

1
4
.
1

1
0
.
9

8
.
3
11
.
1
18
.
7

4
1
.
7

2
9
.
2

5
1
.
3

3
9
.
7

2
9
.
7

2
9
.
4

2
7
.
5

4
3
.
3

3
5
.
2

4
9
.
0

1
9
.
5

1
1
.
8

9
.
2

1
2
.
5

6
.
4

3
7.
1
25
.
9

2
6
.
2

4
8
.
2

1
5
.
5

2
3
.
7

2
6
.
9

3
3
.
9

3
7
.
6
48
.
5

4
1
.
2

6
1
.
6

5
1
.
8

2
8
.
8

1
3
.
7

6
.
9

1
2
.
5
13
.
9
7.
2

8
.
4

8
.
4

1
6
.
9

3
7
.
9

4
2
.
0

6
5
.
7

5
1
.
6

4
3
.
3

3
7
.
4

3
5
.
6

2
9
.
5

1
2
.
9

7
.
8

6
.
0

8
.
5

7
.
0
11
.
5

2
7
.
2

2
1
.
3

3
2
.
6

3
4
.
4

4
3
.
6

2
0
.
7

1
5
.
7
17
.
2

3
9
.
7

4
5
.
4

2
1
.
4

2
6
.
8

1
8
.
3

4
3
.
6

3
9
.
3
1
8
.
6
12
.
5

7
.
8

7
.
6

9
.
4

1
0
.
1

1
0
.
8

1
5
.
0

1
8
.
8

2
2
.
5

2
0
.
0

1
7
.
7

2
3
.
7

1
5
.
7

1
8
.
5

2
1
.
4

3
5
.
2

2
3
.2
14
.
8

2
2
.
8

1
8
.
0

1
9
.
6

1
3
.
6

2
0
.
8

1
7
.
9

3
3
.
2
31
.
5

6
3
.
4

4
1
.
3

3
0
.
2

1
7
.
8

1
0
.
0

1
0
.
6

2
2
.
1
1
0
.
9
9.
2

1
1
.
9

1
3
.
9

1
8
.
2

1
8
.
4

2
9
.
2

5
1
.
6

6
2
.
3
58
.
4

4
5
.
4

4
8
.
6

3
1
.
5

7
0
.
9

2
6
.
0

1
0
.
6

8
.
8

1
1.
1
13
.
3

7
.
9

9
.
4

1
3
.
0

1
5
.
3

2
3
.
0

2
3
.
7

2
6
.
8

4
5
.
6
2
8
.
6

1
8
.
1

2
3
.
5

3
0
.
0

4
3
.
3

1
4
.
3

2
6
.
5

1
0.
7
8.
3

9
.
8

8
.
2

1
2
.
2

3
3
.
6

2
7
.
4

2
5
.
8

2
8
.
1

4
2
.
3

4
6
.
7

3
3
.
4

3
6
.
7

3
0
.
2

2
7
.
3

8
.
6

1
6
.
4

2
4
.
7
12
.
0

8
.
2

1
4
.
1

2
8
.
4

4
7
.
0

6
6
.
2

4
1
.
9

3
5
.
2

3
6
.
4

5
2
.
2

4
1
.
5

4
7
.
3

2
1
.
3

8
.
5

7
.
6

6
.
5

6
.
3
7.
9

1
4
.
5

3
3
.
7

5
3
.
4

8
.
7

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
2

1
3
.
6

1
3
.
3

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
4

1
1
.
0

8
.
4

7
.
5

7
.
7

6
.
5

7
.
5
6.
9

7
.
8

7
.
9

8
.
6

8
.
6

1
0
.
3

1
0
.
6

1
1
.
2

9
.
1

8
.
0

7
.
7

8
.
9

8
.
5

8
.
2

6
.
5

7
.
5

2
2
.
1
8.
9

3
0
.
0

1
8
.
1

1
6
.
2

2
0
.
5

1
8
.
8

2
8
.
8

2
0
.
8

9
.6

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
2

1
3
.
5

1
6
.
3

1
7
.
4

2
3
.
8

1
7
.
6

1
0.
7
5.
6

7
.
5

1
0
.
1

1
3
.
4

1
5
.
9

1
8
.
3

1
5
.
4

1
7
.
3

1
8
.
4
1
3
.
2

2
5
.
4

1
6
.
8

2
5
.
3

2
3
.
9

1
6
.
9

3
4
.
0

1
7.
0
10
.
6

2
4
.
6

2
8
.
0

5
2
.
8

2
5
.
1

4
5
.
2

3
4
.
1

3
0
.
9
38
.
3

3
5
.
1

2
1
.
2

2
4
.
5

1
6
.
3

9
.
8

7
.
6

1
8
.
0

2
9.
0
10
.
8

9
.
1

8
.
9

2
1
.
4

9
.
1

1
4
.
1

2
2
.
7

2
9
.
2

2
6
.
3

4
0
.
5

1
0
.
5

1
5
.
4

1
2
.
2

9
.
4

1
3
.
0

7
.
8

6
.
5
6.
3

9
.
4

1
2
.
2

2
2
.
0

2
0
.
6

2
0
.
0

2
0
.
6

2
6
.
2

2
5
.
8
3
7
.
4

2
3
.
4

2
6
.
1

2
7
.
0

1
8
.
1

1
3
.
3

4
0
.
5

1
8.
5
34
.
7

2
3
.
5

2
1
.
3

2
9
.
7

4
1
.
3

7
2
.
4

3
3
.
0

3
6
.
5
30
.
2

3
7
.
8

3
3
.
3

3
4
.
7

2
9
.
0

1
8
.
0

6
.
5

8
.
2

1
1.
2
2.
5

3
0
.
6

2
4
.
4

2
7
.
9

5
0
.
2

5
9
.
4

3
9
.
4

5
5
.
2
32
.
2

4
0
.
1

3
3
.
5

3
3
.
7

2
6
.
8

1
3
.
8

7
.
7

1
1
.
5

1
7.
5
16
.
5

2
7
.
4

2
2
.
9

2
7
.
2

2
7
.
3

2
2
.
3

2
2
.
1

3
6
.
6
49
.
1

4
2
.
4

4
9
.
4

2
0
.
7

2
1
.
2

1
3
.
9

8
.
4

7
.
4

1
4.
6
17
.
2

6
.
7

8
.
9

1
2
.
6

2
5
.
8

4
1
.
4

4
2
.
2

2
8
.
5

2
6
.
1

3
9
.
2

2
7
.
6

2
8
.
1

3
2
.
8

1
5
.
8

7
.
5

1
3
.
4

1
0
.8
4.
8

8
.
3

9
.
2

1
9
.
8

5
8
.
7

3
9
.
0

6
8
.
7

4
5
.
4

4
9
.
9

5
8
.
6

3
5
.
0

5
0
.
6

2
2
.
2

1
5
.
9

9
.
0

1
0
.
4

8
.
1
15
.
9

1
5
.
4

4
5
.
2

1
8
.
7

2
5
.
0

3
6
.
4

2
5
.
9

2
1
.
1
40
.
6

4
9
.
7

3
5
.
8

4
3
.
1

3
0
.
7

4
3
.
3

6
.
9

1
3
.
9
8.
8
12
.
3

5
3
.
3

1
4
.
4

1
2
.
9

1
2
.
0

1
0
.
3

1
0
.
3

9
.
2

9
.
2

1
1
.
2

2
4
.
1

1
1
.
5

1
3
.
9

9
.
2

7
.
8

8
.
3

7
.
0
28
.
7

1
9
.
4

1
2
.
2

2
7
.
4

5
6
.
5

4
4
.
5

4
0
.
4

5
3
.
1
35
.
9

3
7
.
3

2
7
.
8

3
9
.
9

1
0
.
5

9
.
2

5
1
.
1

4
6
.
7
9.
8
15.
2

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
8

2
4
.
8

2
6
.
7

2
9
.
7

3
0
.
1

3
0
.
9

3
1
.
9

3
4
.
2

3
1
.
2

2
8
.
3

2
2
.
0

1
6
.
0

1
4
.
7

1
5
.
7
14
.
7
9.
9

5
3
.
3

4
8
.
2

5
7
.
2

5
8
.
7

7
2
.
4

6
8
.
7

6
2
.
3

5
8
.
4

6
3
.
4

6
1
.
6

5
9
.
4

7
0
.
9

4
3
.
3

7
0
.
3

4
6
.
7
37
.
1
2.
5

6
.
7

7
.
6

8
.
6

8
.
6

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
2

9
.
2

9
.
1

8
.
0

7
.
7

8
.
9

8
.
4

7
.
5

5
.
7

6
.
4

6
.
3
D
D

A

A

C

B

C

C

C

C

C

B

A

D

D

E

F
F
D

C

C

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

E

E

E

F
D
C

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

E

D
F
A

A

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
A

A

A

B

C

C

C

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

E

F
F
A

A

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

D

E

D

D
D
D

D

C

A

A

A

A

A

C

B

C

C

D

E

D

E
D
A

B

A

A

A

B

C

C

A

B

B

A

D

F

F

E
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

D

B

C

E

F

E

E
D
A

B

C

C

C

C

C

B

A

A

B

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

C

A

C

B

A

B

C

A

A

F

D

E

D
D
D

D

D

A

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

F

D

E

F
D
D

C

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

B

D

D

E

E
D
C

A

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
A

D

C

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
D

D

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

B

C

C

F

E

F

D
D
A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

F
D
D

D

B

D

C

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E
E
D

D

B

B

C

C

B

B

B

C

B

A

E

E

F

E
F
A

B

A

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

B

B

D

E

D

D
E
A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

A

D

D

D

F
E
A

A

A

A

B

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

D

D

E

D
D
D

D

C

B

B

A

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

D

D
E
D

D

B

A

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

C

D

D

D

D
E
C

A

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

B

A

B

D

D

D

D
D
A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
B

D

B

A

A

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

F

D
25
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.
2

3
9
.
4

1
3
.
6

2
1
.
8

2
7
.
4

3
2
.
2

3
7
.
0

3
4
.
1
42
.
2

2
4
.
8

2
0
.
7

2
0
.
0

3
2
.
8

1
7
.
8

7
.
1

1
0
.
3

7
.8
8.
0

8
.
2

8
.
2

1
2
.
5

1
6
.
4

2
2
.
9

2
6
.
9

3
1
.
3

2
1
.
9

3
8
.
8

4
7
.
6

7
2
.
2

2
0
.
6

7
.
9

8
.
6

4
.
8

6
.
6
21
.
4

3
9
.
3

2
8
.
0

1
4
.
6

1
4
.
8

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
0

1
7
.
0
17
.
7

1
4
.
8

1
4
.
2

1
1
.
2

1
0
.
3

1
0
.
2

7
.
0

7
.
2

9
.1
7.
4

7
.
8

8
.
7

8
.
1

1
0
.
3

1
3
.
5

1
3
.
2

1
7
.
4

1
5
.
3

9
.
6

8
.
7

7
.
6

1
7
.
0

3
2
.
6

1
0
.
7

6
.
9

2
9
.
3
9.
4

8
.
2

1
6
.
2

1
4
.
2

1
2
.
0

1
8
.
9

1
2
.
6

1
3
.
3

1
6
.
9
1
5
.
7

1
5
.
9

1
4
.
4

3
5
.
4

4
3
.
0

3
3
.
1

1
9
.
3

3
5.
4
7.
0

2
0
.
5

2
6
.
5

1
5
.
2

2
1
.
9

2
8
.
1

3
1
.
7

1
6
.
3
14
.
3

1
6
.
2

1
4
.
2

1
9
.
7

1
8
.
5

1
6
.
2

1
2
.
3

5
.
3

8
.7
12
.
6

7
.
0

9
.
0

1
2
.
9

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
7

3
6
.
0

4
9
.
3

4
1
.
9

4
7
.
4

5
4
.
3

5
2
.
9

4
2
.
6

4
8
.
2

9
.
3

6
.
6

5
.
5
8.
7

1
1
.
2

5
4
.
7

1
8
.
8

1
5
.
4

2
0
.
8

4
2
.
9

3
7
.
6
38
.
6

3
7
.
7

4
2
.
9

4
5
.
2

6
5
.
1

4
6
.
7

7
.
2

5
.
8

4
.
0
4.
0

7
.
5

3
2
.
1

4
4
.
3

3
1
.
5

4
5
.
9

4
1
.
5

2
0
.
3

2
5
.
3

2
3
.
4

2
1
.
3

2
7
.
5

1
6
.
1

1
4
.
8

8
.
8

4
.
6

6
.
0
11
.
7

3
0
.
4

9
.
2

8
.
2

9
.
1

1
1
.
8

1
1
.
9

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
2
.
7

1
1
.
9

9
.
3

8
.
3

9
.
2

7
.
8

1
1
.
0

6
.
5
7.
5

7
.
5

1
0
.
9

1
0
.
9

1
8
.
2

1
7
.
9

1
6
.
3

2
4
.
5

2
0
.
7

2
2
.
3

2
0
.
5

3
1
.
1

1
5
.
9

8
.
6

7
.
4

1
0
.
7

1
2
.
4
34
.
8

2
4
.
2

2
0
.
5

4
0
.
4

6
2
.
5

5
4
.
4

3
7
.
1

4
3
.
2
61
.
5

6
0
.
8

3
9
.
1

5
8
.
0

3
8
.
1

2
0
.
8

7
.
7

1
1
.
8
10
.
5
9.
3

2
8
.
6

2
1
.
6

2
1
.
2

4
0
.
9

3
0
.
8

2
5
.
8

1
6
.
9
19
.
9

1
7
.
8

1
3
.
2

1
3
.
1

1
1
.
9

8
.
0

2
0
.
8

3
0
.
3

1
2.
6
7.
4

8
.
1

8
.
5

7
.
3

8
.
8

2
3
.
2

1
9
.
5

3
9
.
2

1
9
.
0

2
3
.
4

1
1
.
5

9
.
0

8
.
7

7
.
9

8
.
3

9
.
5

7
.
1
25
.
3

4
3
.
6

1
7
.
0

2
6
.
0

3
2
.
3

2
3
.
4

1
8
.
9

2
4
.
1
37
.
4

3
9
.
1

3
0
.
3

3
5
.
4

2
6
.
2

1
4
.
5

1
5
.
7

6
.
9
12
.
4
11
.
2

9
.
7

1
0
.
5

1
4
.
0

1
3
.
8

2
4
.
6

2
1
.
1

2
3
.
4

1
9
.
0

1
8
.
9

1
9
.
3

2
2
.
4

1
8
.
6

1
7
.
4

8
.
0

6
.
3

6
.
0
39
.
6

8
.
2

1
9
.
2

3
9
.
5

4
3
.
6

6
5
.
0

5
3
.
7

4
5
.
9

5
8
.
5

3
1
.
9

4
2
.
9

7
2
.
7

6
9
.
8

2
2
.
4

6
.
2

1
3
.
2

1
3.
0
36
.
2

1
8
.
9

2
8
.
6

2
2
.
7

4
7
.
9

4
1
.
3

4
9
.
3

3
2
.
3
43
.
8

3
8
.
1

5
6
.
1

6
0
.
2

5
1
.
2

2
1
.
8

9
.
2

4
.
8

1
0.
0
28
.
2

2
4
.
9

1
3
.
7

1
2
.
7

1
8
.
4

1
9
.
0

2
5
.
8

1
7
.
8

2
5
.
5

2
6
.
2

3
5
.
8

3
3
.
5

1
9
.
8

8
.
9

7
.
8

7
.
6

7
.
8
16
.
3

1
0
.
9

3
5
.
6

1
3
.
1

2
2
.
2

2
4
.
1

2
2
.
2

3
3
.
7
20
.
5

2
5
.
0

2
7
.
9

2
3
.
9

2
0
.
6

1
0
.
7

7
.
3

2
1
.
6
20
.
7
4.
4

7
.
6

1
2
.
8

2
6
.
0

4
2
.
0

5
4
.
0

4
2
.
2

4
6
.
7

4
7
.
8

4
9
.
3

6
2
.
7

3
2
.
4

2
0
.
8

1
1
.
1

6
.
4

6
.
6

1
8
.
1
15
.
2

2
1
.
9

2
5
.
9

2
1
.
4

1
8
.
1

3
2
.
2

4
8
.
3

4
9
.
0
20
.
3

3
3
.
5

5
4
.
1

6
2
.
5

3
2
.
6

2
7
.
2

8
.
6

1
4
.
2
23
.
1
20
.
7

2
1
.
9

2
8
.
2

1
7
.
5

1
6
.
5

2
0
.
8

3
2
.
2

4
2
.
1
27
.
3

1
4
.
0

1
2
.
8

1
0
.
6

1
1
.
1

3
9
.
0

1
6
.
6

4
1
.
4
2
9
.
2
14
.
8

3
3
.
0

2
9
.
8

1
8
.
8

3
5
.
5

4
9
.
6

6
1
.
1

5
1
.
0
41
.
4

4
1
.
0

2
8
.
9

4
9
.
5

4
9
.
6

2
4
.
7

6
.
9

6
.
4

2
1.
9
23
.
8

2
6
.
1

1
0
.
0

1
2
.
5

1
2
.
8

2
1
.
1

2
0
.
9

2
6
.
0
53
.
0

3
2
.
6

2
8
.
1

1
5
.
0

1
6
.
2

9
.
9

9
.
8

1
6
.
9

1
9.
6
3.
3

2
0
.
3

2
2
.
5

1
4
.
4

1
4
.
0

1
6
.
0

1
4
.
5

1
3
.
6

3
3
.
6

7
.
9

8
.
7

8
.
6

7
.
0

7
.
5

8
.
5

1
1
.
4

8
.
2
23
.
8

1
6
.
6

8
.
2

9
.
3

1
1
.
4

1
3
.
6

1
9
.
7

2
1
.
1

3
9
.
5

2
6
.
0

4
3
.
0

2
0
.
0

1
6
.
4

1
1
.
4

7
.
8

3
8
.
2

1
0
.0
13
.
4

7
.
1

7
.
4

2
0
.
3

5
7
.
0

7
9
.
8

4
8
.
2

5
5
.
4

4
0
.
0

5
9
.
6

3
7
.
6

5
3
.
0

4
3
.
1

1
0
.
0

8
.
3

1
0
.
6

6
.
8
17.
0

1
8
.
2

1
8
.
7

1
8
.
5

2
4
.
9

3
0
.
2

3
0
.
1

3
0
.
7

3
1
.
4

2
9
.
3

2
9
.
1

3
2
.
4

2
7
.
5

1
9
.
6

1
0
.
6

1
3
.
5
13
.
0
3.
3

4
3
.
6

5
4
.
7

4
4
.
3

6
2
.
5

7
9
.
8

6
1
.
1

5
5
.
4

6
1
.
5

6
0
.
8

6
2
.
7

7
2
.
7

6
9
.
8

4
8
.
2

3
3
.
1

4
1
.
4
35
.
4.
0

7
.
0

7
.
4

7
.
3

8
.
8

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
0

1
3
.
3

1
4
.
3

7
.
9

8
.
7

7
.
6

7
.
0

7
.
5

6
.
2

4
.
6

4
.
0
F
C

C

B

A

A

A

B

A

B

A

A

A

F

E

F

E
E
A

C

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

B

D

E

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

C

B

C

A

A

A

B

D

D

E

E
F
A

A

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

E

D
D
D

C

D

D

C

D

D

C

D

D

D

C

D

D

E

F
E
B

A

C

B

A

A

C

C

C

D

D

C

D

D

E

D
E
D

D

C

C

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

F

D

E

E
D
D

A

B

C

C

A

A

B

B

A

A

A

E

E

E

E
E
D

A

A

A

A

B

C

C

C

D

C

C

D

D

E

E
D
A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E
D
D

D

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

B

D

D

D

D

D
F
A

B

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

B

A

A

D

D

D

D
D
A

B

B

A

A

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

E

D
E
D

D

D

D

C

C

A

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
A

C

A

A

B

C

C

A

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

D
D
D

D

C

C

C

B

C

D

C

C

B

B

C

D

E

E
F
D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

C

E

D

D
F
B

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

D

E

D
F
A

C

C

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

A

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

D
E
D

C

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

B

C

D

E

E

E
D
B

A

B

B

A

A

A

C

B

B

A

A

B

D

D

E
F
B

A

B

C

C

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

A

D

F

F
E
A

A

C

B

A

A

B

C

B

C

B

A

C

E

E

F
F
A

D

D

C

B

B

C

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
B

A

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
C

D

D

D

C

C

C

B

B

A

B

C

D

D

F

D
E
D

D

B

A

A

A

A

B

A

B

A

B

D

D

D

E
9.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.
1

1
7
.
9

1
3
.
0

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
8

1
9
.
5

2
3
.
9

2
9
.
5
19
.
0

1
6
.
2

1
9
.
5

1
6
.
7

1
7
.
1

1
4
.
7

7
.
7

3
.
5

6
.
1
6.
4

8
.
2

1
2
.
2

1
1
.
8

1
1
.
5

1
5
.
0

1
7
.
9

2
2
.
1

2
7
.
8
3
3
.
4

3
1
.
6

6
7
.
5

3
5
.
7

4
2
.
9

3
3
.
2

1
6
.
3

3
1.
3
5.
2

7
.
4

1
9
.
2

2
0
.
9

3
8
.
6

4
4
.
3

4
3
.
6

5
0
.
7

5
6
.
7
3
4
.
3

4
2
.
8

4
0
.
1

4
8
.
8

4
4
.
7

1
4
.
6

1
7
.
4

1
5.
5
5.
8

7
.
4

1
7
.
7

9
.
6

3
2
.
5

5
4
.
5

3
8
.
4

4
4
.
9

3
3
.
9

4
2
.
6

2
9
.
2

2
4
.
9

2
5
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
6
.
1

8
.
6

4
0
.
7
5.
8

1
3
.
7

1
9
.
0

1
2
.
1

1
8
.
0

1
9
.
7

3
0
.
3

3
7
.
9
62
.
3

5
1
.
5

4
3
.
9

3
6
.
9

2
0
.
5

2
0
.
0

1
2
.
5

5
.
1

2
0.
8
12
.
4

2
2
.
6

1
7
.
3

1
3
.
0

2
3
.
2

3
2
.
5

5
3
.
2

4
8
.
6
59
.
8

3
5
.
4

2
7
.
7

3
1
.
0

1
8
.
9

1
2
.
0

8
.
3

6
.
4

7
.7
11
.
0

2
4
.
8

8
.
5

1
2
.
7

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
4

2
2
.
4

2
6
.
9

3
5
.
7

3
9
.
8

3
6
.
6

3
0
.
7

2
9
.
8

2
1
.
3

1
6
.
9

9
.
5

8
.2
37
.
0

2
2
.
5

1
6
.
3

1
9
.
2

2
0
.
5

3
3
.
3

3
6
.
7

2
7
.
9
26
.
6

3
9
.
4

3
7
.
7

7
7
.
2

4
4
.
4

3
7
.
3

7
.
5

9
.
2

1
0.
0
16
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
3
.
4

1
6
.
4

1
2
.
7

1
7
.
7

2
5
.
5

2
6
.
8
36
.
7

3
2
.
6

4
0
.
3

4
6
.
1

4
3
.
9

4
6
.
3

3
0
.
9

1
2
.
4
1
1
.
1
0.
9

3
6
.
7

1
5
.
4

2
4
.
7

2
9
.
5

2
7
.
0

4
5
.
3

5
8
.
8
72
.
9

3
3
.
9

3
2
.
1

2
5
.
3

5
9
.
9

3
8
.
3

1
2
.
3

1
7
.
1
30
.
4
6.
9

5
1
.
2

2
9
.
0

1
8
.
7

2
3
.
8

2
4
.
4

3
1
.
6

3
3
.
5
40
.
0

5
8
.
3

7
1
.
1

3
0
.
5

1
7
.
6

1
8
.
6

1
9
.
4

6
.
9

9
.1
15
.
6

1
2
.
4

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
5

2
2
.
6

2
9
.
1

4
3
.
4

4
0
.
7
34
.
2

3
6
.
2

2
5
.
5

4
0
.
5

1
9
.
7

1
0
.
4

7
.
6

9
.
5

7
.4
27
.
2

2
1
.
5

1
6
.
6

2
6
.
7

3
2
.
9

4
1
.
8

4
0
.
1

3
3
.
2
50
.
3

4
2
.
8

3
2
.
4

3
6
.
4

2
3
.
1

1
9
.
6

6
.
9

4
.
7

1
5.
7
39
.
9

4
9
.
8

1
7
.
7

1
3
.
2

2
6
.
3

2
3
.
5

2
5
.
1

2
1
.
5

2
1
.
9

3
2
.
8

4
5
.
7

5
5
.
9

2
3
.
8

9
.
8

1
2
.
5

6
.
7

6
.8
25
.
8

3
7
.
7

8
.
1

9
.
4

1
0
.
3

1
2
.
8

1
7
.
9

2
6
.
2

3
1
.
7

2
5
.
0

2
5
.
1

3
5
.
9

2
2
.
9

1
7
.
5

7
.
1

2
7
.
2

2
9
.5
11
.
1

1
9
.
0

2
5
.
0

3
0
.
2

3
6
.
4

5
9
.
6

3
1
.
9

6
7
.
4
33
.
8

5
0
.
1

4
6
.
0

4
2
.
7

2
6
.
8

2
4
.
9

2
1
.
1

1
7
.
1
9
.
9
22
.
4

1
5
.
6

1
7
.
3

2
6
.
0

2
4
.
9

2
1
.
4

2
4
.
8

2
2
.
9
21
.
8

2
2
.
7

3
0
.
0

4
1
.
3

4
5
.
4

2
0
.
4

6
.
0

1
3
.
7
9.
4
8.
0

1
6
.
6

1
7
.
2

2
3
.
6

1
9
.
6

1
8
.
7

1
5
.
8

2
5
.
6
43
.
4

2
5
.
9

3
0
.
4

2
6
.
6

3
4
.
8

1
2
.
4

6
.
6

9
.
6

7
.
8
12
.
8

7
.
9

1
2
.
4

1
4
.
6

2
7
.
5

4
5
.
4

5
9
.
5

7
4
.
4

4
8
.
5
3
3
.
4

5
3
.
9

4
5
.
9

2
8
.
6

2
5
.
2

1
4
.
5

1
1
.
9
8.
3
33
.
5

1
5
.
0

8
.
7

8
.
2

1
1
.
3

8
.
3

8
.
6

8
.
6

1
2
.
8

1
6
.
6

3
2
.
1

1
5
.
5

1
7
.
2

4
3
.
7

1
5
.
9

1
8
.
8

1
8
.
2
14
.
2

6
1
.
9

3
5
.
0

1
2
.
3

1
4
.
2

1
7
.
4

1
8
.
3

1
5
.
5
23
.
6

3
7
.
7

2
5
.
7

1
7
.
9

4
0
.
4

5
2
.
9

4
5
.
5

3
7
.
4
1
1
.
6
35
.
5

3
5
.
1

1
1
.
5

7
.
7

9
.
3

1
4
.
4

2
5
.
1

2
0
.
6

2
3
.
3

2
4
.
9

3
0
.
2

3
9
.
5

2
3
.
1

3
6
.
7

1
2
.
0

7
.
5

7
.
4
19
.
3

6
.
1

7
.
8

8
.
9

1
8
.
4

2
5
.
2

4
4
.
0

3
2
.
9

3
5
.
9

3
6
.
8

4
1
.
2

1
9
.
5

2
9
.
5

2
5
.
4

1
0
.
1

6
.
4

7
.
1
16
.
0

9
.
2

1
1
.
1

2
3
.
7

5
3
.
6

3
3
.
7

3
8
.
1

3
4
.
4

4
0
.
3

4
7
.
3

2
0
.
6

1
6
.
1

2
3
.
6

1
4
.
1

5
.
0

9
.
7

1
6
.3
4.
9

1
0
.
0

1
6
.
5

8
.
4

1
6
.
2

2
0
.
1

6
0
.
5

4
6
.
7

3
2
.
6
2
7
.
9

3
2
.
4

3
0
.
3

1
3
.
8

1
1
.
7

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
0

3
0.
3
26
.
9

2
3
.
9

1
0
.
1

1
8
.
5

2
9
.
2

3
2
.
2

4
4
.
9

3
8
.
0

3
3
.
7

2
6
.
6

1
8
.
9

2
3
.
6

1
5
.
0

8
.
4

6
.
8

6
.
3

9
.
6
7.
9

8
.
9

1
9
.
4

2
9
.
9

3
3
.
0

5
0
.
8

6
2
.
7

6
5
.
3

3
5
.
4

5
5
.
8

4
9
.
4

2
9
.
4

1
6
.
9

9
.
2

6
.
5

1
4
.
0

1
0
.
3
32
.
2

1
9
.
2

2
0
.
0

2
2
.
5

2
9
.
5

4
1
.
8

6
6
.
4

3
9
.
5
51
.
7

4
9
.
2

4
6
.
7

4
5
.
6

4
2
.
9

1
4
.
0

7
.
3

1
9
.
3
10
.
5
11
.
9

3
0
.
6

8
.
4

9
.
2

1
1
.
7

1
9
.
9

1
9
.
2

4
1
.
8

2
8
.
7

2
6
.
6

4
5
.
2

4
8
.
0

6
2
.
1

4
6
.
6

2
4
.
5

9
.
3

8
.
0
17.
2

2
1
.
4

1
5
.
7

1
6
.
5

2
2
.
7

2
7
.
6

3
3
.
7

3
5
.
7

3
6
.
1

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
5

2
9
.
6

2
3
.
6

1
4
.
8

1
2
.
6
14
.
1
0.
9

6
1
.
9

3
5
.
0

3
0
.
2

5
3
.
6

5
9
.
6

6
6
.
4

7
4
.
4

7
2
.
9

5
8
.
3

7
1
.
1

7
7
.
2

6
2
.
1

5
2
.
9

4
5
.
5

3
7
.
4
40
.
7
4.
9

6
.
1

7
.
8

7
.
7

9
.
3

8
.
3

8
.
6

8
.
6

1
2
.
8

1
6
.
2

1
6
.
8

1
1
.
7

1
3
.
3

8
.
4

5
.
0

3
.
5

6
.
1
D
A

C

B

A

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

B

D

D

D

D
E
B

C

D

D

C

B

C

C

D

C

C

C

C

D

E

E
E
D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

B

A

A

A

F

D

D
E
D

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

D

D

D
E
D

B

D

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

B

D

D

D

F
E
C

B

D

C

C

B

B

A

A

B

A

B

B

D

E

D
D
A

C

C

B

A

A

A

A

B

C

B

C

D

D

E

D
D
A

D

C

D

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

A

B

D

D

D
F
B

C

B

B

A

A

B

B

A

A

A

A

C

E

D

D
D
C

C

C

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

F

F

D

D
F
A

C

A

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

E

F
E
A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

B

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

E
F
B

C

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

B

B

D

E

E

D
F
A

B

C

A

A

A

B

C

B

A

A

B

D

E

E

E
F
A

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

F

F
D
B

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

D

D
F
C

C

A

B

C

C

C

C

C

B

B

B

D

E

D

D
D
C

C

A

C

D

C

C

B

C

B

B

C

D

E

D

D
D
D

D

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

D

D
F
C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

D

C

F

D

F

D
E
A

A

D

C

C

C

D

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
A

D

D

D

C

A

B

A

B

A

A

A

F

D

E

D
D
D

D

D

B

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

F

D

D

E
D
D

D

A

A

A

A

A

C

D

D

C

B

D

E

D

D
E
D

C

D

C

B

A

A

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E
F
A

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

C

D

E

D

D
F
B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

E

D

D
D
B

D

D

D

B

B

A

B

B

A

A

A

F

F

D

D
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9.
2

9
.
0

7
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
8
.
7

1
7
.
8

2
7
.
1

2
8
.
5

2
6
.
9

2
6
.
0

3
6
.
9

3
9
.
3

2
4
.
0

1
8
.
2

7
.
9

2
2
.
2

8
.
2
9.
1

1
8
.
8

1
5
.
0

2
0
.
6

2
4
.
6

3
0
.
1

3
1
.
1

4
0
.
5
33
.
3

3
3
.
9

3
2
.
6

2
6
.
6

3
6
.
2

3
0
.
4

5
.
7

4
.
5

1
5
.4
16
.
0

3
0
.
3

3
0
.
4

1
0
.
1

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
1

3
8
.
0

3
2
.
5
21
.
2

3
6
.
7

2
3
.
2

2
0
.
4

1
2
.
5

1
0
.
8

9
.
9

5
.
0

3
.6
6.
0

6
.
9

7
.
7

8
.
4

9
.
8

1
0
.
8

1
6
.
3

1
8
.
5

1
9
.
9

2
1
.
2

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
9

1
9
.
5

1
0
.
9

4
.
7

4
.
1

5
.
3
9.
1

9
.
4

7
.
7

1
3
.
4

2
3
.
0

2
7
.
2

2
0
.
3

2
5
.
1

3
9
.
9

3
5
.
5

5
3
.
7

2
7
.
4

2
5
.
8

4
0
.
5

1
6
.
7

8
.
0

3
.
7
39
.
4

2
4
.
5

1
8
.
0

1
1
.
7

1
1
.
3

1
4
.
9

2
0
.
7

4
1
.
5
33
.
6

1
8
.
1

2
6
.
3

1
8
.
8

1
5
.
9

8
.
4

5
.
8

1
5
.
6

1
7.
3
16
.
8

4
8
.
2

1
9
.
4

4
7
.
9

2
3
.
8

3
4
.
0

6
8
.
7

3
1
.
9
49
.
3

2
9
.
6

5
4
.
6

4
8
.
0

3
6
.
5

3
4
.
0

3
0
.
7

2
1
.
7
1
3
.
8
32
.
9

2
6
.
4

4
5
.
6

3
3
.
3

2
9
.
7

5
6
.
3

3
7
.
8

5
0
.
3
41
.
4

2
8
.
3

3
9
.
6

6
3
.
6

2
1
.
0

1
0
.
2

1
1
.
3

1
6
.
8
9
.
0
29
.
7

2
1
.
1

1
4
.
7

1
0
.
7

1
7
.
5

2
1
.
8

3
1
.
7

3
0
.
2

4
8
.
4

4
2
.
0

4
5
.
2

4
0
.
6

1
0
.
0

7
.
9

1
3
.
2

6
.
1

1
0.
0
6.
4

1
0
.
2

1
1
.
9

1
8
.
1

2
4
.
9

3
0
.
2

4
4
.
5

3
2
.
7
29
.
3

2
1
.
8

3
3
.
6

2
5
.
4

1
8
.
8

1
4
.
7

1
0
.
2

8
.
8

4
0.
2
6.
2

4
3
.
2

2
0
.
9

1
6
.
7

1
6
.
5

4
7
.
3

4
8
.
0

4
3
.
8
40
.
3

4
7
.
8

3
6
.
4

3
7
.
8

2
1
.
2

2
0
.
1

8
.
1

2
7
.
3

1
0.
2
8.
8

2
1
.
2

1
3
.
1

1
8
.
4

1
9
.
2

3
4
.
9

4
9
.
7

3
4
.
3
41
.
3

4
2
.
2

4
8
.
2

3
7
.
9

2
0
.
1

1
3
.
6

1
6
.
2

8
.
7

2
7.
0
31
.
9

2
6
.
8

1
4
.
3

2
7
.
2

3
6
.
0

3
5
.
2

5
5
.
5

4
9
.
7

6
1
.
4

5
1
.
2

3
0
.
5

2
4
.
0

2
0
.
5

9
.
9

5
.
9

8
.
3

1
0
.0
14
.
6

9
.
5

5
7
.
6

2
8
.
1

4
5
.
9

5
4
.
1

4
5
.
1

4
4
.
0

4
3
.
8

3
3
.
2

2
0
.
1

1
8
.
1

1
1
.
2

8
.
2

7
.
2

1
7
.
2

7
.
4
11
.
9

1
5
.
2

2
4
.
1

2
0
.
8

1
4
.
7

2
4
.
0

5
2
.
6

6
8
.
5
53
.
1

3
9
.
9

2
8
.
3

4
9
.
2

3
8
.
0

1
0
.
3

1
5
.
7

1
2
.
5
9
.
1
5.
7

6
.
4

3
2
.
4

2
9
.
1

1
2
.
5

1
9
.
2

1
7
.
4

1
3
.
6

3
6
.
2

5
4
.
1

4
9
.
0

3
5
.
5

1
6
.
6

7
.
3

7
.
5

6
.
9

1
3
.
7
8.
4

7
.
8

1
1
.
0

1
0
.
0

1
8
.
3

4
1
.
6

4
1
.
7

4
8
.
6

4
8
.
0
3
2
.
6

2
5
.
0

1
8
.
5

3
9
.
1

1
6
.
3

2
0
.
3

3
6
.
9

4
6.
1
24
.
9

4
1
.
7

2
7
.
4

1
1
.
9

2
6
.
0

1
4
.
6

5
3
.
1

4
1
.
0

3
4
.
5

3
4
.
0

3
2
.
2

2
7
.
7

1
6
.
3

7
.
3

6
.
0

3
.
5

2
4
.7
10
.
0

1
9
.
6

2
4
.
8

1
1
.
8

2
3
.
0

2
2
.
0

2
6
.
4

1
9
.
8
14
.
5

2
4
.
4

4
3
.
7

4
6
.
8

1
1
.
8

1
1
.
7

5
.
2

1
1
.
7
7.
3
21
.
5

2
9
.
9

3
4
.
6

1
3
.
5

1
2
.
9

1
6
.
7

2
0
.
7

2
3
.
9
23
.
8

3
3
.
2

2
0
.
5

4
0
.
8

2
3
.
2

1
1
.
3

8
.
7

6
.
7

1
4.
8
24
.
0

1
1
.
7

4
4
.
5

8
.
4

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
1

2
5
.
4

1
9
.
0

2
3
.
1

4
1
.
8

3
7
.
2

3
4
.
2

1
9
.
0

6
.
7

6
.
2

5
.
0

4
4
.
7
6.
7

6
.
6

9
.
4

9
.
3

1
0
.
5

1
5
.
0

2
6
.
2

2
0
.
1

4
1
.
0

2
9
.
1

2
3
.
6

4
1
.
1

2
9
.
0

9
.
4

2
0
.
6

3
2
.
4

2
7
.
3
34
.
3

1
0
.
6

8
.
5

1
7
.
0

4
2
.
8

6
0
.
3

3
9
.
3

2
4
.
7

1
4
.
0
2
1
.
6

2
4
.
2

1
7
.
6

2
3
.
8

1
6
.
7

1
5
.
0

1
6
.
6
10
.
1
7.
3

7
.
5

8
.
2

9
.
5

1
7
.
7

3
3
.
9

3
3
.
8

2
5
.
3

2
9
.
5

3
4
.
2

2
0
.
5

2
1
.
2

3
3
.
8

3
2
.
4

7
.
3

1
1
.
2

5
9
.
0
6.
9

3
1
.
1

1
9
.
9

1
8
.
5

1
3
.
6

1
9
.
0

2
7
.
1

2
8
.
9
21
.
1

1
9
.
0

2
4
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
3
.
8

1
1
.
4

1
2
.
4

1
2
.
8
11
.
2
18
.
2

8
.
7

1
0
.
4

2
1
.
8

4
9
.
6

4
5
.
9

6
0
.
6

4
4
.
1

5
7
.
6

5
3
.
0

2
9
.
4

4
9
.
6

3
7
.
3

2
5
.
7

1
4
.
8

7
.
6

1
0.
9
9.
1

6
.
6

7
.
4

1
1
.
9

1
2
.
8

1
4
.
7

2
0
.
5

2
3
.
4

2
6
.
8

3
4
.
0

3
9
.
7

2
7
.
7

4
3
.
2

1
8
.
0

9
.
6

2
4
.
2

5
4
.
1
12
.
4

2
1
.
2

3
2
.
0

1
7
.
9

1
3
.
8

2
1
.
4

3
0
.
3

2
5
.
7
19
.
3

2
9
.
4

2
3
.
0

1
9
.
1

1
2
.
9

7
.
6

7
.
5

1
0
.
9

8
.6
12
.
5

9
.
6

1
4
.
4

2
3
.
6

2
2
.
7

3
2
.
1

5
6
.
1

6
0
.
3

4
1
.
2

2
8
.
9

1
8
.
0

9
.
0

9
.
0

8
.
1

8
.
8

9
.
9

1
0
.
5
17.
7

1
8
.
4

2
0
.
8

1
7
.
6

2
1
.
3

2
8
.
1

3
6
.
1

3
3
.
6

3
4
.
7

3
3
.
4

3
2
.
2

3
0
.
9

2
4
.
3

1
6
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
7
18
.
1
6.
9

4
8
.
2

5
7
.
6

4
7
.
9

4
9
.
6

6
0
.
3

6
8
.
7

6
8
.
5

6
1
.
4

5
4
.
1

5
4
.
6

6
3
.
6

5
2
.
9

4
0
.
5

3
0
.
7

3
6
.
9
59
.
0
5.
7

6
.
4

7
.
3

8
.
4

9
.
8

1
0
.
8

1
6
.
3

1
3
.
6

1
4
.
0

1
8
.
1

1
8
.
0

9
.
0

9
.
0

6
.
7

4
.
7

3
.
5

3
.
6
E
D

A

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

F

D

E

D
D
D

D

D

B

C

B

C

C

B

B

A

A

F

D

D

D
D
B

C

B

A

B

A

B

C

C

B

B

A

F

E

E

D
E
A

A

D

D

C

A

B

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

E

E
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

E

D
D
D

D

C

A

A

B

C

B

B

A

B

A

F

E

D

E
F
A

B

D

D

C

C

B

C

C

C

D

C

D

E

E

E
E
A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

F

F

F

E
F
A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

B

D

D

D

D
F
B

C

D

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

D

D

D

E

D
D
D

D

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

B

B

D

D

D

F
E
A

B

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

B

E

D

F

D
D
B

C

B

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

B

D

E

D

F
F
A

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

E

D

D
E
D

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

C

C

C

D

D

E

D

E
D
C

A

B

C

A

A

A

A

C

C

B

A

D

D

D

D
E
D

A

A

C

C

D

D

C

A

A

B

C

E

D

E

D
D
D

D

D

B

A

A

A

B

A

B

B

D

D

D

F

F
F
A

A

D

A

C

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

E

F
D
B

A

D

A

B

A

B

C

B

A

A

D

D

E

D

E
E
A

A

C

C

C

B

A

A

A

B

A

A

D

D

E

D
F
D

B

D

D

D

A

B

B

A

A

A

B

E

E

E

D
E
D

D

D

D

C

C

C

B

B

A

A

A

D

D

D

F
F
D

D

C

A

A

A

B

D

C

B

B

A

D

D

D

D
E
D

D

D

B

A

A

B

A

A

C

B

A

F

E

D

F
F
A

B

B

C

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

F

D

D

D
D
E

D

D

C

C

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

F

D

F

F
D
F

A

B

C

B

A

B

C

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

D

D

D

D

D

D
18
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
.
8

3
2
.
5

2
5
.
8

1
4
.
0

4
1
.
5

5
2
.
1

6
5
.
9

5
3
.
0
20
.
4

3
2
.
7

2
6
.
5

1
9
.
9

2
1
.
5

6
.
6

1
4
.
4

3
0
.
4
9.
8
25
.
1

2
7
.
5

2
5
.
6

2
0
.
1

2
3
.
2

4
2
.
2

4
4
.
0

5
4
.
7
39
.
8

4
1
.
9

3
7
.
7

2
1
.
7

3
1
.
0

4
1
.
8

1
5
.
6

5
.
2
3.
6
34
.
9

5
3
.
2

4
3
.
6

6
5
.
9

2
0
.
8

1
5
.
7

2
3
.
7

2
6
.
7
43
.
3

3
4
.
4

5
1
.
7

3
1
.
9

2
8
.
8

1
1
.
2

3
1
.
9

3
6
.
3
1
1
.
1
33
.
7

2
9
.
8

2
9
.
5

1
8
.
4

2
7
.
7

3
1
.
1

2
5
.
8

3
6
.
4
16
.
8

1
5
.
8

1
7
.
8

1
8
.
9

1
0
.
2

1
5
.
5

1
7
.
3

9
.
2
20
.
6
36
.
6

3
5
.
1

2
8
.
1

8
.
0

8
.
7

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
7

1
7
.
2

2
0
.
0

1
5
.
1

9
.
3

1
2
.
0

1
1
.
1

1
4
.
8

8
.
8
12
.
4

1
2
.
5

1
0
.
4

9
.
8

1
3
.
0

1
1
.
0

9
.
7

1
0
.
9

1
0
.
6

9
.
5

1
0
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
0
.
7

8
.
4

9
.
7

1
2
.
9

1
2
.
4
7.
3

1
1
.
7

1
0
.
2

9
.
2

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
2

1
4
.
4

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
8

1
3
.
4

1
5
.
5

1
8
.
5

1
3
.
9

9
.
3

4
5
.
4

3
8
.
1

2
9
.0
6.
8

1
4
.
7

1
9
.
5

2
3
.
0

2
2
.
4

3
7
.
4

4
9
.
2

5
6
.
7
40
.
2

3
0
.
8

2
1
.
4

1
7
.
0

1
3
.
1

6
.
3

1
4
.
6

2
2
.
6

4
0.
7
17
.
3

3
0
.
6

2
2
.
5

4
3
.
4

2
0
.
6

1
6
.
0

1
7
.
5

2
4
.
2

2
2
.
3

3
9
.
8

5
9
.
5

3
1
.
1

1
8
.
0

5
.
3

3
2
.
3

5
.
5

7
.8
16
.
0

2
4
.
1

2
2
.
8

2
1
.
9

1
1
.
9

1
3
.
6

1
5
.
5

2
0
.
5
34
.
5

3
2
.
2

2
9
.
3

3
7
.
9

3
9
.
4

7
.
5

4
.
0

1
0
.
0

6
.0
10
.
3

7
.
0

3
6
.
5

1
6
.
3

1
3
.
6

2
2
.
0

3
8
.
7

4
1
.
1

3
9
.
9

5
2
.
7

4
8
.
2

1
8
.
0

1
6
.
5

8
.
2

4
.
5

5
.
0

5
.
1
31
.
8

4
1
.
2

1
8
.
0

3
2
.
8

1
9
.
4

1
6
.
5

1
0
.
8

2
1
.
3

3
4
.
2

4
3
.
7

5
0
.
9

2
7
.
3

2
4
.
9

7
.
5

5
.
2

5
.
2

2
5
.8
38
.
3

8
.
5

1
7
.
8

3
4
.
7

1
1
.
1

1
5
.
8

1
9
.
7

4
0
.
8

3
8
.
6

2
4
.
5

3
0
.
8

3
0
.
9

4
0
.
3

9
.
7

3
.
7

4
.
0

9
.
8
16
.
4

1
3
.
4

2
0
.
1

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
9

1
9
.
1

2
3
.
4

4
3
.
7
51
.
6

5
5
.
0

3
1
.
8

4
8
.
2

1
5
.
3

1
9
.
5

3
.
8

1
7
.
0
35
.
6
21
.
9

3
1
.
4

5
3
.
0

1
4
.
2

4
3
.
4

1
5
.
6

1
5
.
7

3
3
.
3
49
.
4

4
3
.
9

5
0
.
9

3
4
.
1

1
7
.
6

8
.
7

6
.
5

1
2
.
3

9
.5
7.
7

4
6
.
9

2
8
.
4

5
2
.
3

3
7
.
3

4
3
.
8

3
0
.
3

9
.
3

8
.
2

1
0
.
5

1
8
.
0

1
5
.
2

3
0
.
1

9
.
4

1
1
.
5

1
4
.
2

1
7
.
2
12
.
2

7
.
5

1
2
.
0

9
.
9

8
.
3

2
4
.
7

3
1
.
4

2
2
.
6

2
5
.
6

4
2
.
1

2
4
.
5

2
5
.
5

3
3
.
8

8
.
4

6
.
9

9
.
8

1
4
.
8
5.
8

6
.
2

8
.
5

4
7
.
0

2
7
.
6

6
4
.
7

3
4
.
3

4
1
.
3

5
7
.
0

4
7
.
0

3
4
.
3

4
1
.
8

1
8
.
1

6
.
8

1
2
.
2

1
0
.
5

7
.
4
30
.
9

3
0
.
9

2
4
.
5

9
.
0

1
0
.
1

1
7
.
9

1
8
.
5

1
6
.
3

1
8
.
7

1
8
.
6

2
9
.
1

2
4
.
9

1
6
.
2

1
0
.
4

7
.
1

8
.
1

3
8
.7
14
.
0

9
.
7

1
0
.
6

3
2
.
3

1
1
.
3

1
1
.
1

1
1
.
5

1
6
.
7

1
9
.
4
1
7
.
5

2
0
.
0

3
8
.
8

2
6
.
1

1
9
.
6

3
9
.
5

2
5
.
6
10
.
1
1.
0

2
1
.
3

2
3
.
7

3
1
.
2

1
9
.
7

1
3
.
1

1
8
.
8

2
8
.
0

2
8
.
8

3
2
.
0

3
0
.
4

1
7
.
5

1
6
.
0

5
.
8

7
.
3

6
.
2

1
0
.
7
12
.
1

6
.
5

1
1
.
8

1
5
.
3

2
1
.
4

2
6
.
1

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
2

1
6
.
9

1
4
.
4

1
8
.
3

2
4
.
6

3
1
.
4

9
.
7

2
3
.
5

1
7
.
2

8
.0
21
.
0

3
2
.
0

2
2
.
7

1
9
.
3

2
8
.
4

2
5
.
7

2
2
.
9

2
2
.
7
26
.
3

3
4
.
4

3
2
.
4

2
7
.
1

1
7
.
7

1
8
.
4

1
3
.
3

2
6
.
9
1
6
.
4
29
.
7

2
2
.
2

1
4
.
3

1
2
.
8

1
9
.
5

1
6
.
5

2
0
.
9

2
1
.
1

2
1
.
3

1
3
.
5

9
.
8

8
.
4

8
.
2

7
.
4

6
.
8

6
.
9

1
0
.
9
26
.
5

2
3
.
4

2
6
.
2

2
3
.
3

1
5
.
6

1
7
.
5

2
2
.
2

2
3
.
5

2
5
.
0

3
3
.
6

2
7
.
3

2
3
.
6

1
3
.
6

5
.
1

9
.
1

6
.
2

6
.
3
61
.
7

3
8
.
6

1
4
.
1

1
4
.
4

1
0
.
5

1
4
.
7

1
3
.
3

1
5
.
9
15
.
2

2
0
.
0

1
9
.
3

1
1
.
7

8
.
9

1
3
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
3
.
7
22
.
6
26
.
0

2
0
.
9

2
3
.
0

2
0
.
3

2
2
.
2

2
6
.
7

4
8
.
3

5
9
.
3
51
.
5

4
3
.
0

3
8
.
2

4
1
.
9

1
2
.
0

1
3
.
8

5
.
2

7
.
1

3
.6
7.
7

1
8
.
5

2
1
.
1

2
7
.
0

1
9
.
2

3
9
.
5

2
7
.
1

4
7
.
9
35
.
2

4
6
.
8

4
0
.
0

4
6
.
5

1
5
.
6

2
2
.
4

1
3
.
2

2
2
.
4
14
.
1
22.
3

2
4
.
0

2
2
.
5

2
3
.
1

2
0
.
2

2
5
.
3

2
6
.
0

3
0
.
2

3
0
.
1

3
1
.
4

3
0
.
6

2
7
.
1

2
1
.
1

1
1
.
8

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
2
14
.
7
1.
7

5
3
.
2

5
3
.
0

6
5
.
9

4
3
.
4

6
4
.
7

6
5
.
9

5
9
.
3

5
7
.
0

5
5
.
0

5
9
.
5

4
8
.
2

4
4
.
7

4
1
.
8

4
5
.
4

4
8
.
3
40
.
7
5.
8

6
.
2

8
.
5

8
.
0

8
.
3

1
1
.
0

9
.
7

9
.
3

8
.
2

9
.
5

9
.
8

8
.
4

8
.
2

5
.
1

3
.
7

4
.
0

3
.
6
F
F

B

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

F

F

E
F
F

A

C

A

A

A

B

C

B

B

B

D

E

D

F

D
F
F

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

B

F

F

D

E

E
F
F

A

A

B

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

F

F

D
F
F

A

B

A

A

A

A

C

C

B

B

D

D

E

D

F
F
F

A

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

F

F

F
E
D

B

B

B

A

A

A

C

B

C

C

D

E

D

E

F
E
F

A

A

B

C

C

C

B

A

A

A

E

E

E

E

D
E
F

A

B

D

C

C

B

A

A

A

A

F

D

E

D

E
D
E

A

C

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

E

D

E

E

E
F
F

B

A

B

C

D

B

B

A

B

B

F

E

D

D

F
F
D

B

A

D

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

E

E

D
E
E

B

D

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

E

D

F
F
F

A

C

A

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

D

D

D
D
F

A

A

A

A

B

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

B

A

B

B

B

B

A

F

D

D

D

D
E
E

D

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

E

D

D

E
F
F

A

D

D

B

B

C

B

B

A

A

E

D

E

D

F
E
D

D

A

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

A

F

E

F

E

D
F
F

A

A

B

C

B

A

A

A

A

C

E

E

E

E

D
D
E

D

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

B

A

F

D

E

D

D
F
F

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

F

E

E

D
F
E

C

C

D

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

D
F
F

A

A

D

C

C

C

B

B

C

C

D

E

D

E

E
F
E

C

C

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

E

F
F
F

A

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

E

E

E
D
F

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

E

E

D

D

D
20
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
.
2

2
9
.
2

1
7
.
1

1
7
.
1

2
0
.
3

1
8
.
0

1
9
.
6

1
5
.
8
15
.
4

2
1
.
5

4
6
.
1

2
6
.
2

1
6
.
6

1
0
.
5

3
.
4

1
2
.
0
12
.
8
22
.
1

1
9
.
9

2
6
.
2

3
0
.
2

2
3
.
1

3
7
.
3

2
2
.
8

2
8
.
5
29
.
5

2
7
.
6

2
7
.
7

2
4
.
6

2
8
.
4

4
.
0

2
2
.
3

1
4
.
9
20
.
8
34
.
7

1
4
.
4

3
4
.
6

2
1
.
6

1
1
.
8

1
8
.
2

3
1
.
8

3
0
.
6

2
3
.
7

2
3
.
4

4
6
.
8

2
5
.
4

8
.
0

1
6
.
4

6
.
9

5
.
4

4
.
7
11
.
7

1
6
.
0

3
8
.
5

9
.
5

1
0
.
5

1
1
.
9

2
0
.
6

2
4
.
6

5
7
.
9

4
8
.
4

5
1
.
7

5
8
.
6

2
1
.
8

1
1
.
3

9
.
2

1
9
.
8

4
.2
1.
9

3
7
.
7

1
7
.
8

2
2
.
6

1
6
.
1

1
8
.
1

2
8
.
0

2
3
.
2
25
.
4

5
6
.
6

2
5
.
6

1
6
.
3

1
2
.
8

9
.
1

6
.
2

4
1
.
4

3
5
.4
24
.
8

1
3
.
0

1
0
.
3

3
7
.
8

2
6
.
4

2
0
.
9

2
6
.
0

2
8
.
3

2
9
.
1

2
5
.
7

2
7
.
5

3
0
.
8

6
.
0

1
6
.
4

9
.
7

6
.
7

6
.
9
11
.
8

2
8
.
5

2
5
.
4

4
1
.
1

1
9
.
5

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

3
7
.
9

2
8
.
2

2
2
.
1

5
.
5

1
8
.
0

4
.
2

9
.
3

1
0
.
8
16
.
7

1
1
.
3

2
6
.
2

3
9
.
7

1
3
.
2

1
0
.
7

1
0
.
8

1
2
.
1
15
.
7

1
3
.
2

1
2
.
8

1
8
.
2

5
.
9

1
3
.
3

2
1
.
8

4
4
.
7
24
.
3
35
.
4

2
0
.
2

1
7
.
4

1
3
.
8

8
.
7

1
4
.
6

1
1
.
1

1
4
.
8

2
1
.
8

3
3
.
7

5
4
.
8

6
2
.
7

1
8
.
1

7
.
9

1
1
.
4

6
.
7

6
.
5
20
.
5

5
3
.
0

9
.
2

2
1
.
1

3
5
.
1

2
8
.
5

1
6
.
0

1
9
.
2

2
4
.
5

2
3
.
0

2
0
.
8

2
0
.
4

1
4
.
1

3
1
.
0

6
.
4

9
.
1

2
2
.0
18
.
6

8
.
0

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
5

1
5
.
5

1
2
.
8

1
3
.
9

1
2
.
8

2
2
.
1

1
6
.
2

1
4
.
7

1
4
.
0

6
.
3

2
4
.
9

1
3
.
6

1
4
.
5

3
2.
8
25
.
8

8
.
8

1
4
.
7

1
1
.
3

1
4
.
5

1
7
.
6

1
7
.
0

1
8
.
0

2
0
.
3

1
6
.
1

1
7
.
2

1
0
.
0

7
.
2

8
.
8

7
.
1

1
1
.
6

2
5
.
4
5.
5

5
.
8

2
1
.
3

2
2
.
4

1
6
.
0

1
6
.
9

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
7

1
8
.
1

2
4
.
3

1
6
.
0

1
6
.
0

1
2
.
9

1
5
.
6

1
7
.
1

8
.
7

4
.
5
16
.
7

2
2
.
2

2
4
.
5

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
3

1
6
.
4

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
3

2
3
.
4

2
1
.
6

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
7

6
.
9

5
.
9

6
.
7

6
.
0

1
4
.
7
7.
2

6
.
4

6
.
9

7
.
1

7
.
8

9
.
3

2
1
.
9

2
4
.
9

1
8
.
0

1
8
.
5

2
3
.
1

2
1
.
7

1
1
.
5

2
6
.
6

1
3
.
9

2
0
.
2

3
4
.
9
30
.
3

2
5
.
2

8
.
5

1
7
.
9

1
9
.
6

3
6
.
0

5
2
.
9

3
3
.
7

2
6
.
7

1
8
.
4

3
4
.
9

1
5
.
8

1
1
.
3

1
9
.
1

6
.
3

3
7
.
1

9
.8
35
.
6

5
4
.
2

1
6
.
4

7
.
1

7
.
8

1
2
.
1

1
6
.
8

1
7
.
6

2
2
.
0

3
4
.
9

3
0
.
8

3
6
.
8

1
1
.
4

1
1
.
5

2
.
3

8
.
2

3
2
.
0
33
.
1

1
6
.
9

5
9
.
0

4
5
.
0

3
6
.
6

3
2
.
9

3
9
.
5

5
1
.
7
51
.
5

5
9
.
6

3
6
.
0

2
0
.
6

4
.
8

3
9
.
0

3
4
.
4

1
3
.
7
17
.
1
28
.
0

1
1
.
7

3
0
.
5

4
7
.
6

2
0
.
3

2
2
.
1

3
3
.
8

4
7
.
7
71
.
9

4
6
.
4

3
0
.
6

3
0
.
9

1
2
.
5

5
2
.
2

5
5
.
4

1
6
.
7
2
3
.
7
10
.
6

1
3
.
7

1
3
.
3

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
2

1
0
.
6

1
4
.
6

1
4
.
1
18
.
4

1
2
.
1

1
9
.
2

1
1
.
0

8
.
9

5
.
2

1
7
.
8

1
3
.
8

1
5.
6
17
.
8

9
.
0

2
4
.
6

2
0
.
9

1
5
.
7

2
4
.
0

2
1
.
5

3
1
.
7

6
1
.
7
5
1
.
8

3
2
.
9

2
7
.
4

1
1
.
4

2
1
.
7

1
5
.
8

1
1
.
7
14
.
8
27
.
4

2
5
.
1

3
5
.
3

3
3
.
3

4
9
.
0

2
8
.
4

9
.
8

1
2
.
1

1
9
.
6

1
7
.
9

1
6
.
4

1
8
.
6

1
4
.
1

1
3
.
3

7
.
4

8
.
7

9
.
0
6.
7

6
.
5

1
0
.
9

9
.
7

9
.
1

1
5
.
6

1
5
.
5

9
.
9

9
.
6

9
.
7

7
.
7

7
.
4

6
.
5

8
.
6

7
.
8

9
.
4

1
0
.
9
6.
6

4
5
.
6

4
0
.
7

2
3
.
5

1
8
.
4

1
5
.
6

3
2
.
0

2
0
.
3

2
9
.
0

2
5
.
2

2
0
.
4

1
1
.
6

5
.
0

4
.
8

7
.
5

8
.
0

1
4
.
7
12
.
1

8
.
3

5
.
4

1
8
.
5

1
9
.
0

2
4
.
6

3
3
.
9

3
4
.
9

3
7
.
4
6
1
.
8

2
6
.
6

2
2
.
4

1
9
.
2

1
4
.
9

2
6
.
4

2
1
.
8

1
5.
7
13
.
6

4
4
.
0

1
7
.
4

1
4
.
6

1
8
.
2

2
7
.
8

4
1
.
6

5
4
.
5
38
.
9

3
8
.
1

1
9
.
9

2
9
.
6

2
3
.
0

4
0
.
7

5
.
2

1
0
.
5
3.
5
21
.
6

3
8
.
1

2
8
.
7

2
8
.
0

2
0
.
0

2
3
.
8

2
9
.
3

5
7
.
5

5
5
.
4

5
8
.
3

2
9
.
8

7
.
9

3
.
1

3
3
.
1

3
.
2

9
.
1

5
.
2
18
.
3

1
1
.
6

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
7

1
6
.
3

1
6
.
3

1
5
.
0

1
3
.
9

1
3
.
5

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
8

8
.
7

1
1
.
2

8
.
7

9
.
5

7
.
5

8
.
6
8.
0

2
1
.
0

2
9
.
9

2
8
.
6

1
1
.
0

2
2
.
0

1
7
.
9

3
2
.
5
32
.
7

4
6
.
5

3
0
.
3

2
2
.
0

1
8
.
5

1
0
.
1

6
.
2

3
.
6

4
.
8
19.
7

2
0
.
8

2
1
.
3

2
2
.
3

1
8
.
1

2
0
.
3

2
3
.
6

2
6
.
8

3
0
.
9

3
0
.
4

2
6
.
5

2
2
.
3

1
1
.
5

1
7
.
1

1
2
.
5

1
4
.
0
15
.
1.
9

5
4
.
2

5
9
.
0

4
7
.
6

4
9
.
0

3
7
.
3

5
2
.
9

5
8
.
5

7
1
.
9

6
1
.
8

5
4
.
8

6
2
.
7

2
8
.
4

5
2
.
2

5
5
.
4

4
4
.
7
35
.
5.
5

5
.
8

5
.
4

7
.
1

7
.
8

9
.
3

9
.
8

9
.
9

9
.
6

9
.
7

7
.
7

7
.
4

3
.
1

4
.
0

2
.
3

3
.
6

3
.
5
F
D

C

A

A

B

B

B

A

B

A

B

D

D

E

E

E
E
F

C

C

B

B

B

C

C

B

A

A

E

D

E

D

E
F
F

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

F

E

F
F
E

A

B

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

E

E

D
D
E

A

D

D

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

D

F

E
F
F

B

A

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

C

E

D

E

E

F
F
E

D

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

D

D

E

E
D
F

A

A

B

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

A

A

F

E

F

E

D

D
E
D

A

A

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

F

F
E
D

C

C

D

D

D

D

B

A

A

F

F

D

D

E

E
F
F

D

B

A

B

C

B

A

A

B

F

E

F

E

D

F
F
D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

F

D

D

F
E
D

C

D

D

D

C

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

E

D

F
E
E

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

E

D

E
E
F

A

D

D

C

C

C

A

B

B

F

E

E

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

A

C

C

A

F

D

F

D

F

F
F
F

D

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

A

E

D

F

E

F

D
F
F

C

D

D

D

C

B

B

A

A

F

D

D

E

D

F
F
D

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

F

F

E

D
F
D

A

A

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

F

E

F

F

E

F
D
D

C

D

D

D

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

E

D

D

D
F
D

A

B

C

A

B

A

A

A

A

F

D

F

E

D

E
F
F

A

A

A

A

D

D

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
F

F

A

B

C

A

B

A

A

B

D

E

E

D

D

E
D
D

E

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

E

F

E

F

F

E
E
F

E

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

E

F

F

E

D

F
F
F

F

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

F

E

E

D

E
F
D

E

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
E

F

A

D

B

B

A

A

A

A

F

D

D

E

E

E
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
.
7

4
6
.
0

1
3
.
7

3
6
.
4

1
6
.
1

1
6
.
8

4
0
.
3

4
0
.
0
28
.
2

5
1
.
8

3
4
.
9

1
1
.
5

2
1
.
9

2
3
.
5

3
0
.
7

5
.
6
23
.
8
12
.
4

3
9
.
2

2
8
.
2

1
8
.
1

2
0
.
6

2
0
.
0

1
5
.
5

2
6
.
9
37
.
1

4
2
.
0

4
4
.
6

1
3
.
7

2
6
.
8

7
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
4
.
8
7.
3
29
.
3

1
1
.
1

2
4
.
1

1
8
.
8

1
4
.
8

1
2
.
5

2
6
.
3

4
7
.
8

5
3
.
0

3
1
.
4

9
.
8

1
6
.
5

1
0
.
6

5
.
5

1
1
.
2

8
.
8

2
3
.9
13
.
1

4
3
.
9

6
.
4

1
3
.
5

2
3
.
4

7
.
5

7
.
5

7
.
6

7
.
6

7
.
4

7
.
5

7
.
3

6
.
7

7
.
0

7
.
0

7
.
0

6
.
4
7.
3

7
.
7

9
.
1

7
.
6

7
.
5

8
.
9

8
.
0

1
1
.
4

9
.
1

7
.
9

1
0
.
0

1
5
.
0

8
.
4

7
.
1

7
.
8

1
0
.
1

1
2
.
8
14
.
4

1
0
.
3

1
2
.
5

2
1
.
1

1
2
.
6

2
9
.
6

3
3
.
4

4
0
.
0

1
2
.
1

1
5
.
9

9
.
0

7
.
7

7
.
5

9
.
4

9
.
1

8
.
5

1
1
.
7
8.
8

1
0
.
3

7
.
1

7
.
3

1
2
.
0

9
.
0

1
8
.
8

1
7
.
7

1
3
.
3

1
6
.
3

1
5
.
9

1
1
.
5

6
.
5

6
.
2

1
1
.
7

1
3
.
9

1
0
.
3
12
.
6

7
.
1

7
.
7

7
.
3

9
.
2

1
0
.
7

1
3
.
9

1
2
.
4

1
3
.
9

1
3
.
1

1
1
.
7

8
.
2

6
.
6

9
.
4

1
2
.
0

8
.
4

7
.
1
10
.
1

2
6
.
3

1
5
.
0

6
.
6

1
0
.
4

2
2
.
1

1
7
.
4

1
6
.
2

1
4
.
9

1
6
.
0

1
5
.
0

9
.
0

1
1
.
0

1
2
.
0

8
.
8

7
.
4

6
.
8
7.
0

1
5
.
8

4
4
.
7

2
2
.
4

2
5
.
4

2
5
.
0

3
4
.
0

2
6
.
4
27
.
0

2
3
.
9

3
0
.
6

3
2
.
1

1
8
.
5

1
0
.
4

9
.
0

2
5
.
3

1
4.
1
11
.
1

2
7
.
2

3
3
.
6

2
6
.
6

1
7
.
8

8
.
0

9
.
1

8
.
0

7
.
0

9
.
4

1
2
.
4

7
.
2

1
3
.
7

1
6
.
0

1
2
.
0

2
5
.
7

2
3
.
9
32
.
8

3
1
.
9

2
6
.
8

2
1
.
7

1
0
.
8

9
.
8

1
0
.
8

1
5
.
9

1
2
.
7
1
4
.
5

2
2
.
4

5
7
.
4

1
3
.
0

1
3
.
2

2
8
.
3

2
2
.
6
19
.
2
6.
7

6
.
4

6
.
8

7
.
3

6
.
4

7
.
3

7
.
7

8
.
1

9
.
4

8
.
2

8
.
6

8
.
0

2
5
.
1

6
.
8

6
.
5

8
.
0

7
.
7
7.
5

1
1
.
6

1
4
.
2

4
8
.
0

1
4
.
1

1
7
.
7

2
2
.
6

4
9
.
5

5
4
.
4

2
0
.
9

1
1
.
9

7
.
1

1
4
.
2

1
3
.
0

5
.
4

1
0
.
8

7
.
5
9.
3

3
6
.
2

3
6
.
8

4
2
.
2

3
8
.
6

3
7
.
7

2
2
.
7

2
2
.
3

2
0
.
5

1
4
.
3

8
.
1

6
.
3

1
2
.
0

1
2
.
4

7
.
0

7
.
3

7
.
6
6.
3

6
.
6

7
.
1

6
.
5

7
.
4

1
2
.
3

1
3
.
3

1
8
.
6

1
2
.
7

1
9
.
5

7
.
3

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
5

2
6
.
7

9
.
8

3
4
.
2

2
7
.
0
33
.
7

1
7
.
4

4
.
7

5
.
1

1
2
.
3

1
2
.
9

2
1
.
2

2
6
.
9

3
2
.
3

2
2
.
3

2
4
.
4

1
1
.
1

1
0
.
6

5
.
1

8
.
7

1
5
.
2

7
.
5
7.
8

2
6
.
2

1
4
.
2

9
.
5

2
9
.
2

1
9
.
2

5
6
.
6

3
6
.
6

3
7
.
9

2
6
.
1

1
7
.
0

6
.
6

5
.
0

1
0
.
0

3
.
1

2
.
8

4
.
5
14
.
7

8
.
5

1
3
.
3

1
9
.
0

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
8

2
4
.
7

3
7
.
5

3
6
.
4

2
5
.
7

1
4
.
5

1
5
.
6

6
.
7

1
6
.
9

7
.
4

3
.
3

4
.
8
28
.
3

1
5
.
5

2
5
.
9

1
2
.
9

1
0
.
3

2
0
.
2

3
8
.
1

2
8
.
0
27
.
0

3
2
.
6

2
7
.
3

2
7
.
8

9
.
5

2
1
.
3

2
9
.
3

3
4
.
4
18
.
8
9.
2

2
3
.
4

2
3
.
0

3
1
.
3

3
8
.
1

1
5
.
4

2
7
.
5

3
7
.
5

2
3
.
3

2
4
.
0

1
7
.
1

6
.
4

1
0
.
0

2
3
.
8

6
.
5

3
7
.
5

2
0
.4
10
.
7

1
3
.
9

8
.
7

2
1
.
6

1
5
.
0

1
2
.
2

3
7
.
4

4
1
.
1

2
6
.
9

2
6
.
7

2
8
.
3

2
7
.
8

9
.
8

2
6
.
5

2
2
.
7

2
4
.
2

7
.9
9.
3

2
1
.
3

1
5
.
8

1
7
.
9

1
2
.
2

2
8
.
8

4
5
.
5

3
3
.
6

1
3
.
7

1
6
.
9

3
1
.
9

1
3
.
6

6
.
9

1
1
.
6

8
.
6

1
1
.
3

8
.
2
23
.
6

1
3
.
7

2
5
.
0

3
6
.
6

2
3
.
9

2
1
.
6

1
6
.
6

1
6
.
3

1
7
.
3

1
4
.
5

1
8
.
0

1
3
.
1

1
8
.
2

3
.
5

5
.
5

8
.
0

7
.
9
12
.
9

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
5

5
2
.
7

3
1
.
7

3
4
.
2

2
2
.
7

1
5
.
9

1
9
.
8

1
5
.
9

1
1
.
3

7
.
7

1
0
.
9

1
1
.
4

2
.
6

1
5
.
6

1
2.
3
6.
9

9
.
8

9
.
1

6
.
5

1
2
.
0

1
8
.
7

4
6
.
3

4
2
.
1

2
5
.
4

2
6
.
0

2
4
.
6

8
.
9

1
3
.
6

9
.
8

4
.
7

6
.
3

1
5
.
6
13
.
5

1
3
.
4

8
.
3

1
1
.
3

1
3
.
4

1
2
.
6

1
7
.
4

2
1
.
9

4
7
.
3

6
1
.
5

4
4
.
8

6
.
1

1
2
.
6

1
2
.
1

1
4
.
6

1
2
.
6

1
8.
2
13
.
9

2
7
.
6

4
3
.
7

1
5
.
3

3
5
.
2

2
4
.
4

3
4
.
6

2
1
.
4
10
.
7

1
2
.
5

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
5

1
3
.
2

1
6
.
4

9
.
1

1
3
.
7
11
.
1
18.
9

1
9
.
0

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
4

1
8
.
0

1
8
.
0

2
4
.
9

2
6
.
1

2
3
.
9

2
2
.
7

1
8
.
9

1
3
.
6

1
2
.
2

1
2
.
7

1
0
.
7

1
4
.
1
13
.
9.
3

4
6
.
0

4
4
.
7

5
2
.
7

3
8
.
6

3
7
.
7

5
6
.
6

4
9
.
5

5
4
.
4

6
1
.
5

4
4
.
8

5
7
.
4

2
6
.
8

2
6
.
7

3
0
.
7

3
7
.
5
27
.
3
6.
3

6
.
4

4
.
7

5
.
1

6
.
4

7
.
3

7
.
5

7
.
6

7
.
0

7
.
4

7
.
3

5
.
5

5
.
0

3
.
5

2
.
6

2
.
8

4
.
5
F
F

E

C

B

A

A

A

A

A

D

E

E

F

E

E

F
F
F

E

A

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

D

F

F

F

E

F
D
F

F

B

B

B

C

A

A

A

A

E

F

E

E

D

E
F
D

F

B

C

D

A

A

A

A

D

E

D

E

D

D

F
E
F

E

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

B

C

A

A

A

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

E

D

D

D

C

C

D

C

C

D

E

E

D

E

D
E
E

D

D

D

D

C

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

E
D
D

D

D

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

E
E
E

F

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

F

D

D

F

E
D
F

F

A

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

F
F
F

F

B

D

D

D

C

C

C

B

F

E

D

F

F

F
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

E

E

D

D
F
D

E

A

C

B

A

A

A

B

D

E

E

D

E

D

D
F
F

F

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

B

C

B

D

D

D

F

D

F

F
F
D

E

D

D

C

B

A

A

B

A

D

D

E

D

D

E
D
F

E

D

A

B

A

A

A

A

C

E

E

D

E

E

E
E
D

E

B

C

C

A

A

A

A

C

D

E

E

E

E

E
F
E

F

C

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

A

A

C

A

A

A

A

C

E

D

F

E

F

F
D
E

D

B

C

D

A

A

A

A

A

F

D

F

F

F

D
D
F

E

B

D

A

C

A

C

C

A

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
E

F

A

A

B

C

C

C

C

B

D

F

F

E

D

D
D
D

E

A

A

A

A

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

E

E

D
E
D

D

D

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

D

E

D

E

E

D
E
E

D

D

C

C

C

B

A

A

A

E

E

D

E

E

F
E
F

F

C

A

A

A

B

D

C

C

D

E

E

D

D

D
37
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
.
5

1
2
.
3

1
2
.
6

1
0
.
8

1
5
.
4

1
8
.
9

3
3
.
2

2
9
.
2

4
0
.
0

2
5
.
5

8
.
9

5
.
5

1
4
.
2

6
.
7

9
.
8

1
1
.
7

1
5
.
5
24
.
9

2
1
.
9

6
.
7

6
.
8

2
9
.
7

2
0
.
5

1
9
.
7

3
8
.
4

3
0
.
1

1
7
.
9

9
.
5

5
.
9

3
0
.
6

1
2
.
1

3
1
.
4

2
2
.
6

1
7
.
5
7.
1

2
7
.
8

1
2
.
4

1
1
.
9

2
3
.
5

1
4
.
4

1
5
.
4

2
0
.
5
31
.
2

2
7
.
3

1
7
.
8

1
5
.
2

2
0
.
8

1
1
.
5

3
.
7

5
.
6

2
.
9
11
.
3

4
3
.
7

1
6
.
4

6
.
1

1
7
.
1

3
9
.
6

2
3
.
6

1
8
.
3

1
4
.
8

8
.
4

8
.
1

8
.
3

1
8
.
7

1
0
.
9

2
7
.
3

3
5
.
6

2
4
.
1
25
.
3

1
1
.
4

2
7
.
4

1
8
.
5

2
0
.
1

3
7
.
0

3
7
.
9

2
7
.
1

1
6
.
1

1
0
.
1

1
3
.
4

8
.
0

3
0
.
1

8
.
5

3
.
8

6
.
1

7
.
1
29
.
7

1
8
.
7

1
3
.
5

1
6
.
3

2
5
.
9

1
9
.
0

2
3
.
2

2
5
.
5

3
0
.
7

2
5
.
3

1
1
.
5

5
.
0

1
9
.
9

6
.
8

6
.
5

9
.
0

6
.
1
33
.
6

1
9
.
4

1
4
.
1

1
3
.
9

1
7
.
3

2
4
.
0

3
8
.
0

1
9
.
5

4
0
.
4

2
3
.
9

1
6
.
8

7
.
4

2
7
.
5

6
.
9

1
4
.
1

1
7
.
6

4
2.
5
4.
5

1
5
.
4

1
8
.
7

9
.
6

2
0
.
6

3
9
.
1

4
6
.
6

1
3
.
3

2
2
.
4

3
0
.
0

9
.
8

7
.
0

1
5
.
1

6
.
6

7
.
3

3
3
.
4

9
.
5
37
.
1

3
4
.
6

2
2
.
9

3
9
.
8

3
1
.
8

4
1
.
8

2
4
.
0

2
3
.
6
24
.
6

2
7
.
4

1
9
.
2

1
5
.
1

1
0
.
1

2
4
.
2

1
8
.
5

2
6
.
7
2
0
.
5
7.
5

7
.
8

1
9
.
0

1
3
.
4

2
1
.
5

4
1
.
3

2
4
.
8

1
6
.
7

1
1
.
8

1
0
.
7

8
.
9

7
.
2

2
6
.
1

6
.
6

4
1
.
9

3
8
.
9

4
6
.
8
12
.
8

2
2
.
6

1
9
.
7

2
9
.
4

3
5
.
8

1
2
.
5

1
9
.
2

2
1
.
5
17
.
2

1
4
.
3

1
6
.
4

1
5
.
3

5
.
8

2
4
.
4

3
6
.
8

1
3
.
4
42
.
4
16
.
2

1
0
.
4

7
.
5

1
2
.
2

1
3
.
7

1
2
.
8

5
.
7

8
.
1

1
0
.
7

1
3
.
1

2
4
.
5

1
4
.
4

1
9
.
9

1
4
.
5

7
.
0

7
.
8

5
.
4
34
.
0

7
.
5

5
.
8

9
.
4

7
.
4

6
.
5

7
.
6

6
.
9

8
.
2

7
.
5

6
.
9

5
.
9

8
.
4

2
2
.
4

1
9
.
8

6
.
6

7
.
8
6.
3

7
.
0

6
.
4

6
.
8

8
.
2

8
.
4

7
.
1

8
.
7

1
2
.
5

9
.
4

1
2
.
0

6
.
0

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
3

2
3
.
6

1
5
.
4

1
7
.
8
9.
0

8
.
1

2
2
.
8

4
0
.
4

1
0
.
4

1
4
.
5

1
5
.
8

8
.
8

7
.
6

1
6
.
8

2
0
.
3

1
1
.
7

1
5
.
2

1
2
.
9

4
5
.
2

2
4
.
5

3
4
.
0
15
.
3

1
8
.
3

1
0
.
0

9
.
9

7
.
9

1
3
.
7

7
.
8

9
.
7

1
8
.
5

4
5
.
8

3
5
.
4

2
7
.
2

7
.
4

6
.
1

5
.
8

2
2
.
1

2
0
.
7
27
.
0

4
8
.
2

2
0
.
2

2
7
.
4

2
3
.
2

2
2
.
5

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
3
10
.
7

1
5
.
2

1
9
.
0

1
5
.
4

1
5
.
3

1
9
.
8

1
1
.
6

2
8
.
2
3
5
.
1
21
.
5

1
8
.
3

2
4
.
6

3
8
.
1

2
4
.
9

1
0
.
8

9
.
6

9
.
2

1
0
.
4

9
.
4

1
0
.
7

2
1
.
0

4
1
.
8

3
1
.
5

1
1
.
1

1
0
.
4

9
.
4
32
.
1

2
8
.
7

1
9
.
7

4
0
.
6

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
5

1
6
.
8

4
2
.
0

1
9
.
7

2
1
.
1

2
4
.
2

8
.
1

1
4
.
5

5
.
4

7
.
2

2
9
.
4

1
8
.9
28
.
7

3
7
.
8

1
5
.
9

3
4
.
6

1
3
.
5

3
4
.
1

1
0
.
6

9
.
6

7
.
8

8
.
4

1
0
.
6

1
0
.
8

6
.
9

9
.
3

9
.
1

1
5
.
5

2
3
.
4
13
.
0

4
4
.
9

3
3
.
4

8
.
8

1
7
.
8

4
3
.
2

4
3
.
5

2
2
.
6

4
1
.
7

5
9
.
2

4
4
.
8

4
4
.
3

3
5
.
3

9
.
1

1
9
.
2

1
6
.
9

2
9.
9
30
.
1

1
2
.
4

4
.
3

1
1
.
8

1
6
.
4

3
3
.
9

2
4
.
5

2
6
.
3

3
4
.
3

2
0
.
1

1
5
.
2

7
.
9

3
2
.
9

5
.
6

4
.
3

5
.
4

3
.
5
28
.
7

2
5
.
6

2
0
.
7

3
7
.
0

3
0
.
2

2
6
.
8

4
1
.
9

3
8
.
9
67
.
7

2
6
.
8

3
3
.
1

8
.
2

2
4
.
1

1
3
.
5

1
9
.
2

3
0
.
5
36
.
4
21
.
7

1
8
.
0

2
1
.
1

1
4
.
7

2
7
.
9

2
7
.
8

1
5
.
6

1
4
.
3
24
.
8

1
9
.
8

1
3
.
8

1
9
.
6

2
9
.
8

3
0
.
0

3
7
.
8

5
7
.
4
2
3
.
3
1.
2

5
4
.
0

4
3
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
5

1
2
.
4

2
0
.
7

2
8
.
6

4
2
.
6

1
2
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
8
.
7

1
4
.
5

6
.
1

5
.
2

8
.
5

1
3
.
4
31
.
1

2
6
.
8

6
.
5

9
.
3

7
.
4

1
3
.
2

1
4
.
9

1
4
.
1

1
6
.
4

8
.
6

1
0
.
5

7
.
3

2
0
.
6

1
1
.
6

1
6
.
5

2
8
.
8

1
7
.
3
3.
8

5
.
4

1
7
.
8

1
5
.
5

1
0
.
4

1
7
.
7

1
2
.
2

1
7
.
3

9
.
2

1
3
.
6

3
2
.
3

1
4
.
5

1
2
.
2

7
.
4

2
2
.
4

2
7
.
5

2
6
.
0
18
.
7

1
1
.
1

2
9
.
7

1
5
.
6

1
2
.
1

2
1
.
1

2
1
.
7

1
5
.
8
28
.
5

4
3
.
6

1
9
.
7

1
5
.
7

2
1
.
6

1
8
.
5

3
8
.
0

1
5
.
6
2
3
.
0
31
.
5

1
5
.
9

1
6
.
9

1
5
.
2

3
4
.
5

2
0
.
8

2
5
.
2

2
8
.
6
28
.
4

4
1
.
5

4
6
.
1

1
5
.
7

3
6
.
8

2
6
.
3

5
.
8

8
.
7

2
0.
8
23.
2

2
2
.
8

1
8
.
5

1
9
.
3

1
9
.
3

2
2
.
1

2
1
.
0

2
0
.
1

2
3
.
6

2
1
.
4

1
8
.
1

1
2
.
6

1
9
.
7

1
2
.
9

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
3
19
.
4.
5

5
4
.
0

5
1
.
1

4
0
.
8

3
5
.
8

4
3
.
2

4
6
.
6

4
2
.
0

6
7
.
7

5
9
.
2

4
6
.
1

4
4
.
3

4
1
.
8

3
1
.
5

4
5
.
2

5
7
.
4
46
.
3.
8

5
.
4

4
.
3

6
.
1

7
.
4

6
.
5

5
.
7

6
.
9

7
.
6

7
.
5

6
.
9

5
.
0

5
.
8

4
.
8

3
.
7

5
.
4

2
.
9
F
F

E

D

B

D

C

C

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

E

E
E
D

E

D

C

B

A

A

A

A

D

E

D

E

D

D

E
F
F

E

D

A

B

B

A

A

B

D

E

F

D

F

F

F
E
F

D

D

A

C

C

B

A

A

B

E

F

D

E

E

E
D
F

E

D

C

A

A

B

C

D

D

D

F

D

F

F

F
F
D

F

B

B

A

A

A

C

D

C

D

F

D

E

E

E
F
F

E

C

A

B

A

A

A

A

D

E

F

E

E

D

E
F
F

E

C

C

A

A

B

A

A

C

E

F

E

D

F

F
F
D

F

D

B

A

A

C

B

A

D

E

E

E

E

F

D
F
F

F

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

B

E

D

F

F

F

F
D
D

F

C

B

A

A

C

D

D

D

E

F

E

F

F

F
E
F

F

A

A

D

B

B

C

C

C

E

E

F

F

D

F
E
D

E

D

C

C

D

D

D

C

A

E

F

E

E

D

E
F
E

E

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

F

F

E

D
E
E

E

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

E

D

D

F

E

F
D
D

F

A

D

C

C

D

D

C

B

D

E

E

F

F

F
E
F

D

D

D

C

D

D

B

A

A

F

E

E

E

F

F
F
F

E

A

A

A

D

C

D

C

B

E

E

F

D

F

F
F
F

F

A

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

F

F

D

D

D
F
F

F

A

D

C

C

A

B

B

A

D

D

E

E

F

F
F
F

E

A

C

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

F
D
F

F

D

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

F

F

D

F

E

F
F
D

E

D

C

A

A

A

A

B

C

D

F

E

E

E

F
F
F

F

F

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

F

E

F

F

F
F
F

F

E

A

A

C

C

A

B

C

F

F

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

F

A

D

B

A

A

D

D

F

E

E

E

D

D
F
F

E

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

F

D

E

F

E
E
E

E

E

D

B

D

C

D

C

A

E

D

E

F

F

F
F
D

F

E

D

B

B

C

A

A

B

D

F

F

F

E

F
F
E

E

E

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

E

F

F

E

D

F
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
1
8

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
9

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
8

0
.
19

0
.
2
7

0
.
1
0
0.
0
5

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
2
8

0
.
4
0

0
.1
5

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
4
0.
3
7

0
.
2
6

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
2
1

0
.
3
2
0.
3
7

0
.
2
3

0
.
1
7
0.
1
5

0
.
2
4

0
.
3
1

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
6
0.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
4
0.
1
6

0
.
2
7

0
.
2
2

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
7
0.
0
9

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
3
0.
1
5

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
2

0
.
14

0
.
1
3

0
.
3
1
0.
0
7

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
1
0.
1
0

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
4
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2
0.
2
7

0
.
2
5

0
.
2
0

0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
0.
0
8

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
5
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
4
0.
0
7

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4

0
.0
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5
0.
0
6

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
9

0
.
4
0

0
.5
1

0
.
3
7

0
.
4
0
0.
5
4

0
.
3
4

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
5
0.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6
0.
1
8

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
5
0.
1
0

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
8
0.
0
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
9

0
.
2
5
0.
3
7

0
.
2
2

0
.
1
8
0.
0
5

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
2

0
.1
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
4
0.
1
8

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
9
0
.
1
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
2
0
0.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0
0.
0
7

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
06

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
4
0.
0
6

0
.
0
6

0
.
2
5

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
1

0
.1
9

0
.
2
1

0
.
0
6
0.
0
7

0
.
2
1

0
.
3
6

0
.
2
4

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
4

0
.0
9

0
.
1
5

0
.
2
0
0.
2
0

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2
-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
3
0

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
3
0
.
3
3

0
.
2
9
0.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1
0.
0
8

0
.
1
9

0
.
2
2

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0

0
.
2
8
0
.
3
6

0
.
3
1

0
.
2
5
0.
3
2

0
.
3
8

0
.
3
1

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
5

0
.
2
3

0
.4
3

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
7
0.
0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
3
8

0
.
28

0
.
3
0

0
.
3
0
0.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4
-0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
2
0
.
1
3

0
.
2
3
0.
0
1

0
.
1
8

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
4
5
0
.
4
6

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
9
0.1
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
5

0
.
17

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
3
.5
4

0
.
3
8

0
.
3
6

0
.
2
4

0
.
1
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
5

0
.
3
0

0
.
4
5

0
.
5
1

0
.
3
7
0
.
4
0
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4
-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
E
F

F

E

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

F

D

C

C

D

D

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

D
F
D

F

E

D

B

B

C

B

C

C

F

E

D

D

D

D
F
F

E

F

D

C

C

C

C

B

B

F

E

E

E

F

F
D
F

F

F

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

E

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

F

D

D

B

B

C

C

C

E

F

D

F

F

F
F
F

F

E

D

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

F

E

E
F
D

E

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

E

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

F

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

E

D

D

E

D

D
F
E

F

E

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
F

D

F

D

D

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

E
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

B

D

D

D

E

D

F

F
D
F

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

B

C

E

E

E

F

D

D
F
F

F

D

D

D

B

B

D

C

C

E

E

D

D

D

D
E
D

E

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

C

D

D

F

F

D

D
F
F

F

D

D

B

B

B

B

C

B

E

E

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

D

D

D

E
F
F

F

D

D

D

D

B

B

B

D

E

E

E

E

F

F
F
F

F

D

D

B

B

C

B

B

C

D

F

E

E

F

F
F
F

F

D

D

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

F

F

E

D
E
F

F

D

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

E

D

D

D

D

E
F
F

F

D

D

D

B

B

B

C

D

F

F

F

F

F

F
F
D

E

D

D

D

B

B

C

D

D

E

E

E

D

E

E
E
E

E

D

D

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

F

D

D

D
F
E

F

D

B

B

C

C

C

B

B

D

F

E

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

E

F

E

F

F
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

B

B

B

C

C

B

D

E

E

F

F

F
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

F

D

D
E
E

F

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

B

E

F

E

D

D

E
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1

0
.
1
5

0
.
7
6

0
.
5
6
0.
1
2

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
8
0
.
2
8

0
.
3
6

0
.
3
4
0.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
6

0
.0
6

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
6
0.
0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
2

0
.1
3

0
.
1
6

0
.
2
6
0.
2
2

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
9
0
.
0
8

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
8
0.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
04

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
6
0.
3
3

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
03

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
8
0.
3
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

0
.
24

0
.
3
7

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
1
0.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
12

0
.
3
6

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
0
0.
1
0

0
.
1
8

0
.
3
0

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
49

0
.
4
1

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
9
0.
2
6

0
.
3
9

0
.
2
2

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4
0.
1
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
04

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
0.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
6

0
.
22

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
8
0.
0
4

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
9
0.
2
8

0
.
2
3

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.0
5

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6
0.
0
6

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.1
0

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
2

0
.
1
2
0.
5
1

0
.
5
1

0
.
3
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.1
4

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
4
0.
3
6

0
.
3
3

0
.
4
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.1
4

0
.
4
8

0
.
2
5

0
.
2
7
0.
1
7

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
23

0
.
3
5

0
.
3
3

0
.
2
8
0.
3
5

0
.
2
3

0
.
2
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
14

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
7
0.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
26

0
.
2
6

0
.
1
8

0
.
1
7
0.
4
0

0
.
5
1

0
.
3
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

0
.1
6

0
.
3
8

0
.
3
5

0
.
4
0
0.
3
7

0
.
3
0

0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.1
8

0
.
3
4

0
.
4
7

0
.
1
8
0.
2
7

0
.
6
3

0
.
2
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
14

0
.
8
7

0
.
3
7

0
.
3
3
0.
7
8

0
.
6
0

0
.
5
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
32

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
2

0
.
4
2
0.
1
8

0
.
2
3

0
.
2
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7

0
.
5
3
0.
0
6

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
8
0.2
0

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
4
0.
2
0

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
7
.7
8

0
.
6
3

0
.
5
0

0
.
2
6

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
7

0
.
5
3

0
.
8
7

0
.7
6

0
.
5
.0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2
-0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
F
D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

F

D

F
D
D

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

E

D

F

F
D
D

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

E

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F
F
F

F

D

C

C

C

C

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

F

F

D

D
D
D

F

D

B

B

C

D

C

C

C

D

D

E

D

F

E
D
D

F

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

B

E

E

F

D

D

D
E
F

E

D

C

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

D

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

D

F

F

E

D

D
F
E

F

D

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

F

F
D
D

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

E

D

D

E
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

F

D

D

D
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

E

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

C

C

B

C

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

D

D

D

B

D

C

C

B

D

F

E

D

D
F
F

F

B

B

C

C

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

F

F
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

A

C

B

B

D

F

D

D

D
F
F

F

C

B

B

C

A

A

B

B

B

E

F

E

F

F
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

A

C

C

C

B

F

E

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

E

D

D

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
1
9

0
.
2
3

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
7

0
.
2
3

0
.
3
7

0
.
3
0
0.
2
7

0
.
4
3

0
.
3
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3

0
.3
3

0
.
9
0

0
.
4
3

0
.
3
3
0.
5
1

0
.
4
9

0
.
5
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

0
.1
3

0
.
5
3

0
.
7
3

0
.
3
5
0.
7
2

0
.
7
2

0
.
2
6

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
5
0
.
1
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
3
0.
2
0

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3
0.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3
0.
2
1

0
.
3
4

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8
0.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
3

0
.1
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
0.
1
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
7

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
7
0.
4
6

0
.
2
6

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.1
2

0
.
8
7

0
.
6
1

0
.
2
8
0.
5
5

0
.
5
2

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.1
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
7
0.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
5

0
.0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
8
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

0
.0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4
0.
0
5

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
04

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
8
0.
1
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

0
.1
3

0
.
3
6

0
.
8
1

0
.
7
9
0.
4
1

0
.
6
1

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
3
0.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4
0.
0
3

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6
0.
0
7

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
6
0.
0
5

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2
0.
0
6

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
6
0.
2
8

0
.
1
9

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

0
.0
4

0
.
3
8

0
.
2
3

0
.
3
1
0.
4
8

0
.
3
5

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
4

0
.
5
0

0
.
2
7

0
.
2
7
0.
4
0

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
0.
0
5

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1
0.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
0.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
0.
1
0

0
.
1
4

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
3
0.
1
5

0
.
4
0

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
0.
0
2

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6
0.
0
9

0
.
2
3

0
.
3
4

0
.
3
3
0.
1
1

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.0
0

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
5

0
.
1
4
0.
0
2

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
5
0.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3
0.
0
7

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2
0.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
5
0.2
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
07

0
.
2
0

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
.7
2

0
.
7
2

0
.
5
6

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
3
3

0
.9
0

0
.
8
1

0
.
7
9
0.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
F
F

E

C

B

B

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

F

F

F

F
E
F

E

C

C

C

C

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

B

C

D

D

C

B

C

C

B

D

E

F

F

D
D
E

F

B

B

C

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

F
F
D

F

D

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
F

D

C

C

C

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

B

C

C

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
E

D

B

B

B

A

B

A

C

B

B

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

C

E

F

F

F

F
E
D

D

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
E

D

B

C

D

C

C

D

C

C

C

D

D

E

F

F
F
F

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

B

B

D

C

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

F
F
F

D

D

D

D

C

D

B

B

B

B

D

E

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

B

C

C

B

C

C

B

D

D

F

F

D

D
E
F

D

B

C

C

B

B

A

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
F

D

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

E

F

D

D

D
F
D

D

C

D

D

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

D

D
F
F

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

B

B

C

C

C

B

C

C

D

F

D

D

D
F
E

D

B

B

B

C

B

B

C

D

C

D

D

F

E

F
D
D

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

C

B

B

E

F

F

E

E
F
F

D

C

C

B

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

F
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
4
7

0
.
3
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7
0.
0
6

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
3
0.
5
8

0
.
5
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
3

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
8
0.
0
3

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2
0.
0
6

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3
0.
0
2

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2
0.
0
3

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
4

0
.
4
1
0.
4
7

0
.
2
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8
0.
0
2

0
.
1
4

0
.
3
5

0
.
4
0
0.
4
4

0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6
0.
0
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
7
0.
0
5

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
6

0
.
2
0

0
.
6
0
0.
3
5

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8
0.
0
0

0
.
3
6

0
.
5
8

0
.
5
4
0.
1
1

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.0
6

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4
0.
1
2

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
3
0.
1
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
8

0
.
2
0
0.
4
2

0
.
3
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3
0.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1
0.
0
5

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
4
0.
5
3

0
.
2
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
1

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
8

0
.
1
3
0.
1
2

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5
-0
.
0
2

0
.
4
1

0
.
6
5

0
.
5
9
0.
0
4

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
2

0
.
2
3

0
.
4
0

0
.
3
1
0.
3
8

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
2

0
.
2
0

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
8
0.
3
3

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6
0.
4
5

0
.
2
6

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
1
2

0
.
3
1
0.
0
8

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7
0.
4
5

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
3
0
0
.
5
7

0
.
5
9
0.
4
1

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
1

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
4

0
.
4
7
0.
4
5

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
2

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
6

0
.
2
6
0.
2
3

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
2
0.
6
2

0
.
3
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
6

0
.
3
2
0.
3
0

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
4

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
0.
2
2

0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
3

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
9

0
.
1
7
0.2
8

0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

0
.0
0

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
3
.6
2

0
.
5
6

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6
0
.
4
1

0
.
6
5

0
.
6
0
.0
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
F
F

C

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
E
F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

B

E

F

D

D

D
F
F

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

E
D
D

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

F

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
E

B

B

C

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

F
D
D

C

B

C

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

F

F

F
F
D

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

C

E

F

E

F
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
F

C

D

D

C

B

C

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

D

D

C

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
D

C

C

C

B

B

A

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

B

E

E

D

D
D
D

C

D

D

C

C

B

A

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

F
F
D

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

B

B

B

B

D

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

D

C

B

C

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

F

F
F
D

D

C

A

C

B

B

B

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

B

A

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

A

B

C

B

E

F

F

F
E
D

C

B

A

B

B

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

E

D

E
F
D

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

C

C

D

D

D

F
F
D

B

C

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

B

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

D

D

C

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

E

E
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0
9

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1
0.
6
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
4

0
.
1
5

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
8
0.
4
4

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
2
0.
4
8

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4
0.
6
9

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
2
8

0
.
5
1
0.
5
6

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
9
0.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
2
8

0
.
3
3
0.
2
7

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.0
5

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
1

0
.
3
4
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7
0.
0
3

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
8
0.
1
0

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
2
0.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2
-
0
.
0
4

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
4
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
2
6

0
.
2
6
0.
1
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6
-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
5
0.
3
2

0
.
2
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
5
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4
0.
0
5

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1
0.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1
0.
0
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
1
0.
3
9

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
6
0.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1
-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
0.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
8

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
1
0.
3
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
8

0
.
1
6
0.
4
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
4

0
.
2
1

0
.
4
1
0.
3
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
6
-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
3
0.
0
7

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
7

0
.
0
2

0
.
1
3

0
.
2
9
0.
1
7

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
6
0.
3
7

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
4
0.
1
1

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

0
.
0
0

0
.0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
5
0.
3
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6

0
.
2
6

0
.
1
0
0.2
2

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0.
0
2

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
5
.6
9

0
.
2
3

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5
0
.
3
5

0
.
2
8

0
.
5
1
.0
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
2
-0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
E
D

B

B

C

B

B

B

B

C

B

C

C

D

F

D

F
F
D

C

D

D

D

D

D

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

E
D
D

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

C

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

F
F
B

B

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

A

B

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
E
D

B

B

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

F

F

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

F

D

D
D
D

C

D

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

C

B

A

B

B

B

C

C

B

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

C

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

D
D
C

C

C

B

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

D

C

D

D

C

D

D

F

F

F

D
F
B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

B

C

C

D

F

E

D
F
B

B

C

B

A

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
B

B

B

A

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

F

F
F
B

B

B

B

B

A

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

C

D

B

B

B

B

C

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

A

A

A

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

C

B

C

B

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
B

D

C

A

B

B

A

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

F

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0
9

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
4
3
0.
1
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
0
0.
4
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.
0
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
2
0.
0
3

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1
-0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
1
3
0.
3
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
3
1
0.
3
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
8

0
.
6
0

0
.
6
1
0.
3
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
7

0
.
2
4
0.
5
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
2
0

0
.
2
6

0
.
2
0
0.
4
7

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
2
0.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
4
0.
0
5

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4
0.
4
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5
0.
1
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
3

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
3
0.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6
-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3
0.
2
7

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
2
0.
2
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
8

0
.
0
0

0
.
1
6

0
.
2
0
0.
2
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
1
1

0
.
2
3
0.
3
9

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4
-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
8

0
.
1
8

0
.
2
1
0.
3
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2
-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
7
0.
2
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1
-
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
8

0
.
3
5
0.
1
5

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1
-
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
4

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
3
0.
2
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
2
1

0
.
1
3
0.
2
0

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
1

0
.
2
8
0.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
8

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
3
2
0.
3
6

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
0.
0
6

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
2
3

0
.
0
3
0.
1
9

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4
0.2
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
7
.5
1

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.0
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
6
0

0
.
6
1
.0
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
3

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2
-0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
E
B

C

C

B

A

A

B

A

B

B

B

B

E

F

F

F
D
D

B

B

C

A

A

B

B

B

C

D

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

B

C

D

D

D

D
F
B

B

C

D

D

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F
E
B

B

D

C

C

C

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

E
E
C

C

C

B

B

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

E

E

E

D
E
B

B

C

B

B

A

A

B

B

B

C

B

D

D

D

D
D
C

B

B

A

A

B

C

C

C

D

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
B

C

D

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

C

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
B

B

B

A

B

B

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
B

B

C

B

B

B

C

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

C

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
B

C

C

B

B

B

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
C

C

C

B

B

B

B

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

D

D
F
C

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

E
F
B

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

B

B

D

E

D

D
F
B

B

C

B

B

B

C

C

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

A

B

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
B

B

C

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

C

C

C

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D
E
B

C

C

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

E
F
B

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

C

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

C

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

E

F

D
F
D

D

C

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0
9

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
7
-
0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0

0
.
3
9

0
.
4
3
0.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
9

0
.
4
0

0
.
3
5
0.
1
8

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
7

0
.
2
4
0.
1
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
4
0.
1
7

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
8

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
5
0.
2
3

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2
-0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
4

0
.
0
8
0.
1
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7

0
.
2
0

0
.
3
0
0.
5
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
2

0
.
1
0

0
.
2
7

0
.
2
8
0.
2
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
9

0
.
3
5

0
.
2
8
0.
2
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7
-
0
.
0
4

0
.
1
2

0
.
5
3

0
.
5
3
0.
3
5

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4
0.
3
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1
-
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
8

0
.
2
1
0.
1
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0
-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
1
8

0
.
2
8
0.
1
9

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
8
0.
1
9

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2
-0
.
0
5

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
9

0
.
6
7
0.
4
7

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
4
0.
1
2

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
5
0.
2
6

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7

0
.
3
0

0
.
2
7
0.
4
5

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2
0.
2
8

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
1

0
.0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2
0.
2
6

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3
0.
1
7

0
.
2
1

0
.
3
0

0
.
1
4
0.
2
0

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
9
0.
0
7

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
8
0.
1
9

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.0
1

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
7

0
.
3
5
0.
2
5

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
0.
3
5

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
7
0.
1
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
6

0
.
2
7
0.
3
8

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
4

0
.
0
9

0
.
2
0

0
.
2
6
0.
4
3

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
3

0
.
2
7

0
.
3
2

0
.
2
3
0.2
4

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0.
0
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
9

0
.
2
1
.5
1

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
7

0
.2
7

0
.
5
3

0
.
6
7
.0
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
2

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
2
-0
.
0
7

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
D
C

C

C

B

B

C

C

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
B

C

D

D

B

B

C

C

D

B

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

C

C

B

B

C

B

B

C

C

D

F

D

D
D
C

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

C

C

B

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
B

B

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
B

C

C

B

B

B

B

A

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D
F
B

C

C

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

B

B

A

B

A

B

B

C

B

E

F

D

D
F
B

B

C

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

C

B

D

F

E

D
D
D

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
B

C

B

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
B

B

C

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

D

D
E
B

C

D

D

D

C

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

F
E
B

C

B

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

E

D

D

D
F
B

B

C

B

B

B

C

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
C

B

C

B

D

C

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

F

D

E

D
E
D

B

C

B

B

C

C

C

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

D

B

B

A

B

A

B

B

C

C

E

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

A

A

A

A

C

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

B

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

C

C

A

B

B

A

A

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

B

B

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

D

C

B

B

A

B

B

B

C

B

E

F

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
1
1

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
3

0
.
2
7

0
.
4
3

0
.
0
9
0.
7
0

0
.
3
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
7

0
.
2
4
0.
6
9

0
.
2
9

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
4

0
.
0
7

0
.
2
6

0
.
3
9
0.
1
2

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
8
0.
0
1

0
.
2
1

0
.
3
6

0
.
1
7
0.
3
4

0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
2

0
.
2
3

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
0
0.
3
4

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
9
0.
0
0

0
.
1
4

0
.
6
3

0
.
4
2
0.
8
4

0
.
2
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
2

0
.
2
4

0
.
5
1

0
.
3
9
0.
2
4

0
.
3
0

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

0
.0
0

0
.
1
5

0
.
2
2

0
.
2
1
0.
2
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
4
-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
2
0.
0
8

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
2

0
.
3
0

0
.
6
3

0
.
4
6
0.
3
5

0
.
2
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9
-0
.
0
2

0
.
1
4

0
.
3
2

0
.
2
3
0.
4
8

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
2

0
.
2
9

0
.
3
8

0
.
4
2
0.
3
7

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
2
6

0
.
4
8
0.
5
0

0
.
2
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
8
0.
8
0

0
.
2
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7
-0
.
0
1

0
.
2
2

0
.
4
7

0
.
3
9
0.
4
8

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2
0.
0
3

0
.
2
2

0
.
4
3

0
.
4
7
0.
1
4

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
2
0

0
.
5
2
0.
1
9

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.0
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
3
6

0
.
3
9
0.
2
0

0
.
2
1

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.0
6

0
.
3
8

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
8
0.
3
0

0
.
3
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.1
0

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
1
0.
2
2

0
.
2
0

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
5

0
.
2
0

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
2
0.
0
8

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1
-0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0
0.
1
6

0
.
2
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6
-0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
5

0
.
0
5
0.
0
5

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
5
0.
0
1

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
5
0.
5
2

0
.
4
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
0.
0
0

0
.
2
7

0
.
1
5

0
.
0
6
0.
1
6

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6
0.
0
5

0
.
2
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
8
0.
1
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.1
0

0
.
7
3

0
.
7
9

0
.
3
3
0.
4
4

0
.
2
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6
0.
0
1

0
.
1
2

0
.
2
3

0
.
2
0
0.
5
8

0
.
5
4

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3
0.3
7

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

0
.0
0

0
.
1
8

0
.
2
9

0
.
2
7
.8
7

0
.
5
4

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
10

0
.
7
3

0
.
7
9

0
.
5
.0
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
2
1

-
0
.
2
0

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1
-0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3
E
D

B

C

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

E

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

E

F

D

D
E
D

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

B

C

D

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

E

E

D

D
F
D

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

E

F
F
D

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

B

E

F

F

E
F
D

B

C

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

C

C

B

B

A

C

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

F

F

F
D
D

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

E

D

E
D
D

C

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

B

C

C

D

F

E

D
F
D

B

B

B

A

B

A

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

D

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

B

B

C

B

A

A

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

B

D

C

D

D

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

F

F
D
D

D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

D

D

C

B

B

B

C

C

B

D

D

D

D

E
D
D

D

C

B

A

B

B

D

B

C

D

B

D

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

E

D

D

E
F
D

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
E
D

C

C

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

B

F

D

D

D
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

F

D

D

F
D
E

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D
E
D

B

B

C

B

A

A

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
6
1

0
.
2
9

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5
0.
0
9

0
.
4
2

0
.
6
3

0
.
4
8
0.
5
1

0
.
5
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5
0.
0
7

0
.
4
4

0
.
3
3

0
.
4
4
0.
7
3

0
.
4
7

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4
0.
1
1

0
.
3
2

0
.
5
3

0
.
3
4
0.
6
0

0
.
4
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
1
0

0
.3
7

0
.
6
0

0
.
6
8

0
.
8
0
0.
5
4

0
.
4
6

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

0
.0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1
0.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5
0.
0
7

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7
0.
0
0

0
.
0
5

0
.
2
2

0
.
4
2
0.
2
3

0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6
0.
0
5

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
0

0
.
3
3
0.
7
2

0
.
3
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5
0.
1
3

0
.
4
5

0
.
1
3

0
.
3
0
0.
6
2

0
.
2
7

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1
0.
5
1

1
.
1
6

0
.
4
3

0
.
1
8
0.
6
4

0
.
5
0

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.0
9

0
.
1
7

0
.
2
2

0
.
6
1
0.
6
8

0
.
7
7

0
.
1
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.0
8

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
3

0
.
4
0
0.
7
0

0
.
4
1

0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
21

0
.
2
4

0
.
3
0

0
.
3
4
0.
3
1

0
.
3
5

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
19

0
.
4
0

0
.
3
5

0
.
5
3
0.
6
9

0
.
4
8

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
18

0
.
1
3

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
1
0.
2
2

0
.
2
0

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
11

0
.
2
0

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
9
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7
0.
0
9

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3
0.
0
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
7
0.
4
1

0
.
5
6

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
09

0
.
2
1

0
.
3
2

0
.
2
4
0.
3
4

0
.
3
9

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

0
.
12

0
.
2
2

0
.
2
7

0
.
5
7
0.
6
6

0
.
5
9

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
58

0
.
5
8

0
.
2
1

0
.
4
0
0.
6
6

0
.
6
0

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
7

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
32

0
.
6
6

0
.
3
1

0
.
1
3
0.
3
2

0
.
3
4

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
49

0
.
7
8

0
.
3
3

0
.
2
8
0.
4
6

0
.
2
6

0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
9
0.
3
6

0
.
4
8

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4
0.
2
3

0
.
4
6

0
.
4
7

0
.
2
9
0.
0
9

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
2
0.
1
6

0
.
4
2

0
.
3
9

0
.
4
8
0.
5
5

0
.
4
7

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
34

0
.
9
6

0
.
7
0

0
.
7
5
0.
6
1

0
.
6
7

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
16

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
4

0
.
3
2
0.4
5

0
.
3
6

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
16

0
.
3
5

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
.7
3

0
.
7
7

0
.
1
7

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
5
8
1.
1
6

0
.
7
0

0
.
8
0
0.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
8

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8
-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
F
F

B

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

E

F

E

F

E
F
F

B

B

B

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

F

D
F
F

B

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

E

F

D

D

D
F
F

B

B

C

B

B

B

B

A

B

B

E

D

E

F

D
F
F

B

B

B

A

B

B

B

D

C

C

E

D

E

D

E
F
E

C

C

C

B

B

C

C

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

F
D
D

C

C

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

F
F
F

B

B

C

B

C

B

B

B

C

B

D

E

D

D

D
F
F

B

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

B

E

F

D

D

D
E
E

D

B

B

A

A

B

A

A

C

C

E

D

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

B

B

C

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
E

D

B

C

C

B

A

A

C

C

B

E

D

D

D

D
E
F

D

C

C

B

A

A

A

A

B

C

D

D

D

D

F
F
F

D

B

B

C

B

B

A

C

B

C

E

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

B

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

C

C

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

B

B

B

B

A

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

D

C

C

C

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

F
E
E

D

B

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

F

D

E

D

D
F
F

D

B

B

C

B

B

C

B

C

C

F

E

D

D

F
F
D

D

B

C

C

B

C

B

C

C

C

F

E

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

B

C

B

B

B

C

B

B

F

F

F

D

D
F
D

D

C

D

D

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
F

B

C

D

D

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
D

D

C

D

C

C

C

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

F

F
F
F

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

D

D

D

E

D
F
F

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

B

B

B

F

D

D

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
5
1

0
.
5
2

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
66

0
.
8
6

0
.
6
9

0
.
4
8
0.
4
8

0
.
3
2

0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
79

0
.
6
4

0
.
5
5

0
.
9
0
0.
8
0

1
.
0
2

0
.
7
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
1
7

0
.
71

0
.
7
9

0
.
4
5

0
.
2
6
0.
1
7

0
.
4
5

0
.
2
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
36

0
.
4
2

0
.
5
2

0
.
4
0
0.
3
8

0
.
6
8

0
.
3
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
9

0
.
29

0
.
1
6

0
.
2
3

0
.
4
7
0.
8
2

0
.
6
5

0
.
3
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
3
1

0
.
27

0
.
2
0

0
.
2
2

0
.
3
5
0.
4
6

0
.
4
1

0
.
2
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
9

0
.
6
7

0
.
8
7

0
.
63

0
.
5
0
0.
8
5

0
.
5
5

0
.
4
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
08

0
.
0
8

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
7
0.
0
5

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
30

0
.
3
7

0
.
3
8

0
.
5
4
0.
6
9

0
.
6
1

0
.
2
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
41

0
.
3
9

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
9
0.
3
7

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
8

0
.
34

0
.
2
2

0
.
1
4

0
.
3
7
0.
4
5

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
06

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
3
0.
4
2

0
.
5
4

0
.
2
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
24

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
8

0
.
5
5
0.
1
9

0
.
4
7

0
.
1
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
4

0
.
09

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
8
0.
0
8

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
1
3

0
.
37

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
9

0
.
6
5
0.
3
1

0
.
5
7

0
.
1
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
9

0
.
50

0
.
3
4

0
.
4
8

0
.
6
5
0.
4
3

0
.
4
1

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
2
0

0
.
52

0
.
6
0

0
.
4
1

0
.
5
2
0.
2
6

0
.
1
2

0
.
2
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
6

0
.
8
9
0
.
5
6

0
.
4
9

0
.
3
1
0.
4
2

0
.
7
1

0
.
1
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
1
3

0
.
76

0
.
4
3

0
.
6
5

0
.
6
5
0.
0
8

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
07

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
1

0
.
2
0
0.
2
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
7

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
48

0
.
8
4

0
.
4
0

0
.
6
4
0.
4
4

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
03

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

0
.0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1
0.
1
6

0
.
1
7

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
8

0
.
26

0
.
3
6

0
.
4
8

0
.
3
4
0.
2
6

0
.
6
1

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
17

0
.
3
5

0
.
5
0

0
.
4
4
0.
6
6

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7

0
.
27

0
.
5
4

0
.
8
6

1
.
0
5
0.
5
0

0
.
5
4

0
.
3
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
1
3

0
.
55

0
.
4
5

0
.
2
3

0
.
6
9
0.
6
7

0
.
6
1

0
.
5
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
2
3

0
.
36

0
.
1
8

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
6
0.
6
4

0
.
5
4

0
.
4
4

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
1
5

0
.
3
1
0
.
5
3

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
5
0.4
1

0
.
4
3

0
.
2
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
9

0
.
3
7
0
.
4
0

0
.
3
8

0
.
4
5
.8
5

1
.
0
2

0
.
7
3

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
3
1

0
.
8
9

0
.8
7

0
.
8
6

1
.
0
5
0.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
4

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
6

-
0
.
1
5

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
F
E

D

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

B

F

E

D

D

F
F
F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

F

D

F

F

F
F
F

D

B

C

C

A

A

C

C

B

B

F

D

D

D

D
D
F

D

C

C

C

C

A

B

B

B

B

F

F

E

F

D
F
F

D

B

B

B

A

B

C

B

B

B

F

D

D

D

F
F
F

D

B

B

B

A

B

C

C

B

E

E

D

D

D

D
F
E

D

B

B

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

B

B

E

E

F

D

D

D
F
F

D

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

F

F
D
D

D

C

D

D

D

D

C

C

B

E

F

D

F

E

D
F
F

D

B

B

C

B

B

C

C

C

D

F

E

D

D

F
E
D

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

F

D

E

E
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E
D
D

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

D

D
F
F

D

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

E

F

F

D

E

F
E
F

D

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

F

F

D

F

D
F
F

D

D

C

C

C

B

C

C

B

E

E

D

D

F

F
F
D

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

F

E

F

F

F

D
F
F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

E

F

F

F

F

E
D
D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
D

D

B

B

B

C

B

B

B

B

D

F

F

F

F

F
F
F

D

D

B

B

C

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

F

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

F
E
D

D

B

C

C

B

C

C

B

B

D

E

E

F

E

F
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

F

D

E

D
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

E

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

D

D

D

D
D
D

F

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

B

D

D

D

D

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
2
5

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
35

0
.
1
6

0
.
4
0

0
.
2
4
0.
7
1

0
.
5
1

0
.
4
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
3
4

1
.
0
5
0
.
7
4

0
.
3
4

0
.
5
8
0.
5
2

0
.
9
0

0
.
6
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
5
0

0
.
7
9
0
.
3
3

0
.
4
9

0
.
5
7
0.
5
0

0
.
1
5

0
.
2
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
02

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
4
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5
0.
0
6

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1
-0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
0
0
.
1
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
5
0.
0
6

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
00

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3
0.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
02

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3
0.
6
8

0
.
5
5

0
.
4
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
59

0
.
5
4

0
.
4
1

0
.
3
3
0.
4
7

0
.
3
8

0
.
2
8

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
00

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
9
0.
1
0

0
.
2
2

0
.
3
4

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
3
6

0
.
5
8
0
.
3
3

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
4
0.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
2
0.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
7
0.
3
1

0
.
4
5

0
.
3
2

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
3
3

0
.
4
0
0.
1
6

0
.
2
6

0
.
2
6
0.
5
2

0
.
5
6

0
.
3
9

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
1
0
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6
0.
0
7

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2
-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
5

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
5
0
.
2
6

0
.
2
0
0.
4
7

0
.
6
5

0
.
4
9

0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
7

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
0
0.
3
3

0
.
2
8

0
.
0
9
0.
0
7

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
1
8

0
.
2
3
0
.
2
6

0
.
4
0

0
.
2
2
0.
4
7

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
2

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
7

0
.
1
3
0.
3
7

0
.
3
6

0
.
3
0
0.
4
9

0
.
3
3

0
.
5
5

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
7

0
.
4
7
0
.
5
9

0
.
5
7

0
.
6
2
0.
1
7

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
19

0
.
3
5

0
.
3
3

0
.
4
6
0.
5
7

0
.
5
4

0
.
4
2

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
3
6

0
.
5
6
0
.
3
8

0
.
4
6

0
.
8
5
0.
3
3

0
.
2
3

0
.
4
6

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4
0.
4
1

0
.
4
1

0
.
5
2

0
.
2
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

0
.
0
1

0
.
3
0

0
.
6
9
0.
5
0

0
.
3
6

0
.
4
9
0.
6
2

0
.
6
0

0
.
7
3

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
0

0
.
2
1

0
.
4
3
0.
6
1

0
.
3
3

0
.
6
0
0.
6
7

0
.
4
1

0
.
3
7

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
8

0
.
5
6
0.
2
7

0
.
2
2

0
.
2
8
0.
4
7

0
.
3
8

0
.
4
6

0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
3

0
.
8
1
0.
5
1

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
4
0.
6
1

0
.
4
2

0
.
4
2

0
.
2
0

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
4
8
0.
5
1

0
.
5
7

0
.
2
0
0.3
7

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
1

0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
1
5

0
.
3
4

0
.2
8

0
.
2
6

0
.
2
.7
2

0
.
9
0

0
.
7
3

0
.
2
8

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
7

0
.
5
0

1
.
0
5

0
.
7
4

0
.
57

0
.
8
5
0.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
3

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1
-0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

F

D

F

F
F
F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

F

D

F

D

F
F
F

F

B

B

B

C

C

B

B

B

F

F

F

F

D

D
F
F

F

B

B

C

B

B

B

C

C

E

E

D

D

E

D
F
F

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

C

C

D

C

C

D

D

E

E

E

F
F
E

D

D

D

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

C

C

C

C

D

C

C

D

D

E

D

D

E
D
E

F

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

E

F

E

D

E

E
D
E

E

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

F
F
F

F

C

C

D

D

D

D

C

C

E

F

D

F

F

F
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

D

D

D

D
F
D

F

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

E

D

D

E

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

F

D

F

E
F
D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
E

E

D

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
E
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

F

D

D

D
F
F

F

D

C

B

B

B

B

B

B

E

F

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

D

D

B

C

B

B

D

D

F

F

E

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

C

B

B

C

C

B

E

F

F

F

F

F
D
F

F

D

C

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

D

D

D

D
E
D

E

D

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

F

E

D

E

F
E
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

C

B

D

F

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

F

E

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

E

E

E

D

D
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
8
5

0
.
7
8

0
.
7
2

0
.
3
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
2

0
.
7
6
0.
8
0

0
.
4
2

0
.
4
4
0.
5
8

0
.
6
0

0
.
9
2

0
.
3
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
1
2

0
.
7
4
0.
5
5

0
.
7
2

0
.
7
8
0.
6
8

0
.
6
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
2
4

0
.
5
2
0.
7
6

0
.
4
8

0
.
7
2
0.
2
7

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
2

0
.
1
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

0
.
0
4

0
.
2
7

0
.
4
5
0.
4
2

0
.
4
3

0
.
3
9
0.
5
6

0
.
4
1

0
.
3
0

0
.
2
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

0
.
0
3

0
.
3
4

0
.
9
8
1.
0
2

0
.
5
3

0
.
5
9
0.
7
0

0
.
7
0

0
.
7
3

0
.
3
8

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
3
8

0
.
6
1
0.
6
0

0
.
4
9

0
.
6
7
0.
7
3

0
.
5
6

0
.
3
2

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
2
0

0
.
6
5
0.
3
5

0
.
3
2

0
.
3
0
0.
1
8

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
3
1

0
.
6
5
0.
7
3

0
.
5
6

0
.
6
5
0.
3
3

0
.
2
1

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
7
2

0
.
3
5
0.
5
2

0
.
7
0

0
.
4
0
0.
0
0

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
01

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
9

0
.
4
7

0
.
7
8

0
.
5
6
0
.
5
7

0
.
7
6
0.
7
2

0
.
6
6

0
.
3
9

0
.
3
6

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
5

0
.
0
9
0
.
0
3

0
.
2
3

0
.
0
8
0.
0
9

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
3
0.
1
0

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4
0.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
1
9

0
.
4
7
0.
3
1

0
.
3
4

0
.
2
3
0.
1
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4
0.
2
1

0
.
1
9

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
1

0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
2
6

0
.
3
8

0
.3
4

0
.
3
7

0
.
1
9
0.
4
0

0
.
4
8

0
.
3
6

0
.
2
8

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
9

0
.
3
4

0
.
4
0
0.
3
5

0
.
3
3

0
.
5
4
0.
3
0

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
6

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
1

0
.2
0

0
.
1
2

0
.
4
2
0.
2
5

0
.
3
6

0
.
5
1

0
.
3
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
9

0
.
1
3
0.
1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
9
0.
1
7

0
.
1
7

0
.
3
8

0
.
2
5

0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
7
0.
1
1

0
.
2
6

0
.
6
5

0
.
2
1

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
5
9
0
.
4
0

0
.
2
3

0
.
3
0
0.
6
3

0
.
3
5

0
.
4
8

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
7
0.
1
4

0
.
3
3

0
.
2
4
0.
4
1

0
.
4
5

0
.
2
3

0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
8
0.
1
5

0
.
1
6

0
.
1
5
0.
1
7

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
0

0
.
3
6

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
7

0
.
3
4

0
.4
6

0
.
4
3

0
.
5
0
0.
6
2

0
.
4
7

0
.
5
6

0
.
5
4

0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
1

0
.1
1

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
2
0.
1
4

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
9
0.
1
2

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
7
0.
2
3

0
.
3
1

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
0

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
6
0
.
2
9

0
.
5
4

0
.
4
4
0.
4
7

0
.
4
9

0
.
4
1

0
.
2
2

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
0
8

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
9
0.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
4

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
3

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
24

0
.
2
0

0
.
3
3

0
.
0
7
0.3
3

0
.
3
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
0
5

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
2
0

0
.
3
4

0
.3
4

0
.
3
4

0
.
3
7
.8
5

0
.
7
8

0
.
9
2

0
.
5
4

0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
1

0
.
7
2

0
.
9
8

1
.
0
2
0.
8
6

1
.
0
7
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
2

-
0
.
1
1

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
1
0

-
0
.
0
9

-
0
.
0
7

-
0
.
0
2

-
0
.
0
1

-
0
.0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
E
F

E

D

C

C

C

D

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

E

E

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

F

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

E

E

E

D

E

D
D
F

E

D

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

F

D

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

E

F

E

D

D

E
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

E

E

E

D

E

D
F
F

F

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

C

D

F

E

D

E

D
F
D

E

D

D

D

B

C

B

B

D

F

F

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

F

D

D

F

F

F
F
E

E

D

B

B

C

B

C

C

C

D

D

D

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

F

D

F

E

D

F
F
F

E

D

D

D

D

C

C

B

D

F

F

E

D

D

D
E
E

D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

E

F

F

F

D

E
D
D

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

E

F

F

F

F

F
E
D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

E

F

F

F

F
F
F

E

D

C

C

C

C

B

B

B

F

F

E

F

F

E
F
F

D

D

B

B

C

C

C

B

D

F

F

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

D

D

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

F

F

E

E

E
F
F

F

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

F

D

D

D

F

F
F
E

E

D

D

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

F
D
F

F

D

B

B

B

C

B

B

B

E

F

F

F

F

F
F
E

D

E

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

D

F

D

D

D

D
F
E

F

F

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

E

E

F

F
F
F

F

F

D

B

B

C

C

C

D

E

D

F

F

F

F
F
F

F

F

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

E

E

D

D

D

D
F
F

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

F

F

F

F

F
D
D

D

E

C

B

B

C

C

C

B

E

D

D

F

F

F
F
F

F

F

D

B

C

C

B

D

D

D

E

E

F

F

E
F
E

E

E

D

D

B

B

D

B

D

E

F

F

E

E

F

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV&



$33(1',;&+285/<7(03(5$785('$7$


2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-4
.
5

-
4
.
4

-
4
.
6

-
3
.
1

-
0
.
3

1
.
0

2
.
9

5
.
6

6
.
3

6
.
6

5
.
7

4
.
1

1
.
5

-
0
.
1

-
1
.
1

-
2
.
0

-
0
.
5
-3
.
3

-
3
.
4

-
3
.
3

-
3
.
8

-
2
.
5

-
0
.
8

3
.
0

3
.
2

2
.
9

3
.
7

4
.
4

4
.
1

2
.
7

0
.
3

-
0
.
5

-
0
.
3

-
0
.
9
-5
.
4

-
4
.
4

-
4
.
0

-
3
.
4

-
2
.
7

-
0
.
8

0
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
8

2
.
3

3
.
1

3
.
7

0
.
7

-
0
.
8

-
2
.
3

-
2
.
0

-
1
.
4
-1
.
8

-
4
.
7

-
6
.
1

-
5
.
1

-
1
.
9

0
.
3

2
.
4

4
.
3

5
.
3

5
.
7

5
.
6

3
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
1

1
.
7
-5
.
2

-
5
.
6

-
5
.
8

-
4
.
8

-
0
.
8

2
.
4

4
.
0

5
.
2

6
.
4

7
.
4

8
.
0

5
.
6

1
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
2

-
0
.
4

-
0
.
1
-3
.
8

-
3
.
7

-
3
.
1

-
2
.
1

-
0
.
8

0
.
5

2
.
7

4
.
4

4
.
8

5
.
3

5
.
2

4
.
1

2
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
9

-
0
.
4

-
1
.
8
-1
.
4

-
1
.
0

-
1
.
2

-
1
.
0

0
.
4

1
.
7

1
.
9

3
.
1

3
.
9

4
.
3

4
.
0

2
.
5

-
0
.
3

-
1
.
2

-
1
.
4

-
2
.
3

-
3
.
1
-4
.
3

-
4
.
8

-
6
.
2

-
7
.
2

-
3
.
0

-
1
.
6

-
0
.
8

-
0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2

-
1
.
3

-
2
.
5

-
2
.
7

-
1
.
7

-
2
.
0
-5
.
5

-
6
.
7

-
5
.
5

-
4
.
8

-
3
.
3

-
2
.
5

0
.
0

2
.
1

2
.
8

3
.
4

1
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

-
0
.
7
-4
.
3

-
2
.
9

-
2
.
7

-
3
.
0

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
6

0
.
4

1
.
4

1
.
7

2
.
3

2
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
7

-
0
.
8

0
.
4
-1
.
1

-
1
.
5

-
1
.
4

-
1
.
9

-
0
.
4

0
.
9

1
.
7

2
.
9

4
.
3

5
.
1

5
.
5

5
.
6

4
.
1

3
.
8

4
.
4

3
.
4

-
0
.
2
1.
4

-
0
.
1

0
.
0

1
.
0

3
.
0

4
.
7

2
.
0

0
.
4

-
0
.
8

-
0
.
2

0
.
7

1
.
6

-
0
.
5

-
4
.
1

-
5
.
1

-
5
.
2

-
6
.
4
-9
.
5

-
8
.
6

-
8
.
1

-
6
.
5

-
3
.
0

-
0
.
9

1
.
2

1
.
9

2
.
1

2
.
6

2
.
5

1
.
4

-
0
.
1

-
1
.
6

-
2
.
0

-
2
.
6

-
3
.
6
-6
.
9

-
7
.
3

-
6
.
4

-
5
.
1

-
3
.
0

-
1
.
9

-
0
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
7

1
.
6

2
.
6

3
.
7

3
.
4

4
.
2

9
.
3

9
.
0

8
.
8
-0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

-
0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
2

2
.
5

3
.
8

3
.
7

2
.
7

3
.
1

2
.
8

0
.
7

-
1
.
6

-
3
.
9

-
4
.
3

-
4
.
3
-3
.
6

-
4
.
0

-
4
.
8

-
6
.
1

-
3
.
4

-
0
.
7

1
.
4

2
.
8

3
.
8

4
.
3

4
.
0

3
.
4

0
.
6

-
2
.
4

-
3
.
6

-
3
.
2

-
4
.
9
-8
.
8

-
8
.
9

-
9
.
3

-
7
.
9

-
4
.
2

-
1
.
4

0
.
5

1
.
6

2
.
3

3
.
4

4
.
2

3
.
6

-
0
.
1

-
2
.
9

-
3
.
9

-
3
.
7

-
4
.
6
-5
.
3

-
4
.
8

-
4
.
3

-
3
.
8

-
2
.
3

-
1
.
5

-
0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
7

1
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
2

0
.
1

-
0
.
4

-
0
.
9

-
1
.
0

-
1
.
7
-3
.
2

-
3
.
6

-
3
.
7

-
2
.
6

-
0
.
8

-
0
.
2

1
.
9

3
.
5

4
.
2

6
.
6

7
.
9

7
.
2

3
.
4

2
.
8

1
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
3
0.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
7

2
.
3

4
.
3

5
.
3

6
.
3

6
.
9

6
.
8

6
.
5

5
.
9

4
.
3

2
.
8

1
.
5

-
0
.
1

0
.
9
1.
0

-
0
.
9

-
2
.
6

-
1
.
7

1
.
4

4
.
7

7
.
5

9
.
5

9
.
9

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
1

8
.
8

5
.
0

1
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
8

-
0
.
1
-2
.
4

-
2
.
1

-
1
.
2

-
0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
7

1
.
8

4
.
2

6
.
6

7
.
7

7
.
3

6
.
5

3
.
5

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
3

-
0
.
9
-1
.
1

-
1
.
1

-
1
.
7

-
2
.
0

-
1
.
0

-
0
.
3

0
.
9

2
.
2

3
.
5

3
.
4

4
.
0

4
.
1

3
.
5

3
.
1

2
.
5

2
.
2

2
.
0
-0
.
2

-
0
.
2

-
0
.
5

-
0
.
8

-
0
.
3

0
.
7

1
.
9

2
.
8

3
.
8

4
.
8

4
.
7

4
.
3

3
.
4

2
.
8

3
.
2

3
.
4

2
.
9
1.
4

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
3

3
.
2

5
.
3

5
.
7

6
.
8

7
.
2

7
.
2

7
.
2

7
.
4

5
.
7

2
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
6

-
0
.
2
-3
.
9

-
4
.
0

-
3
.
3

-
2
.
1

1
.
2

3
.
3

4
.
9

6
.
6

6
.
6

6
.
8

6
.
9

6
.
5

5
.
1

2
.
8

0
.
2

-
0
.
2

0
.
1
-0
.
9

-
1
.
4

-
1
.
9

-
1
.
3

-
1
.
9

-
0
.
3

0
.
6

1
.
3

2
.
2

3
.
1

4
.
1

3
.
9

2
.
6

-
0
.
8

-
1
.
9

-
2
.
4

-
2
.
9
-0
.
3

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
7

1
.
0

2
.
1

2
.
7

4
.
2

5
.
0

5
.
4

4
.
9

3
.
5

0
.
4

-
0
.
3

-
1
.
8

-
2
.
3
-4
.
1

-
4
.
4

-
4
.
8

-
3
.
8

-
1
.
5

0
.
7

1
.
7

2
.
9

3
.
8

4
.
6

5
.
4

5
.
7

5
.
1

0
.
8

-
1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0
-2.
9

-
3
.
0

-
3
.
2

-
2
.
7

-
0
.
9

0
.
6

2
.
0

3
.
2

3
.
8

4
.
4

4
.
6

4
.
0

2
.
1

0
.
5

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
3

-
0
.
8
1.
4

0
.
9

0
.
3

1
.
0

3
.
2

5
.
3

7
.
5

9
.
5

9
.
9

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
1

8
.
8

5
.
7

4
.
2

9
.
3

9
.
0

8
.
8
9.
5

-
8
.
9

-
9
.
3

-
7
.
9

-
4
.
2

-
2
.
5

-
0
.
8

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
8

-
0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

-
1
.
3

-
4
.
1

-
5
.
1

-
5
.
2

-
6
.4
1.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-5
.
4

-
6
.
6

-
6
.
4

-
6
.
1

-
5
.
8

-
5
.
4

-
4
.
9

-
5
.
1

-
4
.
4

-
3
.
8

-
4
.
1

-
5
.
1

-
5
.
1

-
5
.
3

-
6
.
9

-
1
2
.5

-
1
2
.
10
.
0

-
9
.
7

-
9
.
9

-
9
.
2

-
7
.
4

-
6
.
0

-
5
.
0

-
4
.
6

-
4
.
4

-
4
.
2

-
4
.
2

-
4
.
8

-
7
.
2

-
1
1
.
4

-
1
0
.
2

-
12
.
2

-
1
4
.
-8
.
8

-
8
.
4

-
7
.
8

-
7
.
5

-
7
.
1

-
6
.
1

-
5
.
0

-
4
.
4

-
3
.
7

-
3
.
3

-
3
.
1

-
3
.
2

-
3
.
4

-
4
.
1

-
4
.
0

-
3
.
6
-
3
.
5
-1
.
0

-
1
.
0

-
1
.
4

-
0
.
8

0
.
5

2
.
3

3
.
2

3
.
5

4
.
8

4
.
6

3
.
7

3
.
3

3
.
3

3
.
3

3
.
3

3
.
9

2
.
7
3.
1

3
.
8

4
.
1

4
.
7

5
.
7

6
.
6

7
.
7

8
.
9

1
0
.
1

1
1
.
9

1
2
.
6

1
1
.
8

9
.
6

7
.
2

6
.
5

5
.
7

4
.
6
-0
.
4

1
.
3

1
.
5

2
.
3

5
.
1

7
.
7

1
0
.
6

8
.
7

7
.
2

6
.
0

6
.
0

5
.
3

3
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
4

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
7
-1
.
8

-
0
.
8

-
1
.
2

-
0
.
8

0
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
9

2
.
5

3
.
2

3
.
5

3
.
6

3
.
2

1
.
8

0
.
2

-
1
.
0

-
2
.
1

-
3
.
7
-6
.
1

-
7
.
0

-
6
.
8

-
5
.
3

-
2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
1

1
.
4

1
.
3

2
.
3

2
.
2

0
.
8

-
1
.
0

-
1
.
3

-
2
.
3

-
2
.
3
-8
.
2

-
8
.
8

-
9
.
2

-
7
.
4

-
3
.
9

-
0
.
7

0
.
6

1
.
4

2
.
0

2
.
5

2
.
8

3
.
1

2
.
6

-
0
.
7

-
3
.
6

-
3
.
2

-
1
.
8
-0
.
3

0
.
0

-
0
.
6

-
0
.
6

0
.
9

2
.
9

4
.
3

5
.
1

5
.
4

5
.
8

5
.
6

6
.
0

4
.
7

2
.
1

-
1
.
5

-
2
.
0

-
3
.
3
-3
.
1

-
3
.
7

-
6
.
8

-
4
.
2

-
0
.
6

2
.
1

4
.
0

5
.
9

6
.
8

7
.
5

8
.
1

8
.
4

7
.
8

2
.
1

-
1
.
1

1
.
0

-
0
.
2
-6
.
1

-
4
.
7

-
6
.
1

-
1
.
6

2
.
8

6
.
0

9
.
0

1
1
.
0

1
2
.
2

1
2
.
1

9
.
0

8
.
5

7
.
5

3
.
9

2
.
2

1
.
5

0
.
5
-3
.
9

-
3
.
0

-
2
.
7

-
2
.
0

-
0
.
3

1
.
4

3
.
0

4
.
3

4
.
6

5
.
2

5
.
7

5
.
6

5
.
2

3
.
8

2
.
6

2
.
2

2
.
4
0.
8

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
7

3
.
7

4
.
5

6
.
2

7
.
1

7
.
6

8
.
6

8
.
7

7
.
8

5
.
9

3
.
6

2
.
9

1
.
2
-1
.
2

-
2
.
7

-
3
.
0

-
0
.
2

1
.
3

2
.
1

3
.
1

3
.
2

3
.
9

3
.
9

3
.
8

2
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
5

-
0
.
1

-
2
.
0

-
2
.
8
10
.
5

-
1
0
.
6

-
9
.
8

-
6
.
6

-
3
.
5

-
1
.
5

-
0
.
2

0
.
4

1
.
2

2
.
1

2
.
0

1
.
3

0
.
6

-
1
.
6

-
4
.
7

-
4
.
8

-
5
.
5
-7
.
1

-
7
.
6

-
7
.
5

-
4
.
8

-
2
.
2

-
0
.
3

0
.
7

1
.
3

1
.
8

2
.
2

2
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
5

-
3
.
1

-
7
.
3

-
7
.
6

-
8
.
2
13
.
1

-
1
2
.
9

-
1
2
.
8

-
8
.
1

-
3
.
5

-
2
.
2

-
1
.
2

0
.
1

1
.
5

2
.
3

2
.
6

2
.
4

1
.
3

-
1
.
9

-
4
.
5

-
5
.
1

-
5
.
7
10
.
2

-
1
0
.
7

-
1
0
.
2

-
7
.
1

-
3
.
3

-
1
.
6

0
.
4

2
.
3

3
.
8

4
.
7

5
.
2

5
.
2

3
.
8

0
.
5

-
3
.
9

-
4
.
3

-
3
.
6
-4
.
9

-
5
.
3

-
5
.
9

-
4
.
1

-
1
.
0

1
.
3

2
.
9

4
.
2

4
.
8

6
.
2

6
.
4

6
.
9

6
.
3

4
.
2

1
.
0

-
0
.
9

0
.
3
-0
.
6

-
2
.
0

-
2
.
4

2
.
2

6
.
0

7
.
6

8
.
7

9
.
3

1
0
.
6

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
2

1
1
.
1

7
.
8

5
.
8

5
.
6

3
.
9
-1
.
1

-
1
.
5

-
1
.
8

-
0
.
4

1
.
0

2
.
1

3
.
0

3
.
6

4
.
5

4
.
8

3
.
9

3
.
7

3
.
2

0
.
5

-
1
.
8

-
1
.
3

-
2
.
9
-9
.
3

-
1
0
.
5

-
9
.
5

-
4
.
0

-
0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
6

2
.
5

3
.
5

3
.
7

3
.
9

3
.
8

3
.
1

-
1
.
5

-
4
.
2

-
5
.
4

-
7
.
5
-9
.
9

-
1
0
.
1

-
8
.
8

-
4
.
8

-
0
.
5

2
.
7

4
.
9

6
.
6

7
.
3

8
.
3

8
.
7

8
.
9

7
.
9

4
.
2

1
.
1

-
0
.
7

-
2
.
2
-7
.
4

-
8
.
9

-
7
.
2

-
2
.
4

1
.
5

4
.
6

6
.
4

7
.
8

9
.
1

1
0
.
1

1
0
.
6

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
4

7
.
6

-
2
.
0

-
2
.
4

-
3
.
7
-7
.
5

-
7
.
8

-
6
.
2

0
.
4

4
.
4

6
.
5

8
.
6

1
0
.
1

1
2
.
1

1
3
.
1

1
3
.
3

1
4
.
1

1
2
.
2

7
.
7

2
.
7

1
.
9

-
0
.
5
-0
.
1

1
.
0

2
.
3

5
.
4

7
.
9

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
1

1
3
.
0

7
.
5

8
.
5

8
.
4

7
.
7
-4.
8

-
4
.
9

-
4
.
8

-
2
.
6

-
0
.
1

1
.
9

3
.
3

4
.
2

5
.
1

5
.
6

5
.
6

5
.
4

4
.
3

1
.
6

-
0
.
6

-
1
.
4

-
2
.
3
3.
1

3
.
8

4
.
1

5
.
4

7
.
9

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
1

1
3
.
0

7
.
8

8
.
5

8
.
4

7
.
7
13
.
1

-
1
2
.
9

-
1
2
.
8

-
9
.
2

-
7
.
4

-
6
.
1

-
5
.
0

-
5
.
1

-
4
.
4

-
4
.
2

-
4
.
2

-
5
.
1

-
7
.
2

-
1
1
.
4

-
1
0
.
2
-
1
2
.
5

-
1
4
.
8.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-2
.
5

-
3
.
8

0
.
0

2
.
1

4
.
9

6
.
9

7
.
5

8
.
3

9
.
5

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
9

1
0
.
4

7
.
2

4
.
3

2
.
6

1
.
1
-6
.
2

-
7
.
1

-
4
.
9

0
.
6

5
.
9

1
0
.
1

1
1
.
4

1
2
.
7

1
4
.
1

1
4
.
6

1
5
.
0

1
5
.
2

1
4
.
7

1
0
.
4

2
.
9

1
.
6

1
.
0
-1
.
3

-
2
.
0

-
1
.
2

4
.
9

8
.
6

1
1
.
2

1
3
.
6

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
4

1
8
.
9

1
9
.
3

1
9
.
4

1
8
.
2

1
2
.
7

6
.
9

5
.
6

4
.
5
-2
.
0

0
.
2

1
.
7

3
.
6

9
.
0

1
3
.
5

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
3

1
9
.
7

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
4

2
0
.
2

1
8
.
5

1
4
.
5

1
4
.
5

1
4
.
4

1
3
.
0
6.
1

8
.
6

7
.
2

1
0
.
1

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
0

1
5
.
5

1
5
.
6

1
6
.
3
1
6
.
6

1
6
.
6

1
6
.
4

1
5
.
6

1
4
.
7

1
4
.
3

1
3
.
8

1
3
.2
0.
4

-
1
.
3

-
0
.
9

4
.
7

7
.
8

8
.
5

9
.
6

1
0
.
9

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
5

1
2
.
5

1
1
.
8

1
1
.
2

8
.
0

4
.
2

5
.
5

4
.
8
3.
3

3
.
5

2
.
4

4
.
1

6
.
4

1
0
.
1

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
4

1
2
.
5

1
2
.
5

1
3
.
1

1
2
.
8

1
1
.
2

8
.
5

6
.
2

6
.
2

5
.
6
1.
4

0
.
0

1
.
6

5
.
3

7
.
5

9
.
5

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
3

1
2
.
9

1
3
.
3

1
3
.
4

1
3
.
0

9
.
4

6
.
5

5
.
3

4
.
3
-2
.
8

-
1
.
4

-
0
.
4

3
.
7

7
.
8

1
0
.
1

1
3
.
4

1
4
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
6
.
5

1
5
.
7

1
5
.
8

1
5
.
3

1
3
.
5

4
.
5

3
.
6

3
.
5
-3
.
8

-
3
.
9

-
0
.
2

6
.
8

9
.
6

1
0
.
4

1
1
.
4

1
2
.
7

1
3
.
4

1
3
.
8

1
3
.
5

1
3
.
4

1
2
.
6

8
.
7

3
.
6

2
.
6

1
.
4
-0
.
6

-
0
.
7

-
0
.
3

1
.
1

3
.
2

5
.
5

7
.
7

8
.
9

1
0
.
1

9
.
6

9
.
5

8
.
8

7
.
3

5
.
6

4
.
3

3
.
6

5
.
6
8.
6

8
.
5

8
.
9

9
.
9

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
2

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
7

1
4
.
8

1
6
.
1

1
5
.
8

1
4
.
9

1
4
.
1

1
2
.
7

1
1
.
2

1
1
.
2

1
0
.
6
7.
8

7
.
9

9
.
4

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
4

1
3
.
6

1
4
.
1

1
5
.
0

1
5
.
1
1
6
.
2

1
6
.
6

1
6
.
0

1
5
.
3

1
4
.
1

1
2
.
3

1
0
.
2

1
0
.0
3.
9

2
.
3

2
.
2

7
.
3

1
1
.
8

1
2
.
6

1
3
.
1

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
5

1
4
.
5

1
4
.
5

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
5

1
2
.
5

8
.
4

4
.
9

3
.
6
-1
.
4

0
.
2

5
.
4

1
0
.
0

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
7

1
3
.
5

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
8

1
5
.
3

1
5
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
4
.
6

1
2
.
5

1
0
.
7

8
.
7

6
.
4
2.
0

0
.
6

1
.
7

3
.
5

5
.
8

6
.
5

7
.
2

4
.
9

5
.
2

6
.
4

5
.
9

6
.
2

6
.
7

5
.
8

5
.
0

4
.
6

4
.
4
2.
5

3
.
1

3
.
5

3
.
5

3
.
9

3
.
9

3
.
5

4
.
0

5
.
1

6
.
6

7
.
8

8
.
6

8
.
7

6
.
4

2
.
9

1
.
9

1
.
2
2.
5

2
.
4

3
.
0

4
.
3

5
.
6

7
.
5

7
.
6

8
.
0

8
.
1

8
.
7

9
.
0

8
.
7

8
.
7

7
.
5

5
.
0

4
.
6

2
.
3
-4
.
2

-
4
.
2

-
2
.
4

3
.
1

5
.
4

7
.
7

8
.
4

8
.
7

9
.
8

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
1

9
.
9

9
.
0

7
.
4

3
.
2

2
.
2

1
.
2
-4
.
0

-
3
.
0

-
1
.
2

4
.
8

7
.
8

9
.
5

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
1

1
3
.
0

1
2
.
9

1
2
.
7

1
2
.
4

1
1
.
2

4
.
9

4
.
8

5
.
9
0.
1

1
.
7

4
.
4

8
.
8

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
8

1
3
.
1

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
8

1
5
.
0

1
4
.
7

1
4
.
9

1
3
.
4

1
0
.
2

8
.
3

8
.
3

8
.
6
3.
2

3
.
2

5
.
4

7
.
8

1
0
.
5

1
1
.
6

1
3
.
4

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
1

1
4
.
8

1
4
.
0

1
2
.
2

1
2
.
0

1
0
.
6

8
.
8

6
.
8

4
.
9
2.
6

3
.
3

3
.
8

4
.
8

6
.
1

6
.
8

6
.
7

7
.
4

7
.
0

5
.
9

5
.
9

4
.
5

2
.
3

1
.
6

1
.
3

1
.
2

1
.
3
-1
.
2

-
1
.
3

-
0
.
7

0
.
6

1
.
6

3
.
6

4
.
0

4
.
4

4
.
7

5
.
9

6
.
1

6
.
0

5
.
8

4
.
4

1
.
6

0
.
1

-
1
.
0
-4
.
9

-
5
.
2

-
2
.
6

0
.
4

2
.
0

3
.
3

3
.
5

4
.
5

5
.
5

6
.
0

6
.
4

6
.
3

5
.
9

5
.
3

4
.
6

4
.
6

4
.
0
1.
7

1
.
9

2
.
4

4
.
0

6
.
4

7
.
3

7
.
5

8
.
4

8
.
7

8
.
3

8
.
2

8
.
7

9
.
2

7
.
3

2
.
7

0
.
7

2
.
5
4.
7

4
.
7

5
.
2

7
.
2

8
.
7

9
.
8

1
0
.
6

1
0
.
9

1
1
.
2

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
3

9
.
5

8
.
7

6
.
3

4
.
9

3
.
0
4.
0

3
.
4

4
.
2

6
.
8

8
.
7

9
.
9

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
2
.
7

1
3
.
4

1
3
.
7

1
3
.
7

1
3
.
5

1
3
.
3

1
2
.
0

1
0
.
6

1
0
.
2
5.
9

6
.
5

8
.
7

1
2
.
1

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
6

1
6
.
4

1
7
.
9

1
7
.
6
1
9
.
1

1
8
.
7

1
8
.
8

1
8
.
7

1
8
.
0

1
6
.
2

1
3
.
6

1
3
.4
0.
6

0
.
6

1
.
9

5
.
0

7
.
4

9
.
0

1
0
.
1

1
0
.
8

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
0

1
2
.
1

1
1
.
9

1
1
.
3

9
.
3

6
.
2

5
.
2

4
.
6
8.
6

8
.
6

9
.
4

1
2
.
1

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
6

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
3

1
9
.
7

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
4

2
0
.
2

1
8
.
7

1
8
.
0

1
6
.
2

1
4
.
4

1
3
.
8.
4

-
8
.
0

-
7
.
2

-
2
.
6

-
0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
7

2
.
3

2
.
4

3
.
3

3
.
1

2
.
3

1
.
2

-
3
.
6

-
4
.
3

-
5
.
5
7.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-8
.
1

-
8
.
6

-
3
.
1

1
.
0

4
.
2

6
.
3

7
.
4

8
.
6

9
.
3

9
.
9

1
0
.
0

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
2

9
.
1

3
.
7

0
.
6

1
.
4
-8
.
3

-
7
.
5

-
0
.
5

4
.
2

7
.
5

9
.
7

1
1
.
8

1
3
.
3

1
4
.
3

1
5
.
2

1
5
.
6

1
7
.
4

1
7
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
3
.
2

1
0
.
8

1
0
.8
6.
3

6
.
6

8
.
5

1
1
.
5

1
3
.
1

1
4
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
2

1
8
.
3
1
9
.
5

1
9
.
7

1
9
.
1

1
7
.
0

1
4
.
6

1
3
.
3

1
4
.
2

1
4
.4
12
.
2

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
1

1
3
.
1

1
3
.
5

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
1

1
6
.
3
14
.
4

1
4
.
8

1
5
.
0

1
5
.
0

1
4
.
7

1
2
.
9

8
.
9

7
.
8

4
.7
1.
1

-
0
.
4

4
.
4

9
.
8

1
3
.
1

1
5
.
0

1
5
.
8

1
6
.
4

1
7
.
1

1
7
.
7

1
7
.
6

1
7
.
6

1
7
.
3

1
5
.
5

1
3
.
0

9
.
1

6
.
8
0.
9

2
.
1

7
.
9

1
2
.
4

1
5
.
7

1
7
.
4

1
8
.
4

1
9
.
4

1
9
.
7
2
0
.
0

1
9
.
5

1
9
.
4

1
8
.
4

1
6
.
7

1
2
.
6

1
1
.
4

1
0
.6
8.
7

8
.
1

1
0
.
5

1
2
.
8

1
4
.
8

1
6
.
3

1
7
.
1

1
6
.
4

1
1
.
5

9
.
7

7
.
4

5
.
7

8
.
0

8
.
4

7
.
8

5
.
8

2
.
2
-1
.
9

-
0
.
9

3
.
4

6
.
7

8
.
8

1
0
.
5

1
2
.
1

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
2

1
6
.
0

1
6
.
6

1
6
.
7

1
6
.
7

1
5
.
6

1
1
.
1

5
.
0

4
.
4
7.
1

6
.
6

9
.
0

1
2
.
8

1
4
.
7

1
6
.
1

1
7
.
2

1
8
.
0

1
8
.
9
1
8
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
6
.
5

1
4
.
8

1
4
.
4

1
3
.
3

1
2
.
5

1
1
.3
0.
7

1
.
1

3
.
9

5
.
3

6
.
3

6
.
9

7
.
5

8
.
2

8
.
9

9
.
2

9
.
7

9
.
6

9
.
2

7
.
4

3
.
9

1
.
7

-
0
.
8
-0
.
2

-
0
.
9

0
.
8

2
.
9

4
.
2

5
.
1

5
.
7

6
.
1

6
.
6

7
.
2

7
.
3

6
.
9

6
.
6

5
.
1

1
.
4

-
0
.
2

-
1
.
5
-7
.
2

-
5
.
1

1
.
4

4
.
1

5
.
7

7
.
1

7
.
9

8
.
8

9
.
7

1
0
.
0

1
1
.
2

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
1

1
0
.
9

7
.
9

7
.
6

8
.
6
7.
4

7
.
3

8
.
1

9
.
9

1
1
.
2

1
2
.
3

1
3
.
4

1
4
.
1

1
5
.
8

1
5
.
4

1
5
.
1

1
4
.
0

1
2
.
9

1
1
.
2

9
.
4

7
.
2

6
.
9
0.
7

0
.
1

2
.
2

3
.
8

4
.
3

5
.
5

6
.
8

8
.
1

8
.
9

9
.
3

9
.
8

1
0
.
0

9
.
4

7
.
9

4
.
4

0
.
5

-
0
.
3
-6
.
1

-
4
.
5

2
.
0

5
.
4

6
.
9

7
.
8

9
.
0

9
.
8

1
0
.
6

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
5

1
2
.
4

1
0
.
9

7
.
0

3
.
6

2
.
9
3.
3

4
.
3

6
.
0

8
.
6

1
1
.
3

1
3
.
3

1
4
.
4

1
5
.
7

1
6
.
1

1
7
.
0

1
7
.
4

1
7
.
3

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
6

1
1
.
8

5
.
8

6
.
2
7.
3

7
.
2

9
.
0

1
1
.
6

1
2
.
8

1
2
.
4

1
2
.
8

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
7

1
5
.
8

1
6
.
1

1
5
.
8

1
4
.
2

1
3
.
2

1
0
.
5

6
.
7

6
.
1
-1
.
7

0
.
4

7
.
7

1
0
.
7

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
4

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
0

1
7
.
4

1
7
.
5

1
7
.
4

1
8
.
0

1
7
.
8

1
6
.
6

1
1
.
3

6
.
9

7
.
0
3.
9

6
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
4
.
1

1
6
.
6

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
3

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
1
2
0
.
6

2
1
.
0

2
1
.
1

2
0
.
6

1
9
.
5

1
7
.
5

1
6
.
2

1
4.
7
4.
1

6
.
0

1
0
.
2

1
4
.
3

1
5
.
7

1
6
.
7

1
7
.
3

1
7
.
8

1
8
.
3
1
9
.
3

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
4

2
0
.
2

1
9
.
5

1
8
.
9

1
7
.
4

1
3.
9
11
.
0

1
0
.
9

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
9

1
2
.
5

1
4
.
1

1
5
.
6

1
6
.
5
17
.
4

1
8
.
0

1
7
.
6

1
8
.
8

1
7
.
7

1
6
.
1

1
3
.
8

1
1
.
6
1
0
.
7
1.
0

4
.
2

9
.
2

1
0
.
6

1
2
.
1

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

1
6
.
2

1
7
.
2

1
7
.
5

1
7
.
3

1
6
.
8

1
3
.
0

6
.
8

6
.
9
1.
5

6
.
2

1
2
.
7

1
5
.
1

1
7
.
1

1
8
.
4

1
9
.
6

2
1
.
0

2
0
.
9
2
1
.
8

2
1
.
8

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
3

1
6
.
3

1
3
.
6

1
3.
1
8.
9

1
1
.
6

1
3
.
8

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
3

2
0
.
7

2
1
.
9

2
3
.
2
23
.
3

2
3
.
4

2
3
.
7

2
4
.
3

2
4
.
0

2
2
.
8

1
8
.
4

1
5
.
6
13
.
1
5.
2

7
.
7

1
3
.
5

1
6
.
4

1
9
.
4

2
0
.
7

2
2
.
1

2
3
.
2

2
2
.
8
2
3
.
3

2
3
.
9

2
4
.
0

2
3
.
4

2
0
.
9

1
7
.
5

1
3
.
1

1
2.
2
5.
1

8
.
6

1
2
.
6

1
6
.
2

1
8
.
3

1
9
.
6

2
0
.
7

2
1
.
3

2
1
.
9
2
2
.
3

2
2
.
8

2
2
.
9

2
2
.
9

2
2
.
0

1
8
.
1

1
5
.
5

1
2.
9
6.
6

9
.
8

1
6
.
4

1
8
.
8

2
0
.
6

2
2
.
4

2
4
.
5

2
6
.
8

2
7
.
8
2
8
.
3

2
8
.
8

2
8
.
9

2
8
.
5

2
7
.
0

2
3
.
6

2
1
.
9

2
2.
0
13
.
9

1
5
.
5

1
8
.
6

2
0
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
8

2
4
.
5

2
4
.
9
25
.
0

2
4
.
0

2
5
.
0

2
5
.
7

2
4
.
8

2
4
.
3

2
0
.
9

1
7
.
5
1
5
.
0
2.
6

3
.
7

7
.
5

1
0
.
3

1
2
.
1

1
3
.
5

1
4
.
6

1
5
.
5

1
5
.
9

1
6
.
2

1
6
.
4

1
6
.
5

1
6
.
0

1
4
.
8

1
1
.
5

8
.
9

7
.
9
3.
9

1
5
.
5

1
8
.
6

2
0
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
8

2
4
.
5

2
6
.
8

2
7
.
8

2
8
.
3

2
8
.
8

2
8
.
9

2
8
.
5

2
7
.
0

2
3
.
6

2
1
.
9
22
.
0
8.
3

-
8
.
6

-
3
.
1

1
.
0

2
.
3

3
.
1

3
.
6

4
.
4

5
.
4

5
.
8

6
.
2

5
.
7

6
.
0

4
.
7

-
0
.
2

-
2
.
5

-
2
.
0
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
.
7

1
5
.
0

1
7
.
6

1
8
.
5

1
9
.
2

1
8
.
1

1
8
.
1

1
7
.
8
19
.
7

2
0
.
4

2
0
.
0

1
9
.
9

1
9
.
2

1
7
.
5

1
5
.
7

1
3
.
5
1
3
.
0
0.
4

3
.
1

8
.
6

1
1
.
2

1
3
.
1

1
4
.
4

1
5
.
2

1
6
.
0

1
6
.
5
1
7
.
3

1
7
.
8

1
7
.
7

1
7
.
9

1
7
.
5

1
3
.
2

1
0
.
7

8
.
2
1.
6

5
.
9

9
.
6

1
4
.
0

1
6
.
7

1
9
.
2

2
0
.
6

2
1
.
9

2
2
.
7
2
3
.
4

2
4
.
0

2
4
.
0

2
4
.
0

2
2
.
8

1
8
.
2

1
6
.
4

1
7
.0
1.
9

8
.
1

1
4
.
1

1
8
.
3

2
0
.
9

2
2
.
8

2
4
.
1

2
5
.
0

2
5
.
1
2
5
.
7

2
5
.
6

2
4
.
2

2
1
.
2

1
9
.
0

1
6
.
5

1
3
.
9

1
2.
4
-1
.
1

3
.
4

8
.
0

9
.
7

1
1
.
8

1
3
.
3

1
4
.
2

1
4
.
9

1
5
.
5

1
6
.
6

1
7
.
2

1
7
.
2

1
6
.
5

1
5
.
2

1
1
.
8

7
.
8

4
.
9
-1
.
1

4
.
3

1
0
.
3

1
3
.
0

1
5
.
1

1
6
.
8

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
7
20
.
8

2
1
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
3

2
2
.
5

2
1
.
9

1
7
.
0

1
3
.
9
13
.
3
7.
7

1
0
.
6

1
4
.
6

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
5

2
1
.
2

2
2
.
1

2
2
.
8
24
.
0

2
4
.
4

2
4
.
3

2
4
.
4

2
3
.
3

2
1
.
7

1
7
.
9

1
2
.
6
12
.
0
7.
7

8
.
6

1
2
.
8

1
7
.
6

2
0
.
5

2
3
.
2

2
5
.
2

2
7
.
0

2
8
.
3
2
9
.
0

2
8
.
2

2
6
.
8

2
5
.
5

2
4
.
8

2
3
.
7

2
2
.
2

1
9.
1
20
.
3

2
0
.
1

2
1
.
7

2
3
.
7

2
5
.
0

2
6
.
8

2
7
.
9

2
8
.
2
28
.
8

2
8
.
9

2
7
.
4

2
7
.
7

2
7
.
7

2
6
.
2

2
1
.
7

2
1
.
2
1
9
.
8
14
.
9

1
4
.
7

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
2

1
9
.
5

2
0
.
2

2
0
.
6

2
1
.
5
22
.
1

2
2
.
6

2
4
.
0

2
4
.
3

2
3
.
7

2
1
.
9

2
0
.
6

1
7
.
9
1
5
.
8
9.
6

1
0
.
9

1
2
.
5

1
3
.
5

1
3
.
6

1
5
.
4

1
6
.
4

1
7
.
4
18
.
4

1
9
.
2

1
9
.
5

1
9
.
8

1
9
.
5

1
8
.
4

1
6
.
3

1
4
.
0
11
.
4
10
.
0

1
1
.
2

1
2
.
5

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
0

1
6
.
1

1
6
.
9

1
7
.
2
17
.
4

1
7
.
3

1
7
.
8

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
1

1
8
.
2

1
5
.
9

1
2
.
9
1
1
.
8
11
.
0

1
1
.
7

1
3
.
3

1
3
.
8

1
4
.
8

1
6
.
2

1
7
.
4

1
7
.
9
18
.
8

1
9
.
5

1
9
.
6

1
9
.
6

1
9
.
6

1
9
.
0

1
6
.
4

1
1
.
6
9
.
2
6.
7

1
0
.
3

1
4
.
1

1
5
.
4

1
6
.
5

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
2

2
0
.
8
21
.
6

2
1
.
7

2
2
.
1

2
2
.
1

2
1
.
5

2
0
.
4

1
8
.
0

1
4
.
5
13
.
8
9.
0

1
1
.
7

1
7
.
0

2
0
.
9

2
4
.
6

2
5
.
3

2
6
.
8

2
7
.
5
28
.
7

2
9
.
8

3
0
.
5

3
0
.
7

2
9
.
9

2
9
.
0

2
7
.
2

2
5
.
6
24
.
9
19
.
9

2
0
.
8

2
2
.
0

2
2
.
8

2
3
.
6

2
4
.
6

2
5
.
3

2
6
.
9
28
.
3

2
7
.
6

2
7
.
8

2
8
.
4

2
7
.
8

2
6
.
8

2
5
.
5

2
4
.
2
2
0
.
9
13
.
1

1
5
.
6

1
6
.
5

1
7
.
7

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
6

1
9
.
1

2
0
.
5
21
.
9

2
1
.
2

2
0
.
4

1
9
.
4

1
8
.
6

1
7
.
4

1
6
.
2

1
3
.
5
1
3
.
0
7.
0

9
.
4

9
.
8

9
.
5

1
0
.
3

1
0
.
8

1
4
.
2

1
6
.
1

1
6
.
8

1
5
.
4

1
5
.
9

1
6
.
0

1
3
.
6

1
3
.
2

1
3
.
1

1
2
.
9

1
1
.
9
6.
4

9
.
6

1
2
.
5

1
4
.
3

1
6
.
0

1
7
.
6

1
8
.
6

1
9
.
6

2
0
.
4
2
1
.
5

2
2
.
1

2
2
.
9

2
3
.
2

2
2
.
4

2
1
.
4

1
8
.
9

1
9.
0
10
.
0

1
0
.
6

1
2
.
3

1
5
.
0

1
6
.
2

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
9

2
1
.
0

2
0
.
5

1
9
.
6

1
4
.
2

1
1
.
1

9
.
2

6
.
3

4
.
6

3
.
4

3
.
3
3.
9

5
.
6

6
.
7

8
.
1

8
.
7

9
.
2

1
0
.
3

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
3

1
2
.
8

1
3
.
9

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
5

1
4
.
2

1
2
.
4

9
.
2

8
.
9
1.
0

6
.
1

1
0
.
4

1
2
.
3

1
3
.
7

1
4
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
6
.
7

1
6
.
1
1
7
.
1

1
7
.
6

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
5

1
7
.
4

1
4
.
9

1
0
.
8

9
.1
4.
5

9
.
4

1
2
.
8

1
5
.
5

1
7
.
3

1
8
.
7

1
9
.
8

2
0
.
5

2
1
.
3
2
1
.
9

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
1

2
2
.
1

2
1
.
6

1
9
.
4

1
5
.
6

1
3.
0
6.
2

9
.
8

1
6
.
4

1
9
.
6

2
2
.
9

2
5
.
0

2
6
.
2

2
7
.
5

2
8
.
4
2
8
.
6

2
8
.
9

2
9
.
7

2
8
.
5

2
7
.
6

2
4
.
3

1
9
.
7

1
7.
9
16
.
3

1
8
.
4

2
1
.
1

2
3
.
6

2
5
.
1

2
6
.
3

2
7
.
0

2
8
.
0
28
.
8

2
8
.
9

2
9
.
3

2
9
.
5

2
8
.
9

2
7
.
5

2
5
.
2

2
0
.
8
1
8
.
6
14
.
9

1
8
.
9

2
2
.
5

2
5
.
0

2
6
.
7

2
8
.
0

2
9
.
2

3
0
.
7
31
.
3

3
1
.
4

3
1
.
7

3
1
.
8

3
1
.
9

3
0
.
7

2
7
.
7

2
2
.
6
2
1
.
0
14
.
7

1
9
.
0

2
4
.
6

2
6
.
0

2
7
.
5

2
8
.
3

3
1
.
0

3
3
.
9
34
.
8

3
5
.
8

3
6
.
5

3
6
.
1

3
6
.
0

3
4
.
1

3
1
.
1

3
0
.
0
2
8
.
9
20
.
8

2
1
.
9

3
0
.
0

3
1
.
7

3
3
.
3

3
3
.
1

3
3
.
2

3
4
.
1
34
.
2

3
5
.
5

3
3
.
3

3
3
.
5

3
1
.
5

3
0
.
9

2
9
.
7

2
7
.
9
2
7
.
8
18
.
3

2
0
.
2

2
1
.
5

2
3
.
5

2
5
.
4

2
6
.
7

2
8
.
1

2
9
.
2
30
.
6

3
1
.
3

3
2
.
5

3
2
.
2

3
0
.
5

2
9
.
6

2
7
.
8

2
4
.
9
2
5
.
2
9.
5

1
2
.
0

1
5
.
2

1
7
.
4

1
8
.
9

2
0
.
1

2
1
.
3

2
2
.
4

2
3
.
1

2
3
.
5

2
3
.
5

2
3
.
5

2
2
.
9

2
1
.
8

1
9
.
3

1
6
.
6
15
.
3
0.
8

2
1
.
9

3
0
.
0

3
1
.
7

3
3
.
3

3
3
.
1

3
3
.
2

3
4
.
1

3
4
.
8

3
5
.
8

3
6
.
5

3
6
.
1

3
6
.
0

3
4
.
1

3
1
.
1

3
0
.
0
28
.
9
1.
1

3
.
1

6
.
7

8
.
1

8
.
7

9
.
2

1
0
.
3

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
3

1
2
.
8

1
3
.
9

1
1
.
1

9
.
2

6
.
3

4
.
6

3
.
4

3
.
3
15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
.
2

1
9
.
8

2
1
.
0

2
3
.
9

2
7
.
0

2
9
.
1

3
0
.
4

3
1
.
3
31
.
8

3
3
.
0

3
2
.
9

3
2
.
4

3
2
.
0

3
2
.
0

3
0
.
5

2
7
.
0
2
1
.
9
20
.
3

2
2
.
9

2
5
.
3

2
8
.
1

2
9
.
6

3
0
.
5

3
1
.
3

3
1
.
8
32
.
0

3
1
.
2

3
1
.
0

3
1
.
2

3
1
.
3

2
9
.
8

2
6
.
5

2
4
.
0
2
5
.
5
12
.
1

1
8
.
8

2
3
.
7

2
7
.
3

2
9
.
9

3
2
.
5

3
4
.
3

3
4
.
6
36
.
2

3
5
.
8

3
6
.
4

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
9

3
4
.
4

3
2
.
3

3
0
.
4
2
9
.
1
23
.
2

2
3
.
1

2
4
.
8

2
5
.
0

2
7
.
0

2
7
.
5

2
7
.
5

2
8
.
1
28
.
1

2
5
.
0

1
8
.
8

1
4
.
9

1
2
.
0

1
1
.
0

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
5
1
1
.
1
10
.
3

1
1
.
3

1
1
.
8

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
8

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
6

1
5
.
5

1
4
.
3

1
5
.
1

1
4
.
5

1
1
.
6

9
.
4

7
.
9

5
.
1

4
.
8

5
.
6
1.
5

5
.
3

7
.
4

7
.
9

6
.
2

6
.
6

8
.
1

1
0
.
0

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
6

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
3

1
5
.
2

1
5
.
3

1
4
.
0

1
0
.
9

6
.
3
1.
7

7
.
9

1
1
.
4

1
4
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
2

1
8
.
4

1
9
.
1

2
0
.
1
2
0
.
7

2
1
.
2

2
1
.
7

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
6

1
9
.
8

1
4
.
3

1
2.
5
6.
9

1
3
.
1

1
7
.
4

2
0
.
3

2
2
.
7

2
4
.
2

2
4
.
8

2
5
.
8
26
.
4

2
6
.
8

2
7
.
0

2
7
.
3

2
7
.
0

2
6
.
6

2
4
.
0

2
0
.
1
19
.
7
11
.
6

1
8
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
3
.
7

2
6
.
0

2
8
.
1

3
0
.
2

3
1
.
6
32
.
8

3
3
.
1

3
3
.
2

3
3
.
1

3
3
.
0

3
2
.
3

2
8
.
4

2
5
.
7
2
6
.
7
12
.
9

1
9
.
8

2
8
.
0

3
0
.
1

3
1
.
5

3
2
.
3

3
3
.
3

3
3
.
8
34
.
3

3
4
.
6

3
4
.
7

3
4
.
2

3
3
.
1

3
2
.
3

3
0
.
3

2
6
.
7
2
4
.
8
22
.
1

2
3
.
3

2
3
.
0

2
1
.
3

2
1
.
5

2
2
.
2

2
2
.
2

2
3
.
6
24
.
3

2
4
.
5

2
5
.
1

2
5
.
0

2
3
.
8

2
2
.
2

1
9
.
3

1
7
.
1
1
5
.
7
7.
7

1
2
.
0

1
5
.
3

1
6
.
8

1
8
.
1

1
8
.
8

2
0
.
6

2
1
.
1
22
.
7

2
3
.
6

2
4
.
5

2
4
.
9

2
5
.
5

2
5
.
1

2
1
.
8

1
8
.
7
16
.
7
11
.
2

1
4
.
3

1
6
.
7

1
9
.
4

2
1
.
5

2
3
.
2

2
5
.
4

2
7
.
2
27
.
9

2
9
.
4

3
0
.
2

3
0
.
9

3
1
.
1

3
0
.
1

2
8
.
2

2
4
.
2
2
3
.
1
15
.
5

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
2

1
2
.
6

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
8

1
9
.
8
20
.
9

2
1
.
2

2
1
.
5

1
9
.
9

1
9
.
0

1
7
.
6

1
7
.
0

1
4
.
0
1
0
.
6
5.
2

9
.
1

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
9

1
3
.
0

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
3

1
6
.
1

1
6
.
6
1
7
.
4

1
8
.
5

1
8
.
9

1
8
.
5

1
7
.
9

1
6
.
3

1
3
.
5

1
0.
6
5.
6

1
0
.
1

1
3
.
6

1
5
.
8

1
7
.
1

1
8
.
2

1
8
.
9

1
9
.
6
20
.
0

1
9
.
8

1
9
.
8

1
9
.
7

2
0
.
4

2
0
.
5

1
8
.
9

1
4
.
5
10
.
5
7.
8

1
1
.
1

1
5
.
2

1
8
.
3

2
0
.
2

2
1
.
4

2
3
.
0

2
3
.
4
24
.
4

2
5
.
0

2
5
.
4

2
5
.
5

2
5
.
7

2
4
.
8

2
1
.
5

1
8
.
0
16
.
1
9.
1

1
4
.
1

1
8
.
5

2
1
.
6

2
3
.
4

2
5
.
1

2
6
.
4

2
7
.
6
28
.
2

2
7
.
8

2
8
.
1

2
8
.
5

2
8
.
4

2
8
.
0

2
6
.
7

2
3
.
6
21
.
9
9.
4

1
6
.
0

2
1
.
5

2
5
.
5

2
7
.
2

2
7
.
9

2
9
.
1

3
1
.
0
31
.
8

3
2
.
1

3
2
.
2

3
2
.
1

3
1
.
9

3
0
.
5

2
8
.
4

2
5
.
3
23
.
6
16
.
5

1
9
.
7

2
1
.
8

2
3
.
7

2
5
.
7

2
6
.
4

2
7
.
5

2
8
.
2
29
.
1

3
0
.
1

3
0
.
4

3
0
.
9

3
0
.
8

2
9
.
8

2
7
.
6

2
2
.
7
2
0
.
2
16
.
0

2
0
.
6

2
4
.
4

2
6
.
5

2
7
.
6

2
9
.
1

3
0
.
2

3
1
.
1
32
.
1

3
2
.
0

3
2
.
8

3
3
.
2

3
2
.
7

3
1
.
7

2
9
.
2

2
2
.
7
2
1
.
4
16
.
7

2
1
.
7

2
4
.
7

2
8
.
0

2
9
.
6

3
1
.
3

3
2
.
5

3
3
.
8
34
.
5

3
4
.
5

3
4
.
1

3
4
.
6

3
4
.
4

3
2
.
8

3
0
.
4

2
7
.
3
2
5
.
4
19
.
2

2
1
.
3

2
2
.
9

2
6
.
2

2
7
.
6

2
8
.
4

2
9
.
1

2
9
.
8
30
.
9

3
0
.
5

2
9
.
3

2
8
.
4

2
7
.
9

2
7
.
0

2
5
.
7

2
2
.
3
2
0
.
7
17
.
0

2
0
.
7

2
4
.
3

2
7
.
5

2
8
.
9

2
9
.
6

3
0
.
7

3
1
.
0
32
.
0

3
2
.
3

3
2
.
7

3
2
.
7

3
2
.
7

3
2
.
0

2
9
.
6

2
6
.
8
2
2
.
5
12
.
7

1
9
.
2

2
4
.
4

2
7
.
6

2
9
.
5

3
1
.
6

3
3
.
2

3
4
.
4
34
.
6

3
5
.
7

3
5
.
5

3
5
.
5

3
6
.
0

3
5
.
3

3
3
.
8

3
0
.
1
2
8
.
6
19
.
9

2
0
.
3

2
2
.
5

2
5
.
0

2
7
.
4

2
9
.
5

3
1
.
5

3
2
.
6
31
.
3

2
5
.
3

2
1
.
9

1
8
.
0

1
4
.
6

1
2
.
9

1
2
.
8

1
0
.
9
8
.
8
8.
7

8
.
6

8
.
8

1
0
.
5

1
2
.
2

1
3
.
4

1
4
.
4

1
5
.
3

1
6
.
5
1
7
.
7

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
2

1
7
.
8

1
7
.
3

1
6
.
1

1
3
.
5

1
4
.8
10
.
0

1
3
.
0

1
3
.
5

1
5
.
0

1
6
.
5

1
7
.
8

1
9
.
5

2
0
.
8
21
.
8

2
1
.
9

2
3
.
4

2
3
.
9

2
3
.
9

2
2
.
3

2
0
.
0

1
6
.
7
1
5
.
2
12.
7

1
6
.
2

1
9
.
2

2
1
.
2

2
2
.
7

2
4
.
0

2
5
.
3

2
6
.
3

2
6
.
9

2
7
.
0

2
6
.
9

2
6
.
7

2
6
.
3

2
5
.
4

2
3
.
4

2
0
.
2
18
.
3
3.
2

2
3
.
3

2
8
.
0

3
0
.
1

3
1
.
5

3
2
.
5

3
4
.
3

3
4
.
6

3
6
.
2

3
5
.
8

3
6
.
4

3
5
.
9

3
6
.
0

3
5
.
3

3
3
.
8

3
0
.
4
29
.
1
1.
5

5
.
3

7
.
4

7
.
9

6
.
2

6
.
6

8
.
1

1
0
.
0

1
1
.
1

1
2
.
6

1
2
.
6

1
1
.
6

9
.
4

7
.
9

5
.
1

4
.
8

5
.
6
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
.
9

1
9
.
9

2
3
.
9

2
8
.
0

2
9
.
9

3
1
.
2

3
2
.
2

3
3
.
2
33
.
9

3
4
.
6

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
1

3
3
.
9

3
1
.
5

2
5
.
6
2
5
.
0
18
.
9

2
1
.
2

2
5
.
2

2
8
.
1

3
0
.
5

3
1
.
9

3
3
.
5

3
4
.
0
34
.
7

3
5
.
0

3
5
.
2

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
6

3
3
.
0

2
5
.
8
2
3
.
0
18
.
1

2
2
.
3

2
5
.
1

2
6
.
4

2
8
.
3

2
9
.
9

3
1
.
1

3
2
.
4
33
.
5

3
4
.
2

3
4
.
7

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
3

3
1
.
3

2
5
.
4
2
2
.
9
18
.
0

2
1
.
9

2
5
.
1

2
5
.
8

2
8
.
0

3
0
.
0

3
2
.
2

3
3
.
8
35
.
4

3
6
.
0

3
6
.
7

3
6
.
9

3
7
.
0

3
6
.
2

3
3
.
0

2
9
.
2
2
9
.
9
19
.
4

2
3
.
2

2
6
.
0

2
7
.
5

2
8
.
5

2
9
.
2

2
9
.
7

3
0
.
8
31
.
8

3
2
.
2

3
2
.
8

3
2
.
6

3
2
.
4

3
2
.
0

2
9
.
1

2
3
.
7
2
0
.
8
15
.
3

1
8
.
2

2
1
.
2

2
4
.
0

2
5
.
5

2
6
.
7

2
7
.
9

2
9
.
2
30
.
1

3
1
.
2

3
1
.
5

3
1
.
6

3
1
.
1

3
0
.
2

2
7
.
8

2
3
.
1
2
2
.
5
16
.
7

1
7
.
7

2
1
.
2

2
3
.
6

2
6
.
3

2
8
.
3

3
0
.
3

3
1
.
4
32
.
6

3
3
.
5

3
4
.
3

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
7

3
1
.
7

2
5
.
7
2
3
.
2
15
.
0

1
8
.
9

2
5
.
9

2
9
.
1

3
0
.
6

3
1
.
5

3
2
.
5

3
3
.
1
33
.
7

3
3
.
8

3
4
.
2

3
4
.
7

3
5
.
2

3
3
.
3

2
9
.
8

2
4
.
8
2
4
.
1
17
.
4

1
9
.
1

2
2
.
9

2
6
.
6

2
9
.
4

3
1
.
6

3
3
.
0

3
4
.
5
35
.
2

3
6
.
2

3
6
.
8

3
6
.
9

3
6
.
8

3
6
.
6

3
4
.
1

2
7
.
5
2
6
.
9
14
.
1

1
9
.
6

2
6
.
2

3
0
.
0

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
5

3
4
.
2

3
5
.
2
36
.
1

3
7
.
0

3
6
.
9

3
7
.
1

3
6
.
8

3
6
.
4

3
4
.
3

2
6
.
1
2
2
.
4
17
.
6

2
0
.
6

2
3
.
9

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
5

2
9
.
7

3
0
.
9

3
1
.
8
32
.
5

3
3
.
4

3
4
.
3

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
6

3
3
.
9

3
1
.
3

2
7
.
0
2
5
.
5
14
.
2

1
9
.
1

2
3
.
0

2
4
.
8

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
0

2
9
.
3

2
9
.
9
30
.
8

3
1
.
4

3
2
.
0

3
1
.
9

3
1
.
9

3
0
.
7

2
8
.
3

2
5
.
3
2
1
.
9
15
.
5

1
8
.
3

2
2
.
0

2
5
.
0

2
6
.
9

2
8
.
3

2
9
.
9

3
0
.
9
32
.
0

3
2
.
6

3
2
.
9

3
3
.
2

3
3
.
1

3
2
.
5

2
9
.
5

2
4
.
8
2
2
.
0
17
.
3

2
0
.
5

2
3
.
5

2
6
.
0

2
8
.
1

3
0
.
1

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
2
34
.
9

3
5
.
4

3
5
.
5

3
5
.
7

3
5
.
6

3
3
.
9

3
2
.
1

2
9
.
7
2
8
.
1
20
.
8

2
1
.
9

2
7
.
6

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
5

3
5
.
0

3
6
.
3

3
7
.
2
38
.
0

3
8
.
1

3
8
.
4

3
8
.
2

3
8
.
0

3
7
.
2

3
3
.
7

3
0
.
0
2
4
.
6
18
.
5

2
2
.
3

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
8

3
0
.
6

3
2
.
2

3
3
.
4

3
3
.
9
34
.
8

3
5
.
3

3
6
.
0

3
6
.
4

3
6
.
3

3
5
.
6

3
3
.
2

2
7
.
8
2
6
.
5
19
.
3

2
2
.
6

2
5
.
9

2
9
.
4

3
1
.
6

3
2
.
7

3
4
.
2

3
4
.
9
35
.
0

3
5
.
4

3
5
.
8

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
5

3
4
.
1

3
0
.
9

2
5
.
6
2
3
.
9
16
.
1

2
1
.
3

2
5
.
5

2
9
.
2

3
1
.
7

3
3
.
0

3
3
.
5

3
4
.
0
34
.
4

3
5
.
3

3
5
.
2

3
5
.
1

3
4
.
9

3
3
.
5

3
0
.
8

2
4
.
6
2
2
.
6
17
.
6

2
2
.
0

2
4
.
9

2
7
.
9

3
0
.
2

3
2
.
2

3
3
.
3

3
4
.
4
35
.
3

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
8

3
6
.
3

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
3

3
3
.
8

3
2
.
1
3
0
.
6
22
.
9

2
3
.
3

2
4
.
1

2
7
.
0

2
8
.
4

2
8
.
7

2
8
.
4

2
8
.
9
30
.
7

3
0
.
9

3
1
.
3

2
7
.
3

2
3
.
3

2
5
.
3

2
3
.
8

2
3
.
1
2
2
.
2
15
.
7

1
8
.
6

2
3
.
1

2
5
.
4

2
7
.
3

2
9
.
4

3
1
.
4

3
2
.
9
33
.
7

3
3
.
9

3
4
.
8

3
2
.
7

2
7
.
5

1
6
.
6

2
1
.
6

2
0
.
0
2
2
.
3
15
.
7

1
6
.
3

2
2
.
3

2
4
.
2

2
5
.
4

2
6
.
3

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
4
30
.
3

3
1
.
0

3
1
.
8

3
2
.
6

3
2
.
6

3
2
.
0

2
7
.
7

2
4
.
1
2
3
.
3
19
.
1

2
1
.
0

2
3
.
0

2
6
.
3

2
8
.
7

3
0
.
3

3
1
.
6

3
2
.
4
33
.
2

3
4
.
1

3
4
.
5

3
5
.
1

3
4
.
4

3
3
.
4

3
0
.
4

2
6
.
7
2
4
.
3
18
.
6

2
1
.
1

2
5
.
0

2
7
.
9

2
9
.
9

3
1
.
6

3
2
.
9

3
4
.
3
34
.
5

3
0
.
9

2
9
.
8

3
2
.
7

3
3
.
9

3
3
.
2

2
9
.
0

2
3
.
6
2
2
.
6
19
.
2

2
2
.
0

2
5
.
4

2
7
.
5

3
0
.
0

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
1

3
4
.
8
35
.
6

3
6
.
0

3
5
.
5

3
4
.
0

3
1
.
3

2
7
.
8

2
8
.
3

2
7
.
0
2
5
.
9
15
.
0

1
9
.
3

2
2
.
8

2
4
.
4

2
6
.
5

2
8
.
0

2
9
.
3

3
0
.
5
31
.
5

3
2
.
7

3
3
.
2

3
3
.
2

3
1
.
6

2
8
.
3

2
6
.
5

2
4
.
4
2
3
.
5
15
.
9

1
9
.
1

2
2
.
3

2
5
.
0

2
7
.
4

2
9
.
3

3
0
.
8

3
2
.
3
33
.
3

3
4
.
4

3
4
.
4

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
2

3
3
.
2

3
0
.
2

2
6
.
0
2
4
.
5
17
.
8

2
2
.
2

2
4
.
7

2
8
.
5

3
0
.
4

3
2
.
5

3
3
.
7

3
5
.
6
36
.
0

3
7
.
2

3
7
.
8

3
8
.
3

3
7
.
7

3
6
.
6

3
2
.
8

2
8
.
8
2
8
.
7
16
.
9

2
3
.
5

2
6
.
0

2
8
.
6

3
1
.
4

3
3
.
4

3
5
.
2

3
6
.
2
37
.
3

3
8
.
4

3
8
.
7

3
8
.
5

3
8
.
2

3
7
.
7

3
4
.
0

2
8
.
1
2
8
.
2
17.
0

2
0
.
2

2
3
.
9

2
6
.
6

2
8
.
6

3
0
.
2

3
1
.
5

3
2
.
7

3
3
.
6

3
4
.
2

3
4
.
5

3
4
.
5

3
3
.
9

3
2
.
7

3
0
.
3

2
6
.
0
24
.
5
2.
9

2
3
.
5

2
7
.
6

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
5

3
5
.
0

3
6
.
3

3
7
.
2

3
8
.
0

3
8
.
4

3
8
.
7

3
8
.
5

3
8
.
2

3
7
.
7

3
4
.
3

3
2
.
1
30
.
7.
1

1
1
.
1

1
6
.
3

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
8

2
4
.
0

2
6
.
3

2
8
.
0

2
9
.
7

3
0
.
6

2
9
.
8

2
7
.
3

2
3
.
3

1
6
.
6

2
1
.
6

2
0
.
0
20
.
15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
.
8

2
1
.
6

2
5
.
7

2
9
.
6

3
1
.
2

3
2
.
5

3
3
.
6

3
4
.
7
35
.
7

3
5
.
9

3
6
.
5

3
6
.
5

3
6
.
4

3
5
.
7

3
2
.
2

2
6
.
3
2
8
.
6
15
.
6

1
8
.
3

2
4
.
0

2
6
.
8

2
9
.
2

3
0
.
8

3
2
.
2

3
3
.
8
34
.
7

3
4
.
9

3
5
.
2

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
7

3
3
.
8

3
0
.
2

2
7
.
0
2
4
.
7
15
.
9

1
8
.
2

2
3
.
8

2
7
.
5

2
9
.
2

3
1
.
1

3
2
.
7

3
4
.
3
35
.
6

3
5
.
9

3
6
.
0

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
5

3
5
.
4

3
3
.
1

2
8
.
2
2
6
.
7
22
.
2

2
2
.
7

2
7
.
1

3
0
.
2

3
1
.
3

3
2
.
6

3
3
.
7

3
4
.
4
35
.
0

3
5
.
1

3
5
.
4

3
5
.
3

3
4
.
5

3
3
.
3

2
9
.
3

2
5
.
8
2
8
.
0
17
.
2

1
8
.
2

2
2
.
6

2
5
.
1

2
6
.
9

2
8
.
6

3
0
.
2

3
1
.
7
32
.
4

3
2
.
6

3
3
.
1

3
2
.
8

3
2
.
7

3
2
.
0

2
8
.
2

2
3
.
6
2
2
.
9
14
.
3

1
5
.
1

2
1
.
3

2
4
.
3

2
7
.
0

2
8
.
9

3
0
.
7

3
1
.
9
32
.
8

3
3
.
4

3
4
.
3

3
4
.
9

3
4
.
0

3
2
.
7

2
9
.
5

2
2
.
4
2
0
.
5
10
.
8

1
4
.
0

2
0
.
9

2
4
.
6

2
7
.
4

2
9
.
7

3
1
.
3

3
2
.
8
33
.
8

3
4
.
7

3
4
.
5

3
4
.
8

3
4
.
6

3
4
.
0

3
0
.
8

2
5
.
1
2
0
.
2
17
.
2

1
6
.
6

2
1
.
3

2
6
.
5

2
8
.
1

2
9
.
1

3
0
.
4

3
1
.
9
33
.
3

3
4
.
3

3
4
.
8

3
5
.
1

3
4
.
9

3
3
.
3

2
9
.
0

2
4
.
6
2
4
.
4
17
.
6

2
0
.
6

2
4
.
0

2
6
.
1

2
9
.
3

3
1
.
3

3
1
.
6

3
1
.
9
32
.
8

3
3
.
8

3
4
.
1

3
4
.
5

3
2
.
7

2
9
.
6

2
7
.
4

2
5
.
0
2
4
.
4
19
.
7

2
1
.
0

2
4
.
3

2
5
.
8

2
7
.
9

2
9
.
5

3
0
.
3

3
1
.
6
32
.
6

3
3
.
2

3
3
.
5

3
3
.
7

3
3
.
7

3
2
.
6

2
8
.
7

2
2
.
3
2
0
.
8
17
.
1

1
6
.
8

2
1
.
5

2
6
.
3

2
8
.
5

3
0
.
0

3
1
.
4

3
3
.
0
33
.
8

3
4
.
4

3
5
.
1

3
4
.
9

3
5
.
2

3
4
.
3

3
1
.
3

2
6
.
7
2
1
.
4
15
.
0

1
7
.
3

2
1
.
0

2
4
.
4

2
7
.
8

2
9
.
8

3
1
.
2

3
2
.
0
32
.
5

3
3
.
1

3
3
.
3

3
3
.
7

3
3
.
5

3
2
.
6

2
8
.
6

2
5
.
4
2
2
.
3
15
.
8

1
6
.
3

2
3
.
3

2
6
.
6

2
8
.
9

3
1
.
2

3
2
.
6

3
3
.
6
34
.
6

3
5
.
4

3
5
.
6

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
3

3
3
.
8

2
9
.
9

2
5
.
8
2
2
.
9
14
.
6

1
7
.
1

2
1
.
8

2
6
.
8

3
0
.
8

3
3
.
4

3
5
.
4

3
6
.
6
37
.
1

3
7
.
5

3
7
.
7

3
7
.
5

3
6
.
9

3
5
.
1

3
1
.
9

3
0
.
1
2
6
.
5
14
.
8

1
8
.
7

2
4
.
0

2
9
.
5

3
1
.
8

3
3
.
4

3
5
.
6

3
6
.
9
38
.
1

3
8
.
8

3
8
.
6

3
8
.
8

3
8
.
4

3
7
.
0

3
1
.
2

2
7
.
3
2
6
.
3
20
.
6

2
4
.
4

2
6
.
4

2
9
.
4

3
3
.
0

3
4
.
7

3
6
.
4

3
7
.
3
37
.
5

3
7
.
7

3
8
.
3

3
8
.
1

3
6
.
8

3
5
.
2

3
0
.
6

2
7
.
2
2
5
.
6
23
.
8

2
4
.
9

2
7
.
2

3
0
.
3

3
3
.
4

3
4
.
6

3
5
.
3

3
6
.
2
36
.
9

3
7
.
4

3
7
.
6

3
6
.
9

3
5
.
2

3
3
.
7

3
2
.
4

2
8
.
9
2
4
.
5
23
.
1

2
2
.
7

2
2
.
4

2
6
.
1

2
8
.
3

3
1
.
3

3
3
.
4

3
4
.
6
35
.
8

3
6
.
2

3
6
.
2

3
5
.
7

3
5
.
0

3
2
.
9

2
8
.
3

2
6
.
9
2
3
.
6
18
.
3

1
8
.
5

2
0
.
6

2
3
.
3

2
7
.
1

2
9
.
9

3
2
.
3

3
3
.
6
34
.
8

3
5
.
5

3
5
.
9

3
6
.
2

3
5
.
5

3
3
.
2

2
7
.
3

2
5
.
7
2
4
.
8
17
.
3

1
5
.
5

2
0
.
5

2
5
.
4

2
8
.
3

3
0
.
5

3
2
.
5

3
3
.
6
35
.
0

3
5
.
4

3
6
.
1

3
6
.
1

3
5
.
6

3
3
.
1

2
8
.
9

2
7
.
9
2
6
.
5
21
.
2

1
9
.
7

2
3
.
7

2
5
.
4

2
7
.
5

2
9
.
7

3
2
.
9

3
4
.
3
35
.
1

3
5
.
3

3
5
.
8

3
5
.
8

3
5
.
3

3
2
.
9

2
9
.
3

2
9
.
4
2
9
.
4
24
.
9

2
4
.
8

2
7
.
4

2
9
.
3

3
2
.
0

3
3
.
3

3
4
.
7

3
5
.
7
35
.
9

3
6
.
1

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
5

3
5
.
0

3
0
.
8

2
9
.
9

2
8
.
6
2
6
.
9
20
.
6

1
9
.
2

2
2
.
7

2
6
.
9

2
8
.
2

3
0
.
6

3
2
.
5

3
3
.
7
32
.
1

3
2
.
0

3
3
.
6

3
2
.
6

3
3
.
3

3
1
.
8

2
7
.
7

2
5
.
2
2
5
.
3
19
.
7

1
9
.
6

2
1
.
3

2
4
.
3

2
6
.
9

2
8
.
7

3
1
.
1

3
3
.
3
34
.
3

3
5
.
1

3
5
.
7

3
5
.
9

3
5
.
4

3
4
.
3

3
0
.
5

2
8
.
8
2
9
.
2
14
.
3

1
6
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
4
.
8

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
3

2
9
.
5

3
0
.
5
31
.
5

3
2
.
1

3
2
.
2

3
2
.
6

3
2
.
2

3
0
.
7

2
6
.
2

2
3
.
9
2
5
.
0
16
.
8

1
7
.
3

2
1
.
6

2
4
.
2

2
6
.
0

2
7
.
8

2
9
.
3

3
1
.
1
32
.
4

3
2
.
9

3
3
.
5

3
3
.
4

3
3
.
2

3
1
.
6

2
6
.
4

2
4
.
0
2
5
.
4
19
.
0

1
9
.
1

2
0
.
0

2
4
.
2

2
6
.
2

2
8
.
5

3
0
.
0

3
1
.
1
31
.
5

3
2
.
3

3
2
.
9

3
2
.
9

3
2
.
4

3
0
.
7

2
4
.
0

2
1
.
6
2
1
.
3
16
.
3

1
5
.
6

1
8
.
0

2
3
.
7

2
6
.
0

2
7
.
6

2
8
.
9

2
9
.
7
30
.
8

3
1
.
3

3
1
.
7

3
1
.
7

3
0
.
8

2
8
.
2

2
3
.
9

2
0
.
8
1
9
.
0
6.
4

1
0
.
9

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
1

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
6

2
2
.
4

2
4
.
1
24
.
3

2
4
.
4

2
4
.
8

2
3
.
2

2
0
.
7

1
8
.
0

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
0
14
.
8
17.
5

1
8
.
8

2
2
.
9

2
6
.
3

2
8
.
7

3
0
.
6

3
2
.
1

3
3
.
4

3
4
.
2

3
4
.
7

3
5
.
0

3
5
.
0

3
4
.
4

3
2
.
8

2
9
.
1

2
5
.
9
24
.
5
4.
9

2
4
.
9

2
7
.
4

3
0
.
3

3
3
.
4

3
5
.
3

3
6
.
4

3
7
.
6

3
8
.
5

3
9
.
3

3
9
.
5

3
9
.
5

3
8
.
9

3
8
.
5

3
4
.
2

3
1
.
1
29
.
6.
4

1
0
.
9

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
1

1
9
.
9

2
0
.
6

2
2
.
4

2
4
.
1

2
4
.
3

2
4
.
4

2
4
.
8

2
3
.
2

2
0
.
7

1
8
.
0

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
0
14
.
6.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9.
6

1
0
.
7

1
6
.
4

2
2
.
9

2
6
.
4

2
8
.
4

3
0
.
2

3
2
.
1
32
.
8

3
3
.
2

3
3
.
4

3
3
.
6

3
3
.
3

3
0
.
7

2
4
.
1

2
0
.
5
20
.
3
11
.
8

1
1
.
2

1
8
.
1

2
2
.
6

2
6
.
4

2
9
.
2

3
1
.
5

3
3
.
1
33
.
9

3
4
.
2

3
4
.
4

3
4
.
4

3
3
.
7

3
2
.
0

2
4
.
0

2
2
.
1
2
0
.
1
9.
6

9
.
9

1
8
.
6

2
3
.
2

2
7
.
7

3
0
.
6

3
2
.
7

3
3
.
8

3
5
.
1
3
6
.
7

3
7
.
0

3
7
.
4

3
7
.
2

3
4
.
1

2
9
.
1

2
3
.
8

2
1.
3
12
.
4

1
4
.
1

1
9
.
3

2
3
.
4

2
7
.
3

3
0
.
7

3
3
.
1

3
5
.
0
36
.
2

3
6
.
7

3
6
.
3

3
5
.
9

3
3
.
8

2
9
.
1

2
3
.
6

2
1
.
3
2
0
.
6
11
.
0

1
1
.
9

1
7
.
1

2
3
.
9

2
7
.
2

2
9
.
7

3
1
.
5

3
3
.
1
33
.
9

3
4
.
5

3
4
.
1

3
4
.
5

3
3
.
3

3
0
.
7

2
5
.
7

2
2
.
2
1
6
.
3
4.
4

5
.
0

6
.
5

7
.
6

9
.
9

9
.
6

1
0
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
7

1
3
.
7

1
4
.
1

1
3
.
3

1
2
.
3

1
0
.
4

8
.
7

8
.
1

7
.
6
4.
6

5
.
9

7
.
9

1
0
.
0

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
6

1
3
.
4

1
4
.
3

1
5
.
2
1
6
.
2

1
7
.
1

1
7
.
1

1
6
.
8

1
5
.
8

1
3
.
6

1
0
.
4

7
.
9
6.
8

7
.
7

9
.
9

1
4
.
3

1
6
.
4

1
7
.
6

1
8
.
7

1
9
.
9

2
1
.
2
2
1
.
7

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
5

1
9
.
3

1
5
.
7

1
6
.
2

1
3
.2
2.
7

2
.
4

8
.
3

1
3
.
4

1
8
.
0

2
2
.
3

2
4
.
1

2
5
.
6

2
6
.
5
2
7
.
2

2
7
.
5

2
7
.
9

2
7
.
6

2
5
.
0

1
7
.
7

1
8
.
0

1
4
.9
4.
5

5
.
2

9
.
4

1
6
.
9

1
9
.
7

2
2
.
9

2
5
.
5

2
7
.
0

2
8
.
1
2
9
.
1

2
9
.
6

2
9
.
3

2
8
.
5

2
3
.
2

1
5
.
5

1
7
.
3

1
7
.6
4.
9

5
.
5

1
0
.
3

1
6
.
6

2
1
.
5

2
4
.
4

2
7
.
0

2
8
.
5

2
9
.
2
3
0
.
1

3
0
.
9

3
0
.
7

3
0
.
0

2
5
.
5

2
1
.
3

2
0
.
5

1
8.
0
7.
2

6
.
0

1
1
.
4

1
7
.
4

2
2
.
7

2
8
.
6

3
0
.
6

3
1
.
8

3
2
.
7
3
2
.
8

3
2
.
9

3
2
.
8

3
1
.
9

2
8
.
0

2
5
.
9

2
5
.
6

2
1.
7
8.
7

7
.
3

1
2
.
0

1
9
.
7

2
4
.
6

2
7
.
5

2
9
.
6

3
0
.
4

3
1
.
0
3
1
.
9

3
2
.
0

3
1
.
8

3
1
.
2

2
6
.
9

2
4
.
4

2
3
.
8

2
0.
2
11
.
5

9
.
5

1
3
.
5

1
8
.
6

2
1
.
4

2
4
.
8

2
7
.
6

2
9
.
3

3
0
.
5
3
1
.
7

3
2
.
3

3
2
.
1

3
1
.
1

2
6
.
5

2
3
.
4

2
1
.
4
19
.
6
9.
9

8
.
4

1
3
.
2

1
6
.
2

2
2
.
2

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
9

2
9
.
9

3
1
.
3
3
2
.
1

3
2
.
4

3
2
.
4

3
1
.
7

2
6
.
9

2
6
.
2

2
4
.
2

2
4.
8
17
.
9

1
7
.
5

1
7
.
6

2
1
.
1

2
3
.
3

2
5
.
9

2
9
.
6

3
0
.
6
30
.
1

3
1
.
0

3
0
.
2

2
9
.
1

2
9
.
7

2
7
.
2

2
5
.
4

2
5
.
6
2
5
.
2
14
.
9

1
4
.
3

1
5
.
1

1
5
.
6

1
7
.
8

1
9
.
2

2
1
.
0

2
2
.
7
23
.
5

2
3
.
8

2
4
.
3

2
4
.
1

2
3
.
3

2
0
.
4

1
7
.
6

1
5
.
3
1
4
.
5
10
.
5

1
0
.
4

1
2
.
5

1
5
.
3

1
7
.
6

2
0
.
4

2
2
.
4

2
3
.
6
24
.
3

2
4
.
7

2
5
.
0

2
4
.
9

2
4
.
1

2
0
.
8

1
6
.
9

1
6
.
0
1
4
.
3
6.
7

6
.
3

1
0
.
2

1
5
.
5

1
8
.
8

2
1
.
8

2
4
.
3

2
7
.
1

2
8
.
5
2
9
.
5

2
9
.
7

2
9
.
4

2
8
.
5

2
4
.
4

2
0
.
8

2
1
.
3

2
2.
8
11
.
7

9
.
9

1
4
.
0

2
0
.
4

2
6
.
0

2
8
.
6

2
9
.
4

3
0
.
5

3
1
.
0
3
1
.
3

3
1
.
3

3
0
.
6

2
9
.
4

2
5
.
9

2
4
.
1

1
9
.
7
17
.
5
6.
4

6
.
8

1
1
.
2

1
6
.
6

2
0
.
9

2
4
.
3

2
6
.
8

2
8
.
5

2
9
.
3
3
0
.
0

3
0
.
2

3
0
.
0

2
8
.
7

2
2
.
9

1
9
.
4

2
1
.
8

1
6.
7
8.
2

7
.
9

1
4
.
2

1
9
.
0

2
3
.
4

2
7
.
6

2
9
.
9

3
1
.
0

3
1
.
7
3
1
.
9

3
1
.
8

3
1
.
3

2
9
.
7

2
4
.
5

1
8
.
1

1
6
.
7

1
8.
2
9.
6

7
.
5

1
2
.
1

1
6
.
4

1
9
.
2

2
2
.
3

2
4
.
7

2
6
.
9

2
7
.
7
2
8
.
3

2
8
.
8

2
8
.
7

2
8
.
0

2
2
.
3

1
6
.
1

1
6
.
7

1
6.
9
10
.
7

1
1
.
7

1
6
.
0

1
9
.
4

2
1
.
6

2
2
.
0

2
3
.
2

2
3
.
2
23
.
4

2
3
.
3

2
2
.
4

2
1
.
3

2
0
.
1

1
8
.
3

1
6
.
3

1
5
.
1
1
4
.
6
6.
4

5
.
6

9
.
3

1
3
.
2

1
5
.
3

1
6
.
6

1
7
.
2

1
7
.
3

1
8
.
0

1
8
.
5

1
8
.
9

1
8
.
7

1
7
.
8

1
4
.
0

9
.
2

8
.
9

9
.
4
9.
5

8
.
8

9
.
9

1
3
.
6

1
6
.
2

1
7
.
7

1
8
.
9

1
9
.
7

2
0
.
2

2
0
.
7

2
1
.
1

2
0
.
7

1
9
.
4

1
6
.
0

1
0
.
0

9
.
0

7
.
4
0.
3

-
0
.
6

5
.
3

1
0
.
9

1
4
.
6

1
7
.
3

1
9
.
5

2
0
.
9

2
2
.
0

2
3
.
0

2
3
.
4

2
3
.
7

2
2
.
8

1
7
.
4

1
1
.
0

9
.
8

8
.
8
1.
4

0
.
1

7
.
3

1
3
.
0

1
7
.
1

1
9
.
8

2
1
.
7

2
3
.
2

2
4
.
4
2
5
.
8

2
6
.
6

2
6
.
9

2
6
.
3

2
0
.
7

1
6
.
2

1
3
.
2

1
2
.1
8.
3

8
.
0

1
2
.
5

1
7
.
1

2
0
.
5

2
3
.
1

2
5
.
0

2
6
.
3

2
7
.
2

2
7
.
9

2
8
.
1

2
8
.
0

2
7
.
2

2
3
.
7

1
9
.
4

1
8
.
0

1
6.
5
7.
9

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
3

2
3
.
9

2
7
.
7

3
0
.
7

3
3
.
1

3
5
.
0

3
6
.
2

3
6
.
7

3
7
.
0

3
7
.
4

3
7
.
2

3
4
.
1

2
9
.
1

2
5
.
6
25
.
0.
3

-
0
.
6

5
.
3

7
.
6

9
.
9

9
.
6

1
0
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
7

1
3
.
7

1
4
.
1

1
3
.
3

1
2
.
3

1
0
.
4

8
.
7

8
.
1

7
.
4
1.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.
7

2
.
0

5
.
6

1
1
.
6

1
6
.
1

1
8
.
8

2
1
.
1

2
2
.
7

2
3
.
7
2
4
.
5

2
4
.
8

2
5
.
0

2
4
.
1

1
7
.
0

1
3
.
2

1
3
.
1

8
.
1
3.
2

3
.
1

4
.
4

1
1
.
2

1
6
.
8

2
0
.
6

2
3
.
2

2
5
.
2

2
6
.
7
2
7
.
3

2
7
.
2

2
7
.
1

2
5
.
9

1
6
.
7

1
5
.
0

1
1
.
2

7
.
5
2.
1

1
.
7

6
.
8

1
4
.
1

1
9
.
3

2
0
.
8

2
2
.
3

2
4
.
1

2
5
.
6
2
6
.
6

2
6
.
8

2
6
.
8

2
4
.
3

1
6
.
5

1
4
.
4

1
4
.
6

1
4
.7
8.
2

3
.
2

5
.
0

1
0
.
8

1
5
.
7

1
8
.
9

2
1
.
3

2
3
.
2

2
4
.
7
2
5
.
6

2
6
.
3

2
6
.
4

2
4
.
4

1
8
.
1

1
3
.
9

1
0
.
3

1
1
.9
2.
0

0
.
7

3
.
4

1
1
.
1

1
5
.
7

1
9
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
4
.
8

2
6
.
0
2
6
.
5

2
6
.
8

2
6
.
8

2
4
.
5

1
8
.
7

1
8
.
9

1
6
.
8

1
1
.1
2.
3

1
.
5

5
.
0

1
3
.
8

1
8
.
2

2
1
.
8

2
4
.
7

2
7
.
4

2
8
.
2
2
8
.
6

2
8
.
1

2
7
.
7

2
4
.
1

1
9
.
1

1
9
.
6

1
9
.
2

1
7
.3
7.
2

6
.
8

6
.
9

1
4
.
2

1
7
.
7

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

2
6
.
0

2
6
.
3

2
6
.
0

2
3
.
8

1
6
.
9

1
4
.
6

1
4
.
6

1
3
.
8
3.
5

3
.
4

6
.
4

1
4
.
5

2
0
.
1

2
4
.
2

2
5
.
8

2
7
.
1

2
7
.
9
2
7
.
9

2
7
.
3

2
5
.
6

2
2
.
7

2
0
.
9

2
0
.
6

1
8
.
4

1
7
.1
6.
7

7
.
5

8
.
3

9
.
0

1
0
.
4

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
3
.
5

1
4
.
0

1
4
.
2

1
4
.
5

1
4
.
5

1
3
.
4

8
.
3

8
.
2

7
.
4

5
.
5
-3
.
0

-
2
.
0

1
.
6

8
.
4

1
2
.
4

1
7
.
6

2
0
.
2

2
2
.
0

2
2
.
9

2
3
.
7

2
3
.
8

2
3
.
5

2
2
.
7

1
5
.
4

1
2
.
6

1
0
.
4

8
.6
3.
3

5
.
9

7
.
8

1
1
.
4

1
4
.
9

1
7
.
8

2
1
.
1

2
4
.
0

2
5
.
6
2
5
.
8

2
5
.
8

2
5
.
8

2
4
.
2

1
9
.
3

1
8
.
7

1
6
.
4

1
4
.0
9.
3

8
.
3

1
1
.
7

1
7
.
1

1
8
.
0

1
8
.
7

1
9
.
2

1
9
.
7

1
9
.
7

1
9
.
4

1
9
.
3

1
8
.
0

1
6
.
0

1
3
.
9

1
1
.
3

8
.
3

8
.
7
-0
.
2

-
0
.
5

2
.
0

6
.
3

1
0
.
0

1
1
.
4

1
2
.
2

1
3
.
1

1
3
.
7

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
6

1
4
.
7

1
2
.
9

7
.
5

4
.
9

3
.
3

2
.
5
-3
.
6

-
5
.
1

-
1
.
6

4
.
8

9
.
0

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
2

1
5
.
8

1
6
.
9

1
7
.
9

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
6

1
7
.
3

1
4
.
2

1
3
.
1

1
3
.
1

1
3.
0
8.
0

7
.
8

9
.
6

1
2
.
9

1
7
.
0

1
9
.
9

2
1
.
6

2
2
.
7

2
3
.
6
2
3
.
5

2
3
.
3

2
3
.
0

2
1
.
0

1
5
.
9

1
3
.
4

1
1
.
1

1
0
.1
8.
4

3
.
9

5
.
4

1
2
.
3

1
6
.
4

1
8
.
6

2
0
.
3

2
1
.
9

2
3
.
0
2
3
.
5

2
3
.
4

2
3
.
4

2
1
.
5

1
4
.
1

1
5
.
0

1
0
.
6

8
.
4
2.
2

1
.
9

6
.
0

1
1
.
7

1
5
.
2

1
9
.
0

2
0
.
3

2
1
.
4

2
2
.
0
2
1
.
7

2
1
.
2

2
1
.
4

1
8
.
5

1
2
.
1

1
0
.
4

1
0
.
2

6
.
0
3.
5

6
.
5

5
.
8

1
1
.
4

1
4
.
7

1
7
.
6

1
9
.
3

2
0
.
5

2
1
.
8

2
2
.
4

2
2
.
6

2
1
.
7

1
8
.
8

1
0
.
8

9
.
2

6
.
8

7
.
7
1.
2

-
0
.
1

3
.
1

1
0
.
4

1
4
.
8

1
7
.
1

1
8
.
6

1
9
.
8

2
1
.
2

2
2
.
8

2
3
.
1

2
2
.
5

2
0
.
2

1
1
.
7

9
.
1

6
.
7

7
.
0
2.
6

1
.
2

2
.
5

5
.
5

7
.
0

7
.
9

8
.
6

9
.
8

9
.
9

9
.
9

9
.
7

8
.
5

7
.
2

3
.
3

1
.
9

2
.
5

0
.
2
-5
.
7

-
6
.
8

-
5
.
8

-
1
.
5

2
.
4

5
.
2

6
.
7

7
.
6

8
.
2

9
.
1

1
0
.
1

1
0
.
0

8
.
8

2
.
7

-
2
.
2

-
3
.
6

-
5
.
5
-5
.
5

-
2
.
3

-
1
.
0

2
.
1

4
.
9

9
.
4

1
4
.
4

1
7
.
5

1
9
.
6

2
0
.
3

2
0
.
7

1
9
.
0

1
6
.
0

1
1
.
7

1
1
.
6

1
0
.
4

9
.
5
-1
.
2

-
1
.
4

-
2
.
3

-
2
.
7

-
2
.
4

-
0
.
6

0
.
5

1
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
2

-
0
.
3

-
1
.
2

-
1
.
9

-
1
.
9

-
2
.
4

-
2
.
5
-9
.
2

-
9
.
5

-
9
.
1

-
6
.
0

-
3
.
0

-
1
.
0

0
.
1

1
.
4

2
.
3

3
.
1

3
.
3

3
.
2

0
.
6

-
3
.
5

-
5
.
6

-
6
.
9

-
5
.
6
-9
.
5

-
8
.
9

-
7
.
1

-
1
.
0

2
.
8

5
.
1

6
.
0

7
.
0

7
.
8

8
.
4

9
.
2

9
.
5

7
.
4

3
.
3

2
.
2

-
1
.
1

-
1
.
8
-8
.
0

-
7
.
9

-
8
.
0

-
2
.
3

3
.
2

6
.
4

9
.
4

1
1
.
0

1
2
.
6

1
3
.
9

1
4
.
6

1
3
.
7

1
0
.
5

6
.
4

2
.
3

0
.
3

-
0
.
4
-5
.
3

-
5
.
8

-
5
.
3

1
.
6

6
.
6

1
0
.
0

1
2
.
3

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
4

1
6
.
3

1
6
.
6

1
5
.
8

1
2
.
3

5
.
7

5
.
4

3
.
6

1
.
6
-4
.
7

-
6
.
2

-
5
.
2

3
.
1

7
.
5

1
0
.
6

1
3
.
5

1
5
.
9

1
8
.
2

1
9
.
0

1
9
.
2

1
9
.
0

1
5
.
1

1
1
.
2

1
1
.
1

1
0
.
9

8
.0
-1
.
2

-
0
.
8

0
.
2

6
.
4

1
1
.
0

1
2
.
7

1
4
.
4

1
6
.
1

1
7
.
0

1
7
.
4

1
7
.
3

1
6
.
9

1
3
.
0

8
.
8

4
.
8

5
.
5

3
.
6
0.
9

0
.
4

2
.
5

8
.
0

1
1
.
9

1
4
.
4

1
6
.
4

1
8
.
0

1
9
.
1

1
9
.
8

1
9
.
9

1
9
.
6

1
7
.
4

1
2
.
0

1
0
.
1

8
.
6

7
.
2
9.
3

8
.
3

1
1
.
7

1
7
.
1

2
0
.
1

2
4
.
2

2
5
.
8

2
7
.
4

2
8
.
2

2
8
.
6

2
8
.
1

2
7
.
7

2
5
.
9

2
0
.
9

2
0
.
6

1
9
.
2

1
7.
3
9.
5

-
9
.
5

-
9
.
1

-
6
.
0

-
3
.
0

-
1
.
0

0
.
1

1
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
2

-
0
.
3

-
1
.
2

-
3
.
5

-
5
.
6

-
6
.
9

-
5
.
6
3.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.
3

2
.
6

3
.
2

6
.
2

9
.
2

1
2
.
6

1
5
.
0

1
7
.
6

1
9
.
3

2
0
.
3

2
1
.
3

1
9
.
5

1
5
.
3

1
1
.
2

1
1
.
0

7
.
8

6
.
3
-0
.
4

-
1
.
0

-
1
.
1

6
.
5

1
1
.
0

1
4
.
5

1
8
.
2

2
0
.
6

2
1
.
1

2
1
.
7

2
2
.
3

2
1
.
9

1
6
.
8

8
.
7

9
.
2

5
.
8

4
.
9
0.
9

-
1
.
6

-
0
.
3

5
.
1

1
0
.
7

1
4
.
8

1
7
.
2

1
8
.
8

2
0
.
5

2
1
.
4

1
9
.
5

1
8
.
6

1
3
.
3

9
.
2

8
.
8

5
.
4

4
.
6
4.
5

5
.
1

6
.
0

8
.
0

1
5
.
5

2
1
.
1

2
1
.
9

2
2
.
1

2
2
.
7

2
3
.
1

2
3
.
2

2
1
.
6

2
1
.
6

2
1
.
3

2
0
.
8

2
0
.
2

1
8
.
8
15
.
9

1
5
.
4

1
5
.
9

1
7
.
5

1
8
.
8

1
9
.
1

1
9
.
4

1
8
.
4

1
5
.
7

1
3
.
9

1
1
.
6

1
0
.
0

1
0
.
1

8
.
3

7
.
6

7
.
1

6
.
3
4.
3

3
.
6

3
.
2

2
.
7

2
.
6

3
.
4

4
.
1

4
.
5

4
.
5

3
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
3

1
.
8

1
.
9

2
.
1

1
.
6

1
.
3
-2
.
9

-
3
.
3

-
3
.
1

-
1
.
9

0
.
2

1
.
0

1
.
9

2
.
6

2
.
4

2
.
7

2
.
3

1
.
7

-
0
.
5

-
2
.
4

-
3
.
7

-
2
.
8

-
2
.
1
-2
.
5

-
3
.
2

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
3

0
.
3

1
.
2

2
.
5

3
.
3

4
.
4

5
.
2

5
.
2

4
.
5

3
.
3

3
.
1

1
.
9

1
.
5

1
.
5
-2
.
5

-
1
.
6

-
1
.
4

-
0
.
3

1
.
3

4
.
4

5
.
7

6
.
4

5
.
7

4
.
5

4
.
5

3
.
3

2
.
3

2
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
6
-8
.
8

-
1
0
.
8

-
1
0
.
9

-
6
.
7

-
0
.
9

2
.
2

3
.
3

4
.
3

5
.
2

5
.
7

5
.
9

5
.
5

3
.
0

-
3
.
8

-
7
.
0

-
6
.
3

-
6
.
2
10
.
8

-
6
.
6

-
8
.
5

-
3
.
3

0
.
9

4
.
7

8
.
7

1
0
.
2

9
.
9

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
3

1
1
.
0

1
1
.
2

1
0
.
1

6
.
8

5
.
9

5
.
1
0.
1

-
2
.
5

-
4
.
1

-
0
.
4

3
.
0

4
.
7

5
.
7

5
.
9

5
.
6

5
.
9

5
.
7

5
.
1

0
.
6

-
3
.
0

-
0
.
2

-
0
.
1

1
.
0
5.
5

6
.
1

6
.
6

6
.
8

8
.
2

1
0
.
2

1
1
.
5

1
2
.
6

1
4
.
1

1
4
.
5

1
5
.
0

1
4
.
6

1
2
.
0

8
.
2

7
.
4

7
.
2

6
.
2
-3
.
6

-
3
.
8

-
3
.
6

-
0
.
3

4
.
4

7
.
2

9
.
7

1
1
.
4

1
2
.
9

1
3
.
8

1
3
.
8

1
1
.
5

6
.
7

3
.
3

4
.
5

2
.
2

1
.
0
-8
.
1

-
6
.
9

-
6
.
8

-
2
.
4

3
.
8

8
.
2

9
.
4

1
0
.
7

1
4
.
1

1
8
.
3

2
0
.
8

2
0
.
1

1
8
.
4

1
1
.
8

1
6
.
8

1
7
.
4

1
6
.2
15
.
6

1
6
.
5

1
6
.
6

1
6
.
3

1
6
.
4

1
5
.
3

1
4
.
6

1
4
.
5
14
.
6

1
5
.
0

1
4
.
1

1
2
.
8

1
1
.
6

1
0
.
5

9
.
0

9
.
0

7
.2
-0
.
1

-
0
.
6

-
0
.
7

3
.
0

8
.
2

9
.
8

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
5

1
0
.
9

1
1
.
4

1
1
.
1

9
.
5

4
.
3

2
.
1

0
.
8

-
1
.
2

0
.
9
-1
.
2

-
2
.
3

-
2
.
8

0
.
2

2
.
4

4
.
1

6
.
5

7
.
8

8
.
5

8
.
7

8
.
2

6
.
7

2
.
6

-
0
.
7

-
1
.
3

-
3
.
8

-
3
.
9
10
.
0

-
1
1
.
8

-
1
1
.
4

-
6
.
9

-
2
.
1

0
.
9

3
.
0

4
.
7

6
.
0

7
.
2

7
.
4

6
.
2

1
.
6

-
2
.
4

-
4
.
3

-
5
.
0

-
5
.
5
13
.
8

-
1
4
.
0

-
1
5
.
0

-
9
.
7

-
4
.
3

-
2
.
3

-
0
.
3

1
.
8

3
.
1

4
.
5

5
.
0

4
.
4

1
.
7

-
4
.
4

-
7
.
6

-
8
.
7

-
9
.
2
-8
.
3

-
7
.
3

-
6
.
6

-
5
.
1

-
3
.
3

-
1
.
1

0
.
8

3
.
3

4
.
3

6
.
0

6
.
0

4
.
4

3
.
3

1
.
2

-
1
.
3

-
2
.
8

-
3
.
7
-8
.
2

-
9
.
5

-
1
0
.
9

-
6
.
4

-
2
.
0

2
.
3

4
.
0

4
.
9

5
.
9

6
.
2

5
.
9

5
.
4

1
.
4

-
3
.
3

-
4
.
5

-
6
.
9

-
7
.
8
-7
.
6

-
8
.
5

-
1
0
.
2

-
6
.
6

-
1
.
1

2
.
3

5
.
1

5
.
2

8
.
5

9
.
2

9
.
5

8
.
5

3
.
8

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
3

0
.
4
-5
.
3

-
5
.
8

-
9
.
8

-
6
.
9

-
2
.
0

1
.
0

2
.
2

2
.
4

2
.
7

2
.
9

3
.
4

2
.
3

-
2
.
0

-
5
.
5

-
6
.
3

-
6
.
2

-
7
.
6
11
.
2

-
1
0
.
7

-
1
1
.
7

-
9
.
1

-
4
.
8

-
0
.
5

1
.
1

2
.
2

3
.
2

3
.
7

3
.
6

2
.
6

-
1
.
2

-
5
.
7

-
6
.
5

-
7
.
2

-
9
.
9
13
.
4

-
1
3
.
2

-
1
4
.
6

-
8
.
4

-
2
.
7

-
0
.
7

1
.
0

2
.
7

4
.
5

5
.
4

5
.
4

3
.
3

-
0
.
7

-
5
.
5

-
5
.
4

-
5
.
5

-
6
.
2
13
.
4

-
1
2
.
5

-
1
4
.
0

-
9
.
3

-
5
.
2

-
2
.
0

0
.
3

1
.
9

3
.
1

4
.
2

4
.
9

3
.
1

-
0
.
7

-
6
.
9

-
8
.
8

-
9
.
6

-
1
0
.
14
.
8

-
1
4
.
4

-
1
6
.
2

-
1
0
.
8

-
4
.
3

-
1
.
0

1
.
2

4
.
1

6
.
3

7
.
4

7
.
2

3
.
8

-
1
.
5

-
5
.
5

-
7
.
2

-
8
.
3

-
7
.1
-3.
5

-
3
.
8

-
4
.
1

-
0
.
6

3
.
2

5
.
9

7
.
6

8
.
8

9
.
7

1
0
.
3

1
0
.
3

9
.
2

6
.
1

2
.
6

1
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
3
5.
9

1
6
.
5

1
6
.
6

1
7
.
5

1
8
.
8

2
1
.
1

2
1
.
9

2
2
.
1

2
2
.
7

2
3
.
1

2
3
.
2

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
6

2
1
.
3

2
0
.
8

2
0
.
2
18
.
14
.
8

-
1
4
.
4

-
1
6
.
2

-
1
0
.
8

-
5
.
2

-
2
.
3

-
0
.
3

1
.
8

2
.
4

2
.
7

1
.
2

1
.
3

-
2
.
0

-
6
.
9

-
8
.
8

-
9
.
6

-
10
.
8.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
.
4

-
1
8
.
0

-
1
7
.
4

-
1
3
.
1

-
6
.
4

-
3
.
5

-
1
.
1

0
.
4

1
.
8

2
.
7

2
.
1

0
.
2

-
3
.
6

-
9
.
4

-
1
0
.
4

-
1
2
.
7
-
1
3
.
18
.
2

-
1
9
.
2

-
1
9
.
0

-
1
4
.
6

-
9
.
0

-
5
.
4

-
2
.
5

-
0
.
7

0
.
7

1
.
6

1
.
5

-
0
.
5

-
4
.
0

-
9
.
4

-
1
1
.
1

-
1
3.
4

-
1
4
.
16
.
7

-
1
6
.
6

-
1
6
.
4

-
1
3
.
1

-
6
.
0

-
2
.
9

-
0
.
4

0
.
6

1
.
7

2
.
7

3
.
0

2
.
1

-
3
.
3

-
7
.
1

-
9
.
0

-
1
0
.
5
-9
.
2
14
.
2

-
1
2
.
5

-
1
6
.
2

-
1
1
.
9

-
4
.
6

-
1
.
7

0
.
3

2
.
2

3
.
3

3
.
3

3
.
0

1
.
0

-
3
.
2

-
6
.
2

-
6
.
4

-
8
.
5

-
1
0.
15
.
4

-
1
5
.
2

-
1
6
.
4

-
1
3
.
6

-
7
.
0

-
2
.
3

1
.
0

2
.
8

4
.
1

4
.
1

3
.
5

2
.
2

-
2
.
4

-
8
.
8

-
9
.
1

-
9
.
0

-
9
.9
16
.
3

-
1
7
.
1

-
1
7
.
6

-
1
4
.
8

-
6
.
4

-
2
.
5

-
0
.
3

1
.
9

3
.
2

3
.
8

3
.
3

1
.
5

-
4
.
0

-
8
.
8

-
9
.
7

-
1
1
.
8
-1
1
.
17
.
3

-
1
6
.
9

-
1
4
.
7

-
1
2
.
6

-
8
.
0

-
5
.
7

-
2
.
2

-
0
.
5

1
.
3

2
.
9

3
.
0

0
.
2

-
3
.
7

-
7
.
9

-
8
.
0

-
7
.
1
-6
.
4
-9
.
7

-
9
.
7

-
9
.
9

-
8
.
4

-
5
.
6

-
4
.
0

-
2
.
0

0
.
5

2
.
3

3
.
2

3
.
2

2
.
4

-
1
.
4

-
6
.
4

-
9
.
4

-
1
1
.
2

-
1
2
.
10
.
8

-
1
1
.
9

-
1
0
.
0

-
7
.
4

-
4
.
4

-
2
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
9

2
.
5

3
.
1

3
.
2

2
.
0

-
5
.
6

-
6
.
2

-
1
0
.
3

-
1
2
.
3

-
11
.
-4
.
6

-
5
.
1

-
6
.
8

-
7
.
0

-
5
.
4

-
4
.
4

-
3
.
4

-
2
.
9

-
1
.
8

-
0
.
6

-
0
.
1

-
2
.
6

-
6
.
8

-
9
.
2

-
1
1
.
5

-
1
3.
9

-
1
5
.
1
18
.
3

-
1
7
.
6

-
1
7
.
7

-
1
5
.
2

-
1
1
.
8

-
8
.
3

-
5
.
4

-
3
.
2

-
2
.
0

-
1
.
7

-
1
.
9

-
2
.
4

-
2
.
8

-
2
.
7

-
2
.
9
-
3
.
1

-
3
.
5
-4
.
6

-
4
.
8

-
4
.
9

-
4
.
7

-
3
.
9

-
3
.
8

-
3
.
5

-
3
.
0

-
2
.
5

-
2
.
3

-
1
.
9

-
2
.
5

-
3
.
6

-
3
.
9

-
3
.
3

-
6
.
2
-
5
.
5
-5
.
4

-
5
.
8

-
5
.
4

-
4
.
5

-
3
.
0

-
2
.
2

-
1
.
4

-
0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
5

-
1
.
0

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
8

-
1
.
3

-
1
.
1

-
1
.1
-2
.
5

-
3
.
0

-
3
.
0

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
6

0
.
1

1
.
9

3
.
3

4
.
5

5
.
2

5
.
4

4
.
4

1
.
4

-
2
.
3

-
3
.
3

-
2
.
8

-
2
.
6
-0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

-
0
.
6

-
1
.
0

-
0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
6

1
.
4

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

-
0
.
4

-
0
.
4

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
4
-4
.
6

-
5
.
2

-
5
.
7

-
5
.
6

-
3
.
5

-
1
.
2

0
.
4

2
.
0

2
.
3

2
.
9

3
.
0

2
.
2

-
0
.
1

-
2
.
3

-
3
.
1

-
3
.
4

-
3
.
2
-7
.
6

-
9
.
3

-
9
.
2

-
7
.
2

-
3
.
5

-
0
.
9

1
.
9

4
.
0

4
.
4

4
.
9

5
.
1

3
.
0

-
0
.
5

-
3
.
0

-
3
.
1

-
4
.
1

-
5
.
3
-5
.
1

-
5
.
1

-
4
.
1

-
3
.
9

-
0
.
6

2
.
2

4
.
5

6
.
4

7
.
8

9
.
6

9
.
5

8
.
0

6
.
1

4
.
5

1
.
6

1
.
9

1
.
3
-3
.
9

-
4
.
0

-
4
.
6

-
3
.
8

0
.
5

3
.
9

6
.
1

8
.
3

9
.
8

1
0
.
1

1
0
.
7

9
.
0

4
.
2

2
.
5

2
.
4

1
.
5

-
1
.
2
-4
.
0

-
3
.
5

-
3
.
5

-
3
.
7

-
1
.
8

1
.
7

2
.
4

2
.
5

3
.
3

2
.
7

2
.
2

0
.
7

-
0
.
1

-
0
.
4

-
1
.
2

-
2
.
3

-
2
.
7
-5
.
7

-
8
.
6

-
1
2
.
1

-
9
.
8

-
5
.
1

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
5

-
0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
1

-
3
.
3

-
8
.
2

-
9
.
1

-
9
.
2

-
1
0.
15
.
5

-
1
4
.
3

-
1
3
.
6

-
1
2
.
2

-
8
.
8

-
5
.
3

-
2
.
8

-
1
.
6

-
0
.
4

0
.
8

1
.
6

-
0
.
1

-
3
.
9

-
6
.
0

-
7
.
1

-
8
.0

-
7
.
7
14
.
3

-
1
4
.
5

-
1
5
.
1

-
1
2
.
7

-
9
.
4

-
6
.
4

-
4
.
0

-
1
.
9

-
0
.
3

1
.
0

1
.
3

-
1
.
3

-
2
.
9

-
3
.
8

-
4
.
9

-
5
.2

-
6
.
3
-7
.
7

-
7
.
3

-
7
.
8

-
8
.
8

-
7
.
6

-
4
.
5

-
1
.
4

-
0
.
1

1
.
8

3
.
9

3
.
6

2
.
1

0
.
0

-
2
.
9

-
6
.
3

-
6
.
6

-
7
.
1
-9
.
8

-
9
.
6

-
1
1
.
0

-
1
0
.
6

-
4
.
9

-
0
.
1

1
.
9

2
.
9

3
.
5

3
.
6

2
.
9

1
.
3

-
2
.
3

-
4
.
1

-
4
.
7

-
4
.
8

-
6
.
4
-6
.
0

-
5
.
4

-
6
.
1

-
5
.
7

-
5
.
2

-
4
.
5

-
3
.
7

-
2
.
9

-
2
.
9

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
9

-
1
.
9

-
2
.
3

-
2
.
9

-
3
.
1

-
3
.
6
-
4
.
4
-9
.
4

-
1
0
.
1

-
1
0
.
5

-
9
.
9

-
9
.
0

-
5
.
7

-
2
.
9

-
1
.
8

-
2
.
1

-
1
.
4

-
0
.
6

-
0
.
8

-
3
.
9

-
5
.
8

-
9
.
4

-
11
.
3

-
1
2
.
17
.
1

-
1
6
.
7

-
1
7
.
2

-
1
6
.
4

-
1
1
.
2

-
7
.
5

-
4
.
7

-
2
.
8

-
1
.
6

-
1
.
2

-
1
.
0

-
2
.
1

-
2
.
4

-
2
.
9

-
3
.
5
-
4
.
5

-
6
.
4
-3
.
2

-
3
.
5

-
3
.
9

-
4
.
4

-
3
.
7

-
2
.
9

-
2
.
0

-
1
.
6

-
1
.
0

-
0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
2

-
1
.
2

-
3
.
6

-
4
.
5

-
5
.
2

-
4.
6
-9.
6

-
1
0
.
0

-
1
0
.
4

-
8
.
8

-
5
.
3

-
2
.
6

-
0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
7

2
.
4

2
.
4

1
.
1

-
2
.
0

-
4
.
5

-
5
.
6

-
6
.
6

-
7
.
2
0.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

-
0
.
6

0
.
5

3
.
9

6
.
1

8
.
3

9
.
8

1
0
.
1

1
0
.
7

9
.
0

6
.
1

4
.
5

2
.
4

1
.
9

1
.
3
18
.
3

-
1
9
.
2

-
1
9
.
0

-
1
6
.
4

-
1
1
.
8

-
8
.
3

-
5
.
4

-
3
.
2

-
2
.
9

-
2
.
5

-
1
.
9

-
2
.
6

-
6
.
8

-
9
.
4

-
1
1
.5

-
1
3
.
9

-
1
5
.

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV'



$33(1',;'+285/<3$1(9$325$7,21'$7$




--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

0.
0
%
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
69
6

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

0.
0
%
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

0.
0
%
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
7

1
.
0

1
.
3

2
.
0

2
.
7

3
.
1

3
.
5

3
.
5

3
.
4

3
.
1

2
.
7

2
.
1

2
.
3

1
.
9
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
5
15
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

1
5
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
7
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

1
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

1
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
5
0.
0

1
.
2

3
.
1

4
.
5

6
.
9

9
.
8

1
2
.
1
7

1
5
.
2
6

1
8
.
0
9

1
9
.
7
1

2
0
.
9
4

2
0
.
6
9

1
8
.
2
0

1
6
.
9
0

1
2
.
7
2
10
.
5
3

8
.
9
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
3

1
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
7
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
2

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
9
0.
0

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
4

1
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
6

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
7
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
6

1
.
2

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
1

1
.
7

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
4

1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4
0.
0

1
.
5

3
.
2

5
.
0

8
.
5

1
2
.
3
4

1
5
.
3
9

1
9
.
0
1

2
2
.
0
1

2
3
.
4
1

2
3
.
4
1

2
1
.
3
6

1
9
.
7
8

1
7
.
8
3

1
6
.
34

1
2
.
5
4

8
.
5
0.
0

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
2

1
.
4

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
9
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
6

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
7

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
7
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
0

1
.
4

1
.
2

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
7
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
4

1
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
7
0.
0

1
.
6

2
.
2

5
.
3

9
.
4

1
2
.
4
8

1
5
.
8
1

1
9
.
8
2

2
4
.
4
0

2
6
.
8
8

2
8
.
2
5

2
9
.
0
1

2
6
.
0
4

2
5
.
5
9

1
9
.
98

1
7
.
6
7

1
5
.
7
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
1

1
.
1

1
.
5

1
.
2

1
.
6

1
.
5

1
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
8
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
8
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
1

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
2

1
.
3

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
.
3

1
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
5

1
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
9

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
3

1
.
1

1
.
3

1
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
7

1
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
7

1
.
1

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
7

1
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
8
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

1
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

2
.
1

3
.
5

5
.
1

8
.
3

1
0
.
5
5

1
2
.
7
8

1
6
.
5
9

2
2
.
2
9

2
5
.
9
0

2
7
.
5
6

2
9
.
4
9

2
9
.
4
4

2
6
.
2
8

1
6
.
35

1
4
.
7
8

1
3
.
7
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
8
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
7

1
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
9

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
9

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

1
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
1
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
3

1
.
3

1
.
7

3
.
5

4
.
7

6
.
6

1
0
.
6
7

1
2
.
3
7

1
6
.
0
7

1
7
.
4
9

1
7
.
2
1

1
5
.
4
0

1
1
.
9
2

1
0
.
1
6

9
.
7
8
.
2
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
9

1
.
3

1
.
5

1
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
5
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
2
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
8

1
.
2

1
.
5

1
.
9

2
.
4

2
.
8

3
.
4

2
.
1

1
.
6

2
.
1

2
.
1

2
.
0

1
.
6
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
3
20
2

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
0
2

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

0.
0
%
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

0.
0
%

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV(



$33(1',;(+285/<35(&,3,7$7,21'$7$


0.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.
0
4
0.
0
8

0
.
0
3
0.
0
9

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
6

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2
0.
0
1
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2
0.
0
1
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
1
0.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1
0.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
69
6

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

6
9
6

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2
0.
0
1

0
.
0
3
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
5
0.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1
0.0
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
1
0.
0
.0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1
0.
0
5
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
8

0
.
0
6
0.
0
4
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
.0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
2

0
.
0
2
0.
0
5

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
4
0.
0
1
0.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
3
0.
0
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
3
0.
0
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
3
0.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
5
0.
0
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1
0.
1
3

0
.
0
1
0.
0
1

0
.
0
2
0.
0
1

0
.
0
4
0.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
1
4

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
2
0.
0
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
1
0.
0
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.
0
2

0
.
5
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2
0.
0
2

0
.
0
1
0.0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
5
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2
0.
0
0
.0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
2

0
.
5
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2
0.
0
0
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
1
0.0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
3
0.0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
3

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
72
0

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
2
0

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%
0.
0
2

0
.
0
2
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.
0
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.
0
1

0
.
0
1
0.0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
7

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
.0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0

0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
74
4

A
C
T
U
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

7
4
4

D
A
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

R
A
T
E

=

10
0
.
0
%

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV)



$33(1',;)+285/<62/$55$',$7,21'$7$
1
3
2

1
3
8

2
2
9

2
6
7

3
9
7

3
4
6

2
6
9

1
9
0

3
8

5
2
6
2

1
2
5

1
9
7

3
3
0

4
7
2

3
9
3

2
3
9

1
3
1

4
1

3
29

7
4

2
5
9

4
2
7

2
5
5

2
6
0

2
1
0

2
1
1

5
7

5
1
2
8

7
9

3
0
2

4
6
1

3
0
9

2
2
6

3
5
1

1
7
9

8
6

4
1
6
4

2
1
4

3
4
0

4
2
5

4
4
4

4
2
7

3
5
3

2
1
6

3
8

5
1
6
3

2
1
5

3
4
0

4
2
4

4
5
6

4
3
4

3
5
9

2
2
8

6
3

5
13

2
1

1
4
4

2
8
9

2
9
8

3
9
7

2
9
6

2
3
3

5
2

2
1
3
9

1
2
5

2
0
7

2
6
3

4
5
1

4
3
4

4
0
0

2
8
7

5
1

6
1
6
7

2
2
3

3
5
3

4
3
9

4
7
5

4
5
6

3
7
1

1
4
6

8
5

5
1
2
8

7
4

9
7

1
8
8

1
7
0

1
3
9

1
5
9

4
2

1
9

3
21

6
8

2
0
3

4
0
9

4
7
2

4
4
6

3
7
3

2
5
3

5
8

6
1
3
1

6
8

1
3
9

1
8
5

4
4
3

4
5
0

3
9
0

2
5
9

1
1
3

7
2
5
8

1
9
1

2
9
6

1
6
7

1
4
1

1
7
0

1
8
9

1
2
7

9
3

8
1
7
0

2
2
9

3
6
4

4
5
7

4
8
2

4
4
8

3
6
7

1
9
9

7
5

7
1
3
2

1
0
0

1
3
8

1
7
8

2
0
1

1
7
4

1
7
6

2
1
8

1
3
6

9
2
3
6

8
2

1
7
4

4
2
2

5
4
2

4
0
4

1
5
5

2
0
2

1
1
9

1
1
1
4
0

1
3
9

2
8
7

4
3
0

4
6
7

4
1
7

3
4
8

2
3
4

1
2
1

9
1
7
2

2
2
6

3
6
0

4
4
9

4
6
5

4
7
4

4
0
3

2
7
3

1
0
8

8
40

8
8

1
1
5

1
4
9

2
1
2

2
0
4

1
9
0

7
5

5
6

9
1
1
6

1
0
7

2
0
6

4
1
0

4
5
4

3
2
1

3
8
3

2
6
8

1
1
0

9
2
2
2

1
0
3

2
0
0

3
4
6

3
0
8

2
4
5

1
4
7

1
4
4

4
9

6
1
3
7

1
4
3

3
7
9

4
7
6

5
5
7

4
7
1

4
5
4

2
1
4

9
4

1
6
1
1
4

2
6

6
6

1
7
9

2
9
0

4
4
5

3
6
3

1
5
3

6
2

9
3
7
5

1
0
5

1
1
5

2
3
1

3
1
7

2
9
7

1
1
6

1
0
5

7
0

1
2
2
5
6

1
2
2

2
3
7

3
1
7

2
6
9

2
9
4

2
0
5

1
2
3

6
6

4
3
9
4

2
6
8

4
1
2

3
7
8

5
5
1

4
3
2

2
6
8

1
9
1

1
7
0

2
0
2
1
0
6

1
9
9

2
2
5

1
8
2

3
0
9

1
5
6

2
2
2

1
1
0

7
2

9
1
1
8

1
1
1

1
9
8

2
9
4

3
0
2

3
1
1

4
3
1

3
2
2

1
3
4

2
4

1
2
2
9

5
9

1
6
4

3
1
1

3
1
8

4
4
0

3
2
3

2
3
3

1
7
1

3
5
3
5
1

1
7
9

2
5
1

3
0
1

2
9
3

3
2
1

2
4
5

2
0
0

9
7

2
2
0
0

1

4
4

1
2
9

2
2
8

3
2
0

3
6
6

3
4
8

2
8
8

1
8
8

8
1

9

0

0

0

0
0
0

3

1
0
6

2
6
8

4
1
2

4
7
6

5
5
7

4
7
4

4
5
4

3
2
2

1
7
1

3
5

1

0

0

0
0
0

0

1
3

2
1

6
1

1
2
7

1
4
1

1
3
9

1
1
6

4
2

3

1

0

0

0

0
2
2
6

1
1
0

2
6
8

2
3
9

3
4
0

3
9
8

2
2
1

1
5
0

7
3

1
2
2
3
9

1
5
7

2
5
5

3
0
1

3
5
5

4
1
5

3
7
8

1
8
5

1
0
1

1
9
5
1
3
0

3
0
4

4
5
0

5
4
9

5
9
1

5
7
3

4
9
5

3
6
6

2
0
4

3
6
3
6
5

1
5
2

2
5
1

3
5
5

4
3
3

4
5
5

3
5
6

2
5
3

1
1
7

3
0
4
4
1

1
1
0

1
6
3

1
8
5

2
0
6

2
3
2

2
3
6

1
2
6

5
6

9
5
7
3

1
2
4

2
6
3

2
8
6

3
4
4

4
1
8

4
2
4

4
2
0

2
0
7

5
1

1
8
1
4
2

3
1
3

4
5
8

5
5
5

5
9
0

5
6
9

4
9
5

4
3
2

2
2
1

4
6

1
8
1
4
4

3
1
6

4
6
2

5
6
1

6
0
1

5
8
3

5
0
8

3
8
1

2
2
1

5
1

2
10

1
3
9

3
1
4

4
5
9

4
5
1

3
4
1

2
8
5

2
1
3

3
0
2

1
7
2

4
0

2
11

1
5
7

3
2
9

4
7
5

5
6
1

6
0
3

5
5
3

4
5
6

3
8
4

2
2
4

5
6

2
3
4
2

1
9
4

4
4
1

5
7
8

5
3
1

5
0
7

5
0
2

2
4
7

3
1
7

6
6

2
9
1
5
7

3
2
8

4
7
7

5
7
4

6
1
4

5
9
9

5
2
4

3
9
9

2
3
7

6
3

1
15

1
7
0

3
4
0

4
8
5

5
9
0

6
3
4

5
4
0

2
9
5

1
4
7

1
5
0

6
8

1
4
5
3

1
6
0

2
8
4

3
8
5

3
9
4

3
1
6

3
6
5

2
0
6

9
2

3
2

1
5
2
5

9
1

2
0
8

1
7
9

3
7
5

3
3
4

2
9
8

2
9
4

9
8

2
2

1
19

1
8
1

3
6
0

5
0
7

6
0
7

5
3
6

6
1
5

5
4
4

3
8
7

1
6
6

4
4

2
23

1
8
8

3
6
6

5
0
2

6
3
3

5
6
2

6
3
5

6
0
8

3
5
8

1
8
4

7
2

3
25

1
9
6

3
7
4

5
2
3

6
2
3

6
6
3

6
4
4

5
6
7

4
3
9

2
7
1

8
8

3
29

2
0
2

3
7
2

5
2
8

6
2
9

6
6
9

6
5
1

5
7
3

4
3
9

2
7
1

8
9

3
24

2
0
5

3
0
7

3
8
3

6
2
4

6
6
3

6
4
3

5
6
4

4
3
4

2
6
9

9
1

3
33

1
6
7

3
1
4

3
7
5

4
6
4

3
9
0

3
7
6

3
7
2

2
1
6

1
5
0

5
8

3
34

2
0
9

3
9
0

5
3
8

6
3
8

6
7
9

6
6
1

5
8
2

4
1
5

1
8
5

6
8

4
1
3
9

2
1
7

3
9
7

5
4
7

6
4
4

6
9
1

6
7
3

5
6
9

2
9
2

1
9
1

5
0

4
43

2
2
1

4
0
2

5
5
2

6
5
1

6
9
3

6
7
4

5
9
4

4
6
2

2
9
4

1
0
8

4
42

2
2
9

4
0
5

5
5
7

5
9
7

6
9
4

6
7
5

5
9
4

4
6
0

3
0
2

1
1
0

7
49

2
3
0

4
1
1

5
6
2

6
6
1

7
0
3

6
8
5

6
0
5

4
7
3

3
0
1

1
1
5

5
53

2
2
6

4
2
1

5
7
2

6
6
7

7
0
4

6
4
9

5
5
0

4
6
2

3
1
7

8
8

6
1
1
4

7
2

1
7
0

2
4
8

2
9
5

4
3
3

3
7
3

2
6
0

2
4
6

2
7
1

8
8

4
0
0

1
8

1
3
9

2
8
6

4
2
1

5
0
2

5
3
7

5
2
6

4
5
4

3
3
3

2
0
1

5
8

2

0

0

0
0
1

5
3

2
3
0

4
2
1

5
7
2

6
6
7

7
0
4

6
8
5

6
0
8

4
7
3

3
1
7

1
1
5

7

0

0

0
0
0

2

2
5

9
1

1
6
3

1
7
9

2
0
6

2
3
2

2
1
3

1
2
6

5
6

9

0

0

0

0
64

2
5
3

4
3
6

5
8
6

7
0
4

5
8
6

6
9
2

6
0
7

4
9
1

3
1
7

1
2
9

8
29

2
1
5

4
4
5

4
5
1

3
9
7

4
9
1

5
0
0

4
5
1

3
7
1

3
2
8

1
3
3

8
1
8
4

2
5
7

4
3
9

5
8
6

6
8
3

7
2
3

7
0
3

6
2
5

4
9
2

3
2
1

1
3
4

9
1
7
3

2
6
4

4
4
7

5
9
3

6
9
6

7
3
5

7
1
6

6
3
5

5
0
0

3
2
2

1
3
0

9
43

1
4
2

3
2
5

5
1
5

6
1
4

6
6
1

5
4
7

4
6
9

4
0
7

3
1
1

7
6

7
1
7
1

1
4
9

1
8
0

2
6
4

3
3
4

3
0
5

3
4
0

2
7
4

1
7
6

1
1
4

4
9

5
1
6
3

2
8
7

4
4
8

5
6
8

6
1
9

7
4
5

5
5
2

6
7
9

5
5
6

2
7
4

1
7
4

1
2
1
4
0

1
3
8

3
0
9

5
5
7

6
3
9

5
0
9

3
9
7

3
2
8

3
2
3

3
7
0

1
0
4

1
2
2
1
1
2

2
7
7

4
7
1

6
1
9

7
2
1

6
7
7

7
3
8

6
5
6

5
2
4

3
5
2

1
6
2

1
4
2
8
6

2
3
0

4
6
4

5
6
3

7
1
9

7
5
7

7
3
7

6
8
1

3
6
1

3
1
3

1
6
1

1
8
2
1
1
1

3
1
3

4
9
9

6
5
3

7
5
0

7
9
3

7
6
9

6
8
6

5
5
0

3
7
0

1
7
4

1
7
3
9
2

1
1
7

2
5
8

5
2
5

6
5
9

6
4
3

7
8
0

5
3
7

4
8
2

3
5
9

1
6
7

1
8
3
5
5

1
5
4

4
5
4

4
1
1

7
6
0

4
8
5

4
5
6

6
2
0

4
4
9

2
2
4

9
9

9
4
1
5
3

3
7
3

5
0
4

5
1
2

5
0
5

6
3
7

4
1
5

5
5
2

3
4
1

1
8
4

6
9

1
0
6
1
0
6

3
5
7

5
5
3

4
9
1

5
5
5

5
2
6

4
5
3

3
8
7

2
7
5

2
7
6

2
3
2

1
9
8
1
5
9

3
1
7

2
8
5

4
3
3

5
9
8

5
8
2

5
8
0

4
9
9

4
8
0

3
7
0

1
6
9

1
1
3
3
0

1
2
4

3
6
1

4
4
5

4
5
4

1
5
8

5
3
4

5
5
1

1
5
5

2
2
0

1
1
2

1
7
2
2
0

6
3

6
2

9
1

2
1
1

1
2
0

3
7
7

6
3
8

6
2
9

4
8
9

2
3
2

1
9
4
6
6

1
8
6

3
7
3

5
3
0

3
1
7

3
9
5

3
8
5

3
9
0

2
5
5

1
2
1

1
0
6

2
6
9
1
6
6

2
6
6

3
3
0

6
4
7

4
8
5

3
8
9

8
2
6

6
0
6

6
9
7

2
9
5

2
8
3

3
6
5
1
4
3

3
6
4

5
4
8

6
9
6

7
9
5

7
3
6

8
2
3

7
2
3

5
1
5

4
0
9

2
0
4

3
2
7
8
7

3
6
6

5
3
9

5
3
6

8
0
7

8
0
2

8
2
6

5
8
9

4
7
8

3
6
3

1
2
7

3
9
17

1
3
8

3
2
1

4
0
9

5
0
0

7
7
6

7
1
1

7
4
4

5
1
6

2
0
4

9
9

8
9

5
6
6
6

2
1
6

3
5
4

4
9
4

6
0
8

4
1
2

2
5
2

2
9
2

1
5
8

3
8

2
3

7

1
9
1
0
1

3
5
2

5
0
9

6
9
7

4
0
6

5
2
5

4
3
9

7
6
0

5
8
4

3
6
1

1
9
0

2
1

1
8
1
7
5

4
0
2

5
8
6

7
4
6

6
4
2

8
8
3

7
3
7

6
5
9

4
6
2

2
3
9

1
2
2

2
6
8
6
8

2
1
7

5
7
7

6
2
0

6
1
3

9
0
0

5
6
4

3
0
1

1
8
6

2
3
6

2
3
5

3
4
15

1
2
9

3
4
2

5
0
5

7
1
6

8
0
0

6
6
9

7
2
6

5
8
1

4
3
2

2
4
5

1
0
6

3
2
26

1
9
9

4
1
6

5
9
4

7
1
8

8
0
1

8
0
6

8
0
7

7
6
0

5
8
2

3
8
0

1
7
0

2
2
34

2
3
3

4
1
3

5
9
6

7
4
3

6
0
5

7
7
9

4
9
8

6
6
4

3
4
1

2
6
0

1
0
9

2
6
0
6

9
6

2
5
7

4
2
0

5
4
1

5
9
6

5
9
2

5
8
8

5
4
8

4
1
1

2
8
1

1
4
2

1
7

0

0

0
0
3
4

2
3
3

4
1
6

5
9
6

7
4
6

8
0
7

9
0
0

8
2
6

7
6
0

6
9
7

4
8
9

2
8
3

3
9

1

0

0
0
0

1
5

6
3

6
2

9
1

2
0
1

1
2
0

2
5
2

2
7
0

1
5
5

3
8

2
3

5

0

0

0
45

2
3
8

4
4
2

6
2
7

7
7
3

8
6
4

8
9
8

8
7
4

7
7
8

6
4
2

4
6
0

2
5
4

5
3

1
49

2
4
2

4
4
6

6
3
0

7
6
8

8
7
8

8
9
9

8
7
0

7
7
7

6
3
2

4
5
0

2
4
4

5
9

1
51

2
4
5

4
5
2

6
2
7

7
6
6

8
6
0

8
8
9

8
5
9

6
8
8

4
3
2

4
8
0

1
3
8

1
5
19

1
8
0

3
9
2

3
8
6

4
5
6

5
2
3

8
6
1

8
0
0

7
1
9

4
7
3

2
0
5

1
4
1

3
1
16

1
4
7

3
0
7

2
2
8

2
8
9

5
6
1

5
4
6

3
8
0

5
3
4

4
0
3

2
8
2

8
9

4
0

1
1
2
6

2
2
6

4
4
2

6
2
3

7
6
4

8
5
5

8
8
6

8
3
2

7
8
6

5
6
5

4
4
1

2
4
9

6
0

1
1
6
4

2
5
5

4
5
6

6
1
3

7
3
8

8
0
3

9
0
1

7
4
1

6
7
5

5
6
2

4
9
0

2
4
5

7
1

1
1
6
7

2
6
3

4
5
5

6
4
0

7
8
4

8
8
1

6
3
5

3
1
8

4
5
3

1
4
5

7
3

2
7
8

6
6

1
1
7
4

2
7
2

4
7
4

6
5
2

7
9
2

8
8
4

9
1
5

8
8
4

7
9
3

6
5
2

4
7
6

2
7
3

7
4

1
1
7
5

2
7
0

4
6
9

6
4
7

7
8
9

8
9
3

6
7
6

4
7
8

2
5
7

2
6
9

1
4
7

7
0

2
7

1
1
5
9

2
8
9

4
9
2

6
7
1

7
9
6

8
6
4

9
3
4

9
0
8

8
2
0

6
6
1

4
7
2

2
2
5

6
5

2
1
3
4

2
7
2

4
9
4

6
7
5

8
1
4

9
1
4

9
5
3

8
4
8

7
7
4

6
5
2

4
4
4

2
7
7

8
5

2
1
9
2

3
0
1

4
5
5

6
1
8

7
9
7

8
8
5

9
3
6

8
6
5

6
0
3

6
6
3

4
8
4

2
7
8

8
4

2
1
1
4

7
0

2
0
9

2
6
8

4
3
4

4
6
9

3
1
8

6
1
2

3
8
4

6
0
4

3
8
2

1
9
3

3
8

1
2
4
4

3
0
7

4
1
8

4
4
4

6
2
5

9
6
4

1
0
0
8

8
3
9

8
3
6

7
5
5

4
8
3

2
9
4

9
3

3
2
1
0
5

3
0
3

4
0
9

5
3
7

6
0
5

8
9
7

7
3
6

7
9
6

7
4
6

6
2
7

4
3
9

2
9
5

8
4

4
2
6
3

2
2
9

3
7
4

6
3
5

7
7
8

8
4
2

1
0
1
0

8
7
3

8
3
9

6
8
4

4
9
8

2
9
2

9
8

2
2
6
0

1
8
4

3
7
7

4
6
2

2
3
2

4
6
0

7
1
8

6
8
6

6
4
4

5
0
9

3
6
4

1
6
1

7
3

3
3
1
1
1

3
1
0

5
0
8

6
8
5

8
3
0

1
0
0
3

9
1
7

9
4
3

6
8
4

4
6
7

5
1
9

3
0
7

1
0
6

4
5
1
3
1

3
9
5

5
1
9

6
9
0

6
8
0

9
1
3

9
3
2

9
1
9

8
2
8

6
8
3

5
0
5

3
0
1

1
0
8

4
3
1
1
6

2
0
7

5
2
8

7
1
4

8
2
4

8
5
9

8
9
9

8
7
9

7
6
6

5
8
3

4
3
6

1
9
2

4
9

2
1
1
4

7
5

2
1
7

7
0
6

6
7
2

8
6
4

9
3
5

9
4
5

5
8
7

4
4
7

4
2
1

2
6
8

1
2
2

5
5
1
2
8

3
3
4

5
3
3

7
0
2

8
3
5

9
2
7

9
4
0

8
3
4

6
7
7

6
8
0

5
0
3

3
0
0

1
0
3

4
9
1
4
0

3
3
0

5
3
0

7
0
7

8
0
8

8
8
5

9
0
6

6
5
4

7
3
9

5
3
7

3
5
0

2
6
8

1
0
4

5
3
6
5

2
9
5

5
4
3

6
7
6

8
0
9

9
2
4

9
5
1

9
2
0

8
2
9

6
8
7

5
0
8

3
0
3

1
0
2

5
12

1
3
3

3
4
1

5
2
2

6
4
2

6
8
7

7
7
2

6
5
7

4
1
8

4
1
9

5
8
3

4
9
6

2
7
6

7
2

5
9
9
8

2
6
0

4
9
9

6
9
9

8
2
4

9
1
8

9
5
2

9
2
0

8
3
0

6
9
1

5
1
7

3
1
0

9
9

5
12

1
5
6

3
5
1

5
4
4

7
1
4

8
4
7

9
3
2

9
5
3

8
6
2

7
7
1

6
4
2

4
2
7

2
4
1

6
9

6
9
7
5

1
7
2

3
3
6

4
5
8

7
3
1

8
2
4

9
4
8

5
1
6

2
2
2

6
3
0

5
1
1

3
1
2

1
0
2

7
3
7
2

2
5
2

4
4
2

5
9
9

7
1
0

8
3
2

8
5
3

7
7
0

6
7
3

5
7
3

4
2
1

2
4
4

7
3

3

0

0
12

1
5
6

3
9
5

5
4
4

7
1
4

8
4
7

1
0
0
3

1
0
1
0

9
4
5

8
3
9

7
5
5

5
1
9

3
1
2

1
2
2

7

0

0
0
1
4

7
0

2
0
9

2
2
8

2
3
2

4
6
0

3
1
8

3
1
8

2
2
2

1
4
5

7
3

7
0

1
5

0

0

0
10

1
0
5

3
2
4

5
1
1

4
9
0

7
5
4

9
3
2

9
5
8

8
8
7

5
7
7

6
8
3

4
9
9

2
6
0

1
1
4

4
5
8
3

2
1
6

4
0
8

6
2
9

4
9
5

4
9
6

2
5
9

7
8
5

7
3
6

5
7
2

4
2
4

3
2
4

4
5

2
19

1
7
7

3
7
7

5
7
3

7
4
5

8
8
1

9
6
5

9
9
2

9
5
8

8
6
7

7
2
8

5
5
3

3
4
1

1
1
9

9
22

1
5
9

3
8
1

5
7
9

7
3
8

8
8
1

9
5
3

9
8
5

9
3
0

8
6
6

7
0
4

4
7
8

3
4
1

1
2
7

8
24

1
5
7

3
4
9

5
5
2

6
9
9

8
6
8

9
6
9

9
9
0

9
5
5

8
6
3

7
1
3

5
2
5

3
2
4

1
1
9

1
2
25

1
8
9

3
8
9

5
8
7

7
4
0

8
4
6

9
7
7

9
9
9

9
6
4

8
7
1

7
2
6

5
5
1

3
4
3

1
3
0

1
4
24

1
9
0

3
9
0

5
8
5

7
5
9

8
9
3

9
7
3

9
9
6

9
6
5

8
7
6

7
3
6

5
6
4

3
5
2

1
3
2

1
4
26

1
9
0

3
9
0

5
8
5

7
5
2

8
8
4

9
7
1

9
9
5

9
5
9

8
7
0

7
3
0

5
5
6

3
5
0

1
3
7

1
4
25

1
1
3

3
3
9

5
8
6

7
3
4

8
8
5

8
6
1

9
7
5

1
0
0
0

8
1
0

2
8
3

9
8

5
6

2
0

5
3
4
9

2
9
2

5
3
3

7
2
7

8
8
0

9
4
9

8
2
4

7
6
9

7
2
8

2
6
1

5
1
9

2
1
7

5
9

8
11

1
6
5

3
4
4

5
2
1

6
2
8

6
9
4

7
4
1

8
9
2

7
5
5

8
0
0

7
5
8

5
9
6

2
4
0

4
9

5
9
4
7

8
6

2
4
3

3
6
2

9
1
5

9
3
8

8
5
3

7
7
5

7
9
6

6
1
7

4
1
2

3
4
6

1
0
7

1
5
8
7
0

2
0
3

3
9
9

4
3
4

5
0
1

5
7
9

7
3
2

6
0
5

2
6
9

3
7
8

3
9
2

4
5
8

1
1
6

1
7
6
7
4

2
0
8

2
3
1

4
4
8

6
6
0

7
4
3

7
5
2

9
5
9

8
6
6

7
2
7

4
9
5

3
6
1

1
2
8

1
0
40

2
1
0

4
0
8

5
7
4

6
5
3

6
9
8

9
0
0

1
0
2
1

9
9
4

6
9
6

6
8
2

4
1
2

1
8
2

1
0
5

1
5
18

1
3
9

2
5
6

4
5
0

5
4
4

6
6
2

8
2
5

7
1
1

9
1
0

8
5
9

7
1
7

5
5
3

2
6
6

1
1
4

2
2

1
16

8
0

1
9
1

3
1
7

3
5
3

4
4
1

4
7
3

6
3
1

7
9
2

3
5
3

3
4
0

4
3
0

1
9
5

6
9

7

1
13

5
1

1
2
5

2
2
3

5
3
8

3
0
1

3
6
7

4
7
8

6
0
8

3
7
4

2
6
0

1
3
5

6
3

4
3

8
54

9
6

1
1
8

1
5
1

5
1
8

3
3
2

6
9
3

8
6
7

6
5
6

4
4
5

3
3
1

2
0
7

7
4

1
0
1

1
3
41

2
1
9

3
9
5

6
0
2

7
6
8

9
2
2

9
4
0

9
2
9

1
0
3
5

8
9
0

7
3
1

5
4
7

3
5
8

1
0
1

2
0
9
5
6

1
4
0

2
0
5

2
9
4

5
6
2

6
1
6

5
4
4

3
1
8

3
1
5

1
9
7

1
2
7

3
5

1
2

2
28

2
3
2

3
3
7

6
5
8

5
9
3

6
9
2

8
4
5

9
6
4

7
0
2

6
2
9

7
3
0

6
0
1

3
8
3

1
3
6

1
1
49

2
3
1

4
2
2

6
1
1

7
7
8

9
4
7

8
2
8

7
5
1

3
4
4

5
5
7

3
8
2

5
2
3

3
2
5

1
2
9

1
7
52

2
3
1

4
2
5

6
1
2

7
7
3

8
4
9

9
5
3

9
8
1

9
6
8

8
7
0

6
7
3

5
9
3

3
9
5

1
8
0

2
9
15

1
7
9

4
2
8

5
3
1

7
2
0

9
0
0

9
4
9

1
0
1
3

1
0
8
3

7
6
6

7
3
7

5
9
2

2
3
0

1
3
4

1
6
16

1
0
5

1
9
6

5
4
7

7
6
4

8
7
7

8
2
9

8
9
7

9
8
0

8
7
3

7
4
3

5
7
9

3
7
7

1
4
0

1
5
53

2
2
5

4
1
3

5
9
7

7
5
7

8
8
5

9
6
2

9
8
7

9
5
9

8
7
8

7
4
5

5
7
8

3
8
0

1
3
6

1
7

1
56

1
7
3

4
2
7

3
7
8

3
0
7

3
2
0

9
0
4

1
0
0
5

9
6
6

8
8
6

7
5
1

5
8
6

3
9
0

1
2
8

1
2

1
18

1
9
9

4
0
2

5
6
8

8
2
9

5
2
7

4
3
1

6
4
2

6
8
2

7
5
5

2
3
6

4
6
3

9
3

7
1

8

1
37

1
9
1

3
6
8

6
0
9

8
5
1

9
1
3

9
5
7

9
7
8

9
8
9

7
6
9

7
2
6

4
8
7

3
8
2

1
5
6

2
2

1
24

1
4
2

3
0
6

4
7
9

6
3
6

7
3
3

8
2
0

8
5
1

8
3
8

7
1
7

5
7
9

4
6
2

2
8
0

1
0
4

1
2

0

0
56

2
3
2

4
2
8

6
5
8

8
5
1

9
4
7

9
7
7

1
0
2
1

1
0
8
3

8
9
0

7
5
8

6
0
1

4
5
8

1
8
0

2
9

1

0
2
3
0

8
6

1
5
1

2
9
4

3
0
1

3
6
7

2
5
9

3
1
8

2
6
9

1
9
7

9
8

3
5

1
2

2

0

0
59

2
2
5

4
2
1

6
0
5

7
2
4

8
9
5

9
7
9

9
8
4

9
4
2

8
5
8

7
2
3

3
3
1

2
8
0

1
4
0

3
4

1
34

1
0
3

2
7
2

4
1
3

6
6
9

9
4
7

9
4
0

1
0
1
8

8
4
8

8
0
2

5
4
0

3
0
8

3
2
7

1
4
9

3
1

2
61

2
2
7

4
2
4

6
1
6

7
8
0

9
1
1

8
2
7

9
2
1

6
5
4

3
7
3

2
8
6

3
1
1

3
0
4

1
1
0

2
3

1
58

2
3
3

4
2
5

5
4
3

5
1
1

8
0
8

9
7
8

7
7
1

1
0
2
5

6
3
0

6
4
5

4
3
2

2
9
4

1
3
0

1
3

1
11

9
3

3
9
0

2
1
4

6
6
9

6
0
2

4
9
7

5
9
9

4
5
5

5
5
8

1
6
4

5
0

2
2

6
1

2
9
32

9
4

1
9
5

2
8
4

5
9
4

7
0
9

5
6
4

4
7
9

2
5
8

4
3
0

2
1
4

6
4

3
3

3
0

6

1
36

2
3
4

4
3
0

3
6
7

2
6
9

4
9
3

4
3
5

6
1
8

6
4
8

7
0
9

2
7
9

5
1
3

4
1
7

1
8
4

3
5

1
67

2
5
0

4
2
9

6
1
4

7
7
8

9
0
3

9
8
6

1
0
1
0

9
8
9

9
0
2

7
7
2

6
0
9

4
1
1

1
4
4

2
5

1
56

2
4
1

4
3
3

6
1
7

7
8
1

9
1
0

9
9
3

1
0
2
9

9
9
6

9
1
1

7
8
3

6
1
4

4
1
3

1
5
4

2
9

1
65

2
4
1

4
3
3

6
1
7

7
8
1

9
0
8

9
9
0

1
0
4
7

1
0
2
7

9
3
1

7
8
2

6
1
4

4
1
6

1
6
2

2
8

1
64

2
6
4

4
6
8

4
4
3

7
7
6

9
3
2

9
4
1

9
3
9

9
1
2

7
6
9

6
3
5

4
7
7

1
9
8

1
1
7

3
3

1
65

2
7
7

3
3
5

4
0
1

4
6
6

4
9
9

5
4
5

1
0
5
4

7
7
9

5
8
4

6
2
8

3
3
5

1
7
8

1
8
6

3
3

1
63

2
3
7

4
3
0

6
1
6

7
8
1

9
1
0

9
8
8

1
0
1
3

9
8
6

9
0
8

7
8
6

5
9
2

4
0
3

1
5
6

3
4

1
51

2
3
2

4
3
6

6
1
5

7
5
4

8
3
3

9
0
9

9
8
3

8
0
1

6
3
8

4
9
2

4
2
7

2
7
3

7
7

2
4

1
6
5
0

2
6
6

9
7

2
0
8

2
6
3

7
3
4

9
1
5

8
4
6

5
0
5

4
7
6

3
1
6

2
3
6

8
3

1
5
62

2
4
3

4
1
3

6
2
1

8
1
5

8
4
1

1
0
2
2

1
0
6
0

9
9
5

9
1
9

7
7
3

6
1
5

4
1
7

1
6
4

3
5

1
63

2
3
9

4
3
3

6
0
3

7
2
9

7
8
6

8
5
2

7
1
4

6
1
3

4
7
0

4
6
7

3
4
4

4
3
6

2
0
4

3
9

1
63

2
3
5

4
2
5

6
1
1

7
7
6

9
0
7

9
9
6

1
0
0
3

9
7
5

8
7
0

7
6
9

6
3
0

4
3
0

1
3
9

3
8

1
66

2
3
5

4
2
2

5
7
8

7
0
7

8
1
2

9
5
7

9
4
8

8
5
0

4
8
3

4
8
2

3
6
6

2
2
4

1
2
2

5
3

1
63

1
7
8

3
8
0

5
7
5

7
3
2

8
9
3

9
8
1

1
0
1
3

9
7
7

8
8
6

7
1
8

6
1
5

4
3
6

2
0
2

5
2

3
61

2
3
6

4
2
3

6
1
0

7
7
3

9
0
7

9
8
7

1
0
1
2

9
8
8

9
1
0

7
8
2

6
1
9

4
2
3

1
7
3

3
8

2
62

2
3
9

4
3
1

6
1
5

7
8
0

9
0
9

9
9
0

1
0
1
6

9
9
2

9
1
8

7
9
2

6
2
9

4
2
9

1
7
7

3
9

2
77

2
7
5

3
9
8

5
9
4

7
6
2

9
3
6

9
9
7

9
2
8

8
1
6

7
5
9

5
0
6

5
8
9

3
4
7

9
8

3
2

1
52

9
6

2
4
3

5
4
2

7
5
5

8
9
8

9
0
8

8
7
9

9
4
1

7
7
9

3
8
7

2
0
6

1
7
3

1
0
3

3
4

1
55

2
2
6

4
1
3

5
9
9

7
6
3

8
9
5

9
9
5

8
5
1

9
9
1

9
0
9

7
8
3

5
9
6

4
3
9

1
9
9

4
0

3
57

2
2
8

4
2
4

5
1
1

7
6
7

8
9
7

9
8
1

9
9
1

8
6
5

9
0
8

6
0
7

4
4
4

4
2
6

1
3
8

3
1

1
21

1
0
0

2
2
4

3
1
4

5
4
6

6
1
2

9
6
6

5
5
2

4
0
4

5
7
1

5
4
6

2
4
0

7
5

4
5

5
7
3
5

1
2
7

4
0
9

6
2
7

7
7
8

8
0
2

7
1
2

9
9
6

8
8
8

7
3
0

4
1
8

2
0
4

1
5
6

2
2

1
30

5
1

6
7

3
1
5

6
2
4

8
7
4

9
3
4

1
0
3
6

8
1
4

6
2
3

7
9
5

6
8
8

4
8
7

1
6
0

3
5

1
50

1
9
5

3
6
8

5
0
6

6
8
2

8
1
2

8
8
8

9
0
3

8
4
4

7
3
9

5
9
6

4
4
8

3
1
7

1
3
6

3
1

1

0
77

2
7
7

4
6
8

6
2
5

8
1
5

9
4
7

1
0
2
2

1
0
6
0

1
0
2
7

9
3
1

7
9
5

6
8
8

4
8
7

2
0
4

5
3

3

0
6
3
5

6
7

9
7

2
0
8

2
6
3

4
3
5

4
7
9

2
5
8

3
7
3

1
6
4

5
0

2
2

3
0

5

0

0
47

2
1
4

4
0
1

5
8
5

7
4
9

8
7
9

9
6
2

9
9
4

9
7
4

9
0
0

7
8
2

5
0
4

1
3
9

5
5

1
3

1
47

2
1
1

4
0
2

5
9
0

7
5
7

8
8
9

9
7
3

1
0
0
4

9
8
2

9
0
7

7
7
7

5
7
7

2
7
5

1
1
4

2
4

2
48

2
1
9

4
1
3

5
9
9

7
6
4

8
9
5

9
8
1

1
0
1
3

9
8
6

9
1
0

7
8
2

6
1
9

4
2
3

1
5
5

3
7

2
47

2
1
7

4
0
7

5
9
5

7
6
4

8
9
9

9
8
4

1
0
1
4

9
9
3

9
1
3

7
8
4

6
2
0

4
2
4

1
5
1

3
6

2
46

2
1
8

4
0
8

5
9
3

7
6
2

8
9
6

9
8
0

1
0
0
9

9
8
7

9
1
4

7
8
7

6
2
0

4
2
4

1
1
0

3
3

2
46

2
1
3

4
0
1

5
8
6

7
5
0

8
8
2

9
6
6

9
9
5

9
7
6

8
9
5

7
6
3

6
0
2

4
1
3

1
6
9

3
5

2
40

1
9
3

3
8
4

5
7
6

7
4
7

8
7
8

9
6
4

9
9
7

9
7
7

8
9
9

7
7
3

6
0
6

4
0
8

1
7
2

2
9

2
38

2
0
0

3
8
8

5
7
7

7
4
8

8
8
5

9
7
3

1
0
0
6

9
8
4

9
0
5

7
7
7

6
1
2

4
1
4

1
7
7

2
9

2
41

2
1
3

4
0
5

5
9
6

7
6
5

9
0
3

9
8
9

9
8
4

8
3
2

6
8
1

6
2
4

6
0
0

4
3
1

1
5
0

3
5

2
39

1
8
4

3
7
8

5
8
8

7
5
3

8
8
6

9
6
9

1
0
0
2

9
8
1

9
0
7

7
7
7

6
1
3

4
1
5

1
8
3

2
9

2
36

2
0
2

4
0
1

5
9
6

7
8
1

8
7
5

9
1
8

1
0
1
3

9
8
6

9
0
1

7
7
4

6
0
9

4
1
5

1
8
7

3
3

2
24

1
0
3

3
8
4

5
7
7

7
4
5

8
8
2

9
6
5

9
9
8

9
8
0

9
0
4

7
8
0

6
1
8

4
2
2

1
8
6

3
0

2
33

2
0
5

4
0
0

5
5
0

7
4
3

8
7
7

9
6
4

9
9
6

9
7
4

8
9
5

7
6
3

5
9
9

4
0
6

1
7
8

2
7

2
34

1
9
7

3
8
6

5
7
5

7
4
4

8
7
8

9
6
3

9
9
5

9
7
3

8
9
6

7
7
2

6
0
7

4
1
2

1
8
3

2
7

2
31

1
8
6

3
6
4

5
3
9

7
2
0

8
6
3

9
4
2

8
5
7

9
6
2

8
7
4

7
5
1

5
6
3

2
9
3

8
5

3
2

2
27

1
8
7

3
8
3

5
7
7

7
3
9

8
7
9

9
5
8

9
9
2

9
6
9

8
9
2

7
6
5

6
0
2

4
0
4

1
6
8

1
4

2
27

1
7
8

3
6
5

5
6
2

7
3
3

8
5
7

9
4
1

9
7
5

9
5
5

8
8
0

7
5
4

5
9
1

3
9
4

1
6
5

2
5

2
24

1
7
8

3
6
6

5
5
6

7
2
5

8
6
0

9
7
6

9
8
5

9
5
9

8
8
2

7
5
5

5
9
0

3
9
6

1
1
1

2
3

1
26

1
7
6

3
6
1

5
5
1

7
2
4

8
5
9

9
4
3

9
7
5

9
5
7

8
7
0

7
1
1

5
4
3

3
6
8

1
6
1

2
6

1
21

1
4
7

3
3
6

5
2
2

7
0
0

8
3
9

9
2
9

9
6
2

9
3
7

8
5
9

7
4
2

5
7
8

3
9
2

2
3
0

4
7

1
6
3
1

8
1

2
5
1

2
0
7

2
0
4

3
0
3

4
0
6

9
1
5

7
1
9

6
2
8

1
0
0

1
8

4
9

1
3
21

1
4
5

3
5
7

5
3
8

7
0
7

8
5
3

9
4
3

9
7
9

8
9
7

7
6
8

6
8
9

1
3
3

2
5

9

8
13

1
7
0

3
6
3

5
4
5

7
1
1

8
4
6

9
3
7

9
7
3

9
5
5

8
8
2

7
5
5

5
8
9

3
9
2

1
5
0

2
5

1
18

1
4
1

2
7
2

4
2
3

7
2
6

8
6
2

9
4
9

9
8
4

9
6
7

9
0
0

7
5
8

5
9
3

3
9
4

1
7
2

2
0

1
22

1
6
7

3
5
2

5
4
1

7
0
9

8
4
6

9
3
3

9
8
0

6
5
7

1
0
2

3
3
9

6
0
9

3
9
6

1
7
3

1
8

1
12

1
6
0

3
4
9

5
4
0

7
0
7

8
4
4

9
1
0

9
9
4

9
6
6

8
4
3

8
0
5

3
9
1

8
3

6
6

1
1

1
11

1
6
3

3
4
7

5
3
2

6
9
9

8
3
6

9
2
3

9
5
7

9
4
0

8
7
4

6
5
4

5
9
8

3
1
0

1
6
2

1
7

1
17

1
5
4

3
4
1

5
3
0

7
0
0

8
3
4

9
2
0

9
5
5

9
3
3

8
5
9

7
2
7

5
5
9

3
6
5

1
6
0

1
8

1
17

1
4
7

3
4
5

5
3
7

7
0
8

8
4
5

9
3
4

9
6
8

9
4
9

8
7
1

7
4
1

5
7
8

3
8
1

1
6
5

1
5

1
12

1
5
2

3
4
4

5
3
5

7
0
4

8
4
7

9
3
7

9
7
4

9
5
9

8
8
2

7
5
5

5
8
2

3
8
3

1
7
2

1
6

1
29

1
7
5

3
6
5

5
4
3

7
1
3

8
4
8

9
3
4

9
6
6

9
5
0

8
4
4

7
2
8

5
4
7

3
4
5

1
4
5

2
5

1

0
48

2
1
9

4
2
2

5
9
9

7
8
1

9
2
5

1
0
1
1

1
0
1
4

9
9
3

9
1
4

8
0
5

6
2
0

4
3
1

2
3
0

4
7

2

0
6
3
1

8
1

2
5
1

2
0
7

2
0
4

3
0
3

4
0
6

6
5
7

1
0
2

3
3
9

1
0
0

1
8

9

8

0

0
12

1
5
5

3
4
7

5
3
9

7
1
1

8
5
0

9
3
9

9
7
2

9
5
0

8
6
7

7
3
8

5
7
4

3
7
6

1
7
1

1
3

1
5
1
2
5

3
3
8

4
1
1

6
4
9

8
4
3

9
2
9

9
5
9

9
3
6

8
5
5

7
2
4

5
5
7

3
5
4

1
5
6

1
5

1
9
1
3
0

3
2
0

5
1
6

6
8
7

8
2
7

9
2
1

9
5
7

9
3
4

8
5
1

7
1
9

5
5
1

3
5
4

1
5
2

1
6

1
7
1
2
5

3
1
4

5
1
3

6
3
7

7
3
4

8
7
9

9
4
4

9
2
6

8
0
5

4
4
7

3
2
5

2
5
3

2
1
5

2
6

1
7
1
3
1

3
1
2

5
2
8

7
0
1

8
4
0

9
3
2

9
6
6

9
4
8

8
7
1

7
2
8

5
5
7

3
0
3

1
0
7

1
6

1
7
1
2
7

3
1
8

5
0
9

6
8
2

8
1
9

9
0
8

9
4
3

9
2
4

8
4
0

7
0
7

5
4
4

3
5
2

1
2
8

8

1
7
1
3
5

3
3
1

5
2
0

6
9
7

8
4
3

9
3
6

9
7
7

9
5
5

8
7
6

7
4
3

5
7
6

3
4
0

1
1
8

1
6

1
7
1
3
4

3
2
9

5
2
4

6
9
7

8
3
9

9
2
9

9
5
8

9
3
2

8
4
7

7
1
4

5
4
6

3
4
3

1
3
7

1
2
5
1
0
7

2
4
0

5
2
0

6
8
7

7
8
6

9
3
7

9
5
4

9
2
7

8
4
6

7
1
0

5
4
3

3
3
6

1
2
0

8
9
1
5
5

3
4
2

2
8
3

7
4
3

8
9
6

9
3
0

6
6
2

9
1
8

8
3
8

7
0
9

5
0
1

1
6
9

1
1
0

7
5
1
0
7

3
1
9

4
9
5

6
6
3

8
0
4

8
9
4

9
3
2

9
0
5

8
2
2

6
9
6

5
0
1

3
2
1

1
1
7

9
4
1
2
1

3
1
7

5
1
4

6
9
0

8
3
6

9
3
0

9
6
3

9
3
7

8
5
0

7
1
1

5
3
7

3
2
9

1
2
7

1
1
4
1
1
0

2
9
9

4
9
8

6
7
9

8
2
2

9
1
4

9
4
8

9
2
8

8
4
4

7
0
5

5
1
8

3
2
2

1
2
3

1
0
3
1
1
7

3
0
5

4
9
3

6
6
6

8
0
6

8
9
3

9
2
8

9
0
4

8
2
0

6
8
7

5
1
5

3
1
7

1
2
0

7
4
1
0
4

2
8
7

4
8
4

6
6
4

8
1
0

8
8
5

8
8
7

7
9
7

8
0
0

6
4
9

5
2
0

3
7
0

1
3
7

8
3
1
0
2

2
8
9

4
8
7

6
5
3

8
0
3

8
4
5

9
2
5

8
9
7

7
9
3

4
1
7

5
2
0

3
1
9

1
2
4

6
3
8
9

2
8
2

4
7
4

6
5
1

7
4
5

8
4
2

9
2
0

9
1
1

6
8
9

6
6
0

4
2
9

1
3
2

7
4

9
2
8
5

2
3
6

4
6
2

6
0
8

7
7
2

8
6
4

8
9
9

8
7
2

7
9
1

6
3
5

2
7
9

4
7

2
2

3
1
3
5

1
0
8

1
8
3

2
4
7

4
5
2

8
7
0

8
7
8

8
4
0

7
3
7

5
7
4

3
5
2

2
0
7

6
9

5
1
5
0

1
9
1

3
7
0

5
4
2

6
9
1

7
8
0

8
1
7

7
8
1

6
9
3

5
7
2

4
0
4

2
0
2

6
9

4
1
5
1

2
0
9

3
9
9

5
6
6

7
1
6

8
0
3

8
4
6

7
8
9

5
8
5

6
1
8

4
4
0

1
6
5

6
3

4
1
5
1

1
4
4

1
9
8

3
0
4

5
0
0

8
1
0

8
4
2

8
1
0

7
3
0

5
8
7

4
2
1

2
0
2

5
0

4
55

2
1
2

3
3
8

6
3
0

7
4
6

8
3
8

8
7
4

8
6
0

6
2
9

4
5
1

2
6
8

1
0
4

1
8

2
1
3
9

1
6
9

3
7
0

6
2
5

7
6
1

8
3
5

8
9
5

3
3
6

7
3
9

4
7
4

1
7
2

2
7
9

9
8

3
1
7
4

2
5
7

4
4
9

6
2
3

7
6
3

8
5
1

8
8
2

8
5
5

7
7
2

6
3
0

4
4
6

1
9
4

9
1

3
1
6
8

2
6
5

4
6
8

6
4
2

7
7
7

8
6
7

9
0
1

8
6
9

7
7
5

6
3
4

4
5
4

2
6
6

8
2

3
1
6
8

2
4
9

4
3
9

6
1
4

7
5
3

8
4
3

8
7
4

8
4
6

7
5
7

6
1
3

4
4
6

2
4
8

5
7

2
27

1
8
2

4
3
4

6
1
9

7
5
5

8
4
5

8
7
5

8
4
5

7
5
5

6
1
6

4
3
9

2
4
2

6
0

2
1
5
8

2
3
6

4
1
2

6
0
2

7
3
6

8
2
0

8
6
0

8
2
8

7
2
2

5
6
5

4
1
5

2
3
0

6
4

2
1
6
4

2
0
7

2
9
0

3
2
4

4
9
7

7
9
4

8
0
1

3
7
8

2
9
1

2
1
8

1
7
2

1
1
2

3
2

1
4
9
6

2
6
8

4
4
1

6
2
0

7
6
4

8
7
8

9
0
4

8
5
5

7
7
3

6
2
6

4
5
4

2
6
2

1
0
1

9

0

0
13

1
6
3

3
5
6

5
4
8

7
4
3

8
9
6

9
4
7

9
8
2

9
5
7

8
7
8

7
4
7

5
7
6

3
7
6

2
1
5

3
0

1

0
0
2
7

1
0
8

1
8
3

2
4
7

4
5
2

7
8
0

6
6
2

3
3
6

2
9
1

2
1
8

1
7
2

4
7

1
8

1

0

0
1
5
0

2
6
3

4
5
9

6
3
4

7
7
6

8
6
3

8
8
1

8
5
6

7
5
2

6
2
5

4
4
6

2
5
6

6
3

1
1
7
2

2
6
7

4
6
4

6
4
1

7
8
0

8
6
7

9
0
2

8
6
9

7
7
2

6
3
2

4
5
3

2
4
9

6
4

1
1
6
7

2
5
9

4
5
5

6
2
9

7
6
8

8
5
8

8
8
7

8
5
1

7
6
0

6
2
0

4
4
6

2
4
7

6
0

1
64

2
5
3

4
4
9

6
2
4

7
6
1

8
4
9

8
7
7

8
4
5

7
5
2

6
1
1

4
3
3

2
3
4

5
1

1
55

2
2
9

4
1
1

5
7
8

7
1
3

7
8
7

8
0
6

7
4
9

6
3
7

4
9
1

2
5
5

9
6

2
0

1
29

1
8
0

3
5
3

5
4
7

7
1
7

8
2
0

8
5
0

8
1
4

7
2
3

5
6
7

3
8
5

1
8
3

3
6

1
18

6
9

2
1
8

4
9
8

2
7
4

2
9
1

3
7
7

5
5
9

7
1
7

4
7
2

3
5
1

2
1
8

4
2
1
4
8

2
4
4

4
3
3

5
9
4

7
3
4

8
2
0

8
4
4

8
0
9

7
1
6

5
7
9

4
0
5

2
1
7

4
8
35

2
1
2

4
1
3

5
9
3

7
3
6

8
2
3

8
5
1

8
1
9

7
1
4

5
7
2

3
8
9

1
9
5

3
8
49

2
2
9

4
2
6

5
9
4

7
4
2

8
2
8

8
5
7

8
2
1

7
2
6

5
6
9

3
9
0

1
9
4

3
0
39

2
0
6

4
0
3

5
7
7

7
1
8

8
1
1

8
3
6

8
0
2

6
8
6

5
2
1

3
2
8

1
2
8

1
9
27

1
6
8

3
6
0

5
4
4

6
9
3

7
8
3

8
0
8

7
7
0

6
9
0

5
4
4

3
6
3

1
6
6

2
4
27

1
6
0

3
4
7

5
3
0

6
9
3

7
8
8

8
2
5

7
9
6

7
0
5

5
6
9

3
8
9

1
9
1

2
7

1
25

1
6
7

3
6
0

5
0
6

6
7
3

7
6
8

7
8
1

7
4
7

6
4
6

4
9
9

3
3
4

1
4
7

2
1
25

1
6
7

3
5
3

5
3
1

6
6
7

7
6
1

7
9
0

7
6
6

6
8
3

5
3
8

3
4
1

1
4
2

2
0
28

1
1
9

2
7
5

4
4
1

6
6
0

7
5
5

8
1
5

7
5
8

6
5
5

4
5
3

2
8
6

1
4
8

1
9
16

1
2
8

1
1
4

2
1
1

2
8
0

3
0
2

2
9
5

2
9
7

3
5
4

2
3
7

1
5
1

1
3
0

1
2
6
3
5

6
5

1
6
8

3
3
5

5
8
6

7
6
9

7
3
9

6
4
3

4
9
2

3
1
1

1
2
9

1
2
23

1
7
2

3
5
9

5
3
2

6
7
1

7
5
4

7
7
5

7
3
6

6
3
3

4
8
1

3
0
6

1
2
4

1
1
21

1
6
5

3
5
1

5
3
0

6
6
7

7
4
9

7
7
5

7
3
6

6
1
8

4
5
9

2
7
3

1
2
6

9
17

1
6
1

3
3
7

4
5
0

5
8
1

6
3
0

7
1
9

6
6
5

5
1
9

5
2
1

3
0
5

1
0
7

1
2
19

1
6
6

3
4
5

5
1
5

6
5
1

7
3
4

7
4
7

6
0
6

6
9
3

4
6
8

2
9
8

1
1
0

8
19

1
6
9

3
5
7

5
2
6

6
6
2

7
4
3

7
6
0

7
1
9

6
1
8

4
6
7

2
7
0

1
0
0

6
16

1
5
3

3
4
2

5
2
1

6
4
6

7
3
4

7
2
2

7
3
0

6
3
9

4
6
2

2
7
3

8
9

7
10

1
3
9

1
9
4

4
5
5

5
7
9

7
0
7

7
0
4

6
7
7

5
3
8

3
8
4

2
2
2

1
1
2

7
18

1
7
9

3
6
8

5
3
6

6
7
2

6
8
1

6
9
9

6
9
3

6
2
6

4
7
5

2
9
0

1
1
3

5
16

1
7
0

3
6
4

5
3
9

6
6
8

7
4
4

7
6
6

7
2
6

6
3
2

4
8
4

3
0
3

1
1
4

4
17

1
7
9

3
6
4

5
3
3

6
6
3

7
4
1

7
6
0

7
1
9

6
2
0

4
7
5

2
9
7

1
0
9

3
16

1
7
9

3
6
4

5
3
3

6
6
4

7
4
3

7
6
4

7
2
4

6
2
7

4
8
0

2
9
8

1
0
6

3
0
3
2

1
8
2

3
5
2

5
2
5

6
5
4

7
3
9

7
7
1

7
4
1

6
6
2

5
1
2

3
3
5

1
5
8

2
5

0

0

0
1
7
4

2
6
7

4
6
4

6
4
1

7
8
0

8
6
7

9
0
2

8
6
9

7
7
2

6
3
2

4
5
3

2
5
6

6
8

1

0

0
0
6

3
5

6
5

1
6
8

2
7
4

2
9
1

2
9
5

2
9
7

3
5
4

2
3
7

1
5
1

8
9

3

0

0

0
7
1
1
3

3
1
8

4
8
8

5
5
9

6
6
8

7
1
3

6
4
0

5
7
7

4
0
4

2
5
3

6
2

3
9
1
2
7

3
0
0

4
7
0

6
0
0

6
8
1

6
9
8

6
5
8

5
6
8

4
2
8

2
5
7

8
0

2
9
1
2
6

3
0
6

4
7
5

6
0
2

6
8
3

7
1
1

6
6
5

5
6
8

4
2
3

2
4
9

7
4

1
9
1
3
1

3
0
9

4
8
5

6
1
1

7
0
1

7
0
2

6
3
6

5
5
9

4
1
2

2
2
4

5
7

1
7
1
2
0

3
0
2

4
6
0

5
8
4

6
6
4

6
8
5

6
4
2

5
4
3

3
9
6

2
2
2

6
0

1
7
1
1
6

2
9
6

4
6
6

5
9
8

6
7
9

6
9
8

6
5
6

5
6
1

3
4
0

2
1
1

6
0

1
4
1
1
8

3
1
1

4
7
9

6
0
7

6
8
4

7
0
5

5
6
9

5
7
9

3
4
3

1
7
5

4
2
6
1
2
1

2
9
7

4
6
0

5
8
6

6
6
3

6
8
8

6
4
2

5
4
0

3
9
3

2
2
0

5
3

1
4
1
3
0

3
1
9

4
0
4

5
9
8

6
8
2

7
1
2

5
8
7

4
8
1

2
2
5

1
0
9

2
0
4
4
4

2
1
7

4
9
0

6
1
7

6
9
0

7
0
3

6
5
8

5
5
4

4
0
8

2
3
1

5
2
3
1
3
1

3
1
4

4
7
9

6
0
5

6
7
8

6
9
5

6
4
8

5
4
5

3
9
9

2
2
6

6
4
3
1
2
9

3
0
3

4
7
0

5
8
9

6
3
9

6
8
5

6
7
3

4
1
6

2
7
6

1
6
9

3
8

1
4
1
1
9

2
9
9

4
4
8

5
5
9

6
4
3

6
4
8

5
7
9

4
7
3

3
8
1

1
8
9

3
9
3
8
7

2
4
6

4
3
0

5
3
1

6
2
7

6
5
4

6
2
7

5
3
1

3
7
4

2
1
4

3
9
2
1
1
4

2
9
4

4
5
6

5
7
9

6
5
0

6
6
4

6
2
0

5
2
0

3
7
5

2
0
4

3
5
3
1
0
8

2
8
6

4
4
8

5
6
3

6
3
6

6
5
4

6
0
6

5
0
6

3
8
2

1
7
8

2
3
2
1
0
6

2
8
4

4
4
7

5
3
7

6
5
0

6
4
8

6
0
6

4
9
9

3
3
3

1
9
2

2
8
3
9
8

2
6
7

3
2
7

5
7
3

4
9
0

7
1
6

6
4
8

4
2
0

2
5
4

1
6
2

2
8
2
9
8

2
5
6

4
2
2

5
6
6

6
5
2

6
4
6

6
0
2

4
9
2

2
9
1

8
7

2
1
3
1
0
2

2
8
1

4
3
7

5
5
7

6
2
1

6
4
2

5
9
9

5
0
1

3
4
9

1
8
1

2
0
2
9
0

2
6
8

4
3
4

5
6
1

6
3
1

6
4
3

5
9
7

4
9
6

3
1
3

7
5

2
5
1
6
0

2
2
2

3
6
0

5
0
7

5
6
4

4
1
5

4
7
3

4
8
9

3
4
3

1
7
2

2
0
1
2
4

9
5

2
7
9

5
4
1

4
7
4

6
4
0

6
1
9

4
7
4

3
3
8

1
3
4

2
4
1
2
0

1
0
0

3
7
3

5
8
1

6
2
1

6
3
5

5
5
1

3
5
1

2
3
1

1
1
3

1
0
1
7
7

2
5
9

4
1
8

5
4
6

6
1
5

6
2
5

5
7
6

4
7
3

3
2
6

1
5
4

1
3
1
7
2

2
4
7

4
0
5

5
2
7

5
8
7

6
1
0

5
6
6

4
6
3

3
1
8

1
5
3

2
2
1
7
2

2
4
7

4
0
6

5
2
9

6
0
0

6
1
2

5
6
4

4
6
2

3
1
6

1
4
7

1
2
1
6
7

2
4
2

4
0
1

5
2
2

5
9
2

6
0
4

5
5
7

4
5
6

3
1
4

1
4
6

1
1
1
6
5

2
4
0

3
9
9

5
2
0

5
9
0

6
0
3

5
5
7

4
5
6

3
1
2

1
4
4

9
57

2
2
9

3
8
5

5
0
6

5
7
4

5
8
7

5
3
9

4
4
2

2
9
8

1
3
1

9
0
4

9
7

2
6
8

4
3
3

5
6
8

6
3
4

6
5
8

6
0
8

5
0
3

3
4
7

1
8
1

3
7

0

0

0

0
0
1
4

1
7
1

3
5
6

5
2
6

6
5
2

7
3
0

7
4
9

7
0
0

6
0
0

4
5
3

2
7
8

9
3

3

0

0

0
0
0

2
0

9
5

2
7
9

5
0
6

4
7
4

4
1
5

4
7
3

3
5
1

2
2
5

7
5

9

0

0

0

0
63

2
2
6

3
8
3

4
8
2

4
7
3

5
8
0

5
3
3

4
3
3

2
8
9

1
3
0

7
1
4
4

2
0
3

3
5
6

4
7
4

5
4
2

5
5
7

5
0
9

4
0
8

2
7
0

1
0
0

5
46

2
0
8

3
5
9

4
7
7

5
4
5

5
5
9

5
1
5

4
1
7

2
7
9

1
1
5

6
1
4
6

2
0
5

3
5
9

4
7
7

5
4
7

5
6
1

5
1
6

4
1
5

2
7
5

1
1
3

6
15

9
3

1
6
4

1
8
4

1
9
7

2
1
2

2
5
2

2
2
9

9
5

2
6

2
55

1
3
3

2
7
6

3
4
6

3
8
7

3
8
4

3
2
7

1
4
1

2
7

2
3

2
8
6
6

1
3
8

2
9
4

3
8
0

3
2
8

1
7
3

8
5

4
3

2
6

2
32

7
5

3
3
1

4
7
2

5
3
6

5
0
3

4
0
5

3
6
6

2
0
6

8
4

4
19

8
3

1
5
5

2
3
3

3
2
1

3
9
9

4
6
2

4
0
1

2
5
9

8
7

3
19

7
7

2
3
2

4
5
9

4
6
9

5
1
9

4
3
2

3
5
6

1
7
6

3
8

2
31

1
9
3

3
4
5

4
6
4

5
3
2

5
4
3

4
9
6

3
9
7

2
5
6

9
3

3
21

1
8
9

3
1
5

1
9
8

3
7
0

2
1
2

1
3
5

5
7

3
1

1
8

1
18

1
7
5

3
2
8

4
5
6

5
2
8

4
4
8

3
9
5

3
9
0

2
5
6

8
4

2
7
4
2

1
0
4

1
6
6

1
7
7

2
0
9

2
4
1

1
4
8

1
2
4

3
7

1
21

1
7
2

3
1
2

4
2
8

4
8
2

4
6
7

4
5
2

3
5
9

2
1
7

7
0

3
19

1
6
7

3
0
0

3
0
5

3
1
7

3
3
6

3
9
6

3
5
5

2
0
5

6
3

1
3
2
1

5
4

6
0

6
6

1
1
8

1
8
6

1
4
6

8
5

3
9

1
20

8
7

3
1
2

4
3
4

4
8
9

4
8
3

4
4
2

3
5
4

2
0
3

5
5

2
14

1
5
2

3
0
3

4
1
9

4
8
7

4
9
9

4
4
4

2
7
9

1
3
5

4
2

2
14

1
5
1

3
0
0

4
1
9

4
8
9

5
0
4

4
6
0

3
6
4

2
3
0

7
0

2
17

1
3
8

2
9
2

3
2
9

4
5
8

3
6
0

3
9
8

3
6
8

2
3
7

6
8

2
3
3
7

5
7

1
2
1

2
1
2

2
8
0

3
4
8

2
9
0

1
1
9

2
0

1
10

1
4
6

2
8
3

4
0
0

4
7
1

4
8
5

4
3
7

3
6
2

2
2
0

6
4

2
10

1
3
9

2
8
8

4
6
5

4
4
0

4
8
6

4
3
9

3
4
6

2
5
2

5
4

1
9
1
2
3

2
8
0

4
1
5

3
5
6

3
4
4

2
3
8

1
9
3

2
5
0

6
2

2
7
1
2
9

2
7
5

3
9
2

4
6
5

4
7
5

4
2
8

3
4
3

2
1
5

6
1

2
8
1
3
6

2
7
3

3
8
9

4
6
0

4
7
5

4
3
4

3
4
3

2
1
0

6
0

2
7
1
4
1

2
7
3

3
9
1

4
6
1

4
7
8

4
3
7

3
4
6

2
1
6

5
8

2
6
1
3
9

2
7
3

3
9
8

4
5
2

4
6
6

4
2
6

3
0
9

1
4
4

3
8

2
0
0

2
2

1
3
6

2
7
0

3
6
8

4
2
3

4
2
8

3
9
7

3
1
5

1
9
4

6
4

3

0

0

0

0
0
1

6
3

2
2
6

3
8
3

5
0
3

5
7
2

5
8
4

5
3
9

4
3
9

2
9
6

1
3
0

8

0

0

0

0
0
0

3

2
1

5
4

6
0

6
6

1
1
8

1
3
5

5
7

2
7

1
8

1

0

0

0

0
4
1
1
6

2
6
4

3
8
1

4
5
3

4
7
1

4
3
0

3
3
8

2
1
1

5
7

2
4
1
1
6

2
6
5

3
8
2

4
5
4

4
7
2

4
3
3

3
4
2

2
1
4

5
9

2
4
1
1
6

2
6
3

3
7
9

4
5
1

4
6
9

4
3
1

3
4
1

2
1
4

5
7

2
3
1
0
8

2
5
5

3
7
2

4
4
4

4
6
3

4
2
5

3
3
6

2
1
0

5
6

2
3
1
0
5

2
5
5

3
7
5

4
4
7

4
3
6

3
9
8

3
4
9

2
6
2

5
7

2
3
1
0
0

2
5
0

3
6
7

4
4
1

4
6
0

4
2
3

3
3
5

2
0
8

5
6

2
3
1
1
1

2
5
1

3
6
9

4
4
3

4
6
2

4
2
6

3
3
8

2
1
2

5
8

2
4
4
9

9
4

1
7
4

2
3
9

3
3
2

3
5
3

3
0
3

2
1
3

5
1

2
1
5
0

1
0
9

1
6
5

1
9
5

2
8
8

2
9
8

2
1
9

1
3
2

4
8

4
2
2
4

1
2
5

3
3
3

4
5
7

4
1
4

4
0
9

3
1
2

1
7
9

5
0

2
1
3
1

2
2
3

3
7
5

3
8
3

4
5
5

4
2
2

3
1
2

1
9
9

2
6

2
2
5
6

2
0
0

3
3
2

2
9
9

4
4
1

2
7
7

1
5
6

8
1

2
1

1
1
1
8

5
9

1
1
2

1
6
1

1
8
2

2
2
5

2
1
8

1
1
0

3
8

1
1
3
7

1
0
4

1
9
0

2
1
4

2
7
4

3
4
4

3
3
3

2
0
0

3
2

1
1
3
3

1
8
6

3
1
5

3
9
9

4
0
6

3
6
2

2
9
7

1
9
5

5
3

1
1
8

2
7

4
9

6
7

1
3
4

1
2
7

1
2
4

5
4

1
1

2
2
2
4

1
7
5

2
2
4

3
0
7

4
3
9

3
1
9

3
4
7

2
0
5

5
4

2
1
7
2

2
2
5

3
3
8

4
1
8

4
2
6

3
8
0

3
0
9

1
3
2

4
3

2
2
6
0

1
2
7

3
2
0

3
0
7

3
1
2

3
8
3

3
5
3

8
1

3
8

2
1
6
7

2
1
7

3
3
0

4
0
6

4
3
2

4
0
0

3
2
1

2
0
1

5
7

2
1
3
1

9
8

2
7
4

1
8
5

2
5
6

4
5
7

2
6
7

1
9
7

5
8

3
1
7
0

2
2
2

3
4
3

4
2
2

4
4
8

4
1
7

3
3
6

2
1
5

6
5

3
1
6
9

2
2
1

3
4
0

4
2
0

4
3
8

4
0
7

3
2
8

2
1
3

4
6

2
1
6
8

2
1
7

3
4
0

4
1
8

4
3
8

4
1
6

3
3
6

1
8
1

4
4

2
1
2
1

8
3

2
1
6

2
3
4

2
1
5

2
4
0

1
7
8

8
7

3
3

2
1
6
0

1
9
1

2
5
8

3
1
3

3
7
0

3
5
7

2
3
8

1
3
1

5
4

3
27

4
8

5
5

1
3
0

9
8

9
7

1
2
1

1
0
5

3
4

2
1
6
7

2
2
1

3
4
4

4
2
5

4
5
2

4
2
3

3
4
3

2
2
4

7
4

3
1
2
6

1
0
3

3
0
1

3
4
0

3
1
2

2
6
0

1
3
0

1
1
2

2
1

2
23

9
4

1
4
5

2
0
5

2
3
8

1
6
7

1
8
8

1
3
5

7
6

4
0
0

2

6
1

1
7
5

2
8
6

3
4
0

3
7
1

3
5
3

2
8
3

1
7
2

4
8

2

0

0

0

0
0
0

4

1
1
7

2
6
5

3
8
2

4
5
7

4
7
2

4
5
7

3
5
3

2
6
2

7
6

4

0

0

0

0
0
0

0

8

2
7

4
9

6
7

9
8

9
7

1
2
1

5
4

1
1

1

0

0

0

0

(QHUJ\6ROXWLRQV//&$QQXDO6XPPDU\5HSRUW
7ULQLW\&RQVXOWDQWV*



$33(1',;*<($5-2,17)5(48(1&<2)2&&855(1&(
',675,%87,2162):,1'63(('$1'',5(&7,21±6,*0$7+(7$
$1''(/7$7
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
4

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
3

1
.
8
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

1
.
8
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
9

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
1

1
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
7

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

1
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
3

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
2

1
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
3

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

1
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

4
.
0

6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

1
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
9

6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
6

1
.
8
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

3
.
1

6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
8

1
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

3
.
0

7
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
4

1
.
9
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
6

6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
7

2
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
4

4
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

1
.
9
1.
5
37
.
8

6
0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
8
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
1
7
6
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
8
5
6
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
.
3
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

2
.
4

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

2
.
8
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
1

2
.
6

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

2
.
7
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
2

2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
7

2
.
6
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
7

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

2
.
1
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

2
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
0

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

2
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

2
.
4

1
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
0

2
.
4
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
8

4
.
5

5
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
1

2
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
7

4
.
1

4
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
7

2
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

2
.
3

3
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

2
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
0

4
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

2
.
9
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
4

5
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
7

3
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

2
.
7

6
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
7

3
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
9

4
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
2

3
.
0
0.
7
16
.
8

3
4
.
4

4
7
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
1
2
3
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
8
5
6
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
3

3
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
5

4
.
0
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
6

3
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

3
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
0

2
.
4

3
.
1

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

3
.
3
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

2
.
5

2
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

2
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

1
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

2
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

2
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

0
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
5

2
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

2
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
5

3
.
0

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

3
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

4
.
7

9
.
7

3
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
19
.
1

3
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
6

4
.
9

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
9

3
.
7
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
0

2
.
1

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
3

3
.
6
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

1
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
4

3
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
9

2
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
7

3
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

1
.
3

4
.
6

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
7

4
.
1
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
9

4
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
3

4
.
2
0.
7
11
.
5

2
5
.
6

4
7
.
4

1
4
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
6
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
6
3
7
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
8
5
6
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
1
.
1
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
7

1
.
7

1
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
1
5.
1

5
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

1
.
5

2
.
3

1
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
1
6.
5

4
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

4
.
1

4
.
6

1
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
11
.
3

3
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
7

6
.
5

6
.
9

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
9

3
.
2
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
6

2
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
4

2
.
9
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
6

3
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

3
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
3

4
.
0
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
6

5
.
1

6
.
4

2
.
5

1
.
0
18
.
1

5
.
8
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
6

5
.
4

6
.
4

1
.
4

0
.
5
16
.
7

5
.
4
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
6

1
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1
3.
2

4
.
8
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
3

5
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
2

5
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
6

4
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
1

0
.
5

0
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
7

0
.
3
4.
0

6
.
3
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
1

0
.
5

1
.
3

2
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
2
5.
2

6
.
1
0.
5
5.
0

2
5
.
0

3
3
.
5

2
6
.
4

7
.
2

2
.
4

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

8
5
7
5
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
8
5
6
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
5
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

2
.
1
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

3
.
3

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
8

2
.
1
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
6

6
.
9

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
4

2
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

2
.
6

1
1
.
0

1
2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
26
.
0

2
.
9
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

2
.
0

5
.
3

4
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
9

2
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
3

1
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

1
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
5

1
.
7
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

2
.
1
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
4

4
.
4

7
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
9

3
.
2
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

3
.
2

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
9

2
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

2
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

2
.
0
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
4
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

2
.
5
1.
1
18
.
2

4
4
.
3

3
6
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
5
3
3
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
8
5
6
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
4
.
8
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
1

2
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
3

1
.
5
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

4
.
5

3
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
0

1
.
5
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

6
.
1

5
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

1
.
5
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

5
.
8

5
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
0

1
.
5
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

5
.
2

3
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

1
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

4
.
1

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

1
.
4
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

4
.
2

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

1
.
3
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

4
.
5

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

4
.
8

3
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
4

1
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
6

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

1
.
5
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

1
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
8

1
.
4
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
4
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

1
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

1
.
5
3.
2
57
.
5

3
9
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
8
1
1
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
3
8
5
6
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
6
.
0
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
Si
g
m
a

T
h
e
t
a

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
2

0
.
0
5.
4

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

2
.
4

1
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
5

3
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

4
.
1

2
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
9.
6

2
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

5
.
4

4
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
3

2
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

3
.
0

3
.
5

2
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
3
11
.
9

4
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

3
.
5

4
.
0

2
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
2
12
.
5

4
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
3

2
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
6

2
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

2
.
6
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1
5.
1

3
.
7
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
5

1
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
1
5.
2

3
.
9
1.
2
21
.
3

3
5
.
7

2
7
.
0

1
1
.
3

2
.
6

0
.
9

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
4
2
2
5
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
4
5
4
4
8
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
8
.
7
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

A
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
8

3
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
9

1
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
9

1
.
9
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
9
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
0

1
.
7
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

1
.
5
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

1
.
5
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
6
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
8

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
1

1
.
7
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

2
.
7

7
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
5

1
.
9
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

3
.
6

1
0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
9

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
9

1
2
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
16
.
2

1
.
9
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

3
.
3

1
0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
13
.
6

2
.
0
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

2
.
1

9
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
11
.
5

2
.
0
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
5

6
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
6

2
.
0
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
7

2
.
0
0.
3
25
.
3

7
4
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
9
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

5
9
9
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
2
0
4
1
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
.
5
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

B
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

2
.
1

2
.
0

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
6

2
.
2
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
8

1
.
8

1
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
9

2
.
2
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
6

1
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
6

2
.
0
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
2

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
6
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
4

1
.
5
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
1

1
.
3
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
3

1
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
1

1
.
4
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

2
.
4

2
.
1

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
5

2
.
0
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

3
.
5

4
.
7

5
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
1

2
.
7
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

4
.
0

4
.
8

3
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
8

2
.
4
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

3
.
4

3
.
7

2
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
2

2
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

2
.
5

3
.
7

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
8

2
.
3
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

2
.
7

4
.
1

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
10
.
0

2
.
4
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

2
.
2

3
.
2

4
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
3

2
.
7
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
0

2
.
3

2
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
7

2
.
5
1.
4
33
.
3

3
6
.
4

2
8
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
2
9
7
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
2
0
4
1
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
3
.
6
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

C
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
3

2
.
7

3
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
9

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
4

3
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

3
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

2
.
3

3
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

3
.
3
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

1
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
2

3
.
1
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
8

2
.
8
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
6
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
9

2
.
4
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

2
.
5
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
6

3
.
5

4
.
7

0
.
6

0
.
2

0
.
1
9.
7

3
.
6
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

7
.
1

1
0
.
2

3
.
1

0
.
3

0
.
1
21
.
3

3
.
8
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
4

4
.
5

3
.
5

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
5

3
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

2
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

3
.
1
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

2
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

3
.
1
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

3
.
3

2
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

3
.
1
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
2

3
.
6

3
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

3
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

2
.
7

3
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

3
.
5
0.
4
5.
0

4
1
.
6

4
4
.
0

8
.
0

0
.
7

0
.
2

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

3
1
3
0
1
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
2
0
4
1
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
2
.
9
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

D
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

1
.
1

1
.
8

1
.
8

0
.
4

0
.
1
5.
5

4
.
8
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

0
.
5

1
.
6

2
.
3

1
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
1
6.
4

4
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

0
.
6

3
.
5

4
.
8

1
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0
10
.
6

3
.
7
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

0
.
5

5
.
9

9
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0
16
.
9

3
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

0
.
4

2
.
6

3
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
6

3
.
2
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

3
.
1
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
5

0
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
2

3
.
0
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

0
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
8

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
2.
5

3
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

0
.
5

2
.
4

6
.
1

5
.
3

2
.
0

0
.
8
17
.
0

5
.
5
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

0
.
4

2
.
0

4
.
2

5
.
1

1
.
1

0
.
4
13
.
3

5
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
7

0
.
9

0
.
9

0
.
2

0
.
0
3.
1

4
.
5
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
7

4
.
3
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
3

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
5

4
.
5
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
2

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
1.
8

4
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
3

0
.
8

0
.
9

1
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
2
4.
2

5
.
5
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
3

0
.
8

1
.
4

2
.
2

0
.
6

0
.
2
5.
4

5
.
5
0.
4
5.
7

2
4
.
6

3
8
.
7

2
3
.
0

5
.
7

1
.
9

1
0
0
.
0

4
.
5
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
0
7
6
4
7
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
2
0
4
1
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
4
.
5
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

E
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
1

3
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
4

1
.
9
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
5

6
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
2

2
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

1
.
9

1
2
.
9

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
14
.
8

2
.
1
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
8

1
6
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
18
.
5

2
.
1
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

7
.
7

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
4

2
.
0
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
5

1
.
9
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

2
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
8

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

3
.
3

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

1
.
9
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

7
.
1

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
1

2
.
1
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

5
.
5

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
7.
1

2
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

0
.
9

2
.
1

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
7
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
7

1
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

1
.
7
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
7

1
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
6

1
.
9
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

2
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
1

1
.
9
1.
2
19
.
2

7
7
.
9

1
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
.
0
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
2
8
1
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
2
0
4
1
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

9
.
4
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
l
a
s
s

F
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

3
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
4.
6

1
.
3
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

5
.
3

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
1

1
.
3
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

7
.
8

4
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
6

1
.
4
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

7
.
7

5
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
7

1
.
4
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

6
.
4

2
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
9.
4

1
.
3
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

4
.
8

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
5

1
.
2
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

4
.
7

1
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
2

1
.
2
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

5
.
0

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
8

1
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

5
.
5

2
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
8.
3

1
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

4
.
0

2
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
6.
1

1
.
3
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

2
.
5

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

1
.
3
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
6

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
2

1
.
2
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

1
.
5

0
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
1.
9

1
.
2
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

1
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
0

1
.
3
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

1
.
8

0
.
6

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
4

1
.
2
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

2
.
2

0
.
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
0

1
.
3
3.
8
65
.
5

3
0
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
.
3
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

C
A
S
E
S

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

4
1
3
1
4
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

W
I
T
H

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

2
4
2
0
4
1
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

T
O
T
A
L

O
F

T
H
I
S

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

=

1
7
.
1
%

En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
-

C
l
i
v
e
,

U
t
a
h
SR
D
T

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
99
3

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

h
o
u
r
l
y

w
i
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r
a
l
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
OV
E
R

1
.
5
4

-

3
.
0
9

-

5
.
1
4

-

8
.
2
3

-

O
V
E
R

A
V
G

0.
5

3
.
0
9

5
.
1
4

8
.
2
3

1
0
.
8

1
0
.
8
SP
E
E
D
N
34
8
.
7
5

-

1
1
.
2
5

1
.
2

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
2

0
.
0
5.
4

3
.
4
NN
E
11
.
2
5

-

3
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

2
.
4

1
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
6.
5

3
.
0
NE
33
.
7
5

-

5
6
.
2
5

2
.
1

4
.
1

2
.
6

0
.
8

0
.
1

0
.
0
9.
6

2
.
8
EN
E
56
.
2
5

-

7
8
.
7
5

1
.
9

5
.
4

4
.
6

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0
12
.
3

2
.
8
E

7
8
.
7
5

-

10
1
.
2
5

1
.
6

2
.
6

1
.
6

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
5.
9

2
.
4
ES
E
10
1
.
2
5

-

1
2
3
.
7
5

1
.
2

1
.
0

0
.
4

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
7

2
.
0
SE
12
3
.
7
5

-

1
4
6
.
2
5

1
.
2

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0
2.
3

1
.
8
SS
E
14
6
.
2
5

-

1
6
8
.
7
5

1
.
4

1
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
3
S
16
8
.
7
5

-

1
9
1
.
2
5

1
.
7

3
.
0

3
.
5

2
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
3
11
.
9

4
.
3
SS
W
19
1
.
2
5

-

2
1
3
.
7
5

1
.
6

3
.
5

4
.
0

2
.
7

0
.
5

0
.
2
12
.
5

4
.
0
SW
21
3
.
7
5

-

2
3
6
.
2
5

1
.
3

2
.
2

1
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
1

0
.
0
5.
6

2
.
9
WS
W
23
6
.
2
5

-

2
5
8
.
7
5

1
.
1

1
.
5

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0
3.
5

2
.
6
W
25
8
.
7
5

-

2
8
1
.
2
5

0
.
9

1
.
4

0
.
7

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
3

2
.
7
WN
W
28
1
.
2
5

-

3
0
3
.
7
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
0

0
.
2

0
.
1

0
.
0
3.
8

2
.
8
NW
30
3
.
7
5

-

3
2
6
.
2
5

0
.
8

1
.
7

1
.
4

0
.
8

0
.
2

0
.
1
5.
1

3
.
7
NN
W
32
6
.
2
5

-

3
4
8
.
7
5

0
.
9

1
.
5

1
.
4

1
.
0

0
.
3

0
.
1
5.
2

3
.
9
1.
2
21
.
3

3
5
.
7

2
7
.
0

1
1
.
3

2
.
6

0
.
9

1
0
0
.
0

3
.
2
TO
T
A
L

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
4
2
2
5
0
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S

=

2
4
5
4
4
8
DA
T
A

R
E
C
O
V
E
R
Y

=

9
8
.
7
%

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page C-1 Appendix C April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX C

BINGHAM ENVIRONMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT

(Bingham, 1992)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-1 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX D

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH STUDY REPORT AND 2021 INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-2 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Phase 1 - Final Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report
and Responses to Round 2 Interrogatories

In response to a letter dated July 29, 2019 (Verbica, 2019), Phase 1 of the Basal Depth Aquifer Study
Plan (EnergySolutions, 2019 and Stantec, 2019) was developed to enhance understand the hydrogeologic
and geologic characteristics of the basal-depth aquifer at the proposed location for the Federal Cell
Facility (Facility). The hydrogeologic conditions of the first 100 feet below the Facility have already been
well characterized since the U.S. Department of Energy VITRO Chemical Company project and original
Envirocare of Utah licensing actions (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and Department of Energy [DOE]
1984a, 1984b). In addition, EnergySolutions’ subsequent licensing and permitting activities have further
characterized the subsurface beneath the Facility. These previous activities, coupled with long-term
monitoring of the shallow, unconfined aquifer, have extensively captured the hydrogeologic conditions in
the first 100 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Based on the understanding of the hydrogeologic conditions in the first 100 feet, DOE and
EnergySolutions expect the conceptual model of the Facility to include similar stratigraphy below that
first 100 feet. EnergySolutions was tasked by the Director of the Utah Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control (Director) to validate this hydrogeologic conceptual model down to basal depths
(i.e., log the subsurface geology/stratigraphy and characterize the deep aquifer) through the installation
and sampling of a basal depth well. Data collected from Phase 1 of the Study are used to understand the
characteristics of the subsurface hydrogeology at depths exceeding 100 feet bgs (as reported in Stantec
(2020); which was separately submitted to the Director via Rogers (2020) and hereto attached as Exhibit 2
to Appendix D).
EnergySolutions hereby responds to interrogatories received on January 15, 2021 from the Director of the
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Willoughby, 2021). Supplemental interrogatory
responses prepared by Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec, 2021) are hereto attached as Exhibit 1 to
Appendix D.
• Interrogatory #1
The Division requested information from EnergySolutions about basal aquifers at the
Facility and other hydrogeological information at depth not previously provided. The
Division acknowledges the careful field and laboratory work and the useful information
that EnergySolutions has provided to the Division through this study. However, the Division
has comments and questions regarding some of the information and interpretations of the
data. These questions should be considered in the context of the following list of rules: UAC
R313-25-8(1), UAC R313-35-9(4)(a), UAC R313-25-15(1)(a), UAC R313-25-3(6), UAC R313-
25-24(2) and (7), and UAC R313-25-27(1). Regarding the quoted paragraph above, please
indicate which of the Division Director’s requirements, as outlined in the listed rules and as
specifically requested by the Director and referenced in the study Plan, have already been
met, and which requirements still need to be met, and explain why.

Response Summary: In the letter dated July 29, 2019 (Verbica, 2019), the Director provided a
“… description of the data objectives the Division expects to be met through EnergySolutions’
assessment and characterization of the basal aquifer at the Clive facility.” The Director
emphasized the importance of the study by noting that “… a study of the unconsolidated basal
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-3 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

aquifer system is required as part of the DUPA. In addition, a basal aquifer assessment and
characterization is required by Condition 11.4 of the 11e(2) license [which has been licensed and
in operation for more than 20 years]. It is also a necessary component for evaluation of the
pending LLRW license renewal [which also has been licensed and in operation for more than 20
years].” Rather than to address the Utah Administrative Code rules cited in the Division’s
Request for Information, Phase 1 of EnergySolutions Basal Study Plan (submitted via CD19-
0185, CD19-0224, CD19-0227 and CD20-0004 and approved by the Director on December 10,
2019) was specifically prepared in response to the data quality objectives required in the
Director’s July 29, 2019 letter.

“The Director’s letters include a list of basal-depth groundwater characteristics of
interest to the Division (see Table 1). Even with the uncertainty associated with a Proof
of Process, Phase 1 has been designed to be understand these characteristics of the
basal-depth aquifer.” (Rogers, 2020).

In preparing a Study Plan that addressed the Director’s 2019 requirements and following that Plan
in preparation of the Study Report, EnergySolutions has supplied the information requested. The
latest Request’s new reference to Utah regulatory rules were not identified in the Director’s data
quality objectives nor are they commonly required by other holders of Utah’s Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permits (Eyzaguirre, 2021).

• Interrogatory #2
The Division does not see in the Report the following information requested from
EnergySolutions and found in the Plan (item numbering retained for ease of reference to
the above list):
(1) Depth of bedrock geophysical survey
(3) Top and bottom depth of each aquifer and aquitard (one or more aquifers not
described)
(6) Horizontal gradient(s) (not possible in this phase since all wells had similar x-y
coordinates)
(7) Vertical gradient(s) (the Division has concerns with some calculations made in the
Report)
(8) Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (the Division has concerns about calculations in the
Report)
(11) Groundwater age dating
(12) Distribution coefficients/retardation factors

Please (i) provide an update on plans to obtain this missing information and subsequently
report it to the Division, or (ii) justify the absence of the missing information despite having
indicated previously in the Plan that EnergySolutions would obtain and report this
information.

Response Summary: Stantec’s Report specifically identifies the purpose of the Phase 1 Study as

“Data collected from Phase 1 of the Study are used to understand the characteristics of
the subsurface hydrogeology at depths exceeding 100 feet bgs and inform
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-4 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EnergySolutions and DWMRC if development of subsequent Study phases are
warranted.” (Stantec, 2020; pg 1.1)

In their Report, Stantec concludes contaminant transport downward into basal depths of the
aquifer underlying the Clive Facility is highly unlikely.

“These results indicate limited connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper
basal aquifer at the Facility. Given the upward component of groundwater flow, vertical
heterogeneity with aquifer zones separated by an aquitard and a semi-confined aquifer
underlain by a thick aquitard, low vertical hydraulic conductivity and observed dryness
of the aquitard zones, and the lack of response in the 30 and 50 foot deep observation
wells during the aquifer test, hydraulic communication from the shallow zones to the
deeper basal aquifer under natural conditions is unlikely.” (Stantec, 2020; pg 4.1)

Even with Stantec’s finding of negligible downward transport communication between upper and
basal-depth aquifers, EnergySolutions restates it’s offer included with Report,

“EnergySolutions welcomes the opportunity to consider through collaboration with the
Director, benefits from further field studies and analysis.” (Rogers, 2020).

• Interrogatory #3
The Division asks the following questions:
3.1 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes two aquifers existing in the
depth range below 25 ft and above 275 ft bgs: (i) an unconfined aquifer that extends
from the water table down to a total depth of only about 40 to 45 ft bgs, and (ii) a
deeper confined aquifer extending downwards from about 45 ft bgs. The presence of
the confined aquifer also implies a thin aquitard existing directly above it.
Neptune’s conceptual model is also provided in Bingham Environmental (1991).

Stantec (2020b), on the other hand, describes a single, undifferentiated unconfined
aquifer extending from the water table down to a depth of about 275 feet.

For depths down to 275 ft bgs, which conceptual model, if either, appears to be
correct? Please provide justification for your answer.

3.2 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes a single deep aquifer at
depths beyond 275 ft bgs. Stantec (2020b) describes two aquitards, as well as a leaky
aquifer, in this depth range. Which description is correct?

3.3 Please represent the correct types and locations of all aquifers and aquitards in a
revised Figure 3 for the Report.

Response Summary: Stantec was commissioned to conduct the Phase 1 Study (Rogers, 2019)
that specifically focuses on a selection of the data quality objectives from the Director’s July 29,
2019 letter (Verbica, 2019). EnergySolutions required Stantec’s efforts to focus on observations,
analysis and conclusions related to the new basal-depth well I-1-700 that was constructed in
2019. As such, Stantec was not commissioned to evaluate any analysis conducted by Neptune
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-5 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

nor have they access to any source material on which Neptune based their analysis. In Figure 3
of Report (based on data and analysis from Well I-1-700), Stantec affirms that it accurately
“:…illustrates the aquifer stratification based on the screened intervals and lithology boring.”
The analyses presented by Stantec are from physical observations of the boring, not conceptual
modeling. No further correction or revision is warranted.

• Interrogatory #4
The Division has the following questions:
4.1 Stantec (2020b) indicates that it calculated “mid-points of saturated zone
elevations”, as are found in the last column of Table 3-3, but it is uncertain as to
what that implies relative to the calculations. All the calculations for hydraulic
gradient in Table 3-4 appear to have been done differently, using instead the
freshwater mid-screen interval, corrected for buoyancy. Please clarify what was
done for what purpose and justify why.

4.2 The text refers to mid-points of the saturated zone elevations, whereas Table 3-3
gives the mid-points of the filter pack elevations as well as the mid-points of the
saturated zone elevations, and the calculations in Table 3-4 are based on the mid-
screen elevations. Why? The elevations of the mid-points of the saturated zone, mid-
points of the filter packs, and mid-points of the screen for each well are all different.
So are derivatives of each these quantities.

4.3 Based on the results of calculations shown in Table 3-4, it appears that some part of
each range of what are called the buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients associated
with the shallow aquifer well (I-1-30) indicate downward flow to any of the wells in
what Neptune (2015) has called the deep aquifer (i.e., I-1-50, I-1-100, and I-1-700).
This is because some part of each range has negative values, which, according to the
Stantec (2020b) sign convention, represents downward flow. Is this also how
EnergySolutions interprets this? Please justify your response.

4.4 Looking at Table 3-4, for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, how does the sum of
0.041, the freshwater mid-screen gradient, and 0.040, the buoyancy correction,
supposedly equal 0.002? The latter value is said in Stantec (2020b) to be the
buoyancy-corrected mid-screen gradient. Calculations done by the Division indicate
that this value, based on the mid-screen assumption for estimating the gradient,
should be 0.001, not 0.002 (using the Stantec sign convention for the result).

4.5 What is the overall range of vertical gradients calculated for the well pair I-1-30 and
I-1-700, when accounting for well geometry and water level elevations, as indicated
in the last column of Table 3-4? Do the negative values given for some of these data
combinations indicate (according to the Stantec convention) the possibility of
downward flow? Please justify your response.

4.6 What is the overall calculated range of corrected vertical gradients for the well pair
consisting of I-1-50 and I-1-100? Do the negative values given for each of these data
combinations indicate (according to the Stantec convention) downward flow? Please
justify your response.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-6 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

4.7 The specific gravity for groundwater in the shallow aquifer is said in Table 3-3 to be
1.032. This value, based on a single measurement for groundwater in the shallow
aquifer at a single point may not be representative of the entire aquifer. Neptune
(2015), having examined data from many dozens of wells scattered across the Clive
Facility, indicates that, for this facility, The geochemistry of the shallow, unconfined
aquifer consists of very high levels of dissolved solutes as outlined above. . . . with
TDS values ranging from 20 to 70 parts per thousand and specific gravity from 1.02
to 1.06 g/mL (Envirocare 2004, and recent site specific groundwater data acquired
by EnergySolutions).

This range of specific gravity for the shallow-aquifer groundwater, from 1.02 to
1.06, can be compared with the single value for shallow-aquifer groundwater
specific gravity of 1.032 measured in the field recently and used in the Report, which
would be more toward the bottom of the reported Neptune (2015) range.

If a value of 1.060, at the upper end of the reported range, is instead used for
illustrative purposes for groundwater in some areas of the shallow aquifer, then the
groundwater density averaged between the basal aquifer and the shallow aquifer is
equal to 1.054 g/cm3, the value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is equal to 0.054, and a table using this
higher specific gravity for the shallow-aquifer groundwater, when presented using
the Division’s sign convention of this Interrogatory.

All calculated flow directions here are downward. This is because the sign
associated with qv, or vertical component of flow per unit area, is negative. If flow
had been upward, the sign of qv would have been positive. But, in this case, all the
values of qv are seen to have negative values.

For shallow-aquifer groundwater in this reported specific-gravity range with values
of specific gravity as low as a little more than 1.042, which is a little more than
midway across the range given by Neptune (2015), the value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is greater
than 0.045. When this is the case, all calculated groundwater flow directions
between these two wells are still downward, regardless of the value of |dhf/dz|
chosen from the range given by Stantec (2020a) in the original Report.
Despite uncertainty about density values and gradients, it is easy to see for the
example above that the term (ρa-ρf)/ρf has a value that is nearly the same absolute
magnitude as dhf/dz, but that it has an opposite sign. Accordingly, to determine flow
direction, even for simple flow examined using an analytical model, it seems vital to
understand both (i) the signs of these two terms and (ii) their values. Please look at
density and specific gravity values found in Neptune (2015) and indicate based on
this much-larger sample what fraction of the calculated flow-direction values would
indicate upward flow, and what fraction would indicate downward flow for each
specific-gravity value in the range for each aquifer.

4.8 There’s illustrative value in using the mathematical or analytical model as Stantec
(2020b) has done, for it shows that, for a hypothetical hydrogeologically
homogeneous system, calculations indicate that flow under certain conditions would
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-7 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

be downward at the site, based on considerations of relative density as well as
freshwater head.

It must be kept in mind, however, that all analytical models like the Post et al.
(2007) model employed in the Basal Aquifer Study assume hydrogeological
homogeneity (e.g., no aquitards between aquifers). Typically, a numerical model, as
opposed to an analytical model, must be run for sites at which much heterogeneity
exists to obtain viable results. Examples are SEAWAT and SUTRA by the USGS.
Please justify, if possible, why it would be valid to do what Stantec (2020b) has done,
i.e., apply an analytical model designed for homogeneous conditions to the
heterogeneous site at Clive, where aquitards are known to exist between aquifers.

4.9 Although Stantec (2020b) says, “vertical hydraulic gradient estimates between I-1-
700 and the rest of the wells were all upward with buoyancy considered,” it is noted
that, for the specific gravity for shallow-aquifer groundwater of 1.032, Table 3-4
shows that that situation was not the case. Table 3-4 shows that for the I-1-30 and I-
1-700 pair, the buoyancy corrected vertical gradient range varies from -0.002 to
0.005. The lower part of this range, i.e., from -0.002 to slightly below zero,
represents downward flow, based on the Stantec (2020b) sign convention. Why is
Stantec not using the values in the negative range? Please justify your answer.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 4 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #5
It appears that a direct hydraulic response had not propagated to Well I-1-50 (screened at a
depth of about 50 ft bgs) by the time that the reverse water-level fluctuation in that well was
noted. Based on the reference to Kim and Parizek (1997) that Stantec offers, it appears that
only an apparent mechanical deformation response in the aquitard and the non-pumped
aquifer at a depth of 50 ft bgs had occurred, yielding the observed reverse water-level
fluctuation. Is this EnergySolutions’ interpretation, or does it offer an alternative possible
interpretation? The reference made by Stantec (2020) to Kim and Parizek (1997) appears to
the Division to be reasonable.

If the direct hydraulic propagation had not reached up to 50 ft bgs by that time, then that
would explain why, by that time, no direct hydraulic response had propagated to the even
more-distant shallow aquifer screened by Well I-1-30 (screened at a depth of about 30 ft
bgs).

Well I-1-30 appears to be separated from Well I-1-50 by an aquitard or semi-confining
layer. It seems logical to assume that an aquitard exists at a depth of about 45 ft bgs
between those two wells, since Neptune (2015) says that, above that depth, there is an
unconfined aquifer, and below that depth, there is a confined aquifer. For the latter to be
confined, there must be an aquitard above it.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-8 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Does a lack of discernible drawdown response in Well I-1-30 throughout the pumping test
show limited hydraulic connection between Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-30 over the duration
of the pumping test or for all time? Please justify your response.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 5 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #6
What is the justification for assuming both in the implementation of the Cooper-Jacob
(1946) method and in the implementation of the Theis (1935) method that the tested aquifer
is 325 feet thick? Substantial evidence in the Report indicates that, instead of a single 325-
foot-thick aquifer, the sediments screened in Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-100 respectively
represent at least two distinct aquifers, each of much smaller saturated thickness, which are
separated by a significantly thick aquitard. Field and laboratory observations and
measurements support this conclusion.

One line of evidence that a substantial aquitard lies between the two aquifers is based on
field data. This apparent aquitard is shown in the Stantec Form to consist of 44.5 feet of
sediments extending from 274.5-319.0 ft bgs. Based on this Soil Boring/Lithology Form, this
apparent aquitard contains many dry zones. The descriptions in the Form note these dry
zones occur specifically at 274.5-277 ft, 286.5-287 ft, 287-297 ft, 297-299 ft, 310-314.5 ft, and
314.5-319 ft bgs. Some of these zones are hard, dense or both. Soil from 289-297 ft bgs, for
example, is said to be "very hard, dense, dry." From 314.5-319 ft bgs, soil is said in the
Form to be "dense and dry." These data suggest that much of this interval (from 274.5-319
ft bgs) is relatively hard and/or dry, indicating that it would tend, on the whole, to act as an
aquitard.

Laboratory hydraulic-conductivity testing confirms this assessment. An “undisturbed
sample. . . representative of aquitard material”, is how a sample sampled from 297.5-298.0
ft bgs is described in the Report. The Report describes this sample as being “reddish-brown
clayey sand.” Table 3-2 of the Report indicates that the vertical component of hydraulic
conductivity (Kv) measured in the lab for this sample is only 2.60 x 10-5 cm/s. That is a
relatively small value, consistent with that of an aquitard.

Experts in the field of well hydraulics indicate that the saturated thickness of a semi-
confined aquifer like the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is simply the thickness of the aquifer
material (located between a confined layer and an aquitard) that is saturated. For example,
Boonstra and Soppe (2017) say,
The saturated thickness is equal to the physical thickness of the aquifer between the
aquicludes above and below it . . . The same is true for the confined parts of a leaky aquifer
bounded by an aquitard and an aquiclude. . . the saturated thickness is a constant.

In other words, the saturated thickness does not include any aquitard or aquiclude
material. The saturated thickness thus does not include material in two separate aquifers,
just in one. Neither does the saturated thickness depend on the height of the potentiometric
surface. The saturated thickness for a semi-confined aquifer is thus a constant.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-9 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

It appears to the Division that, for this site, employing for calculation purposes a saturated
thickness of 36 feet, rather than 325 feet, is the only approach that makes sense. Using a
saturated thickness of 325 feet instead of 36 feet would seemingly render the results of the
analysis conducted by Stantec (2020b) inaccurate by a significant amount. The Division has
previously addressed this. Is there a reason why EnergySolutions would continue to choose
to conduct the analysis using a value of 325 feet? Please justify your answer.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 6 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #7
The Hantush (1960) method specifically requires data from an observation well, rather than
from a pumping well, or a control well, to be employed. ASTM D6028, which describes how
to analyze data using the modified Hantush (1960) method, directs users who would use it to
“construct one or more observation wells or piezometers screened only in the pumped
aquifer at a distance from the control well”. So, data for drawdown must come from one or
more observation wells or piezometers located in the pumped aquifer some distance from
the pumping or control well.

While data obtained from groundwater levels measured in a pumping or control well may
be of interest qualitatively, such data has limited or no quantitative significance in the
Hantush (1960) method. There are several reasons, among which are those described in
ASTM (2017). In a footnote in ASTM (2017), which references Moench (1985), it says, “data
from the pumped well are affected by variations in the pumping rate, effects of well-bore
storage, and the ‘skin’ (a zone around the well hydraulically different from the native
materials because of disturbance and alteration caused by well drilling and construction).”
These factors mean that drawdown data taken from the pumping well cannot be utilized
directly in the Hantush (1960) method to arrive at accurate parameter-estimation results.
Data from external observation wells must be employed. Such data are not employed in the
Stantec (2020b) study.

Additionally, Moench (1985) explains how it is possible during well testing to make an
adaptation in the testing method to reduce the error from well-bore storage effects by up to
five orders of magnitude. Usually, this adaptation involves packing off the screened interval,
injecting water, and monitoring the rise of water levels in the observation wells or
piezometers. Such an adaptation was not used during aquifer testing at Clive.

Other researchers and practitioners likewise discourage attempts to analyze pumping tests
in semi-confined or leaky aquifers using only data from a pumping well. Typically, either
piezometers or observation wells distinct and separate from the pumping well are required.
In addition, such points of measurement are required from not just a single layer, but from
multiple layers. For instance, Kruseman and de Ridder (1992) say, For a proper analysis of
a pumping test in a leaky aquifer, piezometers are required in the leaky confined aquifer, in
the aquitard, and in the upper unconfined aquifer.

Please justify use of the Hantush (1960) method in the Report without utilizing data from an
observation well or a piezometer as is required by the method.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-10 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 7 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #8
Please justify implementation of the Hantush (1960) method of analysis for analyzing
drawdown test data in Well I-1-700 when (i) that method is based on an assumption of
constant head in the non-pumped aquifer, shown through field data to have been violated in
the overlying aquifer during the test, and (ii) the method was employed despite Neuman and
Witherspoon (1969a) warning that Hantush (1960) analysis of aquifer test data assuming
constant head in an unpumped aquifer can “lead to significant errors at large values of
time.”

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 8 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #9
Please justify the lack of use of drawdown data from the aquitard when implementing the
Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) method.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 9 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #10
Considering the previous discussions about the limitations of the several aquifer-test
analysis methods applied, please justify, in a rigorous way, why the values of any of the
parameters in Table 3-5 should be considered accurate, or even approximate.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 10 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #11
This value for storativity (2.354x10-10) is very far outside the range of values for storativity
(S) reported by others for aquifer materials found in the subsurface. Storativity values for
confined aquifers are said to generally range from 5×10-5 to 5×10-3 (Todd, 1980). Since Well
I-1-100 is said to have been screened across an aquifer, and Bingham Environmental (1981)
and Neptune (2015) identify this aquifer as being confined, its storativity would normally be
assumed to be within the range given by Todd. Moreover, storativity is generally recognized
as not being able to be determined accurately without using data from an observation well
located some distance from the pumping well. Can Stantec justify this low storativity?

Storativity values for various subsurface materials can be calculated from reported specific-
storage values. Specific storage, Ss, is equal to S/b, where b is aquifer thickness. On
rearrangement, S = Ssb. The following is a table for ranges of Ss and S values for types and
thicknesses of aquitard and aquifer materials (with Ss ranges reported by Domenico and
Mifflin, 1965).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-11 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The specific-storage values can also be found at http://www.aqtesolv.com/aquifer-
tests/aquifer_properties.htm#Storativity. For thicker aquifers, a value listed in one of the
two columns on the right can simply be multiplied by an appropriate factor to determine
the storativity. For example, for an aquifer 50 feet thick, the value in the right-hand column
would be multiplied by five to calculate the storativity range. Or the value in third column
could be multiplied by 50.

The lowest Ss value shown for sedimentary material in Domenico and Mifflin (1965) is 1.5 x
10-5. For layers 1, 10 and 100 feet thick, this lowest Ss value would result in estimated S
values of 1.5 x 10-5, 1.5 x 10-4, and 1.5 x 10-3, respectively. Even the lowest value for S is
about five orders of magnitude greater than the 2.354x10-10 value for S reported in Table 3-
5 of Stantec (2020b).

Since the reported S value of 2.354x10-10 in Stantec (2020b) is five orders of magnitude
lower in value than published values for S for the subsurface materials given above, or less,
the reported Stantec (2020b) storativity value of 2.354x10-10 does not appear reliable.
Besides, it is orders of magnitude smaller than other calculated values listed in the Report
for the same layer. As previously discussed, the assumption in the Report of a saturated
thickness of 325 feet used in developing the analysis is not correct. Moreover, the drawdown
data shown are drawdown data for the upper aquifer, which was separated by a substantial
aquitard from the basal aquifer being pumped. Those conditions are definitely outside of
the assumptions inherent in the Cooper-Jacob model. Please justify presenting such a
remarkably low storativity value, one that was also calculated using the Cooper-Jacob
model for drawdown for a single, pumped aquifer even though two aquifers were involved,
and the measurements were not taken in the pumped aquifer, but in a non-pumped aquifer.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 11 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #12
None of these estimated hydraulic conductivity values appear to be accurate if the
previously identified issues are indicative of actual problems in testing or analysis.
Assuming a saturated thickness of 325 feet if the saturated thickness is only 36 feet, for
example, by itself means that the estimated value of hydraulic conductivity as reported by
Stantec (2020) for the two confined aquifer cases would be too small by about an order of
magnitude since hydraulic conductivity is equal to transmissivity divided by the saturated
thickness. The assumptions required by the analysis for the confined aquifer (e.g., Cooper-
Jacob method assumptions) were not even marginally met during testing. Is this not the
case? Please justify the response.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 12 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #13
Please provide justification for the statement that “groundwater chemistry of I-1-700 is
typical of deep groundwater isolated from recharge.” What set of data is identified in the
Report that indicates that the groundwater in the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is isolated
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-12 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

from, or is typical of groundwater isolated from, recharge? A few sentences that follow the
claim made there depict the aquifer as having a relatively reducing environment. However,
while reducing environments are generally more common at depth, reducing environments
can also be found in many shallow water-bearing zones.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 13 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #14
This statement, which refers to “the observed most permeable zone from 325 to 355 ft bgs,”
seems to contradict the information in Table 3-5 indicating that the most permeable zone is
the one covering a depth range of 90-100 ft bgs. Please provide justification for this
statement.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 14 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #15
Please provide justification for the assessment given above that results of lab tests indicate
hydraulic conductivities for samples being two to three orders of magnitude lower than
aquifer-test calculated values. Data in Tables 3-2 and 3-5 do not seem to support that
assessment. Order-of-magnitude comparisons provided by data in the table values and the
assessment above seem to be off by about an order of magnitude.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 15 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #16
Please provide justification for this conclusion. As indicated in Interrogatory #4,
uncorrected apparent hydraulic gradients for groundwater that varies in density with
depth, even in the case of hydrogeologically homogeneous systems, do not necessarily
indicate vertical flow direction. Corrections must be applied to heads in these wells to
account for groundwater-density change.

For this site, if one were to assume aquifer homogeneity, once corrections are made in the
flow equations to account for the effects of buoyancy, no evidence is given in the Report
that, in general, groundwater at the Facility does not have a downward component of flow.
Comparisons between buoyancy-corrected values in the basal aquifer and in the shallow
aquifer, for example, show that some combinations of plausible densities and hydraulic
gradients indicate an estimated downward flow component.

Moreover, the analytical equations used for making comparisons in the Report are intended
for, and would only provide reasonably accurate results for, homogeneous systems. The
analytical equations cannot and do not apply to analysis of more complex systems, e.g., ones
in which aquifer components are separated by aquitard components.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-13 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 16 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #17
The phase “poor water quality” is subjective. It is the Division’s position that this
groundwater still needs to be protected.

Response Summary: Stantec’s reference to the “poor” quality of groundwater is based on the
measured level of total Dissolved Solids (TDS) that classify the basal-depth groundwater beneath
EnergySolutions’ Clive facility as “Saline Ground Water,” (e.g., non-potable) in accordance with
Utah Administrative Code R317-6-4. The Director has used a similar reference to describe the
groundwater beneath EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility,

“The expected dose from the groundwater pathway is zero because of the poor
groundwater quality.” (Utah Division of Radiation Control, 2012; pg 93).

Neither EnergySolutions’ nor the Director’s own reference to “poor groundwater quality” imply
anything regarding the importance of groundwater resource protection.

• Interrogatory #18
An apparent hydraulic connection exists between the I-1-700 well, screened at a depth of
325-355 ft bgs, and the overlying aquitard and the aquifer above it. The latter is screened by
Well I-1-100 from 90-100 ft bgs.
Hydraulic connection is demonstrated because drawdown in the basal aquifer causes water-
level drawdown in the upper aquifer (screened from 90-100 ft bgs). A subdued impact is
expected in the upper aquifer due to groundwater head losses as the hydraulic response to
pumping propagates through an intervening aquitard. This drawdown in an unpumped
aquifer indicates that one of the primary assumptions underlying the Hantush (1960)
method is not being met.

There also appears to be a connection between groundwater in the basal aquifer and
groundwater in the aquifer material screened at about 50 feet. This is because groundwater
in Well I-1-50 has been identified as having responded to changes in head occasioned by the
pumping test in the basal aquifer with a transient reverse drawdown effect. That effect may
be due to early deformation of the aquitard and an accompanying temporary increase in
fluid pressure in the upper part of the aquitard, transmitted up to the overlying aquifer, as
described in Kim and Parizek (1997).

A more direct hydraulic response (e.g., drawdown) was not observed in Well I-1-50 during
12 hours of testing. The reason for no response during that time cannot be fully ascertained
based on the data currently provided. It has not been demonstrated yet that the length of
the pumping test was sufficient for an unconfined aquifer separated from the pumped
aquifer by two aquitards and another aquifer.

It takes time for direct hydraulic responses to propagate. This is illustrated for two different
wells, each one screened in a different aquifer, in the graph shown below, copied from
Appendix D of the Report.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-14 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The displacement (i.e., drawdown) experienced by groundwater in the basal aquifer
(screened from 325-355 ft bgs) is shown in blue. This displacement is seen (i) to rapidly
increase in value over the interval between 69 and 90 seconds, and then (ii) to
asymptotically transition to a plateau displacement range of about 24-25 feet.

By contrast, the displacement experienced by groundwater in the more-elevated aquifer
screened at 90-100 ft bgs, which displacement is shown in red, does not begin to plateau
until about 10,000 seconds. The time taken to begin to approximate the plateau value is, for
this upper aquifer, about 100 times as great as the time needed for groundwater levels in the
basal aquifer to reach a plateau-level range. Instead of taking about 1 ½ minutes, as it does
for the basal aquifer, it takes about 2 ¾ hours for the upper aquifer.

While no direct hydraulic response was noted in the very shallow aquifer material above
these two aquifers during the testing period, that lack of a direct hydraulic response may
have simply been due to insufficient time allowed for a direct hydraulic response to
propagate that far upward through additional aquitard material. Considering that it took
about 100 times as great a time for the confined aquifer at 90-100 ft bgs to respond than it
took for the basal aquifer to do so, it might take considerably more time than that for an
overlying unconfined aquifer screened from 25-45 ft bgs and separated from the other
aquifers by an aquitard to respond.

What is the evidence or justification for assuming that there is “limited connectivity
between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at the Facility?” And what is the
precise meaning of the term “limited” in the statement quoted above? What is the
significance of the hydraulic connection that is shown to exist in the upper aquifer, owing to
the measured drawdown in the groundwater observed in it during the aquifer test?

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 18 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-15 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

REFERENCES

Bingham Environmental, “Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah.”
Prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Prepared by Bingham Environmental. October, 1991.

DOE. “Final Environmental Impact Statement of Remedial Actions at the Former Vitro Chemical Site,
South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah.” (DOE/EIS-0099-F) U.S. Department of Energy, UMTRA
Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July, 1984.

DOE. “Remedial Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill
Tailings Site at Salt Lake City, Utah.” (UMTRA-DOE-/EA-0141.0000) U.S. Department of Energy,
UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1984.

DOE. “Final Environmental Impact Statement - Remedial Actions at the Former Vitro Chemical
Company Site South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County Utah.” (DOE/EIS-0099-F). U.S. Department of Energy.
July 1984. Vol2. Pg. D-92.

EnergySolutions, 2019. “Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan” letter to Mr. Ty Howard, Director Utah
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. October 3, 2019.

Personal Communication. Susan Eyzaguirre, Stantec. January 22, 2021.

Rogers, V.C. “Radioactive Material License UT2300249: Revised Phase 1 Basal-Depth
Aquifer Study Report” Letter CD-2020-149 from EnergySolutions to Ty Howard, Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. October, 2, 2020.

Rogers, V.C. “Radioactive Material Licenses UT2300249 and UT2300478: Phase 1 of the Basal-Depth
Aquifer Study Plan (Revised)” Letter CD19-0227 from EnergySolutions to Ty Howard, Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control. November 12, 2019.

Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2021. Responses to the Division’s January 15, 2021 Interrogatory.
March 10, 2021.

Stantec, 2020. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final, Revised, v2, September 30, 2020,
Prepared for and Submitted to EnergySolutions, EnergySolutions, LLC by Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.

Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2019. Clive Facility Basal (Deep) Aquifer Characterization Work Plan.
October 1, 2019.

Utah Division of Radiation Control. “Utah Division of Radiation Control: EnergySolutions LLRW
Disposal Facility Class A West Amendment Request – Safety Evaluation Report.” Report by URS,
Corporation. Salt Lake City. June 2012.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-16 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Verbica, D.G. “Basal Aquifer Study” Letter to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions from the Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control. July 29, 2019.

Willoughby, O.H. “Interrogatories for Basal-Depth Aquifer System Study Submitted October 3, 2020.”
Letter from the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of
EnergySolutions. January 15, 2021.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-17 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EXHIBIT 1 TO APPENDIX D

STANTEC RESPONSES TO THE DIVISION’S JANUARY 15, 2021 INTERROGATORY

Responses to Interrogatory

To: Vern C. Rogers, EnergySolutions From: Susan Eyzaguirre, PE, PG, PMP and Walter Weinig, PG, PMP
January 15, 2021 Interrogatory

Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final (as revised, submitted to the Division October 3, 2020)
INTRODUCTION
On March 13, 2020, EnergySolutions submitted to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control (the Division) the Phase I Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report (the Report), prepared by Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec, 2020a). Based on interrogatories provided by the Division on August 11,
2020 EnergySolutions submitted a revised version (Stantec, 2020b) to the Division on October 3, 2020.
Subsequently the Division provided an Interrogatory of the October 3, 2020 revised report on January 15,
2021. Responses to the January 15, 2021 Interrogatory are provided in this memorandum. The
interrogatories are shown in italics, each followed by a written response.
INTERROGATORY #1
Interrogatory. The Division requested information from EnergySolutions about basal aquifers at the Facility
and other hydrogeological information at depth not previously provided. The Division acknowledges the
careful field and laboratory work and the useful information that EnergySolutions has provided to the Division
through this study. However, the Division has comments and questions regarding some of the information and
interpretations of the data. These questions should be considered in the context of the following list of rules:
UAC R313-25-8(1), UAC R313-35-9(4)(a), UAC R313-25-15(1)(a), UAC R313-25-3(6), UAC R313-25-24(2)
and (7), and UAC R313-25-27(1). Regarding the quoted paragraph above, please indicate which of the
Division Director’s requirements, as outlined in the listed rules and as specifically requested by the Director
and referenced in the study Plan, have already been met, and which requirements still need to be met, and
explain why.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #2
Interrogatory. The Division does not see in the Report the following information requested from
EnergySolutions and found in the Plan (item numbering retained for ease of reference to the above list):
1. Depth of bedrock geophysical survey
2. Geology (sample description, logs, grain-size, porosity, void ratio, bulk density)
3. Top and bottom depth of each aquifer and aquitard (one or more aquifers not described)
4. Screened depths for the aquifer(s)
5. Hydraulic head for the aquifer(s)
6. Horizontal gradient(s) (not possible in this phase since all wells had similar x-y coordinates)
7. Vertical gradient(s) (the Division has concerns with some calculations made in the Report)
8. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (the Division has concerns about calculations in the Report) (
9. Vertical hydraulic conductivity
10. Background groundwater quality of the basal-depth aquifer
March 10, 2021
Page 2 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

11. Groundwater age dating
12. Distribution coefficients/retardation factors
Please (i) provide an update on plans to obtain this missing information and subsequently report it to the
Division, or (ii) justify the absence of the missing information despite having indicated previously in the Plan
that EnergySolutions would obtain and report this information.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #3
Interrogatory. The Division asks the following questions:
3.1 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes two aquifers existing in the depth range
below 25 ft and above 275 ft bgs: (i) an unconfined aquifer that extends from the water table down to a total
depth of only about 40 to 45 ft bgs, and (ii) a deeper confined aquifer extending downwards from about 45 ft
bgs. The presence of the confined aquifer also implies a thin aquitard existing directly above it. Neptune’s
conceptual model is also provided in Bingham Environmental (1991).
Stantec (2020b), on the other hand, describes a single, undifferentiated unconfined aquifer extending from the
water table down to a depth of about 275 feet.
For depths down to 275 ft bgs, which conceptual model, if either, appears to be correct? Please provide
justification for your answer.
3.2 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes a single deep aquifer at depths beyond
275 ft bgs. Stantec (2020b) describes two aquitards, as well as a leaky aquifer, in this depth range. Which
description is correct?
3.3 Please represent the correct types and locations of all aquifers and aquitards in a revised Figure 3 for
the Report.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #4
Interrogatory. The Division has the following questions:
4.1 Stantec (2020b) indicates that it calculated “mid-points of saturated zone elevations”, as are found in
the last column of Table 3-3, but it is uncertain as to what that implies relative to the calculations. All the
calculations for hydraulic gradient in Table 3-4 appear to have been done differently, using instead the
freshwater mid-screen interval, corrected for buoyancy. Please clarify what was done for what purpose, and
justify why.
Response: The mid-points of saturated zones for each unit are provided for completeness and consistency
with the language of Post et al (2007). Elevations of the middle of the filter pack are generally very close to
mid-screen elevations. Groundwater inflow to a well can occur over the filter-packed zone. The mid-point of
March 10, 2021
Page 3 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

filter pack elevation was used to calculate the vertical hydraulic gradients shown in Table 3-4. The reference
to “midscreen” in the Table 3-4 header was a carryover from the previous version of the table.
4.2 The text refers to mid-points of the saturated zone elevations, whereas Table 3-3 gives the mid-points
of the filter pack elevations as well as the mid-points of the saturated zone elevations, and the calculations in
Table 3-4 are based on the mid-screen elevations. Why? The elevations of the mid-points of the saturated
zone, mid-points of the filter packs, and mid- points of the screen for each well are all different. So are
derivatives of each these quantities.
Response: See response to Interrogatory 4.1 above regarding the different elevations. Calculations in Table 3-4 are based on the mid-point of the filter pack as being most representative of the point associated with the measured groundwater level in the well.
4.3 Based on the results of calculations shown in Table 3-4, it appears that some part of each range of
what are called the buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients associated with the shallow aquifer well (I-1-30)
indicate downward flow to any of the wells in what Neptune (2015) has called the deep aquifer (i.e., I-1-50,
I-1-100, and I-1-700). This is because some part of each range has negative values, which, according to the
Stantec (2020b) sign convention, represents downward flow. Is this also how EnergySolutions interprets this?
Please justify your response.
Response: We have discussed sign conventions and directionality in previous meetings and responses to
interrogatories. The purpose of the Stantec revised report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase
1 program, which is focused on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. It is incorrect to state that the buoyancy-
corrected calculations “indicate downward flow to any of the wells…” For example, buoyancy-corrected
vertical gradients between I-1-50 and I-1-700, and between I-1-100 and I-1-700 indicate an upward vertical
component of gradient for calculations using both mid-point of filter pack and mid-point of saturated zone
elevations.
4.4 Looking at Table 3-4, for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, how does the sum of 0.041, the freshwater
mid-screen gradient, and 0.040, the buoyancy correction, supposedly equal 0.002? The latter value is said in
Stantec (2020b) to be the buoyancy-corrected mid-screen gradient. Calculations done by the Division indicate
that this value, based on the mid-screen assumption for estimating the gradient, should be 0.001, not 0.002
(using the Stantec sign convention for the result).
Response: The reported result is the result of rounding and the number of significant digits reported in each
calculation. Carried to three significant figures, the result is 0.00152 which rounds to 0.002 with one significant
digit of precision. The conclusion of an upward vertical gradient is not altered whether a rounded value of
0.001 or 0.002 is evaluated.
4.5 What is the overall range of vertical gradients calculated for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, when
accounting for well geometry and water level elevations, as indicated in the last column of Table 3-4? Do the
negative values given for some of these data combinations indicate (according to the Stantec convention) the
possibility of downward flow? Please justify your response.
Response: The overall range of calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients for the well pair I-1-30 and
I-1-700 is -0.002 (downward) to +0.005 (upward) as shown in the last column of Table 3-4. The range is
based on assuming either mid-filter pack elevation or mid-aquifer elevation for the gradient calculation with
the same well pair. Gradient calculations are between two points in an aquifer and are independent of the
March 10, 2021
Page 4 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

nature of the aquifer material itself. The Stantec (2020b) report describes the results of the Phase 1 program.
Evaluations of groundwater flow would require additional assessments that are outside the scope of this
study.
4.6 What is the overall calculated range of corrected vertical gradients for the well pair consisting of
I-1-50 and I-1-100? Do the negative values given for each of these data combinations indicate (according to
the Stantec convention) downward flow? Please justify your response.
Response: The overall range of calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients for the well pair I-1-50 and I-1-100 is -0.009 to -0.001 as shown in the last column of Table 3-4. The direction of the calculated gradients is downward between those two wells at a single point in time. Evaluations of groundwater flow are outside the scope of this study.
4.7 The specific gravity for groundwater in the shallow aquifer is said in Table 3-3 to be 1.032. This value,
based on a single measurement for groundwater in the shallow aquifer at a single point, may not be
representative of the entire aquifer. Neptune (2015), having examined data from many dozens of wells
scattered across the Clive Facility, indicates that, for this facility, the geochemistry of the shallow, unconfined
aquifer consists of very high levels of dissolved solutes as outlined above with TDS values ranging from 20 to
70 parts per thousand and specific gravity from 1.02 to 1.06 g/mL (Envirocare 2004, and recent site specific
groundwater data acquired by EnergySolutions).
This range of specific gravity for the shallow-aquifer groundwater, from 1.02 to 1.06, can be compared with
the single value for shallow-aquifer groundwater specific gravity of 1.032 measured in the field recently and
used in the Report, which would be more toward the bottom of the reported Neptune (2015) range.
If a value of 1.060, at the upper end of the reported range, is instead used for illustrative purposes for
groundwater in some areas of the shallow aquifer, then the groundwater density averaged between the basal
aquifer and the shallow aquifer is equal to 1.054 g/cm3, the value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is equal to 0.054, and a table
using this higher specific gravity for the shallow- aquifer groundwater, when presented using the Division’s
sign convention of this Interrogatory, is as follows:

dhf/dz (ρa-ρf)/ρf [dhf/dz + ((ρa-ρ f)/ρf)]qv Flow Direction
-0.038 0.016K
0.039 0.015K
0.040 0.014K
0.041 0.013K
0.042 0.012K
0.043 0.011K
March 10, 2021
Page 5 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

-0.044 0.010K
0.045 0.009K

All calculated flow directions here are downward. This is because the sign associated with qv, or vertical
component of flow per unit area, is negative. If flow had been upward, the sign of qv would have been
positive. But, in this case, all the values of qv are seen to have negative values.
For shallow-aquifer groundwater in this reported specific-gravity range with values of specific gravity as low as
a little more than 1.042, which is a little more than midway across the range given by Neptune (2015), the
value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is greater than 0.045. When this is the case, all calculated groundwater flow directions
between these two wells are still downward, regardless of the value of |dhf/dz | chosen from the range given
by Stantec (2020a) in the original Report.
dhf/dz (ρa-ρf)/ρf [dhf/dz + ((ρa-ρ f)/ρf)]qv Flow Direction
-0.038 -0.007K
0.039 -0.006K
0.040 -0.005K
0.041 -0.004K
0.042 -0.003K
0.043 -0.002K
0.044 -0.001K
0.045
Despite uncertainty about density values and gradients, it is easy to see for the example above that the term
(ρa-ρf)/ρf has a value that is nearly the same absolute magnitude as dhf/dz, but that it has an opposite sign.
Accordingly, to determine flow direction, even for simple flow examined using an analytical model, it seems
vital to understand both (i) the signs of these two terms and (ii) their values. Please look at density and
specific gravity values found in Neptune (2015) and indicate based on this much-larger sample what fraction
of the calculated flow-direction values would indicate upward flow, and what fraction would indicate downward
flow for each specific-gravity value in the range for each aquifer.
Response: As described in the response to Interrogatory 4.3 above, the purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. Using the measured, location-specific density values is more appropriate for interpreting this test than using regional values that are not supported by site-specific measurements.
March 10, 2021
Page 6 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

4.8 There’s illustrative value in using the mathematical or analytical model as Stantec (2020b) has done,
for it shows that, for a hypothetical hydrogeologically homogeneous system, calculations indicate that flow
under certain conditions would be downward at the site, based on considerations of relative density as well as
freshwater head.
It must be kept in mind, however, that all analytical models like the Post et al. (2007) model employed in the
Basal Aquifer Study assume hydrogeological homogeneity (e.g., no aquitards between aquifers). Typically, a
numerical model, as opposed to an analytical model, must be run for sites at which much heterogeneity exists
to obtain viable results. Examples are SEAWAT and SUTRA by the USGS. Please justify, if possible, why it
would be valid to do what Stantec (2020b) has done, i.e., apply an analytical model designed for
homogeneous conditions to the heterogeneous site at Clive, where aquitards are known to exist between
aquifers. Although Stantec (2020b) says, “vertical hydraulic gradient estimates between I-1-700 and the rest
of the wells were all upward with buoyancy considered,” it is noted that, for the specific gravity for shallow-
aquifer groundwater of 1.032, Table 3-4 shows that that situation was not the case. Table 3-4 shows that for
the I-1-30 and I-1-700 pair, the buoyancy corrected vertical gradient range varies from -0.002 to 0.005. The
lower part of this range, i.e., from -0.002 to slightly below zero, represents downward flow, based on the
Stantec (2020b) sign convention. Why is Stantec not using the values in the negative range? Please justify
your answer.
Response: Gradient calculations are between two points in an aquifer and are independent of the nature of the aquifer material itself. Contrary to the reviewer’s assertion, Post et al (2007) does not make an assumption of hydrogeological homogeneity with respect to calculating hydraulic gradient. No assumptions of aquifer homogeneity or heterogeneity are necessary for the results reported in Table 3-4.
The primary purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus
on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. Thus, the gradient relationships between conditions measured at
I-1-700 and deepest of the three shallower wells are most relevant to the interpretation. The screened
intervals of wells I-1-100 and I-1-50 lie between I-1-700 and I-1-30 as shown in Figure 3 of the Report. An
upward gradient is indicated between I-1-700 and I-1-100, and between I-1-700 and I-1-50. The downward
gradient (negative values) calculated between I-1-30 and I-1-700 was not weighted as heavily because the
consistent upward gradients are calculated for wells paired with I-1-700 that lie between I-1-30 and I-1-700.
INTERROGATORY #5
Interrogatory. It appears that a direct hydraulic response had not propagated to Well I-1-50 (screened at a
depth of about 50 ft bgs) by the time that the reverse water-level fluctuation in that well was noted. Based on
the reference to Kim and Parizek (1997) that Stantec offers, it appears that only an apparent mechanical
deformation response in the aquitard and the non-pumped aquifer at a depth of 50 ft bgs had occurred,
yielding the observed reverse water-level fluctuation. Is this EnergySolutions’ interpretation, or does it offer an
alternative possible interpretation? The reference made by Stantec (2020) to Kim and Parizek (1997) appears
to the Division to be reasonable. If the direct hydraulic propagation had not reached up to 50 ft bgs by that
time, then that would explain why, by that time, no direct hydraulic response had propagated to the even
more-distant shallow aquifer screened by Well I-1-30 (screened at a depth of about 30 ft bgs).
Well I-1-30 appears to be separated from Well I-1-50 by an aquitard or semi-confining layer. It seems logical
to assume that an aquitard exists at a depth of about 45 ft bgs between those two wells, since Neptune
March 10, 2021
Page 7 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

(2015) says that, above that depth, there is an unconfined aquifer, and below that depth, there is a confined
aquifer. For the latter to be confined, there must be an aquitard above it.
Does a lack of discernible drawdown response in Well I-1-30 throughout the pumping test show limited
hydraulic connection between Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-30 over the duration of the pumping test or for all
time? Please justify your response.
Response: The purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer, not to re-evaluate the regional work done by others with a focus on the shallower zones. Limited hydraulic connectivity is demonstrated by the lag in response, likely due to the factors cited by the reviewer. These factors may cause the time-related responses observed in the data but are not themselves time dependent. Thus, the interpretation of limited hydraulic connectivity is independent of time although the manifestations of that limited connectivity may vary with time.
INTERROGATORY #6
Background. In Stantec (2020b), Section 3.3.1, Analysis Methods, it says
For the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions, the aquifer is conceptualized as confined
with infinite areal extent, homogeneous, isotropic and of uniform thickness of 325 feet.
Interrogatory. What is the justification for assuming both in the implementation of the Cooper-Jacob (1946)
method and in the implementation of the Theis (1935) method that the tested aquifer is 325 feet thick?
Substantial evidence in the Report indicates that, instead of a single 325-foot-thick aquifer, the sediments
screened in Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-100 respectively represent at least two distinct aquifers, each of much
smaller saturated thickness, which are separated by a significantly thick aquitard. Field and laboratory
observations and measurements support this conclusion.
One line of evidence that a substantial aquitard lies between the two aquifers is based on field data. This
apparent aquitard is shown in the Stantec Form to consist of 44.5 feet of sediments extending from
274.5-319.0 ft bgs. Based on this Soil Boring/Lithology Form, this apparent aquitard contains many dry zones.
The descriptions in the Form note these dry zones occur specifically at 274.5-277 ft, 286.5-287 ft, 287-297 ft,
297-299 ft, 310-314.5 ft, and 314.5-319 ft bgs. Some of these zones are hard, dense or both. Soil from
289-297 ft bgs, for example, is said to be "very hard, dense, dry." From 314.5-319 ft bgs, soil is said in the
Form to be "dense and dry." These data suggest that much of this interval (from 274.5-319 ft bgs) is relatively
hard and/or dry, indicating that it would tend, on the whole, to act as an aquitard.
Laboratory hydraulic-conductivity testing confirms this assessment. An “undisturbed sample. . . representative
of aquitard material”, is how a sample sampled from 297.5-298.0 ft bgs is described in the Report. The Report
describes this sample as being “reddish-brown clayey sand.” Table 3-2 of the Report indicates that the
vertical component of hydraulic conductivity (Kv) measured in the lab for this sample is only 2.60 x 10-5 cm/s.
That is a relatively small value, consistent with that of an aquitard.
Experts in the field of well hydraulics indicate that the saturated thickness of a semi-confined aquifer like the
aquifer screened by I-1-700 is simply the thickness of the aquifer material (located between a confined layer
and an aquitard) that is saturated. For example, Boonstra and Soppe (2017) say,
March 10, 2021
Page 8 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

The saturated thickness is equal to the physical thickness of the aquifer between the aquicludes
above and below it . . . The same is true for the confined parts of a leaky aquifer bounded by an
aquitard and an aquiclude. . . the saturated thickness is a constant.
In other words, the saturated thickness does not include any aquitard or aquiclude material. The saturated
thickness thus does not include material in two separate aquifers, just in one. Neither does the saturated
thickness depend on the height of the potentiometric surface. The saturated thickness for a semi-confined
aquifer is thus a constant.
It appears to the Division that, for this site, employing for calculation purposes a saturated thickness of
36 feet, rather than 325 feet, is the only approach that makes sense. Using a saturated thickness of 325 feet
instead of 36 feet would seemingly render the results of the analysis conducted by Stantec (2020b) inaccurate
by a significant amount. The Division has previously addressed this. Is there a reason why EnergySolutions
would continue to choose to conduct the analysis using a value of 325 feet? Please justify your answer.
Response: The assumptions inherent in the Cooper-Jacob and Theis methods are included in the Report for
completeness and context. The assumption of an aquifer thickness of 325 feet represents the saturated zone
between the bottom of the basal aquifer and the water table measured in the shallow wells. Assuming the full
325-foot saturated thickness for the purposes of the Cooper-Jacob and Theis calculations allowed the
observed drawdown in well I-1-100 to be incorporated into the analysis. Consistent with good professional
practice, the Report includes a range of analytical methods and results to evaluate the effects of different
assumptions, some of which may be more applicable than others for future tasks.
INTERROGATORY #7
Background. Section 3.3.1, Analysis Methods, presents results from aquifer-test analysis, with some of the
data shown in Appendix D, AQTESOLV Analytical Results (Stantec, 2020b). The first graph in this appendix
shows the results of an analysis based on the Hantush (1960) method, but it is noted from this graph that, in
this analysis, Stantec (2020b) employs drawdown data from a pumping well instead of from an observation
well.
Interrogatory. The Hantush (1960) method specifically requires data from an observation well, rather than
from a pumping well, or a control well, to be employed. ASTM D6028, which describes how to analyze data
using the modified Hantush (1960) method, directs users who would use it to “construct one or more
observation wells or piezometers screened only in the pumped aquifer at a distance from the control well”. So,
data for drawdown must come from one or more observation wells or piezometers located in the pumped
aquifer some distance from the pumping or control well.
While data obtained from groundwater levels measured in a pumping or control well may be of interest
qualitatively, such data has limited or no quantitative significance in the Hantush (1960) method. There are
several reasons, among which are those described in ASTM (2017). In a footnote in ASTM (2017), which
references Moench (1985), it says, “data from the pumped well are affected by variations in the pumping rate,
effects of well-bore storage, and the ‘skin’ (a zone around the well hydraulically different from the native
materials because of disturbance and alteration caused by well drilling and construction).” These factors
mean that drawdown data taken from the pumping well cannot be utilized directly in the Hantush (1960)
method to arrive at accurate parameter-estimation results. Data from external observation wells must be
employed. Such data are not employed in the Stantec (2020b) study.
March 10, 2021
Page 9 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Additionally, Moench (1985) explains how it is possible during well testing to make an adaptation in the testing
method to reduce the error from well-bore storage effects by up to five orders of magnitude. Usually, this
adaptation involves packing off the screened interval, injecting water, and monitoring the rise of water levels
in the observation wells or piezometers. Such an adaptation was not used during aquifer testing at Clive.
Other researchers and practitioners likewise discourage attempts to analyze pumping tests in semi- confined
or leaky aquifers using only data from a pumping well. Typically, either piezometers or observation wells
distinct and separate from the pumping well are required. In addition, such points of measurement are
required from not just a single layer, but from multiple layers. For instance, Kruseman and de Ridder (1992)
say,
For a proper analysis of a pumping test in a leaky aquifer, piezometers are required in the leaky
confined aquifer, in the aquitard, and in the upper unconfined aquifer.
Please justify use of the Hantush (1960) method in the Report without utilizing data from an observation well
or a piezometer as is required by the method.
Response: The 2017 version of ASTM Standard Practice D6028 has been superseded by the 2020 update.
Referencing the current (2020) version, we disagree that ASTM Standard Practice D6028/D6028M
(ASTM D6028) specifically requires the use of data from an observation well or piezometer. As stated clearly
in the Standard (paragraph 1.6), “This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used
in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of the practice may be applicable in all
circumstances.”
It is common practice to use the drawdown in the pumping well as an observation well. The footnote referenced by the reviewer (Note 5, section 8.1.3 of ASTM D6028/6028M) lists factors that can affect drawdown data from the pumped well, which are well understood by practitioners in the field. The note does
not state that the data cannot be used directly in the Hantush (1960) analysis.
All aquifer tests involve approximations to and variations from the idealized conditions described in textbooks
and the assumptions of analytical solutions. A comparison of the quote cited by the reviewer from Kruseman
and de Ridder (1992, page 74) with ASTM D6028 illustrates this well. ASTM D6028 (section 6.3) describes
the construction of observation wells “screened only in the pumped aquifer at a distance from the control
well.” It does not mention the use of observation wells completed in the aquitard above the leaky aquifer. In
fact, the Hantush (1960) method assumes that groundwater levels in the overlying aquifer remain constant. If
the standard of the quote taken from Kruseman and de Ridder (1992) is strictly applied, no test performed
and analyzed using the Hantush (1960) method in conformance with ASTM D6028 would be valid. This is
clearly not the case.
Furthermore, the example of the Dalem pumping test used by Kruseman and de Ridder (1992) as an example
of a leaky-aquifer test itself violates the strict reading of the quote provided by the reviewer. As Kruseman and
de Ridder (1992, page 75) themselves state, “The reader will note that there is no aquifer overlying the
aquitard in Figure 4.1” which illustrates the Dalem test conditions. Thus, there are no piezometers in the
overlying, unconfined aquifer and yet the authors use this example to demonstrate how a leaky-aquifer
pumping test can be conducted and interpreted.
Field tests in practical applications typically vary from textbook examples. Standards of practice allow
professional judgment to be applied to real-world implementation. Use of the Hantush (1960) method to
March 10, 2021
Page 10 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

analyze the I-1-700 aquifer test data was appropriate for the purpose of this study. We believe that the work
described in the Stantec the Report is consistent with the standard of professional practice for work of this
nature, at the location the work was performed, at the time the work was performed.
INTERROGATORY #8
Background. Stantec (2020b) utilizes the Hantush (1960) method, which assumes as one of its primary
assumptions that the head in the overlying, non-pumped aquifer remains constant. See AQTESOLVE
(1998-2020) and ASTM (2017). In other words, drawdown in the non-pumped aquifer must be zero. Yet, data
from the Basal Aquifer Study show that, to the contrary, significant drawdown was observed in groundwater
within the overlying, non-pumped aquifer during the testing period. This is depicted in the second graph found
in Appendix D, AQTESOLV Analytical Results.
Consider also that Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) show that, when using the Hantush (1960) method, “the
. . . assumption of zero drawdown in the unpumped aquifer can . . . lead to significant errors at large values of
time.”
Interrogatory. Please justify implementation of the Hantush (1960) method of analysis for analyzing
drawdown test data in Well I-1-700 when (i) that method is based on an assumption of constant head in the
non-pumped aquifer, shown through field data to have been violated in the overlying aquifer during the test,
and (ii) the method was employed despite Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) warning that Hantush (1960)
analysis of aquifer test data assuming constant head in an unpumped aquifer can “lead to significant errors at
large values of time.”
Response: The drawdown in the non-pumped aquifer is a very small fraction of the saturated thickness,
indicating the resulting uncertainty in the analysis is correspondingly small due to this variation between the
idealized solution assumptions and the real-world test results. The tests did not run for a long time, so the
issue of “significant errors at large values of time” is not relevant.
INTERROGATORY #9
Interrogatory. Please justify the lack of use of drawdown data from the aquitard when implementing the
Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) method.
Response: No data were available from the aquitard in this test configuration. The lack of aquitard data does
not invalidate the test results, but may introduce more uncertainty in the analysis than would occur with the
additional data.
INTERROGATORY #10
Background. Section 3.2.2 of Stantec (2020b) says that
AQTESOLV analytical results for the aquifer test are presented in Appendix D. Estimated hydraulic
parameters from the pumping test analysis (including transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, storativity,
and specific yield) are presented in Table 3-5.
A copy of Table 3-5 is presented below:
March 10, 2021
Page 11 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Interrogatory. Considering the previous discussions about the limitations of the several aquifer-test analysis
methods applied, please justify, in a rigorous way, why the values of any of the parameters in Table 3-5
should be considered accurate, or even approximate.
Response: All aquifer test analyses result in approximations due to limitations of test configuration, data
quality, and assumptions inherent to the solutions. Consistent with standard practice, Stantec evaluated the
data with four different analytical methods that are well accepted and widely used in the industry. The Report
includes all the results along with the assumptions and conceptualizations of the physical system.
The Report presents the following conclusion regarding the results of the aquifer test analyses (Section
3.3.2):
“The leaky-confined conceptual model better represents the field observations than the assumptions
of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions.
Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-
Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946
and Theis, 1935).”
The purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well
I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. The methods and results used are appropriate for the purpose of this study and
March 10, 2021
Page 12 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

provide reasonable results consistent with the standard of professional practice for work of this nature, at the
location the work was performed, at the time the work was performed.
INTERROGATORY #11
Background. Table 3-5, referenced in Section 3.2.2 of Stantec (2020b), is presented in Interrogatory #10. It
is noted from this table that the Stantec calculated storativity for the aquifer screened by Well I-1-100
(screened from 90-100 ft bgs) is, based on the Cooper-Jacob analysis for the pumping phase of the test,
2.354x10-10.
Interrogatory. This value for storativity (2.354x10-10) is very far outside the range of values for storativity (S)
reported by others for aquifer materials found in the subsurface. Storativity values for confined aquifers are
said to generally range from 5×10-5 to 5×10-3 (Todd, 1980). Since Well I-1-100 is said to have been screened
across an aquifer, and Bingham Environmental (1981) and Neptune (2015) identify this aquifer as being
confined, its storativity would normally be assumed to be within the range given by Todd. Moreover, storativity
is generally recognized as not being able to be determined accurately without using data from an observation
well located some distance from the pumping well. Can Stantec justify this low storativity? Storativity values
for various subsurface materials can be calculated from reported specific-storage values. Specific storage,
Ss, is equal to S/b, where b is aquifer thickness. On rearrangement, S = Ssb. The following is a table for
ranges of Ss and S values for types and thicknesses of aquitard and aquifer materials (with Ss ranges
reported by Domenico and Mifflin, 1965):
Material Ss (ft-1)S, Aquitard 1.0 ft Thick S, Aquitard 10 ft Thick
Plastic clay -4-6.2×10-3 -4-6.2×10-3 -3-6.2×10-2
clay -4-7.8×10-4 -4-7.8×10-4 -3-7.8×10-3
hard clay -4-3.9×10-4 -4-3.9×10-4 -3-3.9×10-3
sand -4-3.1×10-4 -4-3.1×10-4 -3-3.1×10-3
sand -5-6.2×10-5 -5-6.2×10-5 -4-6.2×10-4
sandy gravel -5-3.1×10-5 -5-3.1×10-5 -4-3.1×10-4
The specific-storage values can also be found at http://www.aqtesolv.com/aquifer-
tests/aquifer_properties.htm#Storativity. For thicker aquifers, a value listed in one of the two columns on the
right can simply be multiplied by an appropriate factor to determine the storativity. For example, for an aquifer
50 feet thick, the value in the right-hand column would be multiplied by five to calculate the storativity range.
Or the value in third column could be multiplied by 50.
The lowest Ss value shown for sedimentary material in Domenico and Mifflin (1965) is 1.5 x 10-5. For layers
1, 10 and 100 feet thick, this lowest Ss value would result in estimated S values of 1.5 x 10-5, 1.5 x 10-4, and
1.5 x 10-3, respectively. Even the lowest value for S is about five orders of magnitude greater than the
2.354x10-10 value for S reported in Table 3-5 of Stantec (2020b).
March 10, 2021
Page 13 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Since the reported S value of 2.354x10-10 in Stantec (2020b) is five orders of magnitude lower in value than
published values for S for the subsurface materials given above, or less, the reported Stantec (2020b)
storativity value of 2.354x10-10 does not appear reliable. Besides, it is orders of magnitude smaller than other
calculated values listed in the Report for the same layer. As previously discussed, the assumption in the
Report of a saturated thickness of 325 feet used in developing the analysis is not correct. Moreover, the
drawdown data shown are drawdown data for the upper aquifer, which was separated by a substantial
aquitard from the basal aquifer being pumped. Those conditions are definitely outside of the assumptions
inherent in the Cooper-Jacob model. Please justify presenting such a remarkably low storativity value, one
that was also calculated using the Cooper-Jacob model for drawdown for a single, pumped aquifer even
though two aquifers were involved, and the measurements were not taken in the pumped aquifer, but in a
non-pumped aquifer.
Response: The Report describes the assumptions and limitations of the aquifer-test analyses that were
performed. Table 3-5 includes all results for completeness and transparency. We agree that the storativity (S)
value calculated using the Cooper-Jacob method lies outside the generally accepted range for the types of
materials described in the Report. The following paragraph in Section 3.2.2 provides Stantec’s conclusion
regarding the applicability of the various analyses that were included: “The leaky-confined conceptual model
better represents the field observations than the assumptions of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the
Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions. Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined
solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two
solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946 and Theis, 1935).”
INTERROGATORY #12
Interrogatory. None of these estimated hydraulic conductivity values appear to be accurate if the previously
identified issues are indicative of actual problems in testing or analysis. Assuming a saturated thickness of
325 feet if the saturated thickness is only 36 feet, for example, by itself means that the estimated value of
hydraulic conductivity as reported by Stantec (2020) for the two confined aquifer cases would be too small by
about an order of magnitude since hydraulic conductivity is equal to transmissivity divided by the saturated
thickness. The assumptions required by the analysis for the confined aquifer (e.g., Cooper-Jacob method
assumptions) were not even marginally met during testing. Is this not the case? Please justify the response.
Response: The following paragraph in Section 3.2.2 provides Stantec’s conclusion regarding the applicability of the various analyses that were presented: “The leaky-confined conceptual model better represents the field observations than the assumptions of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions. Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946 and Theis, 1935).”
INTERROGATORY #13
Interrogatory. Please provide justification for the statement that “groundwater chemistry of I-1-700 is typical
of deep groundwater isolated from recharge.” What set of data is identified in the Report that indicates that
the groundwater in the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is isolated from, or is typical of groundwater isolated from,
recharge? A few sentences that follow the claim made there depict the aquifer as having a relatively reducing
environment. However, while reducing environments are generally more common at depth, reducing
environments can also be found in many shallow water- bearing zones.
March 10, 2021
Page 14 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Response: Reducing environments may be found in some shallow water-bearing zones but are uncommon in
recharge zones where water by definition has recently been in contact with the atmosphere. In addition to the
reducing conditions, high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations indicate an extended time for
groundwater to dissolve constituents from the aquifer material and a lack of mixing with recently recharged
water that would be naturally low in TDS.
INTERROGATORY #14
Interrogatory. This statement, which refers to “the observed most permeable zone from 325 to 355 ft bgs,”
seems to contradict the information in Table 3-5 indicating that the most permeable zone is the one covering
a depth range of 90-100 ft bgs. Please provide justification for this statement.
Response: The statement in the Summary and Conclusions section accurately summarizes the observations made in the field during drilling and well construction. The purpose of the Phase 1 program was to investigate conditions in the basal aquifer. Well I-1-100 is already screened in the approximate 90-100 ft below ground surface (bgs) depth interval; completing well I-1-700 in the same interval would not achieve the purpose of the investigation. The screened interval for well I-1-700 was selected in the field as the most permeable zone below the deepest existing well based on visual inspection and logging of the extracted core material. The selected screened interval was agreed to by the Division during a meeting on December 9, 2019 after the boring was completed.
The estimated hydraulic conductivity reported in Table 3-5 for the depth interval of 90-100 ft below ground surface (bgs) was calculated using the Cooper-Jacob (1946) method analyzing the drawdown response from well I-1-100. The reviewer has previously noted the assumptions and limitations of the Cooper-Jacob (1946) method. The following paragraph in Section 3.2.2 provides Stantec’s conclusion regarding the applicability of the various analyses that were presented: “The leaky-confined conceptual model better represents the field observations than the assumptions of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions. Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946 and Theis, 1935).”
INTERROGATORY #15
Background. Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states
Low vertical hydraulic conductivities were measured in undisturbed samples collected from the
identified aquitard zones above and below the I-1-700 screened interval, on the order of 10-5 cm/s in
the upper and 10-6 cm/s in the lower aquitard zones (Table 3-2). These results are two to three
orders of magnitude lower than horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimates of the aquifer test data
analysis.
Interrogatory. Please provide justification for the assessment given above that results of lab tests indicate
hydraulic conductivities for samples being two to three orders of magnitude lower than aquifer-test calculated
values. Data in Tables 3-2 and 3-5 do not seem to support that assessment. Order-of-magnitude comparisons
provided by data in the table values and the assessment above seem to be off by about an order of
magnitude.
March 10, 2021
Page 15 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Response: The ratios range from over an order of magnitude to over two orders of magnitude when
comparing the laboratory vertical hydraulic conductivity results (Table 3-4) with the estimated horizontal
hydraulic conductivity results from I-1-700 (Table 3-5) and three orders of magnitude if the results from well
I-1-100 are included in the evaluation.
INTERROGATORY #16
Background. Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states
The vertical hydraulic gradient, calculated using fresh water equivalent heads for I-1-700 and three
nested wells, indicates an upward direction of vertical groundwater flow between I-1-700 and the
shallower monitoring wells at this location.
Interrogatory. Please provide justification for this conclusion. As indicated in Interrogatory #4, uncorrected
apparent hydraulic gradients for groundwater that varies in density with depth, even in the case of
hydrogeologically homogeneous systems, do not necessarily indicate vertical flow direction. Corrections must
be applied to heads in these wells to account for groundwater-density change.
For this site, if one were to assume aquifer homogeneity, once corrections are made in the flow equations to
account for the effects of buoyancy, no evidence is given in the Report that, in general, groundwater at the
Facility does not have a downward component of flow. Comparisons between buoyancy-corrected values in
the basal aquifer and in the shallow aquifer, for example, show that some combinations of plausible densities
and hydraulic gradients indicate an estimated downward flow component.
Moreover, the analytical equations used for making comparisons in the Report are intended for, and would
only provide reasonably accurate results for, homogeneous systems. The analytical equations cannot and do
not apply to analysis of more complex systems, e.g., ones in which aquifer components are separated by
aquitard components.
Response: The statement regarding vertical gradients calculated using fresh-water equivalent heads is correct. Buoyancy corrections are discussed elsewhere in the Report. The calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients between well I-1-700 and wells I-1-100 and I-1-50 are upward for the range of assumptions regarding the relative depths of measurement. The direction of the calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradient between well I-1-700 and well I-1-30 using the mid-filter pack elevations is upward. While the calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradient between I-1-700 and I-1-30 could be either upward or downward depending on the assumptions made regarding the relative depth of measurement for hydraulic head between the two wells, an upward gradient is more likely. Taken as a whole, the data and calculations with buoyancy corrections support the conclusion of an upward gradient between I-1-700 and the shallower monitoring wells at that location.
Gradient calculations are made between two points in an aquifer and are independent of the nature of the aquifer material itself. The purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. Evaluations of groundwater flow are outside the scope of this study.
March 10, 2021
Page 16 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

INTERROGATORY #17
Interrogatory. The phase “poor water quality” is subjective. It is the Division’s position that this groundwater
still needs to be protected.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #18
Background. Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states
These results indicate limited connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at
the Facility. Given the upward component of groundwater flow, vertical heterogeneity with aquifer
zones separated by an aquitard and a semi-confined aquifer underlain by a thick aquitard, low vertical
hydraulic conductivity and observed dryness of the aquitard zones, and the lack of response in the
30 and 50 foot deep observation wells during the aquifer test, hydraulic communication from the
shallow zones to the deeper basal aquifer under natural conditions is unlikely.
Interrogatory. An apparent hydraulic connection exists between the I-1-700 well, screened at a depth of
325-355 ft bgs, and the overlying aquitard and the aquifer above it. The latter is screened by Well I- 1-100
from 90-100 ft bgs.
Hydraulic connection is demonstrated because drawdown in the basal aquifer causes water-level drawdown
in the upper aquifer (screened from 90-100 ft bgs). A subdued impact is expected in the upper aquifer due to
groundwater head losses as the hydraulic response to pumping propagates through an intervening aquitard.
This drawdown in an unpumped aquifer indicates that one of the primary assumptions underlying the Hantush
(1960) method is not being met.
There also appears to be a connection between groundwater in the basal aquifer and groundwater in the
aquifer material screened at about 50 feet. This is because groundwater in Well I-1-50 has been identified as
having responded to changes in head occasioned by the pumping test in the basal aquifer with a transient
reverse drawdown effect. That effect may be due to early deformation of the aquitard and an accompanying
temporary increase in fluid pressure in the upper part of the aquitard, transmitted up to the overlying aquifer,
as described in Kim and Parizek (1997).
A more direct hydraulic response (e.g., drawdown) was not observed in Well I-1-50 during 12 hours of testing.
The reason for no response during that time cannot be fully ascertained based on the data currently provided.
It has not been demonstrated yet that the length of the pumping test was sufficient for an unconfined aquifer
separated from the pumped aquifer by two aquitards and another aquifer.
It takes time for direct hydraulic responses to propagate. This is illustrated for two different wells, each one
screened in a different aquifer, in the graph shown below, copied from Appendix D of the Report.
March 10, 2021
Page 17 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

The displacement (i.e., drawdown) experienced by groundwater in the basal aquifer (screened from
325-355 ft bgs) is shown in blue. This displacement is seen (i) to rapidly increase in value over the interval
between 69 and 90 seconds, and then (ii) to asymptotically transition to a plateau displacement range of
about 24-25 feet.
By contrast, the displacement experienced by groundwater in the more-elevated aquifer screened at 90-100 ft
bgs, which displacement is shown in red, does not begin to plateau until about 10,000 seconds. The time
taken to begin to approximate the plateau value is, for this upper aquifer, about 100 times as great as the time
needed for groundwater levels in the basal aquifer to reach a plateau- level range. Instead of taking about 1 ½
minutes, as it does for the basal aquifer, it takes about 2 ¾ hours for the upper aquifer.
While no direct hydraulic response was noted in the very shallow aquifer material above these two aquifers
during the testing period, that lack of a direct hydraulic response may have simply been due to insufficient
time allowed for a direct hydraulic response to propagate that far upward through additional aquitard material.
Considering that it took about 100 times as great a time for the confined aquifer at 90-100 ft bgs to respond
than it took for the basal aquifer to do so, it might take considerably more time than that for an overlying
unconfined aquifer screened from 25-45 ft bgs and separated from the other aquifers by an aquitard to
respond.
What is the evidence or justification for assuming that there is “limited connectivity between the shallow zones
and the deeper basal aquifer at the Facility?” And what is the precise meaning of the term “limited” in the
statement quoted above? What is the significance of the hydraulic connection that is shown to exist in the
upper aquifer, owing to the measured drawdown in the groundwater observed in it during the aquifer test?
Response: As described in the response to Interrogatory # 5 above, limited hydraulic connectivity is demonstrated by the lag in response of drawdown in the shallow wells due to pumping in the deep well, likely
due to the factors cited by the reviewer in that interrogatory. “Limited” means less responsive than would be
expected under idealized conditions, for all the factors cited by the reviewer. The Division’s conceptual model
of dry zones and a heterogeneous aquifer sequence of aquifers and aquitards supports the conclusion of
limited connectivity between the shallow and deep zones at the location of I-1-700.
March 10, 2021
Page 18 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

REFERENCES
ASTM, 2017. D6028 − 17 Standard Test Method (Analytical Procedure) for Determining Hydraulic Properties of a Confined Aquifer Taking into Consideration Storage of Water in Leaky Confining Beds by Modified Hantush Method, ASTM, 9 pp.
ASTM, 2020. D6028/D6028M, Standard Practice for (Analytical Procedure) Determining Hydraulic Properties of a Confined Aquifer Taking into Consideration Storage of Water in Leaky Confining Beds by Modified Hantush Method, ASTM International.
Bingham Environmental (1981) Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah, prepared for Envirocare of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT, October 9.
Boonstra, H. and Soppe, R. (2017) Well Hydraulics and Aquifer Tests, in, Cushman, J.H. and Tartakovsy, D.M., eds., The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering, Third Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Domenico, P.A. and Mifflin, M.D. (1965) Water from low-permeability sediments and land subsidence, Water Resources Research, v. 1, no. 4, p. 563-576.
Hantush, M.S., 1960. Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, no. 11, p. 3713-3725.
Kim, J. and Parizek, R.R., 1997. Numerical simulation of the Noordbergum effect resulting from groundwater pumping in a layered aquifer system, Journal of Hydrology, v. 202, p. 231–243.
Kruseman, G. P., and N. A. de Ridder, 1992. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, 2nd ed., Publication 47, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Moench, A. F., 1985. Transient flow to a large-diameter well in an aquifer with storative semiconfining layers, Water Resources Research, v. 21, no. 8, p. 1121–1131.
Neptune, 2015. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA, Model v1.4, Prepared for EnergySolutions, LLC by Neptune and Company, Inc., Los Alamos, New Mexico. See also various appendices therein.
Neuman, S.P. and Witherspoon, P.A., 1969a. Applicability of Current Theories of Flow in Leaky Aquifers, Water Resources Research, v. 5, no. 4, p. 817-829.
Neuman, S.P. and P.A. Witherspoon.1969b. Theory of flow in a confined two aquifer system, Water Resources Research, v. 5, no. 4, p. 803-816.
Post, V., Kooi, H. and Simmons, C., 2007. Using hydraulic head measurements in variable-density ground water flow analyses, Groundwater, v. 45, no. 6 p. 664-671.
Stantec, 2020a. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report, dated March 13, 2020, Prepared for and Submitted to EnergySolutions, LLC by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
March 10, 2021
Page 19 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Stantec, 2020b. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final, Revised, v2, September 30, 2020, Prepared for and Submitted to EnergySolutions, EnergySolutions, LLC by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-19 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EXHIBIT 2 TO APPENDIX D

STANTEC’S PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
CLIVE DISPOSAL FACILITY

Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report

Utah 84111

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT

This document entitled Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report was prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions). Any reliance on this
document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in
light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec
and EnergySolutions. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the
time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the
document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this
document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be
responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of
decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

Prepared by (signature) Emil Yeager, PG

Reviewed by
(signature)
Walter Weinig, PG, PMP, QP

Approved by
(signature)
Susan Eyzaguirre, PE, PG, PMP

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT

Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1.1
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 1.1
1.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY .................................................................. 1.1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED .............................................................. 2.1
2.1 BOREHOLE DRILLING AND GEOTECHNICAL SOIL SAMPLING ............................... 2.1
2.2 WELL INSTALLATION ................................................................................................. 2.2
2.3 MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 2.3
2.4 AQUIFER TEST AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING .................................................. 2.3
3.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 3.1
3.1 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................................................................. 3.1
3.2 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS ..................... 3.1 3.2.1 Density Corrections ..................................................................................... 3.1 3.2.2 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients ........................................................................ 3.2
3.3 AQUIFER TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................... 3.2
3.3.1 Analysis Methods ........................................................................................ 3.2 3.3.2 Analysis Results .......................................................................................... 3.3
3.4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS ........................................................................ 3.4
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 4.1
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 5.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Stratigraphically Representative Zones
Table 3-1 Geotechnical Test Results for Disturbed Samples
Table 3-2 Geotechnical Test Results for Undisturbed Samples
Table 3-3 Static Water Level Measurements and Elevations
Table 3-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients Using Fresh Water Equivalent Heads
Table 3-5 January 2020 I-1-700 Estimated Hydraulic Parameters
Table 3-6 January 2020 I-1-700 Groundwater Sampling Results
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 Location of I-1-700
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Borehole Log, Well Build Diagram, and Field Forms
Appendix B Photographs
Appendix C Geotechnical Report
Appendix D AQTESOLV Analytical Results
Appendix E Groundwater Analytical Laboratory Reports
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
iii
Abbreviations
% percent
AWAL American West Analytical Laboratories
bgs below ground surface
cm/s centimeters per second
CRT constant rate test
DOE Department of Energy
DWMRC Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Facility EnergySolutions Clive Facility
GEL GEL Laboratories LLC
IGES IGES geotechnical lab
K hydraulic conductivity
mg/l milligrams per liter
OD outer diameter
ORP oxidation reduction potential
pCi/l picoCuries per liter
Study Basal-Depth Aquifer Study
TDS total dissolved solids
UAC Utah Administrative Code
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This summary report presents findings for Phase 1 of the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study (Study) conducted at
the EnergySolutions Clive Facility (Facility). Phase 1 of the Study was performed in accordance with the
Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan (EnergySolutions, 2019 and Stantec, 2019), which was designed to
understand the hydrogeologic and geologic characteristics of the basal-depth aquifer at the Facility where
aquifer properties at basal-depths have not been extensively studied.
The hydrogeologic conditions of the first 100 feet below the Facility have already been well characterized
since the State of Utah/Department of Energy VITRO Chemical Company project and original Envirocare
of Utah licensing actions (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and Department of Energy [DOE] 1984a,
1984b). In addition, EnergySolutions’ subsequent licensing and permitting activities have further
characterized the subsurface beneath the Facility. These previous activities, coupled with long-term
monitoring of the shallow, unconfined aquifer, have extensively captured the hydrogeologic conditions in
the first 100 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on the understanding of the hydrogeologic conditions
in the first 100 feet, DOE and EnergySolutions assumed the conceptual model of the Facility includes
similar stratigraphy below that first 100 feet.
EnergySolutions has been tasked by the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC) to validate this hydrogeologic conceptual model down to basal depths (i.e., log the subsurface
geology/stratigraphy and characterize the deep aquifer) through the installation and sampling of a basal
depth well. Data collected from Phase 1 of the Study are used to understand the characteristics of the
subsurface hydrogeology at depths exceeding 100 feet bgs and inform EnergySolutions and DWMRC if
development of subsequent Study phases are warranted. In addition to collection of basal-depth aquifer
characteristic information, Phase 1 of the Study complies with the DWMRC Director’s regulatory
requirements.
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Facility is located near the eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert, approximately 50 miles east
of Wendover, Nevada and 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). EnergySolutions operates a
low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste disposal facility and has been in operation since 1989. Work
was performed at an uncontaminated background area of the Facility and media (soil and groundwater)
encountered were not contaminated with hazardous or radiological substances.
1.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY
The surficial geology beneath the Facility consists of Quaternary Lacustrine (lakebed) deposits of ancient
Lake Bonneville (Stephens, 1974). The upper 40 feet of lacustrine deposits consist of four
hydrostratigraphic units including an upper silty clay/clayey silt (Unit 4), an upper silty sand (Unit 3), a
middle silty clay (Unit 2), and a lower sand/silty sand (Unit 1).
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1.2
The unsaturated zone beneath the facility includes Unit 4 and portions of Units 3 and 2. The shallow,
unconfined groundwater system includes the saturated portions of Units 3 and 2. The confined aquifer
occurs in Unit 1. Depths to groundwater typically range from 25 to 40 feet bgs beneath the Facility. Cross
sections showing the four hydrostratigraphic units are presented in Figures 6, 9, and 10 of Bingham
(1991).
A new monitoring well was installed beneath the well-characterized 100-foot-deep near-surface material
where similar unconsolidated lake-bed sediments and alluvial valley fill were encountered (refer to
Section 2.1).
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
The objective of Phase 1 of the Study was to characterize the basal-depth aquifer. To collect Phase 1
data, a borehole was drilled; a basal-depth monitoring well was installed, developed, and sampled; and
an aquifer test was conducted. DWMRC personnel observed the field data collection activities for the
Study. Details regarding the data collection are discussed below.
2.1 BOREHOLE DRILLING AND GEOTECHNICAL SOIL SAMPLING
Between November 15 and December 5, 2019, one borehole was drilled by Cascade Drilling using the
sonic drilling method. The borehole is located south of the Mixed Waste Cell (Figure 2) and upgradient of
any historical or current disposal activities based on the shallow aquifer flow direction. Because creation
of a detailed stratigraphic log is critical to characterizing the geology and hydrogeology at basal depths,
particularly the stratigraphy below the first 100 feet, the sonic drilling method was selected as this method
extracts a continuous core to the total depth of the boring.
A telescoping or step-down technique was used to advance the boring because the desired borehole
depth scoped in the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan was relatively deep (i.e., between 700 and 800 feet
bgs). Telescoping of the boring reduces friction, allowing the boring to be drilled deeper than if drilled
without telescoping. The boring began with a 9-inch outer diameter (OD) casing drilled from ground
surface to 157 feet bgs, telescoped down to a 8-inch OD casing from 157 feet to 337 feet bgs, and ended
with a 7-inch OD casing from 337 feet to 615 feet bgs (the borehole total depth). The borehole was
terminated at a depth shallower than the intended depth of 800 feet, because the sonic drill bit met refusal
upon encountering a hard breccia layer at 607 to 615 feet bgs, which significantly reduced the drilling
efficiency and risked damage of the drilling equipment.
Because the borehole termination depth was shallower than the scoped depth a meeting was held on
December 9, 2019 with EnergySolutions, DWMRC, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec)1, and
Cascade Drilling to evaluate adjustments to the planned borehole depth and effects on the planned
monitoring well installation (refer to Section 2.2). During the meeting, all parties agreed to: (1) terminate
the borehole at the depth achieved; and (2) screen the well at the deepest water-bearing bearing-zone
encountered (approximately 330 to 350 feet bgs within the fine grained, wet, silty sand stratigraphy). This
meeting was held in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan.
The collected continuous drill core was visually logged by a Stantec professional geologist licensed in the
state of Utah using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) soil classification procedures and field
descriptions including soil type, color, texture, bedding structures, and moisture content. The geologist
also provided drilling and well installation oversight for the duration of the project. A copy of the borehole
log is provided in Appendix A and photographs of the sonic core are provided in Appendix B-1.

1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. was retained by EnergySolutions to assist in the preparation and execution of Phase 1 of the Study.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.2
The geologist identified 12 stratigraphically representative zones along the length of the drill core and
collected one grab soil sample from each zone to measure grain-size distribution analysis (in accordance
with ASTM D6913a). A summary of the representative zones is provided in Table 2-1. The samples were
remitted by the geologist to EnergySolutions personnel for submission to IGES geotechnical lab (IGES).
This analysis is used to determine particle size distribution and provide an indicator of material properties
across the borehole area.
Additionally, the geologist identified depths where four undisturbed soil samples were collected in brass
sleeves using a direct-push method to evaluate subsurface soil characteristics in an off-site laboratory.
Specifically, two undisturbed samples were collected that could be representative of potential aquifer
material (coarse-grained) and two undisturbed samples were collected that could be representative of
potential aquitard (fine-grained) material. The sample depths were selected based on the geologist’s
professional judgement while logging the core utilizing the USCS. The samples were classified in the field
as potential aquifers or potential aquitards. These samples were submitted to a local geotechnical
laboratory (IGES) to measure porosity and bulk density. Additionally, the two undisturbed samples
collected in the potential aquitard material also were submitted to IGES to measure vertical hydraulic
conductivity. Geotechnical analytical results are presented in Section 3.1.
2.2 WELL INSTALLATION
Between December 10 and December 14, 2019, a deep well, designated I-1-700, was installed in the
boring by Cascade Drilling with oversight provided by the Stantec geologist. Stantec recommended well
construction details (i.e., installation depth, screen interval, and construction materials) to
EnergySolutions based on discussions from the December 9, 2019 meeting with DWMRC and in
accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan. EnergySolutions submitted the recommendations in
an email to DWMRC for approval, and DWMRC agreed with the recommended well construction in an
email on December 10, 2019. The agreed upon well construction details were:
• Backfill the 617 feet deep boring with bentonite chips to a depth to accommodate a total well depth of
approximately 350 feet bgs
• Install 0.020 stainless steel screen from 320 to 350 feet bgs, across what appears to be the most
transmissive zone encountered during drilling (refer to borehole log in Appendix A)
• Install 10/20 sand pack around the well screen
• Install 3-inch diameter stainless steel casing
• Install an above-grade surface completion as outlined in the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan
The well was installed to a total depth of 355 feet bgs with a 30-foot screen placed from 325-355 feet bgs.
During well construction the well casing was suspended from the drill rig to 350 feet bgs, as specified in
the bullet list above. However, after well construction was complete and the well casing was un-hooked
from the drill rig the well settled an additional 5 feet, resulting in a total depth of 355 feet bgs. The well
settlement was due to the weight of the stainless-steel casing used to construct the well. The interval from
350 to 355 feet consisted of the same fine grained, wet, silty sand stratigraphy as the proposed screened
interval (320 to 350 feet) and was back-filled with filter pack sand prior to the well build, so the settlement
did not affect the aquifer material screen interval. Once well construction was complete the inside of the
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.3
well casing was tagged with a weighted tape measure to verify a total depth at 355 feet bgs. The bottom
of the well felt solid when tagged, indicating minor or no sediment inside the well after construction. The
as-built well construction details include:
• 3-inch diameter stainless steel screen from 355 feet bgs to 325 feet bgs
• 3-inch diameter stainless steel casing from 325 feet bgs to 2.0 feet above ground surface
• 10/20 sand filter pack from 355 feet bgs to 319 feet bgs
• Fine-grained sand from 319 feet bgs to 314 feet bgs
• 3/8-inch bentonite chips from 314 feet bgs to 300 feet bgs
• Annular seal of bentonite grout from 300 feet bgs to 2 feet bgs
• Surface seal of concrete from 2 feet bgs to surface
A well construction diagram for I-1-700 is provided in Appendix A and photographs of well construction
materials and well surface completion are provided in Appendix B-2.
2.3 MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT
Between January 14 and 15, 2020, I-1-700 was developed in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer
Study Plan by Cascade Drilling with oversight provided by a Stantec field technician. On January 14,
2020, the well was bailed, surged, bailed, and then pumped for 30 minutes at an average flow rate of
12.5 gallons per minute (gpm) using an electrical submersible pump installed to approximately mid-
screen depth. The purge water was pumped directly to a 20,000-gallon capacity frac tank for storage
(refer to photograph 11 in Appendix B-2). Purge water was monitored for water quality parameters pH,
specific conductivity, turbidity, temperature and general appearance.
Development resumed January 15, 2020, with continued pumping of the well for an additional 1.8 hours
at an average flow rate of 15 gpm. Water level measurements were collected during the pumping period
and showed a 21.76-foot drop during the 1.8 hours of pumping. Development was stopped once the
water parameters were stable and the final turbidity reading readings hovered in the low teens (refer to
monitoring well development field forms provided in Appendix A). The purge water toward the end of the
pumping period looked clear with no visible suspended solids. Approximately 2,058 gallons of water were
purged during the two days of well development.
2.4 AQUIFER TEST AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
Between January 15 and 16, 2020, a 12-hour constant rate pumping test (i.e., aquifer test) was conducted
for I-1-700 in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan, by the Stantec field technician and
professional geologist, with pumping support provided by Cascade Drilling. On January 15, well
development was completed, and the field technician installed pressure transducers in I-1-700 and in
nearby observation wells I-1-100, I-1-50, and I-1-30 (refer to Figure 2). To accommodate the transducer
the dedicated bladder pump in well I-1-30 was removed and placed in a plastic bag to keep the pump
clean and contained. The pump was then delivered to the EnergySolutions security personnel to be
placed in a warehouse storage area until it could be reinstalled after completion of the aquifer test.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.4
On January 16, 2020 the aquifer test was conducted. The pump in I-1-700 was turned on at 0750,
pumped for 12 hours at an average flow rate of 15.4 gpm, and was shut off at 1950. During the aquifer
test, water levels were recorded in the pumping well and the three nearby observation wells by the
transducers and manually measured by the technician and geologist using electronic water-level
sounders. The transducer in monitoring well I-1-100 stopped working during the aquifer test, therefore;
manually recorded groundwater levels for this well were used in the aquifer test analysis (refer to Section
3.3).
During the 12 hours of pumping approximately 11,088 gallons of water were purged from the well and
pumped directly to a 20,000-gallon capacity frac tank for storage. Aquifer test results are presented in
Section 3.3.
During the aquifer test, EnergySolutions personnel collected groundwater samples and measured field
parameters (i.e. pH, temperature, specific conductivity, oxidation reduction potential [ORP], and dissolved
oxygen) in the discharge from I-1-700 in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan. The
samples were collected using a valve installed in the pump discharge line (refer to photograph 11 in
Appendix B-2).
EnergySolutions submitted the non-radiological parameter analyses samples to American West Analytical
Laboratories (AWAL) and the radiological parameters analyses samples to GEL Laboratories LLC (GEL).
At the time of groundwater collection, DWMRC personnel also collected splits of the groundwater
samples for their own use. The groundwater sample field form is provided in Appendix A and sample
results are presented in Section 3.4.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.1
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Soil descriptions and laboratory grain-distribution analysis results (in accordance with ASTM D6913a) of
the disturbed grab samples collected from the stratigraphically representative zones are presented in
Table 3-1. Depth intervals where the samples were collected are also presented in Table 3-1. Laboratory
analyses indicate that the discrete samples collected from between 87 and 287 feet generally consist of
sands with smaller fractions of gravels, silts, and/or clays. Samples collected from 337 to 592 feet include
a higher percentage of fines (silt and clay) than those observed between 87 and 287 feet bgs.
Porosity and bulk density analyses were conducted for two undisturbed samples selected to be
representative of aquifer material and the two undisturbed samples representative of aquitard material.
Results are presented in Table 3-2. Porosity results for the aquifer samples are 33.5 percent (%) (I-1-700
247-248.5) and 47.2% (I-1-700 337-338.5). The higher porosity of the lower aquifer sample is likely due to
the higher prevalence of fines (refer Table 3-1). Porosity values for the aquitard samples are 44.3%
(I-1-700 297-298.5) and 49.1% (I-1-700).
Results of the vertical hydraulic conductivity (K) tests conducted on the two undisturbed samples
representative of potential aquitard material were 0.074 and 0.011 feet per day (feet/day) (2.6×10−5 and
3.9×10−6 centimeters per second [cm/s]). The samples were collected from 297.5-298.0 feet bgs and
377.5-378.0 feet bgs, respectively (refer to Table 3-2). The geotechnical laboratory description for both
samples is reddish-brown clayey sand. A copy of the geotechnical laboratory report is provided in
Appendix C.
3.2 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS
Static groundwater levels were collected prior to the aquifer test on January 16, 2020, 32 days after
I-1-700 was installed. In accordance with EnergySolutions’ Groundwater Quality Discharge permit
UGW450005, groundwater levels were corrected to freshwater equivalents prior to further interpretation
and modeling. Corrected groundwater levels were used to calculate vertical hydraulic gradients (refer to
Section 3.2.2) and model the hydraulic response to the aquifer pumping test (refer to Section 3.3.2).
3.2.1 Density Corrections
Due to the variable salinity of groundwater found beneath the Facility, density corrections were utilized to
calculate fresh water equivalent heads (Post et al., 2007). Fresh water equivalent heads facilitate the
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.2
assessment of hydraulic gradients. The corrected densities were calculated utilizing the following
equation: ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐=𝑧𝑧+(𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐× 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤)
Where:
hcorr is the fresh water equivalent hydraulic head (feet amsl),
z is the elevation head of the mid-filter pack or mid-point of the saturated zone, whichever is lower (feet
amsl),
puncorr is the uncorrected pressure head above point z (feet), and
SGwell is the specific gravity of the water in the well (unitless).
Measured static water levels and corrected and uncorrected heads are presented in Table 3-3. The
magnitude of the density correction was greatest for I-1-700 because of the high groundwater specific
gravity and long water column inside the well.
3.2.2 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients
Vertical hydraulic gradients between the collocated wells I-1-30, I-1-50, I-1-100, I-1-700 were calculated
after converting saline water levels into fresh water equivalent heads (see Section 3.2).
Vertical gradients were calculated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Vertical Gradient Calculator (U.S. EPA, 2020). The calculator provides the mid-filter pack vertical gradient
as well as the range of gradients, which account for well geometry and water level elevations, as
applicable. A summary of gradient magnitudes and directions are provided in Table 3-4. All vertical
gradients were upward immediately prior to the January 16, 2020 pumping test. The I-1-700 well has a
hydraulic head that is higher than all collocated wells.
3.3 AQUIFER TEST RESULTS
3.3.1 Analysis Methods
Aquifer test data were analyzed using the software package AQTESOLV, version 4.0 Professional
(Duffield, 2007). Groundwater level measurements were collected from the transducers as well as
recorded manually by Stantec field personnel at I-1-700 (screened from 325-355 feet bgs), I-1-100
(screened from 90-100 feet bgs), I-1-50 (screened from 40-50 feet bgs), and I-1-30 (screened from
20-30 feet bgs) during the aquifer test.
Well I-1-30 showed no discernable response to the aquifer test, suggesting a limited hydraulic connection
with the pumped aquifer. Well I-1-50 showed a slight reverse water-level fluctuation, which has been
observed in aquifers and aquitards overlying pumped aquifers (Kim and Parizek, 1997).
Typical pumping responses were measured in wells I-1-700 and I-1-100. These two wells were selected
to evaluate best fit hydraulic parameters using four different mathematical solutions including Hantush
(1960), Neuman-Witherspoon (1969), and Cooper-Jacob (1946) for the constant rate test (CRT) pumping
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.3
period, and Theis (1935) for the recovery data. The following assumptions were applied for these
methods of analysis (Duffield, 2007):
• The aquifer is confined or leaky confined, infinite areal extent, homogeneous, isotropic and of uniform
thickness of 325 feet.
• For leaky aquifers, aquitards have infinite areal extent; uniform vertical hydraulic conductivity, storage
coefficient, and uniform thickness; and flow in aquitards is vertical.
• For the Hantush method, the pumping and observation wells are partially penetrating, and diameter of
pumping well is very small so that storage in the well can be neglected.
• For the Hantush method, the ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kv/Kh) was assumed
to be 0.1.
• Flow to the pumping well is unsteady; flow is horizontal and uniform in a vertical section through the
axis of the well.
• Water is released from storage in an aquitard instantaneously with a decline of hydraulic head.
• Displacement is small relative to the saturated thickness of the aquifer.
• For the Neuman-Witherspoon method, aquitards are overlain or underlain by an infinite constant-
head plane source.
During the aquifer test, the transducer in monitoring well I-1-100 stopped working during the pumping
test; therefore, manually recorded groundwater levels were used in the analysis.
3.3.2 Analysis Results
Freshwater density corrections were applied to the measured groundwater levels due to the high and
variable salinity observed locally. At I-1-700, freshwater equivalent drawdown is approximately 0.3 feet
greater than the response in saline water. At I-1-100, the density correction was negligible. The
AQTESOLV analytical results for the aquifer test are presented in Appendix D. Estimated hydraulic
parameters from the pumping test analysis (including transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, storativity, and
specific yield) are presented in Table 3-5.
The maximum measured drawdown from the pumping test was 24.99 feet at I-1-700. The geometric
mean for the estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the basal aquifer is estimated to be
6.01 feet/day based on the results from I-1-100 and I-1-700. The average of the horizontal hydraulic
conductivity estimates using different methods of analysis is 1.26 feet/day for I-1-700, and 28.72 feet/day
for I-1-100 while the average value of storativity was estimated at 1.57×10−3 for I-1-700 and 6.81×10−3 for
I-1-100.
Two of the four analysis methods applied at I-1-700 assumed the basal-depth aquifer is leaky confined
(Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969). The relatively flat response near the end of pumping
suggests a constant source of water is available, consistent with recharge (leakage) occurring during the
test.
Three analyses were conducted to evaluate the pumping test response at I-1-100. Estimated hydraulic
conductivity for I-1-100 is higher than I-1-700, suggesting the hydraulic conductivity at shallower depths is
greater than the hydraulic conductivity near 325 feet bgs.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.4
3.4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
The groundwater sample from I-1-700 was analyzed for metals, radionuclides, and major ions at an off-
site laboratory, and water quality parameters were measured in the field as provided in Table 3-6. The
major cation is sodium and the major anion is chloride. Total dissolved solids (TDS) at basal depths are
65,400 milligrams per liter (mg/l), as compared to an average of 40,297 mg/l for shallow groundwater
samples collected in 2018. As is the case for the Facility’s shallow groundwater, the basal-depth
groundwater is classified as Class IV – Saline Groundwater, due to the TDS concentration exceeding
10,000 mg/l (Utah Administrative Code R317-6-3, Ground Water Classes).
Total uranium (U) is 17.4 micrograms per liter (µg/l); isotopes U-233/234 and U-238 were detected and
U-235-236 was not detected. Thorium isotopes were not detected. Gross alpha was not detected, though
the analysis did not meet detection limit requirements due to low sample volume; sample volume was
limited due to the analytical procedures (refer to the GEL analytical laboratory report provided in
Appendix E). Gross beta is 495 picoCuries per liter (pCi/l). A copy of the AWAL and GEL groundwater
analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E.
The groundwater chemistry of I-1-700 is typical of deep groundwater isolated from recharge. Redox
conditions are relatively reducing, based on the field ORP (i.e., Eh) measurement (refer to the
groundwater sample field form provided in Appendix A) and the presence of dissolved iron and
ammonia. Detected radiological and non-radiological constituents are naturally occurring.

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In November and December 2019, a deep boring was drilled at the Facility to 617 feet bgs. The core
extracted from the boring was logged and geotechnical soil samples were collected and analyzed. The
boring was backfilled to 355 feet bgs and a 3-inch diameter well (I-1-700, screened across the observed
most permeable zone from 325 to 355 feet bgs) was successfully constructed. Groundwater samples
were collected and analyzed, and an aquifer test was conducted in January 2020.
From data collected during this Study, characteristics of the unconsolidated basal aquifer to 617 feet
beneath the Facility were evaluated and several basal aquifer study data objectives outlined by DWMRC
in their July 29, 2019 letter to EnergySolutions have been met. Visual inspection of the extracted core,
geotechnical analysis results, aquifer test evaluation, and groundwater sampling results indicate the
following:
• The zone of highest permeability (sandy silt) across the 617-foot-deep boring is located at 320 to
355 feet bgs. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimates from January 2020 aquifer tests are
indicative of silt and silty sand material (Table 3-5), which correlate well with the stratigraphic boring
log (Appendix A).
• Aquitard material is located both above and below the highest permeability interval, with the largest
percentage of fine-grained material (up to 76.2%) located at deeper depths (Table 3-1). Much of the
aquitard material was observed to be dense and dry (Appendix A).
• Low vertical hydraulic conductivities were measured in undisturbed samples collected from the
identified aquitard zones above and below the I-1-700 screened interval, on the order of 10-5 cm/s in
the upper and 10-6 cm/s in the lower aquitard zones (Table 3-2). These results are two to three orders
of magnitude lower than horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimates of the aquifer test data analysis.
• The vertical hydraulic gradient, calculated using fresh water equivalent heads for I-1-700 and three
nested wells, indicates an upward direction of vertical groundwater flow at the Facility.
• Poor water quality was measured in the groundwater samples collected from I-1-700 (screened from
325 to 355 feet bgs), notably a TDS concentration of 65,400 mg/l which is above the Utah
Administrative Code 10,000 mg/l threshold for Class IV groundwater (UAC R317-6-3).
These results indicate limited connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at the
Facility. Given the upward component of groundwater flow, low vertical hydraulic conductivity and
observed dryness of the aquitard zones, and the lack of response in the 30 and 50 foot deep observation
wells during the aquifer test, hydraulic communication from the shallow zones to the deeper basal aquifer
under natural conditions is unlikely.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
REFERENCES
5.1
5.0 REFERENCES
Bingham Environmental, 1991. Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South Clive,
Utah. Prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Prepared by Bingham Environmental. October 1991.
Cooper, H.H. and C.E. Jacob, 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants
and summarizing well field history, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 27, pp. 526-534.
Department of Energy (DOE), 1984a. "Final Environmental Impact Statement of Remedial Actions at the
Former Vitro Chemical Site, South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah." (DOE/EIS-0099-F) U.S.
Department of Energy, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, July 1984.
DOE, 1984b. "Remedial Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium
Mill Tailings Site at Salt Lake City, Utah” (UMTRA-DOE-/EA-0141.0000) U.S. Department of
Energy, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1984.
Duffield, G.M., 2007. AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.0, HydroSOLVE, Inc., Reton, VA.
EnergySolutions, 2019. “Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan” letter to Mr. Ty Howard, Director Utah Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control. October 3, 2019.
Hantush, M.S, 1960. Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Jour. of Geophys. Res., vol. 65, no. 11,
pp. 3713-3725.
Kim J. and R.R. Parizek, 1997. Numerical simulation of the Noordbergum effect resulting from
groundwater pumping in a layered aquifer system. Jour. of Hydrology vol. 202, pp. 231–243.
Neuman, S.P. and P.A. Witherspoon, 1969. Theory of flow in a confined two aquifer system, Water
Resources Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 803-816.
Post, V. H. Kooi, and C. Simmons, 2007. Using Hydraulic Head Measurements in Variable‐Density
Ground Water Flow Analyses. Groundwater, vol. 45, no. 6 pp. 664-671.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2019. Clive Facility Basal (Deep) Aquifer Characterization Work Plan.
October 1, 2019.
Stephens, 1974. Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Northern Great Salt Lake Desert and summary
hydrologic Reconnaissance of Northwestern Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources
Technical Publication No. 42, 1974.
Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration
of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 16, pp. 519-
524.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
REFERENCES
5.2
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. EPA On-line Tools for Site Assessment
Calculation, Vertical Gradient Calculator, https://www3.epa.gov/ceampubl/learn2model/part-
two/onsite/vgradient02.html, Accessed February 21, 2020.

FIGURES
U:\233001389\studies_wkplans_reports\Deeper Aquifer Characterization WP\2- Figures\MXD\Fig 1_EnergySol_SiteLoc.mxd
DRAWN BY J. Kester
Date: 9/4/2019
Salt Lake City
Clive FacilityLocation
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
§¨¦80
§¨¦70
EnergySolutions
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION
/
Legend
0 30
Miles
Interstate
CountyBound
Site Boundary
CLIVE FACILITY
0 1
Miles
/
§¨¦80
Reference: ESRI/ArcGIS online basemaps
U:\233001389\studies_wkplans_reports\Deeper Aquifer Characterization WP\2- Figures\MXD\Fig 2_Drilling_Locs_MW_02212020.mxd
DRAWN BY J. Kester
Date: 2/21/2020
(A(A
Mixed WasteFacility
I-1-30I-1-50I-1-100 I-1-700
Legend
0 170
Feet
(A I-1-700
(A Existing Wells
Mixed Waste Facility
Site Boundary /
Reference: ESRI/ArcGIS online world imagery
EnergySolutions
Figure 2
LOCATION OF I -1-700

TABLES
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF STRATIGRAPHICALLY REPRESENTATIVE ZONES
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Zone Generalized Soil Description
Corresponding
Geotechnical
Sample ID
1 0 98.0 light brown silty sand I-1-700 87-89 87.0 89.0
2 98.0 214.5 brown clayey/silty sand with gravel I-1-700 107-109 107.0 109.0
3 214.5 239.0 brown poorly graded sand I-1-700 227-229 227.0 229.0
4 239.0 267.0 brown silty sand with gravel I-1-700 245-255 245.0 255.0
5 267.0 314.5 brown clayey/silty sand I-1-700 282-287 282.0 287
6 314.5 355.0 grey silty sand / sandy silt I-1-700 337-342 337.0 342.0
7 355.0 359.0 brown clayey/silt with gravel I-1-700 356-359 356.0 359.0
8 359.0 515.5 brown silt/clay with sand(a)I-1-700 367-369 (b)367.0 369.0
8 359.0 515.5 brown clay with silt I-1-700 430-432 (c)430.0 432.0
8 359.0 515.5 brown clay with silt I-1-700 505-507 (d)505.0 507.0
9 515.5 534.0 brown silty sand I-1-700 523-525 523.0 525.0
10 534.0 550.0 brown silty clay I-1-700 542-544 542.0 544.0
11 550.0 577.0 light brown clayey/silty sand I-1-700 570-572 570.0 572.0
12 577.0 607.0 dark brown clayey/silty sand I-1-700 590-592 590.0 592.0
Notes
bgs below ground surface
Corresponding
Sample Depth
Interval
(feet bgs)
Zone Depth
Interval
(feet bgs)
TABLE 3-1GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR DISTURBED SAMPLESPHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Sample ID Geotechnical Laboratory Soil
Description
Water Content
(%) (1)
Coarse Fraction Water
Content (%) (2)
Split Fraction Water Content
(%) (3)Gravel (%)Sand (%)Fines (%)Comments
I-1-700 87-89 87.0 89.0 light brown silty sand 16.1 ----0.4%69.9%29.7%
I-1-700 107-109 107.0 109.0 brown clayey sand with gravel --8.9 15.7 17.7%70.2%12.1%
I-1-700 227-229 227.0 229.0 brown silty sand --7.9 39.1 0.4%63.5%36.1%
I-1-700 245-255 245.0 255.0 brown silty sand with gravel --10.9 21.1 15.0%68.5%16.5%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 282-287 282.0 287 brown clayey sand --15.3 28.1 12.8%53.1%34.1%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 337-342 337.0 342.0 grey sandy silt --5.5 36.2 0.6%44.1%55.4%
I-1-700 356-359 356.0 359.0 brownish grey clayey gravel with sand --6.3 17.4 27.8%24.3%47.9%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 367-369 367.0 369.0 light brown clayey sand 30.1 ----5.4%47.7%46.9%
I-1-700 430-432 430.0 432.0 brown clayey sand 28.3 ----7.4%43.5%49.1%
I-1-700 505-507 505.0 507.0 brown clay with sand --4.0 22.9 2.4%21.3%76.2%
I-1-700 523-525 523.0 525.0 brown silty sand 27.6 ----0.3%55.1%44.6%
I-1-700 542-544 542.0 544.0 reddish brown sandy clay 25.0 ----0.1%46.1%53.8%
I-1-700 570-572 570.0 572.0 light brown clayey sand --8.7 21.2 10.0%40.7%49.2%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 590-592 590.0 592.0 dark brown silty sand 31.6 ----0.0%57.5%42.5%
Notes
ft bgs feet below ground surfaceIDidentification%percent--not applicable
Laboratory method used:
Depth Interval (ft bgs)
TABLE 3-2
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Sample ID Sample Representative
Material
Geotechnical
Description
Water Content
(%)
Dry Unit Weight
(pcf)
Specific
Gravity of
(G20°C)
Total Soil Porosity
(%)
Conductivity
(cm/s) (1)
Vertical Hydraulic
Conductivity
(feet/day) (1)
I-1-700 247-247.5 247.0 247.5 24.7 98.6
I-1-700 247.5-248 247.5 248.0 15.7 115.7
I-1-700 248-248.5 248.0 248.5 20 105.3
I-1-700 297-297.5 297.0 297.5 31.4 89.4
I-1-700 297.5-298 297.5 298.0 33.9 82.8
I-1-700 298-298.5 298.0 298.5 29 86.9
I-1-700 337-337.5 337.0 337.5 25.3 90.1
I-1-700 337.5-338 337.5 338.0 46.9 72.7
I-1-700 338-338.5 338.0 338.5 43.8 73.1
I-1-700 377-377.5 377.0 377.5 33 86.3
I-1-700 377.5-378 377.5 378.0 34.3 85.7
I-1-700 378-378.5 378.0 378.5 39.2 80.8
Notes
%percent
--not analyzed
bgs below ground surface
cm/s centimeters per second
ID identification
pcf pounds per cubic foot
Laboratory methods used:
Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
--
7.40E-02
--
1.10E-02aquitard3.90E-06
2.60E-05
--
--
--
--
reddish brown
clayey sand
reddish brown
clayey sand 49.12.631 (2)
33.5
44.3
47.2
Depth Interval
(feet bgs)
2.579
2.499 (2)
2.390
aquifer
aquitard
aquifer
TABLE 3-3
JANUARY 2020 STATIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AND ELEVATIONS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Well ID Easting
(feet) (1)
Northing
(feet) (1)
Top of
Protective
Casing w/o Lid
(feet amsl)
Water Level Date
& Time
Depth to
Water
(feet)
Saline
Water
Elevation
(feet amsl)
Gravity
Fresh Water
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet amsl)
Mid-Point of
Filter Pack
Elevation
(feet amsl)
Sat Zone
Elevation
(feet amsl)
I-1-30 1,194,196 7,420,901 4279.45 1/16/2020 07:51 28.85 4250.60 1.032 4250.73 4247.79 4253.67
I-1-50 1,194,193 7,420,900 4279.15 1/16/2020 07:53 28.65 4250.50 1.017 4250.78 4233.92 4243.05
I-1-100 1,194,194 7,420,897 4279.33 1/16/2020 07:54 29.17 4250.16 1.018 4251.35 4184.04 4217.2
I-1-700 1,194,218 7,420,924 4280.06 1/16/2020 07:50 31.40 4248.66 1.048 4263.33 3943.16 4087.44
Notes
amsl – above mean sea level
ID - identification
Sat - saturated
TABLE 3-4
VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS USING FRESH WATER EQUIVALENT HEADS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Upper Well Lower Well Midscreen Vertical
Gradient
Vertical Gradient
Ranges
I-1-50 +0.004 +0.002 to +0.023
I-1-100 +0.010 +0.008 to +0.012
I-1-700 +0.041 +0.038 to +0.045
I-1-100 +0.011 +0.009 to +0.016
I-1-700 +0.043 +0.040 to +0.048
I-1-100 I-1-700 +0.050 +0.044 to +0.056
Note
positive (+) = upward gradient, negative (−) = downward gradient
I-1-30
I-1-50
TABLE 3-5
JANUARY 2020 AQUIFER TEST ESTIMATED HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAHPAGE 1 of 1
Well ID Tests Analysis
Method (1)Aquifer
Type
Transmissivity
(ft2/day)
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Storativity (-)
Average
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Geometric
Mean
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Calculated
Average for
Storativity (-)
Hantush Leaky Confined 1.91x10
Witherspon Confined
1.29x10
Recovery
Confined
Witherspon Confined
2.354x10
Notes:
from 325-355 feet
bgs)
from 90-100 feet
bgs)
6.01
Pumping
Pumping
TABLE 3-6
JANUARY 2020 I-1-700 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAHPAGE 1 of 1
Calcium 773Iron, Dissolved 0.685Magnesium794Potassium507Sodium23,200
Metals (µg/l)Uranium 17.4
Radionuclides (pCi/L)Result Uncertainty MDA
Water Parameters (mg/l)
Ammonia (as N)0.189
Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)180
Bromide 10.5Carbonate (as CaCO3)<10.0Chloride42,100Nitrate/Nitrite (as N)0.134Sulfate 2,890Total Dissolved Solids 65,400
Additional Water Parameters
Conductivity (µmhos/cm)111,000
Ion Balance percent (%)-5.30
pH@ 25°C 7.04
Field-measured Parameters
pH 6.92Specific Conductivity (µmhos/cm)95,800
Oxygen Reduction Potential (millivolts)-275Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)0.30Specific Gravity (unitless)1.048
Notes:bgs below ground surface°C degrees Celsius
µg/l micrograms per liter
µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter
mg/l milligrams per liter
pCi/l picocuries per literMDAminimum detectable activityUAnalyte was analyzed for but not detected above the MDAK-40 Potassium 40Th-228 Thorium 228Th-230 Thorium 230
Th-232 Thorium 232
U-233/234 Uranium 233/234
U-235/236 Uranium 235/236
U-238 Uranium 238Ra-226 Radium 226

APPENDICES

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix A BOREHOLE LOG, WELL BUILD DIAGRAM, AND FIELD FORMS

Appendix A BOREHOLE LOG, WELL BUILD DIAGRAM, AND
FIELD FORMS

WELL DEVELOPMENT RECORD Well Number: 1-1-·100Job No. A)'l,00\ �4 ProjectNrune: �v...,.,-17 So\ •. ,.:l,;,o,,,.r W-t.'-\ ()..>.v.Date(s): 1/IY/ ;z.o�o (_ //tr;/�o'l,o Comments: No�:. r(1)\..u...(Developed by: C. O...S�IX. \) of'·,\\ , � t "5\-o..-.. �'--Measuring Point (MP) of Well: TDC ),JScreened Interval (ft bgs): 2> 2. S - 3 5 5 Starting H 20 Level (BMP):Filter Pack Interval (ft bgs): 3 I C\ ·- 3 5 5 Casing Stickup TOC (ft):Development Method: �o-\\ Sv-�&, 1 f ..... M.g Casing Diameter On ID):Casirur Volume faal):QUALITY ASSURANCE Methods (describe) Clcanin2 Equipment: N�Page:_J._of '/.. b1 f>i.,,,v., P..--rt4..'J' .3 /,9'S i\<t:7Devdopment: I, '5' " ')( l D' 'oc-·�, · 3 ,. ')).-.c:.. r,. llo - A-.>L s, • ....-"-<-3" e �J.'-. �-u!o, p """"',p-Disoosal of Pur1re Water: Co""\-o:,"' tr·, -z::-<-!).. c:::>""-S'itc. Instruments (indicate make, model, id.) Water Level:Thermometer: 5C.."M.t' ll.A �....,_,(._oH Meter: I\ q,�.. Tr>\\ (t;c:ro / :;/.,, 'I (Q q Cf\ q Field Calibration: l /H /2-0Conductivity l'vleter: Se..� o..i. A. loo\.>-{ Field Calibration: 1/1flzoTurbidity Meter: So..-. "'-� ti.louVJ.... Field Calibration:Other: Iv A..Field Calibration:DEVELOPMENT MEASUREMENTS Date/Time\ l"f zo D%5f\\4 "20 \\1..0\IL.f Z.D 1'7.'?:.U111-I 'ti) 1�\0I ill./ ·". m�I 14 J.D li.\1<liJ 11/ 11.v lb\'5I 11-111.0 lli,15 \ 11'-lhD jl,1,1..i IJd/i., .�30, t'i(zo /k�Zi/!'1/1.0 11.?j-5.1 1'-1'/?.o llJ'-lilI 1'1 hD H,'\< I 11.dio 1�50I Nizo 1�55/ '1'1/-i.:, 1 /tii 5i Cumul.Vol.(gal) 2 10---20 ----
It>:> I (.Q5 -2R5-3 '11 ]-i-7 Temp.(C)11.lo'-i13,�'-\---12,11..------11.--':lt\1 .. ,1.DD-12, 9-l\� .t'l -Total Discharge (gal): 51'1-Field EC Color Turbidity( �5/c�) 7 "7'il<t.YD -i�J\. 1010.�
�01t;·1.-�C?. °Kfbl,)V"\ 53J/,2.-------41 '1<'l�. le �i�121. ·3>---------------T�l't>'\,�� iro\.vl\.3(9.<if,13, 79S1�,'l'-i Bro"'"·.5'"�1.1---1'14S'f,o't �\,\. ·.;u� .-��0�3't.�13 �/0� I (i,7. 5---Casing Volumes Purged:Observations/ Comments: ?.,__r-.� \.,.J-r,..-t.v--bctD,....�t., Lut +-,.61�. .;, Abbreviations:ID = inside diameterBMP = below measuring point C = CelsiusBGS = below ground surface gal = gallonsCumul. Vol. = cumulative volume removed ft= feetin= inchesFolcnamc: Well dn-d.dwoe Otherr it '7,"i 5-, • zcP ---1.1..0-----7,o·i.,7.011,oq l.()'8°'-
3,1
(.01.,_-l(,"'--'--'-' Remarks �C>(Z.r - � <» .11/- I to:.�{)i,,r 11.n fi,,:'tk_ ll;tt-u..1 ,.sto.�� S'-'r_.'.y(--,�'"'" $WJ"'j .$'t?f,�t,t.,.,.(_a.,. \', ... u.-t-J... (}11,·,v;-1--1 Drwc; �;.2,-5 1-c.Si .:,:....� A.. .. ,1 ,... j'IA°"f ---�· .... \\-� A� '3'i s I £'-\ �.--L..J.. lv......_p11. 7� 'lPtY\ / D1l.>:: i/-?.�i, '-I.;;;,..._ I JJ rw:.. '-f2.l-f1,,,,i:.ru-.r /lo1.,;' �Q... .\ D TL,>:: /../1, ", L F'L;y.,, l'Z, I t:)TIJ;-'-fl,5'./OT�::. '11,�S 0 rw � 'i&.olorw -'1'o.1s ;:-1,.,,,,, rz-u-
F4'1.v /Z,�1
"({-Oi,,,, /'2,5 S\.....,_ 1,. e,�'.t..- � LAw\.o/JP..c....,,/) D<...v'1 °" 1/1-r(u
t7
i-.-I
)f
;,.,
�f
�I
() Stantec
1.41
1.41
Groundwater Well No. or Sampling Point Sampling Team Members: Date Team Leader
Groundwater Sampling Sheet EnergySoludons CL-EV-PR-004-F3 (Rev 2) Arrival Time
5',0 !lJ'uCt� � Assistant Description of Well Condition. (Note the condition of the well at the time of arrival, whether the well is secure (locked), general condition, note presence of cracks or any evidence oftampenng) r:C} N In good cond111on? '(J N ls the well fully operanonal?
Y N Was the lock secure on arrival?_.,.. #Jk
Y N e sandy or silty materials in the well?
Weather Conditions Wind Direction Speed (est.) Cloud Cover Temperature Q-S::�6 �ve�,L __ 3=--=''----degrees F Yj;idence of tampering or vandalism? Y landing water in or around the well? Precip: Present Recent Rain Snow Other _.:_,M_c:..�.L.--Y racks or breaks in the concrete or casings? , 9 N Has the annual TD been detennined? Y N Has the annual pump/tubing inspection been performed?-Iv fC v {5)1s tl1e well in need of repairs? Y N ls there a marked change in pumping rate?...-rJ k Pre--Sampling Groundwater Field Analysis Results. Temperature: F C Specific Conductivity: µmbos/cm
# Pre-pH Pre-Temp Pre-SC Pre-Eh Pre-Diss 0 Appearance of Groundwater
Cb/( ( t4-.fu3 2 �.qJ_ (4-,<o� 3 6Ad-I �L�t Well Infonnation: for 2-inch well Purge Volwne Fonnula: Depth to well bottom Com): Survey factor for DTW probe: Calculated purge volwne:
qs�� -.1.,� 0,3� �s-,=r -i�(®i � { is-a -�s--t0 .30
v, (gal)= 0.5 gaVft x (Deptbm -Depthm0) Depth to groundwater (Dm0): Adjusted Dm0: Time pump on: /J'+> Time pump off:
c.1-ea"-
Total purge volwne: !" flow rate of purge: --�('---------gallons/minute 2nd flow rate of purge: __ _.[L-________ gallons/minute Analytical laboratories and delivery infonnation: Rad Lab Chem Lab
Collection Order Minimwn VoV Container
--�A}k�'--a. Volatile Organics 3x40mVglass 2 ,J A:, b. Semi-VOCs --�---__ _,)<.._,,.__c. Metals/Inorgs
4 -�>( __ d.@-ss
2x500mVamber glass 500 ml plastic 500 ml plastic
Sampling Team Leader's Initials: -----'&tJA'--'--"-''--=-----
Delivery Time/Date: Delivery Time/Date:
Collection Order Minimum VoV Container
X e. Cations 5 00 ml plastic 6 X f Anions 500 ml plastic x �-0 g. Radiologies pgallons plastic
8 /JR h. Others ( descnbe) a ,_a.-Otbers: ____ ,,,_�tf:::.... ___________ _ Page_±J_
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix B PHOTOGRAPHS

Appendix B PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographic Log
Page 1 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:1
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
0 - 2 ft bgs
Photograph ID:2
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
2 - 4.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 2 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:3
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
4.5 - 7 ft bgs
Photograph ID:4
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
7 - 9.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 3 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:5
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
9.5 - 12 ft bgs
Photograph ID:6
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
12 - 14.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 4 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:7
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
14.5 - 17 ft bgs
Photograph ID:8
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
17 - 19.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 5 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:9
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
19.5 - 22 ft bgs
Photograph ID:10
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
22 - 24.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 6 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:11
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
24.5 - 27 ft bgs
Photograph ID:12
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
27 - 29.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 7 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:13
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
29.5 - 32 ft bgs
Photograph ID:14
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
32 - 34.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 8 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:15
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
34.5 - 37 ft bgs
Photograph ID:16
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
37 - 39.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 9 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:17
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
39.5 - 42 ft bgs
Photograph ID:18
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
42 - 44.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 10 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:19
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
44.5 - 47 ft bgs
Photograph ID:20
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
47 - 49.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 11 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:21
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
49.5 - 52 ft bgs
Photograph ID:22
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
52 - 57 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 12 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:23
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
57 - 59.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:24
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
59.5 - 62 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 13 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:25
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
62 - 64.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:26
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
64.5 - 67 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 14 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:27
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
67 - 69.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:28
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
69.5 - 71 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 15 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:29
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
71 - 77 ft bgs
Photograph ID:30
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
77 - 79.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 16 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:31
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
79.5 - 82 ft bgs
Photograph ID:32
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
82 - 84.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 17 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:33
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
84.5 - 87 ft bgs
Photograph ID:34
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
87 - 89.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 18 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:35
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
89.5 - 92 ft bgs
Photograph ID:36
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
92 - 94.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 19 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:37
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
94.5 - 97 ft bgs
Photograph ID:38
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
97 - 99.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 20 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:39
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
99.5 - 102 ft bgs
Photograph ID:40
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
102 - 104.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 21 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:41
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
104.5 - 107 ft bgs
Photograph ID:42
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
107 - 109.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 22 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:43
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
109 - 112.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:44
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
112 - 114.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 23 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:45
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
114.5 - 117 ft bgs
Photograph ID:46
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
117 - 119.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 24 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:47
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
119.5 - 122 ft bgs
Photograph ID:48
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
122 - 124.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 25 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:49
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
124.5 - 127 ft bgs
Photograph ID:50
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
127 - 129.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 26 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:51
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
129.5 - 132 ft bgs
Photograph ID:52
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
132 - 134.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 27 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:53
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
134.5 - 137 ft bgs
Photograph ID:54
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
137 - 139.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 28 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:55
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
139.5 - 142 ft bgs
Photograph ID:56
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
142 - 144.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 29 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:57
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
144.5 - 147 ft bgs
Photograph ID:58
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
147 - 149.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 30 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:59
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
149.5 - 152 ft bgs
Photograph ID:60
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
152 - 154.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 31 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:61
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
154.5 - 157 ft bgs
Photograph ID:62
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
157 - 159.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 32 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:63
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
159.5 - 162 ft bgs
Photograph ID:64
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
162 - 164.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 33 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:65
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
164.5 - 167 ft bgs
Photograph ID:66
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
167 - 169.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 34 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:67
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
169.5 - 172 ft bgs
Photograph ID:68
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
172 - 174.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 35 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:69
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
174.5 - 177 ft bgs
Photograph ID:70
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
177 - 179.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 36 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:71
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
179.5 - 182 ft bgs; bag
broke, sample fell out
Photograph ID:72
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
182 - 184.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 37 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:73
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
184.5 - 187 ft bgs
Photograph ID:74
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
187 - 189.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 38 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:75
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
189.5 - 192 ft bgs
Photograph ID:76
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
192 - 194.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 39 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:77
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
194.5 - 197 ft bgs
Photograph ID:78
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
197 - 199.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 40 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:79
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
199.5 - 202 ft bgs
Photograph ID:80
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
202 - 204.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 41 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:81
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
204.5 - 207 ft bgs
Photograph ID:82
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
207 - 209.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 42 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:83
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
209.5 - 212 ft bgs
Photograph ID:84
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
212 - 214.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 43 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:85
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
214.5 - 217 ft bgs
Photograph ID:86
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
217 - 219.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 44 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:87
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
219.5 - 222 ft bgs
Photograph ID:88
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
222 - 224.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 45 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:89
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
224.5 - 227 ft bgs
Photograph ID:90
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
227 - 229.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 46 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:91
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
229.5 - 232 ft bgs
Photograph ID:92
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
232 - 234.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 47 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:93
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
234.5 - 237 ft bgs
Photograph ID:94
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
237 - 239.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 48 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:95
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
239.5 - 242 ft bgs
Photograph ID:96
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
242 - 244.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 49 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:97
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
244.5 - 247 ft bgs
Photograph ID:98
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
247 - 249.5 ft bgs - No
Recovery
Photographic Log
Page 50 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:99
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
249.5 - 252 ft bgs
Photograph ID:100
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
252 - 254.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 51 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:101
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
254.5 - 257 ft bgs
Photograph ID:102
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
257 - 259.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 52 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:103
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
259.5 - 262 ft bgs
Photograph ID:104
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
262 - 264.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 53 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:105
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
264.5 - 267 ft bgs
Photograph ID:106
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
267 - 269.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 54 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:107
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
269.5 - 272 ft bgs
Photograph ID:108
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
272 - 274.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 55 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:109
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
274.5 - 277 ft bgs
Photograph ID:110
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
277 - 279.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 56 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:111
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
279.5 - 282 ft bgs
Photograph ID:112
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
282 - 284.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 57 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:113
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
284.5 - 287 ft bgs
Photograph ID:114
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
287 - 289.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 58 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:115
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
289.5 - 292 ft bgs
Photograph ID:116
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
292 - 294.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 59 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:117
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
294.5 - 297 ft bgs
Photograph ID:118
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
297 - 299.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 60 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:119
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
299.5 - 302 ft bgs
Photograph ID:120
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
302 - 304.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 61 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:121
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
304.5 - 307 ft bgs
Photograph ID:122
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
307 - 309.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 62 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:123
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
309.5 - 312 ft bgs
Photograph ID:124
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
312 - 314.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 63 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:125
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
314.5 - 317 ft bgs
Photograph ID:126
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
317 - 319.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 64 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:127
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
319.5 - 322 ft bgs
Photograph ID:128
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
322 - 324.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 65 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:129
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
324.5 - 327 ft bgs
Photograph ID:130
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
327 - 329.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 66 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:131
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
329.5 - 332 ft bgs
Photograph ID:132
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
332 - 334.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 67 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:133
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
334.5 - 337 ft bgs
Photograph ID:134
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
337 - 339.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 68 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:135
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
339.5 - 342 ft bgs
Photograph ID:136
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
342 - 344.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 69 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:137
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
344.5 - 347 ft bgs
Photograph ID:138
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
347 - 349.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 70 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:139
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
349.5 - 352 ft bgs
Photograph ID:140
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
352 - 354.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 71 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:141
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
354.5 - 357 ft bgs
Photograph ID:142
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
357 - 359.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 72 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:143
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
359.5 - 362 ft bgs
Photograph ID:144
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
362 - 364.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 73 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:145
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
364.5 - 367 ft bgs
Photograph ID:146
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
367 - 369.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 74 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:147
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
369.5 - 372 ft bgs
Photograph ID:148
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
372 - 374.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 75 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:149
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
374.5 - 377 ft bgs
Photograph ID:150
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
377 - 379.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 76 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:151
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
379.5 - 382 ft bgs
Photograph ID:152
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
382 - 384.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 77 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:153
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
384.5 - 387 ft bgs
Photograph ID:154
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
387 - 389.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 78 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:155
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
389.5 - 392 ft bgs
Photograph ID:156
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
392 - 394.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 79 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:157
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
394.5 - 397 ft bgs
Photograph ID:158
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
397 - 399.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 80 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:159
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
399.5 - 402 ft bgs
Photograph ID:160
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
402 - 404.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 81 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:161
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
404.5 - 407 ft bgs
Photograph ID:162
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
407 - 409.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 82 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:163
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
409.5 - 212 ft bgs
Photograph ID:164
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
412- 414.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 83 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:165
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
414.5 - 417 ft bgs
Photograph ID:166
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
417 - 419.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 84 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:167
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
419.5 - 422 ft bgs
Photograph ID:168
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
422 - 424.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 85 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:169
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
424.5 - 427 ft bgs
Photograph ID:170
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
427 - 429.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 86 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:171
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
429.5 - 432 ft bgs
Photograph ID:172
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
432 - 434.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 87 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:173
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
434.5 - 437 ft bgs
Photograph ID:174
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
437 - 440 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 88 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:175
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
440 - 442.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:176
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
442.5 - 445 ft bs
Photographic Log
Page 89 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:177
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
445 - 447.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:178
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
447.5 - 450 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 90 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:179
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
450 - 452 ft bgs
Photograph ID:180
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
452 - 454.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 91 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:181
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
454.5 - 457 ft bgs
Photograph ID:182
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
457 - 460 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 92 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:183
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
460 - 462.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:184
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
462.5 - 465 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 93 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:185
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
465 - 467.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:186
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
467.5 - 470 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 94 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:187
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
470 - 472 ft bgs
Photograph ID:188
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
472 - 474.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 95 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:189
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
474.5 - 477 ft bgs
Photograph ID:190
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
477 - 479 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 96 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:191
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
479 - 481.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:192
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
481.5 - 484 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 97 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:193
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
484 - 486.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:194
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
486.5 - 489 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 98 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:195
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
489 - 491.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:196
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
491.5 - 494 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 99 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:197
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
494 - 497 ft bgs
Photograph ID:198
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
497 - 499.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 100 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:199
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
499.5 - 502 ft bgs
Photograph ID:200
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
502 - 504.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 101 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:201
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
504.5 - 507 ft bgs
Photograph ID:202
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
507 - 510 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 102 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:203
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
510 - 512.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:204
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
512.5 - 515 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 103 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:205
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
515 - 517.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:206
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
517.5 - 520 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 104 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:207
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
520 - 522.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:208
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
522.5 - 525 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 105 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:209
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
525 - 527 ft bgs
Photograph ID:210
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
527 - 529.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 106 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:211
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
529.5 - 532 ft bgs
Photograph ID:212
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
532 - 534.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 107 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:213
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
534.5 - 537 ft bgs
Photograph ID:214
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
537 - 539.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 108 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:215
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
539.5 - 542 ft bgs
Photograph ID:216
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
542 - 544.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 109 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:217
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
544.5 - 547 ft bgs
Photograph ID:218
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
547 - 549.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 110 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:219
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
549.5 - 552 ft bgs
Photograph ID:220
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
552 - 554.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 111 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:221
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
554.5 - 557 ft bgs
Photograph ID:222
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
557 - 559.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 112 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:223
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
559.5 - 562 ft bgs
Photograph ID:224
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
562 - 564.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 113 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:225
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
564.5 - 567 ft bgs
Photograph ID:226
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
567 - 569.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 114 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:227
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
569.5 - 572 ft bgs
Photograph ID:228
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
572 - 574.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 115 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:229
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
574.5 - 577 ft bgs
Photograph ID:230
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
577 - 579.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 116 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:231
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
579.5 - 582 ft bgs
Photograph ID:232
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
582 - 584.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 117 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:233
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
584.5 - 587 ft bgs
Photograph ID:234
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
587 - 589.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 118 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:235
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
589.5 - 592 ft bgs
Photograph ID:236
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
592 - 594.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 119 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:237
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
594.5 - 597 ft bgs
Photograph ID:238
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
597 - 599.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 120 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:239
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
599.5 - 602 ft bgs
Photograph ID:240
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
602 - 604.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 121 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:241
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
604.5 - 607 ft bgs
Photograph ID:242
Drilling Date:
12/5/2019
Comments:
607 - 615 ft bgs;
Breccia/Rock flour
Photographic Log
Page 1 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:1
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
Sonic drill rig and support
truck set up on I-1-700.
Core laid down under tarps
covered by snow.
Photograph ID:2
Drilling Date:
1/31/2020
Comments:
End cap placed at bottom
of well screen prior to
lowering down borehole.
Photographic Log
Page 2 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:3
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Stainless steel well screen
specifics.
Photograph ID:4
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Stainless steel well blank
casing specifics.
Photographic Log
Page 3 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:5
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Stainless steel well blank
casing laid out for well build
installation.
Photograph ID:6
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Sand used for filter pack
around screen.
Photographic Log
Page 4 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:7
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Sand used for filter pack
around screen.
Photograph ID:8
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Bentonite chips used for
bentonite seal.
Photographic Log
Page 5 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:9
Drilling Date:
12/13/2019
Comments:
Grout used for annular
seal.
Photograph ID:10
Drilling Date:
12/13/2019
Comments:
Concrete used for surface
seal.
Photographic Log
Page 6 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:11
Drilling Date:
1/16/2020
Comments:
Surface completion of
I-1-700 (photo taken during
well development set up)
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY REPORT

Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY REPORT

Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
(In General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Method B and D2216)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
Boring No.I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
Sample:
Depth (ft.):247.0-247.5 247.5-248.0 248.0-248.5 297.0-297.5 297.5-298.0 298.0-298.5 337.0-337.5 337.5-338.0
Sample height, H (in)5.402 5.838 5.433 5.939 3.018 5.948 5.124 5.031
Sample diameter, D (in)2.424 2.417 2.398 2.441 2.432 2.432 2.383 2.378
Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0144 0.0155 0.0142 0.0161 0.0081 0.0160 0.0132 0.0129
Mass rings + wet soil (g)1010.32 1145.56 1021.85 1061.63 1165.19 1015.51 955.73 904.34
Mass rings/tare (g)205.18 204.31 207.97 204.47 757.31 202.42 279.00 278.36
Moist soil, Ws (g) 805.14 941.25 813.88 857.16 407.88 813.09 676.73 625.98
Moist unit wt., m (pcf)123.03 133.87 126.36 117.49 110.83 112.11 112.81 106.73
Wet soil + tare (g)356.47 470.32 385.11 402.79 329.56 362.35 391.51 345.68
Dry soil + tare (g)309.94 423.99 341.49 336.78 278.54 309.66 336.89 274.06
Tare (g)121.93 128.51 123.63 126.68 127.94 127.97 120.75 121.26
24.7 15.7 20.0 31.4 33.9 29.0 25.3 46.9
98.6 115.7 105.3 89.4 82.8 86.9 90.1 72.7
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[MDv1.xlsx]1
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/10/2020
Dry Unit Wt., d (pcf)
Sa
m
p
l
e

In
f
o
.
Un
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

I
n
f
o
.
Wa
t
e
r

Co
n
t
e
n
t

Water Content, w (%)
Wa
t
e
r

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

l
e
a
k
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
u
b
e

s
a
m
p
l
e
.
BF/EH/KK
Wa
t
e
r

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

l
e
a
k
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
u
b
e

s
a
m
p
l
e
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
(In General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Method B and D2216)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
Boring No.I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
Sample:
Depth (ft.):338.0-338.5 377.0-377.5 377.5-378.0 378.0-378.5
Sample height, H (in)5.491 2.726 2.929 5.890
Sample diameter, D (in)2.388 2.400 2.404 2.398
Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0142 0.0071 0.0077 0.0154
Mass rings + wet soil (g)957.82 371.42 1158.90 785.75
Mass rings/tare (g)278.93 0.00 757.31 0.00
Moist soil, Ws (g) 678.89 371.42 401.59 785.75
Moist unit wt., m (pcf)105.16 114.74 115.08 112.53
Wet soil + tare (g)382.09 362.31 314.75 356.51
Dry soil + tare (g)308.47 327.00 262.99 291.27
Tare (g)140.36 219.88 112.21 125.04
43.8 33.0 34.3 39.2
73.1 86.3 85.7 80.8
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[MDv1.xlsx]2
Sa
m
p
l
e

In
f
o
.
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/10/2020
BF/EH/KK
Un
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

I
n
f
o
.
Wa
t
e
r

Co
n
t
e
n
t

Water Content, w (%)
Dry Unit Wt., d (pcf)
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
(ASTM D854)© IGES 2005, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
247.0-248.5 297.5-298.0 297.0-298.5 337.0-338.5 377.5-378.0 377.0-378.5
Not req. Not req. Not req. Not req. Not req. Not req.
A A A A A A
100 100 100 100 100 100
7 3 8 3 5 5
169.53 170.54 166.67 170.57 168.65 168.65
725.43 714.08 712.18 695.21 710.2 695.25
21.1 20.6 21.1 20.8 20.6 20.8
668.14 669.31 665.36 669.29 667.31 667.29
419.96 484.86 410.46 377.72 400.16 369.23
326.41 410.39 332.29 333.15 330.85 324.16
93.55 74.47 78.17 44.57 69.31 45.07
2.580 2.508 2.493 2.390 2.623 2.634
0.99977 0.99987 0.99977 0.99983 0.99987 0.99983
2.579 2.508 2.493 2.390 2.623 2.633
Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[Gsv1.0.xlsx]1
Mass of tare + dry soil (g)
Mass of tare (g)
Mass of pycnometer (g)
Mass of pycnometer, soil, and water, Mws,t (g)
Temperature, T t (°C)
Mass of pycnometer and water at test temperature, Mpw,t (g)
Reviewed by:___________
Drill hole / Sample:
Sample:
Depth (ft)
Temperature coefficient, K
Specific gravity of soil solids at 20°C, G20°C
Method
Material passing No. 4 sieve, P (%)
Pycnometer No.
Mass of soil, M s (g)
Specific gravity of soil solids at test temperature, G t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
Entered by:___________
Apparent specific gravity of solids retained on No. 4, G1@20°C
Average specific gravity at 20°C, Gavg @20°C
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/13/2020
Engineering Classification
BF
In
i
t
i
a
l

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

t
e
s
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

o
n
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

m
i
d
d
l
e

d
e
p
t
h

in
t
e
r
v
a
l

s
a
m
p
l
e
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e

i
s

2
.
6
3
1
In
i
t
i
a
l

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

t
e
s
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

o
n
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

m
i
d
d
l
e

d
e
p
t
h

in
t
e
r
v
a
l

s
a
m
p
l
e
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e

i
s

2
.
4
9
9
Porosity of Soil
© IGES 2007, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
Boring No.I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
Sample:
Depth (ft.):247.0-248.5 297.0-298.5 337.0-338.5 377.0-378.5
Sample height, H (in)16.673 14.905 15.646 11.545
Sample diameter, D (in)2.413 2.435 2.383 2.401
Mass rings + wet soil (g)3177.73 3242.33 2817.89 2316.07
Mass rings/tare (g)617.46 1164.20 836.29 757.31
Moist soil, Ws (g) 2560.27 2078.13 1981.60 1558.76
Moist unit wt., m (pcf)127.9 114.1 108.2 113.6
Wet soil + tare (g)1211.90 1094.70 1119.28 1033.57
Dry soil + tare (g)1075.42 924.98 919.42 881.26
Tare (g)374.07 382.59 382.37 457.13
Water content (%) 19.5 31.3 37.2 35.9
Specific gravity of solids, Gs 2.579 2.499 2.390 2.631
Void ratio, e 0.504 0.796 0.892 0.964
Porosity, n 0.335 0.443 0.472 0.491
33.5 44.3 47.2 49.1
33.4 43.5 47.0 48.1
0.1 0.8 0.2 1.0
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[PORv1.xlsx]1
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/13/2020
Sa
m
p
l
e

In
f
o
.
EH/KK/BF
Un
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

D
a
t
a
Wa
t
e
r

Co
n
t
e
n
t

Total Soil Porosity, n (%)
Water Porosity, w (%)
Air Porosity, a (%)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 350.61
Dry soil + tare (g):- 319.84
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 128.53
Total sample wt. (g):222.08 191.31 Water content (%): 0.0 16.1
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 0.82 4.75 99.6
o.10 1.68 2 99.1
o.20 2.64 0.85 98.6
o.40 3.70 0.425 98.1
o.60 5.48 0.25 97.1
o.100 21.35 0.15 88.8
o.140 78.00 0.106 59.2
o.200 134.50 0.075 29.7
Gravel %:0.4
Sand %:69.9
Fines %:29.7
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]1
I-1-700

87-89'
Light brown silty sand
BF
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
12/26/2019
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):331.15 414.97
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):314.51 375.50
Moist Dr Tare (g):128.58 124.48
Total sample wt. (g):2562.54 2222.37 Water content (%): 8.9 15.7
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):149.21 136.95
-3/8" Split fraction (g):290.49 251.02
Split fraction: 0.938
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 100.0
3/4" 20.08 19 99.1
3/8" 136.95 9.5 93.8 ←Split
o.4 30.88 4.75 82.3
o.10 85.09 2 62.0
o.20 134.68 0.85 43.5
o.40 166.66 0.425 31.5
o.60 186.16 0.25 24.2
o.100 203.91 0.15 17.6
o.140 211.43 0.106 14.8
o.200 218.62 0.075 12.1
Gravel %:17.7
Sand %:70.2
Fines %:12.1
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]2
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 107-109'
12/26/2019 Brown clayey sand with
gravelBF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):136.68 436.92
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):136.08 349.82
Moist Dr Tare (g):128.50 126.86
Total sample wt. (g):2183.34 1571.47 Water content (%): 7.9 39.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):7.01 6.50
-3/8" Split fraction (g):310.06 222.96
Split fraction: 0.996
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 100.0
3/8" 6.50 9.5 99.6 ←Split
o.4 -4.75 99.6
o.10 0.54 2 99.3
o.20 1.26 0.85 99.0
o.40 2.18 0.425 98.6
o.60 6.72 0.25 96.6
o.100 46.27 0.15 78.9
o.140 83.41 0.106 62.3
o.200 142.11 0.075 36.1
Gravel %:0.4
Sand %:63.5
Fines %:36.1
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]3
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 227-229'
12/24/2019 Brown silty sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):380.30 571.90
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):364.95 494.60
Moist Dr Tare (g):224.10 128.68
Total sample wt. (g):1961.20 1628.46 Water content (%): 10.9 21.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):122.19 110.18
-3/8" Split fraction (g):443.22 365.92
Split fraction: 0.932
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 100.0
3/4" 35.88 19 97.8
3/8" 110.18 9.5 93.2 ←Split
o.4 32.42 4.75 85.0
o.10 77.93 2 73.4
o.20 118.12 0.85 63.1
o.40 150.71 0.425 54.8
o.60 183.78 0.25 46.4
o.100 236.50 0.15 33.0
o.140 268.67 0.106 24.8
o.200 301.12 0.075 16.5
Gravel %:15.0
Sand %:68.5
Fines %:16.5
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]4
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 245-255'
12/24/2019 Brown silty sand with gravel
BSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):304.94 627.29
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):280.84 516.38
Moist Dr Tare (g):123.56 121.66
Total sample wt. (g):2120.08 1668.44 Water content (%): 15.3 28.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):155.00 134.41
-3/8" Split fraction (g):505.63 394.72
Split fraction: 0.919
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 100.0
1" 90.93 25 94.6
3/4" 100.72 19 94.0
3/8" 134.41 9.5 91.9 ←Split
o.4 20.27 4.75 87.2
o.10 46.43 2 81.1
o.20 84.76 0.85 72.2
o.40 112.72 0.425 65.7
o.60 134.66 0.25 60.6
o.100 169.71 0.15 52.4
o.140 205.65 0.106 44.0
o.200 248.25 0.075 34.1
Gravel %:12.8
Sand %:53.1
Fines %:34.1
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]5
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 282-287'
12/24/2019 Brown clayey sand
BSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):129.52 559.45
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):129.44 442.95
Moist Dr Tare (g):127.99 121.13
Total sample wt. (g):1669.7 1226.26 Water content (%): 5.5 36.2
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):1.53 1.45
-3/8" Split fraction (g):438.32 321.82
Split fraction: 0.999
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 100.0
3/8" 1.45 9.5 99.9 ←Split
o.4 1.44 4.75 99.4
o.10 4.95 2 98.3
o.20 7.25 0.85 97.6
o.40 11.47 0.425 96.3
o.60 28.85 0.25 90.9
o.100 65.36 0.15 79.6
o.140 99.19 0.106 69.1
o.200 143.39 0.075 55.4
Gravel %:0.6
Sand %:44.1
Fines %:55.4
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]6
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 337-342'
12/24/2019 Grey sandy silt
BSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):556.94 471.52
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):531.45 420.55
Moist Dr Tare (g):127.36 127.23
Total sample wt. (g):1812.4 1578.55 Water content (%): 6.3 17.4
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):388.41 365.36
-3/8" Split fraction (g):344.29 293.32
Split fraction: 0.769
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 100.0
1.5" 255.62 37.5 83.8
1" 290.99 25 81.6
3/4" 316.64 19 79.9
3/8" 365.36 9.5 76.9 ←Split
o.4 17.72 4.75 72.2
o.10 39.59 2 66.5
o.20 61.00 0.85 60.9
o.40 75.73 0.425 57.0
o.60 86.62 0.25 54.2
o.100 97.89 0.15 51.2
o.140 104.54 0.106 49.5
o.200 110.43 0.075 47.9
Gravel %:27.8
Sand %:24.3
Fines %:47.9
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]7
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 356-359'
12/27/2019 Brownish grey clayey gravel
with sandBSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 363.07
Dry soil + tare (g):- 308.46
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 126.91
Total sample wt. (g):236.16 181.55 Water content (%): 0.0 30.1
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 9.86 4.75 94.6
o.10 26.19 2 85.6
o.20 39.97 0.85 78.0
o.40 51.38 0.425 71.7
o.60 61.30 0.25 66.2
o.100 75.20 0.15 58.6
o.140 84.44 0.106 53.5
o.200 96.38 0.075 46.9
Gravel %:5.4
Sand %:47.7
Fines %:46.9
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]8
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 367-369'
12/26/2019 Light brown clayey sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 367.31
Dry soil + tare (g):- 313.35
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 122.99
Total sample wt. (g):244.32 190.36 Water content (%): 0.0 28.3
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 14.04 4.75 92.6
o.10 26.54 2 86.1
o.20 38.63 0.85 79.7
o.40 49.41 0.425 74.0
o.60 59.79 0.25 68.6
o.100 73.38 0.15 61.5
o.140 84.09 0.106 55.8
o.200 96.90 0.075 49.1
Gravel %:7.4
Sand %:43.5
Fines %:49.1
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]9
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 430-432'
12/26/2019 Brown clayey sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):127.31 316.49
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):127.20 281.20
Moist Dr Tare (g):124.46 126.87
Total sample wt. (g):1181.22 961.79 Water content (%): 4.0 22.9
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):2.77 2.66
-3/8" Split fraction (g):189.62 154.33
Split fraction: 0.997
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 100.0
3/8" 2.66 9.5 99.7 ←Split
o.4 3.32 4.75 97.6
o.10 8.91 2 94.0
o.20 15.48 0.85 89.7
o.40 19.62 0.425 87.0
o.60 22.53 0.25 85.2
o.100 26.91 0.15 82.3
o.140 31.07 0.106 79.6
o.200 36.35 0.075 76.2
Gravel %:2.4
Sand %:21.3
Fines %:76.2
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]10
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 505-507'
12/27/2019 Brown clay with sand
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 345.04
Dry soil + tare (g):- 296.00
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 118.61
Total sample wt. (g):226.43 177.39 Water content (%): 0.0 27.6
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 0.61 4.75 99.7
o.10 3.58 2 98.0
o.20 10.75 0.85 93.9
o.40 18.31 0.425 89.7
o.60 27.36 0.25 84.6
o.100 49.19 0.15 72.3
o.140 73.35 0.106 58.7
o.200 98.28 0.075 44.6
Gravel %:0.3
Sand %:55.1
Fines %:44.6
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]11
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 523-525'
12/27/2019 Brown silty sand
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 338.74
Dry soil + tare (g):- 299.29
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 141.48
Total sample wt. (g):197.26 157.81 Water content (%): 0.0 25.0
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 0.21 4.75 99.9
o.10 3.42 2 97.8
o.20 13.38 0.85 91.5
o.40 22.35 0.425 85.8
o.60 29.88 0.25 81.1
o.100 43.48 0.15 72.4
o.140 57.62 0.106 63.5
o.200 72.89 0.075 53.8
Gravel %:0.1
Sand %:46.1
Fines %:53.8
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]12
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 542-544'
12/27/2019 Reddish brown sandy clay
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):163.59 298.26
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):160.71 268.46
Moist Dr Tare (g):127.74 128.08
Total sample wt. (g):1060.98 878.51 Water content (%): 8.7 21.2
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):35.05 32.23
-3/8" Split fraction (g):170.18 140.38
Split fraction: 0.963
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 100.0
1" 29.54 25 96.6
3/4" 29.54 19 96.6
3/8" 32.23 9.5 96.3 ←Split
o.4 9.29 4.75 90.0
o.10 18.87 2 83.4
o.20 27.32 0.85 77.6
o.40 33.38 0.425 73.4
o.60 38.62 0.25 69.8
o.100 48.50 0.15 63.0
o.140 58.70 0.106 56.1
o.200 68.61 0.075 49.2
Gravel %:10.0
Sand %:40.7
Fines %:49.2
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]13
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 570-572'
12/27/2019 Light brown clayey sand
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 375.69
Dry soil + tare (g):- 315.09
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 123.54
Total sample wt. (g):252.15 191.55 Water content (%): 0.0 31.6
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 -
o.4 -4.75 100.0
o.10 1.22 2 99.4
o.20 3.24 0.85 98.3
o.40 5.21 0.425 97.3
o.60 11.53 0.25 94.0
o.100 40.15 0.15 79.0
o.140 75.82 0.106 60.4
o.200 110.22 0.075 42.5
Gravel %:0.0
Sand %:57.5
Fines %:42.5
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]14
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 590-592'
12/30/2019 Dark brown silty sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible
Wall Permeameter, Method C (ASTM D5084)© IGES 2005, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date:Sample Description:
By:Sample Type:
Initial (o) Final (f)
Sample Height, H (in)3.018 2.988
Sample Diameter, D (in)2.432 2.370 Gs 2.508 Determined
Sample Length, L (cm) 7.666 7.590 Cell No.2
Sample Area, A (cm^2) 29.970 28.462 Station No.3
Sample Volume, V (cm^3) 229.74 216.02 Permeant liquid used
Wt. Rings + Wet Soil (g)1165.19 422.20 Total backpressure (psi)30
Wt. Rings (g)757.31 0 Effective horiz. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Unit Wt.,m (pcf) 110.8 122.0 Effective vert. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Soil + Tare (g)329.56 539.89 Initial (o) Final (f)
Dry Soil + Tare (g)278.54 428.50 B value 0.76 0.94
Tare (g)127.94 139.76 External Burette (cm )6.30 34.20
Weight of solids, Ws (g) 304.67 304.67 Cell Pressure (psi)0.0 90.0
Water Content, w (%) 33.88 38.58 Backpressure bottom (psi)30.0
Dry Unit Wt, d (pcf) 82.8 88.0 Backpressure top (psi)30.0
Void ratio, e 0.89 0.97 System volume coefficient (cm /psi)0.158
Saturation (%) 95.3 100 a System volume change (cm )14.18 `
Net sample volume change (cm )-13.72
Bottom burette ground length, l (cm) 82.25
a Saturation set to 100% for hase calculations Top burette ground length, l (cm) 81.95
b K corrected to 20ºC Burette area, a (cm )0.197
Conversion, reading to cm head (cm/rd) 5.076
Start Date and Time:1/8/20 10:11
Elapsed h1 h2 K Temp isc. Rati Kb
time (sec) (cm) (cm) (cm/sec) (ºC) RT (cm/sec)
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
Comments:
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[KBPFRHv1.xlsx]1
60.0
60.0
29.03
2.7E-05
2.7E-05
2.9E-05
8.40
8.2060.0
1.77
2.15
2.33
2.33
2.50
60.0 2.5E-05
27.15
60.0
29.038.00
60.0
7.81
8.40 35.07
0.92 2.5E-05
0.92
Middle depth interval tube sample of three used for test specimen. The maximum Skempton's B-value of 0.94 was
determined on subsequent B-checks with no increase. It is assumed that the test specimen was saturated.
1/9/2020
EH
Top Burette
(cm3)
Bottom Burette
(cm3)
2.6E-05
Reddish brown clayey sand
Undisturbed
Average Kb (cm/sec)
De-aired tap water
1.96
1.32
1.55
1.77
1.55
8.64 37.46
8.20
1.96 8.00
2.15
Energy Solutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
I-1-700

297.5-298.0'
30.96
35.07 32.94
32.94
7.81
7.62
7.62
7.46
2.7E-05
27.15
25.48 0.92
0.92
0.92 2.6E-05
2.9E-05
2.8E-05
2.8E-05
30.96
0.92 2.7E-05
2.6E-05
Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible
Wall Permeameter, Method C (ASTM D5084)© IGES 2005, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date:Sample Description:
By:Sample Type:
Initial (o) Final (f)
Sample Height, H (in)2.929 2.877
Sample Diameter, D (in)2.404 2.296 Gs 2.493 Determined
Sample Length, L (cm) 7.440 7.308 Cell No.1
Sample Area, A (cm^2) 29.284 26.716 Station No.6
Sample Volume, V (cm^3) 217.86 195.24 Permeant liquid used
Wt. Rings + Wet Soil (g)1158.9 404.58 Total backpressure (psi)30
Wt. Rings (g)757.31 0 Effective horiz. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Unit Wt.,m (pcf) 115.1 129.4 Effective vert. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Soil + Tare (g)314.75 524.72 Initial (o) Final (f)
Dry Soil + Tare (g)262.99 419.81 B value 0.76 0.96
Tare (g)112.21 122.86 External Burette (cm )13.30 49.40
Weight of solids, Ws (g) 298.96 298.96 Cell Pressure (psi)0.0 90.0
Water Content, w (%) 34.33 35.33 Backpressure bottom (psi)30.0
Dry Unit Wt, d (pcf) 85.7 95.6 Backpressure top (psi)30.0
Void ratio, e 0.82 0.88 System volume coefficient (cm /psi)0.150
Saturation (%) 100.0 100 a System volume change (cm )13.48
Net sample volume change (cm )-22.62
Bottom burette ground length, l (cm) 82.05
a Saturation set to 100% for hase calculations Top burette ground length, l (cm) 82
b K corrected to 20ºC Burette area, a (cm )0.197
Conversion, reading to cm head (cm/rd) 5.076
Start Date and Time:1/8/20 10:11
Elapsed h1 h2 K Temp isc. Rati Kb
time (sec) (cm) (cm) (cm/sec) (ºC) RT (cm/sec)
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
Comments:
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[KBPFRHv1.xlsx]2
Middle depth interval tube sample of three used for test specimen.
0.92
0.92
0.92
3.9E-06
377.5-378.0'
Reddish brown clayey sand
Undisturbed
3.9E-06
4.0E-060.92
Average Kb (cm/sec)
De-aired tap water
47.82 46.50
9.37
9.26
49.19
9.60
Bottom Burette
(cm3)
0.59 4.0E-06
180.0
43.91
3.9E-06
4.2E-06
4.2E-06
9.72
9.60180.0
0.45
Energy Solutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
I-1-700

3.9E-06
9.48
0.59
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.31
Top Burette
(cm3)
9.84
1/9/2020
EH
9.72 47.82
0.92 3.8E-06
0.92180.0
180.0
0.73
0.86
0.86
0.99
180.0
9.26 42.69
180.0
43.919.48
9.370.73
4.2E-06
4.3E-06
4.3E-06
42.69
41.47
45.18 4.3E-06
46.50 45.18
9.15
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix D AQTESOLV ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Appendix D AQTESOLV ANALYTICAL RESULTS

10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
100.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Hantush_leakyconfined_pump.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:14:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush
T = 45.51 ft2/day S = 1.91E-5
r/B' = 0.1 ß' = 0.1
r/B" = 0.ß" = 1.85
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
100.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Neuman_leakyconfined_pump.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:24:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Neuman-Witherspoon
T = 48.08 ft2/day S = 0.004676
r/B = 0.1 ß = 0.1148
T2 = 3065.6 ft2/day S2 = 1.259E-5
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
-0.03
5.98
12.
18.
24.
30.
Adjusted Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\I-1-700_CooperJacob_confined_pump.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 12:02:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 241.7 ft2/day S = 1.292E-7
1. 10. 100. 1000.
-0.03
2.98
5.98
8.99
12.
15.
Time, t/t'
Re
s
i
d
u
a
l

D
r
a
w
d
o
w
n

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\I-1-700_Theis_confined_recovery.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 11:59:37
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 1298.8 ft2/day S/S' = 4.621
100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Hantush_leakyconfined_obs.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:10:33
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-100 1194186.5 7420897.9
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush
T = 1213.5 ft2/day S = 0.001335
r/B' = 0.1 ß' = 0.1
r/B" = 0.ß" = 1.85
100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
0.
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Neuman_leakyconfined_obs.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:21:35
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-100 1194186.5 7420897.9
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Neuman-Witherspoon
T = 2492.9 ft2/day S = 0.0191
r/B = 0.1 ß = 0.1148
T2 = 8.64E+9 ft2/day S2 = 1.0E-10
100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
0.
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
Adjusted Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\I-1-700_CooperJacob_confined_obs.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 12:01:38
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-100 1194186.5 7420897.9
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 2.43E+4 ft2/day S = 2.354E-10
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix E GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS

Appendix E GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
REPORTS

February 12, 2020

Mr. Jared Stark
EnergySolutions, LLC.
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Re: EUI-11 Environmental
Monitoring-Rad Purchase
Order:20-EUI-11
Work Order: 502174 Chain of Custody:65534
SDG: EUI-11350
Dear Mr. Stark:
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on January 24, 2020. Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical
services to enable you to meet your analytical needs on time every time.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those
standards, with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as
received by the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the
laboratory. Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
This original data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL's standard operating
procedures. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] extension 4453.

Sincerely,

PM_SIGN_HERE
Edith Kent
Project Manager
Enclosures
Table of Contents
Case Narrative....................................................................................3
Chain of Custody and Supporting Documentation.........................6
Laboratory Certifications................................................................10
Metals Analysis.................................................................................12
Case Narrative..........................................................................13
Sample Data Summary............................................................17
Quality Control Summary.......................................................19
Standards...................................................................................31
Raw Data...................................................................................34
Miscellaneous............................................................................56
Radiological Analysis.......................................................................70
Case Narrative..........................................................................71
Sample Data Summary............................................................78
Quality Control Summary.......................................................81
Case Narrative
Page 1 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Case Narrative
for
EnergySolutions LLC (693694)
SDG: EUI-11350
Work Order: 502174
February 11, 2020

Laboratory Identification:

GEL Laboratories LLC
2040 Savage Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29407
[phone]
PO
20-EUI-11
Summary
Sample Receipt

The sample arrived at GEL Laboratories LLC, Charleston, South Carolina on January 24, 2020 for analysis.
The samples associated with Chain of Custody 65534 were received at a temperature of 2 degrees C. The
samples were analyzed for Metals and Radiochemistry parameters.

Sample Identification

The laboratory received the following sample:
Laboratory
Identification Sample
Description
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01

Items of Note

There are no items to note.

Page 2 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Case Narrative
Sample analyses were conducted using methodology as outlined in GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) Standard
Operating Procedures. Any technical or administrative problems during analysis, data review, and reduction are
contained in the analytical case narratives in the enclosed data package.

PM_SIGN_HERE
Edith Kent
Project Manager
Page 3 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Chain of Custody and
Supporting
Documentation
Page 4 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Page 5 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Page 6 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Page 7 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Laboratory
Certifications
Page 8 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
State Certification
Alaska
Alaska Drinking Water
Arkansas
CLIA
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DoD ELAP/ ISO17025 A2LA
Florida NELAP
Foreign Soils Permit
Georgia
Georgia SDWA
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois NELAP
Indiana
Kansas NELAP
Kentucky SDWA
Kentucky Wastewater
Louisiana Drinking Water
Louisiana NELAP
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Massachusetts PFAS Approv
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire NELAP
New Jersey NELAP
New Mexico
New York NELAP
North Carolina
North Carolina SDWA
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania NELAP
Puerto Rico
S. Carolina Radiochem
Sanitation Districts of L
South Carolina Chemistry
Tennessee
Texas NELAP
Utah NELAP
Vermont
Virginia NELAP
Washington
17−018
SC00012
88−0651
42D0904046
2940
SC00012
PH−0169
2567.01
E87156
P330−15−00283, P330−15−00253
SC00012
967
SC00012
SC00012
200029
C−SC−01
E−10332
90129
90129
LA024
03046 (AI33904)
2019020
270
M−SC012
Letter
9976
SC00012
NE−OS−26−13
SC000122020−1
2054
SC002
SC00012
11501
233
45709
R−158
2019−165
68−00485
SC00012
10120002
9255651
10120001
TN 02934
T104704235−19−15
SC000122019−30
VT87156
460202
C780
List of current GEL Certifications as of 11 February 2020
Page 9 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals Analysis
Page 10 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Case Narrative
Page 11 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals
Technical Case Narrative
EnergySolutions LLC
SDG #: EUI-11350
Work Order #: 502174

Product: Determination of Metals by ICP-MS
Analytical Method: EPA 200.8
Analytical Procedure: GL-MA-E-014 REV# 33
Analytical Batch: 1962589

Preparation Method: EPA 200.2
Preparation Procedure: GL-MA-E-016 REV# 18
Preparation Batch: 1962588

The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204483525 Method Blank (MB)ICP-MS
1204483526 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204483529 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01L) Serial Dilution (SD)
1204483527 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01D) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204483528 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01S) Matrix Spike (MS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.

Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and procedures
for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where applicable, with the
following exceptions.

Calibration Information

ICSA/ICSAB Statement
For the ICP-MS analysis, the ICSA solution contains analyte concentrations which are verified trace impurities
indigenous to the purchased standard.

Technical Information

Sample Dilutions
Dilutions may be required for many reasons, including to minimize matrix interferences or to bring over range target
analyte concentrations into the linear calibration range. Per the SOP, sample 502174001 (I-1-700 011720-01) was
diluted due to internal standard recoveries outside the acceptable control limits.
Analyte
502174
001
Uranium 5X
Page 12 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Certification Statement

Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 13 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
CARE009 EnergySolutions LLC (693694)
Client SDG: EUI-11350 GEL Work Order: 502174
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data reviewer. In addition, all CLP-like deliverables
receive a third level review of the fractional data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this data report:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
for
Qualifier Definition Report
Signature:Name:
Date:Title:04 FEB 2020
Edmund Frampton
Team Leader
Review/Validation
Page 14 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample Data Summary
Page 15 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−1−
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA PACKAGE
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:METHOD TYPE:
SAMPLE ID:CLIENT ID:
CONTRACT:
MATRIX:DATE RECEIVED LEVEL:
CAS No Analyte Result Units C Qual M*
Inst
ID
Analytical
Run
Low
EUI−11350
502174001 I−1−700 011720−01
CARE EUI−11
Water 24−JAN−20
7440−61−1 Uranium 17.4 ug/L 0.335 ICPMS12MS 200131−1
EPA
MDL DF
5
MS EPA 200.8
*Analytical Methods:
Page 16 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Quality Control
Summary
Page 17 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−2a−
Initial and Continuing Calibration Verification
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:
Contract:Lab Code: GEL
EUI−11350
Instrument ID:
Sample ID Analyte Result Units True
Value Units %
Recovery
Acceptance
Window (%R)M*Analysis
Date/Time
Run
Number
ICV01
CCV01
CCV02
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
47.3
47.8
47.3
50
50
50
94.6
95.5
94.6
31−JAN−20 14:03
31−JAN−20 14:11
31−JAN−20 14:24
200131−1
200131−1
200131−1
MS
MS
MS
ICPMS12
CARE EUI−11
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
90.0 − 110.0
90.0 − 110.0
90.0 − 110.0
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 18 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−2b−
CRDL Standard for ICP & ICPMS
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:
Contract:Lab Code: GEL
EUI−11350
Instrument ID:
Sample ID Analyte Result Units True
Value Units %
Recovery
Advisory
Limits (%R)M*Analysis
Date/Time
Run
Number
CRDL01
Uranium .2 .2 100 31−JAN−20 14:06 200131−1MS
ICPMS12
CARE EUI−11
ug/L ug/L 70.0 − 130.0
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 19 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals
−3a−
Initial and Continuing Calibration Blank Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No.:
Contract:Lab Code: GELCARE EUI−11
EUI−11350
ICB01
CCB01
CCB02
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
0.067
0.067
0.067
+/−.2
+/−.2
+/−.2
U
U
U
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.2
0.2
0.2
MS
MS
MS
31−JAN−20 14:04
31−JAN−20 14:13
31−JAN−20 14:25
200131−1
200131−1
200131−1
Sample ID Analyte
Result
ug/L Acceptance Conc
Qual RDL M*Analysis
Date/Time RunMDLMatrix
LIQ
LIQ
LIQ
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 20 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−3b−
PREPARATION BLANK SUMMARY
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
Sample ID Analyte Result
Acceptance
Window
Conc
Qual M*RDL
1204483525
Uranium 0.0670 0.0670 0.200
SDG NO.
Contract:
Matrix:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
U MS+/−0.2
Units
ug/L
MDL
Water
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 21 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−4−
Interference Check Sample
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:
Contract:Lab Code: GEL
EUI−11350
Sample ID Analyte Result Units True
Value Units %
Recovery
Acceptance
Window (%R)
Analysis
Date/Time
Run
Number
ICSA01
ICSAB01
Uranium
Uranium
0.014
19.5 20 97.4
31−JAN−20 14:08
31−JAN−20 14:09
200131−1
200131−1
CARE EUI−11
ug/L
ug/L ug/L 80.0 − 120.0
ICPMS12Instrument:
Page 22 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−5a−
Matrix Spike Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
Analyte Units
Acceptance
Limit
Spiked
Result C Sample
Result C Spike
Added
SDG NO.
Contract:
Matrix:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
WATER
%
Recovery Qual M*
Sample ID:502174001
Level:
Spike ID:
Client ID:
% Solids:
Uranium ug/L 68.3 50.0 102 MS
I−1−700 011720−01S
75−125
1204483528
Low
17.4
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 23 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals
−6−
Duplicate Sample Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No.:EUI−11350
Contract: CARE EUI−11
Lab Code: GEL
Matrix:WATER Level:Low
Client ID:I−1−700 011720−01D
Sample ID:502174001 Duplicate ID:1204483527 Percent Solids for Dup:N/A
Analyte Units Acceptance
Limit
Sample
Result C
Duplicate
Result C RPD Qual M*
Uranium ug/L +/−20%17.4 18.4 5.74 MS
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 24 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−7−
Laboratory Control Sample Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
Analyte Units
Acceptance
LimitSample ID Result C
True
Value
SDG NO.
Contract:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
%
Recovery M*
Aqueous LCS Source:Inorganic Ventures Solid LCS Source:
Uranium ug/L
1204483526
49.450.0 98.9 MS85−115
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 25 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−9−
Serial Dilution Sample Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG NO.
Contract:
Matrix:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
LIQUID
%
Difference Qual M*
Sample ID:502174001
Level:
Serial Dilution ID:
Client ID:I−1−700 011720−01L
1204483529
Low
Initial
Value
ug/L
Acceptance
LimitAnalyteCSerial
Value
ug/L
C
Uranium 3.47 3.45 .576 MS
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 26 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−13−
SAMPLE PREPARATION SUMMARY
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:Method Type:
Contract:
Sample ID Client ID
Sample
Type Matrix
Prep
Date
Initial
Sample
Size
Percent
Solids
EUI−11350
Lab Code: GEL
Final
Sample
Volume
Batch Number 1962588
1204483525
1204483526
1204483528
1204483527
502174001
MB
LCS
MS
DUP
SAMPLE
W
W
W
W
W
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
50
50
50
50
50
mL
mL
mL
mL
mL
50
50
50
50
50
mL
mL
mL
mL
mL
MB for batch 1962588
LCS for batch 1962588
I−1−700 011720−01S
I−1−700 011720−01D
I−1−700 011720−01
MS
CARE EUI−11
Page 27 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
GEL Laboratories LLC
Metals
-14-
Analysis Run Log
EPAPage 1
200131-1
13:58:32
14:00:09
14:01:46
14:03:21
14:04:58
14:06:34
14:08:11
14:09:47
14:11:25
14:13:02
14:14:40
14:16:17
14:17:54
14:19:30
14:21:06
14:22:42
14:24:21
14:25:57
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S0.0
S10
S100
ICV01
ICB01
CRDL01
ICSA01
ICSAB01
CCV01
CCB01
1204483525
1204483526
502174001
1204483527
1204483528
1204483529
CCV02
CCB02
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
25
1
1
D/F
Contract: CARE EUI-11
Run Time
Lab Code : GEL Client Sdg:
Inst Name:
Start Date:End Date:Data File:
Instrument Type:ICPMS12
31-JAN-20 31-JAN-20
MS
EUI-11350
Samp ID
Page 28 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standards
Page 29 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−10−
Instrument Detection Limits
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG NO.EUI−11350
Uranium 0.067 0.2
Contract:CARE EUI−11 Effective Date:16−APR−17Lab Code: GEL
MDL
MDL
ICP/MS Analyte
Wavelength
(nm)
RDL
ug/L
ug/L
LIQUID
Verified on:Instrument(s):
ICPMS12 31−JAN−2020LIQU
Page 30 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−12−
Linear Ranges
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG NO.EUI−11350
Units
Integration
TimeAnalyte LDR
Uranium 1000 5000 ug/L
Contract:CARE EUI−11 Lab Code: GEL
Instrument IDICPMS12
Effective
Date
01−AUG−17
(msec)
Page 31 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Raw Data
Page 32 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Sample
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:20:30
Page 1
ICPMS #12 Daily Performance
Sample ID: Sample
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:16:26
Sample Description:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\Daily 2.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\default4\Sample.580
Mass Calibration File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\MassCal\default2.tun
Dual Detector Mode: Pulse
Acquisition Date/Time&Time Zone: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:16:26 Eastern Standard Time
Number of Replicates: 5
Summary
Analyte Mass Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean Net Intens. SD Net Intens. RSD
Be 9.0 51713.1 51713.060 1054.533 2.0
Mg 24.0 103587.1 103587.112 2390.861 2.3
Co 58.9 68934.9 68934.880 2393.442 3.5
Rh 102.9 38755.3 38755.303 448.958 1.2
In 114.9 249189.4 249189.398 4499.056 1.8
Pb 208.0 108077.4 108077.418 2570.774 2.4
>Ba 137.9 236465.6 236465.620 4185.334 1.8
 Ba++69.0 2831.0 0.012 0.000 0.6
>Ce 139.9 256536.2 256536.162 6581.448 2.6
 CeO 155.9 4375.8 0.017 0.001 5.9
Bkgd 220.0 0.2 0.200 0.112 55.9
Current Conditions
C Val Description
0.96 Nebulizer Gas Flow STD/KED [NEB]
1.20 Auxiliary Gas Flow
18.00 Plasma Gas Flow
-12.00 Deflector Voltage
1600.00 ICP RF Power
-1525.00 Analog Stage Voltage
800.00 Pulse Stage Voltage
0.00 Quadrupole Rod Offset STD [QRO]
-16.00 Cell Rod Offset STD [CRO]
8.00 Discriminator Threshold
-12.00 Cell Entrance/Exit Voltage STD
0.00 RPa
0.45 RPq
0.96 DRC Mode NEB
-9.00 DRC Mode QRO
-2.00 DRC Mode CRO
-7.00 DRC Mode Cell Entrance/Exit Voltage
0.60 Cell Gas A
200.00 Axial Field Voltage
-16.00 KED Mode CRO
-12.50 KED Mode QRO
-9.00 KED Mode Cell Entrance Voltage
-31.00 KED Mode Cell Exit Voltage
3.00 KED Cell Gas A
0.00 KED RPa
0.25 KED RPq
475.00 KED Mode Axial Field Voltage
Current Autolens Data
Page 33 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Sample
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:20:30
Page 2
Analyte Mass Num of Pts DAC Value Maximum Intensity
Be 9.012 41 -13.5 34020.5
Mg 23.985 41 -14.5 169728.3
In 114.904 41 -11.5 135178.6
Ce 139.905 41 -10.0 87078.6
Pb 207.977 41 -6.5 54993.6
U 238.050 41 -7.0 91767.8
Page 34 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:06:38
Page 1
ICPMS #12 Instrument Tuning Report

Analyte Exact Mass Meas. Mass Mass DAC Res DAC Meas. Pk. Width
Be 9.0 9.0 1640 2060 0.714
Mg 24.0 24.0 4629 2068 0.665
Mg 25.0 25.0 4813 2065 0.675
Mg 26.0 26.0 5026 2065 0.686
Co 58.9 58.9 11597 2062 0.710
Rh 102.9 102.9 20382 2065 0.724
In 114.9 114.9 22774 2064 0.726
Ce 139.9 139.9 27775 2065 0.739
Pb 206.0 206.0 40982 2069 0.698
Pb 207.0 207.0 41195 2070 0.705
Pb 208.0 208.0 41385 2065 0.729
U 238.1 238.0 47395 2065 0.748
Page 35 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Cal Blank
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 13:58:42
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: Cal Blank
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 13:58:32
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\Cal Blank.731
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 952701.526
 U 238 ug/L 29.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 36 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Standard 1
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:00:19
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: Standard 1
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:00:09
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\Standard 1.732
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 896076.707 896076.707
 U 238 10.000 ug/L 0.567 209214.886 0.233
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 37 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Standard 2
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:01:55
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: Standard 2
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:01:46
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\Standard 2.733
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 925992.276 925992.276
 U 238 100.039 ug/L 1.457 2250794.791 2.431
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 38 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 1
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:03:31
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 1
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:03:21
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 1.734
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 871435.623 871435.623
 U 238 47.291 ug/L 2.312 1001542.868 1.149
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 91.47
 U 238 94.583
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 39 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 2
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:05:08
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 2
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:04:58
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 2.735
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 947985.272 947985.272
 U 238 0.010 ug/L 9.173 248.669 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 99.50
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 40 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 3
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:06:44
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 3
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:06:34
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 3.736
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 835333.195 835333.195
 U 238 0.200 ug/L 1.473 4078.916 0.005
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 87.68
 U 238 99.847
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 41 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 4
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:08:21
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 4
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:08:11
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 4.737
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 724920.967 724920.967
 U 238 0.014 ug/L 9.427 268.003 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 76.09
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 42 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 5
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:09:57
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 5
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:09:47
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 5.738
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 725859.312 725859.312
 U 238 19.481 ug/L 2.217 343591.874 0.473
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 76.19
 U 238 97.406
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 43 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:11:34
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:11:25
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 6.739
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 797012.107 797012.107
 U 238 47.751 ug/L 0.415 925001.909 1.161
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 83.66
 U 238 95.502
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 44 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:13:12
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:13:02
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 7.740
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 834209.795 834209.795
 U 238 0.006 ug/L 4.338 139.001 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 87.56
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 45 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483525
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:14:50
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483525
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:14:40
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 MB
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|1|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483525.741
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 857726.557 857726.557
 U 238 0.004 ug/L 1.266 101.334 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 90.03
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 46 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483526
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:16:27
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483526
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:16:17
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 LCS
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|1|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483526.742
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 886084.003 886084.003
 U 238 49.439 ug/L 2.530 1064894.867 1.202
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 93.01
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 47 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 502174001
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:18:04
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 502174001
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:17:54
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|5|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\502174001.743
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 576087.730 576087.730
 U 238 3.470 ug/L 1.520 48590.852 0.084
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 60.47
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 48 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483527
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:19:40
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483527
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:19:30
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 DUP
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|5|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483527.744
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 587095.442 587095.442
 U 238 3.675 ug/L 2.225 52438.072 0.089
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 61.62
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 49 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483528
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:21:15
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483528
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:21:06
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 MS
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|5|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483528.745
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 587636.851 587636.851
 U 238 13.655 ug/L 0.474 195041.584 0.332
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 61.68
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 50 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483529
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:22:52
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483529
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:22:42
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 SDILT
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|25|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483529.746
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 880726.867 880726.867
 U 238 0.690 ug/L 1.382 14798.330 0.017
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 92.45
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 51 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:24:31
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:24:21
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 6.747
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 1014388.816 1014388.816
 U 238 47.309 ug/L 2.227 1166250.605 1.150
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 106.47
 U 238 94.618
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 52 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:26:07
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:25:57
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 7.748
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 967064.818 967064.818
 U 238 0.006 ug/L 6.177 175.334 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 101.51
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 53 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Miscellaneous
Page 54 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Prep Logbook
Analytical Logbook version 1 11-04-2002 GEL Laboratories LLC
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
1962588
Initial
Volume
(mL)
Hot Block
Stop Date
(date)
Final
Volume
(mL)
Prep Factor
(mL/mL)
pH CheckSample ID
Batch ID:
1204483525 MB
1204483526 LCS
502174001
1204483529 SDILT (502174001)
1204483527 DUP (502174001)
1204483528 MS (502174001)
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
Sample IdType Serial Number Spike UnitsSpike Amount
ICP-MS spiking soluiton A
ICP-MS spiking solution B
ICP-MS spiking soluiton A
ICP-MS spiking solution B
mL
mL
mL
mL
UI191025-A
UI191025-B
UI191025-A
UI191025-B
1204483526
1204483526
1204483528
1204483528
LCS
LCS
MS
MS
Description
.25
.25
.25
.25
Analyst: Ridge Gleaton
Method:
Lab SOP:GL-MA-E-016 REV# 18
Instrument: Metals Manual Instrument
Comments:
Block Temperature (90-95C): 94 C
Temperature within limits (Y/N)?: y
Thermometer ID: 118840
Hot Block ID: 14
Digestion tube lot #: 1906257
EPA 200.2
Sample Preparation for Total Recoverable Elements by EPA Method 200.2
Reagent/Solvent Lot ID Amount
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Concentrated Nitric Acid
200120
3011870
Description
.5 mL
1 mL
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Matrix

Prep Date
Page 55 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS CRDL Master Soln #1
ICPMS CRDL Soln #2
ICP-MS spiking soluiton A
Description:
Description:
Description:
Aluminum Arsenic
Barium Beryllium
Boron Cadmium
Calcium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Iron Lead
Lithium Magnesium
Manganese Nickel
Phosphorous Potassium
Selenium Sodium
Strontium Thallium
Thorium Uranium
Vanadium Zinc
Antimony Molybdenum
Silver Tin
Titanium Tungsten
Zirconium
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
50 mg/L 5 mg/L
4 mg/L .5 mg/L
15 mg/L 1 mg/L
200 mg/L 30 mg/L
1 mg/L 2 mg/L
100 mg/L 2 mg/L
10 mg/L 30 mg/L
5 mg/L 2 mg/L
50 mg/L 300 mg/L
5 mg/L 250 mg/L
10 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L .2 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
3 mg/L 1 mg/L
1 mg/L 5 mg/L
10 mg/L 5 mg/L
2 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
250 mL
090014-MC-02
10091735-1
+/- 0.5% IN 2% HNO3
250 mL
160044-11-02
10091735-2
+/- 0.5% IN 2% HNO3
GEL-12A
N2-MEB673694
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
ICP-MS CRDL Master #1
ICP-MS CRDL Master #2
ICP-MS SPIKE A
Name:
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
Type:
15-APR-19
15-APR-19
25-OCT-19
Received:
Received:
Received:
15-APR-20
15-APR-20
25-OCT-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
02SI
02SI
Inorganic Ventures
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Edmund Frampton
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
15-APR-19
15-APR-19
13-NOV-19
UI190415-09
UI190415-10
UI191025-A
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 56 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICP-MS spiking solution B
ICPMS ICV/CCV Soln B - 20ppm
Description:
Description:
Antimony Hafnium
Molybdenum Tantalum
Tin Titanium
Tungsten Zirconium
Aluminum Arsenic
Barium Beryllium
Bismuth Boron
Cadmium Calcium
Cesium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Iron Lead
Lithium Magnesium
Manganese Nickel
Phosphorous Potassium
Rhenium Rhodium
Selenium Silver
Sodium Strontium
Thallium Thorium
Uranium Uranium-235
Uranium-238 Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic Barium
Beryllium Boron
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 20 mg/L
10 mg/L 400 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 400 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 400 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L .072 mg/L
9.928 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 40 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
GEL-12B
N2-MEB673693
250 mL
160054-02-03
10066767-11
2% HNO3 100 cm2
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
ICP-MS SPIKE B
ICP-MS ICV/CCV Master B
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
25-OCT-19
02-NOV-19
Received:
Received:
25-OCT-20
02-NOV-20
Expires:
Expires:
Inorganic Ventures
02SI
Supplier:
Supplier:
Edmund Frampton
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
13-NOV-19
02-NOV-19
UI191025-B
UI191102-07
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 57 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICV/CCV SOLN A - 2000ppm
ICPMS Tungsten standard SPIKE - 10mg/L
ICPMS ICV/CCV Soln C - 20ppm
Description:
Description:
Description:
Lead Lithium
Manganese Nickel
Selenium Strontium
Thallium Thorium
Uranium Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum Calcium
Iron Magnesium
Phosphorous Potassium
Sodium
Tungsten
Antimony Molybdenum
Silver Tin
Titanium Tungsten
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L
2020 mg/L 2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L 2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L 2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
10 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
250 mL
160055-01-03
10066767-12
2% HNO3 100 cm2
060074-05-01
10070573-10
2% HNO3 + Tr HF
250 mL
ZGEL-107-500
52-274CR
2% HNO3/Tr. Tart Acid/ Tr. HF 100 c
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
ICP-MS ICV/CCV Master A
ICPMS Tungsten - 10mg/L S
ICP-MS ICV/CCV Master C
Name:
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
Type:
02-NOV-19
12-NOV-19
04-DEC-19
Received:
Received:
Received:
02-NOV-20
12-NOV-20
30-OCT-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
02SI
O2SI
Spex
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
02-NOV-19
12-NOV-19
04-DEC-19
UI191102-09
UI191112-03
UI191204-08
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 58 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICSAB Master B
ICPMS ICSAB Master C
ICP-MS ICSA Master A NEXION
Description:
Description:
Description:
Zirconium
Arsenic Barium
Beryllium Boron
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Lead Lithium
Manganese Nickel
Selenium Strontium
Thallium Thorium
Uranium Vanadium
Zinc
Antimony Silver
Tin Tungsten
Zirconium
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
20 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
250 mL
160033-02-02
10069799-9
+/- 2.0% in 2% HNO3
250 mL
160033-03-02
10069799-10
+/- 2.0% in 2% HNO3 + tr HF
1000 mL
60013-01-01LNexion
10065549-13
5% HNO3 + Tr HF
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
ICP-MS ICSAB Master B
ICP-MS ICSAB Master C
ICP-MS ICSA Master A Nex
Name:
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
Type:
18-DEC-19
18-DEC-19
02-NOV-19
Received:
Received:
Received:
18-DEC-20
18-DEC-20
02-NOV-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
02SI
02SI
02SI
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
18-DEC-19
18-DEC-19
02-NOV-19
UI191218-12
UI191218-13
UI3001438-11
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 59 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS Calibration Standard Solution B
ICPMS Calibration Standard Solution A
Description:
Description:
Aluminum Calcium
Carbon Chloride
Iron Magnesium
Molybdenum Phosphorous
Potassium Sodium
Sulfur Titanium
Arsenic Barium
Beryllium Boron
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Lead Lithium
Manganese Nickel
Selenium Silver
Strontium Thallium
Thorium Uranium
Vanadium Zinc
Aluminum Calcium
Iron Magnesium
Phosphorous Potassium
Sodium
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
2000 mg/L 10000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
20 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 20 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 20 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
250 mL
ZGEL-100-250
8-124AB
ZGEL-102-250
8-126AB
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
ICPMSCalSPIKEB
ICPMSCalSPIKEA
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
03-DEC-19
03-DEC-19
Received:
Received:
30-NOV-20
30-NOV-20
Expires:
Expires:
SPEX
SPEX
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
03-DEC-19
03-DEC-19
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-02
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 60 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS Calibration Standard Solution C
ICPMS Calibration Standard (100 ppb)
Description:
Description:
Antimony Molybdenum
Tin Titanium
Zirconium
Analyte
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L
Concentration
Parent Material
UI191112-03
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Amount :
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
250 ml
ZGEL-101-250
8-125AB
50 mL
4025216
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
Analyte Final Conc.Parent Conc.Aliquot Final Vol.
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
20 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
200 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
Tungsten
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
ICPMSCalSPIKEC
ICPMS Cal Standard 100
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Working
Type:
Type:
03-DEC-19
31-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
30-NOV-20
01-FEB-20
Expires:
Expires:
SPEX
GEL
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
03-DEC-19
31-JAN-20
UMS191203-03
WMS200131-04
Analyte Concentration
Page 61 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS Calibration Standard (10 ppb)Description:
Parent Material
Parent Material
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
4025216
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:None
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
200 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
20 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Antimony
Molybdenum
Tin
Titanium
Zirconium
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
ICPMS Cal Standard 10Name:
WorkingType:
31-JAN-20Received:
01-FEB-20Expires:
GELSupplier:
Paul BoydEmployee:
Serial ID:Open/Reference Date:31-JAN-20WMS200131-04A
Page 62 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICVDescription:
Parent Material
Parent Material
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
BAL216
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:None
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
40 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
2020 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
100 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
5050 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Antimony
Molybdenum
Silver
ICPMS ICVName:
WorkingType:
31-JAN-20Received:
01-FEB-20Expires:
GELSupplier:
Paul BoydEmployee:
Serial ID:Open/Reference Date:31-JAN-20WMS200131-05
Page 63 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS CRDLDescription:
Parent Material
Parent Material
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
BAL216
3820544
2%HNO3/1%HCl - 3032237
Comments:None
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mg/L
5 mg/L
4 mg/L
.5 mg/L
15 mg/L
1 mg/L
200 mg/L
30 mg/L
1 mg/L
2 mg/L
100 mg/L
2 mg/L
10 mg/L
30 mg/L
5 mg/L
2 mg/L
50 mg/L
300 mg/L
5 mg/L
250 mg/L
10 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
.2 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
3 mg/L
1 mg/L
1 mg/L
5 mg/L
10 mg/L
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
5 ug/L
4 ug/L
.5 ug/L
15 ug/L
1 ug/L
200 ug/L
10 ug/L
1 ug/L
2 ug/L
100 ug/L
2 ug/L
10 ug/L
30 ug/L
5 ug/L
2 ug/L
50 ug/L
300 ug/L
5 ug/L
250 ug/L
10 ug/L
2 ug/L
2 ug/L
.2 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
3 ug/L
1 ug/L
1 ug/L
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Zirconium
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Antimony
Molybdenum
Silver
Tin
Titanium
ICPMS CRDLName:
WorkingType:
31-JAN-20Received:
01-FEB-20Expires:
GELSupplier:
Paul BoydEmployee:
Serial ID:Open/Reference Date:31-JAN-20WMS200131-06
Page 64 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICSA NexION
ICPMS ICSAB NexION
Description:
Description:
Parent Material
Parent Material
Parent Material
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
Balance Id :
Lot Number :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
BAL216
1064482
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
BAL216
1758088
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
5 mg/L
2 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
10000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
.5 mL
.5 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
500 mL
500 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
200000 ug/L
1000000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20.804 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
26.141 ug/L
Tungsten
Zirconium
Aluminum
Calcium
Carbon
Chloride
Iron
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfur
Titanium
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
ICPMS ICSA
ICPMS ICSAB
Name:
Name:
Working
Working
Type:
Type:
31-JAN-20
31-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
01-FEB-20
01-FEB-20
Expires:
Expires:
GEL
GEL
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
31-JAN-20
31-JAN-20
WMS200131-20
WMS200131-21
Page 65 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Description:
Description:
Parent Material
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
Lot Number :
Lot Number :
2019092697
2019111458
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
Analyte Final Conc.Parent Conc.Aliquot Final Vol.
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
10000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
23.162 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
200000 ug/L
1000000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
Nickel
Selenium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Antimony
Silver
Tin
Tungsten
Zirconium
Aluminum
Calcium
Carbon
Chloride
Iron
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfur
Titanium
I-HCL
I-HCL
Name:
Name:
Reagent/Solvent
Reagent/Solvent
Type:
Type:
17-DEC-19
20-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
17-DEC-21
20-JAN-22
Expires:
Expires:
VWR
VWR
Supplier:
Supplier:
Edmund Frampton
Edmund Frampton
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
30-DEC-19
20-JAN-20
191217
200120
Page 66 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
Concentrated Nitric Acid
Concentrated Nitric Acid
2%HNO3/1%HCl Solution (Type I Water)
Description:
Description:
Description:
Parent Material
191217
3000723
Lot Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
0000226537
2019100718
Type I Water
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
Analyte Final Conc.Parent Conc.Aliquot Final Vol.
36.5-38.0
68.0-70.0%
80 mL
160 mL
8 l
8 l
N/A
N/A
I-HCL
I-HNO3
I-HNO3
I-HNO3
B-2%HNO3/1%HCl-ICPMS
Name:
Name:
Name:
Reagent/Solvent
Reagent/Solvent
Reagent/Solvent
Type:
Type:
Type:
31-OCT-19
26-NOV-19
20-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
Received:
31-OCT-21
26-NOV-21
03-FEB-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
VWR - BDH Chemicals
VWR - BDH Chemicals
GEL
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Edmund Frampton
Hannah Hatherly
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
10-DEC-19
20-JAN-20
3000723
3011870
3032237
Page 67 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Radiological Analysis
Page 68 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Case Narrative
Page 69 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Radiochemistry
Technical Case Narrative
EnergySolutions LLC
SDG #: EUI-11350
Work Order #: 502174

Product: Alphaspec Th-228, 230, 232, Liquid
Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Th-01-RC Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-038 REV# 18
Analytical Batch: 1962978
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204484437 Method Blank (MB)
1204484438 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484439 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Technical Information

Recounts
Samples 1204484438 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP) and 502174001 (I-1-700 011720-01) were given additional
clean-up steps and recounted in order to remove suspected interferences. The recounts are reported.

Product: Alphaspec U-233/234, 235/236, 238, Liquid
Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, U-02-RC Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-011 REV# 27
Analytical Batch: 1962983
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204484441 Method Blank (MB)
1204484442 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484443 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Page 70 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Quality Control (QC) Information

Duplication Criteria between QC Sample and Duplicate Sample
The Sample and the Duplicate, (See Below), did not meet the relative percent difference requirement; however,
they do meet the relative error ratio requirement with the value listed below.
Sample Analyte Value
1204484442 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP)Uranium-233/234 RPD 27.6* (0.00%-20.00%) RER 1.63 (0-3)

Product: Gammaspec, Gamma, K-40
Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-013 REV# 27
Analytical Batch: 1962483
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204483327 Method Blank (MB)
1204483328 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204483329 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

There are no exceptions, anomalies or deviations from the specified methods. All sample data provided in this
report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and procedures for initial calibration,
continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where applicable.

Product: GFPC Ra228, Liquid
Analytical Method: EPA 904.0/SW846 9320 Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-009 REV# 17
Analytical Batch: 1962818
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
Page 71 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
1204484083 Method Blank (MB)
1204484084 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484085 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

There are no exceptions, anomalies or deviations from the specified methods. All sample data provided in this
report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and procedures for initial calibration,
continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where applicable.

Product: GFPC Gross A/B, Liquid
Analytical Method: EPA 900.0/SW846 9310
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-001 REV# 20
Analytical Batch: 1962821
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204484086 Method Blank (MB)
1204484087 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484088 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Matrix Spike (MS)
1204484089 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
1204484090 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Preparation Information

Aliquot Reduced
aliquot volumes were reduced due to the sample matrix.

Quality Control (QC) Information

RDL Met
The blank (See Below) did not meet the detection limit due to keeping the blank volume consistent with the
other sample aliquots.
Sample Analyte Value
1204484086 (MB)ALPHA Result -45.6 < MDA 86.3 > RDL 5 pCi/L
BETA Result -8.1 < MDA 151 > RDL 5 pCi/L
Page 72 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Samples (See Below) did not meet the required detection limits due to low sample volume. No more volume
could be used due to not exceeding the maximum net weight limit of the calibration curve. The samples counted
for 500 minutes.
Sample Analyte Value
1204484087 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP)ALPHA Result 142 < MDA 249 > RDL 5 pCi/L
502174001 (I-1-700 011720-01)ALPHA Result 91.5 < MDA 189 > RDL 5 pCi/L

Technical Information

Gross Alpha/Beta Preparation Information
High hygroscopic salt content in evaporated samples can cause the sample mass to fluctuate due to moisture
absorption. To minimize this interference, the salts are converted to oxides by heating the sample under a flame
until a dull red color is obtained. The conversion to oxides stabilizes the sample weight and ensures that proper
alpha/beta efficiencies are assigned for each sample. Volatile radioisotopes of carbon, hydrogen, technetium,
polonium and cesium may be lost during sample heating.

Product: Lucas Cell, Ra226, Liquid
Analytical Method: EPA 903.1 Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-008 REV# 15
Analytical Batch: 1962720
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204483826 Method Blank (MB)
1204483827 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204483828 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Matrix Spike (MS)
1204483829 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Quality Control (QC) Information

Duplication Criteria between QC Sample and Duplicate Sample
The Sample and the Duplicate, (See Below), did not meet the relative percent difference requirement; however,
they do meet the relative error ratio requirement with the value listed below.
Sample Analyte Value
1204483827 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP)Radium-226 RPD 41.8* (0.00%-20.00%) RER 2.38 (0-3)
Page 73 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Technical Information

Recounts
Sample 1204483826 (MB) was recounted due to a suspected blank false positive. The recount is reported.

Miscellaneous Information

Additional Comments
The matrix spike, 1204483828 (I-1-700 011720-01MS), aliquot was reduced to conserve sample volume.

Certification Statement

Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 74 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
CARE009 EnergySolutions LLC (693694)
Client SDG: EUI-11350 GEL Work Order: 502174
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data reviewer. In addition, all CLP-like deliverables
receive a third level review of the fractional data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this data report:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
for
Qualifier Definition Report
Signature:Name:
Date:Title:12 FEB 2020
Heather McCarty
Analyst II
Review/Validation
Page 75 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample Data Summary
Page 76 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Certificate of Analysis
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Report Date: February 11, 2020
Parameter Result UnitsQualifier Analyst Date TimeDF Batch MethodRLMDCPF
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis
Rad Gamma Spec Analysis
Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting
Rad Radium-226
1962978
1962983
1962483
1962821
1962818
1962720
0803
1208
1716
1906
0940
1212
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
02/03/20
01/28/20
01/25/20
02/05/20
02/05/20
02/10/20
HAKB
HAKB
RYH1
JXC9
JXK3
MXH8
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
Mr. Jared StarkContact:
EnergySolutions, LLC.Company :
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Address :
EUI-11 Environmental Monitoring-RadProject:
502174001
Water
16-JAN-20 15:14
24-JAN-20
I-1-700 011720-01 CARE EUI-11Project:
CARE009Client ID:
Client
+/-0.366
+/-0.430
+/-0.252
+/-2.09
+/-0.351
+/-1.43
+/-96.3
+/-112
+/-157
+/-1.80
+/-0.559
Sample ID:
Receive Date:
Client Sample ID:
Surrogate/Tracer Recovery
Matrix:
Collect Date:
Collector:
Recovery%Test Acceptable Limits
0.662
0.730
0.501
0.746
0.557
0.451
61.2
189
248
1.78
0.312
1
2
3
4
5
6
U
U
U
U
U
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Potassium-40
Alpha
Beta
Radium-228
Radium-226
Alphaspec Th-228, 230, 232, Liquid "As Received"
Alphaspec U-233/234, 235/236, 238, Liquid "As Received"
Gammaspec, Gamma, K-40 "As Received"
GFPC Gross A/B, Liquid "As Received"
GFPC Ra228, Liquid "As Received"
Lucas Cell, Ra226, Liquid "As Received"
0.136
0.228
0.0370
13.6
0.153
6.39
478
91.5
495
8.14
2.71
Thorium-229 Tracer
Uranium-232 Tracer
Barium-133 Tracer
Alphaspec Th-228, 230, 232, Liquid "As
Received"
Alphaspec U-233/234, 235/236, 238, Liquid "As
Received"
GFPC Ra228, Liquid "As Received"
59.9
86.9
69.6
(15%-125%)
(15%-125%)
(15%-125%)
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Method Description
DOE EML HASL-300, Th-01-RC Modified
DOE EML HASL-300, U-02-RC Modified
DOE EML HASL-300
EPA 900.0/SW846 9310
EPA 904.0/SW846 9320 Modified
EPA 903.1 Modified
Analyst Comments
Uncertainty
NominalResult
Page 77 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Certificate of Analysis
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Report Date: February 11, 2020
Parameter Result UnitsQualifier Analyst Date TimeDF Batch MethodRLMDCPF
Mr. Jared StarkContact:
EnergySolutions, LLC.Company :
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Address :
EUI-11 Environmental Monitoring-RadProject:
502174001
I-1-700 011720-01 CARE EUI-11Project:
CARE009Client ID:Sample ID:
Client Sample ID:
Uncertainty
Notes:
Counting Uncertainty is calculated at the 95% confidence level (1.96-sigma).

Lc/LC: Critical Level
PF: Prep Factor
RL: Reporting Limit
SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor
DL: Detection Limit
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration
Page 78 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Quality Control
Summary
Page 79 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Alpha Spec
1962978
1962983
Batch
Batch
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Parmname
Mr. Jared StarkContact:
EnergySolutions, LLC.
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah
February 11, 2020Report Date:
Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
HAKB
HAKB
02/03/20 08:03
01/29/20 12:49
01/29/20 12:49
01/28/20 12:08
QC
0.153
0.535
0.0561
21.5
2.44
20.5
0.137
0.313
0.0827
10.3
0.317
5.67
NOM Sample
0.136
0.228
0.0370
13.6
0.153
6.39
Range
N/A
N/A
N/A
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(0%-20%)
N/A
(0%-20%)
Qual
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
QC1204484438 502174001
QC1204484439
QC1204484437
QC1204484442 502174001
N/A
N/A
N/A
27.6
N/A
11.9
REC%
10319.9
DUP
LCS
MB
DUP
502174Workorder:
U
U
U
U
+/-0.366
+/-0.430
+/-0.252
+/-2.09
+/-0.351
+/-1.43
+/-0.354
+/-0.504
+/-0.242
+/-2.30
+/-0.822
+/-2.24
+/-0.409
+/-0.424
+/-0.311
+/-2.14
+/-0.560
+/-1.59
*
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Page 1 of 5
Page 80 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Alpha Spec
Rad Gamma Spec
1962983
1962483
Batch
Batch
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Potassium-40
Americium-241
Cesium-137
Cobalt-60
Potassium-40
Potassium-40
Parmname Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
HAKB
RYH1
01/28/20 12:08
01/28/20 12:08
01/26/20 06:20
01/26/20 07:18
01/25/20 17:17
QC
26.2
2.09
28.3
0.163
-0.0206
-0.0833
561
1.20E+05
40300
28200
300
4.30
NOM Sample
478
Range
(75%-125%)
(0%-20%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
Qual
U
U
U
U
U
QC1204484443
QC1204484441
QC1204483328 502174001
QC1204483329
QC1204483327
16
REC%
104
110
102
104
27.3
1.09E+05
39600
27000
LCS
MB
DUP
LCS
MB
502174Workorder:
+/-96.3
+/-4.36
+/-1.52
+/-4.55
+/-0.346
+/-0.178
+/-0.158
+/-89.9
+/-4010
+/-858
+/-855
+/-478
+/-47.9
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Page 2 of 5
Page 81 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Gas Flow
1962818
1962821
Batch
Batch
Radium-228
Radium-228
Radium-228
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Parmname Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
JXK3
JXC9
02/05/20 09:40
02/05/20 09:40
02/05/20 09:40
02/05/20 19:07
02/05/20 17:10
02/05/20 19:07
02/05/20 17:10
02/05/20 17:10
QC
9.97
57.8
0.186
142
472
11700
48500
-45.6
-8.10
9470
47400
9980
46300
NOM Sample
8.14
91.5
495
91.5
495
91.5
495
Range
(0% - 100%)
(75%-125%)
N/A
(0% - 100%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(0%-20%)
(0%-20%)
Qual
U
U
U
U
QC1204484084 502174001
QC1204484085
QC1204484083
QC1204484087 502174001
QC1204484090
QC1204484086
QC1204484088 502174001
QC1204484089 502174001
20.2
N/A
4.94
5.21
2.19
REC%
98.1
93.5
108
75.6
104
79.6
102
58.9
12500
45000
12500
45000
12500
45000
DUP
LCS
MB
DUP
LCS
MB
MS
MSD
502174Workorder:
U
U
U
+/-1.80
+/-112
+/-157
+/-112
+/-157
+/-112
+/-157
+/-2.23
+/-3.86
+/-0.658
+/-150
+/-128
+/-1160
+/-1700
+/-37.8
+/-86.6
+/-1820
+/-1760
+/-1880
+/-1730
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Page 3 of 5
Page 82 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Ra-226
1962720Batch
Radium-226
Radium-226
Radium-226
Radium-226
Parmname Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
MXH8 02/10/20 12:12
02/10/20 12:43
02/10/20 13:44
02/10/20 12:12
QC
4.14
27.9
0.180
130
NOM Sample
2.71
2.71
Range
(0%-20%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
Qual
U
QC1204483827 502174001
QC1204483829
QC1204483826
QC1204483828 502174001
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
41.8
REC%
103
94.1
27.1
135
DUP
LCS
MB
MS
502174Workorder:
**
<
>
BD
FA
H
J
J
K
L
M
M
N/A
N1
ND
NJ
Q
R
U
UI
Analyte is a Tracer compound
Result is less than value reported
Result is greater than value reported
Results are either below the MDC or tracer recovery is low
Failed analysis.
Analytical holding time was exceeded
See case narrative for an explanation
Value is estimated
Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.
Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.
M if above MDC and less than LLD
REMP Result > MDC/CL and < RDL
RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
See case narrative
Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
Sample results are rejected
Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
Gamma Spectroscopy--Uncertain identification
+/-0.559
+/-0.559
+/-0.689
+/-1.72
+/-0.167
+/-9.77
*
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Notes:
Counting Uncertainty is calculated at the 95% confidence level (1.96-sigma).
Page 4 of 5
Page 83 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Parmname
Page 5 of 5
Units Anlst Date TimeQCNOMSampleRangeQualREC%
502174Workorder:
UJ
UL
X
Y
^
h
Gamma Spectroscopy--Uncertain identification
Not considered detected. The associated number is the reported concentration, which may be inaccurate due to a low bias.
Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Other specific qualifiers were required to properly define the results. Consult case narrative.
RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
^ The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
RPD%
Page 84 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page E-1 Appendix E April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX E

REVISED HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT

WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CLIVE, UTAH

REVISED YDROGEOLOGIC EPORT
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
CLIVE, UTAH
VERSION 4.0

JANUARY 15, 2019
Table of Contents
i
Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Previous Studies 1
3. Site Description 2
4. Geology 3
5. Hydrogeology 4
5.1 Regional Hydrgeology 4
5.2 Site Hydrogeology 4
5.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units 4
5.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity 6
5.2.3 Methods of Performing Fresh Water Equivalent Head Adjustments 7
5.2.4 Horizontal Groundwater Flow 7
5.2.4.1 Shallow Aquifer 7
5.2.4.2 Deep Aquifer 11
5.2.5 Vertical Groundwater Flow 11
5.2.6 Deeper Hydrostratigraphic Units 12
5.2.7 Groundwater Chemistry 12
6. Summary and Conclusions 14
15
Section
ii
List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Monitoring Well, Borehole and Lysimeter Information
Table 2: Hydrostratigraphic Unit Contact Elevation and Unit Thickness
Table 3: Site-Wide Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
Table 4: Summary of Groundwater Elevations
Table 5: Summary of Horizontal Gradients and Velocities
Table 6: Summary of Vertical Gradients and Velocities
Table 7: Summary of Groundwater Total Dissolve Solids

List of Figures

Figure 1: Clive Facility Features and Topographical Map
Figure 2: Monitoring Well, Piezometer, Borehole and Lysimeter Locations
Figure 3: Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4: Unit 4 Clay Isopach Map
Figure 5: Top of Unit 2 Clay Structural Contour Map
Figure 6: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section Location Map
Figure 7: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A’
Figure 8: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section B-B’
Figure 9: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section C-C’
Figure 10: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section D-D’
Figure 11: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section E-E’
Figure 12: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section F-F’
Figure 13: Hydrogeologic Cross-Section G-G’
Figure 14: Shallow Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity Contour Map
Figure 15: 2018 Fourth Quarter Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations
Figure 16: Comparison 2018 Fourth Quarter to December 2011 Shallow Aquifer
Groundwater Elevations
Figure 17: 2018 Fourth Quarter Deep Aquifer Groundwater Elevations
Figure 18: Total Dissolved Solids Iso-Concentration Map

Appendix
Appendix A: Monitoring well, Piezometer, and Borehole Logs and Completion
Diagrams (electronic)
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
1
1. Introduction
EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) operates a commercial landfill near Clive, Utah to dispose of Class A Radioactive Waste (Class A), 11e.(2) waste (uranium mill tailings),
and mixed radioactive and hazardous waste (Mixed Waste).
The purpose of this report is to provide hydrogeologic information relevant to the
renewal of EnergySolutions’ Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW450005
(GWQDP) issued by the State of Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and administered by the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC).
No new geologic data have been collected at the Clive Facility since submittal of the
previous Revised Hydrogeological Report (CD13-0336, December 2, 2013). As such,
this revised report combines updated hydrogeologic and groundwater chemistry information with the known geology and stratigraphy from previous studies to evaluate
current hydrogeologic conditions at the facility.
2. Previous Studies
A number of hydrogeologic studies have been conducted for the facility. The following is a summary of major documents supporting the preparation of this report, which have
been previously submitted to regulatory agencies. Additional references are provided in
Section 7.
1991 - Hydrogeologic Report (Bingham Environmental): Initial hydrogeologic report for the GWQDP.
1993 - As-Built for Suction Lysimeters and Soil Resistivity Instruments (Bingham
Environmental): In situ moisture content, bulk density, grain size analysis,
laboratory hydraulic conductivity, and soil pore fluid analyses.
1993 - Laboratory Analysis and Soil Hydraulic Properties of TP-1-4B and TP-2-4W Soil Samples (D.B. Stephens): Moisture content, bulk density, porosity, and
hydraulic conductivity.
1995 - Additional Information: Suction Lysimeters and Soil Resistivity Instruments
(Bingham Environmental): In situ moisture content, bulk density, grain size
analysis, laboratory hydraulic conductivity, soil pore fluid analyses, and as-built installation diagrams.
1996 - Revised Hydrogeologic Report (Bingham Environmental): Hydrogeologic
information and interpretation.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
2
1997 - Final Slug Test Results, Envirocare of Utah South Clive Facility, Tooele
County, Utah (Adrian Brown Consultants): Hydraulic conductivity
measurements, methodology, and results.
1999 - Compilation and Analysis of Envirocare Groundwater Quality Data (Mayo and Associates): Time-series plots, contour maps, well logs, and statistical
analyses of data from compliance monitoring wells.
1999 - Final Report for Slug Withdrawal Testing at Envirocare’s Clive, Utah Facility,
(EarthFax): Hydraulic conductivity measurements from bail tests.
1999 - Differential Leveling Survey for Envirocare of Utah, (Pentacore Resources): Well head elevation survey.
2000 - Revised Hydrogeologic Report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility
Clive, Utah (Pentacore Resources): Hydrogeologic information and
interpretation.
2004 - Revised Hydrogeologic Report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility Clive, Utah, Version 2.0 (Envirocare of Utah, Inc.): Hydrogeologic
information and interpretation.
2013 - Revised Hydrogeologic Report for the EnergySolutions Waste Disposal
Facility Clive, Utah, Version 3.1 (EnergySolutions): Hydrogeologic
information and interpretation.
In addition, other reports and technical memoranda have been prepared for the Clive,
Utah facility. These documents include quarterly, semiannual, and annual groundwater
monitoring reports, and regional geologic and hydrogeologic studies.
3. Site Description
The EnergySolutions facility is sited in Section 32, T1S, R11W Salt Lake Base and
Meridian near Clive, Utah, approximately 80 miles west of Salt Lake City.
EnergySolutions began waste disposal activities at the facility in 1988. At present, waste
is placed in one of three disposal embankments: Class A West, Mixed Waste, or 11e.(2). A fourth embankment, the LARW embankment, located between the Mixed Waste and
11e.(2) embankments, was closed in October 2005. On November 26, 2012, the Utah
Division of Radiation Control (DRC) approved an amendment to EnergySolutions’
Radioactive Material License UT 2300249 to combine the Class A and Class A North
embankments into the Class A West embankment. In the north-central part of the facility, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has disposed of the Vitro uranium mill
tailings. This area is owned and monitored by the DOE.
The facility is one square mile in size, encompassing all of Section 32 (less the DOE-
owned Vitro property, which is approximately 100 acres). Figure 1 shows the disposal
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
3
cells and major man-made and topographic features at the facility. The facility is located
at an average elevation of approximately 4,270 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The
natural topography slopes slightly toward the southwest with approximately 10 feet of
relief from the northeast corner of the section to the southwest corner of the section. The area is semi-arid, with an average precipitation of 8.43 inches per year and average pan
evaporation of 53.3 inches per year (based on on-site data collected from 1993 to 2017;
MSI, 2018).
The locations of monitoring wells, boreholes, piezometers, and lysimeters are shown on
Figure 2, and a data summary for these installations is presented as Table 1. Table 1 includes information on location, completion depth, well abandonment, and hydraulic
tests. Since the submittal of the previous Revised Hydrogeological Report (CD13-0336,
December 2, 2013), six monitoring wells have been abandoned to facilitate construction
of the Class A West embankment. The abandoned wells are GW-81 through GW-86
(Table 1). No new wells have been installed at the Clive Facility since the submittal of the previous Revised Hydrogeological Report.
4. Geology
The facility is located in the eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert, part of the Basin and Range Province. This province is characterized by north-south trending
mountain ranges with discontinuous alluvium-filled valleys found between the ranges.
The mountains are composed of mainly Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks, but can also be
composed of volcanic rocks. Metamorphic rocks do not outcrop in the vicinity of the
facility, with the closest occurring in the Granite Peak area, approximately 40 miles south of Clive. The intermountain troughs are filled primarily with unconsolidated alluvial,
lacustrine, fluvial, and evaporite deposits; but pyroclastics, aeolian sediments, and basalt
flows also occur (Bingham Environmental, 1996; Dames & Moore, 1982 and 1987; and
Stephens, 1974). Sediments near the mountains are predominately colluvial and alluvial,
and are generally coarser grained than the lacustrine deposits found in the center of the valleys.
A geologic map of Section 32 and adjacent sections is presented as Figure 3, based on
information in Solomon (1993). Figure 3 also shows major man-made features in the
area that may affect groundwater recharge. The facility is situated on Quaternary-age
lacustrine lake bed deposits associated with the former Lake Bonneville. These surficial lacustrine deposits are generally comprised of low-permeability silty clay. Surficial sand
and gravel outcrops are mapped in the sections adjacent to the facility.
Beneath the facility, the sediments consist predominantly of interbedded silt, sand, and
clay with occasional gravel lenses. The depth of the valley fill beneath the facility is
unknown; estimates range from 250 to 3,000 feet below ground surface (bgs). The deepest borehole within Section 32 (well SC-1) was drilled to a depth of 250 feet bgs
without encountering bedrock. An exploratory borehole for a potential water-supply well
on Section 29 north of the EnergySolutions facility did not encounter bedrock at a depth
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
4
of 620 feet bgs (Shrum, 1999). Black et al. (1999) states that up to 3,000 feet of basin
fill sediment are present in the Ripple Valley (the basin immediately north of Interstate-
80, east of the Grayback Hills).
The Grayback Hills are located approximately four miles north of the facility and are outcrops of extrusive igneous and sedimentary rocks. Igneous extrusive rocks
(trachyandesite lava flows) form a resistant cap on the Grayback Hills, and volcaniclastic
rocks are mapped in the area. The lava flows and volcaniclastics have been dated as
latest Eocene to earliest Oligocene (38-35 million years before present). Exposed
sedimentary rocks in the Grayback Hills are Permian and Triassic Grandeur, Murdock Mountain, Gerster, Dinwoody, and Thaynes Formations consisting of predominantly
carbonate units (Doelling et al., 1994). Lake Bonneville cycle lakes have inundated and
modified the outcropping rocks of the Grayback Hills. Lacustrine deposits are present,
including sands and gravels associated with bars, splits, and beaches. Petrographic
examination of gravel from the Grayback Hills determined the gravel is composed almost entirely of acidic to intermediate volcanic rock. Rock types were identified as
trachyandesite, dacite/andesite with a scoriaceous texture, pyroclastic, rhyolite, and a
small volume of limestone. Many of the gravel particles are partially or completely
coated in caliche (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 2012).
A more complete description of the regional geology is given in the Bingham Environmental Inc. (1996) Report.
5. Hydrogeology
5.1 Regional hydrogeology
Groundwater recharge to alluvium-filled valleys in the Basin and Range Province occurs primarily through the alluvial fan deposits along the flanks of the adjoining mountains. Because of the low precipitation and high evapotranspiration, direct infiltration of water
into shallow aquifers in the valley floors is negligible. The regional groundwater flow
direction is toward the Great Salt Lake to the east-northeast.
As the groundwater flows through the valleys, the salinity of the water increases due to dissolution of evaporite deposits, and in shallow aquifers, by concentration of salts due to evapotranspiration. The exploratory borehole drilled to a depth of 620 feet to support a
potential water-supply well on Section 29 did not encounter fresh water (Shrum, 1999).
The borehole was not completed as a well.
5.2 Site hydrogeology
5.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic units
Four hydrostratigraphic units are defined beneath the EnergySolutions facility based on depth bgs, presence/absence of groundwater, and stratigraphy. The units are the
following:
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
5
Unit 4: This uppermost unit is comprised of silt and clay. Unit 4 extends from the
ground surface to a depth of 6 to 16.5 feet bgs, averaging approximately 10 feet in
thickness. Unit 4 is unsaturated beneath the facility. An isopach map showing the
thickness of Unit 4 is presented as Figure 4. Much of the variability of this unit shown in this figure is related to uncertainty in the original ground surface due to
construction activities (cut and fill). Material from Unit 4 is used as the liner and
radon barrier for waste disposal cells at the facility. Unit 4 is composed primarily
of units logged in the field as CL (inorganic clay) and ML (inorganic silt)
according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Unit 3: Unit 3 underlies Unit 4, and is composed predominantly of silty sand with
interbedded silt and clay layers. Unit 3 ranges from 7 to 25 feet in thickness,
averaging approximately 15 feet. The lower portion of Unit 3 is saturated beneath
much of the western portion of the facility. The unconfined water-bearing zone
occurring in Unit 3 (and the upper part of Unit 2) has been designated as the “shallow aquifer.” Unit 3 consists predominantly of units logged in the field as
SM (silty sand), with some SP (poorly graded sand) and SC (clayey sand).
Interbeds of CL and ML may be present.
Unit 2: Unit 2 underlies Unit 3, and is typically composed of clay with occasional
silty sand interbeds. Unit 2 ranges in thickness from 9 to 22 feet, averaging 15 feet. A structure contour map of the top of Unit 2 is shown as Figure 5. The upper
part of Unit 2 is saturated beneath the facility, and along with the lower part of
Unit 3, comprises the shallow aquifer. On the eastern side of the facility the water
table of the shallow aquifer occurs in Unit 2, and Unit 3 is unsaturated. Unit 2 is
composed primarily of units logged in the field as CL and ML. Interbeds logged as sand may occur. The top of Unit 2 is typically defined as the first occurrence of vertically continuous CL and/or ML beneath Unit 3.
Unit 1: The deepest hydrostratigraphic unit identified beneath the facility, Unit 1
typically consists of silty sand interbedded with clay and silt layers. Few borings
penetrate this unit, and the thickness has not been determined. Unit 1 is saturated beneath the facility, and contains a locally confined water-bearing zone,
designated as the “deep aquifer.” The top of Unit 1 is typically defined as the first
occurrence of a unit beneath Unit 2 logged as sand in the field.
Seven hydrogeologic cross-sections were constructed for this report using stratigraphic
information from well, borehole, piezometer, and lysimeter soil classification logs. The locations of these cross-sections are shown on Figure 6. The cross-sections are presented
as Figures 7 through 13. Logs and completion diagrams for all monitor wells, and
boreholes at the facility are included in electronic format as Appendix A. As stated
above no additional borings or wells have been completed since submittal of the previous Revised Hydrogeological Report.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
6
The stratigraphic contact elevation and unit thickness data used to construct the Unit 4
isopach map, Unit 2 structure contour map, and the hydrogeologic cross-sections are
shown in Table 2.
Where several monitoring wells, boreholes, or lysimeters are located within a small area, a single log was selected to represent all logs in the immediate vicinity. The
representative log was chosen based on log detail, quality, and total depth. Logs not
included on the cross-sections, Unit 4 isopach map, or Unit 2 structure contour map are
referenced to representative logs in Table 2.
On Figures 7 through 13 (cross-sections B-B’ through G-G’), the saline groundwater phreatic surface elevation is shown.
The cross-sections and Unit 2 structure contour map indicate that the stratigraphic
contacts generally dip gently toward the west. There is little variation in the thickness of
the units beneath the facility, and also there are no evident lateral trends in the attitude or
thickness of the units. What variability in thickness occurs is more likely due to inconsistencies and uncertainties in soil classification during borehole logging, rather
than to actual changes in thickness. Soil descriptions in many of the older boreholes were
performed at 5-foot intervals, in contrast to more recent boreholes which were
continuously cored.
The stratigraphy and structure presented in this report are consistent with interpretations presented in previous the hydrogeologic reports (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and
1996; Pentacore, 2000; Envirocare, 2004; EnergySolutions, 2013).
5.2.2. Hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic tests were conducted on 117 wells completed in the shallow aquifer (Adrian
Brown Consultants, 1997; EarthFax, 1999, 2006, 2007, and 2009) and one well completed in the deep aquifer (EarthFax, 2009). These tests were performed by bailing a
known volume of water from the well and monitoring groundwater level recovery. In the
shallow aquifer, hydraulic conductivity values estimated from these tests ranged from
0.01 to 18 ft/day (2.23E-06 to 6.29E-03 cm/sec), with an arithmetic mean of 3.20 ft/day
(1.13E-03 cm/sec). Table 3 summarizes these data. The data shown represent the average hydraulic conductivity value for all tests on a given well since 1997.
The spatial distribution of log-transformed hydraulic conductivity is shown in Figure 14.
Areas of relatively higher hydraulic conductivity (greater than 10-3.00 cm/sec) are present
in the northwest quarter of Section 32 and along the south-central edge of Section 32.
Relatively lower conductivities (less than 10-3.75 cm/sec) are observed in western half of the 11.e(2) footprint and in the wells associated with the 1995 and 1997 evaporation
ponds. In contrast to spatial trends in data, there are areas where hydraulic conductivity
varies by an order of magnitude or more over a short distance (see GW-27 vs. GW-95,
GW-27 vs. GW-99, GW-134 vs. GW-133, GW-134 vs. GW-135, GW-26 vs. GW-94, and
GW-92 vs. GW-93).
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
7
The vertical hydraulic conductivity of Hydrostratigraphic Unit 1 was measured in the
laboratory using soil core samples collected during the installation of deep well GW-
139D (EnergySolutions, 2010a). The samples were obtained from 43 to 60 feet bgs in
Unit 1. Vertical conductivities ranged from 6.2E-05 to 4.5E-03 ft/day (2.2E-08 to 1.6E-06 cm/sec), with an arithmetic mean of 8.2E-04 ft/day (2.9E-07 cm/sec) and
geometric mean of 2.2E-04 ft/day (7.8E-08 cm/sec). On average, the vertical hydraulic
conductivity of Unit 1 at the GW-139D location is more than three orders of magnitude
lower than the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the shallow aquifer.
In general, field-test hydraulic conductivity measurements included in this report should not be compared to values given in earlier hydrogeologic reports due to changes in
hydraulic testing methodology. Prior to 1997, hydraulic tests were performed by
inducing a rise in water levels in the test wells (slug-in tests). Corrections for the
resulting increase in saturated thickness of the aquifer were not made and the tests were
redone.
5.2.3. Methods of performing fresh water equivalent head adjustments
EnergySolutions adjusts groundwater elevations measured in the field to account for
differences in salinity between monitor wells. This methodology involves calculating a
fresh water equivalent head elevation for each well, which is then used to determine
horizontal groundwater flow directions and velocity, to calculate horizontal hydraulic gradients, and to calculate vertical hydraulic gradients at well pairs.
5.2.4. Horizontal Groundwater Flow
5.2.4.1 Shallow aquifer
Groundwater in the shallow aquifer beneath the facility flows generally toward the
northeast. An unadjusted saline and fresh water equivalent head surface elevation contour map for the shallow aquifer using data from fourth quarter 2018 is presented as
Figure 15. Groundwater elevation data used to construct these maps are presented in
Table 4. At the EnergySolutions facility, the differences between the elevation of the
unadjusted saline water phreatic surface elevation and the calculated fresh water
equivalent head elevation at the midpoints of the saturated filter packs are relatively minor, averaging 0.16 feet. Similarly, groundwater flow directions and gradients as seen
on the elevation contour maps are essentially identical, comparing saline to fresh water
equivalent contours.
Table 5 shows that fresh water equivalent horizontal groundwater gradients in the
shallow aquifer range from 1.89E-05 to 5.39E-03 ft/ft, and the site-wide average gradient is 8.92E-04 ft/ft using data from fourth quarter 2018. These horizontal gradients are very
similar to those reported in the previous Revised Hydrogeological Report using water-
level data collected in December 2011. The average linear velocity of horizontal
groundwater flow was calculated by multiplying the gradient by the hydraulic
conductivity and dividing by the effective porosity. Hydraulic conductivity values are
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
8
presented in Table 3. The effective porosity was assumed to be 0.29, the value used in
previous disposal cell infiltration and transport modeling (Whetstone Associates 2011
and 2012). In order to illustrate the effect of gradient on groundwater flow velocity at the
facility, horizontal velocity was calculated and presented in Table 5 for the average gradients using the site-wide geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 5.96E-04 cm/sec
(1.69 ft/day). Velocities ranged from 3.65E-03 to 9.32E-03 ft/day. If the site-wide
geometric mean hydraulic conductivity is replaced with the site-wide arithmetic mean
hydraulic conductivity of 1.13E-03 cm/sec (3.20 ft/day), the horizontal velocity ranges
from 6.90E-03 to 1.76E-02 ft/day (Table 5). These horizontal velocities are slightly higher than those reported in the previous Revised Hydrogeological Report for all
embankments except the Mixed Waste embankment, reflecting a slightly higher average
horizontal gradient at all embankments except for the Mixed Waste embankment.
Detailed information on groundwater elevation and gradient are provided to DWMRC in
annual groundwater monitoring reports.
Velocity estimates using the fresh water equivalent elevations to determine hydraulic
gradients are essentially identical to those estimated using the unadjusted saline water
elevations, and they are well within the anticipated range of variability due to
uncertainties in porosity and hydraulic conductivity, especially considering the
heterogeneous nature of the sediments beneath the facility.
The general flow direction of groundwater in the shallow aquifer is N45oE to N55oE
beneath most of the northern half and the southeastern quarter of the Clive facility.
Mounding (discussed below) has influenced the direction of flow in the shallow aquifer
primarily in the southwestern quarter of the facility. Flow direction varies from the
general northeast direction to more northerly, and in some locations, flows are locally to the northwest (Figure 15).
Localized Recharge and Mounding in the Shallow Aquifer
In three areas, localized recharge of non-contact surface water has impacted groundwater
elevations, gradients, and flow directions in the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of the
source of recharge. Each area is summarized below.
11e.(2) Area – From March 1993 to spring 1997, a borrow pit was excavated within the
footprint of the 11e.(2) cell to provide low permeability clay for adjacent disposal cell
construction (Pentacore, 2000). The pit occasionally filled with rain water and infiltration
from the pit resulted in a groundwater mound near wells GW-37 and GW-38, based on
observed water levels in those wells. Beginning earlier, around 1991, the area also received runoff from the Vitro embankment. A temporary diversion ditch was
constructed to route Vitro runoff west between the 11e.(2) embankment and (what is
now) the Class A embankment and then south along the Tooele County road to the
southwest pond. In 2001, Vitro runoff was re-routed to the present configuration: south
along the east side of the 11e.(2) embankment and then west to the southwest pond.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
9
The groundwater mound reached its greatest height in the mid to late 1990s and has
dissipated since that time. Although attenuated, the impact of the mound on shallow
groundwater flow is still observed in the southwest and west portions of the facility
where flow is more northerly and the gradient is steeper than average. Figure 16 compares fresh water equivalent head surface elevations for fourth quarter 2018 to data
used in the previous Revised Hydrogeological Report (collected in December 2011).
Recent groundwater elevations in the 11e.(2) area are approximately 0.5 to 1.0 feet higher
than those measured in December 2011. EnergySolutions attributes this observation to
above-average precipitation in 2015 and 2016 (MSI, 2018).
Southwest Pond Area – The southwest pond was constructed in late 1997 to receive
non-contact surface water runoff from Section 32. Following periods of elevated
precipitation, typically in the spring, the pond has overflowed (by design) into Section 6.
The pond reportedly leaked in 2004 (EnergySolutions, 2009); however, the leak was
subsequently repaired.
Groundwater recharge and mounding from overflow/leakage associated with the pond
have been observed in well GW-19A and piezometer PZ-1. In response to recharge
events, groundwater elevation increases as high as 4 to 9 feet above static have been
observed at GW-19A since 1997. The peak elevations dissipate relatively quickly; as of
fourth quarter 2018, the groundwater elevation of GW-19A was approximately 2 to 3 feet above the static level. The influence of the mounding has also been observed in
surrounding wells GW-36, GW-58, and GW-63.
Since November 2009, in accordance with CD10-0015 (EnergySolutions, 2010b), to
reduce the potential downward vertical hydraulic gradient at the GW-19A/19B well pair,
EnergySolutions has extracted groundwater from the southwest pond area mound. As of December 2018, 1.2 million gallons of groundwater had been extracted from the shallow
aquifer and returned to the Southwest Corner Pond. The GW-19A/19B well pair is
hydrologically upgradient of the Clive facility.
Operation of the Southwest Corner Pond was added to the Best Available Technology
(BAT) performance monitoring program on September 8, 2014. The primary performance element is maintenance of the pond freeboard to a level below the spillway
by pumping water from the pond onto the ground in Section 5. After four years of
implementation, EnergySolutions suspects that increases in the groundwater level at GW-
63 may be related to this practice. The BAT requirement is shifting the area of non-
contact surface water infiltration from the Southwest Corner Pond spillway area (Section 6) to the northwest part of Section 5.
GW-29, GW-60, and GW-63 – Beginning in late 2001, non-contact surface water runoff
from the embankments in Section 32 was redirected to flow south under the access road
on the south edge of Section 32 and then west to the southwest pond in a ditch paralleling
the access road. This is the current configuration for drainage of non-contact runoff from Section 32.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
10
As discussed below, infiltration of surface water has occurred in the vicinity of three
wells, GW-29, GW-60 and GW-63, since drainage was redirected.
• GW-29 – In April 2006, a groundwater mound formed near well GW-29 in response to infiltration of surface water in an area where the LARW embankment drainage joined the 11e.(2) ditch. The culvert between LARW and 11e.(2) was replaced in
May 2006, and the groundwater elevation at GW-29 rapidly decreased for the next
several months. Since that time, the elevation at GW-29 has increased seasonally at
times in response to the presence of water in the nearby ditch. The water level dissipates relatively rapidly during the summer, and it is a localized effect, as a long-term groundwater mound is not observed.
• GW-60 – Well GW-60 is located adjacent to the south ditch and is also near a lift
station constructed in late summer 2009. Water elevations at GW-60 have fluctuated from 2003 to present due to localized recharge associated with the drainage system. Elevations have increased rapidly following large precipitation events. Peak
elevations of 3 to 9 feet above static have been observed. Water elevations at GW-60
also decrease rapidly. Since construction of the lift station, EnergySolutions has
actively removed water collecting in the station to prevent infiltration.
• GW-63 – Well GW-63 is located adjacent to the south ditch, approximately half way from the lift station to the Southwest Corner Pond. Water elevations at GW-63
increased beginning in early 2004 presumably due to localized recharge associated
with the south ditch. Unlike well GW-60, changes in groundwater levels at GW-63
are more muted. As discussed above, pumping non-contact surface water from the Southwest Corner Pond onto the ground in Section 5 may impact the groundwater
level at Well GW-63.
Surface water recharge of the shallow aquifer in the area of wells GW-29 and GW-60 has
contributed to northerly and westerly groundwater flow and higher gradients in the
immediate vicinity of the wells. Based on rapid water elevation changes in GW-29 and GW-60 and muted elevation increases in adjacent wells, the volume of water contributing
to the mounding is suspected of being substantially less relative to the southwest pond
area mound and the older 11e.(2) area mound. Similar recharge from the south ditch may
be occurring in the vicinity of well GW-63; however, mounding at GW-63 may also be
related to surface water recharge from the Southwest Corner Pond, including pumping water onto the ground surface in Section 5.
With the exception of some temporal changes associated with localized areas discussed
above, groundwater flow direction, gradient, and velocity are comparable to those
presented in earlier hydrogeologic reports (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and 1996;
Pentacore, 2000; Envirocare, 2004; EnergySolutions, 2013). With the exceptions discussed above, there are no evident time-related trends in groundwater flow in the
shallow aquifer. Observed mounding has not changed significantly since reported in the
previous Revised Hydrogeological Report.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
11
5.2.4.2 Deep aquifer
Using data from fourth quarter 2018 (Table 4), an unadjusted saline and fresh water
equivalent head elevation contour map for the deep aquifer is presented as Figure 17.
Differences between the saline and fresh water equivalent contours reflect the conversion using specific gravity measurements. Comparison of the contours illustrates the
sensitivity of fresh water equivalent elevations to specific gravity measurement.
Similar to the shallow aquifer, groundwater flow in the deep aquifer is toward the
northeast (Figure 17). The average fresh water equivalent deep-aquifer horizontal
hydraulic gradient is 2.56E-04 ft/ft for fourth quarter 2018 (Table 5). Corresponding average linear velocity estimates for horizontal flow in the deep aquifer range from
7.99E-04 to 2.82E-03 ft/day, which are similar but slightly slower than estimates for the
shallow aquifer (Table 5).
Groundwater flow direction, gradient, and velocity for the deep aquifer are generally
comparable to those presented in earlier hydrogeologic reports (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and 1996; Pentacore, 2000; Envirocare, 2004; EnergySolutions, 2013). There are
no evident time-related trends in groundwater flow in the deep aquifer.
5.2.5. Vertical Groundwater Flow
Vertical groundwater gradient and velocity were estimated by comparing the potential
head between monitor wells completed in the shallow and deep aquifers at the midpoint of the saturated filter packs. The vertical hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be
8.2E-04 ft/day (2.9E-07 cm/sec), the arithmetic mean of data presented in Section 5.2.2.
The porosity was assumed to be 0.29, the value used in previous disposal cell infiltration
and transport modeling (Whetstone Associates 2011 and 2012). Vertical hydraulic
gradient and velocity calculations for fourth quarter 2018 are shown in Table 6. A downward vertical gradient is calculated for well pairs GW-19A/19B and GW-27/27D,
the result of mounding in the shallow aquifer discussed in Section 5.2.4.1. An upward
gradient is calculated for the other well pairs: I-1-30/100, I-3-30/100, and GW-139/139D.
Estimated vertical velocities are very low: ranging from 3.70E-05 ft/day upward to
1.23E-04 ft/day downward for saline data, and 4.07E-05 ft/day upward to 8.55E-05 ft/day downward for fresh water equivalent data (Table 6).
The low magnitude of the vertical gradient beneath the facility indicates that the shallow
and deep aquifers are likely subsets of a continuous aquifer system separated by low-
conductivity clay strata, and that vertical flow is not significant either upward or
downward. Except for relatively recent changes to localized areas of mounding in the shallow aquifer discussed in Section 5.2.4.1, vertical gradients and groundwater flow are
comparable to those presented in previous reports (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and
1996; Pentacore, 2000; Envirocare, 2004; EnergySolutions, 2013). There are no other
evident time-related trends in vertical groundwater gradient or velocity.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
12
5.2.6. Deeper Hydrostratigraphic Units
The hydrostratigraphy of water-bearing units below the deep aquifer has been
characterized by the installation of EnergySolutions’ water-supply well and the Section
29 exploratory borehole. The logs for both are provided in Appendix A. Although discussed elsewhere in this report, this section provides a summary of the available
information for units below the deep aquifer.
• Production Well – This well, installed in late 1969, is located approximately 3 miles
north-northwest of the Clive Facility. The driller’s log describes the stratigraphy as unconsolidated clay, sand, and gravel to a depth of 350 feet bgs. Sandstone units are listed in the log; these may be cemented sand units (similar to caliche). The borehole
did not encounter bedrock. The static groundwater level listed in the log is 53 feet
bgs. A pump test determined the well was capable of producing 600 gallons per
minute with 120 feet of drawdown after 10 hours of testing. Recent sampling indicates the water quality is saline, with a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 49,800 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Section 5.2.7).
• Section 29 Exploratory Borehole – This borehole, drilled in January 1996, was
located 500 feet north and 3,800 feet east from the southwest corner of Section 29. The driller’s log describes the stratigraphy as unconsolidated clay, sand, and gravel to a depth of 620 feet bgs. A sandstone unit is listed in the log, and as above, this may
be a cemented sand unit. The borehole did not encounter bedrock (Section 4.0). The
static water level is listed in the log as 84 feet bgs. Fresh water was not encountered
in the borehole (Section 5.1).
5.2.7. Groundwater Chemistry
Groundwater chemistry for the Clive facility is summarized in this section. More
detailed information on groundwater chemistry is presented in the Comprehensive
Groundwater Quality Evaluation Report, which was submitted to DWMRC under
separate cover.
Groundwater at the site is extremely saline. In the shallow aquifer, the TDS concentration ranges from 14,786 to 60,718 mg/L. The site-wide average of 2018 (or most recently
available) TDS data is 40,297 mg/L. Average TDS from 1991 to December 2018 for
wells completed in the shallow aquifer is included as Table 7, and the spatial distribution
is shown on Figure 18. Few TDS data are available for the deep aquifer. Mayo and Associates (1999) and Bingham Environmental (1996) indicate that the TDS of the deep aquifer is less than that of the shallow aquifer, but is greater than 20,000 mg/L. On May
13, 2015, EnergySolutions sampled deeper groundwater from its production well located
approximately 3 miles north-northwest of the Clive Facility (Section 5.2.6). The well is
perforated from 185 to 350 feet bgs. The TDS concentration of production well groundwater sample was 49,800 mg/L.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
13
Specific gravity is also an indicator of the relative salinity of groundwater samples. For
2018, in the shallow aquifer, specific gravity ranged from 1.002 to 1.048, averaging
1.030. Specific gravity in the deep aquifer is somewhat lower, and ranged from 1.002 to
1.020, with an average of 1.014 for 2018 (Table 4). The higher salinity of the shallow aquifer is likely due to: (1) concentration of salts through evapotranspiration, and/or (2)
localized dissolution of evaporate deposits in the unsaturated soil in areas of local vertical
recharge from the ground surface (such as near GW-19A in response to infiltration of
non-contact surface water).
The TDS data were used to evaluate the stability of hydrogeologic conditions at each well. The most recent result was compared to the average TDS for each well. The most
recent result differed from the average by 20 percent or more for the following wells:
GW-19A, GW-24, GW-29, GW-60, GW-63, GW-92, GW-99, and I-1-30. Most of these
wells are located in areas where focused recharge of the shallow aquifer by non-contact
surface water has occurred (Section 5.2.4.1). This would include GW-19A, GW-24, GW-29, GW-60, GW-63, and GW-92. For these wells, the most recent TDS is less than
the historical average TDS. The reason for increase in TDS at GW-99 and I-1-30 is not
known. Water elevations at these wells have been stable, and compliance parameters
have not exceeded protection levels.
TDS and specific gravity measurements are comparable to those presented in previous reports (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and 1996; Pentacore, 2000; Envirocare, 2004;
EnergySolutions, 2013) except at those monitoring wells affected by local infiltration.
Other than the wells noted above, there are no other evident lateral or time-related trends
in TDS or salinity across the facility.
Sodium and chloride dominate the major ion composition of shallow groundwater beneath the facility. On average, sodium typically constitutes up to about 90 percent of
the total cations by weight, with lesser amounts of calcium, potassium, and magnesium.
Chloride comprises approximately 86 percent of the anions; the remainder is primarily
sulfate. Carbonate and bicarbonate are negligible (Mayo and Associates, 1999). A
review of major ion data collected since the previous Revised Hydrogeologic Report revealed no significant time-related changes since 2011, including variability related to
the recharge and mounding discussed previously. There are no evident lateral or time-
related trends in major ion chemistry across the facility. The major-ion chemistry
discussion above is also applicable to deeper groundwater sampled at EnergySolutions’
production well, located approximately 3 miles north-northwest of the Clive Facility.
Bingham Environmental (1996) performed an analysis of stable and unstable isotope data
to characterize groundwater recharge sources, groundwater age, and groundwater
geochemical evolution. The evaluation indicated that groundwater in the shallow aquifer
beneath the south central, southwestern, and west central margins of the facility (wells
GW-18, GW-19A, GW-3, respectively) appears to have been subjected to excessive evaporation prior to recharge. Bingham Environmental concluded that recharge of
surface water that had been concentrated by evaporation most likely occurred at some
distance from the facility. Groundwater age dating using tritium indicated that most
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
14
groundwater beneath the facility was recharged prior to 1953. The geochemical evolution
study evaluated major ions primarily using Piper and Stiff diagrams, and found that
except for TDS, the ionic composition of the shallow and deep aquifers were comparable.
Although the deep aquifer was more dilute, the concentration ratios of major constituents were very similar in both aquifers. The study also indicated that the ionic composition of
groundwater at the facility was consistent with very slow horizontal flow rates.
Groundwater beneath the facility is classified as a Class IV saline groundwater under the
State of Utah Groundwater Quality Protection Regulations standards for TDS (exceeding
10,000 mg/L) (UAC, 2018). Naturally occurring concentrations of many dissolved constituents (e.g., arsenic, selenium, thallium, radium, and uranium) exceed U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Utah State drinking water standards (Mayo and
Associates, 1999; Bingham Environmental, 1996; EnergySolutions, 2014).
6. Summary and Conclusions
This revised Hydrogeologic Report for the Clive facility provides hydrogeologic
information relevant to the renewal of EnergySolutions’ GWQDP No. UGW450005.
This report updates the information and interpretations provided in previous
Hydrogeologic Reports, and it incorporates data collected since 2011 into the understanding of the facility hydrogeology.
Groundwater flow direction, gradient, and velocity in the shallow and deep aquifers are
generally comparable to those presented in earlier hydrogeologic reports. With the
localized exceptions discussed in this report, there are no evident spatial or time-related
trends in groundwater flow in the shallow aquifer. There are no evident spatial or time-related trends in groundwater flow in the deep aquifer.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
15
7. References
Adrian Brown Consultants, 1997. Final Slug Test Results, Envirocare of Utah South Clive Facility, Tooele County, Utah, unpublished consultants report.
Bingham Environmental Inc., 1996. Revised Hydrogeologic Report, unpublished
consultants report.
Bingham Environmental Inc., 1995. Additional Information for Suction Lysimeters and Soil Resistivity Instruments, unpublished consultants report.
Bingham Environmental Inc., 1993. As-Built for Suction Lysimeters and Soil Resistivity
Instruments, unpublished consultants report.
Bingham Environmental Inc., 1991. Hydrogeologic Report, unpublished consultants
report.
Black, B.D., B.J. Solomon, and K.M. Harty, 1999. Geology and Geologic Hazards of Tooele Valley and the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area, Tooele County, Utah;
Special Study 96, Utah Geological Survey.
Dames and Moore et al., 1987. Site Proposal for the Superconducting Supercollider,
Proposal Appendix A, Geotechnical Report, Volume 2.
Dames and Moore, 1982. Environmental Impact Statement, Remedial Action at the Former Vitro Chemical Company Millsite.
Doelling, H.H., B.J. Solomon, and S.F. Davies, 1994. Geologic Map of the Grayback
Hills Quadrangle, Tooele Co., Utah, Utah Geological Survey Map 166.
EarthFax, 2009. Report for Slug Withdrawal Testing at EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility, October 16, 2009; unpublished consultants report Submitted to UDWQ and UDSHW on October 28, 2009 (CD097-0290).
EarthFax, 2007. Report for Slug Withdrawal Testing at Envirocare’s Clive, Utah
Facility, October 1, 2007; unpublished consultants report Submitted to UDWQ on
October 8, 2007 (CD07-0332).
EarthFax, 2006. Report for Slug Withdrawal Testing at Envirocare’s Clive, Utah Facility, January 16, 2006; unpublished consultants report Submitted to UDWQ on
January 23, 2006 (CD06-0024).
EarthFax, 1999. Final Report for Slug Withdrawal Testing at Envirocare’s Clive, Utah
Facility, unpublished consultants report.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
16
EnergySolutions, 2014. Comprehensive Groundwater Quality Evaluation Report –
Waste Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah, submitted to UDRC on March 19, 2014 (CD14-
0066).
EnergySolutions, 2013. Revised Hydrogeologic Report – Waste Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah, Version 3.1, submitted to UDRC on December 2, 2013 (CD13-0336).
EnergySolutions, 2010a. Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data from Monitoring
Well GW-139D, submitted to UDRC on March 16, 2010 (CD10-0077).
EnergySolutions, 2010b. Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit Number UGW450005, Part I.I.3: Submittal of Plan and Schedule for Groundwater Mound Dewatering Near Wells GW-19A/GW-19B, submitted to UDRC on January 14, 2010 (CD10-0015).
EnergySolutions, 2009. Vertical Hydraulic Gradient Work Plan and Well Spacing
Analyses for Class A North and Mixed Waste Embankments, submitted to UDRC on
March 13, 2009 (CD09-0067).
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 2004. Revised Hydrogeologic Report, Version 2.0, August 2004, unpublished report.
Mayo and Associates, 1999. Compilation and Analysis of Envirocare Groundwater
Data, unpublished consultants report.
Meteorological Solutions, Inc. (MSI), 2018. January 2017 Through December 2017 and January 1993 Through 2017 Summary Report of Meteorological Data Collected at the EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility, February 2018, unpublished consultants report.
Pentacore Resources, 1999. Differential Leveling Survey for Envirocare of Utah,
unpublished consultants report.
Pentacore Resources, 2000. Revised Hydrogeologic Report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility Clive, Utah, unpublished consultants report.
Shrum, D., 1999. Verbal communication between Daniel B. Shrum (Envirocare of Utah)
and Robert Ferry (Pentacore Resources), September 27, 1999.
Solomon, B.J., 1993, Quaternary Geologic Maps of Tooele Valley and the West Desert
Hazardous Industry Area, Utah Geological Survey Open File Report 296.
Stephens, J.C., 1974. Hydrogeologic Reconnaissance of the Northern Great Salt Lake Desert and Summary Reconnaissance of Northwestern Utah, Utah Department of Natural
Resources Technical Publication No. 42.
Stephens, D.B., 1993. Laboratory Analysis of Soil Hydraulic Properties of TP-1-4B and
TP-2-4W Soil Samples, unpublished consultants report.
Revised Hydrogeologic Report, EnergySolutions – Version 4.0 January 15, 2019
17
Utah Administrative Code (UAC) 2018. R317-6-3. Ground Water Classes.
Whetstone Associates, Inc., 2011. EnergySolutions Class A West Disposal Cell
Infiltration and Transport Modeling Report. April 19, 2011.
Whetstone Associates, Inc., 2012. EnergySolutions LARW Disposal Cell Updated Infiltration and Transport Modeling Report. May 2012.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 2012. EnergySolutions Petrographic Studies of
Aggregate, unpublished consultants report. May 16, 2012.

Tables
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL, BOREHOLE AND LYSIMETER INFORMATIONENERGYSOLUTIONS, LLC.
T1-1
Location Type Date Installed DateAbandoned (ft)(ft)Elevation Point Elev.
GW-1 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/3/1988 (a)na 7,420,941.63 (d)1,191,843.39 (d)4,273.00 (d)4,275.06 (d)41.5 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-2 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/4/1988 (a)10/23/2000 7,422,436.62 (d)1,195,089.49 (d)4,277.90 (d)4,279.98 (d)41.5 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-3 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/2/1988 (a)na 7,423,679.66 (d)1,190,158.31 (d)4,271.00 (d)4,273.14 (d)41.5 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-4 (a)Monitoring well (a)1988 (m)8/2/2011 (n)7,422,956.04 (d)1,193,044.10 (d)4,274.30 (d)4,276.57 (d)40.0 (g)18.0 (d)40.0 (d)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)No No
GW-5 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/8/1988 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,424,387.85 (d)1,192,532.80 (d)4,276.60 (d)4,278.64 (d)41.5 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-6 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/4/1988 (a)10/23/2000 7,424,752.04 (d)1,195,169.70 (d)4,279.80 (d)4,282.01 (d)41.5 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-7 (a)Monitoring well (a)Not available prior to 1989 (a)Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available No No
GW-8 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/8/1988 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,426,080.76 (d)1,193,284.01 (d)4,280.00 (d)4,282.03 (d)41.5 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-9 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/9/1988 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,425,690.56 (d)1,192,668.61 (d)4,278.80 (d)4,281.47 (d)40.0 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-10 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/10/1988 (a)prior to 1989 (a)Not available Not available Not available Not available 40.0 (a)18.0 (a)40.0 (a)20.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-11 (a)Monitoring well (d)6/13/1990 (d)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,598.92 (d)1,193,905.19 (d)4,276.60 (d)4,280.17 (d)55.0 (g)44.0 (d)55.0 (d)45.0 (a)55.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-12 (d)Monitoring well (d)6/15/1990 (d)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,641.02 (d)1,194,094.39 (d)4,276.90 (d)4,279.95 (d)55.0 (g)42.0 (d)55.0 (d)44.0 (a)54.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-13 (d)Monitoring well (d)6/19/1990 (d)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,625.12 (d)1,194,416.59 (d)4,277.20 (d)4,280.11 (d)55.0 (g)40.0 (d)55.0 (d)45.0 (a)55.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-16 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/12/1991 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,423,012.93 (d)1,193,929.69 (d)4,277.56 (d)4,279.76 (d)41.0 (a)20.3 (d)41.0 (d)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-16R (a)Monitoring well (a)2/4/1993 (a)na 7,422,886.15 (e)1,193,930.12 (e)4,279.64 (c)4,281.12 (p)36.0 (a,h)20.0 (a)36.0 (a,h)26.0 (a)36.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-17A (a)Monitoring well (a)2/8/1991 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,423,170.34 (d)1,192,628.40 (d)4,276.53 (d)4,278.64 (d)34.5 (a)18.8 (d)34.5 (d)23.5 (a)33.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-18 (d)Monitoring well (d)2/9/1991 (d)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,420,946.23 (d)1,192,620.49 (d)4,274.30 (d)4,276.61 (d)39.2 (g)18.5 (d)39.2 (d)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-19A (a)Monitoring well (a)2/7/1991 (a)na 7,421,006.61 (e)1,189,865.77 (e)4,269.37 (c)4,270.79 (p)31.5 (a)14.8 (d)31.5 (d)18.0 (a)28.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-19B (a)Monitoring well (a)2/6/1991 (a)na 7,420,998.79 (e)1,189,865.43 (e)4,269.14 (c)4,270.69 (p)102.0 (a)75.0 (a)102.0 (a)78.5 (a)98.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
GW-20 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/2/1991 (a)na 7,421,987.90 (e)1,192,618.31 (e)4,275.29 (c)4,276.60 (p)35.0 (a)21.0 (a)35.0 (a)25.0 (a)35.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)GW-21 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/13/1991 (a)5/5/2010 7,426,126.45 (d)1,195,203.30 (d)4,280.50 (d)4,283.23 (d)44.5 (a)21.0 (a)42.0 (a)27.0 (a)42.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)GW-22 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/5/1991 (a)na 7,422,929.33 (e)1,193,464.04 (e)4,276.39 (c)4,277.25 (p)32.0 (a)19.0 (a)32.0 (a)22.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)GW-23 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/5/1991 (a)na 7,422,934.23 (e)1,193,053.95 (e)4,275.31 (c)4,276.63 (p)32.0 (a)18.0 (a)32.0 (a)22.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-24 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/3/1991 (a)na 7,422,837.38 (e)1,192,637.60 (e)4,275.50 (c)4,276.69 (p)31.8 (d)20.2 (d)31.8 (d)22.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-25 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/19/1991 (a)na 7,423,062.44 (e)1,191,654.56 (e)4,274.52 (c)4,276.24 (p)34.0 (a)22.0 (a)34.0 (a)24.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-26 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/20/1991 (a)na 7,423,075.51 (e)1,190,915.72 (e)4,272.91 (c)4,274.67 (p)30.0 (a)18.0 (a)30.0 (a)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-27 (a)Monitoring well (e)12/11/1991 (a)na 7,423,095.22 (e)1,190,080.81 (e)4,270.72 (c)4,272.43 (p)32.0 (a)18.2 (d)30.1 (d)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-27D (e)Monitoring well (a)12/29/1998 (a)na 7,423,070.55 (e)1,190,080.11 (e)4,270.88 (c)4,273.67 (p)100.0 (a)81.0 (a)100.0 (a)85.0 (a)100.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-28 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/17/1991 (a)na 7,422,151.53 (e)1,190,065.60 (e)4,269.91 (c)4,271.26 (p)30.0 (a)18.0 (a)30.0 (a)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-29 (a)Monitoring well (a)11/26/1991 (a)na 7,421,099.03 (e)1,192,603.44 (e)4,274.71 (c)4,276.32 (p)32.0 (a)19.8 (d)32.0 (d)22.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-36 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/23/1991 (a)na 7,421,641.78 (e)1,190,700.53 (e)4,270.25 (c)4,272.09 (p)30.0 (a)18.0 (a)30.0 (a)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-37 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/17/1991 (a)na 7,422,025.00 (e)1,191,257.41 (e)4,269.30 (c)4,270.88 (p)32.0 (a)17.2 (d)29.8 (d)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-38 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/24/1991 (a)June 2000 7,422,386.18 (e)1,191,826.23 (e)4,271.34 (c)4,273.42 (c)32.0 (a)18.0 (d)29.8 (d)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-38R (a)Monitoring well (a)6/13/2000 (a)na 7,422,366.42 (a)1,191,229.26 (a)4,272.52 (a)4,275.70 (p)34.0 (a)21.0 (a)34.0 (a)24.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-41 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/12/1992 (a)8/3/2011 (n)7,421,380.21 (e)1,194,864.47 (e)4,277.58 (c)4,279.48 (p)38.0 (a)18.5 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-42 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/13/1992 (a)8/3/2011 (n)7,421,519.55 (e)1,194,867.34 (e)4,278.16 (d)4,279.28 (p)36.0 (c)18.0 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-43 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/14/1992 (a)Sep. 4-5, 1997 7,421,638.00 (d)1,194,751.99 (d)4,278.20 (d)4,280.42 (d)38.0 (a)18.5 (a)36.0 (a)21.0 (a)36.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-44 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/17/1992 (a)Sep. 4-5, 1997 7,421,630.92 (d)1,194,572.99 (d)4,277.30 (d)4,279.14 (d)38.0 (a)18.0 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-45 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/18/1992 (a)5/13/2000 7,421,633.98 (e)1,194,423.48 (e)4,277.74 (c)4,279.50 (c)36.0 (a)18.5 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-46 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/25/1992 (a)5/13/2000 7,421,641.34 (e)1,194,277.77 (e)4,277.65 (c)4,279.50 (c)36.0 (a)18.0 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
GW-55 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/26/1992 (a)8/3/2011 (n)7,421,555.67 (e)1,194,061.09 (e)4,278.20 (c)4,279.95 (c)25.0 (a)18.0 (a)25.0 (a)20.0 (a)25.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-56 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/16/1992 (a)8/26/1994 (d)7,422,577.33 (d)1,194,037.19 (d)4,275.90 (d)4,278.05 (d)34.0 (a)18.6 (d)34.0 (d)24.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)No
GW-56R (a)Monitoring well (a)2/5/1993 (a)na 7,422,491.03 (e)1,193,953.77 (e)4,277.63 (c)4,279.19 (p)35.0 (a)18.0 (a)35.0 (a)25.0 (a)35.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-57 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/18/1992 (a)na 7,422,627.94 (e)1,190,073.44 (e)4,269.97 (c)4,271.88 (p)30.0 (a)17.4 (d)30.0 (d)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-58 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/19/1992 (a)na 7,421,678.41 (e)1,190,085.55 (e)4,269.65 (c)4,271.38 (p)30.0 (a)18.5 (d)30.0 (d)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)GW-60 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/2/1993 (a)na 7,420,942.07 (e)1,191,833.12 (e)4,273.03 (c)4,274.79 (p)28.0 (a)19.5 (a)28.0 (d)22.5 (a)27.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)GW-63 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/7/1993 (a)na 7,420,970.03 (e)1,190,938.09 (e)4,270.22 (c)4,272.04 (p)30.0 (a)17.5 (a)30.0 (a)20.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)GW-64 (a)Monitoring well (a)9/29/1993 (a)na 7,421,622.43 (e)1,193,905.40 (e)4,277.26 (c)4,278.96 (p)35.0 (a)22.0 (a)35.0 (a)25.0 (a)35.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-66 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/15/1994 (a)August 2005 7,421,248.10 (e)1,194,169.52 (e)4,277.51 (c)4,279.62 (c)35.0 (a)16.5 (a)35.0 (a)19.5 (a)34.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-66R (a)Monitoring well (a)9/1/2005 (a)na 7,421,240.07 (p)1,194,183.80 (p)4,278.43 (a)4,281.77 (p)40.0 (a)23.0 (a)40.0 (a)25.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (r)
GW-67 (a)Monitoring well (a)9/24/1996 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,421,682.09 (e)1,194,875.41 (e)4,278.15 (c)4,282.16 (p)39.0 (a)20.0 (a)39.0 (a)22.0 (a)37.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-67R (a)Monitoring well (a)11/14/1998 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,421,676.40 (e)1,194,881.96 (e)4,278.19 (c)4,281.49 (c)39.0 (a)27.0 (a)39.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (ij)
GW-68 (a)Monitoring well (a)9/23/1996 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,421,830.45 (e)1,194,878.83 (e)4,279.27 (c)4,282.38 (p)39.0 (a)22.0 (a)39.0 (a)24.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-68R (a)Monitoring well (a)11/14/1998 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,421,826.09 (e)1,194,885.15 (e)4,279.29 (c)4,282.25 (c)39.0 (a)22.0 (a)39.0 (a)24.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (ij)
GW-69 (a)Monitoring well (a)9/20/1996 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,421,980.71 (e)1,194,882.43 (e)4,277.99 (c)4,281.63 (p)37.5 (a)25.0 (a)37.5 (a)27.0 (a)37.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (ij)
GW-69R (a)Monitoring well (a)11/15/1998 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,421,973.55 (e)1,194,889.16 (e)4,278.69 (c)4,281.59 (c)39.0 (a)22.0 (a)39.0 (a)24.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (ij)
GW-70 (a)Monitoring well (e)9/19/1996 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,422,131.80 (e)1,194,886.53 (e)4,278.76 (c)4,282.05 (p)40.0 (a)27.0 (a)40.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-71 (a)Monitoring well (e)9/20/1996 (a)4/28/2003 7,422,240.80 (e)1,194,749.71 (a)4,278.44 (c)4,281.70 (c)40.0 (a)23.0 (a)40.0 (a)25.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-75 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/23/1997 (a)Jan. 22-23, 1998 (f)7,421,006.82 (e)1,193,911.79 (a)4,276.25 (a)4,279.01 (a)31.3 (a)18.0 (a)31.3 (a)21.3 (a)31.3 (a)Yes (a)Yes (ij)
GW-76 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/23/1997 (a)Jan. 22-23, 1998 (f)7,420,983.52 (e)1,193,284.49 (e)4,274.94 (a)4,278.01 (a)33.1 (a)20.0 (a)33.1 (a)23.1 (a)33.1 (a)Yes (a)Yes (ij)
GW-77 (a)Monitoring well (a)1/23/1998 (a)na 7,421,068.44 (e)1,193,899.00 (e)4,279.54 (c)4,282.96 (p)40.0 (a)27.0 (a)40.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
GW-78 (a)Monitoring well (a)1/23/1998 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,421,063.00 (e)1,193,284.42 (e)4,278.37 (c)4,281.41 (c)40.0 (a)26.9 (a)40.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
Total depthof boring(ft bgs)
Well/boring
log?
Hydraulic
test?of filter pack(ft bgs)of filter pack(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL, BOREHOLE AND LYSIMETER INFORMATIONENERGYSOLUTIONS, LLC.
T1-2
Location Type Date Installed DateAbandoned (ft)(ft)Elevation Point Elev.of boring(ft bgs)
Well/boring
log?
Hydraulic
test?of filter pack(ft bgs)of filter pack(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)
GW-79 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/20/1998 (a)4/28/2003 7,422,255.10 (e)1,194,478.91 (e)4,277.10 (c)4,279.85 (c)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-80 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/20/1998 (a)4/28/2003 7,422,261.87 (e)1,194,302.36 (e)4,273.58 (c)4,275.85 (c)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-81 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/14/1998 (a)11/3/2017 7,424,662.47 (e)1,190,444.48 (e)4,274.18 (c)4,276.78 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-82 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/13/1998 (a)11/3/2017 7,424,655.44 (e)1,190,775.68 (e)4,274.35 (c)4,276.81 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-83 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/13/1998 (a)11/2/2017 7,424,649.14 (e)1,191,105.08 (e)4,274.51 (c)4,276.90 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-84 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/13/1998 (a)9/11/2018 7,424,642.69 (e)1,191,437.94 (e)4,274.78 (c)4,277.29 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-85 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/10/1998 (a)9/11/2018 7,424,636.30 (e)1,191,761.35 (e)4,275.16 (c)4,277.88 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-86 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/9/1998 (a)9/11/2018 7,424,628.93 (e)1,192,157.49 (e)4,275.83 (c)4,278.15 (p)39.0 (a)21.4 (a)39.0 (a)23.4 (a)38.4 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-88 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/5/1998 (a)na 7,424,621.33 (e)1,192,545.39 (e)4,276.86 (c)4,279.58 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-89 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/15/1998 (a)na 7,424,227.56 (e)1,192,539.83 (e)4,276.85 (c)4,279.35 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-90 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/16/1998 (a)na 7,423,836.34 (e)1,192,533.79 (e)4,276.04 (c)4,278.76 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-91 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/16/1998 (a)na 7,423,441.65 (e)1,192,527.75 (e)4,276.10 (c)4,278.48 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-92 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/16/1998 (a)na 7,423,042.79 (e)1,192,520.84 (e)4,276.35 (c)4,279.05 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-93 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/6/1998 (a)na 7,423,052.61 (e)1,192,133.29 (e)4,275.02 (c)4,277.86 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-94 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/7/1998 (a)na 7,423,068.47 (e)1,191,334.22 (e)4,273.94 (c)4,276.55 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-95 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/7/1998 (a)na 7,423,083.10 (e)1,190,505.53 (e)4,271.57 (c)4,274.63 (p)29.0 (a)12.0 (a)29.0 (a)14.0 (a)29.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-96 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/8/1998 (a)7/23/1998 (f)Not available Not available Not available Not available 29.0 (a)12.0 (a)29.0 (a)14.0 (a)29.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-97 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/8/1998 (a)7/23/1998 (f)Not available Not available Not available Not available 31.0 (a)12.0 (a)30.0 (a)15.0 (a)30.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-98 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/8/1998 (a)7/23/1998 (f)Not available Not available Not available Not available 29.1 (a)12.0 (a)29.1 (a)14.1 (a)29.1 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-99 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/17/1998 (a)na 7,423,488.83 (e)1,190,087.39 (e)4,270.89 (c)4,273.71 (p)29.0 (a)12.0 (a)29.0 (a)14.0 (a)29.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)GW-100 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/17/1998 (a)na 7,423,881.98 (e)1,190,095.97 (e)4,271.27 (c)4,274.37 (p)29.0 (a)12.0 (a)29.0 (a)14.0 (a)29.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)GW-101 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/14/1998 (a)na 7,424,275.34 (e)1,190,104.24 (e)4,272.32 (c)4,275.03 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)GW-102 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/14/1998 (a)na 7,424,669.39 (e)1,190,113.09 (e)4,273.17 (c)4,275.47 (p)34.0 (a)17.0 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-103 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/3/1999 (a)na 7,420,882.14 (a)1,192,748.98 (a)4,275.29 (c)4,278.30 (p)39.0 (a)26.4 (a)39.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-104 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/3/1999 (a)na 7,420,874.33 (a)1,193,241.55 (a)4,275.42 (c)4,278.74 (p)39.0 (a)26.5 (a)39.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-105 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/2/1999 (a)na 7,420,866.20 (a)1,193,732.00 (a)4,276.23 (c)4,279.22 (p)39.0 (a)26.5 (a)39.0 (a)29.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
GW-106 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/6/2000 (a)na 7,424,978.39 (a)1,190,205.31 (a)4,273.43 (a)4,276.18 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-107 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/5/2000 (a)na 7,425,371.18 (a)1,190,222.92 (a)4,273.47 (a)4,276.26 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.8 (a)38.8 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-108 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/5/2000 (a)na 7,425,717.51 (a)1,190,239.29 (a)4,273.29 (a)4,275.96 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)24.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-109 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/4/2000 (a)na 7,425,706.20 (a)1,190,522.23 (a)4,273.90 (a)4,276.46 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-110 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/4/2000 (a)na 7,425,706.41 (a)1,190,849.75 (a)4,274.10 (a)4,276.72 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-111 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/4/2000 (a)na 7,425,681.74 (a)1,191,176.67 (a)4,274.40 (a)4,277.07 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-112 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/3/2000 (a)na 7,425,670.31 (a)1,191,511.61 (a)4,274.76 (a)4,277.40 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-113 (a)Monitoring well (a)4/3/2000 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,425,625.59 (a)1,191,919.66 (a)4,276.05 (a)4,278.80 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-114 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/31/2000 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,425,620.16 (a)1,192,069.38 (a)4,276.68 (a)4,279.19 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-115 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/31/2000 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,425,614.71 (a)1,192,219.40 (a)4,277.03 (a)4,279.87 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-116 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/30/2000 (a)8/2/2011 (n)7,425,609.27 (a)1,192,369.27 (a)4,278.06 (a)4,280.68 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-117 (a)Monitoring well (a)3/30/2000 (a)8/3/2011 (n)7,425,281.20 (a)1,192,572.86 (a)4,277.12 (a)4,279.84 (p)39.0 (a)21.5 (a)39.0 (a)23.5 (a)38.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-118 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/9/2000 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,422,188.34 (a)1,194,912.87 (a)4,281.35 (a)4,284.32 (p)44.0 (a)26.9 (a)44.0 (a)28.5 (a)43.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-119 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/8/2000 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,422,337.21 (a)1,194,921.64 (a)4,281.67 (a)4,284.81 (p)44.0 (a)27.1 (a)44.0 (a)28.5 (a)43.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-120 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/7/2000 (a)8/4/2011 (n)7,422,487.08 (a)1,194,927.38 (a)4,282.77 (a)4,285.73 (p)44.0 (a)26.1 (a)44.0 (a)28.5 (a)43.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-121 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/7/2000 (a)8/1/2011 (n)7,422,636.37 (a)1,194,934.41 (a)4,282.94 (a)4,286.14 (p)44.0 (a)26.9 (a)44.0 (a)28.5 (a)43.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-122 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/9/2000 (a)8/1/2011 (n)7,422,736.84 (a)1,194,936.90 (a)4,282.98 (a)4,286.25 (p)44.0 (a)26.0 (a)44.0 (a)28.5 (a)43.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-123 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/6/2000 (a)10/23/2000 7,422,741.22 (a)1,194,707.23 (a)4,285.71 (a)4,289.21 (a)49.0 (a)32.0 (a)49.0 (a)33.6 (a)48.6 (a)Yes (a)No (a)
GW-123R (a)Monitoring well (a)10/25/2000 (a)5/5/2010 7,422,741.22 (a)1,194,707.23 (a)4,282.68 (a)4,285.07 (p)42.5 (a)25.0 (a)42.5 (a)26.5 (a)41.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)GW-124 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/13/2000 (a)5/5/2010 7,422,756.35 (a)1,194,333.31 (a)4,275.31 (a)4,278.41 (p)39.0 (a)20.5 (a)39.0 (a)24.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)GW-125 (a)Monitoring well (a)10/24/2000 (a)8/3/2011 (n)7,424,925.07 (a)1,192,558.48 (a)4,277.39 (a)4,280.27 (p)38.5 (a)21.0 (a)38.5 (a)23.0 (a)38.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)GW-126 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/6/2002 (a)na 7,422,411.59 (a)1,192,626.95 (a)4,275.52 (a)4,279.08 (p)36.0 (a)17.5 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-127 (a)Monitoring well (a)12/6/2002 (a)na 7,421,541.70 (a)1,192,608.25 (a)4,274.95 (a)4,278.36 (p)36.0 (a)17.5 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (a)
GW-128 (a)Monitoring well (a)11/29/2005 (a)na 7,422,055.98 (p)1,193,916.21 (p)4,279.33 (a)4,282.62 (p)40.0 (a)22.2 (a)40.0 (a)25.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (t)
GW-129 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/27/2007 (a)na 7,426,189.84 (p)1,190,375.22 (p)4,280.70 (a)4,283.55 (p)44.0 (a)27.0 (a)44.0 (a)29.0 (a)44.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (u)
GW-130 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/6/2009 (o)na 7,422,901.29 (p)1,194,288.62 (p)4,278.06 (o)4,281.15 (p)39.6 (a)20.4 (a)39.6 (a)24.1 (a)39.1 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-131 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/18/2009 (o)na 7,422,907.56 (p)1,194,613.84 (p)4,278.56 (o)4,281.74 (p)39.9 (a)20.5 (a)39.9 (a)24.4 (a)39.4 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-132 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/18/2009 (o)na 7,422,912.32 (p)1,194,936.95 (p)4,279.59 (o)4,282.95 (p)40.0 (a)21.9 (a)40.0 (a)24.5 (a)39.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-133 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/12/2009 (o)na 7,422,569.78 (p)1,194,942.96 (p)4,280.87 (o)4,283.54 (p)40.0 (a)21.6 (a)40.0 (a)24.5 (a)39.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-134 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/12/2009 (o)na 7,422,238.19 (p)1,194,938.81 (p)4,282.62 (o)4,285.28 (p)42.2 (a)23.9 (a)42.2 (a)26.7 (a)41.7 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-135 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/11/2009 (o)na 7,421,904.87 (p)1,194,936.08 (p)4,281.32 (o)4,284.26 (p)42.0 (a)24.4 (a)42.0 (a)26.5 (a)41.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-136 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/11/2009 (o)na 7,421,583.20 (p)1,194,929.98 (p)4,280.89 (o)4,283.79 (p)42.0 (a)21.8 (a)42.0 (a)26.5 (a)41.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-137 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/29/2009 (o)na 7,425,698.91 (p)1,191,789.80 (p)4,274.95 (o)4,278.43 (p)36.0 (a)18.2 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-138 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/28/2009 (o)na 7,425,695.21 (p)1,192,096.34 (p)4,276.72 (o)4,279.42 (p)40.0 (a)22.1 (a)40.0 (a)24.0 (a)39.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-139 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/29/2009 (o)na 7,425,689.53 (p)1,192,429.66 (p)4,280.08 (o)4,282.92 (p)39.2 (a)21.0 (a)39.2 (a)23.7 (a)38.7 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-139D (a)Monitoring well (a)8/5/2009 (o)na 7,425,700.36 (p)1,192,431.71 (p)4,280.00 (o)4,283.14 (p)96.0 (a)75.9 (a)96.0 (a)80.5 (a)95.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL, BOREHOLE AND LYSIMETER INFORMATIONENERGYSOLUTIONS, LLC.
T1-3
Location Type Date Installed DateAbandoned (ft)(ft)Elevation Point Elev.of boring(ft bgs)
Well/boring
log?
Hydraulic
test?of filter pack(ft bgs)of filter pack(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)
GW-140 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/10/2009 (o)na 7,425,362.15 (p)1,192,424.28 (p)4,278.00 (o)4,280.88 (p)39.9 (a)21.6 (a)39.9 (a)24.4 (a)39.4 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
GW-141 (a)Monitoring well (a)7/31/2009 (o)na 7,425,032.89 (p)1,192,420.84 (p)4,277.09 (o)4,280.19 (p)36.0 (a)18.0 (a)36.0 (a)20.5 (a)35.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)
I-1-30 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/10/1990 (a)na 7,420,900.04 (e)1,194,197.40 (e)4,277.29 (c)4,279.45 (p)35.0 (a)24.0 (a)35.0 (a)25.0 (a)35.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
I-1-50 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/14/1990 (a)na 7,420,899.70 (e)1,194,192.53 (e)4,277.17 (c)4,279.15 (c)49.5 (a)37.0 (a)49.5 (a)39.0 (a)49.0 (a)Yes (a)No
I-1-100 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/2/1990 (a)na 7,420,895.72 (e)1,194,195.49 (e)4,277.29 (c)4,279.33 (p)101.5 (a)85.0 (a)101.5 (a)90.0 (a)100.0 (a)Yes (a)No
I-2-30 (a)Monitoring well (a)6/11/1990 (a)11/29/2005 7,422,147.63 (e)1,193,914.74 (e)4,277.78 (c)4,279.92 (c)37.4 (d)24.0 (a)37.4 (a)25.0 (a)37.4 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
I-2-50 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/23/1990 (a)11/29/2005 7,422,152.50 (e)1,193,917.16 (e)4,277.75 (c)4,279.86 (c)51.0 (a)40.0 (a)51.0 (a)41.0 (a)51.0 (a)Yes (a)No
I-3-30 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/9/1990 (a)na 7,422,922.23 (e)1,194,590.95 (e)4,278.50 (c)4,281.33 (p)35.0 (a)23.0 (a)35.0 (a)24.5 (a)34.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
I-3-50 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/9/1990 (a)na 7,422,924.48 (e)1,194,595.24 (e)4,278.63 (c)4,281.41 (c)55.0 (a)44.0 (a)55.0 (a)45.0 (a)55.0 (a)Yes (a)No
I-3-100 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/2/1990 (a)na 7,422,927.39 (e)1,194,591.08 (e)4,278.78 (c)4,281.56 (p)101.5 (a)84.0 (a)101.5 (a)90.0 (a)100.0 (a)Yes (a)No
I-4-30 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/15/1990 (a)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,588.82 (d)1,194,927.79 (d)4,277.60 (d)4,280.67 (d)35.0 (a)24.0 (a)35.0 (a)25.0 (a)35.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
I-4-50 (a)Monitoring well (a)5/16/1990 (a)8/26/1994 (d)7,421,589.42 (d)1,194,922.89 (d)4,277.70 (d)4,280.72 (d)52.5 (a)41.0 (a)52.5 (a)42.0 (a)52.0 (a)Yes (a)No
PZ-1 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/4/1999 (a)na 7,420,892.16 (a)1,189,766.48 (e)4,269.70 (a)4,269.18 (p)30.0 (a)16.5 (a)30.0 (a)19.0 (a)29.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (i)
PZ-2 (a)Monitoring well (a)8/4/1999 (a)na 7,427,008.84 (a)1,193,814.09 (e)4,282.00 (a)4,281.79 (p)37.0 (a)23.0 (a)37.0 (a)26.5 (a)36.5 (a)Yes (a)No
P3-95 NEC (a)Monitoring well (a)12/10/1998 (a)9/12/2006 7,423,972.28 (a)1,194,355.90 (a)4,280.51 (c)4,282.86 (c)39.2 (a)20.6 (a)39.2 (a)24.2 (a)39.2 (a)Yes (a)No
P3-95 NECR (a)Monitoring well (a)9/13/2006 (a)na 7,423,973.80 (p)1,194,361.00 (p)4,281.60 (a)4,285.20 (p)40.0 (a)22.1 (a)40.0 (a)25.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (s)
P3-95 SWC (a)Monitoring well (a)12/9/1998 (a)na 7,423,717.00 (a)1,194,115.29 (a)4,277.48 (c)4,280.25 (p)36.0 (a)19.0 (a)36.0 (a)21.0 (a)36.0 (a)Yes (a)No
P3-97 NEC (a)Monitoring well (a)12/11/1998 (a)na 7,424,292.27 (a)1,194,361.88 (a)4,279.54 (c)4,281.91 (c)34.0 (a)15.5 (a)34.0 (a)19.0 (a)34.0 (a)Yes (a)No
P3-97 NECR (a)Monitoring well (a)9/2/2005 (a)na 7,424,298.41 (p)1,194,343.24 (p)4,278.46 (a)4,282.02 (p)40.0 (a)23.0 (a)40.0 (a)25.0 (a)40.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (r)
EW-901 (a)Extraction well (a)8/17/2009 (o)8/1/2011 (n)7,420,952.10 (o)1,189,815.55 (o)4,268.55 (o)4,271.76 (o)32.0 (a)14.4 (a)32.0 (a)16.5 (a)31.5 (a)Yes (a)Yes (o)EW-902 (a)Extraction well (a)4/6/2010 (q)na 7,420,919.94 (q)1,189,817.05 (q)4,268.80 (q)4,272.16 (q)35.0 (a)17.1 (a)35.0 (a)19.5 (a)34.5 (a)Yes (a)NoSC-1 (a)Piezometer (a)8/23/1981 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,423,589.35 (d)1,192,466.80 (d)4,275.40 (d)4,278.88 (d)250.3 (a)100.0 (d)229.8 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)naSC-2 (a)Piezometer (a)8/28/1981 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,421,215.14 (d)1,190,101.90 (d)4,268.70 (d)4,272.08 (d)50.0 (a)16.0 (d)48.5 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SC-3 (a)Piezometer (a)8/28/1981 (a)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,108.71 (d)1,194,816.18 (d)4,277.10 (d)4,280.35 (d)50.5 (a)23.0 (d)50.5 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SC-4 (a)Piezometer (a)8/29/1981 (a)Oct. 2000 7,425,874.65 (d)1,195,002.60 (d)4,280.50 (d)4,284.53 (d)51.5 (a)29.5 (d)51.5 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SC-5 (a)Piezometer (a)8/31/1981 (a)Oct. 2000 7,425,936.55 (d)1,190,065.90 (d)4,273.50 (d)4,276.10 (d)51.5 (a)29.0 (d)51.5 (d)31.0 (a)51.0 (a)Yes (a)na
SC-6 (a)Piezometer (a)2/16/1982 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,424,582.27 (d)1,190,043.91 (d)4,272.50 (d)4,276.96 (d)46.0 (a)30.0 (d)46.0 (d)30.0 (a)45.0 (a)Yes (a)na
SC-7 (a)Piezometer (a)2/17/1982 (a)na Not available Not available 4,270.12 (a)Not available 56.0 (a)32.0 (a)56.0 (a)41.0 (a)56.0 (a)Yes (a)na
SC-7A (d)Not available 1981-1982 (d)na Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available No No
SC-7B (d)Not available 1981-1982 (d)na Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available No No
SC-8 (a)Piezometer (a)2/18/1982 (a)na Not available Not available 4,277.80 (a)Not available 52.5 (a)Not available Not available Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
SC-8A (d)Not available 1981-1982 (d)na Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available No No
SC-8B (d)Not available 1981-1982 (d)na Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available No No
SC-9 (a)Piezometer (a)2/19/1982 (a)na 7,424,655.15 (d)1,193,339.40 (d)4,278.80 (d)4,283.20 (d)45.5 (a)28.5 (d)45.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SC-10 (a)Piezometer (a)2/22/1982 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,425,869.96 (d)1,193,354.51 (d)4,279.80 (d)4,284.41 (d)48.0 (a)32.5 (d)48.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SC-11 (a)Piezometer (a)2/23/1982 (a)10/23/2000 7,425,941.57 (d)1,191,622.11 (d)4,275.80 (d)4,280.81 (d)45.0 (a)29.0 (d)45.0 (d)30.0 (a)45.0 (a)Yes (a)na
SC-12 (a)Piezometer (a)2/24/1982 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,424,575.86 (d)1,191,682.61 (d)4,274.90 (d)4,277.50 (d)58.0 (a)47.5 (d)58.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SC-13 (a)Piezometer (a)2/25/1982 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,423,112.25 (d)1,191,749.00 (d)4,274.10 (d)4,277.08 (d)56.0 (a)45.5 (d)55.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)na
SLC-201 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/3/1984 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,424,757.76 (d)1,190,852.51 (d)4,274.00 (d)4,275.69 (d)50.0 (a)36.5 (d)50.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
SLC-202 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/3/1984 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,424,695.76 (d)1,191,327.81 (d)4,274.40 (d)4,275.81 (d)50.0 (a)36.5 (d)50.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
SLC-203 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/2/1984 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,424,577.15 (d)1,192,217.11 (d)4,276.00 (d)4,277.42 (d)50.0 (a)37.5 (d)50.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
SLC-204 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/1/1984 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,423,228.35 (d)1,190,649.71 (d)4,271.80 (d)4,273.21 (d)50.0 (a)34.5 (d)50.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
SLC-205 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/2/1984 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,423,223.85 (d)1,191,253.40 (d)4,273.80 (d)4,275.45 (d)50.0 (a)35.0 (d)50.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
SLC-206 (a)Monitoring well (a)2/3/1984 (a)Nov. 1-2, 1999 (k)7,423,318.34 (d)1,192,191.10 (d)4,274.80 (d)4,275.94 (d)50.0 (a)37.5 (d)50.0 (d)Not available (a)Not available (a)Yes (a)No
DH-16A (a)Exploratory hole (a)1/15/1992 (a)Jan. 1992 (a)7,422,998.83 (d)1,193,943.79 (d)4,277.60 (d)na 41.0 (a)NA (a)NA (a)na (a)na (a)Yes (a)naDH-30 (a)Exploratory hole (a)11/27/1991 (a)Nov. 1991 (a)7,421,066.02 (d)1,193,775.29 (d)4,276.30 (d)na 34.5 (a)NA (a)NA (a)na (a)na (a)Yes (a)naDH-31 (a)Piezometer (a)12/9/1991 (a)na 7,422,918.13 (d)1,194,604.39 (d)4,278.30 (d)4,280.95 (d)32.0 (a)24.8 (d)32.0 (a)27.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)DH-32 (a)Piezometer (a)12/10/1991 (a)na 7,421,612.62 (d)1,193,905.39 (d)4,276.70 (d)4,278.46 (d)32.0 (a)25.0 (a)32.0 (a)27.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
DH-33 (a)Piezometer (a)12/10/1991 (a)Sep. 1997 7,422,181.72 (d)1,194,826.69 (d)4,277.90 (d)4,280.23 (d)32.0 (a)26.0 (a)32.0 (a)27.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (dj)
DH-34 (a)Piezometer (a)12/11/1991 (a)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,108.81 (d)1,194,832.88 (d)4,277.30 (d)4,279.88 (d)32.0 (a)25.6 (d)32.0 (a)27.0 (a)32.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (d)
DH-47 (a)Exploratory hole (a)1/12/1992 (a)Jan. 1992 (a)7,423,694.66 (d)1,190,158.31 (d)4,271.00 (d)na 46.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-48 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/10/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,421,272.12 (d)1,194,057.49 (d)4,277.00 (d)na 29.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-49 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/10/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,421,262.01 (d)1,194,843.48 (d)4,276.90 (d)na 28.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-50 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/10/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,421,649.62 (d)1,194,065.29 (d)4,277.00 (d)na 30.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-51 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/11/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,421,648.62 (d)1,194,880.09 (d)4,277.80 (d)na 28.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-52 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/11/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,420,904.62 (d)1,193,894.29 (d)4,276.30 (d)na 28.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-53 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/19/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,421,263.92 (d)1,194,517.19 (d)4,277.00 (d)na 28.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-54 (a)Exploratory hole (a)2/19/1992 (a)Feb. 1992 (a)7,420,875.31 (d)1,194,900.98 (d)4,277.10 (d)na 28.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
DH-59 (a)Piezometer (a)2/3/1993 (a)na 7,420,970.74 (d)1,190,923.99 (d)4,270.20 (d)4,272.06 (d)25.0 (a)16.5 (a)25.0 (a)20.0 (a)25.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
DH-61 (a)Piezometer (a)2/2/1993 (a)June-July 1994 (d)7,421,628.93 (d)1,191,828.29 (d)4,273.50 (d)4,275.49 (d)27.0 (a)20.0 (a)27.0 (a)22.0 (a)27.0 (a)Yes (a)na
DH-62 (a)Piezometer (a)2/1/1993 (a)June 2000 7,422,371.44 (d)1,191,818.50 (d)4,270.80 (d)4,272.98 (d)26.0 (a)19.0 (a)26.0 (a)21.0 (a)26.0 (a)Yes (a)Yes (j)
DH-65 (a)Exploratory hole (a)9/28/1993 (a)9/28/93 (a)7,421,605.82 (d)1,193,905.29 (d)4,276.70 (d)na (d)43.0 (a)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (a)na
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL, BOREHOLE AND LYSIMETER INFORMATIONENERGYSOLUTIONS, LLC.
T1-4
Location Type Date Installed DateAbandoned (ft)(ft)Elevation Point Elev.of boring(ft bgs)
Well/boring
log?
Hydraulic
test?of filter pack(ft bgs)of filter pack(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)screened interval(ft bgs)
SL-1 (b)Suction lysimeter (b)7/16/1993 (b)na 7,422,676.14 (b)1,192,630.30 (b)4,274.50 (b)na 24.0 (b)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (b)No
SL-2 (b)Suction lysimeter (b)7/19/1993 (b)na 7,422,476.14 (b)1,192,626.30 (b)4,275.10 (b)na 24.0 (b)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (b)No
SL-3 (b)Suction lysimeter (b)7/20/1993 (b)na 7,422,306.14 (b)1,192,622.30 (b)4,275.30 (b)na 24.0 (b)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (b)No
SRS-1 (b)Oil resistivity senso (b)7/16/1993 (b)na 7,422,686.14 (b)1,192,630.30 (b)4,274.70 (b)na 22.5 (b)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (b)No
SRS-2 (b)Oil resistivity senso (b)7/19/1993 (b)na 7,422,486.14 (b)1,192,626.30 (b)4,275.30 (b)na 22.5 (b)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (b)No
SRS-3 (b)Oil resistivity senso (b)7/20/1993 (b)na 7,422,316.14 (b)1,192,622.30 (b)4,275.00 (b)na 22.5 (b)na na na (a)na (a)Yes (b)No
LSW-104S (d)Monitoring well (d)prior 2/96 (d)na Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available 15.0 (a)32.0 (a)20.0 (a)Not available (a)No No
Note:Abbreviations:
All available well logs and completion diagrams are included in Appendix A.
Data Sources:amsl = Above mean sea level
Solutions Boring and completion logs provided by Envirocare or in Revised Hydrogeologic Report, Bingham Environmental, February 1996.bgs = Below ground surface
(b) As-Built Diagrams for Suction Lysimeters and Soil Resistivity Instruments, Bingham Environmental, November 1993.ft = Feet
(c) Pentacore Resources Survey, August, September 1999.
(d) Revised Hydrogeologic Report, Bingham Environmental, February 1996.
(e) Excel file provided by Envirocare (Certified well location tables 1999).
Solutions).
(g) Where no total depth of boring is available, depth at bottom of filter pack is assumed to be total depth of boring.
(h) Depth of boring and bottom of filter pack are assumed to be the bottom of a 10 foot screen.
(i) Final Report for Slug Withdrawal Testing at Envirocare's Clive, Utah Facility, EarthFax, August 1999.
(j) Final Slug Test Results, Adrian Brown Consultants, October 1997.
(k) Abandonment of monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Proposed LARW 200-foot expansion and the Proposed LARW Embankment, Envirocare, 11/12/99.
(m) estimated date of construction
(n) Report of Abandonment/As-Plugged Report for Wells Abandoned in August 2011 (CD11-0235), August 25, 2011.
(o) As-Built Report - 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Wells (CD09-0290), October 28, 2009.
(p) 2010 Annual 11e.(2), Class A, LARW, and Mixed Waste Groundwater Monitoring Report, March 1, 2011.
(q) As-Built Report for Extraction Well EW-902 (CD10-0131), May 5, 2010.
(r) Slug Out Testing Report for Replacement Wells GW-66R and P3-97 NECR (CD05-0524), November 7, 2005.(s) Slug Out Testing Report for Replacement Well P3-95 NECR (CD06-0426), November 7, 2006.(t) Slug Out Testing Report for Replacement Well GW-128 (CD06-0024), January 23, 2006.
TABLE 2
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT CONTACT ELEVATION AND UNIT THICKNESS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T2-1
Well Top of Unit 41 Unit 4 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 3
(ft amsl)
Unit 3 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 2
(ft amsl)
Unit 2 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 1
(ft amsl)
I-1-30
I-1-50
I-1-100 4,277.29 10.14 4,267.15 15.50 4,251.65 17.00 4,234.65
I-2-30 See I-2-50
I-2-50 4,277.75 9.17 4,268.58 12.80 4,255.78 19.70 4,236.08
I-3-30 See I-3-100
I-3-50 See I-3-100
I-3-100 4,278.78 8.79 4,269.99 13.30 4,256.69 20.20 4,236.49
I-4-30 See I-4-50
I-4-50 4,277.70 9.69 4,268.01 10.00 4,258.01 13.00 4,245.01
SC-1 4,275.40 7.00 4,268.40 23.00 4,245.40 15.00 4,230.40
SC-2 See GW-19B
SC-3 See DH-54
SC-4 See GW-21
SC-5 4,273.50 9.00 4,264.50 23.00 4,241.50 20.00 4,221.50
SC-6 4,272.50 8.00 4,264.50 25.00 4,239.50
SC-7 4,270.12 10.00 4,260.12 19.00 4,241.12
SC-7A See SC-7
SC-7B See SC-7
SC-8 4,277.80 9.02 4,268.78 15.00 4,253.78 22.00 4,231.78
SC-8A See SC-8
SC-8B See SC-8
SC-9 4,278.80 9.00 4,269.80 18.00 4,251.80
SC-10 See GW-8
SC-11 4,275.80 9.00 4,266.80 15.00 4,251.80
SC-12 4,274.90 7.00 4,267.90 20.00 4,247.90 20.00 4,227.90
SC-13 See GW-25
DH-16A See GW-16
DH-30 See GW-105
DH-31 See I-3-100
DH-32 See GW-64
DH-33 See GW-70
DH-34 See SC-3
DH-47 4,271.00 9.50 4,261.50 18.00 4,243.50 13.50 4,230.00
TABLE 2
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT CONTACT ELEVATION AND UNIT THICKNESS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T2-2
Well Top of Unit 41 Unit 4 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 3
(ft amsl)
Unit 3 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 2
(ft amsl)
Unit 2 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 1
(ft amsl)
DH-48 4,277.00 10.50 4,266.50 11.20 4,255.30
DH-49 See GW-41
DH-50 4,277.00 10.50 4,266.50 10.70 4,255.80
DH-51 See GW-67
DH-52 4,276.30 11.00 4,265.30 14.00 4,251.30
DH-53 4,277.00 9.50 4,267.50 11.50 4,256.00
DH-54 4,277.10 9.50 4,267.60 12.60 4,255.00
DH-59 See GW-63
DH-61 4,273.50 10.50 4,263.00 16.00 4,247.00
DH-62 See GW-38
DH-65 See GW-64
GW-1 See GW-60
GW-2 4,277.90 9.50 4,268.40 13.50 4,254.90
GW-3 See DH-47
GW-4 See GW-23
GW-5 4,276.60 8.00 4,268.60 20.00 4,248.60
GW-6 4,279.80 10.00 4,269.80 18.80 4,251.00 9.00 4,242.00
GW-7 Not found
GW-8 4,280.00 10.00 4,270.00 18.00 4,252.00
GW-9 4,278.80 10.00 4,268.80 16.50 4,252.30
GW-10 Not found
GW-11 See GW-64
GW-12 See DH-50
GW-13 See GW-45
GW-16 4,277.56 9.56 4,268.00 13.00 4,255.00
GW-16R See GW-16
GW-17A 4,276.53 10.03 4,266.50 15.00 4,251.50
GW-18 See GW-103
GW-19A See GW-19B
GW-19B 4,269.14 13.41 4,255.73 15.00 4,240.73 13.50 4,227.23
GW-20 4,275.29 9.54 4,265.75 15.00 4,250.75
GW-21 4,280.50 13.50 4,267.00 7.00 4,260.00 21.50 4,238.50
GW-22 4,276.39 8.98 4,267.41 12.00 4,255.41
GW-23 4,275.31 8.23 4,267.08 13.50 4,253.58
TABLE 2
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT CONTACT ELEVATION AND UNIT THICKNESS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T2-3
Well Top of Unit 41 Unit 4 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 3
(ft amsl)
Unit 3 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 2
(ft amsl)
Unit 2 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 1
(ft amsl)
GW-24 4,275.50 8.91 4,266.59 14.00 4,252.59
GW-25 4,274.52 8.49 4,266.03 17.00 4,249.03
GW-26 4,272.91 10.21 4,262.70 16.50 4,246.20
GW-27 See GW-27D
GW-27D 4,270.88 11.50 4,259.38 16.50 4,242.88 17.00 4,225.88
GW-28 4,269.91 12.86 4,257.05 12.50 4,244.55
GW-29 See GW-103
GW-36 4,270.25 12.34 4,257.91 12.00 4,245.91
GW-37 4,269.30 7.25 4,262.05 14.50 4,247.55
GW-38 4,271.34 6.75 4,264.59 16.00 4,248.59
GW-41 4,277.58 9.54 4,268.04 11.00 4,257.04 11.00 4,246.04
GW-42 4,278.16 9.24 4,268.92 11.00 4,257.92
GW-43 4,278.20 11.24 4,266.96 10.00 4,256.96 15.00 4,241.96
GW-44 4,277.30 10.32 4,266.98 11.50 4,255.48 13.50 4,241.98
GW-45 4,277.74 10.59 4,267.15 12.00 4,255.15 10.00 4,245.15
GW-46 4,277.65 10.16 4,267.49 12.00 4,255.49 12.00 4,243.49
GW-55 4,278.20 10.35 4,267.85 11.50 4,256.35
GW-56 4,275.90 8.50 4,267.40 11.00 4,256.40 12.50 4,243.90
GW-56R 4,277.63 9.54 4,268.09 12.00 4,256.09
GW-57 4,269.97 11.80 4,258.17 16.50 4,241.67
GW-58 4,269.65 11.90 4,257.75 14.00 4,243.75
GW-60 4,273.03 10.00 4,263.03 12.70 4,250.33
GW-63 4,270.22 10.40 4,259.82 14.00 4,245.82
GW-64 4,277.26 9.70 4,267.56 12.50 4,255.06 9.50 4,245.56
GW-66 4,277.51 9.70 4,267.81 12.00 4,255.81 10.00 4,245.81
GW-66R See GW-66
GW-67 4,278.15 9.00 4,269.15 11.00 4,258.15 15.50 4,242.65
GW-67R See GW-67
GW-68 4,279.27 9.01 4,270.26 11.00 4,259.26 16.00 4,243.26
GW-68R See GW-68
GW-69 4,277.99 9.03 4,268.96 13.00 4,255.96 11.00 4,244.96
GW-69R See GW-69
GW-70 4,278.76 8.72 4,270.04 14.00 4,256.04 12.00 4,244.04
GW-71 4,278.44 9.85 4,268.59 12.00 4,256.59 13.50 4,243.09
TABLE 2
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT CONTACT ELEVATION AND UNIT THICKNESS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T2-4
Well Top of Unit 41 Unit 4 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 3
(ft amsl)
Unit 3 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 2
(ft amsl)
Unit 2 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 1
(ft amsl)
GW-75 See GW-105
GW-76 See GW-104
GW-77 See GW-105
GW-78 See GW-104
GW-79 4,277.10 9.00 4,268.10 12.50 4,255.60
GW-80
GW-81 4,274.18 9.00 4,265.18 21.00 4,244.18
GW-82 4,274.35 8.00 4,266.35 22.50 4,243.85
GW-83 4,274.51 7.00 4,267.51 22.00 4,245.51
GW-84 4,274.78 7.50 4,267.28 19.50 4,247.78
GW-85 4,275.16 7.50 4,267.66 19.50 4,248.16
GW-86 4,275.83 8.50 4,267.33 19.00 4,248.33
GW-88 4,276.86 9.00 4,267.86 16.00 4,251.86
GW-89 4,276.85 8.50 4,268.35 17.50 4,250.85
GW-90 4,276.04 9.00 4,267.04 15.00 4,252.04
GW-91 4,276.10 9.00 4,267.10 18.10 4,249.00
GW-92 4,276.35 9.50 4,266.85 15.50 4,251.35
GW-93 4,275.02 8.00 4,267.02 24.00 4,243.02
GW-94 4,273.94 8.94 4,265.00 18.00 4,247.00
GW-95 4,271.57 11.50 4,260.07 16.00 4,244.07
GW-96 Not found
GW-97 Not found
GW-98 Not found
GW-99 4,270.89 12.00 4,258.89 14.00 4,244.89
GW-100 4,271.27 12.27 4,259.00 16.00 4,243.00
GW-101 4,272.32 11.50 4,260.82 17.50 4,243.32
GW-102 See SC-6
GW-103 4,275.29 13.00 4,262.29 10.29 4,252.00
GW-104 4,275.42 13.00 4,262.42 11.42 4,251.00
GW-105 4,276.23 13.00 4,263.23 15.50 4,247.73
GW-106 4,273.43 9.00 4,264.43 21.50 4,242.93
GW-107 4,273.47 9.00 4,264.47 22.50 4,241.97
GW-108 4,273.29 9.00 4,264.29 24.00 4,240.29
TABLE 2
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT CONTACT ELEVATION AND UNIT THICKNESS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T2-5
Well Top of Unit 41 Unit 4 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 3
(ft amsl)
Unit 3 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 2
(ft amsl)
Unit 2 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 1
(ft amsl)
GW-109 4,273.90 9.00 4,264.90 19.00 4,245.90
GW-110 4,274.10 10.50 4,263.60 18.50 4,245.10
GW-111 4,274.40 9.50 4,264.90 19.50 4,245.40
GW-112 4,274.76 11.00 4,263.76 17.00 4,246.76
GW-113 4,276.05 10.50 4,265.55 15.50 4,250.05
GW-114 4,276.68 11.50 4,265.18 14.00 4,251.18
GW-115 4,277.03 11.50 4,265.53 12.50 4,253.03
GW-116 4,278.06 11.00 4,267.06 15.00 4,252.06
GW-117 4,277.12 11.00 4,266.12 15.50 4,250.62
GW-118 See GW-2
GW-119 See GW-2
GW-120 See GW-2
GW-121 See GW-2
GW-122 See I-3-100
GW-123 See I-3-100
GW-123R See I-3-100
GW-124 See I-3-100
GW-125 See GW-88
GW-126 See GW-24
GW-127 4,274.95 7.50 4,267.45 13.80 4,253.65
GW-128 4,279.33 12.50 4,266.83 15.50 4,251.33
GW-129 4275.20
GW-130 4,278.06 10.00 4,268.06 12.00 4,256.06
GW-131 4,278.56 10.00 4,268.56 11.50 4,257.06
GW-132 4,279.59 12.00 4,267.59 11.50 4,256.09
GW-133 4278.37
GW-134 4280.62
GW-135 4,281.32 14.00 4,267.32 10.50 4,256.82
GW-136
GW-137 4,274.95 8.00 4,266.95 16.00 4,250.95
GW-138 4,276.72 10.00 4,266.72 15.00 4,251.72
GW-139 4,280.08 10.00 4,270.08 17.00 4,253.08
GW-139D 4,280.00 See GW-139 See GW-139 See GW-139 See GW-139 18.00 4,235.00
TABLE 2
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT CONTACT ELEVATION AND UNIT THICKNESS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T2-6
Well Top of Unit 41 Unit 4 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 3
(ft amsl)
Unit 3 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 2
(ft amsl)
Unit 2 thickness
(ft)
Top of Unit 1
(ft amsl)
GW-140 4,278.00 11.00 4,267.00 16.50 4,250.50
GW-141 4,277.09 11.50 4,265.59 14.00 4,251.59
EW-901 See EW-902
EW-902 4,268.80 13.00 4,255.80 13.00 4,242.80
PZ-1 4,269.70 13.50 4,256.20 12.50 4,243.70
PZ-2 4,282.00 12.50 4,269.50 16.00 4,253.50
SL-1 See SRS-1
SL-2 See SRS-2
SL-3 See SRS-3
SRS-1 4,274.70 8.80 4,265.90 13.00 4,252.90
SRS-2 4,275.30 9.30 4,266.00 12.50 4,253.50
SRS-3 4,275.00 9.80 4,265.20 12.50 4,252.70
P3-95 NEC
P3-95 NECR See P3-95 NEC
P3-95 SWC 4,277.48 9.00 4,268.48 11.50 4,256.98
P3-97 NEC 4,279.54 12.00 4,267.54 11.50 4,256.04
P3-97 NECR See P3-97 NEC
Maximum 14.50 4,270.26 25.00 4,260.00 22.00 4,246.04
Minimum 6.75 4,255.73 7.00 4,239.50 9.00 4,221.50
Average 10.00 4,265.75 14.93 4,250.81 14.85 4,238.31
Where several monitoring wells, boreholes, or lysimeters are located within a small area, a single log was selected to represent all logs in the immediate vicinity.
Adjusted downward 5.5 feet to reflect pre-fill ground surface elevation.
Adjusted downward 3.0 feet to reflect pre-fill ground surface elevation.
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-1
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
GW-16R-A1 LARW 1.75 6.19E-04 -3.208
GW-16R-B1 LARW 1.98 6.98E-04 -3.156
GW-16R-B2 LARW 1.03 3.63E-04 5.60E-04 -3.440 -3.268
GW-17AA1 VITRO 2.07 7.32E-04 -3.136
GW-17AB1 VITRO 2.50 8.81E-04 -3.055
GW-17AB2 VITRO 2.39 8.44E-04 8.19E-04 -3.074 -3.088
GW-19AA1 11.e(2)0.22 7.80E-05 -4.108
GW-19AB1 11.e(2)0.18 6.28E-05 -4.202
GW-19AB2 11.e(2)0.25 8.93E-05 7.67E-05 -4.049 -4.120
GW-20-A1 11.e(2)/LARW 5.01 1.77E-03 -2.753
GW-20-A2 11.e(2)/LARW 5.50 1.94E-03 -2.713
GW-20-A3 11.e(2)/LARW 6.66 2.35E-03 2.02E-03 -2.629 -2.698
GW-21A1 VITRO 5.15 1.82E-03 -2.741
GW-21A2 VITRO 4.25 1.50E-03 -2.824
GW-21A3 VITRO 5.37 1.89E-03 1.74E-03 -2.723 -2.763
GW-22-A1 LARW 2.45 8.63E-04 -3.064
GW-22-A2 LARW 2.20 7.77E-04 -3.109
GW-22-A3 LARW 2.11 7.44E-04 7.95E-04 -3.129 -3.101
GW-23-A3 LARW 1.47 5.18E-04 -3.286
GW-23-B1 LARW 1.69 5.97E-04 5.58E-04 -3.224 -3.255
GW-24-A1 11.e(2)/LARW 0.60 2.13E-04 -3.671
GW-24-B1 11.e(2)/LARW 0.78 2.73E-04 -3.563
GW-24-B2 11.e(2)/LARW 0.72 2.54E-04 2.47E-04 -3.596 -3.610
GW-25-B1 11.e(2)/LARW 2.32 8.17E-04 -3.088
GW-25-B2 11.e(2)/LARW 3.33 1.17E-03 -2.931
GW-25-B3 11.e(2)/LARW 3.57 1.26E-03 -2.900
GW-25-B4 11.e(2)/LARW 2.56 9.02E-04 -3.045
GW-25-B5 11.e(2)/LARW 3.15 1.11E-03 1.05E-03 -2.954 -2.983
GW-26-A1 11.e(2)0.95 3.35E-04 -3.475
GW-26-A2 11.e(2)0.92 3.26E-04 3.31E-04 -3.487 -3.481
GW-27A1 11.e(2)0.13 4.42E-05 -4.355
GW-27B1 11.e(2)0.07 2.60E-05 -4.585
GW-27B2 11.e(2)0.10 3.44E-05 3.49E-05 -4.463 -4.467
GW-28A1 11.e(2)0.68 2.41E-04 -3.617
GW-28B1 11.e(2)0.57 2.01E-04 -3.697
GW-28B2 11.e(2)0.43 1.52E-04 1.98E-04 -3.818 -3.711
GW-29A1 11.e(2)/LARW 2.44 8.60E-04 -3.066
GW-29A2 11.e(2)/LARW 0.58 2.05E-04 -3.687
GW-29A3 11.e(2)/LARW 1.33 4.69E-04 5.11E-04 -3.328 -3.361
GW-36A1 11.e(2)1.87 6.61E-04 -3.180
GW-36A2 11.e(2)1.73 6.10E-04 -3.215
GW-36A3 11.e(2)1.84 6.49E-04 6.40E-04 -3.188 -3.194
GW-37A1 11.e(2)0.98 3.44E-04 -3.463
GW-37B1 11.e(2)1.02 3.60E-04 -3.444
GW-37B2 11.e(2)1.07 3.78E-04 3.61E-04 -3.423 -3.443
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-2
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
GW-38B1 11.e(2)1.57 5.55E-04 -3.256
GW-38B2 11.e(2)1.57 5.55E-04 5.80E-04 -3.256 -3.237
GW-38R 11e.(2)0.28 1.00E-04 -3.999
GW-38R 11e.(2)0.29 1.04E-04 1.02E-04 -3.983 -3.991
GW-41A1 MW 1.39 4.91E-04 -3.309
GW-41B1 MW 2.05 7.22E-04 -3.141
GW-41B2 MW 1.98 6.98E-04 6.37E-04 -3.156 -3.202
GW-42A1 MW 2.19 7.74E-04 -3.111
GW-42B1 MW 2.71 9.57E-04 -3.019
GW-42B2 MW 2.25 7.92E-04 8.41E-04 -3.101 -3.077
GW-43A1 MW 2.06 7.25E-04 -3.139
GW-43B2 MW 3.23 1.14E-03 -2.943
GW-43B3 MW 2.84 1.00E-03 9.56E-04 -2.999 -3.027
GW-44A1 MW 1.40 4.94E-04 -3.306
GW-44B1 MW 2.36 8.32E-04 -3.080
GW-44B2 MW 2.23 7.86E-04 7.04E-04 -3.104 -3.164
GW-45A1 MW 0.46 1.62E-04 -3.791
GW-45B1 MW 0.68 2.40E-04 -3.619
GW-45B2 MW 0.69 2.42E-04 2.15E-04 -3.616 -3.675
GW-46A1 MW 0.30 1.05E-04 -3.981
GW-46B1 MW 0.30 1.06E-04 -3.976
GW-46B2 MW 0.33 1.16E-04 1.09E-04 -3.934 -3.963
GW-56R-A1 LARW 6.84 2.41E-03 -2.617
GW-56R-A2 LARW 2.64 9.30E-04 -3.032
GW-56R-A3 LARW 4.22 1.49E-03 -2.827
GW-56R-A4 LARW 7.42 2.62E-03 1.86E-03 -2.582 -2.764
GW-57A1 11.e(2)0.46 1.63E-04 -3.788
GW-57B1 11.e(2)0.33 1.18E-04 -3.928
GW-57B2 11.e(2)0.53 1.86E-04 1.56E-04 -3.731 -3.816
GW-58A1 11.e(2)1.59 5.61E-04 -3.251
GW-58B1 11.e(2)1.32 4.66E-04 -3.331
GW-58B2 11.e(2)0.95 3.35E-04 4.54E-04 -3.475 -3.352
GW-60-A1 11.e(2)5.69 2.01E-03 -2.697
GW-60-A3 11.e(2)13.56 4.79E-03 3.40E-03 -2.320 -2.509
GW-63-A1 11.e(2)2.53 8.93E-04 -3.049
GW-63-A2 11.e(2)2.46 8.69E-04 -3.061
GW-63-A3 11.e(2)1.28 4.51E-04 7.38E-04 -3.346 -3.152
GW-64-B1 LARW 2.05 7.22E-04 -3.141
GW-64-B2 LARW 1.87 6.61E-04 -3.180
GW-64-B4 LARW 1.97 6.95E-04 6.93E-04 -3.158 -3.160
GW-66A1 MW 0.22 7.68E-05 -4.115
GW-66B1 MW 0.15 5.21E-05 -4.283
GW-66B2 MW 0.29 1.02E-04 7.71E-05 -3.990 -4.129
GW-66R #1 MW 0.54 1.91E-04 -3.720
GW-66R #2 MW 0.62 2.19E-04 -3.660
GW-66R #3 MW 0.69 2.43E-04 2.18E-04 -3.614 -3.665
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-3
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
GW-67B1 MW 1.19 4.21E-04 -3.376
GW-67B2 MW 1.17 4.11E-04 -3.386
GW-67 #1 MW 1.98 6.99E-04 -3.156
GW-67 #2 MW 1.97 6.95E-04 5.14E-04 -3.158 -3.308
GW-67R#1 MW 5.32 1.88E-03 -2.727
GW-67R#2 MW 5.25 1.85E-03 1.86E-03 -2.732 -2.729
GW-68A1 MW 0.33 1.16E-04 -3.937
GW-68B1 MW 0.27 9.54E-05 -4.020
GW-68B2 MW 0.26 9.17E-05 -4.037
GW-68 #1 MW 0.94 3.32E-04 -3.479
GW-68 #2 MW 0.93 3.28E-04 1.92E-04 -3.484 -3.792
GW-68R#1 MW 8.24 2.91E-03 -2.537
GW-68R#2 MW 8.44 2.98E-03 2.94E-03 -2.526 -2.531
GW-69B1 MW 0.12 4.39E-05 -4.358
GW-69A1 MW 0.13 4.63E-05 -4.334
GW-69 #1 MW 2.82 9.95E-04 -3.002
GW-69 #2 MW 2.12 7.48E-04 4.58E-04 -3.126 -3.705
GW-69R#1 MW 4.25 1.50E-03 -2.824
GW-69R#2 MW 3.32 1.17E-03 1.34E-03 -2.931 -2.878
GW-70A1 MW 0.46 1.63E-04 -3.787
GW-70B1 MW 0.61 2.14E-04 -3.670
GW-70B2 MW 0.48 1.69E-04 -3.772
GW-70 #1 MW 7.98 2.82E-03 -2.550
GW-70 #2 MW 7.79 2.75E-03 1.22E-03 -2.561 -3.268
GW-71A1 MW 4.35 1.54E-03 -2.814
GW-71B1 MW 2.40 8.47E-04 -3.072
GW-71B2 MW 2.20 7.77E-04 -3.109
GW-71 #1 MW 8.89 3.14E-03 -2.504
GW-71 #2 MW 8.86 3.13E-03 1.88E-03 -2.505 -2.801
GW-75A1 LARW 0.03 9.33E-06 -5.030
GW-75A2 LARW 0.07 2.33E-05 1.63E-05 -4.633 -4.832
GW-76A1 LARW 0.05 1.61E-05 -4.794
GW-76A2 LARW 0.28 9.94E-05 5.77E-05 -4.003 -4.398
GW-77 #1 LARW 2.56 9.03E-04 -3.044
GW-77 #2 LARW 2.50 8.82E-04 8.93E-04 -3.055 -3.049
GW-78 #1 LARW 5.08 1.79E-03 -2.747
GW-78 #2 LARW 4.15 1.46E-03 1.63E-03 -2.834 -2.791
GW-79 #1 MW 4.50 1.59E-03 -2.799
GW-79 #2 MW 4.12 1.45E-03 1.52E-03 -2.838 -2.818
GW-80 #1 MW 4.91 1.73E-03 -2.761
GW-80 #2 MW 5.01 1.77E-03 1.75E-03 -2.753 -2.757
GW-81 #1 Class A 1.49 5.26E-04 -3.279
GW-81 #2 Class A 1.47 5.19E-04 5.22E-04 -3.285 -3.282
GW-82 #1 Class A 1.82 6.42E-04 -3.192
GW-82 #2 Class A 1.45 5.12E-04 5.77E-04 -3.291 -3.242
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-4
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
GW-83 #2 Class A 8.76 3.09E-03 3.05E-03 -2.510 -2.516
GW-84 #1 Class A 10.95 3.86E-03 -2.413
GW-84 #2 Class A 10.30 3.63E-03 3.75E-03 -2.440 -2.426
GW-85 #1 Class A 11.14 3.93E-03 -2.406
GW-85 #2 Class A 11.18 3.94E-03 3.94E-03 -2.404 -2.405
GW-86 #1 Class A 4.80 1.69E-03 -2.771
GW-86 #2 Class A 4.57 1.61E-03 1.65E-03 -2.793 -2.782
GW-88 #1 Class A 2.66 9.38E-04 -3.028
GW-88 #2 Class A 2.92 1.03E-03 9.84E-04 -2.987 -3.007
GW-89 #1 Class A 1.67 5.89E-04 -3.230
GW-89 #2 Class A 1.88 6.63E-04 6.26E-04 -3.178 -3.204
GW-90 #1 Class A 8.86 3.13E-03 -2.505
GW-90 #2 Class A 7.78 2.74E-03 2.94E-03 -2.562 -2.533
GW-91 #1 Class A 5.73 2.02E-03 -2.694
GW-91 #2 Class A 5.48 1.93E-03 1.98E-03 -2.714 -2.704
GW-92 #1 Class A 2.45 8.64E-04 -3.063
GW-92 #2 Class A 2.47 8.71E-04 8.68E-04 -3.060 -3.062
GW-93 #1 Class A 17.04 6.01E-03 -2.221
GW-93 #2 Class A 16.72 5.90E-03 5.96E-03 -2.229 -2.225
GW-94 #1 Class A 12.73 4.49E-03 -2.348
GW-94 #2 Class A 13.71 4.84E-03 4.66E-03 -2.315 -2.332
GW-95 #1 Class A 1.04 3.67E-04 -3.435
GW-95 #2 Class A 1.01 3.56E-04 3.62E-04 -3.448 -3.442
GW-99 #1 Class A 0.85 3.00E-04 -3.523
GW-99 #2 Class A 0.82 2.89E-04 2.95E-04 -3.539 -3.531
GW-100 #1 Class A 1.78 6.28E-04 -3.202
GW-100 #2 Class A 1.87 6.60E-04 6.44E-04 -3.181 -3.191
GW-101 #1 Class A 2.36 8.33E-04 -3.080
GW-101 #2 Class A 1.91 6.74E-04 7.53E-04 -3.171 -3.126
GW-102 #1 Class A 2.37 8.36E-04 -3.078
GW-102 #2 Class A 2.46 8.68E-04 8.52E-04 -3.062 -3.070
GW-103 LARW 11.45 4.04E-03 -2.394
GW-103 LARW 11.67 4.12E-03 -2.386
GW-103 LARW 17.83 6.29E-03 -2.201
GW-103 LARW 8.85 3.12E-03 4.39E-03 -2.505 -2.372
GW-104 LARW 7.17 2.53E-03 -2.597
GW-104 LARW 10.39 3.66E-03 -2.436
GW-104 LARW 8.89 3.14E-03 3.11E-03 -2.503 -2.512
GW-105 LARW 15.72 5.55E-03 -2.256
GW-105 LARW 15.18 5.35E-03 -2.271
GW-105 LARW 15.80 5.57E-03 5.49E-03 -2.254 -2.260
GW-106 Class A North 1.75 6.19E-04 -3.208
GW-106 Class A North 1.68 5.94E-04 6.07E-04 -3.226 -3.217
GW-107 Class A North 1.41 4.96E-04 -3.305
GW-107 Class A North 1.54 5.45E-04 5.21E-04 -3.264 -3.284
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-5
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
GW-108 Class A North 1.74 6.13E-04 6.27E-04 -3.213 -3.203
GW-109 Class A North 1.84 6.50E-04 -3.187
GW-109 Class A North 1.71 6.04E-04 6.27E-04 -3.219 -3.203
GW-110 Class A North 2.27 8.00E-04 -3.097
GW-110 Class A North 2.10 7.41E-04 7.71E-04 -3.130 -3.114
GW-111 Class A North 5.39 1.90E-03 -2.721
GW-111 Class A North 4.39 1.55E-03 1.73E-03 -2.810 -2.765
GW-112 Class A North 5.95 2.10E-03 -2.678
GW-112 Class A North 6.49 2.29E-03 2.20E-03 -2.640 -2.659
GW-113 Class A North 3.12 1.10E-03 -2.959
GW-113 Class A North 2.69 9.50E-04 1.03E-03 -3.022 -2.990
GW-114 Class A North 3.03 1.07E-03 -2.971
GW-114 Class A North 3.37 1.19E-03 1.13E-03 -2.924 -2.948
GW-115 Class A North 3.94 1.39E-03 -2.857
GW-115 Class A North 4.11 1.45E-03 1.42E-03 -2.839 -2.848
GW-116 Class A North 6.72 2.37E-03 -2.625
GW-116 Class A North 7.06 2.49E-03 2.43E-03 -2.604 -2.615
GW-117 Class A North 5.75 2.03E-03 -2.693
GW-117 Class A North 6.32 2.23E-03 2.13E-03 -2.652 -2.672
GW-118 MW 6.98 2.46E-03 -2.608
GW-118 MW 6.70 2.36E-03 2.41E-03 -2.627 -2.618
GW-119 MW 0.78 2.73E-04 -3.563
GW-119 MW 3.04 1.07E-03 6.72E-04 -2.970 -3.267
GW-120 MW 5.76 2.03E-03 -2.692
GW-120 MW 6.88 2.43E-03 2.23E-03 -2.615 -2.654
GW-121 MW 0.34 1.21E-04 -3.919
GW-121 MW 0.34 1.18E-04 1.20E-04 -3.927 -3.923
GW-122 MW 2.21 7.79E-04 -3.108
GW-122 MW 2.35 8.28E-04 8.04E-04 -3.082 -3.095
GW-123 MW 5.45 1.92E-03 -2.716
GW-123 MW 1.82 6.43E-04 1.28E-03 -3.192 -2.954
GW-123R MW 1.23 4.34E-04 -3.363
GW-123R MW 1.08 3.80E-04 -3.421
GW-123R MW 1.03 3.65E-04 3.93E-04 -3.438 -3.407
GW-124 MW 0.80 2.84E-04 -3.547
GW-124 MW 0.72 2.55E-04 2.69E-04 -3.594 -3.571
GW-125 Class A North 8.67 3.06E-03 -2.514
GW-125 Class A North 9.61 3.39E-03 -2.470
GW-125 Class A North 8.69 3.07E-03 3.17E-03 -2.514 -2.499
GW-126 11.e(2)/LARW 0.94 3.31E-04 -3.480
GW-126 11.e(2)/LARW 1.00 3.52E-04 3.42E-04 -3.453 -3.467
GW-127 11.e(2)/LARW 1.83 6.46E-04 -3.190
GW-127 11.e(2)/LARW 1.64 5.78E-04 6.12E-04 -3.238 -3.214
GW-128 #2 LARW 4.16 1.47E-03 -2.833
GW-128 #3 LARW 4.16 1.47E-03 -2.833
GW-128 #4 LARW 4.16 1.47E-03 1.47E-03 -2.833 -2.833
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-6
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
GW-129 #2 Pond 1.59 5.61E-04 5.34E-04 -3.251 -3.273
GW-130 #1 MW 0.70 2.47E-04 -3.607
GW-130 #2 MW 0.71 2.50E-04 2.49E-04 -3.601 -3.604
GW-131 #1 MW 0.85 3.00E-04 -3.523
GW-131 #2 MW 0.86 3.03E-04 3.02E-04 -3.518 -3.521
GW-132 #1 MW 1.41 4.97E-04 -3.303
GW-132 #2 MW 1.48 5.22E-04 5.10E-04 -3.282 -3.293
GW-133 #1 MW 0.69 2.43E-04 -3.614
GW-133 #2 MW 0.63 2.22E-04 2.33E-04 -3.653 -3.633
GW-134 #1 MW 6.59 2.32E-03 -2.634
GW-134 #2 MW 6.54 2.31E-03 2.32E-03 -2.637 -2.635
GW-135 #1 MW 0.17 6.00E-05 -4.222
GW-135 #2 MW 0.18 6.35E-05 6.17E-05 -4.197 -4.210
GW-136 #1 MW 0.65 2.29E-04 -3.640
GW-136 #2 MW 0.64 2.26E-04 2.28E-04 -3.646 -3.643
GW-137 #1 Class A North 6.20 2.19E-03 -2.660
GW-137 #2 Class A North 6.86 2.42E-03 2.30E-03 -2.616 -2.638
GW-138 #1 Class A North 6.49 2.29E-03 -2.640
GW-138 #2 Class A North 6.26 2.21E-03 2.25E-03 -2.656 -2.648
GW-139 #1 Class A North 3.97 1.40E-03 -2.854
GW-139 #2 Class A North 4.00 1.41E-03 1.41E-03 -2.850 -2.852
GW-139D #1 Deep 3.66 1.29E-03 -2.889
GW-139D #2 Deep 3.88 1.37E-03 1.33E-03 -2.864 -2.876
GW-140 #1 Class A North 2.29 8.08E-04 -3.093
GW-140 #2 Class A North 2.29 8.08E-04 8.08E-04 -3.093 -3.093
GW-141 #1 Class A North 1.81 6.39E-04 -3.195
GW-141 #2 Class A North 1.84 6.49E-04 6.44E-04 -3.188 -3.191
I-1-30A1 MW 2.20 7.77E-04 -3.109
I-1-30A2 MW 2.40 8.47E-04 -3.072
I-1-30A3 MW 2.36 8.32E-04 8.19E-04 -3.080 -3.087
I-2-30A2 LARW 0.49 1.74E-04 1.74E-04 -3.759 -3.759
I-3-30A1 MW 1.10 3.87E-04 -3.412
I-3-30B1 MW 0.63 2.23E-04 -3.651
I-3-30B2 MW 0.67 2.36E-04 2.82E-04 -3.627 -3.563
PZ-1#1 Pond 3.49 1.23E-03 -2.910
PZ-1#2 Pond 3.56 1.26E-03 1.24E-03 -2.901 -2.905
P3-95 NEC Pond 0.98 3.46E-04 -3.461
P3-95 NEC Pond 0.81 2.87E-04 -3.542
P3-95 NEC Pond 0.85 3.01E-04 3.11E-04 -3.522 -3.508
P3-95 SWC Pond 0.13 4.53E-05 -4.344
P3-95 SWC Pond 0.10 3.48E-05 4.01E-05 -4.458 -4.401
P3-97 NEC Pond 0.73 2.58E-04 -3.589
P3-97 NEC Pond 0.32 1.13E-04 1.86E-04 -3.945 -3.767
P3-97 NECR Pond 0.26 9.17E-05 9.17E-05 -4.038 -4.038
EW-901 #1 NA 1.66 5.86E-04 -3.232
EW-901 #2 NA 1.49 5.26E-04 5.56E-04 -3.279 -3.256
TABLE 3
SITE-WIDE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , LLC.
T3-7
Well/Test Cell(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Log Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
Well Hydraulic
Conductivity
(log[cm/sec])
DH-31B2 MW 2.66 9.39E-04 -3.027
DH-31B3 MW 2.43 8.56E-04 8.76E-04 -3.067 -3.058
DH-32A1 LARW 0.03 1.08E-05 -4.968
DH-32A2 LARW 0.03 1.17E-05 1.12E-05 -4.931 -4.949
DH-33A1 MW 0.01 2.23E-06 2.23E-06 -5.652 -5.652
DH-59A1 11.e(2)0.19 6.55E-05 -4.184
DH-59A2 11.e(2)0.69 2.43E-04 -3.615
DH-59A3 11.e(2)0.86 3.04E-04 2.04E-04 -3.517 -3.772
DH-62A1 11.e(2)2.94 1.04E-03 -2.985
DH-62A3 11.e(2)2.94 1.04E-03 -2.985
DH-62B2 11.e(2)2.87 1.01E-03 1.03E-03 -2.995 -2.988
Mean log[K]-3.224
Mean K (cm/s)1.13E-03 Geo Mean K 5.96E-04
Site-wide Mean K
Site-wide Geometric Mean K
90% UCL Site-wide Geometric Mean K 7.31E-04
90% LCL Site-wide Geometric Mean K 4.86E-04
Note: Data from deep aquifer well GW-139D not included in statistical calculations.
T4-1
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water Specific
ID Area Easting Northing w/o Lid
(feet)(feet)(ft amsl)(feet)(ft amsl)(ft amsl)
GW-16R LARW 1,193,928.8 7,422,886.6 4,281.12 32.32 4,248.80 4,248.86 1.030
GW-19A 11.e.(2)1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4,270.79 18.30 4,252.49 4,252.72 1.032
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4,270.69 21.05 4,249.64 4,250.74 1.016
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4,276.60 25.80 4,250.80 4,250.98 1.034
GW-22 LARW 1,193,462.9 7,422,929.9 4,277.25 28.15 4,249.10 4,249.16 1.028
GW-23 LARW 1,193,052.8 7,422,934.6 4,276.63 27.11 4,249.52 4,249.62 1.032
GW-24 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,636.4 7,422,837.9 4,276.69 26.72 4,249.97 4,250.05 1.024
GW-25 11.e.(2)1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4,276.24 25.64 4,250.60 4,250.77 1.034
GW-26 11.e.(2)1,190,914.9 7,423,076.1 4,274.67 23.74 4,250.93 4,251.07 1.036
GW-27 11.e.(2)1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4,272.43 21.65 4,250.78 4,250.97 1.038
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4,273.67 24.36 4,249.31 4,250.41 1.016
GW-28 11.e.(2)1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4,271.26 19.31 4,251.95 4,252.17 1.036
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4,276.32 24.94 4,251.38 4,251.48 1.022
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4,272.09 19.06 4,253.03 4,253.25 1.032
GW-37 11.e.(2)1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4,270.88 18.59 4,252.29 4,252.52 1.034
GW-38R 11.e.(2)1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4,275.70 23.80 4,251.90 4,252.12 1.032
GW-56R LARW 1,193,952.3 7,422,491.1 4,279.19 30.21 4,248.98 4,249.08 1.030
GW-57 11.e.(2)1,190,072.5 7,422,629.2 4,271.88 20.60 4,251.28 4,251.47 1.034
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4,271.38 18.74 4,252.64 4,252.93 1.040
GW-60 11.e.(2)1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4,274.79 21.29 4,253.50 4,253.51 1.002
GW-63 11.e.(2)1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4,272.04 18.13 4,253.91 4,254.03 1.016
GW-64 LARW 1,193,904.2 7,421,623.1 4,278.96 29.41 4,249.55 4,249.67 1.034
GW-66R Pond Well 1,194,183.8 7,421,240.1 4,281.77 32.62 4,249.15 4,249.29 1.026
GW-77 LARW 1,193,897.5 7,421,068.4 4,282.96 33.25 4,249.71 4,249.87 1.032
GW-88 Class A 1,192,544.6 7,424,621.6 4,279.58 30.29 4,249.29 4,249.39 1.030
GW-89 Class A 1,192,538.6 7,424,228.2 4,279.35 29.92 4,249.43 4,249.53 1.030
GW-90 Class A 1,192,532.9 7,423,836.7 4,278.76 29.18 4,249.58 4,249.69 1.028
GW-91 Class A 1,192,526.7 7,423,442.1 4,278.48 28.89 4,249.59 4,249.70 1.030
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4,279.05 28.87 4,250.18 4,250.20 1.004
GW-93 Class A 1,192,132.2 7,423,053.1 4,277.86 27.61 4,250.25 4,250.42 1.036
GW-94 Class A 1,191,333.3 7,423,069.2 4,276.55 25.78 4,250.77 4,250.98 1.038
GW-95 Class A 1,190,503.5 7,423,084.6 4,274.63 23.80 4,250.83 4,250.98 1.036
GW-99 Class A 1,190,086.6 7,423,490.1 4,273.71 23.08 4,250.63 4,250.82 1.044
GW-100 Class A 1,190,095.3 7,423,883.1 4,274.37 23.88 4,250.49 4,250.61 1.030
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 4th Quarter 2018
T4-2
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water Specific
ID Area Easting Northing w/o Lid
(feet)(feet)(ft amsl)(feet)(ft amsl)(ft amsl)
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 4th Quarter 2018
GW-102 Class A 1,190,112.5 7,424,670.5 4,275.47 25.35 4,250.12 4,250.30 1.032
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4,278.30 27.37 4,250.93 4,251.21 1.034
GW-104 LARW 1,193,240.5 7,420,877.9 4,278.74 28.40 4,250.34 4,250.60 1.034
GW-105 LARW 1,193,731.0 7,420,869.9 4,279.22 29.30 4,249.92 4,250.11 1.030
GW-106 Class A North 1,190,128.0 7,424,985.7 4,276.18 26.11 4,250.07 4,250.34 1.034
GW-107 Class A North 1,190,138.4 7,425,378.5 4,276.26 25.92 4,250.34 4,250.55 1.026
GW-108 Class A North 1,190,148.1 7,425,724.7 4,275.96 25.68 4,250.28 4,250.54 1.032
GW-109 Class A North 1,190,431.3 7,425,719.1 4,276.46 26.28 4,250.18 4,250.42 1.032
GW-110 Class A North 1,190,759.6 7,425,712.9 4,276.72 26.69 4,250.03 4,250.25 1.030
GW-111 Class A North 1,191,086.4 7,425,706.8 4,277.07 27.13 4,249.94 4,250.14 1.028
GW-112 Class A North 1,191,421.8 7,425,701.5 4,277.40 28.07 4,249.33 4,249.57 1.036
GW-126 11.e(2) 1,192,625.7 7,422,412.9 4,279.08 28.74 4,250.34 4,250.51 1.032
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4,278.36 27.27 4,251.09 4,251.28 1.032
GW-128 LARW 1,193,916.2 7,422,056.0 4,282.62 33.50 4,249.12 4,249.30 1.036
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4,283.55 33.42 4,250.13 4,250.33 1.030
GW-130 Mixed Waste 1,194,288.6 7,422,901.3 4,281.15 32.66 4,248.49 4,248.60 1.024
GW-131 Mixed Waste 1,194,613.8 7,422,907.6 4,281.74 33.21 4,248.53 4,248.62 1.020
GW-132 Mixed Waste 1,194,937.0 7,422,912.3 4,282.95 34.49 4,248.46 4,248.57 1.026
GW-133 Mixed Waste 1,194,943.0 7,422,569.8 4,283.54 35.03 4,248.51 4,248.60 1.026
GW-134 Mixed Waste 1,194,938.8 7,422,238.2 4,285.28 36.69 4,248.59 4,248.67 1.022
GW-135 Mixed Waste 1,194,936.1 7,421,904.9 4,284.26 35.53 4,248.73 4,248.89 1.036
GW-136 Mixed Waste 1,194,930.0 7,421,583.2 4,283.79 34.99 4,248.80 4,248.94 1.030
GW-137 Class A North 1,191,789.8 7,425,698.9 4,278.43 29.20 4,249.23 4,249.38 1.030
GW-138 Class A North 1,192,096.3 7,425,695.2 4,279.42 30.53 4,248.89 4,249.10 1.036
GW-139 Class A North 1,192,429.7 7,425,689.5 4,282.92 34.25 4,248.67 4,248.79 1.034
GW-139D Deep Well 1,192,431.7 7,425,700.4 4,283.14 34.39 4,248.75 4,249.51 1.014
GW-140 Class A North 1,192,424.3 7,425,362.2 4,280.88 32.08 4,248.80 4,248.97 1.034
GW-141 Class A North 1,192,420.8 7,425,032.9 4,280.19 31.23 4,248.96 4,249.10 1.036
I-1-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,195.8 7,420,900.9 4,279.45 29.90 4,249.55 4,249.67 1.032
I-1-100 Deep Well 1,194,193.9 7,420,896.6 4,279.33 30.05 4,249.28 4,250.58 1.020
I-3-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,589.6 7,422,922.8 4,281.33 32.76 4,248.57 4,248.62 1.020
I-3-100 Deep Well 1,194,590.0 7,422,927.9 4,281.56 32.16 4,249.40 4,249.53 1.002
P3-95 NECR Pond Well 1,194,361.0 7,423,973.8 4,285.20 36.47 4,248.73 4,248.80 1.020
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4,280.25 31.78 4,248.47 4,248.59 1.034
P3-97 NECR Pond Well 1,194,343.2 7,424,298.4 4,282.02 33.68 4,248.34 4,248.44 1.020
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4,269.18 17.65 4,251.53 4,251.81 1.048
T5-1
Water Compliance
Area Type Maximum Minimum Average Gradient Limit Yes/No Geometric Mean Arithmetic Mean
Horizontal Velocity (ft/day)
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF HORIZONTAL GRADIENTS AND VELOCITIES
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 4th Quarter 2018
Class A
All unconfined wells
11e.(2)
Class A North
Mixed Waste
Deep
LARW
Gradients
T6-1
Depth Saline Fresh Mid-Point of ∆
Well to Water Water Filter Pack Vertical ∆Vertical Vertical ∆Vertical Vertical Specific
(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/day)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/day)
I-1-30 29.90 4249.55 4249.67 4247.8 1.032
I-1-100 30.05 4249.28 4250.58 4184.0 1.020
I-3-30 32.76 4248.57 4248.62 4249.5 1.020
I-3-100 32.16 4249.40 4249.53 4186.0 1.002
GW-19A 18.30 4252.49 4252.72 4246.1 1.032
GW-19B 21.05 4249.64 4250.74 4180.6 1.016
GW-27 21.65 4250.78 4250.97 4246.7 1.038
GW-27 Deep 24.36 4249.31 4250.41 4180.4 1.016
GW-139 34.25 4248.67 4248.79 4250.2 1.034
GW-139 Deep 34.39 4248.75 4249.51 4194.3 1.014
A negative vertical gradient = upward gradient
A positive vertical gradient = downward gradient
A negative vertical velocity = upward flow
A positive vertical velocity = downward flow
-1.47
-63.46
0.0435
0.0222
-65.48
-66.34
0.83
-2.85
-63.75 -0.27 -0.0144
-0.01430.91-0.0131
0.0042 0.921.20E-05
-3.70E-05
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF VERTICAL GRADIENTS AND VELOCITIES
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 4th Quarter 2018
-55.93 0.08 -0.0015 0.72 -0.0129
Salt Water Fresh Water
-0.56 0.0084
0.03021.23E-04
6.27E-05
-4.20E-06
-4.07E-05
-4.04E-05
8.55E-05
2.38E-05
-3.65E-05
-1.98
T7-1
ID Area Easting Northing
GW-66R Pond Well 1,194,183.8 7,421,240.1 35,900 36,839 18
GW-83 Class A 1,191,104.5 7,424,649.8 33,900 34,573 33
GW-84 Class A 1,191,437.3 7,424,643.6 36,400 42,958 35
GW-85 Class A 1,191,760.6 7,424,637.2 42,800 42,852 35
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
T7-2
ID Area Easting Northing
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
GW-109 Class A North 1,190,431.3 7,425,719.1 40,200 37,973 26
GW-112 Class A North 1,191,421.8 7,425,701.5 46,200 47,648 25
GW-126 11.e(2) 1,192,625.7 7,422,412.9 42,800 45,164 22
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 43,300 38,368 22
GW-128 LARW 1,193,916.2 7,422,056.0 47,400 46,189 19
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 35,300 39,725 16
GW-130 Mixed Waste 1,194,288.6 7,422,901.3 31,100 33,325 12
GW-131 Mixed Waste 1,194,613.8 7,422,907.6 27,100 24,992 12
GW-132 Mixed Waste 1,194,937.0 7,422,912.3 37,600 34,442 12
GW-133 Mixed Waste 1,194,943.0 7,422,569.8 34,500 31,492 12
GW-134 Mixed Waste 1,194,938.8 7,422,238.2 28,900 27,608 12
GW-135 Mixed Waste 1,194,936.1 7,421,904.9 45,200 41,167 12
GW-136 Mixed Waste 1,194,930.0 7,421,583.2 36,500 32,542 12
GW-137 Class A North 1,191,789.8 7,425,698.9 41,800 43,642 12
GW-138 Class A North 1,192,096.3 7,425,695.2 58,700 51,567 12
GW-139 Class A North 1,192,429.7 7,425,689.5 47,900 49,717 12
GW-139D Deep Well 1,192,431.7 7,425,700.4
GW-140 Class A North 1,192,424.3 7,425,362.2 47,800 49,658 12
GW-141 Class A North 1,192,420.8 7,425,032.9 45,800 49,017 12
I-1-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,195.8 7,420,900.9 39,300 31,061 41
I-1-100 Deep Well 1,194,193.9 7,420,896.6
I-3-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,589.6 7,422,922.8 27,000 27,250 8
I-3-100 Deep Well 1,194,590.0 7,422,927.9
P3-95 NECR Pond Well 1,194,361.0 7,423,973.8 23,900 24,428 18
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 46,200 53,882 38
P3-97 NECR Pond Well 1,194,343.2 7,424,298.4 25,900 25,921 19
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2
- Outliers removed in accordance with procedure given in Comprehensive Groundwater Qual Eval Rpt (March 19, 2014; CD14-0056).

Figures
Qlf QlfQlf
Qlf?Qlf?Qlf?
Qlg
Qlg
Qlf1
Qls
Qls
30 2829
3231 33
56 4
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 2000'10/30/12
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI00.5 10.25 Miles
FIGURE 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
FIGURE 3
Section Boundary
Geology
Quaternary lacustrine gravel
Quaternary lacustrine sand
Quaternary lacustrine mud
Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits
Qlg
Qls
Qlf1
Qlf
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97Pond
P3-95Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 4
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/14/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B
4 5
D
E
6
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GW-129 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
10 - THICKNESS OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
UNIT 4 (feet)
CONTOUR INTERVAL 1.0 foot
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97Pond
P3-95Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 5
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/17/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B TO
P

O
F

U
N
I
T

2

C
L
A
Y

S
T
R
U
C
T
R
U
A
L

C
O
N
T
O
U
R

M
A
P
RE
V
I
S
E
D

H
Y
D
R
O
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T
FI
G
U
R
E

5
CL
I
V
E
,

U
T
A
H
4 5
D
E
6
-
DA
T
E

B
Y
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
N
G
E
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GW-129 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
4,252 - ELEVATION OF TOP OF
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT 2 (feet amsl)
CONTOUR INTERVAL 2.0 feet
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
A A'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
?
?
GW-139
GW-139D
GW-109
GW-110
GW-111
GW-112
GW-137
GW-138
GW-139
GW-139D
GW-8
GW-21
SC-5
SC-11
ML
CL-ML
SP-SM
CL-ML
SP-SM
ML
CL
SM
CL
ML
ML-CL
CL
SM
CL
ML
CL
SM
CL
ML
CL
SM
ML
SM
ML
CL
CL-ML
SP-SMSC-ML
CL-ML
CL
SM-ML
CL
ML-SM
CL
SM-ML
CL
SM
CL-ML
SM-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
SM-ML
ML
SM
SC-SM
SM
ML-CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
CL
SM
SM-CL
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
5500
5500
5750
5750
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
4290 4290
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 7
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 7
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
B B'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
GW-6
GW-81
GW-82
GW-83
GW-84
GW-85
GW-86
GW-88
SC-6 SC-9
SC-12
SLC-202
?
?
CL
CL-ML
SP-SMSC-ML
CL-ML
CL
SM
CL
SMCL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CLSM
CL
SP-GP
SM
CH-CL
CL
CL
SM
CL-SM
SM
CL
CL-ML
SP-SM
CL-ML
SP-SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM-CL
ML
SM-CL
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL-ML
CL-ML
SP-SMSM-SC
CL-ML
CL
SM
CL
SM
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
4170 4170
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
4290 4290
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 8
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 8
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
C C'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
?
SLC-204
GW-27D
I-3-50
I-3-100
GW-27
GW-27D
I-3-30
I-3-50
I-3-100
???SMCL
CL
SM
ML
CL
GM
SM
ML
GW-16R
GW-22
GW-23
GW-25
GW-26
GW-27
GW-92
GW-93
GW-94
GW-95 GW-130
GW-132
I-3-30
CL
SM
CLSMCLSM
CLSM
CL
SM
CL
CL-ML
SM
CL-CH
SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SMCL
SM
CL
CL
SM-CL
CL
CL
SM
ML
CL
SM
CL
GM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM-ML
CL
ML-SM
CL
SC-SM
CL-ML
SC
ML-CL
SC-SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
ML
CL
CL
ML-CL
ML-SM
SM-CL-ML
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
4170 4170
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
4290 4290
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION C-C'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 9
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 9
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
D D'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
?
I-1-30
GW-19A
DH-54
GW-19A
GW-19B
I-1-30
I-1-50
I-1-100
DH-52
GW-19B
GW-60
GW-63
GW-103
GW-104
GW-105
I-1-100
PZ-1
I-1-50
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
ML
CL
ML
CL
SM
ML
CL
CL
SM-CL
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
SC
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
ML
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
4170 4170
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION D-D'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 10
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 10
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
E E'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
??
?
GW-19A
GW-19B
GW-27D
GW-27
SC-ML
DH-47
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL CL
SM
GW-19A
GW-19B
GW-27
GW-27D
GW-28
GW-57
GW-58
GW-99
GW-100
GW-101
GW-102
GW-106
GW-107
GW-108
SC-2
SC-5
SC-6
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
ML-CL
CL
SM-SC
CL-ML
SP-SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM-CL
CL
CL
SM
CLSMCLSM
CLSM
CL
SM
ML
CL
GM
SM
ML
CL CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM-CL
CL
SM-CL
CL
ML
CL
SMCL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SP-SM
CL-ML
CL
SM-CL
SM
CL
CL-ML
SM
CL
SM
ML
CL
ML-CL
SM
ML-CL
CL
ML
CL
SM
ML
SM
CL
ML
SP-SM
CL-ML
SP-SM
CL-ML
CL-ML
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
4170 4170
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION E-E'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 11
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 11
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
F F'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
?
GW-139D
GW-139
GW-20
GW-24
GW-29
GW-88
GW-89
GW-90
GW-91
GW-92
GW-103
GW-126
GW-127
GW-139
GW-139D
GW-17A
GW-117
GW-125
SC-1
CL
SM
ML
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM-SC
CLSM
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM-SC
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
ML
CL
SM
CLSM
CL
ML
SPML
SP-SM
SM-SC
CL-ML
SM-CL-ML
SM
SP-SM
ML
CL
SM
CLSMCL
SM
ML
CL
ML
CL
SM
CL
SMCLSM
CL
CL
SM
CL
SM
CLML
CL
CL
SM
CL
ML
CL
SMML
SM
ML
CL
CL-ML
SM-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
ML
SM
SM
ML-CL
SC-SM
SM-ML
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
4290 4290
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION F-F'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 12
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 12
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
GFED
C
B
A G'F'
C'
B'
E'
D'
A'
Distance (feet)
Feet above mean sea level
G G'
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
?
DH-54
GW-132
GW-133
GW-134
GW-135
GW-6
GW-21
GW-41
GW-67
GW-68
I-4-50
CL
SM
CL
CL
SMCL
SM
CL
SM
ML
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
SMCL
CL
SM
CL
SMCL
ML
CL
SM-ML
ML-CL
CLSM-MLCL
SM-ML
ML
CL
SM-SC-CL
CL-ML
ML
CL
SM
ML
ML
CL
SM-CL
ML
SM-ML
CL-ML
ML
CL
SM-CL-ML
CL
ML-SM
ML-CL
CL
SM
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
SM-CL
MLSM
250
250
500
500
750
750
1000
1000
1250
1250
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2250
2250
2500
2500
2750
2750
3000
3000
3250
3250
3500
3500
3750
3750
4000
4000
4250
4250
4500
4500
4750
4750
5000
5000
5250
5250
5500
5500
4180 4180
4190 4190
4200 4200
4210 4210
4220 4220
4230 4230
4240 4240
4250 4250
4260 4260
4270 4270
4280 4280
4290 4290
Sediments with lowhydraulic conductivity
Sediments with moderate tohigh hydraulic conductivity
Groundwater surface, shallow aquifer,freshwater equivalent, December 2011(from data in Table 4)
Well casing
Filter pack of well
Screened interval of well
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION G-G'
Note: Some logs are offsetfrom section line as shown onFigure 6.
CH – High plasticity clayCL – ClayGC – Clayey gravelGM – Silty gravelGP – Poorly graded gravelGW – Well graded gravelML – SiltSC – Clayey sandSM – Silty sandSP – Poorly graded sand
FIGURE 13
CLIVE, UTAH
DATE
BY
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
REV.DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
APPROVED BY
REVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
1" = 500'10/12/12
FIGURE 13
R.JOHNSON, SWCAM. LEBARONR.SOBOCINSKI
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000
Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97
Pond
P3-95
Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 14
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/17/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B
4 5
D
E
6
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GW-129 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
-3.25 - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (log10 cm/sec)
CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL 0.25 (log10 cm/sec)
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97Pond
P3-95
Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 15
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/17/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B
20
1
8

4
T
H

Q
T
R

S
H
A
L
L
O
W

A
Q
U
I
F
E
R

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D

H
Y
D
R
O
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T
FI
G
U
R
E

1
5
CL
I
V
E
,

U
T
A
H
4 5
D
E
6
-
DA
T
E

B
Y
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
N
G
E
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
4,250.0 - FRESH WATER EQUIVALENT
ELEVATION CONTOUR (feet amsl)
CONTOUR INTERVAL 0.5 feet
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet
4,250.0 - SALINE WATER ELEVATION
CONTOUR (feet amsl)
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97Pond
P3-95Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 16
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/17/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B
4 5
D
E
6
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
4,250.0 - 4TH QUARTER 2018 FRESH WATER
EQUIVALENT ELEVATION CONTOUR (feet amsl)
CONTOUR INTERVAL 0.5 feet
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet
4,250.0 - DECEMBER 2011 FRESH WATER
EQUIVALENT ELEVATION CONTOUR (feet amsl)
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97Pond
P3-95Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 17
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/17/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B
20
1
8

4
T
H

Q
U
A
R
T
E
R

D
E
E
P

A
Q
U
I
F
E
R

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D

H
Y
D
R
O
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T
FI
G
U
R
E

1
7
CL
I
V
E
,

U
T
A
H
4 5
D
E
6
-
DA
T
E

B
Y
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
H
A
N
G
E
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
4,250.0 - FRESH WATER EQUIVALENT
ELEVATION CONTOUR (feet amsl)
CONTOUR INTERVAL 0.1 feet
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet
4,249.3 - SALINE WATER ELEVATION
CONTOUR (feet amsl)
GW-19B
32
29
31 33
56 4
30 28
T 1S
R 11W
SITE LOCATION
SLC BASE
EMBANKMENT
CLASS A
EMBANKMENT
LARW
EMBANKMENT
VITRO
11e(2)
EMBANKMENT
32 RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RSRS
RS
RS32
32
32
31
31
6 5
29 28
33
2930
45
3332
Southwest
Pond
2000Pond
MW
Pond
P3-97Pond
P3-95Pond
Cover Test Cell
CLASS A NORTH
MIXED WASTE
EMBANKMENT
EMBANKMENT
C
A
1
B
2 3
D
E
1 2 3
C
4 5
A
6
FIGURE 18
1" = 900'
DRAWING NO.
R. SOBOCINSKIAPPROVED BY
SCALE 12/17/18DATE REV.
R. SOBOCINSKI
S. GURRREVIEWED BY
DRAFTED BY
B
4 5
D
E
6
0
LEGEND
SECTION BOUNDARY
CLASS A WEST EMBANKMENT
GW-129 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
42,000 - TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/L)
ISO-CONCENTRATION CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5,000 mg/L
0 900 1,800 2,700 feet

Appendix A
(provided on attached CD)

EnergySolutions
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Project: Extraction Well near SW Pond Boring Number: EW-902
Date Drilled: 04/05/10 Date Completed: 04/06/10 Northing: 7,420,919.94 Easting: 1,189,817.05
Logged By: Robert Sobocinski Ground Surface Elevation (ft amsl): 4,268.80
Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl): 4,252.16 Measuring Point (MP) Elevation (ft amsl): 4,272.16
Date Measured: 04/06/10 MP is top of Protective Casing
Total Depth (ft): 35.0 feet bgs Drilling Contractor: RayCon Drilling
Diameter (in): 10.25 Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Well Screen: Diameter 4-inch I.D. Length 34.5 to 19.5 feet bgs Slot Size 0.010-inch
Casing: Diameter 4-inch I.D. Length 19.5 to 0.0 feet bgs Type PVC Sch. 40
Sand 35.0 to 17.1 feet bgs Bentonite Seal 17.1 to 12.4 feet bgs Grout 12.4 to 0.0 feet bgs
%
G
r
a
v
e
l
%
S
a
n
d
%
C
l
a
y
Bl
o
w
s

(
6

i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
Lo
g
0 -15 25 60 NA SS 1.5 Sandy Silt - tan, some clay and gravel, mois
-
1 -0 25 75 Silty Clay - tan, some sand, mois
-
2 -0 25 75 NA SS 1.0 Silty Clay - med. tan/light tan mottled, some san
-
3 -0 10 90 Silty Clay - light tan, low plasticity, stiff, slightly mo
-
4 -0.0 No Recovery
-0.0
5 -0 30 70 NA SS 2.0 Sandy Silt/Silty Clay - med. gray/tan and light gray/tan interbedde
-moist
6 -0 5 95 Clay - light gray/tan and med. gray/tan, yellow-mottled, some si
-med. plasticity, med. stiff, mois
7 -0.0 No Recovery
-0 10 90 NA SS 1.5 Silty Clay - med. and light olive-gray, yellow/rust-mottle
8 -soft white crystals in voids, med. plasticity, stiff, w
-
9 -
-0.0 No Recovery
10 -0 5 95 NA SS 2.0 Clay - alternating thin interbeds, med. olive-gray and light gra
-med. plasticity, soft white crystals, very moist/we
11 -
-
12 -0.0 No Recovery
-0 5 95 NA SS 2.0 same as above
13 -0 65 35
-0 5 95 Silty Clay - med. olive-gray, med. plasticity, stiff, slightly mo
14 -
-0.0 No Recovery
15 -0 65 35 NA SS 2.0
-dense, moist
16 -Silty Sand - olive-tan, fine-grained, interbeds of sandy clay, dens
-moist
17 -0.0 No Recovery
-0 65 35 NA SS 1.5 Silty Sand - tan, rust-mottled, fine-gr, some clay, med. dense, w
18 -
-sharp contact with below
19 -0 15 85 Silty Clay - tan, med. plasticity, stif
-0.0 No Recovery
Stratigraphic Log
Silty Sand - yellow-tan, rust-mottled, fine-gr, some clay, moist
Silty Sand - yellow-tan, rust-mottled, some clay, fine-grained,
Sand - med. tan/yellow, med.-gr, poorly-sorted, very moist
Grain Size
De
p
t
h

(f
e
e
t
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
e
e
t

a
m
s
l
)
CL
ML/
CL
CL
CL
4"Schedule
40 PVC
Casing
Bentonite
Seal
MP
(4,272.16)
4,269.57
ML
SM
Aquaguard
Grout
4,259.57
SM
CL
SS Split Spoon
1 of 2 EW-902
EnergySolutions
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Project: Extraction Well near SW Pond Boring Number: EW-902
Date Drilled: 04/05/10 Date Completed: 04/06/10 Northing: 7,420,919.94 Easting: 1,189,817.05
Logged By: Robert Sobocinski Ground Surface Elevation (ft amsl): 4,268.80
Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl): 4,252.16 Measuring Point (MP) Elevation (ft amsl): 4,272.16
Date Measured: 04/06/10 MP is top of Protective Casing
Total Depth (ft): 35.0 feet bgs Drilling Contractor: RayCon Drilling
Diameter (in): 10.25 Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Well Screen: Diameter 4-inch I.D. Length 34.5 to 19.5 feet bgs Slot Size 0.010-inch
Casing: Diameter 4-inch I.D. Length 19.5 to 0.0 feet bgs Type PVC Sch. 40
Sand 35.0 to 17.1 feet bgs Bentonite Seal 17.1 to 12.4 feet bgs Grout 12.4 to 0.0 feet bgs
%
G
r
a
v
e
l
%
S
a
n
d
%
C
l
a
y
Bl
o
w
s

(
6

i
n
.
)
Sa
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
Lo
g
Stratigraphic Log
Grain Size
De
p
t
h

(f
e
e
t
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
e
e
t

a
m
s
l
)
20 -0 20 80 NA SS 1.0
-very stiff, moist
21 -
-
22 -0.0
-0 70 30 NA SS 1.0 Silty Sand - dark gray, fine-grained, well-sorted, very dens
23 -wet
-
24 -
-0.0 No Recovery25 -NA SS 2.0 same as above, fining downward
-
26 -0 40 60 Sandy Silt - dark gray, some clay, very dense, moi
-
27 -0.0 No Recovery
-0 10 90 NA SS 2.0 Silty Clay - gray-green, med. plasticity, stiff, moi
28 -
-
29 -
-0.0 No Recovery30 -0 10 90 NA SS 2.0 Silty Clay - med. gray-green, dark gray-mottled, med. plasticit
-stiff, wet
31 -
-
32 -0.0 No Recovery
-0 35 65 NA SS 2.0 Sandy/Clayey Silt and Silty Clay - med. gray-green, interbedde
33 -some intervals wet, others mois
-
34 -
-
35 -
TD of boring - 35.0 feet bgs
No Recovery
Silty Clay - olive-gray, yellow-mottled, some sand,
ML
CL
16/30
SandSM
4"
Schedule
40 PVC
0.010-inch
screen
4,249.57
4,239.57
CL
ML/
CL
SS Split Spoon
2 of 2 EW-902
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
IIELL NO.: GII-1
COORDINATES: SLBft Sec. 32, T1S, R1111, N 54.13, E 2004.09
(frOll SII corner)
DATE C~PLETED: 3-3-1988 AQUI FER: UpperllOlt
SUPERVISED BY: Robert E. Barto~ Delta Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
Screen
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
4274.78
2.58 ft
Depth of surface seal 18.0 ft
Type of surface seal: BENTONITE PELLETS AND GROUT
1.0. of surface casing 6.5"
Type of surface casing: STEEL
Depth of surface casing Unknown
I. D. of riser pipe 2.0"
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Diameter of borehole 6.5"
Type of filler: BENTONITE PELLETS AND GROUT
Elev./depth of top of seal 0-18.0 ft
Type of seal: BENTONITE PELLETS AND GROUT
Type of gravel pack: SAND 8-12 (0.236 .. -0.17 .. )
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Hydrophilic Type II
2u-dialeter, Slot size: 0.020
4254.2
4252.2
I.D. of screen section 2.0·
Elev./depth of bottOil of screen
Elev./depth of bottOil of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank aection
Type of fiL ler below plugged section: UNKNOIIN
Elevation of botta. of borehole
4232.2
4232.2
m2.2
4230.7
* All elevations are in feet above mean sea level.
FIGURE'III-18
•
•
•
I.
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
GW-l
Kanitoring Uell Design
A. GU-' was designed according to the infor.ation on the well construction summary sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. No fluids were used during drilling.
c. Fluids Analysis. Since no fluid was used, none was analyzed.
D. Equipaent Cleaning. The drilling equipment was steam cleaned prior to drilling the well.
E. Compressed Air. No compressed air was used during drilling.
F. PotentiOlietric Surface. The procedure for establi shing the potentiOllletric surface wal not
doCuHnted by Envirocare. However, Delta Geotechnical enl,ured that this value was obtained using standard weLL­
installation procedures.
G. For.ation Samples.
,. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at varying intervals.
2. Sampling Methods. Samples were obtained with a split spoon .
3. Collection Intervals. Samples were taken at 5 and 10 foot intervals.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Monitoring Uell Construction Haterials
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC threaded pipe.
B. Protective Caling. The weLL is protected with a 6.5" diaHter carbon steel casing.
C. Screen. The screen is a 2M diaHter PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. The well construction Nterials were not steBII cleaned before installation.
However, they were purchased new f I'0Il the vendors.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Devel~ent
A. Screen. A .anufactured Hydrophilic-brand Type II screen was installed. The PVC screen has a 2-
dillHter and is set frOil a depth of 20 to 40 feet.
B. Filter Pack. Ch .. ically-;nert gravel filter pack was installed fro. 18 feet to 40 feet. The well
has not been IIHlUred for turbidity.
C. Well Devel~t. The well was developed with teChniques including the use of a bailer.
V. Annular Space seals, Aprons, locks
A. Well Seal. The wel l is sealed frOil the ground lurface to 18 feet in depth with a ceaent-bentonite
mixture. The mixture was installed by dropping the material down the hole and tamping. No sealing was done in
the uturated zone. The well has been fitted with a 3x3-foot concrete apron and is locked to prevent tampering.
The well hal been fitted with a dedicated bladder pulp.
DB.lhI
LL PI W o
5
10
15
20
~
UJ UJ ...
~
::r ~ D. 25 LLJ c
30
35
40
45
JOB NO
•
DO OTHER TESTS
TEST HOLE NO. GW-l
ELEVATION
SOIL DESCRIPTION
'lO!>SOIJ .. : 211
SILT(r.n...), sandy, Il'Dist, bravn
C1...AY (CL), sandy, calcareou~,
4/12 50ft, \'1et, light bra.m5h-gray
SILT (Mr.), sandy, na:liul'l1 den~e,
20/12 noist, light bro.m
SAND (S!-1) , ni1ty, Iredium den.cre,
23/12 moist, light brown
9
CIAY(CL) , sandy, calcareous,
5/12 nedium stiff, wet, light gray'
brown
9/12
ClAY (CL), sandy, stiff, \.ret,
gray
roIH @ 41' 6"
Groundwater @ 23' 3"
LOG OF TEST HOLE
FIGURE
,
•
•
•
Test Hole GW-l
ElI ... I .... ___ • ___ ._ •••••.• __ .. ___ _
I" .... ' ..... S*L. ___ •.. _ ... _._. ____ ... _. __
REPORT OF WELL DRILLER
STAT.E OF UTAD C~I. H&. ________ • _______________ ___
C-.I", • ____ ._ ....... __ . ____ • _____ _ C-"~M H& ______________________ _
';ENERAL STATEMEJI.'T: Report d well driller II ".reby m .. d. and CiI~~ wll" t ... SLt.te Enrln •• r,ln aeeordane. with U..I ..... or ULt. ... CThla reporl .hall be Wed wtlh the State El'llril'llt, wilhla aD da" atte, the c:ampleLlon ar abal'ldonment Dr u. .... ll Fall"n to fII •• "c:h reporta c:aI'lIUI"tel • mildemeanor.)
(1) ... ---_ ....... _-(::j WELL TESTS: Dr ...... II ............. I. 'N' u.. .... , ..... II ....
Hart EnVirocare Inc. ., ....... Al.""''''.
... -175 S West 'J'eTp1e Suii'! 500 -lV .... ~ •• ""' _Nl .. f Y .. 0 H. II 11_' •• ~, ---
Ad ..... Sal~.~ City, Utah B4 16 -YI.I'I,,". ... _ •• u ....• 1" .•• ____ '001 .... _ 01 ... -.. -
(2) LOCATION OF WELL: n ~ ... -._ ..... --.. -------.. ..
e ........... 'Itloele ..... _._. c ...... W.I ..... 1. ________
~ ............ _--~ .. ..
u ••• ~ •• lIok' I. lin lui ,_ .... __ ...•• L/_Ia. ., ..... ______ ......... , •• ~ ., .. , ____ . ....-..
"""h • .:;.4 .•. 1.3 __ , .... Eo .... ~Qg_~.:_l!?._, .. 1 ·,--._~.c.n .. " ..... , ••• n.-. . ...... D." ..
::eeoc )II'aII)( Tn. ...... '.' ............ W ... .-...J.MboIo ... 1 He II Y. 0 -~,..
. ~2_,_. 'T ... _l ....... 1! .... 1L (13) WELL LOG: 1I~_ ... _oil ~5...--.. . __ --"'_ • t .ull •• ... w'_ hl~ • I JIe.'~ ."'1'" _ • _4l • .5-~Q H\.'.' ..... "' ...... ,'_ 1) ...... _ ....... 011 .-
(3) N.ATURE OF wome (check): )I .. w.n 0 ~r°!!.ll!~:.!.~ .:. -:;c.~~~.:-.:=:::'"_::~~d.u...::.. .=:~.: .. -~.::~ -=:-=
...... 1 .......... ' "-.1) 0 0.....,10. 0 ....... '0 ......... H 0 ... I,.~I ••• loft ....... urr ....• 1 •• IU •• , .... "'r. II ... h\ ............... -w __ c ...... r .. la ... c.h ,.,11t IIII""''&' u.. .......... l .1iI .. , U .........
It ................... , ........ rlaJ .u P, .... " t ___ • I)EPTH /IIATEAJAI.
I: I .II
(4) NATURE OF USE (check): :rttoring
j i . j . REXA .. JtI
X 1 ,
I . 't g J ! Do ... 11o 0 1 ..... &01.1 [J ........ p •• 0 .Lock_.a.t [J 8 ~ . E
lroto." 0 MI •••• 0 0 .... 0 T ... WoII 0
. .., ~ .a u ~ 0
(5) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION (check): 0 3 pC i~ aa">7 0 D .... 0 ~"""' 0 _1 9 Ix
c.w. 0 D,I ... 0 .-ar ....2.-114 x
l.!1 129 y I~ (6) C.ASlNG SCHEDULE: nu .... I!S w.w .. 0 29 41~ Ix
_ ... ~_. DIo ... ,,.. 0 /., .. ..ZIl......JooI c .. ...M......
...••• ___ -DI ... , .... ___ ....... ' .. 'C .. __
... ___ • Die ... ,,.. ' .. , ,,_-----1 .... c •• __
I
:ow 0 Bol ... 0 u..I 0 ---
(7) PERFORATIONS: '.".r ..... ' , .. 0 He e:I
Tr,. ., ",,'.'.Nr .Md ______ •
SI .... , .. r' .... u. ... ___ .----Iaeb_ ~' _____ luIo.
_, __ ,..-..... u... 'reln. ' .. t &0-'wi I . ___ ..".nUGM 'nlll .J .. , 10 'wi _ .•. --..... ',.,. .... ,.. 'olio .. 'wi ___ p.r'",u. •• ,,. _______ , .. \ ___ 'wi .. , ................ t .... to fool
(8) SCREENS: w.n u, ... I ......... ! Y. IX H. 0 M."' ... .......,.. ,. ... ...lWkOPb.Uic
"".. II ., ____ 11 .. 01 ,..
Df ....... 2~ __ "", ol .... 020_-IIot , ....... 2.O..-t .... ~
0.1 ..... ___ &I., .'H_ ... _ ... _s., 'nnn.... ___ '" .. ___
(9) CONSTRU CTION: -w •••• n .,. .. , ... ~ .. t Y .. ~ "·0 81 ... , ., ..... 8-12
Cr ... 1 .~ .... , ....... _.!10.1 ........ __ '001 ~.I 'olio w ••••• rfan ... 1 p .... a...r Y. HI J .. 0
T •• h< ...... ,_.18 I .J ..
M.\MI.I ....... _IL..BentcnitfLl!el Jets & .Grout ---I--D ... 11' Mn' ...... 11 •• " ....... Mr? Y. 0 He 0 T")op_ ., ...... ; ______ •• ______ • D", ., .tn~
NUM.d ..... 11 ... lir." .lIr. W .. k ....... rm-ch 3 _ uBB c..pI_ March 3 uaB
(14) PUMP:
"' ... w ........ , •• IN'" Y .. III Ifo 0 ...... ,.ct...". M. ___
W .. h. n .... t.tI I. pl ... 1 r .. m H. 0 ""..: -ILP
D ...................... ________ , ...
(10) W.ATER LEVELS: W.II Driller' .. Slat .... II': S .. 11o '-I .23,.3_,_., ... \>oJ-10 •••• rf ... D.M .•• Jl2laa
...... 1 ... 'I"ftIYI •.•••.•.• _ ..... ,"' .........•• r' __ D.M Thla •• 11 'tfU clrlll.d under JIIf '''pt"I.lan, and tbla report 1a tnM &0 ,h. be.' at m,. laIo .. l,d, ... nd belle,
LOC ·iii&iY~p.~ 1(11) FLOWING WELL: Nam • .D.el~ Geote~<a~~ts / Robert E. Bart "_.11.-. .. cor_"UI.) ~~ "itt"
~ C.Rlrwl ... kr IIh •• , V.I .. 0 Addn"P?W226t S Sa~_City, U B4
;';PI: :1 "C'. 0 PI.. [J He c.. .... 0 (SIP'd)<'~.6~~ I .' . 'Dc... •• n Inl .t.u •• ...aI.I' Y. 0 « D.IlIor)
o
I ;"ilE[' J::r(:. , ... No 0 Llc:en .. No • ..5.25...... Date. febnwl! 1~ 108B
:':51: OTIII:I\ elDz rOil ADDITIONAl. Jl,EMAIIE8
•
•
•
.'
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SL8M Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 1608.04, E 5225.32
(frOll SII corner)
DATE COHPLETED: 3~4-1988 AQUIFER: UpperllOst
SUPERVISED BY: Robert E. Barton, Delta Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACEMENT
Oft.
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
4280.15
2.50 ft
Depth of surface seal 18.0 ft
Type of surface seal: BENTONITE PELLETS AND GROUT
I.D. of surface casing 6.5"
Type of surface casing: STEEL
Depth of surface casing Unknown
1.0. of riser pipe 2.0"
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Dia.eter of borehole 6.5"
Type of filler: BENTONITE PELLETS AND GROUT
Elev./depth of top of seal 0-18.0 ft
Type of seal: BENTONITE PELLETS AND GROUT
.11~l-b~...t 'ack Type of gravel pack: SAND 8-12 (0.236 .. -0.17 .. )
--u .. ll
Screen
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Hydrophilic Type II
2"·diaaeter, Slot size: 0.020
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botto. of screen
Elev./depth of bot to. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botto. of plugged
blank section
Type of filler below plugged section: UNKNOWN
ELevation of bot to. of borehoLe
4259.65
4257.65
2.0"
4237.65
4237.65
4237.65
4236.15
* ALL elevations are in feet above aean sea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE· III-19
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
GW-2
I. Honitoring Yell DeslS"
A. GY·2 was designed according to the inforaation on the well construction summary sheet.
II. Drilling "ethads
A. "ethod. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow·stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. No fluids were used during drilling.
C. Fluids Analysis. Since no fluid was used, none was analyzed.
D. Equipment Cleaning. The drilling equipment was steam cleaned prior to drilling the well.
E. Ca.pressed Air. No compressed air was used during drilling.
f. PotentiOlietric Surface. The procedure for establishing the potentiometric surface was not
docuented by Envirocare. However, Delta Geotechnical ensured that this value was obtained using standard weLL·
installation procedures.
G. Formation samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at varying intervals.
2. Sampling Methods. Samples were obtained with a split spoon •
3. Collection Intervals. Samples were taken at 5 and 10 foot intervals.
4. Ch.-ical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Honitoring Well Construction Haterials
A. saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC threaded pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 6.5" diameter carbon steel casing.
C. Screen. The screen is a 2" diameter PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. The weLL construction materials were not steam cleaned before instaLLation.
However, they were purchased new frOli the vendors.
IV. Yell Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. A manufactured Hydrophilic·brand Type II screen was installed. The PVC screen has a 2M
diueter and is set from a depth of 20 to 40 feet.
B. fi lter Pack. Chemically·;nert gravel fi lter pack was instaLLed from 18 feet to 40 feet. The well
has not been .. sured for turbidi ty.
C. Well Devela,.ent. The well was developed with techniques including the use of a bailer.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locka
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed frOli the ground surface to 18 feet in depth with a cement-bentonite
mixture. The mixture was installed by dropping the material down the hole and tamping. No sealing was done in
the saturated zone. The well has been fitted with a 3x3-foot concrete apron and is locked to prevent tampering.
The well has been fitted with a dedicated bladder pump.
•
•
•
£. .. 1" .. __ .,. _______ ~ __ _
11_ ...... a. c:.. •• __ .• ____ 1'. a __ _
1 •• _",,--.. ________ _
RErORT OF WELL DRILLER
STATE OF UTAH
ANII ... "". ,. ... _88-16-01 ~I-l 4:1.1 .. ,., ... _____________ _
c ...... _____ .......... _____ _ ~MW "~ ________ ~ _______ _
~ ENERAL ST ATF.M ENT: R.porl 01 w.1I driller b hu.b, maele anel {II.ct .Ilh !.he Stat. En,lnler. In accordance .lth lhl I .... ot Utah . (Thll "port .hall bl m.eI with th. SLat. Ellrlllilf wlUl.lII .0 dall ah.r the c:omplltloll or abandonm.nt of till .,IL FaUllf' to till IIld!
report. conlUllltea a mlld~m .. nor.)
(1) , Hart Envrr'OCare Inc C::) WELL TESTS: ., ......... It , ......... _ I. ,"'" 1M ........... 1 It ......
,'''' ...... ,,"" .... L
Ha ..... 175 S West Temple Suite 500 -\v .. ., .tlM. '"' .... , , •• 0 ". Ii It ... .,. ...... , __________ •.
... ,_ Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 . , ..... : .••• _ , ._--" •• U.I .. wltL -'''' .,. ...... aIW ~
(2) LOCATION OF WELL: .2 ~ ... ---_._-.. .. -
e .. "." ., ... ~~L __ G ... It' w., ........ .. ._-. .. _--.. .. .. ...... ""."") D.IIo, ..... _____ .• 01.' ..... "Il~ .. ,", 'N ...... , .. , ___ .....
=.16D.8 .• 0.4. , .. I. ::.5225.....32-1 .. , , .. .....sL..c. ....
Ant" •• , ... ______ ~.-Ik" -.,.
T ..... '.''' ... t •• ""_ _W ...... IIIII ......... ' ,.. ti y-0
.f •• t .... 3.2 ... _. 1'_.1._ .. , _ .... II --ll..-. ~61J1M (.'rlke (13) WELL LOG: " .. ;..... •• , .. n __ ~.~L ______ • _ W¥Slt
.. , ... ,4 ••• , ....... , I)o.,~ •• n ..... _Al&5.... .. ___ , .. L ""~.f _,loW woll __ 4Q ___
(3) NATURE OF WORI( (check): " .... w.u Cti ~O!!.~I!~::' •• ~ ~~.~~~=:,::!::a. .... ..:~ 1:!L'~ 1l*Jt::It~--:-=:
11 ... 1 .. _. W.1I0 0.. ..... 1 •• 0 II_" 0 ........... 0 4 .. &, ....... , ....... e«.n'"H ., "."" .,.. IN ....... AM, •• , ..... et&.. ., .... w __ .... ... , .. I •••• ~ ...... 'aW".!. 1.1 ..... 1-' .~, II ......... . 11." __ 1. ._,1" _ ... ,101 ... _ ...... ,
lIr.rm .. ATDIAI..
I I ..
(4) NATURE OF USE (check):l'bnitoring X j! J J
IID1AIII'.
Well I ~ ! 1 1 i ~ o_u. 0 1 ....... 1.1 0 .... Id •• 1 0 .... k ..... ' 0 r. t
1"1 •• 1-0 I,nola .. 0 0 .... ' 0 T .. I w.n 0 "" .. .t u 0
(5) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION (check): 0 2 X ISandv
-}-23:-Ix !!;llndv a.&arp 0 II ... 0 J ..... 0 X ISiltv c.~ 0 D,I"" 0 II .... 0:[ .lL ~r ~Annv
(6) CASING SCUEDULE: n ...... 0 w.u.s 0 -_.2._-III .... ,,..--0......, .. , ..... ..20-.-.1 .. , G ... ~ -" ....... __ • III .... '""' __ -'''''' .... --J .. , c.,,,-
.... ..-.. __ .. 0 ..... ,,..---1 .. , ... __ --'", c .. __ ..... ~ .. ltd 0 1.1 .... 0
(7) PERFORATIONS: , .. ,., .... , Y.. 0 I N. II ,
'.I'7po .f ... '_ ........ ! II ... , .... , ......... lac" •• , ...... I ~,-., .... , ..... ''''M-'III I ----.... ,., ........ ,,.. ,"' &a ,~ ---_ .... ',., ....... , .... ,-... 1"", __ ' _,,"waU ... " .. , .. , ... -----'111 .---.JI'I1', ............. ,", .. 'M
(8) SCREENS: 11'.11 ... _ IMIAII • ., YM ~ N·O
M .... ' .. ' • ..,.. N._---H}/'drq;ID j ) i c
Tn>o-__ IL __ ._ .... ___ )1 .... 1 N.
DI ..... _2.'~ .... 61., .I"_~ 020..-... , ... ,_20._,1. ",-4.!l--
1)1 .... ___ • _I .. , .IM_. __ ...501 ...... --'1. "' ___
(9) CONSmUCTJON; .
\\'., ... 11 e".01 ....... , Yft II N. 0 II .. of ..... 11 B-12
c .... 1 ........ ,,.._4.(L ___ '''' '0 18 --'III
w ..... rt ................ , TN HI II. 0
T •• ~ ...... ~ , __ ...... l.B.-__ ., .. ,
M.""01 _,I __ h .. Der,tonj tB-pe' lets & grout
DW .Il' .v_, •••• t.aI~ ..... w. •• ,." T .. 0 II. 0
,..,.. •• 1 •• ht''-___ • II ... ,~ .1 ...... t.a---
M.~ .f _II ....... '" .ft. w •••• _~£b...1_ _u B8 c:-....... March 4 II 88
(14) PUMP:
w •••• " ... c ........ 141 , .. ~ II. 0 M .... , .. lIIr.,',t ,. .... _
W., 11_ .... I. ,I ... t Yft ~ N. 0 ,.,,.. --------a. ,_
(10) WATER LEVELS:
D .. ~ "' .............. 1 .. _________ ... 1_
,. .. 11 ..... I ... ;{!1 ..... S .. _ .. ,ft, "lo ............. D ..... 3/9/88 W.II Drlllrr'a Stat.menU
1hll .. ,n •• 1 elrllled IInder my IlIp."I,lon, Inel tM, repon .. true to Art ....... ,'"IV' ................ ,"t ...... ,.". _., ... lI.w th. be.t of m7 knowl.d,. and b.lI,f •
... OG iittEIVEO, (1) FLOWING WELL: Nlm • ..!&l~~.lSmsultants 1 Rotert E. Barto{
1'-, "_ .... _....... I,.".. .. lllta'l
C ... I .. I104 " (.~ ... ) V.I •• 0 ·Adelfl .. l~.lt-:-~!:: U= 84115 !\PI~ -i IS-! 0 '1 .. 0 N. CH.nl 0
1> ... ".n ...... rM" ... 1 •• 1 y-O
(Slpld) __ . .. .. L_ _ .
_II D.III .. )
\!'IATER AI\. ;'ii !.: N. 0 LleiM. No....515..M_ Da16 F.ebrJJir:l...l6 ,11 88
• SAL 1 L".I(!·: VSI: OTnr.a IIDI! TOR .A.1)lImO"AL IIb .... RU
I­
W W U.
~ :r
o
5
10
15
20
t 25 w o
30
35
40
45
JOB NO.
LL PI W DD OTHER TESTS
-
2/12
TEST HOLE NO. GV-2
ELEVATION
SOIL DESCRIPTION
'lOPSOIL: I"
SILT(ML), sandy, noist, bra.m
CI1\Y (CL), sandy, calcareous,
soft, \let, light brownish-gray
SAND (SM), silty, nedilUTl dense,
5/12 noist, brCMn
7/12 SAND (5.1'-1), si1 t~, \"/i th clay
lenses, neciilUTl dense, wet, bra.·m
9/12
ClAY (CL), sandy, calcareous,
stiff, "let, light grayish-bravn
ClAY (CL), sandy, silty,
2/12 calcareous, stiff, wet, light
brCMn
EOTH @ 41~'
Grourrlwat.er @ 29~'
LOG OF TEST HOLE
FIGURE
• PROJECT: Envirocare Landfill
DRILt HOLE LOG
DRILL HOLE NO.: GW-24
, CLIENT/OWNER: Envirocare of Utah
HOLE LOCATION: Northwest Corner of LARW Disposal Cell
DRILLER: Overland Drilling
DRILL RIG: CME 750
DEPTH TO WATER: 25.3 HOLE DIAMETER: 7.75"
SOIL SYM80L.S.
SAMPLER SYMBOLS uses O .. cripdon
AND FIELD TEST DATA
PROJECT NO.: 1416-020
DATE: 12-3-91
TOe ELEV.: 4276.59
GS ELEV.: 4274.91
LOGGEI>BY: DCH
HOLE NO.: GW-24
Slmpll S8Inpii RICOY'"
Numb., D.pm lin/inl (ftl
'ci'" ...................................................................
SR.TY CLAY: Browa, trace of fiDe 1IDCi. 17124 L·' 0·1
moist • ... pdes to nahl pay witb iron Ol:ide L·Z Z-4.' 30130 SlaiDia,.
L-3 4.5·7 30/30
L-4 Nt.5 30/30
......................................................................
SM SILTY SAND: Tan, fiDo to medium. moist. L·S '.5·12 12130
L·a 11·14.' 0130
.•. ,rades loss siley. L·7 14.5-17 15130
... grades silty . L.·a '7·19.5 0130
.•. interbedded reddish tID aad tID
silty SlDd. L·9 11.5·22 28/30
'ct'" "siLTY CLAy;'R~~'iU;'~y:'~i~m"'"
ltiff. moist. L." 24.5·27 30/30
L·tZ 27-29.5 30130
... Jndea to light p-ay. soft, moiat.
L.U ZIJ.5·32 30/30
... andes to wet.
35
•
••
•
DRILL HOLE LOG
DRILL HOLE NO.: GW·60
PROJECT: Envirocare LandfJll
CLIENT/OWNER: Envirocare of Utah
HOLE LOCATION: 10 feet west of GW·l
DRILLER: Overland Drilling Inc.
DRILL RIG: CME 750
DEPTH TO WATER: 23.46' HOLE DIAMETER: 7.75"
uses Descripuon
PROJECT NO.: 1534-007
DATE: 2-2-93
TOC ELEV.: 4274.50
GS ELEV.: 4272.7
LOGGED BY: DCH
HOLE NO.: GW-60
ample 0 th Recovery Is I slmp'el
Number ;'~l Iin"nl
o * , •• •• •• .,. ~ •••• ' ••••••• ~ •••••• ~ .............. , •••.•••••••••• , ••••••• , •••••
4270
5 3/12 2/6 316
4265
5/12 4/6 4/6
11/12 916
CL SILTY CLAY: Tan. roots in upper
12-inches, soft to medium stiff, moist.
... grades with iron oxide staining.
... grades to light gray, thin
horizontal bedding.
••••••••••••• ~ •••••••••• ~ ~ ••••• * •• , •••• , • •• • ••••••
B·l 5·' 24124
B-2 '·9 24124
B·3 9·11 24124
10 . ~ ...... 1116 SM SILTY SAND: Tan. fine to medium. medium
23/12 dellSe to dense. moist. a·4 11·13 23124
12/6 11/6
4260
15
. 1j/12 a·5 13·15 12124
Ijo~t
51/12 a·6 15·" 24124
1~6/6 416
17/12 B·7 "·19 23/24
4255 '!'6 .
20 ,.
I:
;
I: ..
... grades reddish tan. a·a 19·21 24124
... grades clayey. I a·g 21·23 24124
........ . ...............................
CL SILTY CLAY: Reddish tan, sandy. fine. a·l0 23·25 24124
sti fr. mo ist .
..• grades wet. a·ll 25·21 24/24
B·12 27.0·28 12112
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
• : 12/9/02
Bentonite Seal feet
MP
Lithologic Log
0 or Processed Clay
2" 2
0 30 70 Clay -brown, some silt, damp
3
4 0 20 80 Clay with Sand -reddish brown, damp
5
Clay -light gray, moist, soft
6 • 7
8 0 25 75
9 0 75 25 Sand With Clay -moist, light gray, soft
10 '
11'
12 _orale
S.oI
13 0 80 20 NA Silty Sand -slightly moist, soft. some clay
14
15
16
17
18 0 Silty Clay-some sand, light gray to It brown, moist, finn
19
• CC Continuous Core Barre]
lof2 GW-126
•
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 • 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
•
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Project: lle.(2) East Area
Date Drilled: 12/6/02 Date
0 3 97
0 20 80
0 5 95
Seal
Lithologic Log
Silty Clay. slightly moist to moist, light gray, finn to stiff
Clay· moist to very moist, soft, some sandy layers.
Clay -stiff, light gray, moist.
TO of boring • 36.0 feet
CC Continuous Core Barrel
20f2
4,255.52
4,250,52
16130
S""d
4,245,52
2"
Schedule
40 PVC
0.010-
inch
S1:rem
4,240,31
GW-126
BR -Correspondence -9/24/2007
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 0
9
10 0
II
12 0
13
14
IS 0
16
10
17
18
5
19
20 5
EnergySoilltiolTS
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Stratigraphic Log
clay
FilL..
sift, some <:Iay. damp, finn, reddish staining.. light brown to
light brown to tan, damp, finn, some silt
day. light gray, moist soft, some reddish staining
SBtv c'l.v alternating light and dark laminations. silty partings
'M .Ipmy sand with clay, fine-grained, grayish brown, reddish sLaining.
sand with graveJ, grny'sh·brown, soft to fin-fl, tine-grained
sand, 1ight brown to lan, little day, some gravel, soft. tine­
"=I.",inOO
CC Continuous Core Barrel
SS Split Spooo Sampler
lof3
(4,1ll:3.S5
GW-129
lO/29/201C Page 1
:WBR Correspondence -9/24/2007
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 "
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
EnergySo/utioflS
Groundwater !Vlonitoring Well Boring Log
Stratigraphic Log
Silty S!l"ld with some: gravel. tan, fine-grained. dry
1?'>::ls'ilN sand, reddish, no gl"avef1 soft. damp, fine-grained
sand, fine-grained, damp, reddish brown, finn
t:9~ 1;::~~~r~C:li~ay~,.O clayey sand~ finn, dnmp.lighf brown to tan. sand is
Silty sand, finewgrainoo, grayish brown, s.oft. moist, blue streaks,
dean lO't.···.· JSjl,~'sand. fine--grainoo, some silt~ light brown. several moist to wet
';0 •• 11_",-,33 fee' to 35 fret
•.•• , ,1'111;" sand. fine~grained, damp, firm. light groyish bro\\-TI
light gray wet sand layCl"S
FH,lillh,aefine clean wet sand layer less than one inch thick
light brown, damp. firm
clay. wet, hluish greenish gray
sandy with silt. wet, light bluish gray
CC Conrinuous Core BarreJ
55 Split Spoon Sampler
2of3
40
"'"
inch
s.""n
414(J.1O
GW-129
9/2010 Page 1
LBR -corresP9ndence
41
42
43
9/24/2007
EnergySolutions
Groundwater MOllitoring Well Boring Log
Seal
Stratigraphic Log
Silty sand with cloy, light brown. wet
Sandy day with silt, moist to wet. light blui,h grey, finn.
CC ConlinLJous ('ore Barre!
5S Split Spoon Sampler
3 00 GW-129
10/29/20:0 Fage 12
•
o
2
3
4
5
6 • 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1&
19
•
EnergySo/utions
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
. 08/06/09
1"'-"'55"'" By: Robert Sobocinski
UHJunuw:areI Elevation (ft amsl): 4,248.47
08/18/09
5
5
0
0
0
0 70
0 40
0 65
0 35
0 70
2-inch l.D.
Stratigraphic Log
gravel present
Silty Clay -olive-tan, rust-mottled, 'moist, gravel present
Silty Clay -olive-gray with light gray silty interbeds, moist, med.
1 astic, stiff
Silty Clay -thinly-bedded, light and medium gray, moist, med.
stiff
Sand -olive-tan, well-sorted, fine-grained, moist,
downward
Sandy Silt -olive-tan, some clay, dense
.. Silty Sand -tan, rust-mottled, fine-grained, clay interbed, moist,
dense
Silt -olive-light brown, some sand, moist, very dense
Silty Sand -med. Brown, well-sorted, fine-grained, moist
SS Split Spoon
lof2 GW-130
•
20
21
22 0
23
24 0
25
26 0
• 27
28 0
29
30 0
31
32
0
33
34
35
36 0
37
38 0
39
•
EnergySolutions
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Stratigraphic Log
Silt -orangish-brown, some clay, moist, very dense
clayey near base
Clay -orangish-brown, moist, med, plasticity, stiff
Silty Clay -as above, color change to orange-mottled tan
ilty Clay -yellowish-gray, orange-and yellow-mottled,
intervals wet, moo, plasticity, stiff
Silt -yellowish-gray, orange-and yellow-mottled,
sand, moist
Silt and Sand, tan, interbedded clay, wet, dense
Silt -moo, gray, moist, dense
TD ofbonng -39,6 feet bgs
SS Split Spoon
20f2
4,258,06
16130
Sand
4,248.06
2"
Schedule
40 PVC
0,010-
inch
screen
GW-130
•
o
2
3
4
5
6 • 7
8
9
JO
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
•
EnergySolutiol1S
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
08118/09
By: Robert Sobocinski
irnlln{lw",tl>.r Elevation (ft amsl): 4,248.52
08119/09
2-inch LD.
Bentonite
Stratigraphic Log
Silt and Clay -tan, roots, dry, loose
0 Silty Clay -tan/light brown, dry, dense
Silty Clay -olive-tan, moist, med. plasticity, stiff
0
o Recovery
0 Clay -olive-gray with thin light gray interbeds, rust-mottled, moist,
med. plastic, stiff
0 Clay -predominantly olive-light gray, thinly-bedded, some silt,
alternating with olive-med. gray interbeds, moist,
med. plasticity, med. stiff
Silty Sand -tan, predominantly finelmed. grained, some coarse
sand and gravel, moist, med. dense
0 Clayey Sand -tan, interbedded with silty sand and clay, moist
0 Silty Sand· tan, fine-grained, some clay, moist, med. dense
0 10 silty clay interbed, yellowish-tan
0 70
Silty Sand· yellowish-tan, well-sorted fine sand, moist,
downward to more silt and very fine sand, dense at base
SS Split Spoon
1 of2 GW .. 131
•
20
0 60
21
0 35
22
23
0 25
24 0 15
25 0 25
26 0 15
• 27
28
0 60
29 0 10
30 0 IO
31
32 0 10
33
34
35
36 0 60
37
38
0 35
39
•
75
90
40
65
EnergySo/utiOltS
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Stratigraphic Log
Silty Sand -same as above, but fining downward to greater
clay content
Clayey Silt -reddish-brown, moist, dense, fining downward
Silty Clay -reddish-brown, rust mottled, moist, med. plasticity,
stiff
Clayey Silt -reddish-brown, some sand, moist, dense
Clay -reddish-brown, moist, med. plasticity, stiff
clayey sand interbed, light-brown
Silty Clay -tan/gray, moist, stiff
Clay -olive-light gray, rust-and yellow-mottled, wet, med.
stiff
.. Silty Sand -tan, fine-grained, cemented, some clayey interbeds, wet
Clayey Silt -olive-tan, some sand, moist, very dense
SS Split Spoon
20f2
4,258.56
16/30
Sand
4,248.56
2"
Schedule
40 PVC
om!).
inch
screen
GW-131
EnergySo/utiol1s
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
08118/09 • cO {3c;--o '" c. ~ 'p 8 ~<2 ~ ~
0'-' > ... ~ ~ il3<2 '-'
2-inch LD.
2-inch l.D. Type
Grout
Stratigraphic Log
4.279.59
0 Silt with Clay -tan, dry, dense
same, color grades to light brown, slightly moist
same, color grades to reddish-brown 2" 2
0 30 Silty Clay -reddish brown to tan, med. plasticity, stiff
3
0 20
4 0 15 Clay -med. brown, rust-mottled, moist, med. plasticity, stiff
5
6 0 Silty Clay -tan-gray, rust-mottled, moist, med. plasticity, stiff
• 7 Aquaguanl
Grout
8 0 Clay -med. olive-gray with thin light olive-gray silty interbeds,
med. plastic, stiff
9
10 0 same, except light gray interbeds thicker than above
11
12 Sand -tan, predominantly fine-grained, with med.-and coarse-
sand and gravel near top, moist
13
14 0 Silty/Sandy Clay -tan, 1.5" poorly-sorted sand interbed present
15
16 0 65 Sand -tan, predominantly fine-grained, with med. and coarse
grained sand present, moist
17 0 40
Sandy Silt and Clay -interbedded, moist, dense
18
19 0 65 35 Silty Sand -yellowish-tan, fine-grained, well-sorted, moist, dense
• SS Split Spoon
1 of2 GW-132
•
EnergySolutions
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15 5
16
10
17
18
19
20
Envirocare of Utah, LLC
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
Lithologic Log
or Processed Clay
Clay -gray to grayish brown, soft, damp to moist, some iron stain­
organic material.
-reddish-brown, fine-grained. dry, clean.
-Silty, light gray to gray, damp
-Light brown to tan, clayey and silty, with gravel.
,--....,,,",,n -Light reddish brown, fine-grained, damp
-Light brown to tan, clayey and silty, with gravel.
JiL~oIII\,-,,,a] -Brownish gray. damp, sandy with gravel.
-Fine-grained, some silt, tan, coarsens with depth.
~~!I~:'~~ -Tan, damp, firm.
-Tan, wet, some iron staining.
and -Light brown, very fine, damp, firm, some silt.
-Sandy, light gray, damp.
-Damp, fine-grained, lean, light gray.
firm.
CC Continuous Core Barrel
.2 -'E (.) :;. c2 <>~ w
lof2 P3-97NECR
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Envirocare of Utah, LLC
Groundwater Monitoring Well Boring Log
4,248.84
Lithologic Log
Sand -Light brown to reddish brown, fine-grained. damp.
Clay -Light reddish-brown. damp. firm.
Clay -Sand lenses, gra}, damp, sofi.
Clay -Silty, reddish-brown, finn to very finn, damp.
Clay -Reddish-brown. damp.
Sandy clay to clayey sand -gray. finn to very finn.
Clay -Very moist, whitish.
Clay -Damp to moist. light gray, finn, some iron staining.
Clay -Light gray to white. wet to very wet with consolidated sand
and silt.
-Finn to very finn, light gray. damp.
40L--L-L~~~~~
TO of boring -40.0 feet bgs
CC Continuous Core Barrel
.2
;~ " ~
4,:53 46
16/30
Sand
4.:4846
E3_~ 2"
Schedule
40 PVC
0.010-
inch
Screen
4.:J8.46
20f2 P3-97NECR
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SL8tI Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 2m.16, E 2573.7
(fro. SU corner)
DATE COMPLETED: 8-25-1981
SUPERVISED BY: DalleS and tIoore, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
UELL SCREEN
PLACEJIIENT
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
UELL NO.: SC-1
AQUIFER: UpperllOst
4279.4
3.3 ft
Unknown
11 ft. Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-68 feet)
: 1 :
· .... . · ..... .
.. .. . . . · .....
........ .... .. .. ..
30 ft.
45 ft.
I.D. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Diaaeter of borehole
Type of fi ller: BEHTOHlTE, 68-73 ft.
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: CLAY, 73-100 ft •
Type of gravel pact: SAND
Elov./depth of top of gravel pact
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 2--DIAftETER
Pack SLOTTED STAND PIPE
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botte. of screen
Elev./depth of botte. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botte. of pLugged
blank section
Type of filler below plugged section: IJHKNOVN
Elevation of botte. of borehole
4"
Unknown
2"
Unknown
4203.1
4176.1
4056,3
4046.3
4046.3
4046.3
WS.3
* All elevations are in feet above Ie8n sea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-1
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-l
I. Monitoring Well Des;;n
A. SC-1 was designed according to the information on the well construction su..ary sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-MOUnted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
atea auger or rotary-wash drilling .ethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. EquipMent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potenti.ometric Surface. The potentiOllletric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the meaaureaent was made at a later date.
G. Formation Samples.
1. Collection of Semples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sempl ing Methods. Unknown.
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 2" dia .. ter slotted standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 2"-dia .. ter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .. asured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Develop.ent. Unknown.
V. AnnuLar Space SeaLs, Aprons, Locks
A.
.. thod for
bentonite.
tallpering.
Well Seal. The well is sealed from the ground surface to 68 feet in depth with a grout aeal. The
grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from a depth of 68 feet to 73 feet with
The well was backfilled frOll 73 feet to 100 feet with clay. The well is locked to prevent
••
• ... ::: ..
•
!'DEIS -A~st t. 1982
eORING SC-I ~ra .'11"11.1
1O----:=irr11
ZS ISI'T'I
CWla..t
I.IGIn' T ..... III."'" CLAY '1'0 Q..\Y'C'Y III.T 6NO SOMC TN .. 111.,..., I"IftC _
",,"YII:ItS -IT1I"JI' '1'0 YVn' ","
"'---:aJiC"g;t;~(Ml.-""'C'I'O IoIUIIIIN SAHO WITM TItAC:It TO SOMC III.T _ CLAY -C::OCSC '1'0
WCIIUN_C
T"'" SlI.':'T CLAY TO CLAY'C'Y III.T
'1'0 JoC:IIIIN _ WITM '"
'1'0 $CMC III.T -""=-__ c
111.,..., CLAY TO CLAYC't -sr,,,,,.
III.,..., ~IOC TO "'Co~ .. SAHO
WITM ... TMCC Q..\Y -""""_ OOtSC
111.,..., I"IHC _ -In"
'---Gj,-"CIU WITM :CIt<a CJl' CI.IlY'C'Y
6NO S.I.,..., ...... C SAND
cuu.~M I"IHC'I'O "11:_ SAHO
WITM TAACC '1'0 _ .II.T -""_
OOdCTO OOdC
--' .... IAC;g! WITM SOMe "LT"UIItATlHO I.IGIn' ~y __ CLAYC't
'II.T "'ftD SAND LAYCltS TO J'
THlOC-n.M ........... TIOHII
GAADCS WTTH oc:.c:AllOMAl. CCAIISC
..... 0 TO I"A'tC GllAYa.
(CONTINUEO)
110----"""'1:'
I
111-----
so--...... ~ ...
IOS-----I!
I~----------p~~
II.-----.... ""'!;iiii'""'ll"""
~.
A-•• e o
cuu.oa 'MITM OClC:AllCOMl. """GUI...UI
TO II.I_HGlULAII c:A1IS1t ..... 0
TO ,.,.,C GAAVCI.
GAAOI:.1 WTTH _C".. """YItIIS
ell CCA"'C _ ~ ~. TO
'"TNICX
GMQC.S 'MITM '" """'I'D 0/11 c.ItA_ '_N _ TO MCDI __ WTTH
A TAACC ':"0 _ III.T TO •• TMICX
AT 'OI..rtrr
GllAcc:I IUCHTl..., c:DoOn"ItO WITM
':'ltIN .:A&.c::A"COUI "It_ AND
cc:::AllOtAl. IIU-..GU",,"" I"IHC
GIlAVCI. WITM COOOtfll:llSAHO
c::IATlHO AND TIIACC JI'''': 0_0
A ~D.:I WOlSTUlllt ItXI'Otcsno AI 6 ~AO'
0/11 ':'Hit 0,", WII:IGHT !;II' KII.
• DIn' 00dlT'r CXI"'ICSSCO IN US_ PCII ClIIIC
I"COT e II.OW. PCIII"CCIT CI' I"O<CTAATICIH ~_ '"
100 U. """'''''"11_,,_ :10 IftOoCS ,. ""'!CII ::SA",...C" W .... "'OY"NCC::I MYOIIMII.o-e.a.UoIC: II T'n't:S 0/11 SAM.....".
!P'I-"!STOlt SA"II'U:II
(lOTI -1"fT00CJI ....... II'U:II .:!IM, -IHa.rr SANII'U:II :s,..,,-",,,,,.0."-0 P'CoI:'f1U.TIOIt TEST
~1I-DA .. a. _It ..... II'U:II WITM
• U·,...,PC OIIIVC IHCC
~I-010 .. , •• _C SA"II'U:II wrn<
.. 0'''''''''' :;'''IYC I_
• OCJI"T'H AT _0< UHDlST\III.C SA"I'\.E ....
EXTIlAC"l'E:)
g "''''NDAIID "EHCTAATlOlt TEST
t<:m:!
'nC OISClSSlCH IN TIC 'tCT ",",DCII T1C SCC'T1CM nTU:o.
'Im: CIlHOITlClHI.Il.lIiSUIIJI'..cc·. IS NltCZ ...... Y TO A
I"OIOPCII UHDCIIST"'MDIJooG Oft T1C .... NIIC CJl' nc
.UII_JI'..cc _7'1:111"1..5.
LOG OF BORING
•
•
.. :
•
.
i
.\
?DEIS -AU€Ust. 1952
BORI NG SC -I CCONTINUED) CCONTINUED,
liS A.
::a 'N isf-I"" SM
1210
• JO lUI
IZ'
• 1'"0 lUI
I.l1O
.!IV.-
• lUI
::IIi:..
lao f[ ..... jIi.
.~.
1&1 :a 'iI' IVTl
':I .01 1~ltll'
ISI'TI .-
8 r.JO lUI
I~ , -y
so. .. l1\._ ........ TTVWTCO _
• .... I.OSICDI
OMIlClI WITH _, c:::.o.ltS, s.u.o
TOnNC~YG.
..... OES YItIn' DC:HM
-
OMDC:!I WITH CCCIo.1CoI41.. C1.A
nNC TO "CDIu .. s.u.o ._ I .' c..av uvca
OMOES WIT14 'r1lACl: c:::.o.ltSC _ TO nNC CAAYG.
GlllADIt, WITH ~ """ CAAYG.
AMO SOle Cl:»IISC ~\lc:J..
.....:;uUII .. T IH.O TO 1".0 ra;r
-
11O----------~1r,~~,.---------------------------
I" ---------!r.J~i;j
8 ZIG
IDI
=z:I-... ------__ II~~;1
':I I..,
CPTI a: Ul'--------I,ii;i':;!! IS
'.
us-----
III
~oc, wITH __ Q.A.CY "NC
TO"II:IIUIIO._
ca .. cc:. wITH,... ....... T'r "NC
....... OUV~ TO IloTMlClC
__ CClNf'U:TG AT :so •• n::r.
ON '-U-II
, INCH QA"£TP 'I..O'M'IO ...... "g ... pt;
,.1':tCIM£TP ~ .. u..cD TO W •• I"I_T
A "1:l..D _STU"C IOU'fIIDHO A, AI't:JIc:II:)otTAGC
fI' T>tI (lin' .IIG>4T 011 101 ..
• IIIt'f DOtStn' I:XPItU.CD ... !..lIS. PCIt 01_ -. C LOW' "" _ OIII'Dt£TIlATION UlNiA 1.10 .... MANNCII __ )lJ1I<CMU
,. ,., ... 10 /S4MPU:1I .A. A"""1<1:0 M'l'tlIU'M ICH~JCI o TVI"CS OI/f ..... jO\.JI;lI jJoo!-,._ ..... jO\.JI;II
II'T' -1'1T0IICl "'MjO\.JI;II
15"'-...a.rr ",NjO\.JI;4I 11"'-., .... 0 .... 0 ~TION TCST
IJI-04MC •• _C ..... jO\.JI;lt WITH
o U' TV"" 0lIl1'1'1 ....oc:
:1:11-04001S • _I ..... jO\.JI;JI "MITH
• 0' TV"" DAI\IC ,_
• DC"""""._ UNOISTU"HO SANjO\.JI; W ...
CXTllAC'TCO
:I """04A" ~TlCIN TI.ST
LOG OF BORING
Dames & Moor-e
•
•
•
PDEIS -A~~st. 1992
-::: ...
BORING SC-2 QCiIIIDIIIIAfU "enOl.O l zm.I.'
a..D&.-""tnt .c.c --...L._
ICIL.&a
G~au ""tnt _ cu..,_
.tnt n-c ........,. GU., 1..A~1tS
TO W"TMtOI
I'"" .. nll r..EV1I1."TILC nA:T ON >-_ IINI., wtnt lIOMC. ....,..,. III.TV TO cu.1Tr
~ "0 "'[lIIU .. _a -14_
~~
G~CIII:S ""tnt I..I:lIS cu." ZU"Io-II:II
ill: ZS------i::~WAl GU", TO .. III. TV TO cu.n:v
,..... TO IoCDIUM ....-wrno ..... T1:A­_TING I..A~ _ UCiHT GoIIIA.,
.ux.
CI....oI>nT IMI.T TO '"'TMICX I.IGWI' ~"CI __ '" I .. TV cu.., TO
CI....oI>nT III. T wM"M \tI'JMC TN .. III. TV
_I: ....-\Jo~ TO I" TMICX­
I4CIIU .. mnr --'C;''"'''IQ M..UIIIIN-COJU.., IL.CCIC"I' ~I:""O_~
CII::IoOEHT ... 'nQM
~., ._ ._ .. ,II.TV ",,,II: _ WrT'H
,"""C% TO _II: cu.., -_DIU" _I:
'---~~·011.., wrno::ooa _ C:OO~
1"-"' JI1IC TO Mll:DIU"""-TO
•• 'n1!ICIC ... ,. 4.' "In'
GAAat:3wrno 1oES1'''T
10_ CIIIooII'\.ZT'I;1I "1' So. 0 I");TT
I __ CIA~I:II I~O r: ... _~f'1t
"'lC:CINC'T U IHI'T'" u....I:Q TO .L • I"'IJ:':'
... -. Ie o
... ....a.JI ...::esrvltl: U""CS'1tO ...... I'I:Itc:DlT 101;11: COOTlOI: I>'n'_~ __ I.
• Don' ~ £lUI>ttCSS£J;I IN ...... 1"tJI OJ .. C:
""'" e ILCIw:I ~ ""'" or ~IUiT1Cll>4 us_ '" .... 1.8 .... """"'" ___ la_a
,. I'IISICO <SA~Jt ..... "'II'VAH;.II:D ~!.JC"t.I.J.,IC1 o TVI"D __ I'\.I:1II
11"1-~ ..... I'U:II
Cl"TI-I'n'OCJt ..... I"\..DI
ISMI-1INa.rt .... "'I'Ui:1t _",-..,. __ 0 1"OCTIII"T1_ TItIIT
UI-DAJoClI.IoQIIIIC ...... ~ ~ 'u'TI''''' DoIIWI: __
III-C/A.O>OCI • _C ...... 1'U:1I WfTM
• 0" Tl'1"It _YI: ...ac
• HPnt ... ,. _CIt \/MOIS'TVIt.l:tI "'MI'U: ....
I[XT ..... c:n:O c:a I'T _4tCI P'OfCTIII,A TlQH TII:n
LOG OF
BORING SC-3
80RINGS
~_"TOT"""""'''''''''O'l'TO cu."n .IL':' -MII:IIII./ .. 1'11'"
GoIIIAat:, WrT'H ~I '-LL _
OQ.LS .... 0 .. rT'H '"oCI"IU( cu..,
GllAOCI wrno.".... UI:JNT T ..... _
wwn: '''1' 1..A't'DII TO ..... " TNCK
.. ..0 "'L 1"UI/IoA. "I"INO wrno LICIOIT
IUIA" cu.'Y'CT IIILT I..A 'I'SII. TO
I" TNCX
._ .. "rT'H _ 111/..,. III.TV cu.., TO
c .. nn '11. T ....... .w&O wrT'H ..,"'" TO
ooc:.!:I ..... _0 I..A'I'VI' wlT14 T~c::I TO _ liLT ..... 0 I .. TV I'M TO
MII:_ "'000 \Jo 1'01' TO l'TWCl -
I'n" TO YCJtY 1'11'"
G~OCS UGHT GlIAl' , .. CQI,.OI!
W,", _ IfUfIT c;:::u:IOIl[tI :o-rs
UGHT QAII> .... _ .. 111.", TO cu.'Y'CT
,....; TO Ml:AUI'I _O·lI' .... ,.""'u..,
~I-...:DIUM _II
._ .. "'HI ':0 WltDlUl>l ... _ wrno ...
T'JIUi>CI: TO SC_ III.T -OCOI ..... _It
1I01I __ u:Tl:tlAT , .. , ~
OCI-Ii-1I ,_ DlAIIOC':'UIILQ'T":'CtI ST"MIl"''',
... !r..tC*I:n:,. U4T .. u....I:" TO 10.1 "".-,
__ WlI.I .,. .. o.o...t_
. ;
•
•
PD~IS -August, 1992
JlAJOR DIVISIONS
GlUVIL eLU ....
.... D h."""' , .
G".Y(u.y 't_U,
eo."S( SO'LS
'''.'11'0 SOILS
...... 1' .... . -''''''. -IlUIa&a __ .. .fIICWI.
" "qll
_ ............ ., .".,' .,
u.!.U.I. .......... "'" "'WI lin
... , III
c:.1141"(0
SOIU
-c ..... ..
:J# ., .... at, t.
1..lIotIo.Jo.U-­," ... .,.. .."
.....
_ ..... I.'
., a.... "M~ 1 ... _ ........ 1 " .. ~ .." -.......
..
SOIL CLASSll"ICATI0N
DESCRIPTIONS
...... "' ........... 1'\1. ... .... " • ..... •• , ..... , ....... rT\.. ,. -' ......
GP ...... , ................. 1.. , ••• ,,,.
........ """" ....... ,'1\.1 .. -"'WI. .. "", _-t .. L ......... ~ GM .... r ••• _ •
GC
S'N
SP
SU
SC
ML
CL
CM
CH
t,,~. ......... • ........ ........ c.... .."'.1 .
........ ... ,.. ....... , .... , ..... ,
.... ,. ....f'9\oC II _ , ..... .
. ...... , ......................... . ......... "j''''''' .... , ... .
..... a...c .... '. • .... ,., ", .. ....... .... "" ... " .... ry .. 'Q.."', .... ~ ....... ,' ... n .,.. l&.I_r ...... "tOft
......... c h,'''' __ ....... c.--,
~ ... """=,,.. .. •• ,,,'" ... " .. ......... an_ .... ,. , ..... , ••• , ...
Q. •••
.... ......: .. t ........ -c
~n CloAra .,..... ",",.Unc:tfY
....-....c c ... " • ., ... "' .. ,ncl".~ , ... , ......
.... -..c ct...... ... .... ". .,. ..."
.... A.ftCft. • .... _c .... ,.
... r. ___ ................. . PT .. .r. _ .... u._c "'."11.'"
CBAl'tT
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSlFICATION SYSTEM
~ __________ -i
•
•
•
"
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
"ELL NO.: SC-2
COORDINATES: SLBK Sec. 32, T1S, R11", N 369.06, E 272.3
(frOil S" corner)
DATE COMPLETED: Unknown AQUIFER: Upper.ast
SUPERVISED BY: Da.es and Koore, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
"ELL SCREEN
PLACEMENT
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface leal
Type of lurface seal: GROUT (0-5.5 feet)
4276.6
4271.97
7.4 ft
2.8 ft
(1981 )
(1989)
(1981 )
(1989)
Unknown
I.D. of lurface caling 4-
Type of surface casing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing Unknown
I.D. of riser pipe 2-
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Dia.eter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (5.5-16.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of leal
Type of leal: NONE
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of Icreen
Description of Icreen: 2--DIAMETER
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
I.D. of screen lection
Elev./depth of bottOil of screen
Elev./depth of bottOil of gravel pack
ELev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank section
Unknown
N/A
4253.2
4250.7
4220.7
4220.7
Unknown
l Type of filler below plugged lection: UNKNOWN
Screen
Elevation of bottOil of borehole 4219.2
* All elevationa are in feet above .ean aea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 1II-2
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-2
I. Konitoring Yell Deslgn
A. SC-2 was designed according to the information on the well construction suamary sheet.
II. Drilling "ethods
_ A. "ethod. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-lOUnted rotary drill rig and either hollow-
stem auger or rotary-wash drilling-methods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Coapressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the measure~nt was Bade at a later date.
G. Formation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core salllples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling "ethods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Honitoring Yell Construction Haterials
A. Saturated Zone primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
1s a 2M dia.eter slotted standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Yell Intake Design and Yell Development
A. Screen. Slotted 2"-diameter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .easured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Yell Developaent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Yell Seal. The well is sealed from the ground surface to 5.5 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The aethod for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from 5.5 feet in depth to 16 feet in
depth with clay backfill. The well has been fitted with a dedicated bladder pump •
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SlTE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
WEll NO.: SC-3
COORDINATES: S~ Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 345.16, E 4981.00
(f rOIl SW corner)
DATE ~PlETED: 8-23-1981 AQUifER: Upper.o.t
.'
SUPERVISED BY: D .... and Moore, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WEll SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
--v.tLl
Screen
Elevation of reference point *
Height of refe~ce point
above ground surface
4280.5
3.2 ft
Depth of surface seal Unknown
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-5.0 feet)
1.0. of surface casing 4·
Type of surface casing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Di .. eter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKfILL (5.0-23.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: NONE
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 2M·DIAIIETER
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
I.D. of screen section
Elev ./depth 01 bottOil of acreen
Elev ./depth of bottOll of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOll of plugged
blank aection
. Type of filler below plugged section: UNKNOWN
Elevetion of bot tOIl of borehole
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
4254.3
4246.8
2"
4226.8
4226.8
4226.8
4226.8
* All elevations are in feet above ..an ... level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-3
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-3
A. SC-3 was designed according to the ;nforlation on the well construction su ... ry sheet.
n. Drilling Hethods
A. Hethod. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
ate. auger or rotary-wash drilling ~ethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ccepressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiolletric Surface. The potentiOlietric surfaces were docullented on the boring logs. However,
the measure.ent was lade at a later date.
G. Formation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling Hethods. Unknown.
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Che.ical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
Ill. Honitoring Well Construction Haterials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 2" dialleter slotted standpipe PVC screen.
D_ Steu Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 2H-dia.eter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Che.ically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .easured for turbidity. NO results are available.
C. Well Development. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. WeLL Seal. The well is sealed frOll the ground surfa'ce to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seaL. The III!thod for grout installation ;. unknown. The weLL was filled fro. 5.0 feet in depth to 23 feet in
depth with clay backfill. The well hes been fitted with a dedicated bladder pump.
•
•
•
~DEIS -A~Jst. 1992
0 n.-. ..
~~7 • ,
n.-.rwl -ISM' C)
IPt"I
Q "
..
eORING SC-4 ~1'U .,S01 •. O
C uon.o
~ CO/OA., ~P4 s.woar
TO a,..."CY 'ILT -ICClu .. sn ...
• ~ -.a.D ... U_PQ I O'QQT
GAAY TO UOHT T_"_"~ • ""TV c...o Y TO CI..A"rn '11. T .. me TM ...
6AotO'r TO a.....,,,,, SlI.. T .... .,os TO
J' _a SOIC "&on """c_
L.&~ TO III'THIOC -lCDIu .. TO -..,,"'
GAACIINII wrnt SI&o n I'UoC TO
_D\UIO SMoG .... n~ IA'TO II'
THIOl
: ~------------~~jq
I
GAACIICS sn,.,. W1TH SOIC ~­
loTION .... 0 W me 5000C ItUST
~CD ZCIoC.S
WATLI!I.EVD.. AT l&.~ ~ ON __
-.. ""C TO /CIIIu ..... ..a WITH A
TlU-a TO SO"C SII. T -ICClU .. TO ygoy DOoSC
GAAOCS WrTM LaS 'II.T
~toQ c=M~D AT II.' I'1I4T
CHI-If-II
J \OIOt D ... o.ocrU .LCTTt.D ST"IOO"-c
~UOMr.U '''ST .. u..;::I ":'0 11.1 ~
.!ta.
A-•• e
D
A "D..D ~IIC c,,"cssco AS A ~A4C
Cf' "'C DIft' W~ 01' ~
• ;)orr DOtsrT'I' CII'OtOSCD .. Loa. I'CII QI-.c: -e IL.OWS ~ POOT 01' ~IUITION US....: A ' .. u. ""_" __ )0..0.0
, I'VSt<D "A .. P\.DII w,.. AOVAHCXD KYllIlAUUCA&.UCI
D nPCIOl'~
~,-_STtIOo 'A-.vI
7T'-1'1TOCII ..... ~
""'-~ "'-uII ~n'-ST_1tO ~TION nsr
UI-O&>CI. _, ..... ~II wrnt ·U· T"'Y"rE c.rw SHOe 111'-D&~' _C "'-":11 WITH • D' n-c DlUVC S>4CC
• ~AT~~II'CD''''''~w''" ~'D Q STA_IIO "'DoC'nU.TION nsr
LOG OF
BORING SC-5
O-----w----~__O .... _.--.... ----------__ ........ __ ....
-: ~ ------------i!!i::1!9 ...
::
&: XI------f~I'-" !
S5----~~
Q I' 15n'
11M'
Q •
IS""
AS---------~~~
• .... ,
5O---Jf;~1S?=j
2::.",""_ ,.
1:11
BORINGS
T .... TO GA,o., a..."CY TO ">oC
.1.':"-_STl ...
GIIA~ wITH _IICUS '_&.1..
I'-.,p
'1. TV a...Y TO CI.,I."rn SlI..T YAlIVeD WrTM TMIN .... -rP. t# UGWI' GIlA" "IoT _ .II.TV "'IC......a
.... 'B115 ~ III.' TO W" Tl<IQI -
IC:UU .. STI",
UON'T GllAYI __ "
TO T .... _..-n: ~NJ WIT>
SOMC INn' CII.OIICD 1000 GIIA __ " ""C TO "co", ..
_wrno TlUlClETO_ "1..':" .,,0
YAII"';D WITH "' .... _ 'ILT ':"0
SAtf(1'f CI.,I.., .... 'rVtS TO W' TMIQI -
>e:Ia.I .. DOcIe TO DOcIe
WATlUI a.zvn. AT :e. I rUT ON >-_
GIIA~ WITH NO a...." AftCI L..DS
'LT
~ IUII_" '11.-:-' c.A'" ~O
CI.,I. ... "" .II.T YAIIVI:D .. rno ":'lOIN Sfl..:
nNC __ .... nllS TO IIA' TM'OI -
>CD., .. sn", TO sn ...
G .... DC:I ·.ITH SOMe I'1OOC 'A..c!
GRADO wITH _C ""C SAIOO -.-.. ~-
.-.. I'1MII: TO >CON .. _ wIT>< A
TlUlCIE TO IICIC "I..T -.., .. ..a ~AT II.J ~
ClMI-II-1i
II'lOt D&AIIIC'TP SI.O"'n'£;:) sa ... ,..c~ .. \.
"CCIotCTICI \IOSTA~ TO II.J 'U
•
•
PD~IS -August, 198%
MAJOR DIVISIONS
___ M'
", _" ..... U
U!SU. ..... ... _ .. "" tI"
'III~
GIIAINI:O
SOILS
IIIMC ...... ..
#II "'ca,6\. ft
I.I..tJ.I.U -... 'M ....... ..,.
'0\lil0
.ucO
UNOT
SOIU
a.. UN s.u.0 .... nu _ .. ......
---la, $.I..IoO.S WITM '-'u ., ce_
"" tu,.&I.M. ..... -
\0....... .. ... ,
...w t ••• "
v." •• " .• .,
ltI.!!l.S ho.. to
HlGK.T OIlGAllr(; SOIL'
SOIl. CLASSIFICATION
G'N
GP
GM
GC
S'N
SP
SC
ML
CL
OL
PT
CHA.RT
DESCRIPTIONS
.a. ........ ' •• c\... ... ..... . ..... _atw, ... "'1'\. ,. .......
... ~,· .... c ................. ,,,.
,... ............ ""rf\..l •• .. " .. .
Mr." ""«"s. ......... -.......
... , ... '~I
c"'...... ... .. 1\.'.. • ... ,,, ........ a..., _.f\J.C' .. "... ...... ,..... , .... " .. , ,...1. ".f"\,1 .... I .... '
# .. ~,.. ...... ....... • ••• e""" ....... ...f?\,' •• .. #, ....
-':"9 ..... , ................ ~.
..... ~ .... " .... '1' ,,_ ...... loe_ ~~. "", ... a..."CY ".... ~ .. a. ••• ' ""n ..,.... .... _, .,.. .... 'lOn
, .......... c "'.... til ..... ,.. a.-"'" ~.I~n ......... "" c:t. ... ~ ......... ca...... I.",. ct. .... , •• \.1 •• ......
.... ...c """" ....... ..c .... n ~ .... ,. .... ""*Ina,.
" __ ,,.,e .... '... ..c_c.,..,.. ••
.... ,kotCCIfN. ".... .... .••
"""'"' ... u
.~ c" •• , ... -_ ....... n<,". t.t a..',
......c .".,. .,. .. "". '. ....
", •• ftcn •• eu_c ..... ,.
fiCA' ...................... . M'. ... .au •. c n*',.'.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
•
•
•
UOll(HNo(Al (ON\UllAN'~ IN(
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
WELL NO.: SC-4
COORDINATES: SLBH Sec. 32, ns, R11\1, N 5105.06, E 5083.8
(frOil S\I comer)
DATE COKPLETED: 8-29-1981 AQUIfER: UpperllOst
SUPERVISED BY: Da~s and Hoare, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
\lELL SCREEN
PLACEMENT
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-4.0 feet)
1.0. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Dia.eter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (4.0-29.5 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: HOME
Type of gravel paclc: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel paclc
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 2M-DIAMETER
Pack SLOTTED STAND PIPE
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of bottOil of screen
Elev./depth of bottOll of gravel paclc
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank section
Type of fi Uer below plugged section: UNKNOWN
4284.8
4.1 ft
Unknown
Unknown
2"
Unknown
4251.2
4249.2
4229.2
4229.2
4229.2
--1I.~ll
Screen
Elevation of bottOil of borehole 4229.2
* All elevations are in feet above ..an aea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-4
•
•
•
1.
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-4
A. SC-4 was designed according to the inforaation on the weLL construction sumaary sheet.
A. Method. The weLL was driLLed (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary driLL rig and either hoLLow­
stem auger or rotary-wash driLLing methods.
B. DriLLing FLuids. Unknown.
C. FLuids AnaLysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment CLeaning. Unknown.
E. Compressed Air. unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring Logs. However,
the measure.ent was aade at a Later date.
G. Foraation SampLes.
1. CoLLection of SampLes. Core sampLes were coLLected at the depths identified on the boring
Logs.
2. SampLing Methods. Unknown .
3. CoLLection IntervaLs. See boring Log.
4. ChemicaL/PhysicaL Tests. No chemicaL tests were performed on the sampLes. However, tests
were run to estabLish soiL types and cLassifications.
Ill. Monitoring WeLL Construction MateriaLs
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. The weLL is constructed with ScheduLe 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The weLL is protected with a 4"-diameter ScheduLe 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is • 2M di ... ter sLotted st.ndp1~ PVC screen.
D. Steam CLeaning. Unknown.
IV. WeLL Intake Design and WeLL DeveLop.ent
A. Screen. SLotted 2"-diameter standpipe was instaLLed as the screen.
B. FiLter Pack. ChemicaLLy-inert sand fiLter pack was instaLLed. It is unknown whether the weLL
has been .easured for turbidity. No resuLts are avaiLabLe.
C. WeLL DeveLopment. Unknown.
V. AnnuLar Space SeaLs, Aprons, Locks
A. WeLL SeaL. The weLL is seaLed from the ground surface to 4.0 feet in depth with a grout
seaL. The .. thod for grout instaLLation is unknown. The weLL was fiLLed from 4.0 feet in depth to 29.5 feet
in depth with cLay b.ckf1LL. The weLL is Locked to prevent tampering •
•
•
•
CotOIl(HNICAl (ON\UlIANU IN(
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
"ELL NO.: SC-5
COORDINATES: SL.BI1 Sec. 32, "S, R1111, N 5090.96, E 236.30
(froll S" corner)
DATE COMPLETED: 8-31-1981 AQUIFER: UpperllOst
SUPERVISED BY: De.es end Koore, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
"ELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
1 •• _ ...... Peclt
--"'.Il
Screen
Elevetion of reference point *
Height of reference point
ebove ground surfece
Depth of surfece seel
Type of surfece seal: GROUT (0-4.0 feet)
4276.3
2.8 ft
Unknown
I.D. of surfece c:esing 4"
Type of surfece c:esing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of surfece c:esing Unknown
I.D. of riser pipe 2"
Type of riser pipe: Sc:h. 40 PVC
Die.eter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (4.0-29.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of sea l: NONE
Type of grevel paclt: SAND
Elev./depth of top of grevel peck
Elevetion depth of top of screen
Description 01 screen: 2"-DIANETER
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botta. of screen
Elev./depth of botta. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botta. of plugged
blank section
Type of fi Her below plugged section: UNKNOWN
Elevation of botta. of borehole
Unknown
N/A
4244.5
4242.0
2"
4222.0
4222.0
4222.0
4222.0
* All elevetions are in feet above .een see level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-5
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-S
I. ~itoring Well Design
A. SC-5 was designed according to the information on the well construction summary sheet.
II. Drilling "ethods
A. "ethod. The well was ~rilled (bored) using a truck-.ounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
stem auger or rotary-wash drilling methods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipaent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Caapressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the measurement was made at a later date.
G. Formation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling "ethods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. ~itoring Well Construction "aterials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4M-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 2M diameter slotted standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Develop.ent
A. Screen. Slotted 2"-diameter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .easured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Devel~ent. Unknown.
v. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed fro. the ground surface to 4.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The lethod for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled fro. 4.0 feet in depth to 29 feet in
depth with clay backfill. The well is locked to prevent tampering •
•
•
•
.. ... .. ..
II I I""
··' .... "1 • ISM!
II~I/l I 1»11
I""
r.J U CS"1 . ,..:.
.IHI) SC· MI..
'---C_.OI:.lIITO UGHT GUY _ W","" UQNTT-n .. _ .....ar
SILT ""TellS TO ..... TWtCIt
---G<II.AI)DWn'H ~TO"'~
A TEJ:I SCII. Zc»c TO ,. nt_ • __ Y l'lHC TO 1oOCtCaIW.-
Wn'H A T ..... CS TO IICMC .. LT _
IMTVIKI:CCD cu.V'IV SLT _ l'lHC
TO ..cDIUW __ a UTeIIS TO ).
ntICX .. DOoIC
GIIAOCS TO ""iliUM CIOdI _ w"'"" L.lSS lILT _ cu.Y
I ZS ___ 2 __ !~J!£~~--f WATDI \..I:VU,. AT %I. J"-ET ON _
o
I.IGHI" Cllta:HISM-GAAy SILT'!' cu.y TO
cu.Yn .. I.T W","" sa...: .. !HIt ... ..a
-." .....
GJU.OCS wme SCMI: UCOH1' CIItA Y
SILTY """ _ U'I'DS TO ,.
T'HICX
IIOItII<G COIot~ AT N.' "-ET
0101-11-11 I.' IIOCIf 1I .... /IoOCTU SI.DTT'Cl) lIT .... ..aM,.,;
... ~ ~Au..o:I TO oa.OI"'UT
A I"ICUI ~C ~CRIC'D'" A ~AGC
CI' nc MY WI:IOHT Of' ~
• MY OOI$IT'IIE.P!lCSSCD .. UII. I'1tJI ClJetC
f1OI:Tr
C a.ors"" f1OI:Tr Of' Pt:MCT1IA~ US_ A WIIU. "",_It ~.1IC)tCS
,. I'UlACI:I ~W ... AOY""'CZ'O~ a T'l?QCI'~ CI"I-I'InCIN~
1:1"1')-rm::'ICII ~
ClHI-ItC1..rf IAW\.UI
C51'T'1-1T~ 1"CIC'I"IIA11CM nsT
.. "-&\otoloC3 • _I ..... l1'\.£li wrnc • V' TTP'C IIIlfVC __
111-DAIoCS • _ ......... I'I.DI wrnt • o· T'!''''; ~ __
• DID"TM AT _ UHCIISlVft1JCD ... .........: W ....
C~
II ITAooOtoaa Il'DCTIIATIQf TEST
..
BORING SC-7
_ .. IILTY cu.\' TO cu.YCY III .. ::
wme sowc l'lHC ... ..a -~
QAAaa .... TY 1M "'_ I.' TO
l..' nn
'---G.llAl:IU w","" A IoC)IST TO ... ~ :c.oc AT '.1 nET
'---G.UI~U wrnc _C UCIOfT GUY
TO T,,",-..rTC 'ILTY I"IHIt
... ..a_.ILTU'I"CltSTO ,.
TNlCX 1C'---T:::1~iJ]lsi:i:'~ '---C_.OI:Sw",""", TIIACS .... I.T CXYITAU ..... a OCCA-'-IIUlI'T c:::M.CJICII YI:_
\.I_ .... SO'-GoIIAY " .. C TO wc:.uw ..... a
Wn'H A TAACS TQ so...: liLT .. ..0
IHTDlICDOC.D cu.YCY SILT _a"...,
Ta ooCDlU" SA..o UYl:1tS TO I'
TltICX -"CI)IU" CIOdC
: ~--------P.i~~ ...
:a ,.
• IS?1'1 I';:;.:~_""
WAnlt u;vn.AT II.II"'UTON __
G",",OU TO DAlllltD GUY
UCOH1' G!tCDo_Y ILT'!' c:.,.o.y TQ
cu. V'IV SILT .. me SOMe ".... 1I1.':'Y I"IHIt __ .,LT UYIII' TO ,.
TMCX-." ....
'----GoIlAllCWn'H _c ""IIITIAUoY
CVOOITC _I.~
ClltADU TO lIoICDIUM .",..
ClltAOO wrnc LUI cu.Y"­..."., .. I.T ..... O "'"C _ •
IIOItII'G ~tD AT U.I ~
C)jN 1-17-a
'.I'HOt ""'OOCTUI SI..t:71":'ZP lIT .0..0"'11"&:
Me_no ..sT ... u..t;) TO U.I nn
LOG OF. BORINGS
Dames & Moore
•
•
•
FD~IS -August. 198Z
MAJOR
IIIM'C ...... M'"
)I .. ", ...... . 1..II.l.I.I..LI--1M W,", WI
SIl.1'S
.NO
,"_US
SILTS
...HO
cun
DIVISIONS
\0 ......... ,
~ f .... ..
\,'1l1li" \.Ja.'
\.!.L!.!:U """ M
son:. CLASSIl"ICATION
ITYPfC.JL DESCRIPTIONS
G'N
G?
-n.", • ...... I •• a.,. ... ... '" .. ...... ...t ......... ",'Y\' ,. .... ''''"
... ~, ............... "'J.. .e .. ,,,.
...... ..n.ca.. w'''''' ••
... ft. ...
.... " M.C",,,, .................. GM ... , .... _.
GC c ... ~. • .... c.... • ........ ....... ca.... ...1\18' •
S'N • h,,, ·' •• 1" ........ • ........ .
....... ",.F'f'\' •• _ , .... .
SP '''''' ......... . ................. ,
........ ",.,,,,,,, •• .. "·-ci
SM .... ~ '''''.. _ ..... , ........
SC ~ •• C. .. .......... C\. .... 'fIIoOC'
"'I.
CI.
01.
MH
CH
CH
PT
CBAl't'1'
.... ...c ..... ' ...... c.y ".. , ..... aM_ ""...,.. "",r ...
Q. ... c .............. Q. ... ,. ",,,,n ..,... ..... , "" .... 'ta"
....... c ,....... ., \,. •• ,. _,-..
~ ... ~,.. ".1f."',,' ........ ... ............ ". I ... ,. , ........ \., •• Q. .. , •
... .....c ",r ......... ...
..... n a...a" ,f' \... ... •• rtCIT.
... ,~cow. I.... ...... ,I. -" .......
.......... C ... ., • ., ... ....... nc.,... I.' Q. ....
..... -c C", •••• ., .... .,. f ......
""''''"C"' ........ C II'Lf'
'-';"' ...................... ""
.. r_ .... • ....... , her,.f,
UNIFIED SOIl.. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
--------
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-6
I. Konitoring Well Design
A. SC-6 was designed according to the infor.ation on the well construction summary sheet.
11. Drilling Methads
A. Method. The well was~rilled (bored) using a truck-aounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
st~ auger or rotary-wash drilling .ethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. unknown.
D. Equipaent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Co.pres.ed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentio.etric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the ~sure.ent was .ade at a later date.
G. For.ation Samples.
1. Collection of S"ples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling Methods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. CheMical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Konitoring Well Construction Katerials
A. saturated Zone Pri.ary Casing. The well ;s constructed with Schedule 40 PVC p;pe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with II 4"-diueter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5u·di ... ter, slotted-standpipe pvc screen.
D. Ste .. Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Developaent
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5"-dla.eter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Che.ieally-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been ~sured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. lIell Developllent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well ;5 sealed fro. the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The _thod for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled fro. 5.0 feet in depth to 3D feet in
depth with clay backfill. The well is locked to prevent ta~ring •
•
•
•
..
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
WELL NO.: 5C-6
COORDINATES: SUIII Sec. 32, T1S, R1UI, N 3648.96, E 221.20
(frOil SII corner)
AQUIFER: Upperaost
SUPERVISED BY: Da ... and Moore, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AHD
WELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground .urface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-5.0 feet)
1.0. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Sc:h. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: 5ch. 40 PVC
D1aaeter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (5.0-30.0 ft.>
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seel: NONE
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 1.S"-DIAMETER
Pack SLOTTED STAHD PIPE
I...--U.IL
Screen
1.0. of screen aection
Elev./depth of botta. of acreen
Elev./depth of botta. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botta. of plugged
blank aection
Type of fi Uer below plugged aection: UHICNOWN
'276.5
3.9 ft
Unknown
, ..
Unknown
1.5"
Unknown
N/A
42'2.6
4242 .6
1.5-
4227.6
4226.6
4227 .6
Elevation of botta. of borehole§226.6
* AU elevations are in feet above Man aee level •
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-6
•
•
•
UOll(H .. ""( CQN\UU" .. ,\ INC
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
WEll NO.: SC-7
COORDINATES: Sl8K Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 2243.06, E 225.70
(froll SW corner)
AQUIFER: UpperllOst
SUPERVISED BY: Da.es and Koore, _Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
"Ell SCREEN
PLACEHENT
(This well was
not found in
1989. Three
wells were
installed in
1982 for a
pullPing teat.)
r -.-",,~.u ft.
Pack
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of aurface aeal
Type of aurface aeal: GROUT (0-5.0 feet)
1.0. of aurface caaing
Type of surface casing: Unknown
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Dta .. ter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (5.0-10.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top Of seal
Type of leal: GROUT (10.0-31.0 ft.)
BENTONITE (31.0-32.0 ft.)
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botto. of screen
Elev./depth of botto. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
bl.anJc section
Type of fi Uer below plugged aection: UNKNOWN
Elevation of botto. of borehole
Not Surveyed
3.80 ft
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
6.0"
Unk!'!9WD
N/A
32.0 ft.
41.0 ft.
Unknown
56.0 ft.
56.0 ft.
56.0 ft.
Unknown
FIGURE 111-7
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-7
I. Monitoring Well Deslgn
A. SC-7 was designed according to the inforaation on the well construction lu..ary sheet.
11. Drilling "ethods
A. "ethod. The well wes arilled (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
ste. auger or rotary-wash drilling methods.
B. Drilling fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipaent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Compressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the .easure.ent was aade at a later date.
G. FOl"II8tion Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling "ethods. Unknown.
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
Ill. Monitoring Well Construction ftaterials
A. Saturated Zone Pri .. ry Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5M-diameter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5"-diameter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .easured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Developaent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed from the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The aethad for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from S.D feet in depth to 10.0 feet
in depth with clay backfill.
•
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: EHVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
YELL NO.: SC-7A
COORDINATES: S~ Sec. 32, T1S, R11Y, N 2243.06, E 225.70
(fra SY corner)
DATE COMPLETED: 2-17-1982 AQUIFER: Upper.ast
SUPERVISED BY: Daaes and Moore, Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
YELL SCREEN
PLACEMENT
(This well wea
not f04.lnd in
1989. Three
wells were
installed in
1982 for a
pullping test.)
---U, .. ll
Screen
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground aurface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0·5.0 feet)
1.0. of aurface casing
Type of aurface casing: Unknown
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Diaaeter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (5.0-28.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: NONE
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pact
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 1.S··DIAHETER
SLOnED STAND PIPE
1.0. of screen s.ction
Elev./depth of botta of screen
Elev./depth of bottOil of gravel pact
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blant section
Type of f; ller below plugged section: UNICNOWH
Elevat;on of bottOil of borehole
1.274.7
4.6 ft
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
1.5-
Unknown
NIA
1.21.2.1
1.241.6
4226.6
4226.6
4226.6
4226.6
* All elevation. are in feet above IIHn ... level •
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE III-B
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-7A
1. Monitoring Well Design
A. SC-7A was designed according to the information on the well construction su..ary sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
ste. auger or rotary-wash drilling ~thods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Co.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. The potentio~tric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the ~asure.ent was made at a later date.
G. Formation Sa.ples.
,. Collection of Sa.ples. Core sa.ples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Salllpl ing Methods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No cheaical tests were perfor~ on the samples. However, test~
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a '.5"-d1a~ter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Stea. Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Devel~nt
A. Screen. Slotted '.Sh-dia~ter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Che.ically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .easured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Development. unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed from the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The .ethod for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from 5.0 feet in depth to 3D feet in
depth with clay backfill.
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: EHVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
YELL NO.: SC-7B
COORDINATES: S~ Sec. 32, T1S, R11Y, N 2243.06, E 225.70
(fro. SY corner)
DATE COttPLETED: 2-17-1982 AQUIFER: Upper.,st
SUPERVISED BY: Da.es and Koore,.Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
YELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
(Thb well was
not found in
1989. Three
we lls were
installed in
1982 for a
pullping test.)
* ~oC! ... vI Pack
Screen
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of aurface seal: GROUT (0·5.0 feet)
Hot Surveyed
3.00 ft
Unknown
I.D. of surface casing Unknown
Type of surface casing: Unknown
Depth of surface casing Unknown
I.D. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Diaaeter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (5.0-17.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: GROUT (17.0-37.0 ft.)
BENTONITE (37.0-38.0 ft.)
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
I.D. of screen section
Elev./depth of botta. of screen
Elev./depth of botta. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botta. of plugged
blank section
Type of filler below plugged section: UHKNOIIN
Elevation of botta. of borehole
1.5·
Unknown
N/A
38.0 ft.
46.0 ft.
Unknown
55.0 ft.
55.0 ft.
55.0 ft.
Unknown
FIGURE III-9
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-7B
I. Konitoring Well Design
A. SC-7B was designed according to the information on the well construction summary sheet.
II. Drilling ftethods
A. ftethod. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-DOunted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
steM auger or rotary-wash drilling .ethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipaent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Co.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentio.etric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However I
the aeasure.ent was aade at a later date.
G. Formation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs •
2. Sampling ftethods. Unknown.
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Testl. No chemical tests were perfor.ed on the samples. However, testJ
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Konitoring Well Construction Materials
A. saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The weLL is protected with a '''·diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5"-diaaeter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steaa Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5"-diaaeter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been aeasured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Development. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Lock.
A. Well Seal. The well i. sealed from the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
leal. The aethod for grout installation is unknown. The weLL was filled froll 5.0 feet in depth to 17.0 feet
in depth with clay backfill.
•
•
•
c,.o,. TO
IIL.T WITH SOWC I'IMC INtO -_::IIU ... sn .....
""""OCS.'L.T'r '" 101_ ) •• "-n'
GJU>CICII WITH" IoQS'T TO .... ~
ATeD.aL. ZCM& AT ).Il'aT
GJU>0ItS WITH UGH!' CIlIA,. TO ,,_
"L.T'r ""'C _ ..... 0 .II.T
""" YEItS TO ., •• neex
WITH oc:c.u_L. ~ CCI.QIIICD VC __ IOMC IMA"""
~U",
.-,. "PC TQ wc.DIUN _ WITH A
TMet TO SOWC "L.T'r Cl:lAItSC _
_ oc:::A.SICIKAL. ~n.M:I "MIt
GAAVt:l. -_~ CIOdC
GAACCS WITH _C III.T _0
oc:::A.SlQKoOL. ,....,...,."""y c::o.c­
HTltO .aL.14OClUI..ItlI
__ .'L.':"'I' c,.ol" TO Q.lY1:Y III.T
WITH T Aet TQ _ .....: 1NtO­
STUI"II'
GAAOU WITH IIOMIE _"""
I'-.cs
GAAOCS UGW1' ClllAl" TO TA"
WATI:/t LriCL."T It.t I"aT ON ...­
""""OD TO -.eN'" sn .....
~OD WITH IIOMC 11L.T'r r1PC
SAfoO ""''rOIl TO .·,...,ex
GM CItlI TO \I'ICn' STUI"II'
GIIAOCS WITH oc:c.ulONAL.
II'\..OATIIC .....: GllAVCl...uoo TO
STUI"II'
._" I'Ve TO "COIU" """'0 WITH A
"Met TO SOJooC "L.T.uoo IHI'P­
ICOOCI _Y1:Y "L.T .uoo"Ne TO "'r:DIUN .... NO """YVIS TO I· T,uex _
"C&:IIUN .oDeS«
_..0 _~"'T sz.11"aT
ONI-ll-ll
I.S 1_ ::n ..... c:TVI II..O'1'TIID IfT"'NCI~""
.....:OOO~ 1H5T"'~ TO 41.1 n:t:T
LOG OF
:11..°""1 ;sr
, 'SPI'l
4oG ..... "'1
I
~ jI
I • ~SM,
iii jI n
'SI"Il .. .. .. I .. • IS",
BORING SC-9
_ .. StI.T't c:I..A'f 1-.':"
wITH _ 11'11<& .... ..0 .. ..01-." _
.. COlUMsn .....
GaAOU 111.':"'1' '" 101_ L~""::
GaAOU UGHT GAAY TO ~ ... "' ...
W"ITK.ITH'" MOtIT TQ ... TUlII. T'E:I 1CiIL. ZONC _ wITH __
'n4IN 'II.T _.....: .... ..0 """ ....
TO 1I.*nea:
GAA'I"II_ .. n.C TO WCDlUM .....
WITH ... TUc:t TQ _I IlL.':" A..o
IH'n:II.C_~ Q.lYCY SO!..T .... 0 ....
TO .. COIUM ..... O ""'_ 1":) •• not
-WCQlU04 ODell
"---Gl-..I:IU UGHT ~ 'f TO " ...... ..
WICT"C"IIO wM"H \..OS ..... ,. • ...c Q.ly
'" '2 " .s.JI'fl
§ s;uo&..~.
:lI
I
l··........al
I j!
LlGHTT ..... TO~Y_ ... Te IIL.':"'I'
c,.o Y TO c,.oYCY ilL.':" -OCCIU'" sn .....
.... TUl1.IVU AT n.l nCT ON _
GaAOCS wITH .. 11I.T'r ......: .......
'"" 'I'P TO 'I· nflex ~OD TO VEJlY sn .....
GaAOU TO Uc:HT :oA1I:D<I-'
GJU.OD '1"0 __ .. AOoQ _1TIf
oc::.t.SIONAL. n...g.&TIHG I'IIOC
GJU.vCL. __ =-u:TC ... T ".S I"aT
ONI-II-II
,., .HOt Cl\AIIOI';Tt.~ '1..:I'rr'Cl:I1ITA..o~II
"Q:)MCT1:II INSTA~ TO .,.~ 'EI
.u:::.
.. -•• e o
.. lila.,.:) "'OISNIIC ttlU"IUICI:I" ... I'ClIICI:'<TACC
'" THC CItIn' wCICWT '" -.. • 0..., _"..,. CXl'lIasC::I .. '-". PCI'I c:.IltOC
I"OC7T
e .... ~S..:1t I"OC7T '" Il'OCCTIIATtICIN 111_ A
, •• U ..... _" ~ JO I<O<D
II ,.), .. CO ' .. Wl'\.LII ..... AOVANc:tD HYCIIUU~
., rrra"' ...... """" "I -II'IIITOt ....... """" ,.,., -mCNCII ...... """"
.5011-IHI1..JY ...... """" 1:\""1-STA_1I0 IIO<CTllATtICIN nST
~l-ClAOCS II _C ....... """" WI"I"M * II • TV"" CIIIVC IHOC
Ill) -CIA"C. II _C '''''''''"'-&II wnw * O· TV": o",vc .-
• OC,.". "T wt<oCH ~IIICI:I "'MII\..C WAS
CXT"IIACTCO
II STA_JIIOI'OOCTUTlOt TEST
80RINGS
Dames eo. Moorl
"'-----------------.. ----......... .
•
•
•
PDEIS -August, 1982
MAJOR DIVISIONS
(;OAIIS(
GIIAIHIO
SOII.S
--. M .... .. .. , ...... ••
u.!IU. ..... --...... ton
"HI
011"'1,,'0
SOIU
..-.c .... M ....
:tI .. ", ....... , l.lI.l.I.I..LI-.
... W,,", we
GIl AVIL
AHO
Gil AV(U,T
SOILS
......... --'.6&--u:uwa ..... -
'AHO
AHO
,AHOT
SOIU
--'" .. .... .. .. -WII.IIl • -
SILTS
",,,0
C-••• ns
SlLn
1.,,0
cun
son:.
(;LCAH
1\., '''"' •• ..
# •• UI
_. .. , ......
a.U.H J..U60 ......... , .. ..
"'"
SAHO.S ._ . ., -II
\.Ieutl "I." ..w , ••• H
....... ..... ,
\!.1!!lJ hi .. ..
CLASSITICATION
In-PICA!. DESCRIPTIONS
G'N
G?
GM
GC
S'N
SP
.c1. ........... -a.... ... .... ". ....... ..rw.a.. \,.,"', ,. .. ' .....
... It\., ..... , ..... , ............ .
......... n..ta.. .... r~ •• ... .. .....
'*'" .... "'... ....""'".u...­k' """'1
c........ • • ..".... • .... " ...... ....... "'.ea
.t.... ........ ...... • ........ .
.......... "'"' .... I ... .
.... ", ....... e. ,...... .-."tI\4."
.......... ,9\,& .... It",
SC ~ •• I. ... ........ -C\. ... _rl\llCl
CL
OL
CH
CH
PT
CIrA.X'1'
........ ....c .... f. , ... , .. "-C , .... ".. .oc_ n. ......... , ...
a,.."y ".. ........ .. -:","C' .\on ..,.. .... , """"en
........ c c,""'''' ., " •• '" ....... ~ •• """:Jn. ... •• , .... , Q.6"t.
....-.. ... ". It"'. CU"' .... 1 •• .......
.... ...c. "fa ....... ..c
""" Q.,..An .~ ..... ~ •• f'ICI ••
....... .c ... ,... ..c.c,~ .,
".'~cowa , .......... ·1' .... ,.. ......
.~ c ....... ., ....
"'" ... ne,.". I., CL.Itt'l
..... -c (" •••• _ ........ t ....
"'.'''C"" .. u_C ",-, •
... ,,~ .............. "'\0'
... ,. ... .. aau •• e n.t,."
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
------
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: EHVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SlBH Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 2321.36, E 3544.20
(frOil SII corner)
DATE COHPLETED: 2-18-1982
IIELL NO.: SC-8
AQUIFER: Upper.ast
-SUPERVISED BY: Da.es and Koore,_ Inc.
•
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
(This well wes
not found in
1989. Three
wells were
installed in
1982 for a
pullping test.
The weUs are
in a location
under the
Vitro pile.)
l
Screen
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface s.al
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-5.0 feet)
I.D. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Unknown
Depth of surface casing
Not Surveyed
3.0 ft
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
1.0. of riser pipe 6.0·
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Dia .. ter of borehole Unknown
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (5.0-14.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: GROUT (14.0-34.0 ft.)
BENTONITE (34.0-35.0 ft.)
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botte. of screen
Elev./depth of botte. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botte. of plugged
blank section
Type of filler below plugged section: UNKNOIIN
Elevation of bottOll of borehole
N/A
35.0 ft.
.w.0 ft.
Unknown
55.0
55.0
55.0
Unknown
FIGURE III-10
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-8
I. Monitoring Well Design
A. SC~8 was designed according to the information on the well construction su ... ry sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-MOUnted rotary drill rig and either hollow~
stem auger or rotary-wash drilling methods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Compressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. Unknown.
G. Formation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Unknown.
2. Salllpl;ng Methods. Unknown.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown •
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. Unknown.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake DeSign and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5M~diameter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .... ured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Developtlent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space SeaLs, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed from the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The method for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from 5.0 feet in depth to 14.0 feet
in depth with clay backfill •
•
•
•
e'
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: EHVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
liEU. NO.: SC-SA
COORDINATES: SLBH Sec. 32, ns, R1111, N 2321.36, E 3544.20
(fl'Oll SY corner)
DATE COMPLETED: 2-18-1982 AQUIFER: Upper80St
SUPERVISED BY: Da.es and Koore,. Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
IIELL SCREEN
PLACEMENT
9.0 ft.
(This weLL was
not found in
1989. Three
weLLs were
installed in
1982 for a
piJlIPing test.
The wells are
in a location
under the
Vitro pi le.)
33.0 ft.
34.3 ft.
Pack
45.0 ft.
49.3 ft.
l
Screen
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-5.0 feet)
4282.9
2.7 ft
Unknown
1.0. of surface casing Unknown
Type of surface casing: Unknown
Depth of surface casing Unknown
I.D. of riser pipe 1.5"
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Dia.eter of borehole Unknown
Type of fi LLer: CLAY BACKFIU. (5.0-33.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: NONE
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 1.SM-DIAtiETER
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botte. of screen
Elev./depth of botte. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botte. of plugged
blank s.ction
Type of fi Uer below plugged section: UNICNOIIN
Elevation of botte. of borehole
MIA
4244.8
42'3.5
'.5M
4228.5
4228.5
4228.5
4225.3
ALL elevations are in feet above .. an sea level.
FIGURE III-ll
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-8A
1. Monitoring WelL Design
A. SC-BA was designed according to the information on the weLL construction suamary sheet.
11. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary drilL rig and either hoLlow­
stem auger or 'rotary-wash driLLing aethads.
B. DrilLing fLuids. Unknown.
C. fluids AnaLysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
f. Potentiometric Surface. The potentiOlletric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the .easureaent was Made at a later date.
G. formation Samples.
1. CoLlection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling Methods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Cheilical/Physical Tests. No chemieal tests were perforllled on the samples. However, test~
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
Ill. Honitoring Well Construction Haterials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. The weLL is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diaaeter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5"-diaaeter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Sten Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and WeLL Development
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5"-dineter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. the.ieally-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .easured for turbidity. No results are availabLe.
C. Well Developllent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. WeLL Seal. The well ;s sealed from the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The .ethod for grout installation ia unknown. The well was fi LLed fro. 5.0 feet in depth to 30 feet in
depth with clay backfill •
•
•
•
UOUCH .. " ... ' COH\U" ..... I\ INC
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
WELL NO.: SC-8B
COORDINATES: SLBH Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 2321.36, E 3544.20
(frOil SW corner)
DATE COKPLETED: 2-18-1982 AQUIFER: Upper.,st
..... "",,, ... SED BY: DalleS and Itoore, .Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WEll SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
CTMa well was
not found in
1989. Three
wella were
installed in
1982 for a
pullping test.
The wella are
in a location
under the
Vitro pi le.)
P.ck
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference potnt
Height of reference point
above ground aurface
Not Surveyed
3.0 ft
Depth of aurface aeal Unknown
Type of aurface aeal: GROUT (0-5.0 feet)
1.0. of aurface casing Unknown
Type of surface casing: Unknown
Depth of aurface casing Unknown
1.0. of riser pipe 1.SM
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Dia.eter of borehole Unknown
Type of ftller: CLAY BACKFILL (5.0-12.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: GROUT (12.0-39.0 ft.)
BENTONITE (39.0-40.0 ft.)
Type of gr.vel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of acreen
Deacription of acreen: Unknown
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of bottOi of screen
Elev./depth of bottOi of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botto. of plugged
blank aectton
Type of filler below plugged aection:
Elevation of botto. of borehole
UNKNOWN
N/A
40.0 ft.
45.0 ft.
Unknown
55.0
55.0
55.0
Unknown
FIGURE 111-12
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-8B
1. Konitoring Well Deslgn
A. SC-8B was designed according to the information on the well construction summary sheet.
11. Drilling "ethods
A. ~thod. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-DOUnted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
stem auger or rotary-wash drilling methods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
f. Potentiometric Surface. Unknown.
G. Foraation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Unknown.
2. Saatpl iog "ethods. Unknown.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown •
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical testa were performed on the saatplea. However, teat a
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
Ill. Konitoriog Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. Unknown.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5u-diameter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter peck was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been ... aured for turbidity. No reaults are available.
C. Well Development. Unknown.
V. Annular Spece Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed froa the ground surface to 5.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The .ethod for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from 5.0 feet in depth to 12.0 feet
in depth with clay backfill •
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SLBH Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 3723.56, E 3~9S.90
(fro. SII corner)
DATE COHPLETED: 2-19-1982 AQUIFER: Upperaost
SUPERVISED BY: Daaes and Koore,_ Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WEU SCREEN
PLACEHENT
(This well was
not found in
1989. The
well 15
located under
Vitro pile.)
10.0 ft.
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-4.0 feet)
I.D. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Unknown
Depth of surface casing
I.D. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Unknown
Dia~ter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (4.0-20.5 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: NONE
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
I*"<.,~ pack Description of screen: 1.5M-DIAMETER
--", .. IL
Screen
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
I.D. of screen section
Elev./depth of bottoa 01 screen
Elev ./depth of bottoa of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottoa of plugged
blank section
Type of fi Uer below plugged section: UNICNOWN
Elevation of bottoa of borehole
4283.2
4.4 ft
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
1.5·
Unknown
N/A
4250.3
4248.8
1.5M
4233.8
4233.8
4233.8
4233.3
* All elevationa are in feet above ~an sea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE III-13
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-9
1. "onitoring Well Design
A. SC-9 was designed according to the information on the well construction su..ary sheet.
11. Drilling "ethods
A. "ethad. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-lOUnted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
ste. auger or rotary-wash drilling .ethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipaent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. PotentiOMetric Surface. The potentiOMetric surfaces were docuMented on the boring logs. However,
the measureMent was made at a later date.
G. ForllBtion SallPles.
1. Collection of Sa.ples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sallp ling "ethads. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Ch.ical/Physical Tests. No ch.ical tests were perforMed on the sallples. However, telts
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Honitoring Well Construction Haterials
A. Saturated Zone Primary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diaaeter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5u -diaaeter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steaa Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well DevelopMent
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5M-dia.eter standpipe was installed as the screen.
8. Filter Pack. Ch.ically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
he. been .... ured for turbidity. No r •• ult. ar. available.
C. Well Development. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed fro. the ground surface to 4.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. Th. _thod for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled from 4.0 feet in depth to 20.5 feet
in depth with clay backfill •
. ,
•
•
.. lot .. ..
:a ...
eORiNG SC-IO
-.-.. 111." Cl.AY TO Cl.AVC;Y III.T
_me 50MII I"N .... ..0 -"£OIUN
IT1I"'I"
GAAIXS 111." '" U""':II Z.O nJ:T '---cw,oc:s UGHT GMV ANO wme ..
_T TO .... TWVon;1I lIOIl. ZOot,
GlUlCIC.S wme UGHT TA ... _ wMtMt ILTVI"N __ II
.II.T I.AY1:ItS TO ",. '""CX
UGHT ' __ Y I'INC TO "CIIIU"
...... 0 WI"/'M A TMex TO _ III.T
AN(! lHTP'I[1)OCQ Cl.Ayc;y III.T A..o
I"N TO WCDIUIO ...... 0 -weO .....
:&NS&
GMCIC.S wme oc::::AS1CooA1.
n..c.ATlHG ,--GMYQ,.
UGHI' _ III.TV Cl.AT TO cu. T1:T
SII.T _me IOWC 1'1HC ...... 0 -..... 0
. GMIXS TO "",110 "NO Wme sowc: .... flTlAu.. T C:::UOCHTCII
tcIl.~
GaAOD TO I.GHT~_
GMY
GMCIC.S TO .,."..
IS","' WATI:JI ~I:I..AT R..' n:rr ClH _
GAAD&:s wme WOlle: cu.yc;y
SII.T _D TO \tDlY nll'"l"
OIIIADeS "'CX TO ""'...: SII.TY cu.T _ TO ST'I""
GlIIADeI ... CX TO WOII' cu.T1:T
III.T .. ..0 TO _01_ nll'"l"
--CQWf'U:T'CO.AT ... 0 neT CHI-a-a
'.' ..ot OIA"ETCIlILOTTCO n .. .,of'll"!:
f'l1I:ZONCT'I:Jl _TA I..I..C) TO ... 0 'aT
..!C!:.
.. -•• c o
A I'1C:UI ~"C I:lU'OIUSI[1) A' .. 1I"tJICI:H1"""1t Off TMI: gay _1:.IGN'r Off I0Il.
• DII'T _rTY iElU'IIU$CII IN LIII. "':11 c.l8IC
P'OI:1f'
C ... _ PCJII P'OI:1f' Off f'CMI:'TI!ATICH us_ ..
I .. U. ""'_ 01\0I"I'_ )0 II'CMU
" II'I.ISHCO !SA-";II w'" .. OVAlOC.CII 1f'I'0lltAUUCAI.I..IC' o TY1'U Of' .... """"'-0 ~I-"IIITCN ..... 1'\.&11
!nl-I'fTCICIII ...... 1'\.&11
0 .. ,-tHCL.IY .... """"'-0 On,-n_I'I:I<CTlOATICH TItST
1"-OAWU. _I: .... """-1:11 WfTM • U· TY!"C :::IRIV'C __
«II-OAWU. _C .... -I.CII_me
• II' T"YP1: ~IV' _
• Dl:1I'TM .. T WHICK UOoOUn'\IJII.CO ...... P'U[ '''''S
D:f1IACTI:O
Q n_"" I'OfI:TIIIATICH 'I'UT
LOG OF
.. .. .. .
Z
:: .. l!l
, .. 1 .. :1._' ........ "-11_ ,:..
:I "' IS"'"
III
a
XI
•
:a 25 I""
J • ISIII
::I 15 Isn,
I!:",
:a 10 ISI'TI
J+ ISI'TI
ssUO"JI,oot!!1 I:'.
:a t'J ISI'TI
:a " ISI'TI
BORING SC-II
_ .. 111." cu. T TO cu.ycy III.T
wme _I: _I: SAND -tTl"
GMOCS III."" ... UPf'CII l. ~ n:r:r GMOCS UGH1' GMY _ wme A
WOsaT TO .... """"'TaI _I. :.::::..c
GMOCS wme "I.~"'-
UGH'!' T .... _..rn: $ll.T &.A_
TO •.•• 'ntICX
'-"'_Y I'INC TO Wl::l1UW ..... wme A TMex TO _III.T_ _.COOI:.II cu.ycy IIIoT __ IE
TO "CO_ ...... 0 &.A_ TO ,. 'ntICX -WCIII __ '
GlIIAOCS wme U:P SII.T AND
cu.,.
GMOCS wme IAItOY TO III.T'I'
c::.,ATI.AYCItS
GMOIEI TO DOd&
._ SlI.~ c::.,AY TO Cl.AYCY 'II.T
_me SOMe: I"N .... ND -.,.,.".
GMOIEI wme .. I"N _ wme
.. TMex TOIOW& ILT &.A_
TO.' THlCX.AT ::a.' n:r:r
I..CVa.. .AT I.L. n:r:r 00 )o+oCZ
'---.i:IU'OICIL UCHT GMY TO T ..... _ .... rn: wme _, ::::u.ycy .II.T
_0 TO OCOAIW 1IT1"
GMOCS TO GlIIlEo._y _
"ITM A IIIoTY"HIE SAND I.AYVI
'":'0 II-THtCX -"C::tuM Cl)cSC
1011_ c::M1'I.I:TI:O AT 'i.0 lI'1:I:T
CH.t-u-a
'.S ..ot 0IA"1:T1:11 II..:n"l'I:D n .... o .. 1't:
"IC:OWCTU lICIT Au.DI TO 'i.0 I"UT
SO,RINGS
Dames & Moore
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
WELL NO.: SC-10
COORDINATES: SLBH Sec. 32, T1S, R11Y, N 5073.06, E 3440.30
(from SY corner)
DATE COKPLETED: 2-22-1982 AQUIFER: UpperllOst
SUPERVISED BY: Daaes and Koore,.Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
YELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
10.0 ft.
Pack
1==="""'--'-,".0 ft.
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-4.0 feet)
1.0. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Sch. SO PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Diaaeter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (4.0·32.5 ft.)
ELev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: NONE
Type of gravel pecic: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 1.S"-DIAMETER
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of bottOil of screen
ELev./depth of bottOil of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank section
Type of fiLLer below plugged section: UNICHOWN
Elevation of bottOil of borehole
4284.1
4.1 ft
Unknown
4"
Unknown
1.5"
Unknown
N/A
4247.5
4247.0
1.5"
4232.0
4232.0
4232.0
4232.0
* All eLevation. are in feet above aean s .. LeveL.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-14
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-IO
I. Monitoring Well Design
A. SC-10 was designed according to the inforaation on the well construction summery sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was arilled (bored) using a truck-lOUnted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
stem auger or rotary-wash drilling methods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipment Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentio.etric Surface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the .easurement was aade at a later date.
G. Foraation Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling Methods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, tests
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5M-dia.eter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Develop.ent
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5"-dia.eter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been measured for turbidity. No results are available.
c. Well Development. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed from the ground surface to 4.0 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The method for grout installation is unknown. The well was filled fro. 4.0 feet in depth to 32.5 feet
in depth with clay backfill. The well is locked to prevent tampering .
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
VELL NO.: SC~11
COORDINATES: SLBtt Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 5007.86, E 1800.40
(fl'Oll SV comer)
DATE COKPLETED: 2-23-1982 AQUIFER: Upper.ost
SUPERVISED BY: 0 .... and Moore, ~nc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground .urface
Depth of .urface .eal
Type of .urface .eal: GROUT (D~3.5 feet)
1.0. of surface casing
Type of .urface casing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of .urface ca.ing
1.0. of ri.er pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Dia .. ter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (3.5~29.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of .eal: NONE
Type of gravel paclc: SAND
Elev ./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of .creen
.... oCt ...... Paclc De.cription of .creen: 1.5"-DlAIIETER
'---1IftLl
Screen
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
I.D. of .creen .ection
ELev ./depth of bot tOIl of .creen
ELev./depth of bottOil of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank .ection
\00 Type of filler below plugged section: UNI<NOIlN
Elevation of bottOil of borehole
4280.8
4.8 ft
Unknown
4"
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
4247.0
4246.0
1.5"
4231.0
4231.0
4231.0
4231.0
* All elevation. are in feet above Men lea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-15
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-ll
1. "onitor;ng Well Deslgn
A. SC-11 was designed according to the information on the well construction SUDlary sheet.
11. Drilling "ethods
A. "ethod. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
ate. auger or rotary-wash drilling aethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analys;s. Unknown.
D. Equi~ent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. COIIpresaed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentioaetric Surface. The potentioetric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the aeaaureaent was aade at a later date.
G. Formation Sa~les.
1. Collection of Sa~les. Core sa~les were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling "ethods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. No che.ical tests were perforaed on the samples. However, test~
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Konitoring Well Construction "aterials
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. The well ia constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective casing. The well is protected with a 4"-dia.eter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.5"-diaeeter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Deaign and Well Development
A. Screen. Slotted 1.5"-diameter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. C~ically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
haa been llltasured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Developaent. Unknown.
V. Amular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well is sealed frOll the ground surface to 3.5 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The llethad for grout instaUation is unknown. The well was fiUed from 3.5 feet in depth to 29 feet in
depth with clay backfill. The well is locked to prevent tampering •
•
•
•
PDEIS -August. 198Z
JlAJOR DIVISIONS
COAIIS[
G'UIN'O
SOIl.'
--... .. ., .. , ...... ..
U!J.U. ---_ ""1 ,.n
'.N'
G'U'N,O
SOIU
..... "" .... ,
:II ... 'ce, ... II
l1U..U..I -.. , ..... we WI
U"VEL
""0
GIIAVll.l.T
SOIU
..... ... .
til ........ '.ac-
eL"''' GIIAVEI.S
n •• tf'\.& •• .. ,._ ...
-&a.IlsIll .... -'1(>· .... £ ...... ......
110,.0 ",.0
,A,.OT
SOIU
., a_ ' ... ·1110-· ... ' ..... ._ . .' ....... .... u.-.... -
"loTS
"NO
CO_iTS
"', ... .. 'a,'
UU , .... ..
.... .". .. .. ,'
\!.I..!.!l.S "" ... to
MQC.T OIlGA"'1(; SOl1..5
son. CLASSITICA TION
ITYPlC.JL DESCRIPTIONS
G'N
G?
GM
GC
S'N
SP
SM
SC
WI.
CI.
01.
J.lH
CH
CH
PT
CSAR'r
..a... • ...... •• -a.'. "AIWC\. ..
..... ...ftloilCL ~t'1'\.' ,. .. ' ....
...~. • ..... c. .. •• e .. 1. •••• c .... ..... ..'fWt.... ",''"U' •• .. "' ....
.... " ... -1 .............. ~ ..... , ... , ... .
c ......... ..,e .............. ......
Q...t.P ... "' •• ,
...... .. ...... ....... , .... '" ... "
.... ,. ",.f'9'\' , ... ,t ... .
... .,."., • .... c. , ...... , •••• ",,_ ......... ".''''' .... , ....
..... .....c: .... " ... "C" " .. ,..... _OCI "-0\/14.. """. M
Q. • .,cy ............. "'.'C' ... " .......... _, """"cn
........ c Ct. .. " ., \-Ie .... c~
~ ... ..-:a,y. .......... .... .. .. ....... "An_ It,-'" Cutl. \. ••• CL.t.
... ...c .... '1 " ...... .... k'" a...tn ., "' •• ~ •• na.,"
......... c -"" ..c"Uewl ••
... ,a..w:C0... 't'" ..... ' •• .... " .......
.~ c",at. fill _ •
~ ... nc"'f. ,a, Q.6"
"C .................. , .... . .. r. ... ........ per,.,.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
•
•
•
PDEIS -Aagust. 1962
-.. 1M ...
BORING SC-12 CIXIfIOIIiIATU ".un.' , a .. -a .•
'---CW,o.:lI TO UGW'/' GllAY.u.o WITM
A _.,. TO SATUAAlTO $QI.
1i'!~~4 __ .cZCiNl:llUtCS WITM AL~T1...a
:a , \..,
ISNt
:a .T ISI"I'I
.!I.CC.
"-I.e o
UQIotI' TAN_WITI I'I.T
UYCIIS TO II.· TMICX .-..c TO I(C.OIUN s...oo WITM A
T1lAClt TO SOMC 54I.T -.... 0._
CIDIH
UCHT ._ SILTY c::I.A,. TO CLA't"£Y
III.T WITH 1ICIIIoIC.-..c s...oo-YDrT
n"" u:vn. AT i7.-nrr a. _
CAAClI:S TO UCiHT GJlCD«_
GllAY _ TO "In'
GllAClI:S WITM IC1II1[ CLA n:T
SLT _0 TO yO"/' nll'1'
GlllAOO wm< _ .u.n TO
CI..l vrr I'IIC ..,.100 LA TEJtS TO
""THlCX
GIIA""~" "we TO WCD"''' ..,. .. 0
WITM .. TMCIt TO IC/ooIC IIl.r­
"C"'''COdC
GAADClITO_1
GllAtCS WITM 4 c::I.A't"£Y ',1..,.
UY£I'I TO J"TMICX
110_ c:::lM1"\.rf1:.O AT SI. ~ r'CI:T a.a-U-R
•• t IIOCK O .... wt:TU 'u:rm:o STA .. CI'1J>t: 1"G~1I _TAu..tl) TO .... I"a;T
.. 1''ll:Ul101IOIS'1V1t11~UKO A' A Pt:IIIClI:)tTAGC
01' TIC DIn' wOGiO" 0lIl' ICII.
• DIn' DOdIT'Y IXI'ltu.lCD ... I.M. J>t:It CJ_ lI'OCn'
C IU:IWS rI:R lI'OCn' 01' Pt:ICT1tATION UI_ .. .... L.a. ""...cit __ 1IO IIOCKU
.. I'USMIO 1IA"""'-C1t w .. s "OYAHCZD -.&uUC-'LUCI o T"I'P'U 0lIl' """""-DI 001-I'ISTCIH ..... 1'1.DI
"..." -1'1T0CII """"""" hl-IHG.n' """1'1.DI
IS""'-J:1'~"o I"OCTJU,TlCN TaT
.,,-OAWU. _I ..... """" WITM • V' TYP'C DIIIV'C SHOe 11)'-OAMU .. _C ..,. .... U;" WfTM
'O"TYJ>t:_VCtIHOC • OII:..,... .. T _ ~.e:o ..,. .. """ WAS
C""""'CTTO
g ""-""0 1"GoCT ..... "CN TaT
LOG OF
80RING SC-13 _TU "'Htl.S , lit,....
.. w .. ...
10.-----
BORINGS
I..lGHT _ .. _,. ,-. TO .... DIV ..
_0 wmc .. TIIACIt ':'a __ IL'l' ... 0
l'fT£I'IlCIIOCO c::I.AY'I:'I' .'I.T _ 'IC ..
TO .. GlUM OAtoi:ILAtUS TO" 'nt!cx •
-COde:
GAAOU TO _ 0II:MlK_
.... cx .. mc _ CLAY'I:'I' ... .,.
.ATIJt LriCL AT ::S •• ra:T :IN __ •
I..lGHr "A~"'II.~ c::I.AY TO
CI..l't"£Y III. T wITH ICIotC 1'MIt III.~
I'WC s...oo _ '''TY LAft .. TO J'
...... CX-~
...... --CWIOll::ll TO GAI_w-GIIAY _
WITM A "I.~ I"WC s...oo LA't'C1I ':'a
IZ" ~"T III.~ I"1:ET -.... _ '
CCHM
GaADICS WITM 4 I"WC ......, wmc
4 'l'IUoCltTO_IIII.'!' LATIUI
TQ "'TMICX
GAA ....... .,.QoWM SlI. TY TO c:...o't"£Y _I TO oeDlUN _ -_I
_ I"IHC TO >CD"' .. _ wmc A
TMCIt TO _liLT _ CLAY­
"CIIUOO OOdI
GIIAOCS TO VI:It'I' OCICII.
1IC1t_ ~m AT ... ~ r'CI:T
CNa-D-R
1.1 IHCH lIIAWCTIII II.D'1"'I"CII .,.&""" .. 1:
Jl'lC:c::NCT£I'I_"I.I.lO TO III.' n:r.'
Cames& Moor
•
•
•
PDZIS -August. 198%
MAJOR DIVISIONS
COAltSC
GltAUtCO
SOILS
_ ....... ~
., .. , ....... II
uu.u. ..... .
_ ...... "H
_ ....... ,
':III .. rr ..... I'
IJII.I.I..U -• , .. W\O'I III'
GltAYCL
ANO
GIt loY CI.l.1'
'O''-S
.... , .... ., -.. '·64-
CLEAH GltAYCL'
auf"" •• ..
"ifltcaa
_ &a.II.IQ ,..... .. tt~ ..... _r ...... ,., _ .. -
,10110
ANO
SA 1101'
SOIU
_..... .., SAHCS wmt n.(, .. -, ......... -"., ......
".. !I.I.IIIa No ........
SILTS
ANO
C'-ATS
SILTS
.... NO
CU.TS
" ........... , IIo..tU , .... ..
HlCH.T OltG.u.1C SOILS
son. CLASSIl"ICATION
G'"
G?
GM
GC
S'N
SP
sa..
SC
loll.
CI.
01.
MH
CH
CH
PT
CBAltT
rtPfCAL DESCRIPTIONS
-c\,L .............. J~ "oWC",,,
........ twe .... "f'''''' ,. --' ....
... 111.., ............ c .......... ".
......... ~ .... \toI'f'\..C .. ... .. .....
.. ", ... c"' .... tAl ..... • .......
k' "If"'"
'''' .... ' ..... C"' ........... .... a... ..."'ac,
a'",,,, .. ...... ' •• ". , .... ,"' ... , .......... 1'9\,' .... , ... .
,.. ... , • ..... c. • .......... 1\401' ....... ",.t"', .......... .
........ .tIMIIC .... ', ... ",a' fttIC ....... -.c. 1\. ..... , .. "".. .. a.,.,., .... ~ .. '::l.a •• , _ .. n .......... , ~ .... 'tCI"
..... .c ' ..... n ., .... ,.. .c~
--" •• """::Ir." ......... "', &1..." .. ..... a..A ... ,,"," ...... t •• ""'M
..... f •
..........c .... ,. "" .... ...
""" ca..an ....... "", •• ,.,.
.......... "'t.. iMIIC.C'~ •• ",":...acC~ I..... ..... ' •• ....... ......
,.........c c ... t .... _
...... nca'''. ,., a..YI
.... , ........................ .
... ,. ... • ..... 'c c..f"_,,
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
•
•
•
/:
Ioms
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENV1ROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CL1VE
UELL NO.: 5C-12
COORDINATES: SLBK Sec. 32, T1S, R11U, N 3648.76, E 1853.40
(from SU corner)
DATE COftPLETED: 2-24-1982 AQUIFER: Upper.ost
SUPERV1SED BY: DalleS and Itoore, .Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WEll SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
42n.S
2.6 ft
Depth of surface seal Unknown
Type of surface seal: GROUT (0-46.5 feet)
1.0. of surface casing 4"
Type of surface casing: 5ch. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: sch. 40 PVC
Dialleter of borehole
Type of filler: NONE
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: BENTONITE (46.5-47.5 ft.)
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: 1.5"-DIAHETER
SLOTTED STAND P1PE
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of botta. of screen
Elev./depth of botto. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botto. of plugged
blank section
Type of fi Her below plugged section: UHI<NOIIH
Elevation of botta. of borehole
Unknown
1.5"
Unknown
4228.4
4227.4
4221.9
1.5"
4216.9
4216.9
4216.9
4216.9
* All eLevations are in teet above !lean sea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE 111-16
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-12
1. Monitoring Well Deslgn
A. SC-12 was designed according to the information on the well construction summary sheet.
11. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was arilled (bored) using a truck-.aunted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
stea auger or rotary-wash drilling methods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
c. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipeent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. COilpressed Air. Unknown.
F. PotentiOiletric !i.trface. The potentiometric surfaces were documented on the boring logs. However,
the .easur.-ent was aade at a later date.
G. Foraation SallPles.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. SallPling Methods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Cheaical/Physical Tests. No chemical tests were performed on the samples. However, test~
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Haterials
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. The well is constructed with Schedule 40 PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
is a 1.SQ-dia .. ter, slotted-standpipe PVC screen.
D. Stea. Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Developeent
A. Screen. Slotted 1.S"-diameter standpipe was ins~alled as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Cheaically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been IINsured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Vell Developeent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Vell Seal. The well is sealed fro. the ground surface to 46.5 feet in depth with a grout
seal. The .. thod for grout installation is unknown. The well has been locked to prevent tallpering •
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SLBK Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 2287.96, E 1883.30
(from SW corner)
AQUIFER: UpperllOst
SUPERVISED BY: Dames and Hoore,_Inc.
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACEHENT
... -c. ...... Pack
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: NONE
1.0. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: Sch. 80 PVC
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Diameter of borehole
Type of filler: CLAY BACKFILL (0.0-43.0 ft.)
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: BENTONITE (43.0-45.S ft.)
Type of gravel pack: SAND
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of acreen
Description of acreen: 1.5M.DIAMETER
SLOTTED STAND PIPE
I.D. of acreen section
Elev./depth of bottOil of screen
Elev./depth of bottOil of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank section
Type of fi Uer below plugged section: UNKNOUN
Elevation of bottOil of borehole
4279.5
5.1 ft
Unknown
Unknown
unknown
4231.4
4228.9
4222.4
1.5M
4219.4
4219.4
4219.4
4218.4
* All elevations are in feet above .. an sea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE III-17
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SC-13
1. Monitoring Well Deslgn
A. SC-13 was designed according to the inforaation on the well construction su..ary sheet.
11. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig and either hollow­
st~ auger or rotary-wash drilling .ethods.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equi~ent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potent;Clllletric Surface. The potentio.etric surfaces were docu.ented on the boring logs. However,
the ~sure.ent was .ade at a later date.
G. For.tion Samples.
1. Collection of samples. Core salllples were collected at the depths identified on the boring
logs.
2. Sampling Methods. Unknown •
3. Collection Intervals. See boring log.
4. Chelllical/Physical Tests. No chelllical tests were perforllied on the samples. However, test~
were run to establish soil types and classifications.
111. MOnitoring Well Construction Katerials
A. Saturated Zone Prilll8ry Casing. The well ;s constructed with Schedule 4() PVC pipe.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 4"-diallleter Schedule 80 PVC pipe. The screen
i, • 1.5u-diallleter, ,lotted-standpipe PVC ,creen.
D. Stea. Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Developillent
A. Screen. Slotted 1.S"-diaeter standpipe was installed as the screen.
B. Filter Pack. Chemically-inert sand filter pack was installed. It is unknown whether the well
has been .. sured for turbidity. No results are available.
C. Well Developlllent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well has no seal. The well was back filled to 43 feet in depth with clay
backfill. The well hal been locked to prevent tampering •
rifE JACOBS ENGfNEERING GROUP INC. ~ ... DVA-HeID Inn .. , DIVISION, ALIUQUUQUI O"UTIOHS • BOREHOLE LOG . Pagei.of 2-
A SITE 10: el..I tie tOCA TlON 10:<: l..C .. 2.01-M ~ APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.): N E ______________ _
GROUND ELEVATION (f!" MSL): DRILLING METHOD: y, .:i&" -H~, S"~.-;::;..,.-----
DRILLER: . ,..,..., A ,<!. T"", "-' E. e-
OA TE 5T ARTED::2-4
DA. TE COMPLETEQ.~: • ...::;;u+.,..:-~L""""f ""-=-----
FIELD REP.: 8 _J::!..'!::d
LOCATION DESCRIPTION '1,... 1000' e. 0 F II (ce.~!: ;?C, ........ 4000' S. 0;:
SITE CONDITION l,vl-I $;:)O~ ) f5 . Ii( .
~.­-
10
UNIFIED
SOIL CLASS.
CL
VISUAL CLASS.:
SA#PXS/'-~ SQ".I", . .p, -?,,.d./Sr.;' .. .,,..c-
c~:t./ Ny-/I:I~ ,....z-, v: Ie.· /"1":. ~:,.".,.,.s
SAAli:>/ cI ('n -tjt-",J I So,..,t:,. C;'/t/ sf /"-c.
c.u..l-d . .1 Air; v: Ie 6r. r, ,t.. "'./s:h br.
", e:L. t:.: "." t!), 's t J., p ,. ,(
~~, (-:.:6 I1-;a.Oo.1 2~',
~" CO~,. U:a..D c:1 t 3" 5 ~
SAMPLE TYPE
A -Aug.r cutting.
S -2-0.0. 1.315-I.D. Itrlv' aample
U -3· O.D. 2."2-LD. tub. umple
T -3-0.0. thln-w.lI.es Sh.lby lub.
n. ~
IJ E JACOBS EN3INEERING GROUP INC,
A.DV4HC1D &TIn", DMSIOH.A.LIUQUUQUI O'UATIOt('
BOREHOLE LOG Page~of'=: • LOCI-. ilON MAP: SITE 10: CL I V~ LOCATION ID:SU:-201· f.f ~ APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.): . I N E _______ _
GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL): _____ _ DRILLING METHOD: __________ _
DRILLER: _____________ _ DATESTARTED: ____________________ ___
OATECOMPLETED: __________________ __
FIELD REP.: _____________ _
LOCATION DESCRIPTION _____ ~ ___ ~ ___ ~ _____ ~ ____ ~ SITE CONDITION ___________________________ _
/f1t...-CL
A .. Auger cuUlng.
VISUAL CLASS.: DENSITY. COLOR, S
PLASTICITY. CONDITIO
SIt.. T Y CLA Y/ 5(p""e ~ ~d, -CDA rs;e-Y"'~F-'
li()j. -r,,;41,/ v. ST. /,.,..,e. ak,A I t:I./,..~ .I'.z;
It, O,."s.h'-'1""1 H..!.,k: ;.!.,.o-t;./jIJ.)
.{;/",." J ~D HI L II. h II r,( C (;J. /, '& J"e, &) (!,. ~,t-
ST(J,oPe~ Ak~e.12! 1'47 S,,:
STo/'PE..D Srl,v/JLC K ,d,
!SIS" .
SAMPLE TYPE
6 .. 2· 0.0. ,.~e-1.0. drive .ample
u -,. 0.0. 2.42-LD. lube Hmple
T .. S-0.0. thln-•• lled 6helby tube
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SUB" Sec. 32, T1S, R11U, N 3971.00 E 1267.00
(fro. SU corner)
DATE COftPLETED: Unknown (Ci rca 1984)
UELL NO.: SLC-201
AQUIFER: UpperDOst
SUPERVISED BY: Unknown (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., was associated with the project.)
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
UELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
--Yell
Screen
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
4274.60
1.58 ft
Depth of surface seal Unknown
Type of surface seal: Unknown
I.D. of surface casing 6.0"
Type of surface casing: GALVANIZED STEEL
Depth of surface casing Unknown
I.D. of riser pipe 2.0·
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Dia.eter of borehole
Type of filler: Unknown
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: Unknown
Type of gravel pack: SAND PACK
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
I.D. of screen section
Elev./depth of botte. of screen
Elev./depth of botte. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botte. of plugged
blank section
Type of filler below plugged section: UNKNOUN
Unknown
Unknown
4236.52
4233.02
2.0·
4223.02
4221.02
4223.02
Elevation of botte. of borehole 4221.02
* All elevations are in feet above .ean sea level.
FIGURE 111-26
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SLC-201
1. Honitoring Well Design
A. SLC·201 was designed according to the infor .. tion on the well construction su ... ry sheet.
II. Drilling "ethads
A. "ethad. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equip.ent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. COilprelled Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiaaetric Surface. Unknown at the time of drilling.
G. Forlllttion SllIIPLes.
1. CoLLection of Samples. Core samples were collected at varying intervals. See the Jacobs
Engineering Borehole Log sheets.
2. Sampling "ethads. Samples were obtained with a 3" O.D. thin-walled Shelby tube and a 211
O.D. 1.3811 I.D. drive sample.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown, possibly continuous. See the borehole log •
4. Chnical/Physical Tests. Unknown.
III. Honitoring Well Construction "aterials
A. SIIturated Zone Pri .. ry Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. The well ;s protected with a 6u -diameter galvanized steel casing.
C. Screen. Unknown. The screen is presumed to be a 2"-diameter PVC screen.
D. Stealll Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Developaent
A. Screen. Unknown.
B. Filter Pack. Unknown.
C. Well DeveLopIIent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well casing is fitted with a chain which is locked with a padlock to prevent
tallpering •
, ,
i
,
!
r:-fE JACC>aS EN3-INEERING GROUP ~C. ~ ADVAHC1D nanw, D'V'~ION. ALIUQUIIQUI O"IU.TIONS
.
"'E~7 C!.~"V
BOREHOLE LOG
A SITE 10' C.t.-IOE'"
Page.L of 2::­
LOCATION 10·SIL -21>;.-if .. W APPROX. SITe COORDINATES (ft.):
N E
4~c, !:'" GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MS~
k ~c.. DRILLING METHOD: re. "/~" ~. iI1.
A , (..1C.c" DRILLER: j:: J"f7"q /2 r" "V G e ACt'~ss ,.. ~ DA TE STARTED: :;"/3/t¥
eo. 010. TE COMPLETED: ~ I "S / ~ 1./ . FIELD REP.: i!!. C;;'("'" I r rl
I~~I ~ ZC .,. 1l ']A '3 J GROUNDWATER LEVELS
@ ~ .~ DATE TIME DEPTH (ft.)
kt1(D ~?O& *p'1
:2./31 K II I f.Jrry 2.(,'
1.'/ L I '''' //:~_115 i*7 I?? ~. 2.;
. . I . " , LOCATION DESCRIPTIc:t: ""'" I'!S' 00 E: OF Ace £.!::S ~ D . l ....,... 'I ()Cl::J S. of Je>. K
SITE CONDITION l E:.' >/'Uow.
DEPTH SAMPLE UNIFIED VISUAL CLASS.: DENSITY. COLOR. STRENGTH,
(ft.) . :NT. TYPE ID SOIL CLASS. PLASTICITY. CONDITION, ETC •
L" CLAY" !:.Cw-e. c;;,·/c".sl /.'-e. -c"",,{ "'-,,'" tI/
CL-• /J.:;: / t/ Ie .6r. "L.,I.l· V. "..,",".t:r
~ SAIJI";> f,-teel v.{!.-q" .. tI,I r:o-e. _f2../.-CctllSl! c-~/ T ~ ..,;. -rl" ~"/. I4r( II. ;..#~ £. -a. _-1../ All> It.. ,..hh.-.. l/' Sf> . " ;I " V 6r, ,",ole· ,"~"£';' .,r:.,.,..., , 15p -"
~ "ge: ,.",,,,,,, #4).',rg SANDy tD.eAYEJ.
/ .... T -/,,,.-QrJ ... '-d/. ,.",,/,t, J /J. ~ ~ II, S''' J .. ~
--/ SIL7,Y,CLAY/ S;(</;';)"I/. ~-?r~.I."
S s{./'·",t!-C4'uY ;' #/':>-/(>.w.) P::l: J': Ii. 6r. -
1:::-"Y" IO~':~./ S:M If. ,.J~/' -6r. ",,-Ie. ~t'''ST .,t'..,-'.2~ - . I' .....,
~ // I eMf, o:t.I ..... e -c_M, 1-/.. r.:r; /i .1". -
If 61«:$1-, -{!"~/',,de ".,&»s:'I; ~.eI .;:,.-.
Zo S
~ t?·,. .. IC: 11~<:: _ct,~~I''''I7% €IL T)' CLAY,IUe.t:!-v 2'!> (21)
c~ 1/. P-I. I 3 oS £/ -:s ~ oS I
c; " c.L. Z:;, ~ "HP.I~ .
• . (21&-)
~/
.30 i
SAMPLE TYPE .
A ... Aug.r cutting. U ... I-O.D. 2 •• 12-LD. tub. Nmple
s ... ,. O.D. 1.IS-I.D. drive ... ",ple T ... I-0.0. thln-willid Sh.lby tub.
" "
JACOBS EN31NEERING GROUP INC.
ADVAHCID "I"',tS DIVISIOf<. ALtUQUltQUI O'IUTIOHS • BOREHOLE lOG
LOCI-. TION MAP; I. SITE 10: CLIve LOCATION 10: S"LC-2L>7.&+ ~ APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (It.): N E _______ _
GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL): _____ _
DRILLING METHOD: _________ _
DRILLER: _____________ _
OATESTARTED: _________________ -------OATECOMPLETED: __________________ __
FIELD REP.: ____________ _
LOCATION DESCRIPTION~~_~_~ ________ ~ _____ ~ __ ~_~ SITE CONDITION ________________________ _
CL
A .. Auge, cuttlngl
VISUAL LASS.: OEN
PL
SA.MPLE TYPE
S .. ,. O.D. t,le-LD. drl .... umple
u -s-0.0. 2.42-I.D. lub ••• ~Ie
T .. S· 0.0. thln-wlll.d Sh.lby lub.
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SLBK Sec. 32, T1S, R11W, N 3816.00 E 1557.00
(11'011 SW cornel')
DATE COHPLETED: Unknown (Circa 1984)
"ELL NO.: SLC-202
AQUIFER: Uppermost
SUPERVISED BY: Unknown (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., was associated with the project.)
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACEPIENT
L..--il,,'l
Icr.."
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: Unknown
I.D. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: GALVANIZED STEEL
Depth of surface casing
I.D. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 4Q PVC
Diaaeter of borehole
Type of filler: Unknown
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: Unknown
Type of gravel peck: SAND PACK
ELev./depth of top of gravel peck
ELevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
1.0. of screen section
ELev./depth of bottQl of screen
Elev./depth of bottQl of gravel peck
Elev./depth of bottQl of plugged
bLank section
Type of fi Uer below plugged section: UNKNOWN
Elevation of bottQl of borehoLe
4273.72
1.21 ft
unknown
6.0"
Unknown
2.0"
Unknown
Unknown
4236.01
4232.51
2.0"
4222.51
4220.51
4222.51
4220,51
* All elevations are in feet above ean sea level.
FIGURE 111-27
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SLC-202
I. Konitoring Well Design
A. SLC-202 was designed according to the information on the well construction SUDlary sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equ;pllent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. CoIIpressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentiometric Surface. Unknown at the time of drilling.
G. Forlllltion samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at varying intervals. See the Jacobs
Engineering Borehole Log sheets.
2. sampling Methods. samples were obtained with 8 3" 0.0. thin-walled Shelby tube and a 2"
0.0. 1.38" 1.0. drive sample.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown, possibly continuous. See the borehole log •
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. Unknown.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. saturated Zone Prillllry Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Ca.ing. The well 1s protected with a 6"-diameter galvanized steel casing.
C. Screen. Unknown. The screen is presUllled to be a 2M-diameter PVC screen.
D. Ste811 Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Development
A. Screen. Unknown.
B. Filter Pack. Unknown.
C. Wetl DevelOpilent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well casing is fitted with • chain which is locked with a padlock to prevent
tallpering •
I ! E ~coas EN(;INEERING GROUP INC. \i ADVANCID Innw, DIVIIION, ALIU.U.lUQUI OPlunotu
JiOREHOLE LOG Pageiof .E:-
SITE 10: C/../ VC: LOCATION ID:<;tC-203-~ + LoeA TI01MAP; . ~
j ~~ ~ APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (fl.):
t I r~c/,;t:r,c.. N E I I. I GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL)' ,e. , (
A",c:Q,t'JD ( DRILLING METHOD: (;! 5/,8:'" N· ~ . ;z; .
DRILLER: F /1'7;t:?.e T/..v E' ~
Ac~t;S DATE STARTED: :z.7"'lv~
'1C' !:> ... -DA TE COMPLETED : ~:.z.t ~
FIELD REP.: e.. ".., / r:
j 'J. f) t .s '" ;a. tJ. '2J) J GROUNDWATER LEVELS
~ •• ~~~'~ ,"l2 DATE TIME DEPTH (ft.)
:z. / 1-/ tK c,.t !5 "a,.,..., ;;l./ '"
~I/~ /t;4I' I/':JL) .-:;".., :u-.~, (+)
LOCA TION DESCRIPTION ,.". :2 00(> I' !£' 0;: A c.£. E ~t.;: ;;;> 1:>, I "'L.:c. 1'0 t2. ' S. 0)': .e-. ,..
,~I ~1'IIJS>w > SITE CONDITION
DEPTH SAMPLE UNIFIED VISUAL CLASS.: DENSITY. COLOR. STRENGTH.
(ft'> INT. TYPE 10 SOIL CLASS. PLASTICITY. CONDITION. ETC.
O. .s eLI? y~ "",,',?Dr ':;;"/-1-1 sr. /.. -t! -CI ••. J""f.,,~ /'-.. S'/NJ • (25) ~ fJ..I 1//' II: ,....,1sJ,. ~ yl.,~J. /:". ,~c ~ s/ ""'1:",' 'J
I! r,.,., M t! l-s -I1dc: Ct.~-",,,,? ro dpy/~ r~ft: !:>. 'X 3'2-"2.. .. ('f ) bl'": -''''~yJ W1",,~~ ~e>fT / 3·5"-B·5/
i I eI. ~ I I't! .. k:: <;bnte 'lY"t:JG.V' ~ t; """" 5 .
/0",.",><, s
SA#t>'/ r;;:rl {'.. -",p&l ft',,~ (1,-/ /.· ... e.-'-"Ie; ..... (2') CL-ML c--IJ. . PI VI It. h,... 1i H. ylw.t.; ... , I
S.
br. 'Jp -Ie: ntl),', t, (..,..,....,
I~ ~ ~.N·z:s SILl:. SAND, .f. -"'<lUI. ~,.J~ ~/. ~"7/,, (s~) ,S'~1 s-l. / ... e -CI-rl td./ Ali> V. /1. 61": i; If. yl..,r,J, -
Cr. ,. d C': mOl 't:T tI~ t·,.--. s; I
/Df,.J
20 I~ rt,'L>-'J CL S/t-71 CLAY,! s-l j.·,."e-('IN I~ Itf~../ PJ; v. /,J, 1.::::: ___ .(2~) br. n.de : I"t'7 " • 'r I ~ r-, ,
SAN!> tI. .f!,. q"'#1"1 sf: / .. -~-(1"'-1""-AIr .,.. sp 7~~ ...:. 1// 1.//·'5 r./r:;:A -bl"': ,.,.d~:~#W4:C.f, ../),.,,,.., IL :::. (u.,)
• ~_i--
3a
SAMPLE TYPE . .
A .. Auger cuttlngl U -,-0..0. 2.e:· LD. lube &ample
S .. 2· 0.0. 1.3'-LO. Clrln .ample T -3-OJ). thln-wl1lees Shelby tube
fL 1 ~
:Jr JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. • ---.;;..;;.. A.DVANe,£) ITITUU DIV.II0H, ALaUCluUClUI O''',,'IONI
BOREHOLE LOG Pag.d.of .3
SITE 10: CLI U€' LOCA TION MAP: ,., LOCATION ID:S7lC-21~·i~ '" w APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.):
N E
GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL);
DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER:
~ .. DATE STARTED: . OA TE COMPLETED:
FIELD REP.:
GROUNDWATER LEVELS
DATE TIME OE~THUt.>-
LOCATION DESCRIPTION .
SITE CONDITION
OfiPTH SAM~LE UNIFIED VISUAL CLASS.: DENSITY. COLOR. STRENGTH,
t.) INT. ITYPE 10 SOIL CLASS. PLASTICITY. CONDITION, ETC.
~O .~ :5 CLAY, Sf t·-e. -CHtr~~ 1-/.-?_Z; If Y/IV'i," -'" 1~·3-'i -~rj:.1 * yll4)';" -I:.r. "dl,' ,-r,o.· ... i t;;~f-("0
~S-' S CI~ /1~/e. ().h6 *" I,,. '" it S "71 Cl.AYIt.. rv 1.;"5 to -(d-.. ~ (,,) CL bI ~ ,sh -frnsJ.,. ~~)' t'JT hr n:;h. -?t "'7) r--
'---/Jrn?) ~r.s'-'1g.s~
'10 s 'Y1e, cJ,":/"nl -n S'lt 71 c.:.Py. <::4"1!! ~ Fl'G-a
~(u,) l/ . .,4 t;;;'" ,. I W V. -/11 f I, r/c'( -br. /
(:-,..,....,., ~¥. S '-SI-5 I
S ,,~--""-/ "-~f.·/2.. ~,. ST'DI'PEl> ,4"GE-~ l'7 (u) ,
60,
S...,..."PPl;.D C;:f'1n-? rL e:; k> "'7 I ,I .. ~ ,
s ;,,,) ~ ....
~O r--...: " ~=t."C
--
•
SAMPLE TYPE .
.. A .. AuDe, cutting • U .. ,-0.0. 2.4Z· LO. lube .. ~ae
& .. 2-0.0. 1.,e-1.0. drln .. ",pie T -,-0.0. thln-w.lled Shelb)' tube
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE Of UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SLBH Sec. 32, T1S, R11~, N 3684.00 E 2337.00
(frOil S~ corner)
DATE COHPLETED: Unknown (Circa 1984)
~ELL NO.: SLC-203
AQUIFER: Uppermost
-SUPERVISED BY: Unknown (Jacoba_Engineering Group, Inc., was associated with the project.)
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
WELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
JOB NO. 2352
ELevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: Unknown
1.0. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: GALVANIZED STEEL
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riaer pipe
Type of riser pipe: sch. 40 PVC
Dia .. ter of borehole
Type of filler: Unknown
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of sea l: Unknown
Type of gravel pack: SAND PACK
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
I.D. of screen section
Elev./depth of botta. of acreen
Elev./depth of bottOil of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bottOil of plugged
blank section
Type of fi Uer below plugged section: UNKHOYN
Elevation of botta. of borehole
1,277.30
'.30 ft
Unknown
6.0"
UnKnown
Unknown
Unknown
4238.50
4236.00
2.0·
4226.00
4224.00
4226.00
t All elevations are in feet above .ean sea level.
FIGURE III-28
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SLC-203
I. Monitoring Well Design
A. SLC-203 was designed according to the information on the well construction summary sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
O. Equipaent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Co.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentioaetric Surface. Unknown at the time of drilling.
G. Formation Samples.
1. CoUection of Salllples. Core s_ples were collected at varying intervals. See the Jacobs
Engineering Borehole Log sheets.
2. Salllpling Methods. Salllples were obtained with a 3" 0.0. thin-walled Shelby tube and a 2"
O.D. 1.38-1.0. drive sample.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown, possibly continuous. See the borehole log .
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. Unknown.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Priary Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 6"-diameter galvanized steel casing.
C. Screen. Unknown. The screen is presuaed to be a 2"-diameter PVC screen.
O. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. well Intake Design and Well Developaent
A. Screen. Unknown.
B. Fi lter Pack. Unknown.
C. Well Oevelopaent. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The weLL casing is fitted with a chain which ;s locked with a padlock to prevent
tallpering .
fJI JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
A.DVANCID InTIWI DIVlS.IOK, ALIVRUItRUl O'IIAT,OtII • BOREHOLE LOG PageLof 3:-
.OCATION AP; A SITE ID:CLn.lE LOCATION to: ~-2£7'. f~ IiII
Jv4ii'¢7e w APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.):
N E ~A GROUND ELEVATION C/· MSL)R f ~ ';4c~~ DRILLING METHOD: .. ~.. . • A.
AJL /;! 'c:.. DRILLER: F. rn ~ I! r, IV e ~ <JAf.o DATE STARTEO: ';2 I I 7 g.:"4.1
ACu.9i -DATE COMPLETE~.. ~ I i /,,-.;l
FIELD REP.: • SAot",r,W'
2.'0, ~2-03 "~2-0' d-~ z. I GROUNDWATER LEVELS e (!) ~ DATE TIME DEPTH (ft.)
';1.. / I / ~ "I--.:2 p,....., 2L. ,. ~(.l;~ W~ @UJc, .'2..</~'lfl"" ~ If(""'" ~.,. I"
LOCA TION DESCRIPTION ....v 1000' t;". ;.,c A cc. r t:.~ ,-IJ. ....... 5000 f C;:. t:!I,t;
SITE CONDITION /."S' SAlCw . ~~""'t!",., Pe:c ,-,t>c.Ie, If'
DEPTH SAMPLE UNIFIED VISUAL CLASS.: DENSITY. COLOR, STRENGTH.
(ft.) INT. TYPE 10 SOjL CLASS. PLASTICITY. CONDITION, ETC.
V "' 5 (! L.:-HL SIc.. 7r CU1/, SO""e. v f... ~ ,.~ , ... /. -s;f /.;."'-/"'0.. 3~.:r lc • (zs/ c-IJ/ /11114' p..z I J,r. -rei rl, b,. n::..../(': S/
,.,u,·~'t -I!,,.-,
J . .
S ~ -pw . __ . _.
5 CL-ML. ":x" z·;.· ~ CL4~ ,...11. -5'1' f.-t'-(1-/ ~~ ¥ P .. Z; v /I: 11*"'f. ~
(q) -Gff 'Ii w1sh. br. ,.,Jit:;.. ",'S ~ V' C; 0 It . ! ,
011 Yl>9jSfL 7t t;o-e V-'" c;.,. .. c(. _tl-r;.." I,.,.(~ --I -/0 So 't44-C:. CIMt-P'1 ;'.v f'.z; I/. If Y/K?s,< t ... "t;,/r: ~I . ~ ~'12:Z' (~:s) CL I"t1 t, .S' t~ v.,t: r '"
S " S 1'-7// C t..Aye 1. SI"1.v~ SQH 7 v ; -1'19 • :,?# •• .:I',
I~ -S.,t./"ntt'-~~,,;t /V/?-/:-, .... ;>.,r J; •.. ~' yllc.'S:':. > ....... t2~.l.6' ~3 Stt1 " / f. (S~) !.'I' At' k : sf, "" ",'s,1 ;"1:'#" ....I."IfJ!..t: . I/. ~,,/' .. /
• -~ U~~~
V,.s. .... ,J. ./
S'£'7''''''''''''7 C'vlY, s: .. 7 ; ;: !,~//sl.
;!c) ;,-,.., ~ -(' -{. ;;-;, uI f>..z; f"'" f 71' r rp ( Ore-Ie", , -' C ($0'-~ I'1t~" sf /.,:-",.c7'· ./,-r" , 'If ~. . /.-~ 'Cll -ok CJ.'H,-:;/JS/'-TYCJ..A~h':lJ". II.~ c..(·l
s , "r-.. '.iJr.,,! , .j)r,." t;1,.,.rt./l..'I'.,.2';-'<fI.s.S~ .. ~~.
Zs-H(..k: C""'7;''-::~ 'bAf/,t/. r.r;, H.tJ£.r,t, ,;; "-./' i'·':-/2..-
-('l.'f-) !''''SI..!,,;, !,.,/ Il r-/ ,~'~.=; .2P',~'-'f53.5:
•
,
/ ----._---
&. SO , SAMPLE TYPE . . . It. ... Au"er cuUln". U .... O.C. 2A2-I.C. tube "'note
S ... 2-O.C. t.38-I.C. Cfrlve .. ",pie T ..... OJ), thln-walled Shelby tube
[) , I:;
..
I
,
•
g:r JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC . • ADVolNCID nltu", DIV1510H. ALIUQUUQUI O~UolTIOHS
BOREHOLE LOG Pagedof .:2-.
LOCA TION MAP; #. SITE 10: C'-I &It:: LOCATION 10: StL'-ZoY-bt' ~ I-.l APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.):
N E . GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL):
DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER:
. DATE STARTED:
DA TE COMPLETED:
FIELD REP.:
GROUND~AT~R LEVELS
DA-.IE TJM;. DEPTH (It.)
l
t LOCATION DESCRIPTION .
SITE CONDITION
DEPTH SAMPLE UNIFIED VISUAL CLASS.: ~t~~~~hCy~Lgo~;lirJ~.GJ-rc. (ft.) INT IIYPl;. ill SOIL CLASS. .0 Y .s SI/...71' I' c t....4 Y clS)/ If! C; / sr h ""e-C' I'H -I &'/./ a ""1-1.
(10) AlI~ ". hi, . -br. /'f de: """ I'~ ,; I!. r ~
5 --
5.$'" "X ;".£.1(; STor'r~P ,:Jt-('6G e... tI .. (to SIl1 ~/ "r.5~.
S70.,oP£c. 'SF1",pL' C /"~ H7 ~/.~~ ,
'10 s I /
"/13-,5' " I
L":"', ('0) I !
sl I
'lS-I
.~ iCf -,"I-lo I I
I}~u) i
,
.-
S I
So 'V 1;1~~~'f I' : ---
•
SAMPLE TYPE . .
A -Au".r cutting_ U .. s· O.D. 2.42-I.D. Sub •• ample
6 .. 2-O.D. 1.'S-LD. drlv. aa"'ple . T" S· 0.0. thtn-wa".1S Sh.lby Sub.
•
•
•
.'
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SLBK Sec. 32, T1s, R11W, H 2144.00 E 1283.00
(frOll SII corner)
DATE COftPLETED: Unknown (Ci rca 1984)
WELL NO.: SLC-204
AQUIFER: Upper.ast
SUPERVISED BY: Unknown (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., was associated with the project.)
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
YELL SCREEN
PLACEMENT
--ilALl
Screen
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: Unknown
1.0. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: GALVANIZED STEEL
Depth of surface casing
1.0. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Seh. 40 PVC
Diameter of borehole
Type of filler: Unknown
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of sea l : Unknown
Type of gravel paelt: SAND PACK
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of aereen
Description of screen: Unknown
1.0. of acreen aeetion
Elev./depth of bot tOIl of aereen
Elev./depth of bottOll of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bonOll of plugged
blank aeetion
Type of filler below plugged aeetion: UHKNOIIH
Elevation of bottOll of borehole
4273.19
1.41 ft
Unknown
6.0"
Unknown
2.0"
Unknown
Unknown
4237.28
4231.78
2.0"
4221.78
4219.78
4221.78
4219.78
* All elevations are in feet above IH8Il aea level.
FIGURE· III-29
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SLC-204
I. Monitoring Well Design
A. SLC-204 was designed according to the inforaation on the well construction su..ary aheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equipllent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentia.etric Surface. Unknown at the time of drilling.
G. Foraation Samples.
1. CoLLection of SalllPles. Core sallples were collected at varying intervals. See the Jacobs
Engineering Borehole Log sheets.
2. Sampling Methods. Samples were obtained w;th D 3" 0.0. thin-walled Shelby tube and a 2"
O.D. 1.38" 1.0. drive sample.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown, possibly continuous. See the borehole log •
4. Chemical/Physical Tests. Unknown.
III. Konitoring Well Construction Katerials
A. Saturated Zone Pri.ry casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 6u-diameter galvanized steel casing.
C. Screen. Unknown. The screen ia presumed to be a 2M-diameter PVC screen.
D. It ... Cleen1ng. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well DevelOpilent
A. Screen. Unknown.
B. Fi lter Pack. Unknown.
c. Well Developllent. unknown.
V. AMular Spece Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well casing is fitted with a chain which is locked with a padlock to prevent
tallpering •
U ~t JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
ADVANCED nln .. s OIVlSION, AlaUtilUUQU( O'IUTtO+CS
BOREHOLE LOG Page L of 2-
-----~---------. SITE 10: (}L/lC LOCATION 10~(J-2aS-BY !!J. APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.):
10
N E ______________ __
GROUND ELEVATION!fl.-MSl):--=_~ _____ _
DRILLING METHOD: ~ .:><1?" tI· S' ' 1"7 •
DRILLER: F ;11Al~ /1"A..It!. "'i::.
DATE STARTED: :2 L *' 2 £. ~
DA TE COMPLETED : '~7 'i 7 i lzI
FIELD REP.: t:!..';: , ;;:'7 I>-? -If rt"{ ~s:.
i(':'
, .--
UNIFIED
SOil CLASS.
VISUAL SS.: DENSITY. CUL"-I"
PLASTICITY CO
SAMPLE TYPE
A .. AuDer cutting.
S .. 2· 0.0. 1.'1-LD. drive .ample
R-17
u .. ,. 0.0. 2."2-1.0. tub. "fllPle
T .. ,-0.0. thin-.all.d Sh.lby tub.
4[ JACOBS ~INEERING GROUP INC. • ADVA.HCID ITlTlMS DfVISIOH. AL'UQUUQUI O'UATtOHI .., "'I BOREHOLE LOG P age'.:.. c f .:::::-
LOCATION 10: SLc-2A5'~~ LOeA TlON MAP; " SITE 10; CJ./(,)ff!" III ~ APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.);
N E . GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL):
DRILL~NG METHOD:
DRILLER: -, DA TE STARTED: -DATE COMPLETED:
FIELD REP.:
~c;80~AI El1 LE Y~LS
D~ ~ _DQTH (it.)
LOCATION DESCRIPTION .
SITE CONDITION
DEPTH SAMPLE UNIFIED VISUA.L CLASS.: DENSITY. COLOR. STRENGTH, (ft.) ! INT. ITYPE 10 SOIL CLASS. PLASTICITY. CONDITION ETC.
50 "V" s I'1o-le. '7"..ov"'~t.Vi?'1~r a f so ~ i/ -... 1/-2-3
(S) CUJ. /lJ!.:t!;?: ettA'''!:''' D ~ S/i-tyC,t..I1y sr. ;'~t'-
C'w-{d/ wd-#,tf P.:z: 6/""',,,h • t!'7 Jt If.
S:s .s CL
V' 2'1-',';-hr. Ii sI ,..,1r'h br. !'3'· !'?, OS' 'iJ.S'-",.?fj/ .. '''I / / .
1(*) SANi>)/S,,-': 57'. /.',.,e-aHl~ AI~nLrA-
'to So br. pe!{t:.; //. "., tJ,:S'; ,I!'r"""?
"x.'" IF' f·-:r-/'
(15)
fY'IL STf?r'Pep ,tic'" (;t. 12. ;tt' -;-r: tJ I V -,
l.f!:. s c;roPPt..,O s;-,., ,-n Pt. Ii 12. ,4 '/ .t:; I. C ~ IV" ~~z ~
S Sf) ............ £-10 .,~ bq )
-
.
SAMPL.E TYPE
A .. Aug.r cuttlnga U .. S· 0.0. 2.·C2· 1.0. lub ••• mple
S .. 2· 0.0. ,.:,.5· I.D ... rlv •• ample T .. S· 0.0. thln-wall.d Sh.lby tub.
•
•
•
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: EHVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
COORDINATES: SUB" Sec. 32, T1S, R11U, H 2339.00 E 1649.00
(frOil SU corner)
DATE COItPLETED: Unknown (Circa 1984)
UELL NO.: SLC-2OS
AQUIFER: Upper.ost
SUPERVISED BY: Unknown (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., was associated with the project.)
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
YELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
* ... -.~ Pack
Ic,....,
JOB NO. 2352
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground lurface
'275.44
1.56 ft
Depth of lurface leal Unknown
Type of surface leal: Unknown
1.0. of surface casing 6.0"
Type of surface casing: GALVANIZED STEEL
Depth of lurface casing Unknown
1.0. of riser pipe 2.0"
Type of riser pipe: Sch • .40 PVC
Dia.eter of borehole
Type of filler: Unknown
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of sea l: Unknown
Type of gravel pack: SAND PACK
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Delcription of screen: Unknown
1.0. of screen section
Elev./depth of bottOli of screen
Elev./depth of bottOli of gravel pack
Elev./depth of bot tOIl of plugged
blank section
Type of f1 ller below plugged section: UNKNOWN
Unknown
Unknown
10238.88
04233.88
2.0"
04223.38
04221.38
04223.38
Elevation of bott~ of borehole 4221.38
* All elevations are in feet above ..an sea level.
FIGURE III-30
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SLC-205
1. Monitoring Well Design
A. SLC-2OS was designed according to the inforaation on the well construction ~ .. ry sheet.
II. Drilling Methods
A. Method. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-ste~ auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. EquiplHHlt Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentio.etric SUrface. Unknown at the ti.e of drilling.
G. Forution Sllllples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at varying intervals. See the Jacobs
Engineering Borehole Log sheets.
2. SampUng Methods. Samples were obtained with a 3" O.D. thin-walled Shelby tube and a 2"
O.D. 1.38" I.D. drive sample.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown, possibly continuous. See the borehole log •
4. Cheaical/Physical Tests. Unknown.
III. Monitoring Well Construction Materials
A. Saturated Zone Priaary Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. The well ;. protected with a 6"-dia.ter galvanized steel casing.
C. Screen. Unknown. The screen is presuaed to be a 2"-dia.ter PVC screen.
D. Stea. Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well DevelOplHHlt
A. Screen. Unknown.
B. Filter Pack. Unknown.
C. Well DevelopHnt. Unknown.
V. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well casing is fitted with a chain which is locked with a padlock to prevent
ta..,.ring •
rifE JACOBS EN(;rNEERING GROU? INC. ~ ADVANCED IY.nMS DIVIIIOH.AUUQUttQUI O"'UTIOHS
BOREHOLE LOG Pagel.of.k-.
MAP: ~ SITE 10: (2LIVE" LOCATION ID:C;;L.C-ZD~· i4
1AI~.s7et!JcJ w Af'PROX. SrTE COORDINATES (ft.):
rl--tj::~';:':":~=+---.jL--J N E ---------GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL): DRILLING METHOD: (p % .. H ~s:-. A""--. ----
DRILLER: • ",..,14R:,.r,.A/ Eo r
DATESTARTED: __ ~~~~g~ ____________ _
DATE COMf'LETED :~~~~"-____ _
FJELD REP.: _..-.1l0000.0. __ ...;.;..;...:.....;:....;..;.. _____ _
LOCATION DESCRIPTION ....".,2~' e, 01= fleet!!::. ss: k-C> .• .....".... Se>c::o' s. of
SITE CONDITION (.51' SI'IfOU:S. IV IC.
'.
I •
S"
30
A -Au".r cutting.
VISUAL v ... r\.ol
SA u(>y,Ct.IIy_ Y SII •. -r; st. /''#'144 ... a...1-''j /"c,..)
Rr-AI~ v. It. 6,. tr It. yIMJs/,.-hr.
n.de ; M"s. t; fI . .(,' r"""
SAMPLE TYPE
Ii .. 2' 0.0. 1,3S' LO. CItrin •• mpl,
u -,-0.0. 2.U-LO. tub ... mple
T .... OJ), thtn-wa"ed Shelby tub.
8-19
JACOBS Et\G!NEERING GROUP lNC.
ADVANCID IYCnMI DIV"IOH, ALIUQU!tQUI O"IATIOHI
POREHOl.E LOG Page ~Of ...;-• L-O-C-A.-T-l-O-N-M-A-P-:-------'::"""...., SITE 10: (!..u ()c: LOCA TION 10: SIL-za-s
l!J APPROX. SITE COORDINATES (ft.): N E _______ _
GROUND ELEVATION (ft. MSL): _____ _ DRILLING METHOD: _________ _
ORILLER: _____________ _
OATESTARTED: __________________ ___
DATE COMPLETED: _________ _
FIELD REP.: ____________ _
LOCATION DESCR'PTION ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~_~ ___ ~ __ ~~_~
SITE CONDITION __________________________ _
A .. Auoe, cuttino.
VISUAL CLASS.: OENSlTY. CO •
PLASTICITY C.
s" 'I etA 11 S-r'. "'mf!.-a-'1.',/ ;/1 p..z; It •
hll4/sJ., ,"'''y ~e: """ •• ·se:, ./!-,.--.
CL.I:l 'h Sf: /,.-~ -tf-{.,[/ 1/. ?.r11t., y/ws,A, -
1"#/ ~.!.l,t: ",()",~ ,t!·r,....,
STo"''''eb I4lA&.eta.. 147 :So I .
SAMPL.E TYPE
S .. 2· O.D. 1.'1-I.D. CSfl". •• mple
u .. •• O.D. 2.C2· LD. lub ... mple
T .. S· 0.0. thln-.alled Shllby tub.
•
•
•
UOltCHN"Al (ON\ULl"NI~ INC
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
SITE: ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, SOUTH CLIVE
YELL NO.: SLC-206
COORDINATES: SLBM Sec. 32, T1S, R11Y, N 2599.00 E 2428.00
(froll SY corner)
DATE COHPLETED: Unknown (Circa 1984) AQUIFER: UpperlllOst
SUPERVISED BY: Unknown (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., was associated with the project.)
LOCAL
STRATIGRAPHY
AND
"ELL SCREEN
PLACE"ENT
Screen
Elevation of reference point *
Height of reference point
above ground surface
Depth of surface seal
Type of surface seal: Unknown
I.D. of surface casing
Type of surface casing: GALVANIZED STEEL
Depth of surface casing
I.D. of riser pipe
Type of riser pipe: Sch. 40 PVC
Dia .. ter of borehole
Type of filler: Unknown
Elev./depth of top of seal
Type of seal: Unknown
Type of gravel pack: SAND PACK
Elev./depth of top of gravel pack
Elevation depth of top of screen
Description of screen: Unknown
I.D. of screen section
Elev./depth of botte. of screen
Elev./depth of botte. of gravel pack
Elev./depth of botte. of plugged
blank section
Type of filler below plugged section: UNKNOUN
4275.93
, .37 ft
Unknown
6.oN
Unknown
2.0"
Unknown
Unknown
4237.06
4234.56
2.0"
4224.56
4222.56
4224.56
Elevation of botte. of borehole 4222.56
* All elevations are in feet above .een sea level.
JOB NO. 2352 FIGURE III-31
•
•
•
MONITORING WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
SLC-206
1. "onitoring Well Design
A. SLC-206 wa, designed according to the infor .. tion on the well construction su ... ry sheet.
11. Drilling "ethods
A. Kethod. The well was drilled (bored) using a hollow-stem auger.
B. Drilling Fluids. Unknown.
C. Fluids Analysis. Unknown.
D. Equip.ent Cleaning. Unknown.
E. Ca.pressed Air. Unknown.
F. Potentioaetric Surface. Unknown at the time of drilling.
G. For .. tion Samples.
1. Collection of Samples. Core samples were collected at varying intervals. See the Jacobs
Engineering Borehole Log sheets.
2. Sampling "ethods. Samples were obtained with a 3" O.D. thin-walled Shelby tube and a 2M
O.D. 1.38M I.D. drive sample.
3. Collection Intervals. Unknown, possibly continuous. See the borehole log.
4. Chelical/Physical Tests. Unknown.
111. Konitoring Well Construction "aterials
A. Saturated Zone Pri .. ry Casing. Unknown.
B. Protective Casing. The well is protected with a 6"-diameter galvanized steel casing.
C. Screen. Unknown. The screen is presumed to be a 2"-diameter PVC screen.
D. Steam Cleaning. Unknown.
IV. Well Intake Design and Well Develop.ent
A. Screen. Unknown.
B. Filter Pack. Unknown.
C. Well DevelopDent. Unknown.
v. Annular Space Seals, Aprons, Locks
A. Well Seal. The well casing is fitted with a chain which is locked with a padlock to prevent
tupering.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page F-1 Appendix F April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX F

2020 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Groundwater Sampling ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Depth to Groundwater Measurement ................................................................................. 6
2.3 Mixed Waste Leachate Monitoring .................................................................................... 7
2.4 Evaporation Pond Sampling ............................................................................................... 7
2.5 Collection Lysimeter Sampling .......................................................................................... 7
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION SUMMARY ..................................................... 7
3.1 Precision ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Accuracy .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Representativeness ........................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Comparability .................................................................................................................. 11
3.5 Completeness ................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Groundwater Elevations ................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Monitoring Well Analytical Results ................................................................................. 15
4.3 Exceedances ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.4 2020 Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit Compliance Status ................................... 18
4.5 Mixed Waste Leachate Analytical Results ....................................................................... 18
4.6 Evaporation Pond Analytical Results and Volumes ......................................................... 18
4.7 Collection Lysimeter Analytical Results .......................................................................... 19
4.8 Report Summary .............................................................................................................. 19

TABLES
Table 1-1: 11e.(2), LARW, Mixed Waste, and Class A West Monitoring Wells ............................. 4
Table 3-1: 2020 Field Duplicate Sample Summary ........................................................................... 9
Table 4-1: Monitoring Well Exceedance Summary ........................................................................ 16
Table 4-2: Summary of Evaporation Pond Volumes ....................................................................... 19
Table A-1: Containers, Volumes, and Preservatives in Sample Collection ..................... Appendix A
Table B-1: Summary of Groundwater Elevations ........................................................... Appendix B
Table B-2: Summary of Vertical Gradients ..................................................................... Appendix B
Table B-3: Summary of Horizontal Gradients ................................................................. Appendix B
Table C-1: Conventional Chemistry Results ................................................................... Appendix C
Table C-2: Radiological Analysis Results ....................................................................... Appendix C
Table C-3: Mixed Waste Leachate Conventional Results ............................................... Appendix C
Table C-4: Mixed Waste Leachate Radiologic Results ................................................... Appendix C
Table C-5: Evaporation Pond Conventional Analysis Results ........................................ Appendix C
Table C-6: Evaporation Pond Radiological Analysis Results ......................................... Appendix C

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED

FIGURES
Figure 1: 1st Quarter 2020 Groundwater Contour Map .................................................. Appendix B
Figure 2: 2nd Quarter 2020 Groundwater Contour Map ................................................. Appendix B
Figure 3: 3rd Quarter 2020 Groundwater Contour Map .................................................. Appendix B
Figure 4: 4th Quarter 2020 Groundwater Contour Map .................................................. Appendix B

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Containers, Volumes, and Preservatives in Sample Collection Table
Appendix B: Groundwater Contour Maps and Elevation Tables
Appendix C: Groundwater, Evaporation Pond, Mixed Waste Leachate, and Collection Lysimeter
Analytical Data Tables

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Field Data Sheets
Attachment 2: Data Validation
Attachment 3: Laboratory Data Packages
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) operates a commercial landfill near Clive, Utah
to dispose of Class A Radioactive Waste (Class A), 11e.(2) waste (uranium mill tailings),
and mixed radioactive and hazardous waste (Mixed Waste). At present, the waste is
placed in three active embankments: (1) Class A West, (2) Mixed Waste, and (3) 11e.(2).
The LARW embankment was closed in October 2005 when the final cover was
completed. The Class A West embankment design, approved on November 26, 2012,
incorporates both the former Class A and Class A North embankments.

This report summarizes 2020 groundwater monitoring activities associated with each of
these embankments. The facility is licensed and permitted to operate under the following
laws and rules:
x Radioactive Material License #UT 2300249 to receive, acquire, possess, and
transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear material pursuant to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-438), and Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30, 31,
33, 34, 35, 39, 40, and 70.
x Radioactive Material License #UT 2300478 to transfer, receive, possess, and use
specific radioactive materials pursuant to Section 19-3-104 of the Utah Code
annotated 1953 and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Rules for the
control of ionizing radiation.
x Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW450005 (GWQDP) for Class A
Radioactive Waste and 11e.(2) waste disposal facilities, pursuant to the Utah
Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code annotated 1953 as amended.
x State-issued Part B Permit (Part B Permit) operated under EPA ID Number
UTD982598898 to treat, store, and dispose of Mixed Waste (MW) pursuant to the
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, (the Act), 26-14-1 et. seq., Utah Code
Annotated 1953 and the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) (R315) as authorized
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 3006 (b) of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
x Coordinated Approval of Mixed Waste Landfill Cell (MWLC) and Waiver of
Technical Requirements for Land Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)
Waste, U.S. EPA, Ref: 8P-P3T.

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
4
1.2 Monitoring
EnergySolutions conducted annual [GWQDP Part I.F.5.(c)] and periodic groundwater
sampling events in 2020 at compliance monitoring locations associated with the 11e.(2),
LARW, Mixed Waste, and Class A West embankments. The periodic events consisted of
probable-out-of-compliance (POOC) (GWQDP Part I.G.2) and out-of-compliance (OOC)
(GWQDP Part I.G.3) sampling events. Monitoring wells sampled in 2020 are described
in Part I, Sections F.1.(a), (b), and (c) of the GWQDP and are listed in Table 1-1, below.
Analytical parameters are listed in Part I.F.5.c.2 of the GWQDP dated October 9, 2014.

Table 1-1: 11e.(2), LARW, Mixed Waste, and Class A West Monitoring Wells
Class A West
Cell Cell
GW-16R GW-88 GW-106 GW-19A P3-95 NECR I-1-30
GW-20 GW-89 GW-107 GW-20 P3-95 SWC GW-130
GW-22 GW-90 GW-108 GW-24 P3-97 NECR GW-131
GW-23 GW-91 GW-109 GW-25 GW-19A GW-132
GW-24 GW-92 GW-110 GW-26 GW-36 GW-133
GW-29 GW-93 GW-111 GW-27 GW-58 GW-134
GW-56R GW-94 GW-112 GW-28 GW-66R GW-135
GW-64 GW-95 GW-137 GW-29 GW-129 GW-136
GW-77 GW-99 GW-138 GW-36 I-3-30a
GW-103 GW-100 GW-139 GW-37a I-1-100b
GW-104 GW-101 GW-139Db GW-38Ra I-3-100b
GW-105 GW-102 GW-140 GW-57
GW-128 GW-141 GW-58
GW-60
GW-63
GW-126
GW-127
PZ-1a
GW-19Bb
GW-27Db

a Monitored for groundwater elevations only in accordance with Part I, Section F.1.(a).2 and F.1.(b) of the GWQDP.
b Deep aquifer wells monitored for groundwater elevations only in accordance with Part I, Section F.1.(d) of the GWQDP

Additional monitoring activities performed in compliance with Part I.F of the GWQDP
include: evaporation pond sampling, collection lysimeter inspection, MW leachate
sampling, depth-to-water measurement, and the collection of groundwater for specific
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
5
gravity measurement. Applicable dates and sampling event descriptions are included on
the groundwater sampling sheets provided in Attachment 1.

This report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 provides this introduction. Chapter 2
gives a discussion of field activities, including groundwater sampling. Chapter 3
provides a summary of the data quality assurance evaluation, and Chapter 4 summarizes
the monitoring and analytical results for sampling events (including POOC and OOC
sampling).

2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

2.1 Groundwater Sampling
The annual, POOC, and OOC groundwater sampling events were conducted in
accordance with the GWQDP Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) and
standard operating procedure CL-EV-PR-004, Groundwater Monitoring. The following is
an overview of field activities performed at each monitoring location.

x Inspection of monitoring well condition;
x Measurement of depth to water;
x Purging;
x Measurement of pH, specific conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
Eh;
x Collection of groundwater samples; and
x Completion of groundwater sampling sheets and chain-of-custody/laboratory
work request (COC) forms.

The condition of each monitoring well, including the pad and protective casing, was
inspected as prompted by the checklist included on the groundwater sampling sheet.
Inspection items provide information on the need for follow-up actions such as
redevelopment or repair.

Field analytical equipment was calibrated (for pH, specific conductivity, and Eh)
according to the manufacturer’s specifications at the beginning of each day. In addition,
mid-day and end-of-day calibration checks were performed. Calibration notes were
recorded and maintained in a calibration logbook.

A minimum of three well volumes was purged from each well prior to sampling. Field
parameters were checked during and following well purging to ensure that the
groundwater was representative of formation water. In accordance with the GWQDP
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
6
Water Monitoring QAP, field parameters were considered stable and “representative”
when three consecutive readings were within ± 0.1 pH units for pH, ± 3 percent for
specific conductivity, and ± 1q Celsius for temperature. Eh and dissolved oxygen
readings were also recorded.

Samples were collected in the following order: volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganics, total dissolved solids (TDS),
anions, cyanide, metals and cations, and radiological constituents. Not all of these
constituents were collected at each well. All samples were collected in appropriate
containers and preserved as summarized in Table A-1 provided in Appendix A.

When filling VOCs vials, the sample pump discharge rate was reduced to the extent
possible to allow gentle filling of the vials without aeration. The VOC sampling flow rate
was measured daily, when VOCs samples were collected, and documented on the
groundwater sampling sheets included in Attachment 1.

Sample labels were filled out using indelible ink with the sample ID, preservative, date,
time, and the sampler’s initials (for some containers, the information is written directly on
the container). Immediately after filling, sample bottles were placed in an ice chest with
ice (except samples for radiological analysis, which do not require temperature
preservation). The ice was packaged in double Ziploc£ bags to prevent leakage.
Pertinent sample information was recorded on the COC, including the sample ID number,
sample location, date and time of sample collection, sample type, number of samples, and
analysis request. Sample custody was maintained until delivery to the following Utah-
Certified laboratories: American West Analytical Laboratories (AWAL) in Salt Lake
City, Utah and TestAmerica in Denver, Colorado (TAD) for conventional chemistry
analyses; and TestAmerica in St. Louis, Missouri (TASL) for radiological analyses.

As listed above, sampling activities are documented in the groundwater sampling sheets
and COC forms. The groundwater sampling sheet contains pertinent information
regarding field conditions at each sampling location, calculated and actual purge volumes,
flow rates, field parameter measurements, and the specific samples collected. COC forms
indicate the date and time samples were collected, the type of sample, the name of the
sampling technician(s), the name of the laboratory to which the samples were sent, and
the analytical suite requested. Laboratory analytical reports and COC forms are provided
in Attachment 3 as an electronic data deliverable (EDD). Copies of the field data sheets
are included as Attachment 1. Analytical results are summarized in Chapter 4.0.

2.2 Depth to Groundwater Measurement
Depth-to-groundwater (DTW) measurements were determined quarterly, and for a subset
of wells, DTW measurements were determined monthly. The DTW data are summarized
with calculated freshwater equivalents in Appendix B Table B-1. Vertical and horizontal
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
7
hydraulic gradients provided as Tables B-2 and B-3, respectively, are also provided in
Appendix B along with groundwater contour maps generated from the quarterly DTW
data.

2.3 Mixed Waste Leachate Monitoring
Liquid samples were collected from MW leachate sumps (leachate pipes) 1A, 1B, 2A,
2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, and 10B for field
parameters, VOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and radiological analyses using a
peristaltic pump. Samples were collected on May 26, May 28, June 1, and June 2, 2020.
Arrangements were made to sample leachate pipes prior to removal of leachate by
vacuum truck operations. Samples were sent to TAD and TASL for conventional and
radiological analysis, respectively.

Copies of field data sheets are provided in Attachment 1 and analytical results are
summarized in Chapter 4.0. Laboratory analytical reports and COC forms are provided as
an EDD in Attachment 3.

2.4 Evaporation Pond Sampling
The 1995, 1997, 2000, MW, and NW Ponds were sampled on July 7 and July 9, 2020.
Liquid samples were collected from these ponds for the parameters listed in Part
I.F.13.(c) of the GWQDP. Samples were sent to TAD and TASL for conventional and
radiological analysis, respectively.

Copies of sampling sheets are provided in Attachment 1, and analytical results are
summarized in Chapter 4.0. Laboratory analytical reports and COC forms are provided as
an EDD in Attachment 3.

2.5 Collection Lysimeter Sampling
EnergySolutions currently maintains twelve collection lysimeters in accordance with the
Operation, Maintenance, and Closure Plans for Collection Lysimeters in Appendix C of
the GWQDP. During 2020, all inspected collection lysimeter sampling pipes had
inadequate liquid volumes for sample collection.

3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION SUMMARY

The overall quality assurance objective of the groundwater compliance monitoring
program is to produce data that will fulfill the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) of the
program, which are summarized in Table B.3-1 of the GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP.
For this compliance monitoring program, field and laboratory data quality assurance is
evaluated in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and
completeness (the PARCC parameters). A summary of the evaluation of Quality Control
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
8
(QC) samples in relation to the PARCC parameters is presented in Table B.3-2 of the
GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP. Evaluation of data is summarized in terms of each
PARCC parameter in the following sections.

3.1 Precision
Precision is a measure of the reproducibility of the data. For non-radiological inorganic
and organic parameters, precision is calculated as the relative percent difference (RPD) as
follows:

100 X 2 D)+ (S
| D- S| = RPD
Where:
S = Sample result
D = Duplicate result

For field duplicate data, the RPD precision acceptance criterion is defined as a control
limit of r 25% for sample values greater than five times the laboratory detection limit
(LDL). If the sample data are less than five times the LDL, a control limit of r LDL is
used. In accordance with the GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP, RPDs were calculated
only for those analytes detected above the LDL in both the environmental sample and the
field duplicate sample.

For radiological parameters, activity results are reported in picoCuries per liter (pCi/L)
and include a counting error term. Precision is assessed by calculating the Relative Error
Ratio (RER) using the following equation:

y) -(x = RER 22ts
Where:
x = Sample result
y = Duplicate result
s = Error term of sample
t = Error term of duplicate

In accordance with the GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP, the field duplicate analytical
data acceptance criterion is defined as a control limit of less than three for the RER for
data greater than five times the LDL. If the sample values are less than five times the
LDL, a control limit of r LDL is used.

Groundwater sample field duplicates collected in 2020 are summarized in Table 3-1. The
number of samples met the frequency of collection requirement of the GWQDP Water
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
9
Monitoring QAP. Analytes collected in duplicate include all radiological and non-
radiological laboratory parameters listed in GWQDP Part I.F.5.c.2. Although precision
for field duplicate samples was assessed and reported in Tables C-1 and C-2, field
duplicates are not used to qualify data because there is no guidance for qualifying data
based on field duplicate RPDs.

Table 3-1: 2020 Field Duplicate Sample Summary
Well
ID
Laboratory and
Package ID Analyte(s)

P3-95 SWC GW-489 1/16/20 TASL 160-37381 total & isotopic uranium
P3-95 SWC GW-358 2/20/20 TASL 160-37381 total & isotopic uranium
GW-26 GW-357 2/20/20 AWAL 2002475 thallium
GW-77 GW-359 2/25/20 TASL 160-37381 radium-226, 228
P3-95 SWC GW-348 3/12/20 TASL 160-37597 total & isotopic uranium
P3-95 SWC GW-418 4/9/20 TASL 160-37807 total & isotopic uranium
GW-24 GW-329 5/11/20 AWAL 2005217 11e.(2) & LARW non-rad. suite
GW-24 GW-329 5/11/20 TASL 160-38547-1 11e.(2) & LARW rad. suite
GW-135 GW-339 5/14/20 TASL 160-38207 LARW radiological suite
P3-95 SWC GW-669 6/15/20 TASL 160-38547-2 isotopic uranium
GW-56R GW-349 6/16/20 AWAL 2006474 LARW non-rad. suite
GW-56R GW-349 6/16/20 TASL 160-38594-1 LARW radiological suite
GW-26 GW-359 6/23/20 AWAL 2006654 thallium
GW-141 GW-369 6/30/20 AWAL 2006871 LARW non-rad. suite, selenium
GW-141 GW-369 6/30/20 TASL 160-38956 LARW radiological suite
GW-91 GW-379 7/6/20 AWAL 2007120 LARW non-rad. suite
GW-91 GW-379 7/6/20 TASL 160-38956 LARW radiological suite
P3-95 SWC GW-408 7/7/20 TASL 160-38957 isotopic uranium
P3-95 SWC GW-419 8/20/20 TASL 160-39536 isotopic uranium
GW-77 GW-439 8/27/20 TASL 160-39536 radium-226, 228
P3-95 SWC GW-399 9/15/20 TASL 160-39536 isotopic uranium
P3-95 SWC GW-409 10/15/20 TASL 160-40484 isotopic uranium
P3-95 SWC GW-270 11/10/20 TASL 160-40484 isotopic uranium
GW-77 GW-278 11/12/20 TASL 160-40484 radium-226, 228
P3-95 SWC GW-306 12/15/20 TASL 160-40834 isotopic uranium

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
10
Laboratory analytical precision was assessed by calculation of RPDs for matrix spike
(MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) sample pairs, laboratory control sample (LCS)
and LCS duplicate pairs, and duplicate analysis of environmental samples. Details for the
2020 sampling event are provided in the laboratory data reports included in Attachment 3.

3.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or
“true” value. Accuracy measures bias in the system. An example of bias is interference
caused by naturally occurring concentrations of dissolved constituents in a sample.
Accuracy is evaluated by the following equation:

100 X C
|B -A | =Recovery Percent

Where:
A = Concentration of analyte in a spiked sample
B = Concentration of analyte in an unspiked sample
C = Concentration of spike added

Laboratory analytical accuracy is assessed by calculation of recovery for MS and MSD
samples, LCS and LCS duplicates, surrogate spike samples, calibration standards, and
internal standards. Details for the 2020 sampling event are provided in the laboratory
data reports included in Attachment 3.

3.3 Representativeness
Representativeness is a qualitative expression evaluating the degree to which data
represent actual environmental conditions. Representativeness is assessed by the analysis
of method blanks (for all analytes) and trip blanks (when VOCs are analytes), and by the
collection and analysis of blind field duplicates. Method and trip blanks are used to
identify sources of contamination not associated with environmental samples. Low RPDs
and RERs for blind field duplicates indicate that sampling techniques are consistent and
resulting data are representative of the environment.

Representativeness also is evaluated using holding-time and sample preservation criteria.
Holding times and preservation are compared to standard method-specific criteria; all
holding times and preservation characteristics within the criteria are considered
representative. Holding times and preservation characteristics outside criteria are
qualitatively evaluated to determine the effect on sample representativeness.

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
11
As discussed in Section 3.1, RPDs and RERs for blind field duplicate samples are
reported in Tables C-1 and C-2. Details for analysis of method blanks and trip blanks
included in the 2020 sampling event are given in the laboratory data reports provided in
Attachment 3. Holding times and preservation characteristics are also documented in the
laboratory data reports provided in Attachment 3.

3.4 Comparability
Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data
set can be compared to another. Comparability is achieved through the use of
standardized methods for sample collection and analysis and the use of standardized units
of measurement.

As discussed in Section 2.0, sample collection, field data measurement, and associated
documentation activities for the 2020 event were conducted in accordance with the
GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP and standard operating procedure CL-EV-PR-004,
Groundwater Monitoring. As documented in the laboratory data reports provided in
Attachment 3, the analytical methods used by laboratories were those approved in the
GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP. As shown in Tables C-1 through C-6, standardized
units of measure are used for radiological data, non-radiological data, and field
parameters. The units are consistent with GWQDP groundwater protection levels
(GWPLs), and they are consistent with previous Clive facility sampling events.

3.5 Completeness
Completeness is defined as the percentage of valid data relative to the total number of
measurements. All locations required by the GWQDP were sampled, and all samples
were analyzed for the required parameters during sampling events completed in 2020
(Tables C-1 through C-6). No data were rejected by the laboratory or rejected during data
validation, and completeness for the 2020 monitoring event was 100%. Data validation
was performed in accordance with the GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP requirements
and in accordance with U.S. EPA data validation guidelines listed in the Contract
Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (EPA,
1994a) and the Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Data Review (EPA, 1994b). The U.S. EPA data validation guidelines are
referenced in the GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP. Data validation worksheets are
included in Attachment 2. Valid data, acceptable for their intended use and for meeting
the GWQDP requirements, were collected from all required monitoring locations in 2020.
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
12
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS

4.1 Groundwater Elevations
Quarterly water-level data were used to prepare fresh water equivalent head
potentiometric surface maps, which are provided in Appendix B. The maps for 2020
show a predominant southwest-to-northeast flow direction with persistent localized
perturbations or mounds in three overlapping areas. The largest mound, extending from
the 11e.(2) footprint north to the Class A West embankment area, has been designated as
Mound 1. Mound 1 has subsequently been modified by two other perturbations
designated Mound 2 and Mound 3. Mound 2 originates in the area of the Southwest
Corner Pond and is observed in monitoring wells GW-19A and PZ-1. Mound 3 is
centered on monitoring wells GW-60 and GW-63. Mounds 2 and 3 are the result of
focused infiltration following precipitation events from portions of the Vitro embankment
runoff diversion and retention system. All three mounds are discussed below.
Mound 1
Mound 1 started forming in the early to mid-1990s as a result of groundwater recharge
from ponding of Vitro embankment runoff in the area of current 11e.(2) operations. The
down-gradient portion of this mound is currently located below the southern half of the
Class A West embankment producing a low-gradient area where flow directions
transition from north-northwesterly to northeasterly.

The initial remediation plan for Mound 1 included construction of a temporary diversion
ditch to direct Vitro runoff first to the west between the 11e.(2) embankment and the
Class A West Embankment and then south to the Southwest Corner Pond, adjacent to the
Tooele County road along the western boundary of the facility. The temporary diversion
ditch was subsequently relocated in 2001, diverting Vitro runoff to the current drainage
system of the 11e.(2) embankment and allowing runoff to flow south to the drainage ditch
(South Ditch) that empties into the Southwest Corner Pond. Mounds 2 and 3 have been
superimposed on Mound 1, making delineation of the historical extent of and
contributions from Mound 1 not possible.
Mound 2
Mound 2 was formed as a result of a series of surface water recharge events in the vicinity
of the Southwest Corner Pond that began in the spring of 1999. The Southwest Corner
Pond was subsequently retrofitted with an additional high density polyethylene liner and
leak detection system. A piezometer, PZ-1, was installed adjacent to the north side of the
Southwest Corner Pond as an early warning system and is included in depth-to-water
measurements. Relatively rapid water level increases at PZ-1 and GW-19A have been
associated with overflows of non-contact water from the Southwest Corner Pond (as
designed, through the outlet at the southwest corner) that occur following extreme and/or
prolonged precipitation events.

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
13
A downward freshwater vertical gradient persisted during 2020 in the vicinity of well pair
GW-19A/GW-19B. EnergySolutions submitted a plan, dated January 14, 2010, to reverse
the vertical gradient in this well pair by removing the theoretical volume of water in the
mound. Groundwater extraction began at the end of 2009 and continues today.
Approximately 1.5 million gallons of groundwater have been removed from extraction
wells EW-901 and EW-902 as of the end of 2020.

In an effort to reduce Mound 2, beginning in September 2014 EnergySolutions initiated a
Best Available Technology (BAT) approach to management of non-contact water
overflow from the Southwest Corner Pond. Daily BAT inspections of the pond freeboard
are performed if storm water is present above the sump grate of the South Ditch lift
station. When freeboard is less than or equal to 1 foot below the outlet, water in the pond
is pumped onto Section 5 or into water trucks to limit overflow.
Mound 3
Mound 3 influences groundwater levels upgradient of the historical Mound 1 area. It is
the result of recharge, in the vicinity of monitoring wells GW-60 and GW-63, from the
relocated Vitro run-off diversion ditch (South Ditch) discussed above. Recharge first
became apparent in March 2007 water levels at GW-60. Water levels in GW-60 rise and
fall rapidly in response to the presence of water in the South Ditch lift station and
subsequent removal of the water from the lift station. Water levels in GW-63 respond to
infiltration of water from the South Ditch, but the response is more muted relative to that
of GW-60. As proposed in submittal CD19-0218 (October 22, 2019), EnergySolutions
upgraded the pump capacity at the South Ditch lift station to more efficiently move water
from the lift station to the Southwest Corner Pond. A trailer-mounted pump rated at 750
gallons per minute (maximum) was installed at the lift station and connected to a 6-inch
diameter line that discharges non-contact storm water at the Southwest Corner Pond inlet.
This upgrade, operational in March 2020, should reduce infiltration contributing to
Mound 3.
Monthly Groundwater Elevation Measurement
In accordance with GWQDP Part I.F.5.a, the groundwater elevations of wells GW-19A,
GW-19B, GW-60, GW-63, and PZ-1 were measured monthly during 2020 to monitor the
status of the groundwater mounds discussed above. The groundwater elevations of wells
GW-27 and GW-27D were also measured monthly due to the presence of a downward
vertical gradient throughout 2020 (see below). In addition, in accordance with GWQDP
Part I.F.5.a, the frequency of water-level monitoring is increased from quarterly to
monthly at wells where the quarter-to-quarter elevation measurement changes by greater
than 0.4 feet. Based on this requirement, groundwater elevation was measured monthly
throughout 2020 at wells GW-25, GW-28, GW-36, GW-37, GW-38R, GW-58, and P3-95
SWC. Beginning prior to the start of 2020 and continuing until August 2020, the
frequency of elevation measurement was also monthly at the following wells: GW-20,
GW-29, GW-92, GW-103, GW-127, and GW-129. On July 31, 2020, EnergySolutions
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
14
requested to return these wells to quarterly monitoring because of a decline in the
groundwater elevation at each well (submittal CD20-0121). DWMRC approved this
request via e-mail on August 27, 2020, and the wells were subsequently returned to
quarterly monitoring. Written approval from DWMRC is pending. Similarly,
EnergySolutions submitted a request to return well GW-25 to quarterly monitoring
(CD20-0137; September 1, 2020). DWMRC has not yet approved this request, and
therefore, monthly monitoring of GW-25 has continued.
Groundwater Elevation Summary
Except for areas affected by mounding, the groundwater flow direction is predominantly
to the northeast beneath Section 32. Figures 1 through 4 provided in Appendix B are the
quarterly potentiometric surface maps for 2020. Comparison of the first quarter
(Figure 1) to subsequent quarters shows a decrease in hydraulic gradient across the
southern half of Section 32 in 2020 due to reduced infiltration in areas of mounding
related to below-average precipitation rates.

To more accurately present horizontal flow gradients and directions on the Appendix B
figures, groundwater elevation data from P3-95 SWC were not used in contouring the
potentiometric surface for all four quarters of 2020. This is because groundwater
extraction was active at well P3-95 SWC during 2020. The rationale for excluding this
well from potentiometric maps is the water level measured at well P3-95 SWC reflects
localized conditions related to groundwater extraction, and, given the well spacing, use of
P3-95 SWC data would lead to an inaccurate representation of the potentiometric surface.

Monthly and quarterly groundwater elevations were used to calculate vertical gradients,
and quarterly groundwater elevations were used to calculate horizontal gradients.
Vertical and horizontal gradients are provided in Appendix B Tables B-2 and B-3,
respectively. The spreadsheets used to perform these calculations are included as
electronic data files.

Upward vertical gradients were observed at all Clive facility well pairs in 2020 except for
GW-19A/19B and GW-27/27D (Table B-2). Groundwater elevations in both well pairs
were measured monthly in 2020, and a downward gradient was observed at both pairs
throughout the year. The GW-19A/19B well pair is located within the area affected by
surface water infiltration and mounding as discussed in the “Mound 2” section above.
The GW-27/27D well pair is located near the southwest corner of the Class A West
embankment (See Appendix B Figures 1 through 4). The downward freshwater vertical
gradient at well pair GW-19A/19B ranged from 0.0314 to 0.0730 ft/ft during 2020, and
the downward vertical gradient at GW-27/27D ranged from 0.0081 to 0.0165 ft/ft during
2020 (Table B-2). Monthly monitoring of these well pairs will continue in 2021.

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
15
Average freshwater horizontal gradients for 2020 did not exceed the gradient limits listed
in Part I.H.2.(d) of the GWQDP except in the area of the LARW embankment for all four
quarters of 2020.

As indicated in Table B-3 of Appendix B, the average horizontal gradient in the LARW
cell area exceeded the limit of 9.67 x 10-4 ft/ft for all four quarters of 2020. On May 29,
2012 (CD12-0123) EnergySolutions submitted an updated LARW cell infiltration and
transport model to the Division of Radiation Control (DRC) to support a larger horizontal
gradient limit. None of the LARW average monthly freshwater horizontal gradients
observed in 2020 exceed the updated-model gradient limit of 2.70 x 10-3 ft/ft.

4.2 Monitoring Well Analytical Results
Analytical results for the 2020 annual 11e.(2), LARW, and Class A West monitoring well
sampling events are provided in Appendix C Tables C-1 and C-2. Data from additional
sampling events including monthly OOC, quarterly POOC, and annual MW sampling
(radiological results only) are also provided.

Table C-1 summarizes field parameter measurements and conventional chemistry results.
Radiological results are summarized in Table C-2. GWPL information from Table 1A
through 1F of the GWQDP is also provided for each monitoring well in Tables C-1 and
C-2 for reference.

Accelerated groundwater monitoring results for the first half of 2020 (January to June
2020) were reported to DWMRC on August 31, 2020 (CD20-0136) in compliance with
Part I.H.1.(b) of the GWQDP. This annual report provides the groundwater sampling
sheets, data validation worksheets, and analytical laboratory reports for all groundwater
samples, including accelerated samples, collected and analyzed during 2020.

4.3 Exceedances
Table 4-1 provides a summary of all wells and parameters that exceeded GWPLs in
samples collected during 2020. Sample dates, pertinent GWPLs, and the values that
exceeded are included. A brief discussion of wells in accelerated monitoring status in
2020, including the exceedances listed in Table 4-1 follows.
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
16

Table 4-1: Monitoring Well Exceedance Summary
Well ID Analyte GWPL

GW-89 8/20/20 Ra-226+Ra-228 5.04 pCi/L 8.20 pCi/L POOC
GW-64 8/27/20 Ra-226+Ra-228 5.63 pCi/L 5.82 pCi/L POOC

pCi/L – PicoCuries per liter
POOC – Probable out-of-compliance

Ra-226+Ra-228 (Sum of Radiums)
GW-64, GW-77, and GW-89 – On November 20, 2019 (CD19-0234), EnergySolutions
notified DWMRC that wells GW-64, GW-77, and GW-89 entered POOC status for the
sum of radiums. As listed in Table 4-1, the sum of radiums (radium-226 plus radium-228
[Ra-226+Ra-228]) concentrations in the third quarter 2020 POOC samples from wells
GW-64 and GW-89 exceeded the background-based GWPLs established for these wells.
Fourth quarter 2020 sum of radiums results for both wells were less than GWPLs; and
therefore, wells GW-64 and GW-89, along with GW-77, remain in POOC status for sum
of radiums. As stated in submittal CD19-0234, the sum of radiums exceedances
represent natural concentration fluctuations possibly related to increased infiltration rather
than a trend related to contamination.
Thallium
GW-26 – On October 30, 2018 (CD18-0194), EnergySolutions notified DWMRC that
monitoring well GW-26 entered POOC status for thallium. Quarterly samples were
collected for thallium from well GW-26 in duplicate from fourth quarter 2018 to second
quarter 2020. All results, for seven consecutive quarters, were less than the GWPL, and
most results were below detection (see Table C-1 for 2020 results). Therefore, on July
27, 2020, EnergySolutions submitted a request to return well GW-26 to baseline
monitoring status (submittal CD20-0116). The data collected subsequent to the change to
POOC status demonstrates the 2018 exceedance is due to natural fluctuation rather than a
thallium concentration trend related to contamination. DWMRC agreed to
EnergySolutions’ request to return well GW-26 to baseline monitoring status via e-mail
on August 28, 2020. Written approval by DWMRC is pending.
Total Uranium
P3-95 SWC – Monitoring well P3-95 SWC has remained in OOC status for total uranium
since October 2013. During 2020, total uranium groundwater concentrations at well P3-
95 SWC did not exceed the total uranium GWPL of 0.180 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
The most recent exceedances occurred in samples collected from January to May 2019.
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
17
In response to these exceedances, EnergySolutions submitted the fourth revised
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to DWMRC to address the exceedances (submittal
CD19-0125; June 6, 2019). DWMRC has not yet approved the fourth revised CAP.

Groundwater extraction has been effective in returning total uranium concentrations at
well P3-95 SWC to less than the GWPL. Therefore, corrective action proposed in the
fourth revised CAP includes groundwater extraction. EnergySolutions initiated
groundwater extraction at P3-95 SWC on June 13, 2019. As of the end of 2020,
approximately 19,500 gallons of groundwater had been extracted from the well since the
initiation of this most-recent extraction event, exceeding the fourth revised CAP proposed
completion criterion of 5,100 gallons. Extraction continues into 2021. In addition to
groundwater extraction, the fourth revised CAP proposes to continue to manage storm
water in the north-south ditch near well P3-95 SWC as Priority 1 in accordance with a
temporary variance to the storm-water management priority listed in GWQDP Appendix J,
Part 4.21. With DWMRC’s approval, EnergySolutions has managed storm water in the ditch
as Priority 1 since December 14, 2016. The temporary variance allows EnergySolutions to
remove standing surface water from the ditch immediately following precipitation events.
Focused infiltration of surface water from the ditch may be the source of water
transporting residual uranium contamination from the shallow subsurface to well P3-95
SWC. For 2020, EnergySolutions provided DWMRC with details of accelerated
monitoring and corrective action for well P3-95 SWC in quarterly status reports (CD20-
0062, CD20-0130, CD-2020-164, and CD-2021-018).
Uranium-234 and Uranium-238
P3-95 SWC – Uranium-234 (U-234) and uranium-238 (U-238) concentrations in well
P3-95 SWC groundwater are correlated with the total uranium concentration. During
2020, U-234 and U-238 concentrations in groundwater at well P3-95 SWC did not
exceed the GWPLs of 48 pCi/L and 79 pCi/L, respectively. U-234 and U-238
concentrations at P3-95 SWC last exceeded GWPLs from February to May 2019. Refer
to the discussion of total uranium in well P3-95 SWC immediately above for additional
information.
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
18

4.4 2020 Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit Compliance Status
As of the end of 2020, the following monitoring wells are in accelerated monitoring
status:

x GW-64 – POOC status for Ra-226+Ra-228
x GW-77 – POOC status for Ra-226+Ra-228
x GW-89 – POOC status for Ra-226+Ra-228
x P3-95 SWC – OOC status for total uranium, U-234, and U-238.

As discussed in submittal CD19-0234 (November 20, 2019), sum of radiums
concentration exceedances observed in groundwater samples at wells GW-64, GW-77,
and GW-89 likely reflect radium naturally present in the vadose zone mobilized by
increased infiltration related to above-average precipitation occurring during the first half
of 2019. As discussed in the fourth revised CAP (submittal CD19-0125), uranium
exceedances at well P3-95 SWC are associated with residual contamination in the
shallow subsurface in the vicinity of the well and do not represent release of licensed
material from any of the disposal embankments.

4.5 Mixed Waste Leachate Analytical Results
In accordance with Part I.H.15 of the GWQDP, results for MW leachate samples are
provided in Appendix C Tables C-3 and C-4. Field data sheets, data validation forms,
and laboratory data packages are provided in Attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

4.6 Evaporation Pond Analytical Results and Volumes
Sampling and analytical results for evaporation ponds are provided in Appendix C Tables
C-5 and C-6, in accordance with Part I.H.12.(a) of the GWQDP. Field data sheets, data
validation forms, and laboratory data packages are provided in Attachments 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.

Evaporation pond volumes are summarized in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 provides the
sampling date, 2-foot freeboard pond capacity, estimated fullness, and approximate
volume in gallons at the time of sampling for each pond. The pond volumes are
calculated by first visually estimating the fullness of a pond (i.e., full, ½ full, etc.) and
then converting to volume. The conversion is performed using the 2-foot freeboard pond
capacities provided to DRC in a submission dated February 1, 2006 and the September 6,
2007 GWQDP Statement of Basis.
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual Groundwater February 25, 2021
Monitoring Report
19

Table 4-2: Summary of Evaporation Pond Volumes
Pond ID
Liquid
Volume

Estimated
Pond
Liquid
Volumea
(gallons)

a Estimated at the time of sampling.

4.7 Collection Lysimeter Analytical Results
Collection lysimeters were routinely monitored throughout 2020 for free liquids in
accordance with Appendix C of the GWQDP. As discussed in Section 2.5, no free
liquids were detected in any collection lysimeter during 2020 monitoring, and therefore,
no samples were collected.

4.8 Report Summary
This report fulfills the GWQDP Part I.H.3 documentation requirements for routine annual
monitoring of groundwater, MW leachate, evaporation ponds, and collection lysimeters
performed in 2020. Monthly and quarterly groundwater elevation data and quarterly
groundwater elevation contour maps are provided. Field forms, laboratory analytical data
packages, and data validation worksheets for 2020 sampling activities are included.
Liquid volume estimates from evaporation pond monitoring are also reported. In
accordance with GWQDP Part I.H.1.b, this report also provides results for accelerated
monitoring samples collected during the second half of 2020.

Quarterly water level measurements were utilized in determining hydrogeologic
properties including: vertical and horizontal groundwater gradients, the shape of the
piezometric surface, and the groundwater flow direction in the shallow water-bearing
unit. Groundwater mounding is present in the shallow unit beneath the 11e.(2)
embankment footprint and downgradient of the South Ditch. The mounding is caused by
infiltration of uncontaminated surface water from snowmelt and precipitation events.

All samples required to demonstrate compliance with the GWQDP during 2020 were
collected and analyzed for all required parameters. All results are valid, and as such,
EnergySolutions met the GWQDP Water Monitoring QAP completeness requirement.
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual February 2021
Groundwater Monitoring Report

APPENDIX A

CONTAINERS, VOLUMES, AND PRESERVATIVES IN SAMPLE
COLLECTION

Un
i
t

o
f
An
a
l
y
s
i
s

(
M
e
t
h
o
d
)

S
a
m
p
l
e

C
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e

F
i
l
t
e
r
e
d

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

H
o
l
di
n
g

T
i
m
e
Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
(
V
O
C
s
)
(E
P
A

8
2
6
0
)
3
4
0
-
m
l

g
l
a
s
s

b
o
t
t
l
e
s

w
i
t
h

a

T
e
f
l
o
n

se
p
t
u
m

c
a
p
;

N
o

h
e
a
d

s
p
a
c
e
Ch
i
l
l

t
o

4
oC
Hy
d
r
o
c
h
l
o
r
i
c

A
c
i
d
No
Pg/
L
14

d
a
y
s

f
r
o
m

s
a
m
p
l
e

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Pg/
L
(v
a
r
i
o
u
s

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
)
Pg/
L
28

d
a
y
s

f
o
r

H
g
6
m
o
n
t
h
s

f
o
r

m
e
t
a
l
s
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
E
P
A

1
6
0
.
1
)
To
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
E
P
A

1
6
0
.
2
)
Al
k
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
E
P
A

3
1
0
.
1
)
TA
B
L
E

A
-
1
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
,
V
O
L
U
M
E
S
,

A
N
D

P
R
E
S
E
R
V
AT
I
V
E
S

U
S
E
D

I
N

S
A
M
P
L
E

C
O
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N

EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
A-
1
-
1
Un
i
t

o
f
An
a
l
y
s
i
s

(
M
e
t
h
o
d
)

S
a
m
p
l
e

C
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e

F
i
l
t
e
r
e
d

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

H
o
l
di
n
g

T
i
m
e
Cy
a
n
i
d
e

(
S
W
-
8
4
6

9
0
1
0
B
)
1
5
0
0
-
m
l

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

b
o
t
t
l
e

w
i
t
h

a

Te
f
l
o
n

l
i
n
e
d

c
a
p
Ch
i
l
l

t
o

4
oC
So
d
i
u
m

h
y
d
r
o
x
i
d
e

a
n
d

Zi
n
c

A
c
e
t
a
t
e

p
H

>

1
2
No
mg
/
L
14

d
a
y
s
Ra
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
s

-

Gr
o
s
s

E,
R
a
-
2
2
6

a
n
d

2
2
8
,
TA
B
L
E

A
-
1
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
,
V
O
L
U
M
E
S
,

A
N
D

P
R
E
S
E
R
V
AT
I
V
E
S

U
S
E
D

I
N

S
A
M
P
L
E

C
O
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N

EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
(c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A-
1
-
2
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual February 2021
Groundwater Monitoring Report

APPENDIX B

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAPS AND ELEVATION TABLES
























 !





 
 "  # 
$%
&!'(



 




)*+







 

 





 !




,-(./)0(,%1
 ,%1

,%1
23
,%1
2,%1

,4)5)0(
)66

 

 
 
7
 


#$8-5)

 
 
99
,():2 
/;()56)4)61;(;%,($%<6-1)1$%<,%(,-5$%8
























 !





 

"  # 
$%
&!'(



 




)*+







 

 





 !




,-(./)0(,%1
 ,%1

,%1
23
,%1
2,%1

,4)5)0(
)66

 

 
 
7
 


#$8-5)

 
 
99
,():2 
/;()56)4)61;(;%,($%<6-1)1$%<,%(,-5$%8

























 !





 

"  # 
$%
&!'(



 




)*+










 





 !




,-(./)0(
,%1

,%1
,%1
23,%1
2
,%1

,4)5)0(
)66

 

 
 
7
 


#$8-5)

 
 
9!9
,():2 
/;()56)4)61;(;%,($%<6-1)1$%<,%(,-5$%8

























 !





 
"  # 
$%
&!'(



 




)*+







 

 





 !




,-(./)0(
,%1
 ,%1
,%1
23
,%1
2,%1

,4)5)0(
)66

 

 
 
7
 


#$8-5)

 
 
9!9
,():2 
/;()56)4)61;(;%,($%<6-1)1$%<,%(,-5$%8
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured January 2020
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.66 4250.03 4251.28
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.20 4251.40 4251.59
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.27 4250.97 4251.16
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.24 4251.19 4251.38
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.09 4249.58 4250.55
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.68 4252.58 4252.81
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 23.96 4252.36 4252.46
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 17.80 4254.29 4254.55
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.36 4253.52 4253.76
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 22.85 4252.85 4253.08
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.48 4253.90 4254.24
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 18.62 4256.17 4256.20
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 16.35 4255.69 4255.80
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.35 4250.70 4250.72
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.57 4251.73 4252.02
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.47 4251.89 4252.08
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 32.79 4250.76 4250.96
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.49 4246.76 4246.82
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 13.71 4255.47 4255.90
B-1-1
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 15.44 4255.35 4255.65
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.73 4249.96 4251.21
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.20 4251.40 4251.59
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.31 4250.93 4251.12
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.36 4251.07 4251.26
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.15 4249.52 4250.49
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 19.02 4252.24 4252.46
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 23.80 4252.52 4252.62
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.08 4254.01 4254.26
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.50 4253.38 4253.61
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 22.99 4252.71 4252.94
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.79 4253.59 4253.92
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 16.48 4258.31 4258.35
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 16.25 4255.79 4255.90
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.24 4250.81 4250.83
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.39 4251.91 4252.21
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.40 4251.96 4252.16
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 32.90 4250.65 4250.85
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.11 4247.14 4247.20
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 14.26 4254.92 4255.32
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured February 2020
B-1-2
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 16.07 4254.72 4255.00
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.66 4250.03 4251.28
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.22 4251.38 4251.57
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.32 4250.92 4251.11
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.41 4251.02 4251.21
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.08 4249.59 4250.56
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.85 4252.41 4252.63
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 23.94 4252.38 4252.48
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 17.99 4254.10 4254.35
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.49 4253.39 4253.63
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.04 4252.66 4252.89
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.74 4253.64 4253.97
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 18.40 4256.39 4256.42
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 16.51 4255.53 4255.64
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.36 4250.69 4250.71
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.47 4251.83 4252.13
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.44 4251.92 4252.11
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 32.96 4250.59 4250.78
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.53 4246.72 4246.78
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 15.02 4254.16 4254.53
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured March 2020
B-1- 3
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 15.71 4255.08 4255.37
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.71 4249.98 4251.23
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.24 4251.36 4251.55
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.35 4250.89 4251.08
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.48 4250.95 4251.13
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.12 4249.55 4250.52
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.93 4252.33 4252.55
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 23.94 4252.38 4252.48
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.03 4254.06 4254.31
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.55 4253.33 4253.56
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.10 4252.60 4252.83
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.83 4253.55 4253.88
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 17.75 4257.04 4257.07
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 16.19 4255.85 4255.96
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.32 4250.73 4250.75
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.53 4251.77 4252.06
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.47 4251.89 4252.08
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.04 4250.51 4250.70
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 32.96 4247.29 4247.35
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 14.99 4254.19 4254.56
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured April 2020
B-1-4
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 16.18 4254.61 4254.88
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.69 4250.00 4251.25
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.29 4251.31 4251.50
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.34 4250.90 4251.09
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.42 4251.01 4251.20
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.10 4249.57 4250.54
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.89 4252.37 4252.59
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 24.18 4252.14 4252.23
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.02 4254.07 4254.32
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.56 4253.32 4253.55
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.11 4252.59 4252.82
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.83 4253.55 4253.88
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 19.36 4255.43 4255.45
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 16.55 4255.49 4255.60
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.46 4250.59 4250.61
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.62 4251.68 4251.97
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.61 4251.75 4251.94
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.00 4250.55 4250.74
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 32.63 4247.62 4247.69
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 15.30 4253.88 4254.23
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured May 2020
B-1-5
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 16.81 4253.98 4254.24
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.84 4249.85 4251.10
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.39 4251.21 4251.40
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.37 4250.87 4251.06
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.54 4250.89 4251.07
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.24 4249.43 4250.53
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 19.00 4252.26 4252.48
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 24.32 4252.00 4252.08
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.22 4253.87 4254.11
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.55 4253.33 4253.56
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.08 4252.62 4252.85
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.91 4253.47 4253.79
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 19.95 4254.84 4254.85
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 16.89 4255.15 4255.24
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.53 4250.52 4250.54
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.84 4251.46 4251.73
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.71 4251.65 4251.83
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.31 4250.24 4250.43
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 32.67 4247.58 4247.70
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 15.96 4253.22 4253.53
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured June 2020
B-1-6
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 17.07 4253.72 4253.97
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.96 4249.73 4250.97
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.41 4251.19 4251.38
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.34 4250.90 4251.09
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.58 4250.85 4251.03
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.83 4248.84 4249.94
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.90 4252.36 4252.58
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 24.38 4251.94 4252.02
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.11 4253.98 4254.23
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.62 4253.26 4253.49
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.09 4252.61 4252.84
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.90 4253.48 4253.80
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 20.28 4254.51 4254.52
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 17.11 4254.93 4255.01
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.55 4250.50 4250.52
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 26.85 4251.45 4251.72
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.75 4251.61 4251.79
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.35 4250.20 4250.39
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 32.74 4247.51 4247.62
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.20 4252.98 4253.28
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured July 2020
B-1-7
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 17.12 4253.67 4253.92
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 20.99 4249.70 4250.94
GW-20 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,617.2 7,421,988.4 4276.60 25.50 4251.10 4251.29
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.37 4250.87 4251.06
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.50 4250.93 4251.11
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.37 4249.30 4250.40
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.96 4252.30 4252.52
GW-29 11.e.(2) LARW 1,192,602.0 7,421,099.4 4276.32 24.49 4251.83 4251.91
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.23 4253.86 4254.10
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.57 4253.31 4253.54
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 22.98 4252.72 4252.95
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 17.97 4253.41 4253.73
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 20.40 4254.39 4254.40
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 17.18 4254.86 4254.94
GW-92 Class A 1,192,519.9 7,423,043.2 4279.05 28.61 4250.44 4250.46
GW-103 LARW 1,192,748.0 7,420,884.8 4278.30 27.02 4251.28 4251.54
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.89 4251.47 4251.65
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.38 4250.17 4250.36
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 34.09 4246.16 4246.25
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.30 4252.88 4253.18
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured August 2020
B-1-8
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured September 2020
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 21.06 4249.63 4250.87
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.41 4250.83 4251.02
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.53 4250.90 4251.08
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.46 4249.21 4250.31
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 18.96 4252.30 4252.52
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.34 4253.75 4253.99
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.77 4253.11 4253.34
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.13 4252.57 4252.80
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 18.06 4253.32 4253.64
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 20.63 4254.16 4254.17
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 17.26 4254.78 4254.86
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.20 4247.05 4247.16
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.55 4252.63 4252.92
B-1-9
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 17.70 4253.09 4253.33
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 21.11 4249.58 4250.82
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.46 4250.78 4250.96
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.58 4250.85 4251.03
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.50 4249.17 4250.27
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 19.11 4252.15 4252.37
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.51 4253.58 4253.81
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.94 4252.94 4253.16
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.28 4252.42 4252.64
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 18.14 4253.24 4253.55
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 20.86 4253.93 4253.94
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 17.52 4254.52 4254.60
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.15 4247.10 4247.21
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.91 4252.27 4252.56
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured October 2020
B-1-10
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured November 2020
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 21.02 4249.67 4250.91
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.47 4250.77 4250.95
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.36 4251.07 4251.26
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.38 4249.29 4250.39
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 19.04 4252.22 4252.44
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.52 4253.57 4253.80
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 17.90 4252.98 4253.20
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.20 4252.50 4252.72
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 18.15 4253.23 4253.54
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 21.00 4253.79 4253.80
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 17.55 4254.49 4254.57
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.28 4246.97 4247.07
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.99 4252.19 4252.47
B-1-11
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
GW-19A 11.e.(2) 1,189,864.7 7,421,007.7 4270.79 18.05 4252.74 4252.98
GW-19B Deep Well 1,189,864.3 7,420,999.9 4270.69 21.01 4249.68 4250.92
GW-25 11.e.(2) 1,191,653.8 7,423,063.1 4276.24 25.54 4250.70 4250.88
GW-27 11.e.(2) 1,190,080.1 7,423,096.0 4272.43 21.55 4250.88 4251.06
GW-27D Deep Well 1,190,079.3 7,423,071.4 4273.67 24.39 4249.28 4250.38
GW-28 11.e.(2) 1,190,065.0 7,422,152.4 4271.26 19.16 4252.10 4252.31
GW-36 Pond Well 1,190,699.5 7,421,642.8 4272.09 18.71 4253.38 4253.61
GW-37 11.e.(2) 1,191,256.3 7,422,025.7 4270.88 18.14 4252.74 4252.96
GW-38R 11.e.(2) 1,191,202.0 7,422,392.3 4275.70 23.44 4252.26 4252.48
GW-58 11.e.(2) Pond Well 1,190,084.7 7,421,679.4 4271.38 18.31 4253.07 4253.38
GW-60 11.e.(2) 1,191,831.9 7,420,943.4 4274.79 21.25 4253.54 4253.55
GW-63 11.e.(2) 1,190,937.2 7,420,971.1 4272.04 17.83 4254.21 4254.29
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 32.81 4247.44 4247.55
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 17.30 4251.88 4252.16
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured December 2020
B-1-12
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 1st Quarter 2020
B-1-13
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 1st Quarter 2020
GW-108 Class A North 1,190,148.1 7,425,724.7 4275.96 25.34 4250.62 4250.88
GW-109 Class A North 1,190,431.3 7,425,719.1 4276.46 25.95 4250.51 4250.74
GW-110 Class A North 1,190,759.6 7,425,712.9 4276.72 26.42 4250.30 4250.51
GW-111 Class A North 1,191,086.4 7,425,706.8 4277.07 26.87 4250.20 4250.39
GW-112 Class A North 1,191,421.8 7,425,701.5 4277.40 27.81 4249.59 4249.84
GW-126 11.e(2) 1,192,625.7 7,422,412.9 4279.08 28.22 4250.86 4251.05
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.40 4251.96 4252.16
GW-128 LARW 1,193,916.2 7,422,056.0 4282.62 33.14 4249.48 4249.67
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 32.90 4250.65 4250.85
GW-130 Mixed Waste 1,194,288.6 7,422,901.3 4281.15 32.34 4248.81 4248.93
GW-131 Mixed Waste 1,194,613.8 7,422,907.6 4281.74 32.85 4248.89 4248.98
GW-132 Mixed Waste 1,194,937.0 7,422,912.3 4282.95 34.12 4248.83 4248.94
GW-133 Mixed Waste 1,194,943.0 7,422,569.8 4283.54 34.65 4248.89 4248.98
GW-134 Mixed Waste 1,194,938.8 7,422,238.2 4285.28 36.30 4248.98 4249.07
GW-135 Mixed Waste 1,194,936.1 7,421,904.9 4284.26 35.11 4249.15 4249.31
GW-136 Mixed Waste 1,194,930.0 7,421,583.2 4283.79 34.59 4249.20 4249.35
GW-137 Class A North 1,191,789.8 7,425,698.9 4278.43 29.04 4249.39 4249.55
GW-138 Class A North 1,192,096.3 7,425,695.2 4279.42 30.25 4249.17 4249.39
GW-139 Class A North 1,192,429.7 7,425,689.5 4282.92 33.94 4248.98 4249.11
GW-139D Deep Well 1,192,431.7 7,425,700.4 4283.14 34.14 4249.00 4249.77
GW-140 Class A North 1,192,424.3 7,425,362.2 4280.88 31.78 4249.10 4249.29
GW-141 Class A North 1,192,420.8 7,425,032.9 4280.19 30.97 4249.22 4249.35
I-1-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,195.8 7,420,900.9 4279.45 29.50 4249.95 4250.07
I-1-100 Deep Well 1,194,193.9 7,420,896.6 4279.33 29.87 4249.46 4250.77
I-3-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,589.6 7,422,922.8 4281.33 32.40 4248.93 4248.98
I-3-100 Deep Well 1,194,590.0 7,422,927.9 4281.56 31.64 4249.92 4249.92
P3-95 NECR Pond Well 1,194,361.0 7,423,973.8 4285.20 36.13 4249.07 4249.14
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.11 4247.14 4247.20
P3-97 NECR Pond Well 1,194,343.2 7,424,298.4 4282.02 33.33 4248.69 4248.80
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 14.26 4254.92 4255.32
B-1-14
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 2nd Quarter 2020
B-1-15
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 2nd Quarter 2020
GW-108 Class A North 1,190,148.1 7,425,724.7 4275.96 25.43 4250.53 4250.81
GW-109 Class A North 1,190,431.3 7,425,719.1 4276.46 26.06 4250.40 4250.65
GW-110 Class A North 1,190,759.6 7,425,712.9 4276.72 26.55 4250.17 4250.40
GW-111 Class A North 1,191,086.4 7,425,706.8 4277.07 26.93 4250.14 4250.33
GW-112 Class A North 1,191,421.8 7,425,701.5 4277.40 27.89 4249.51 4249.74
GW-126 11.e(2) 1,192,625.7 7,422,412.9 4279.08 28.41 4250.67 4250.84
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.71 4251.65 4251.83
GW-128 LARW 1,193,916.2 7,422,056.0 4282.62 33.33 4249.29 4249.46
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.31 4250.24 4250.43
GW-130 Mixed Waste 1,194,288.6 7,422,901.3 4281.15 32.35 4248.80 4248.92
GW-131 Mixed Waste 1,194,613.8 7,422,907.6 4281.74 32.91 4248.83 4248.93
GW-132 Mixed Waste 1,194,937.0 7,422,912.3 4282.95 34.15 4248.80 4248.91
GW-133 Mixed Waste 1,194,943.0 7,422,569.8 4283.54 34.71 4248.83 4248.92
GW-134 Mixed Waste 1,194,938.8 7,422,238.2 4285.28 36.35 4248.93 4249.02
GW-135 Mixed Waste 1,194,936.1 7,421,904.9 4284.26 35.19 4249.07 4249.22
GW-136 Mixed Waste 1,194,930.0 7,421,583.2 4283.79 34.67 4249.12 4249.27
GW-137 Class A North 1,191,789.8 7,425,698.9 4278.43 29.17 4249.26 4249.41
GW-138 Class A North 1,192,096.3 7,425,695.2 4279.42 30.40 4249.02 4249.22
GW-139 Class A North 1,192,429.7 7,425,689.5 4282.92 34.08 4248.84 4248.97
GW-139D Deep Well 1,192,431.7 7,425,700.4 4283.14 34.30 4248.84 4249.60
GW-140 Class A North 1,192,424.3 7,425,362.2 4280.88 31.87 4249.01 4249.21
GW-141 Class A North 1,192,420.8 7,425,032.9 4280.19 31.12 4249.07 4249.19
I-1-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,195.8 7,420,900.9 4279.45 29.53 4249.92 4250.04
I-1-100 Deep Well 1,194,193.9 7,420,896.6 4279.33 29.78 4249.55 4250.86
I-3-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,589.6 7,422,922.8 4281.33 32.49 4248.84 4248.90
I-3-100 Deep Well 1,194,590.0 7,422,927.9 4281.56 31.72 4249.84 4250.22
P3-95 NECR Pond Well 1,194,361.0 7,423,973.8 4285.20 36.34 4248.86 4248.93
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 32.63 4247.62 4247.74
P3-97 NECR Pond Well 1,194,343.2 7,424,298.4 4282.02 33.57 4248.45 4248.55
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 15.96 4253.22 4253.53
B-1-16
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 3rd Quarter 2020
B-1-17
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 3rd Quarter 2020
GW-108 Class A North 1,190,148.1 7,425,724.7 4275.96 25.62 4250.34 4250.61
GW-109 Class A North 1,190,431.3 7,425,719.1 4276.46 26.19 4250.27 4250.52
GW-110 Class A North 1,190,759.6 7,425,712.9 4276.72 26.64 4250.08 4250.30
GW-111 Class A North 1,191,086.4 7,425,706.8 4277.07 27.06 4250.01 4250.20
GW-112 Class A North 1,191,421.8 7,425,701.5 4277.40 28.00 4249.40 4249.63
GW-126 11.e(2) 1,192,625.7 7,422,412.9 4279.08 28.51 4250.57 4250.74
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 26.89 4251.47 4251.65
GW-128 LARW 1,193,916.2 7,422,056.0 4282.62 33.48 4249.14 4249.31
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.38 4250.17 4250.36
GW-130 Mixed Waste 1,194,288.6 7,422,901.3 4281.15 32.73 4248.42 4248.53
GW-131 Mixed Waste 1,194,613.8 7,422,907.6 4281.74 33.27 4248.47 4248.56
GW-132 Mixed Waste 1,194,937.0 7,422,912.3 4282.95 34.53 4248.42 4248.53
GW-133 Mixed Waste 1,194,943.0 7,422,569.8 4283.54 35.09 4248.45 4248.53
GW-134 Mixed Waste 1,194,938.8 7,422,238.2 4285.28 36.70 4248.58 4248.66
GW-135 Mixed Waste 1,194,936.1 7,421,904.9 4284.26 35.57 4248.69 4248.83
GW-136 Mixed Waste 1,194,930.0 7,421,583.2 4283.79 35.04 4248.75 4248.89
GW-137 Class A North 1,191,789.8 7,425,698.9 4278.43 29.24 4249.19 4249.34
GW-138 Class A North 1,192,096.3 7,425,695.2 4279.42 30.47 4248.95 4249.15
GW-139 Class A North 1,192,429.7 7,425,689.5 4282.92 34.21 4248.71 4248.84
GW-139D Deep Well 1,192,431.7 7,425,700.4 4283.14 34.47 4248.67 4249.43
GW-140 Class A North 1,192,424.3 7,425,362.2 4280.88 32.02 4248.86 4249.06
GW-141 Class A North 1,192,420.8 7,425,032.9 4280.19 31.19 4249.00 4249.12
I-1-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,195.8 7,420,900.9 4279.45 29.86 4249.59 4249.71
I-1-100 Deep Well 1,194,193.9 7,420,896.6 4279.33 30.15 4249.18 4250.48
I-3-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,589.6 7,422,922.8 4281.33 32.10 4249.23 4249.29
I-3-100 Deep Well 1,194,590.0 7,422,927.9 4281.56 31.76 4249.80 4250.18
P3-95 NECR Pond Well 1,194,361.0 7,423,973.8 4285.20 36.60 4248.60 4248.66
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 34.09 4246.16 4246.25
P3-97 NECR Pond Well 1,194,343.2 7,424,298.4 4282.02 33.84 4248.18 4248.28
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.30 4252.88 4253.18
B-1-18
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 4th Quarter 2020
B-1-19
STATE PLANE Top of Depth Salt Fresh
Well COORDINATES Pro. Casing to Water Water
ID Area Easting Northing
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
ENERGYSOLUTIONS
Measured 4th Quarter 2020
GW-108 Class A North 1,190,148.1 7,425,724.7 4275.96 25.58 4250.38 4250.65
GW-109 Class A North 1,190,431.3 7,425,719.1 4276.46 26.14 4250.32 4250.57
GW-110 Class A North 1,190,759.6 7,425,712.9 4276.72 26.63 4250.09 4250.31
GW-111 Class A North 1,191,086.4 7,425,706.8 4277.07 27.11 4249.96 4250.15
GW-112 Class A North 1,191,421.8 7,425,701.5 4277.40 28.08 4249.32 4249.55
GW-126 11.e(2) 1,192,625.7 7,422,412.9 4279.08 28.67 4250.41 4250.57
GW-127 11.e(2) 1,192,607.5 7,421,543.2 4278.36 27.15 4251.21 4251.38
GW-128 LARW 1,193,916.2 7,422,056.0 4282.62 33.58 4249.04 4249.20
GW-129 Pond well 1,190,375.2 7,426,189.8 4283.55 33.26 4250.29 4250.48
GW-130 Mixed Waste 1,194,288.6 7,422,901.3 4281.15 32.74 4248.41 4248.52
GW-131 Mixed Waste 1,194,613.8 7,422,907.6 4281.74 33.30 4248.44 4248.53
GW-132 Mixed Waste 1,194,937.0 7,422,912.3 4282.95 34.57 4248.38 4248.49
GW-133 Mixed Waste 1,194,943.0 7,422,569.8 4283.54 35.12 4248.42 4248.50
GW-134 Mixed Waste 1,194,938.8 7,422,238.2 4285.28 36.78 4248.50 4248.58
GW-135 Mixed Waste 1,194,936.1 7,421,904.9 4284.26 35.61 4248.65 4248.79
GW-136 Mixed Waste 1,194,930.0 7,421,583.2 4283.79 35.09 4248.70 4248.84
GW-137 Class A North 1,191,789.8 7,425,698.9 4278.43 29.33 4249.10 4249.24
GW-138 Class A North 1,192,096.3 7,425,695.2 4279.42 30.56 4248.86 4249.06
GW-139 Class A North 1,192,429.7 7,425,689.5 4282.92 34.31 4248.61 4248.74
GW-139D Deep Well 1,192,431.7 7,425,700.4 4283.14 34.50 4248.64 4249.40
GW-140 Class A North 1,192,424.3 7,425,362.2 4280.88 32.12 4248.76 4248.95
GW-141 Class A North 1,192,420.8 7,425,032.9 4280.19 31.29 4248.90 4249.02
I-1-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,195.8 7,420,900.9 4279.45 29.95 4249.50 4249.62
I-1-100 Deep Well 1,194,193.9 7,420,896.6 4279.33 30.16 4249.17 4250.47
I-3-30 Mixed Waste 1,194,589.6 7,422,922.8 4281.33 32.84 4248.49 4248.54
I-3-100 Deep Well 1,194,590.0 7,422,927.9 4281.56 32.20 4249.36 4249.74
P3-95 NECR Pond Well 1,194,361.0 7,423,973.8 4285.20 36.56 4248.64 4248.70
P3-95 SWC Pond Well 1,194,114.1 7,423,717.1 4280.25 33.28 4246.97 4247.07
P3-97 NECR Pond Well 1,194,343.2 7,424,298.4 4282.02 33.78 4248.24 4248.34
PZ-1 Pond Well 1,189,765.5 7,420,893.2 4269.18 16.99 4252.19 4252.47
B-1-20
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
5
.
0
4

4
2
5
5
.
7
5

4
2
5
6
.
0
6

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
6
6

4
2
5
0
.
0
3

4
2
5
1
.
2
8

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
2
4

4
2
5
1
.
1
9

4
2
5
1
.
3
8

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
0
9

4
2
4
9
.
5
8

4
2
5
0
.
5
5

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
6
1
-0
.
8
3
-4
.
7
8
-5
.
7
2
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
2
0
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
B-
2
-
1
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
5
.
4
4

4
2
5
5
.
3
5

4
2
5
5
.
6
5

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
7
3

4
2
4
9
.
9
6

4
2
5
1
.
2
1

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
3
6

4
2
5
1
.
0
7

4
2
5
1
.
2
6

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
1
5

4
2
4
9
.
5
2

4
2
5
0
.
4
9

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
5
5
-0
.
7
7
-5
.
3
9
-4
.
4
4
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
2
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
6
.
0
7

4
2
5
4
.
7
2

4
2
5
5
.
0
0

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
6
6

4
2
5
0
.
0
3

4
2
5
1
.
2
8

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
4
1

4
2
5
1
.
0
2

4
2
5
1
.
2
1

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
0
8

4
2
4
9
.
5
9

4
2
5
0
.
5
6

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
4
3
-0
.
6
5
-4
.
6
9
-3
.
7
2
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
3
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
5
.
7
1

4
2
5
5
.
0
8

4
2
5
5
.
3
7

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
7
1

4
2
4
9
.
9
8

4
2
5
1
.
2
3

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
4
8

4
2
5
0
.
9
5

4
2
5
1
.
1
3

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
1
2

4
2
4
9
.
5
5

4
2
5
0
.
5
2

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
4
0
-0
.
6
2
-5
.
1
0
-4
.
1
4
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
4
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
6
.
1
8

4
2
5
4
.
6
1

4
2
5
4
.
8
8

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
6
9

4
2
5
0
.
0
0

4
2
5
1
.
2
5

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
4
2

4
2
5
1
.
0
1

4
2
5
1
.
2
0

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
1
0

4
2
4
9
.
5
7

4
2
5
0
.
5
4

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
4
4
-0
.
6
6
-4
.
6
1
-3
.
6
3
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

M
a
y

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
5
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
6
.
8
1

4
2
5
3
.
9
8

4
2
5
4
.
2
4

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
8
4

4
2
4
9
.
8
5

4
2
5
1
.
1
0

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
4

4
2
5
0
.
8
9

4
2
5
1
.
0
7

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
2
4

4
2
4
9
.
4
3

4
2
5
0
.
5
3

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
4
6
-0
.
5
4
-4
.
1
3
-3
.
1
4
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

J
u
n
e

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
6
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
0
7

4
2
5
3
.
7
2

4
2
5
3
.
9
7

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
9
6

4
2
4
9
.
7
3

4
2
5
0
.
9
7

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
8

4
2
5
0
.
8
5

4
2
5
1
.
0
3

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
8
3

4
2
4
8
.
8
4

4
2
4
9
.
9
4

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-2
.
0
1
-1
.
1
0
-3
.
9
9
-3
.
0
0
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

J
u
l
y

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
7
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
1
2

4
2
5
3
.
6
7

4
2
5
3
.
9
2

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
9
9

4
2
4
9
.
7
0

4
2
5
0
.
9
4

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
0

4
2
5
0
.
9
3

4
2
5
1
.
1
1

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
3
7

4
2
4
9
.
3
0

4
2
5
0
.
4
0

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
6
3
-0
.
7
1
-3
.
9
7
-2
.
9
8
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
8
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
3
5

4
2
5
3
.
4
4

4
2
5
3
.
6
9

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
1
.
0
6

4
2
4
9
.
6
3

4
2
5
0
.
8
7

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
3

4
2
5
0
.
9
0

4
2
5
1
.
0
8

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
4
6

4
2
4
9
.
2
1

4
2
5
0
.
3
1

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
-6
6
.
3
4
-1
.
6
9
-0
.
7
7
-3
.
8
1
-2
.
8
2
Sa
l
t

W
a
t
e
r
Fr
e
s
h

W
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E

B
-
2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T
S
EN
E
R
G
Y
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
2
0
B-
2
-
9
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
7
0

4
2
5
3
.
0
9

4
2
5
3
.
3
3

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
1
.
1
1

4
2
4
9
.
5
8

4
2
5
0
.
8
2

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
8

4
2
5
0
.
8
5

4
2
5
1
.
0
3

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
5
0

4
2
4
9
.
1
7

4
2
5
0
.
2
7

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
5
.
4
8
-3
.
5
1
-2
.
5
1
-1
.
6
8
-0
.
7
6
B-
2
-
1
0
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
7
6

4
2
5
3
.
0
3

4
2
5
3
.
2
7

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
1
.
0
2

4
2
4
9
.
6
7

4
2
5
0
.
9
1

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
3
6

4
2
5
1
.
0
7

4
2
5
1
.
2
6

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
3
8

4
2
4
9
.
2
9

4
2
5
0
.
3
9

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
5
.
4
8
-3
.
3
6
-2
.
3
6
-1
.
7
8
-0
.
8
6
B-
2
-
1
1
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
8
.
0
5

4
2
5
2
.
7
4

4
2
5
2
.
9
8

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
1
.
0
1

4
2
4
9
.
6
8

4
2
5
0
.
9
2

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
5

4
2
5
0
.
8
8

4
2
5
1
.
0
6

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
3
9

4
2
4
9
.
2
8

4
2
5
0
.
3
8

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
5
.
4
8
-3
.
0
6
-2
.
0
6
-1
.
6
0
-0
.
6
8
B-
2
-
1
2
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
I-
1
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
5
.
8

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
0
0
.
9

2
9
.
5
0

4
2
4
9
.
9
5

4
2
5
0
.
0
7

4
2
4
7
.
8
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
I-
1
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
3
.
9

7
,
4
2
0
,
8
9
6
.
6

2
9
.
8
7

4
2
4
9
.
4
6

4
2
5
0
.
7
7

4
1
8
4
.
0
1.
0
2
0
We
l
l

I-
3
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
8
9
.
6

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
2
.
8

3
2
.
4
0

4
2
4
8
.
9
3

4
2
4
8
.
9
8

4
2
4
9
.
5
1.
0
2
0
Ne
s
t
I-
3
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
9
0
.
0

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
7
.
9

3
1
.
6
4

4
2
4
9
.
9
2

4
2
4
9
.
9
2

4
1
8
6
.
0
1.
0
0
0
We
l
l

GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
5
.
4
4

4
2
5
5
.
3
5

4
2
5
5
.
6
5

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
7
3

4
2
4
9
.
9
6

4
2
5
1
.
2
1

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
3
6

4
2
5
1
.
0
7

4
2
5
1
.
2
6

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
1
5

4
2
4
9
.
5
2

4
2
5
0
.
4
9

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
4
We
l
l

GW
-
1
3
9

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
2
9
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
6
8
9
.
5

3
3
.
9
4

4
2
4
8
.
9
8

4
2
4
9
.
1
1

4
2
5
0
.
2
1.
0
3
4
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
3
9

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
3
1
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
7
0
0
.
4

3
4
.
1
4

4
2
4
9
.
0
0

4
2
4
9
.
7
7

4
1
9
4
.
3
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
3
.
7
5
-0
.
4
9
0.
7
0
-5
.
3
9
-4
.
4
4
0.
9
9
0.
9
4
0.
0
2
0.
6
6
-1
.
5
5
-0
.
7
7
B-
2
-
1
3
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
I-
1
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
5
.
8

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
0
0
.
9

2
9
.
5
3

4
2
4
9
.
9
2

4
2
5
0
.
0
4

4
2
4
7
.
8
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
I-
1
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
3
.
9

7
,
4
2
0
,
8
9
6
.
6

2
9
.
7
8

4
2
4
9
.
5
5

4
2
5
0
.
8
6

4
1
8
4
.
0
1.
0
2
0
We
l
l

I-
3
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
8
9
.
6

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
2
.
8

3
2
.
4
9

4
2
4
8
.
8
4

4
2
4
8
.
9
0

4
2
4
9
.
5
1.
0
2
2
Ne
s
t
I-
3
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
9
0
.
0

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
7
.
9

3
1
.
7
2

4
2
4
9
.
8
4

4
2
5
0
.
2
2

4
1
8
6
.
0
1.
0
0
6
We
l
l

GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
6
.
8
1

4
2
5
3
.
9
8

4
2
5
4
.
2
4

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
8
4

4
2
4
9
.
8
5

4
2
5
1
.
1
0

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
4

4
2
5
0
.
8
9

4
2
5
1
.
0
7

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
2
4

4
2
4
9
.
4
3

4
2
5
0
.
5
3

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
We
l
l

GW
-
1
3
9

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
2
9
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
6
8
9
.
5

3
4
.
0
8

4
2
4
8
.
8
4

4
2
4
8
.
9
7

4
2
5
0
.
2
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
3
9

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
3
1
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
7
0
0
.
4

3
4
.
3
0

4
2
4
8
.
8
4

4
2
4
9
.
6
0

4
1
9
4
.
3
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
3
.
7
5
-0
.
3
7
0.
8
2
-4
.
1
3
-3
.
1
4
1.
0
0
1.
3
2
0.
0
0
0.
6
3
-1
.
4
6
-0
.
5
4
B-
2
-
1
4
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
I-
1
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
5
.
8

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
0
0
.
9

2
9
.
8
6

4
2
4
9
.
5
9

4
2
4
9
.
7
1

4
2
4
7
.
8
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
I-
1
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
3
.
9

7
,
4
2
0
,
8
9
6
.
6

3
0
.
1
5

4
2
4
9
.
1
8

4
2
5
0
.
4
8

4
1
8
4
.
0
1.
0
2
0
We
l
l

I-
3
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
8
9
.
6

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
2
.
8

3
2
.
1
0

4
2
4
9
.
2
3

4
2
4
9
.
2
9

4
2
4
9
.
5
1.
0
2
2
Ne
s
t
I-
3
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
9
0
.
0

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
7
.
9

3
1
.
7
6

4
2
4
9
.
8
0

4
2
5
0
.
1
8

4
1
8
6
.
0
1.
0
0
6
We
l
l

GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
1
2

4
2
5
3
.
6
7

4
2
5
3
.
9
2

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
0
.
9
9

4
2
4
9
.
7
0

4
2
5
0
.
9
4

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
5
0

4
2
5
0
.
9
3

4
2
5
1
.
1
1

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
3
7

4
2
4
9
.
3
0

4
2
5
0
.
4
0

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
We
l
l

GW
-
1
3
9

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
2
9
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
6
8
9
.
5

3
4
.
2
1

4
2
4
8
.
7
1

4
2
4
8
.
8
4

4
2
5
0
.
2
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
3
9

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
3
1
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
7
0
0
.
4

3
4
.
4
7

4
2
4
8
.
6
7

4
2
4
9
.
4
3

4
1
9
4
.
3
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
3
.
7
5
-0
.
4
1
0.
7
8
-3
.
9
7
-2
.
9
8
0.
5
7
0.
8
9
-0
.
0
4
0.
5
9
-1
.
6
3
-0
.
7
1
B-
2
-
1
5
ST
A
T
E

P
L
A
N
E

D
e
p
t
h

S
a
l
i
n
e

F
r
e
s
h

M
i
d
-
P
o
i
n
t

o
f
''
We
l
l

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

W
a
t
e
r

F
i
l
t
e
r

P
a
c
k

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
''
ID

E
a
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
r
t
h
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

G
W

E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

G
W

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
t/
f
t
)
I-
1
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
5
.
8

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
0
0
.
9

2
9
.
9
5

4
2
4
9
.
5
0

4
2
4
9
.
6
2

4
2
4
7
.
8
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
I-
1
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
1
9
3
.
9

7
,
4
2
0
,
8
9
6
.
6

3
0
.
1
6

4
2
4
9
.
1
7

4
2
5
0
.
4
7

4
1
8
4
.
0
1.
0
2
0
We
l
l

I-
3
-
3
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
8
9
.
6

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
2
.
8

3
2
.
8
4

4
2
4
8
.
4
9

4
2
4
8
.
5
4

4
2
4
9
.
5
1.
0
2
2
Ne
s
t
I-
3
-
1
0
0

1
,
1
9
4
,
5
9
0
.
0

7
,
4
2
2
,
9
2
7
.
9

3
2
.
2
0

4
2
4
9
.
3
6

4
2
4
9
.
7
4

4
1
8
6
.
0
1.
0
0
6
We
l
l

GW
-
1
9
A

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
7

7
,
4
2
1
,
0
0
7
.
7

1
7
.
7
6

4
2
5
3
.
0
3

4
2
5
3
.
2
7

4
2
4
6
.
1
1.
0
3
2
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
9
B

1
,
1
8
9
,
8
6
4
.
3

7
,
4
2
0
,
9
9
9
.
9

2
1
.
0
2

4
2
4
9
.
6
7

4
2
5
0
.
9
1

4
1
8
0
.
6
1.
0
1
8
We
l
l

GW
-
2
7

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
8
0
.
1

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
9
6
.
0

2
1
.
3
6

4
2
5
1
.
0
7

4
2
5
1
.
2
6

4
2
4
6
.
7
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
2
7

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
0
,
0
7
9
.
3

7
,
4
2
3
,
0
7
1
.
4

2
4
.
3
8

4
2
4
9
.
2
9

4
2
5
0
.
3
9

4
1
8
0
.
4
1.
0
1
6
We
l
l

GW
-
1
3
9

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
2
9
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
6
8
9
.
5

3
4
.
3
1

4
2
4
8
.
6
1

4
2
4
8
.
7
4

4
2
5
0
.
2
1.
0
3
6
Ne
s
t
GW
-
1
3
9

D
e
e
p

1
,
1
9
2
,
4
3
1
.
7

7
,
4
2
5
,
7
0
0
.
4

3
4
.
5
0

4
2
4
8
.
6
4

4
2
4
9
.
4
0

4
1
9
4
.
3
1.
0
1
4
A n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

u
p
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
A p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

=

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
-6
3
.
7
5
-0
.
3
3
0.
8
6
-3
.
3
6
-2
.
3
6
0.
8
7
1.
2
0
0.
0
3
0.
6
6
-1
.
7
8
-0
.
8
6
B-
2
-
1
6
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
AR
E
A

W
a
t
e
r

T
y
p
e

M
A
X
I
M
U
M

M
I
N
I
M
U
M
AV
E
R
A
G
E

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T

L
I
M
I
T

Y
E
S
/
N
O
Fr
e
s
h
7.
6
6
E
-
0
3

3
.
2
8
E
-
0
5

1
.
2
4
E
-
0
3

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
7.
8
2
E
-
0
3

4
.
8
4
E
-
0
6

1
.
3
4
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
3.
6
7
E
-
0
3

7
.
9
9
E
-
0
4

1
.
5
4
E
-
0
3

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

N
O
Sa
l
t
3.
9
8
E
-
0
3

6
.
6
8
E
-
0
4

1
.
4
8
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
8
1
E
-
0
3

1
.
8
3
E
-
0
4

7
.
9
3
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
9
4
E
-
0
3

2
.
1
6
E
-
0
4

7
.
6
3
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
1.
4
5
E
-
0
3

2
.
6
0
E
-
0
4

6
.
9
0
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
5
6
E
-
0
3

1
.
5
3
E
-
0
4

6
.
7
3
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
6.
9
2
E
-
0
3

8
.
8
7
E
-
0
4

2
.
8
0
E
-
0
3

3
.
2
9
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
7.
0
4
E
-
0
3

5
.
0
8
E
-
0
4

2
.
8
2
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
0
9
E
-
0
3

1
.
6
3
E
-
0
4

7
.
1
4
E
-
0
4

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
3
2
E
-
0
3

2
.
6
9
E
-
0
4

6
.
7
7
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
4.
1
7
E
-
0
4

4
.
9
5
E
-
0
5

2
.
4
9
E
-
0
4

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
2.
7
2
E
-
0
4

8
.
0
8
E
-
0
7

1
.
7
1
E
-
0
4
De
e
p
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Al
l

u
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

w
e
l
l
s
LA
R
W
Cl
a
s
s

A
Cl
a
s
s

A

N
o
r
t
h
11
e
.
(
2
)
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e
B-
3
-
1
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
AR
E
A

W
a
t
e
r

T
y
p
e

M
A
X
I
M
U
M

M
I
N
I
M
U
M
AV
E
R
A
G
E

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T

L
I
M
I
T

Y
E
S
/
N
O
Fr
e
s
h
4.
2
3
E
-
0
3

1
.
1
0
E
-
0
5

1
.
0
4
E
-
0
3

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
4.
5
4
E
-
0
3

1
.
1
6
E
-
0
5

1
.
0
9
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
2.
3
9
E
-
0
3

7
.
5
5
E
-
0
4

1
.
4
9
E
-
0
3

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

N
O
Sa
l
t
2.
7
8
E
-
0
3

6
.
8
3
E
-
0
4

1
.
4
4
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
6
2
E
-
0
3

9
.
1
7
E
-
0
5

7
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
7
1
E
-
0
3

1
.
4
4
E
-
0
4

7
.
4
1
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
1.
5
5
E
-
0
3

2
.
4
5
E
-
0
4

7
.
1
5
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
6
3
E
-
0
3

1
.
1
1
E
-
0
4

6
.
9
1
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
3.
4
0
E
-
0
3

1
.
0
7
E
-
0
3

2
.
1
3
E
-
0
3

3
.
2
9
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
3.
5
1
E
-
0
3

8
.
7
7
E
-
0
4

2
.
1
5
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
1
0
E
-
0
3

1
.
1
6
E
-
0
4

6
.
5
4
E
-
0
4

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
1
4
E
-
0
3

2
.
0
2
E
-
0
4

6
.
2
7
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
3.
1
3
E
-
0
4

7
.
7
4
E
-
0
5

2
.
5
6
E
-
0
4

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
2.
9
9
E
-
0
4

2
.
6
8
E
-
0
6

1
.
7
9
E
-
0
4
De
e
p
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Al
l

u
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

w
e
l
l
s
LA
R
W
Cl
a
s
s

A
Cl
a
s
s

A

N
o
r
t
h
11
e
.
(
2
)
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e
B-
3
-
2
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
AR
E
A

W
a
t
e
r

T
y
p
e

M
A
X
I
M
U
M

M
I
N
I
M
U
M
AV
E
R
A
G
E

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T

L
I
M
I
T

Y
E
S
/
N
O
Fr
e
s
h
6.
4
0
E
-
0
3

1
.
0
1
E
-
0
5

1
.
0
6
E
-
0
3

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
6.
6
7
E
-
0
3

2
.
7
1
E
-
0
6

1
.
2
0
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
2.
3
0
E
-
0
3

9
.
8
1
E
-
0
4

1
.
5
2
E
-
0
3

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

N
O
Sa
l
t
2.
7
0
E
-
0
3

9
.
1
9
E
-
0
4

1
.
4
6
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
6
8
E
-
0
3

1
.
4
9
E
-
0
4

8
.
3
6
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
7
9
E
-
0
3

2
.
0
6
E
-
0
4

8
.
0
6
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
1.
5
0
E
-
0
3

1
.
7
6
E
-
0
4

7
.
0
1
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
5
9
E
-
0
3

4
.
1
3
E
-
0
5

6
.
8
4
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
3.
0
9
E
-
0
3

9
.
5
5
E
-
0
4

2
.
0
2
E
-
0
3

3
.
2
9
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
3.
2
0
E
-
0
3

6
.
6
0
E
-
0
4

2
.
0
3
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
9
6
E
-
0
3

8
.
7
7
E
-
0
5

7
.
8
4
E
-
0
4

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
8
7
E
-
0
3

1
.
2
3
E
-
0
4

7
.
5
5
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
3.
1
3
E
-
0
4

8
.
0
7
E
-
0
5

2
.
3
7
E
-
0
4

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
3.
3
7
E
-
0
4

3
.
0
1
E
-
0
6

1
.
9
9
E
-
0
4
De
e
p
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Al
l

u
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

w
e
l
l
s
LA
R
W
Cl
a
s
s

A
Cl
a
s
s

A

N
o
r
t
h
11
e
.
(
2
)
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e
B-
3
-
3
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
AR
E
A

W
a
t
e
r

T
y
p
e

M
A
X
I
M
U
M

M
I
N
I
M
U
M
AV
E
R
A
G
E

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T

L
I
M
I
T

Y
E
S
/
N
O
Fr
e
s
h
4.
7
3
E
-
0
3

1
.
7
1
E
-
0
5

9
.
9
6
E
-
0
4

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
5.
0
0
E
-
0
3

4
.
2
6
E
-
0
6

1
.
0
8
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
2.
0
0
E
-
0
3

8
.
5
5
E
-
0
4

1
.
4
1
E
-
0
3

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

N
O
Sa
l
t
2.
3
0
E
-
0
3

8
.
2
2
E
-
0
4

1
.
3
6
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
6
1
E
-
0
3

1
.
7
2
E
-
0
4

8
.
6
3
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
6
9
E
-
0
3

1
.
6
2
E
-
0
4

8
.
3
3
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
1.
5
9
E
-
0
3

2
.
5
2
E
-
0
4

7
.
7
0
E
-
0
4

1
.
0
0
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
6
8
E
-
0
3

8
.
9
1
E
-
0
5

7
.
5
2
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
2.
7
7
E
-
0
3

8
.
2
5
E
-
0
4

1
.
8
4
E
-
0
3

3
.
2
9
E
-
0
3

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
2.
8
7
E
-
0
3

8
.
2
4
E
-
0
4

1
.
8
5
E
-
0
3
Fr
e
s
h
1.
1
1
E
-
0
3

1
.
7
6
E
-
0
4

7
.
3
0
E
-
0
4

9
.
6
7
E
-
0
4

Y
E
S
Sa
l
t
1.
2
1
E
-
0
3

2
.
7
4
E
-
0
4

7
.
0
8
E
-
0
4
Fr
e
s
h
3.
6
5
E
-
0
4

8
.
0
1
E
-
0
5

2
.
6
0
E
-
0
4

N
A

N
A
Sa
l
t
2.
4
7
E
-
0
4

1
.
6
3
E
-
0
6

1
.
5
7
E
-
0
4
De
e
p
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
Al
l

u
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

w
e
l
l
s
LA
R
W
Cl
a
s
s

A
Cl
a
s
s

A

N
o
r
t
h
11
e
.
(
2
)
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e
B-
3
-
4
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual February 2021
Groundwater Monitoring Report

APPENDIX C

GROUNDWATER, EVAPORATION POND, MIXED WASTE
LEACHATE, AND COLLECTION LYSIMETER
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES

TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
We
l
l

I
D
:
GW
-
1
6
R

G
W
-
1
6
R

G
W
-
1
9
A

G
W
-
1
9
A

G
W
-
2
0

G
W
-
2
0

G
W
-
2
2

G
W
-
2
2

G
W
-
2
3

G
W
-
2
3

G
W
-
2
4

G
W
-
2
4
G
W
-
2
4

D
u
p
.
Da
t
e
:
GW
P
L

6
/
2
9
/
2
0
La
b
:
AW
A
L

G
W
P
L

A
W
A
L

G
W
P
L

A
W
A
L

A
W
A
L

A
W
A
L

G
W
P
L

A
W
A
L

A
W
A
L
20
0
6
8
0
2

2
0
0
6
7
4
8

2
0
0
6
6
5
4

2
0
0
6
8
0
2

2
0
0
6
8
0
2

2
0
0
5
2
1
7

2
0
0
5
2
1
7
GW
-
3
2
9
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
0
1
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
1
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
7
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
8

7
.
3
8
4,
2
8
1
.
1
2
4,
2
4
8
.
9
4
4,
2
7
0
.
7
9
4,
2
5
3
.
9
8
4,
2
7
6
.
6
0
4,
2
5
1
.
2
1
4,
2
7
7
.
2
5
4,2
4
9
.
2
9
4,
2
7
6
.
6
3
4,
2
4
9
.
7
3
4,
2
7
6
.
6
9
4,
2
5
0
.
4
4

4
,
2
5
4
.
8
7
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e

1
2
.
5

6
.
3
6

9
.
3
6

7
.
6
5

6
.
3
2

5
.
7
6

5
.
6
2

2
.
5
%
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
2
,
2
0
0

2
0
,
9
0
0

2
5
,
0
0
0

1
8
,
2
0
0

1
9
,
2
0
0

1
4
,
5
0
0

1
5
,
4
0
0

6
.
0
%
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
,
1
2
0

6
,
3
0
0

4
,
3
2
0

3
,
6
0
0

3
,
9
6
0

3
,
0
9
0

3
,
0
7
0

0
.
6
%
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e

3
2
8

1
3
0
.
0

1
9
2

2
4
0

2
2
4

2
5
2

2
5
0

0
.
8
%
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

4
1
5

8
0
3

5
0
9

4
1
1

4
0
8

2
6
5

2
6
6

0
.
4
%
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m

5
6
7

8
5
8

7
6
3

5
8
1

5
8
7

4
1
1

4
1
6

1
.
2
%
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m

5
1
1

4
0
9

5
5
6

4
7
0

4
8
1

3
8
1

3
8
6

1
.
3
%
So
d
i
u
m

1
5
,
5
0
0

1
5
,
8
0
0

1
7
,
6
0
0

1
4
,
2
0
0

1
5
,
5
0
0

1
2
,
5
0
0

1
2
,
4
0
0

0
.
8
%
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
0.
0
6
3
4
0.
0
5
5
3

0
.
0
5
6
2

1
.
6
%
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)

3
5
,
2
0
0

4
2
,
6
0
0

J

4
5
,
1
0
0

3
4
,
0
0
0

4
8
,
5
0
0

3
0
,
2
0
0

3
1
,
0
0
0

2
.
6
%
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)

6
7
3

7
2
0
.
6

7
9
6

5
9
0

6
2
8

4
7
6

5
0
1

5
.
1
%
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)

7
5
5

8
0
8
.
4

8
6
8

6
9
8

7
5
5

6
0
1

5
9
7

0
.
6
%
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
10
%
5.
7
%
10
%
5.
7
%
10
%
4.
4
%
10
%
8.
4
%
10
%
9.
2
%
10
%
11
.
6
%

8
.
7
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
We
l
l

I
D
:
GW
-
1
6
R

G
W
-
1
6
R

G
W
-
1
9
A

G
W
-
1
9
A

G
W
-
2
0

G
W
-
2
0

G
W
-
2
2

G
W
-
2
2

G
W
-
2
3

G
W
-
2
3

G
W
-
2
4

G
W
-
2
4
G
W
-
2
4

D
u
p
.
Da
t
e
:
GW
P
L

6
/
2
9
/
2
0
La
b
:
AW
A
L

G
W
P
L

A
W
A
L

G
W
P
L

A
W
A
L

A
W
A
L

A
W
A
L

G
W
P
L

A
W
A
L

A
W
A
L
20
0
6
8
0
2

2
0
0
6
7
4
8

2
0
0
6
6
5
4

2
0
0
6
8
0
2

2
0
0
6
8
0
2

2
0
0
5
2
1
7

2
0
0
5
2
1
7
GW
-
3
2
9
An
a
l
y
t
e
Se
m
i
-
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e

-
-
10
< 9
.
6
8
10
<
9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-
10
<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e

-
-
10
< 9
.
6
8
10
<
9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-
10
<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e

-
-

<

9
.
6
8

<

9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e

-
-
10
< 9
.
6
8
10
<
9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-
10
<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e

-
-
10
< 9
.
6
8
10
<
9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-
10
<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e

-
-

<

9
.
6
8

<

9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

-
-
5,
0
0
0
< 9
.
6
8
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-
5,
0
0
0
<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e

-
-
4
< 4
.
0
0
4
<
4
.
0
0

-
-

-
-
4
<

4
.
0
0

<

4
.
0
0
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e

-
-
20
< 9
.
6
8
20
<
9
.
6
4

-
-

-
-
20
<

9
.
5
8

<

9
.
6
6
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e

-
-
2
<
0
.
1
9
0
2
<
0
.
2
0
0

-
-

-
-
2
<
0
.
2
0
4

<

0
.
2
0
0
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
GW
-
2
5

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
6

D
u
p
.

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
6

D
u
p
.

G
W
-
2
7

G
W
-
2
7

G
W
-
2
8

G
W
-
2
8

G
W
-
29
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.1
2
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
2

7
.
4
2

7
.
3
7

7
.
3
7
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
9
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.3
7
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
4
13
.
0
2

1
3
.
2
0

1
3
.
2
0

1
3
.
2
2

1
3
.
2
2

1
3
.
2
9

1
3
.
3
8

1
3
.
9
1
73
.
9

7
3
.
6

7
3
.
6

7
4
.
4

7
4
.
4

7
3
.
2

7
2
.
5

3
7
.
6
-5
0

1
1
5

1
1
5

1
7
3

1
7
3

1
6
1

1
6
9

1
4
2
25
.
3
7

2
3
.
4
6

2
3
.
4
6

2
3
.
4
7

2
3
.
4
7

2
1
.
5
4

1
9
.
0
0

2
4
.
3
2
0.6
9

1
.
6
8

1
.
6
8

1
.
4
5

1
.
4
5

1
.
2
9

1
.
0
5

0
.
6
5
4,
2
7
6
.
2
4
4,
2
5
0
.
8
7
4,
2
7
4
.
6
7
4,
2
5
1
.
2
1

4
,
2
5
1
.
2
1

4
,
2
5
1
.
2
0

4
,
2
5
1
.
2
0
4,2
7
2
.
4
3
4,
2
5
0
.
8
9
4,
2
7
1
.
2
6
4,
2
5
2
.
2
6
4,
2
7
6
.
3
2
4,
2
5
2
.
0
0
9.9
4

-
-

-
-

9
.
3
0

-
-

4
.
9

5
.
0
6

J

3
.
8
1
27
,
6
0
0

-
-

-
-

2
6
,
2
0
0

-
-

2
4
,
4
0
0

2
5
,
0
0
0

1
1
,
6
0
0
4,
8
9
0

-
-

-
-

6
,
3
4
0

-
-

5
,
5
8
0

4
,
7
3
0

2
,
5
7
0
20
2

-
-

-
-

1
0
4

-
-

1
5
2

1
4
0

2
9
2
<
1
0
.
0

-
-

-
-

<

1
0
.
0

-
-

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
57
9

-
-

-
-

6
7
6

-
-

6
6
0

5
4
1

1
9
4
95
9

-
-

-
-

1
,
0
3
0

-
-

1
,
0
4
0

8
6
2

2
7
1
61
9

-
-

-
-

5
5
5

-
-

5
9
9

5
9
2

2
7
4
18
,
4
0
0

-
-

-
-

1
8
,
4
0
0

-
-

1
9
,
0
0
0

1
8
,
0
0
0

8
,
4
7
0
0.
2
3
7

-
-

-
-

<

0
.
1
0
0

-
-

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-
0.
0
0
2
5
5
<
0
.
0
0
2
0
0

0
.
0
0
2
0
7

<

0
.
0
0
2
0
0

<

0
.
0
0
2
0
0

-
-

-
-

-
-
45
,
3
0
0

-
-

-
-

4
9
,
5
0
0

-
-

5
1
,
2
0
0

4
9
,
2
0
0

2
4
,
7
0
0
88
1

-
-

-
-

8
7
0

-
-

8
0
4

8
0
3

3
8
4
92
4

-
-

-
-

9
3
3

-
-

9
6
0

8
9
6

4
0
7
10
%
2.
4
%
10
%
-
-

-
-

3
.
5
%

-
-
10
%
8.
8
%
10
%
5.
5
%
10
%
2.
9
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
GW
-
2
5

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
6

D
u
p
.

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
6

D
u
p
.

G
W
-
2
7

G
W
-
2
7

G
W
-
2
8

G
W
-
2
8

G
W
-
29
10
<
9
.
6
1
10
-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
10
<
9
.
7
4
10
<
9
.
6
3
10
<
9
.
6
1
10
-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
10
<
9
.
7
4
10
<
9
.
6
3
<
9
.
6
1

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-

<

9
.
8
4

<

9
.
7
4
10
<
9
.
6
1
10
-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
10
<
9
.
7
4
10
<
9
.
6
3
10
<
9
.
6
1
10
-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
10
<
9
.
7
4
10
<
9
.
6
3
<
9
.
6
1

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-

<

9
.
8
4

<

9
.
7
4
50
0
0
<
9
.
6
1
50
0
0
-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
8
4
5,0
0
0
<
9
.
7
4
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
6
3
4
<
4
.
0
0
4
-
-

-
-

<

4
.
0
0

-
-
4
<
4
.
0
0
4
<
4
.
0
0
4
<
4
.
0
0
20
<
9
.
6
1
20
-
-

-
-

<

9
.
6
3

-
-
20
<
9
.
8
4
20
<
9
.
7
4
20
<
9
.
6
3
<
0
.
2
0
0
2
-
-

-
-

<

0
.
2
0
0

-
-
2
<
0
.
2
0
3
2
<
0
.
2
0
6
2
<
0
.
2
0
0
<

-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J

-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
--

-

N
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
5
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
GW
-
3
6

G
W
-
5
6
R

G
W
-
5
6
R

G
W
-
5
6
R

D
u
p
.

G
W
-
5
7

G
W
-
5
7

G
W
-
5
8

G
W
-
5
8

G
W
-
6
0

G
W
-
6
0

G
W
-
6
3
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
6
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
1
7

7
.
1
7
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.2
3
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
8.
1
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
9
7
12
.
6
1

1
2
.
8
9

1
2
.
8
9

1
2
.
6
6

1
3
.
8
0

1
1
.
0
9

1
3
.
8
9
69
.
9

6
3
.
3

6
3
.
3

6
9
.
4

8
1
.
4

6
.
7
8

2
1
.
6
14
7

1
8
8

1
8
8

1
8
5

1
7
4

4
9

1
4
1
18
.
2
2

2
9
.
9
7

2
9
.
9
7

2
0
.
4
8

1
7
.
9
1

1
9
.
9
5

1
6
.
8
9
1.
1
5

0
.
5
9

0
.
5
9

0
.
8
4

1
.
3
1

1
.
1
0

1
.
8
7
4,
2
7
2
.
0
9
42
5
3
.
8
7
4,
2
7
9
.
1
9
4,
2
4
9
.
2
2

4
,
2
4
9
.
2
2
4,
2
7
1
.
8
8
4,
2
5
1
.
4
0
4,
2
7
1
.
3
8
4,
2
5
3
.
4
7
4,
2
7
4
.
7
9
4,
2
5
4
.
8
4
4,
2
7
2
.
0
4
4,
2
5
5
.
1
5
4.
6
4

J

4
.
9
8

J

4
.
3
7

J

1
3
.
0
%

4
.
9
0

J

4
.
6
1

J

<

0
.
5
0
0

1
.
8
4
24
,
6
0
0

2
3
,
0
0
0

2
1
,
0
0
0

9
.
1
%

2
2
,
7
0
0

2
7
,
2
0
0

1
,
6
4
0

5
,
5
0
0
4,
1
4
0

2
,
7
7
0

2
,
4
4
0

1
2
.
7
%

5
,
6
5
0

5
,
4
0
0

5
5
9

1
,
8
6
0
13
0

2
7
2

2
7
4

0
.
7
%

1
1
6

1
1
2

2
6
2

2
3
2
<
1
0
.
0

<

1
0

<

1
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
57
2

4
1
5

4
0
7

1
.
9
%

7
5
5

7
3
7

1
9
.
4

8
8
.
3
80
7

5
7
8

5
6
6

2
.
1
%

8
5
7

1
,
0
4
0

1
8
.
5

1
3
0
55
3

5
6
4

5
5
1

2
.
3
%

5
2
5

6
3
8

4
3
.
0

1
5
3
17
,
4
0
0

1
5
,
6
0
0

1
5
,
1
0
0

3
.
3
%

1
6
,
1
0
0

2
1
,
5
0
0

1
,
4
6
0

4
,
9
7
0
<
0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
41
,
9
0
0

J

4
1
,
4
0
0

3
8
,
3
0
0

7
.
8
%

4
7
,
7
0
0

6
2
,
3
0
0

4
,
1
0
0

J

1
2
,
6
0
0

J
78
0

7
0
8

6
4
5

9
.
3
%

7
5
7

8
7
9

6
2

1
9
7
86
6

7
6
1

7
3
8

3
.
1
%

8
2
2

1
0
7
4

6
7

2
3
5
10
%
5.
3
%
10
%
3.
6
%

6
.
7
%
10
%
4.
1
%
10
%
10
.
0
%
10
%
3.9
4
%
10
%
8.8
2
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
6
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
GW
-
3
6

G
W
-
5
6
R

G
W
-
5
6
R

G
W
-
5
6
R

D
u
p
.

G
W
-
5
7

G
W
-
5
7

G
W
-
5
8

G
W
-
5
8

G
W
-
6
0

G
W
-
6
0

G
W
-
6
3
10
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
9
0
10
< 9
.
7
7
10
<
9
.
6
0
10
<
9
.
7
7
10
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
9
0
10
< 9
.
7
7
10
<
9
.
6
0
10
<
9
.
7
7
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
9
0

<

9
.
7
7

<

9
.
6
0
10
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
9
0
10
< 9
.
7
7
10
<
9
.
6
0
10
<
9
.
7
7
10
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
9
0
10
< 9
.
7
7
10
<
9
.
6
0
10
<
9
.
7
7
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
9
0

<

9
.
7
7

<

9
.
6
0
5,0
0
0
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
9
0
5,
0
0
0
< 9
.
7
7
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
6
0
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
7
7
4
<
4
.
0
0

-
-

-
-
4
<
4
.
0
0
4
< 4
.
0
0
4
<
4
.
0
0
4
<
4
.
0
0
20
<
9
.
5
8

-
-

-
-
20
<
9
.
9
0
20
< 9
.
7
7
20
<
9
.
6
0
20
<
9
.
7
7
<
0
.
2
0
0

-
-

-
-
2
<
0
.
2
0
0
2
<
0
.
2
0
0
2
<
0
.
1
9
3
2
<
0
.
1
9
0
<

-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J

-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
--

-

N
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
7
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.2
2
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
3
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.2
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
5
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
3
6.5
-
8
.
5
7.
0
8
13
.
5
9

1
4
.
9
1

1
3
.
6
6

1
3
.
5
9

1
3
.
3
2

1
2
.
8
7
72
.
1

5
6
.
2

7
1
.
5

6
4
.
6

6
8
.
8

5
7
.
6
14
2

1
0
2

1
5
2

1
6
1

1
6
5

1
0
6
29
.
1
6

3
1
.
9
7

3
3
.
0
3

3
0
.
1
2

2
9
.
7
3

2
8
.
9
7
0.5
3

1
.
3
5

0
.
7
9

1
.
2
5

1
.
3
6

1
.
2
3
4,
2
7
8
.
9
6
4,
2
4
9
.
8
0
4,
2
8
1
.
7
7
4,
2
4
9
.
8
0
4,
2
8
2
.
9
6
4,
2
4
9
.
9
3
4,
2
7
9
.
5
8
4,2
4
9
.
4
6
4,
2
7
9
.
3
5
4,
2
4
9
.
6
2
4,
2
7
8
.
7
6
4,
2
4
9
.
7
9
4.7
9

1
0
.
4

4
.
2
3

3
.
1
9

J

4
.
3
0

J

4
.
1
2

J
27
,
4
0
0

1
9
,
1
0
0

2
5
,
7
0
0

2
1
,
9
0
0

2
3
,
8
0
0

1
8
,
3
0
0
3,
1
3
0

1
,
7
7
0

3
,
6
8
0

3
,
0
8
0

2
,
8
1
0

2
,
1
7
0
19
2

2
7
2

2
0
0

1
8
0

2
0
0

2
5
6
<
1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
48
9

3
7
3

4
8
6

4
4
1

4
8
8

4
8
3
71
3

5
1
2

7
4
5

6
6
5

7
2
4

6
1
0
50
8

4
8
6

5
3
2

5
5
4

6
1
8

5
5
7
17
,
7
0
0

1
2
,
7
0
0

1
7
,
6
0
0

1
4
,
7
0
0

1
7
,
0
0
0

1
3
,
3
0
0
<
0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
47
,
0
0
0

4
2
,
5
0
0

4
6
,
2
0
0

3
8
,
2
0
0

4
1
,
9
0
0

3
3
,
0
0
0

J
83
8

5
7
8

8
0
2

6
8
2

7
3
1

5
6
5
86
6

6
2
6

8
6
5

7
3
0

8
3
9

6
6
7
10
%
1.
6
%
10
%
4.
0
%
10
%
3.
8
%
10
%
3.
4
%
10
%
6.
9
%
10
%
8.
2
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
8
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
9
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
8

7
.
3
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
8.
1
3
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
7
6.5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
9
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.3
1
13
.
3
5

1
3
.
3
5

1
3
.
1
6

1
2
.
9
8

1
3
.
3
6

1
2
.
3
3

1
3
.
1
4
61
.
9

6
1
.
9

9
.
5
5

7
6
.
1

7
5
.
0

7
1
.
5

9
1
.
7
12
0

1
2
0

8
4

1
5
9

1
6
7

1
9
6

9
4
28
.
6
3

2
8
.
6
3

2
8
.
5
3

2
7
.
2
8

2
5
.
5
1

2
3
.
7
2

2
2
.
9
7
1.
2
5

1
.
2
5

1
.
5
4

1
.
2
3

1
.
4
6

1
.
2
0

1
.
3
7
4,
2
7
8
.
4
8
4,
2
4
9
.
8
5

4
,
2
4
9
.
8
5
4,
2
7
9
.
0
5
4,
2
5
0
.
5
2
4,
2
7
7
.
8
6
4,
2
5
0
.
5
8
4,
2
7
6
.
5
5
4,
2
5
1
.
0
4
4,
2
7
4
.
6
3
4,
2
5
0
.
9
1
4,
2
7
3
.
7
1
4,
2
5
0
.
7
4
6.
7
2

7
.
3
7

9
.
2
%

<

0
.
5
0
0

J

3
.
7
3

J

3
.
0
6

J

4
.
7
3

J

7
.
1
6
20
,
6
0
0

2
1
,
2
0
0

2
.
9
%

3
,
1
4
0

2
6
,
6
0
0

2
5
,
9
0
0

2
4
,
5
0
0

3
5
,
1
0
0
3,
1
2
0

3
,
1
1
0

0
.
3
%

8
7
7

4
,
7
1
0

5
,
1
2
0

6
,
2
7
0

6
,
9
7
0
16
0

1
6
0

0
.
0
%

4
0
4

1
8
6

1
1
4

1
2
0

1
0
6
< 1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
41
4

4
1
8

1
.
0
%

2
6
.
4

5
2
0

7
0
9

8
3
3

1
,
0
0
0
55
4

5
6
3

1
.
6
%

3
1
.
9

8
2
3

1
,
0
2
0

1
,
1
0
0

1
,
3
2
0
48
9

4
7
6

2
.
7
%

1
0
5

7
6
2

7
1
9

5
7
6

7
2
5
14
,
1
0
0

1
4
,
6
0
0

3
.
5
%

2
,
4
4
0

2
0
,
4
0
0

1
8
,
6
0
0

1
7
,
0
0
0

2
1
,
6
0
0
<
0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

0
.
1
4
9

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
41
,
6
0
0

4
3
,
0
0
0

3
.
3
%

7
,
0
2
0

J

4
7
,
0
0
0

J

5
0
,
0
0
0

J

5
0
,
1
0
0

6
0
,
4
0
0

64
9

6
6
5

2
.
5
%

1
1
3

8
5
1

8
3
9

8
2
1

1
1
3
7
69
2

7
1
4

3
.
2
%

1
1
3

1
0
0
0

9
4
6

8
8
6

1
1
1
6
10
%
3.
2
%

3
.
5
%
10
%
0.
3
%
10
%
8.
0
%
10
%
6.
0
%
10
%
3.
8
%
10
%
0.
9
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
0
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
1
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.4
2
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
8
6.5
-
8
.
5
7.
1
5
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
9
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
7
13
.
5
2

1
3
.
7
6

1
3
.
7
5

1
4
.
5
6

1
4
.
3
6

1
4
.
5
1

1
3
.
3
2
59
.
9

6
4
.
3

6
5
.
5

6
3
.
5

7
1
.
5

6
3
.
5

6
7
.
7
16
6

1
1
6

1
3
6

1
4
0

1
2
2

1
4
3

1
4
5
23
.
7
5

2
4
.
8
2

2
5
.
3
0

2
6
.
8
4

2
8
.
0
8

2
8
.
9
2

2
6
.
0
1
1.
2
5

1
.
3
7

1
.
6
6

1
.
2
8

0
.
6
9

1
.
4
8

1
.
4
0
4,
2
7
4
.
3
7
4,
2
5
0
.
6
2
4,
2
7
5
.
0
3
42
5
0
.
2
1
4,
2
7
5
.
4
7
4,
2
5
0
.
1
7
4,2
7
8
.
3
0
4,
2
5
1
.
4
6
4,
2
7
8
.
7
4
4,
2
5
0
.
6
6
4,
2
7
9
.
2
2
4,
2
5
0
.
3
0
4,
2
7
6
.
1
8
4,
2
5
0
.
1
7
6
.
1
2

6
.
3
7

7
.
5
0

6
.
9
6

9
.
3
2

1
0
.
8

6
.
9
8
23
,
1
0
0

2
9
,
9
0
0

3
0
,
1
0
0

2
1
,
5
0
0

2
5
,
3
0
0

2
4
,
4
0
0

2
9
,
4
0
0
3,
1
5
0

3
,
7
0
0

4
,
0
1
0

4
,
9
4
0

3
,
3
6
0

3
,
7
1
0

3
,
6
2
0
12
6

1
1
4

1
1
4

2
5
6

2
2
6

2
1
2

1
0
2
< 1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
51
8

5
2
2

5
2
4

4
7
9

4
6
4

3
9
3

4
8
1

67
4

7
4
8

7
8
8

7
3
8

7
5
9

6
8
7

7
2
8
50
3

5
4
7

5
5
2

5
4
3

5
9
3

5
1
9

5
6
0
12
,
9
0
0

1
3
,
8
0
0

1
4
,
4
0
0

1
6
,
0
0
0

1
7
,
5
0
0

1
4
,
2
0
0

1
5
,
8
0
0
<
0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-
0.
0
5
8
0.0
4
3
9

-
-

-
-

-
-
0.
0
0
4
2
2
0.
0
0
2
8
9

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
38
,
3
0
0

4
1
,
7
0
0

4
5
,
4
0
0

J

4
1
,
8
0
0

5
0
,
9
0
0

3
6
,
6
0
0

J

4
5
,
1
0
0

J
71
9

9
1
9

9
3
1

7
1
1

7
8
4
.
6

7
6
6

9
0
6
65
5

7
0
2

7
3
2

7
9
5

8
6
2
.
0

7
0
7

7
8
5
10
%
4.
7
%
10
%
13
.
4
%
10
%
12
.
0
%
10
%
5.
5
%
10
%
4.
7
%
10
%
4.
0
%
10
%
7.
2
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
2
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
3
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
GW
-
1
0
7

G
W
-
1
0
8

G
W
-
1
0
8

G
W
-
1
0
9

G
W
-
1
0
9

G
W
-
1
1
0

G
W
-
1
1
0

G
W
-
1
1
1

G
W
-
1
1
1

G
W
-
1
1
2

G
W
-
11
2

G
W
-
1
2
6
5/
1
9
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

5
/
1
9
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
5
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
1
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
0
6.5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
2
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.2
5
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
1
8
13
.
9
3

1
4
.
3
7

1
4
.
2
1

1
4
.
1
6

1
4
.
4
8

1
3
.
1
5

1
3
.
2
5
51
.
0

6
8
.
8

6
5
.
6

6
2
.
5

5
6
.
1

7
2
.
7

6
7
.
6
59

1
1
7

1
4
1

8

-
8
1

1
4
8

1
6
1
25
.
7
1

2
5
.
4
3

2
6
.
0
6

2
6
.
5
5

2
6
.
9
3

2
7
.
8
9

2
8
.
4
1
1.
1
9

1
.
1
1

1
.
3
7

0
.
5
8

0
.
2
0

0
.
4
4

0
.
7
2
4,
2
7
6
.
2
6
4,
2
5
0
.
5
5
4,
2
7
5
.
9
6
4,
2
5
0
.
5
3
4,
2
7
6
.
4
6
4,
2
5
0
.
4
0
4,
2
7
6
.
7
2
4,
2
5
0
.
1
7
4,
2
7
7
.
0
7
4,
2
5
0
.
1
4
4,
2
7
7
.
4
0
4,
2
4
9
.
5
1
4,
2
7
9
.
0
8
4,
2
5
0
.
6
7
3.
7
7

5
.
9
9

3
.
5
2

J

3
.
8
0

J

4
.
7
8

J

4
.
7
2

J

4
.
6
8

J
17
,
2
0
0

2
9
,
0
0
0

2
4
,
0
0
0

2
3
,
0
0
0

1
9
,
0
0
0

2
6
,
1
0
0

2
1
,
5
0
0
3,
2
0
0

3
,
8
1
0

3
,
7
1
0

3
,
3
5
0

2
,
8
7
0

3
,
9
5
0

3
,
7
5
0
15
6

1
2
0

1
1
6

1
4
0

1
5
0

1
9
2

1
7
2
<
1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
38
6

5
3
9

4
7
2

4
5
6

4
1
1

4
9
8

5
0
6
56
0

7
5
2

6
5
8

6
8
4

6
2
5

8
1
8

7
3
8
37
1

5
3
4

5
2
7

5
9
2

5
2
2

6
3
6

5
4
8
13
,
0
0
0

1
5
,
5
0
0

1
5
,
2
0
0

1
4
,
5
0
0

1
3
,
0
0
0

1
7
,
6
0
0

1
5
,
0
0
0
< 0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

0
.
1
0
1

<

0
.
1
0
0

0
.
4
5
7

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
26
,
7
0
0

J

4
6
,
6
0
0

J

4
0
,
2
0
0

4
0
,
7
0
0

3
3
,
4
0
0

4
8
,
4
0
0

4
2
,
4
0
0

J
55
3

8
9
6

7
5
6

7
2
1

5
9
8

8
2
1

6
8
5
64
0

7
7
7

7
5
2

7
2
5

6
5
1

8
7
4

7
5
2
10
%
7.
3
%
10
%
7.
1
%
10
%
0.
3
%
10
%
0.
3
%
10
%
4.
2
%
10
%
3.
1
%
10
%
4.
7
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
4
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
GW
-
1
0
7

G
W
-
1
0
8

G
W
-
1
0
8

G
W
-
1
0
9

G
W
-
1
0
9

G
W
-
1
1
0

G
W
-
1
1
0

G
W
-
1
1
1

G
W
-
1
1
1

G
W
-
1
1
2

G
W
-
11
2

G
W
-
1
2
6
5/
1
9
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

5
/
1
9
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0

G
W
P
L

6
/
4
/
2
0
10
<
9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

<

9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
5,
0
0
0
<
9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
4
<
4
.
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
20
<
9
.
8
4
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
2
<
0
.
2
0
0
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
5
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
GW
-
1
2
7

G
W
-
1
2
8

G
W
-
1
2
8

G
W
-
1
2
9

G
W
-
1
2
9

G
W
-
1
3
7

G
W
-
1
3
7

G
W
-
1
3
8

G
W
-
1
3
8

G
W
-
1
3
9

G
W
-
13
9

G
W
-
1
4
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.3
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
3
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
8
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
1
9
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
1
7
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
1
5
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
6
13
.
1
5

1
3
.
9
7

1
4
.
2
6

1
3
.
2
5

1
3
.
5
2

1
4
.
0
7

1
4
.
1
2
60
.
3

7
5
.
6

6
3
.
7

6
7
.
3

7
6
.
8

7
1
.
8

7
2
.
9
14
8

1
6
5

6
2

5
4

1
3
8

2
0
8

1
0
7
26
.
7
1

3
3
.
3
3

3
3
.
3
1

2
9
.
1
7

3
0
.
4
0

3
4
.
0
8

3
1
.
8
7
1.0
7

0
.
6
2

0
.
9
7

0
.
3
1

1
.
0
3

0
.
5
3

1
.
0
9
4,2
7
8
.
3
6
4,
2
5
1
.
6
5
4,
2
8
2
.
6
2
4,
2
4
9
.
2
9
4,
2
8
3
.
5
5
4,
2
5
0
.
2
4
4,
2
7
8
.
4
3
4,
2
4
9
.
2
6
4,
2
7
9
.
4
2
4,
2
4
9
.
0
2
4,
2
8
2
.
9
2
4,
2
4
8
.
8
4
4,
2
8
0
.
8
8
4,2
4
9
.
0
1
3.
4
6

J

5
.
1
5

7
.
2
3

9
.
2
7

1
0
.
1

4
.
9
4

J

7
.
9
6
18
,
6
0
0

2
7
,
9
0
0

2
0
,
3
0
0

2
2
,
2
0
0

2
5
,
4
0
0

2
6
,
2
0
0

2
8
,
5
0
0
4,
3
2
0

3
,
2
6
0

3
,
0
6
0

3
,
7
5
0

4
,
2
8
0

3
,
7
6
0

3
,
9
1
0
17
2

2
2
4

1
3
0

1
8
0

1
8
4

1
9
6

1
9
2
<
1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
43
0

5
4
6

4
0
6

4
6
4

5
7
8

4
8
4

4
9
1
65
0

7
3
0

5
8
2

7
4
9

8
9
6

8
1
5

8
1
4
48
2

5
9
1

5
0
9

5
6
5

6
1
6

5
8
5

6
6
0
15
,
4
0
0

1
8
,
8
0
0

1
5
,
0
0
0

1
5
,
5
0
0

1
7
,
4
0
0

1
6
,
3
0
0

1
8
,
2
0
0
<
0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

0
.
1
0
9

<

0
.
1
0
0
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
0.
0
6
9
5
0.
0
4
6
9

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
43
,
1
0
0

J

4
9
,
9
0
0

3
1
,
7
0
0

3
6
,
6
0
0

3
8
,
1
0
0

4
4
,
4
0
0

4
6
,
6
0
0
61
5

8
5
6

6
3
6

7
0
5

8
0
6

8
1
8

8
8
5
75
7

9
2
0

7
3
4

7
7
3

8
7
5

8
1
5

9
0
0
10
%
10
.
3
%
10
%
3.
6
%
10
%
7.
1
%
10
%
4.
6
%
10
%
4.
1
%
10
%
0.
2
%
10
%
0.
8
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
6
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
GW
-
1
2
7

G
W
-
1
2
8

G
W
-
1
2
8

G
W
-
1
2
9

G
W
-
1
2
9

G
W
-
1
3
7

G
W
-
1
3
7

G
W
-
1
3
8

G
W
-
1
3
8

G
W
-
1
3
9

G
W
-
13
9

G
W
-
1
4
0
10
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
10
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
50
0
0
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
4
<
4
.
0
0

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
20
<
9
.
8
3

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
2
<
0
.
2
0
0

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
7
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
So
d
i
u
m
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
TD
S

(
m
g
/
L
)
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.3
1

7
.
3
1
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
4
2
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
3
0
6.
5
-
8
.
5
7.
2
5
13
.
8
1

1
3
.
8
1

1
4
.
0
7

1
6
.
2
9

1
4
.
1
0
73
.
8

7
3
.
8

4
1
.
5

7
5
.
1

4
6
.
6
14
4

1
4
4

1
6
9

1
6
5

1
5
0
31
.
1
2

3
1
.
1
2

3
6
.
3
4

3
2
.
6
3

3
3
.
5
7
1.1
1

1
.
1
1

0
.
4
7

1
.
0
7

1
.
0
7
4,2
8
0
.
1
9
4,
2
4
9
.
0
7

4
,
2
4
9
.
0
7
4,
2
8
5
.
2
0
4,
2
4
8
.
8
6
4,
2
8
0
.
2
5
4,2
4
7
.
6
2
4,
2
8
2
.
0
2
42
4
8
.
4
5
10
.
6

1
0
.
5

0
.
9
%

4
.
1
9

J

1
2
.
5

4
.
4
9

J
24
,
2
0
0

2
3
,
6
0
0

2
.
5
%

1
3
,
2
0
0

2
6
,
6
0
0

1
4
,
5
0
0
4,
0
5
0

4
,
2
1
0

3
.
9
%

8
6
4

2
,
8
9
0

9
8
0
16
0

1
6
0

0
.
0
%

2
0
2

2
3
6

3
0
4
<
1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0
51
5

5
1
9

0
.
8
%

2
7
4

4
2
4

3
0
4
81
8

8
2
8

1
.
2
%

3
2
4

6
4
5

3
5
4
58
5

5
9
4

1
.
5
%

3
6
0

5
3
0

3
9
9
16
,
5
0
0

1
8
,
3
0
0

1
0
.
3
%

9
,
2
9
0

1
8
,
6
0
0

1
0
,
9
0
0
<
0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0

<

0
.
1
0
0
0.
0
7
0
5
0.
0
5
4
2

0
.
0
5
4
2

0
.
0
%

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
49
,
6
0
0

4
2
,
5
0
0

1
5
.
4
%

2
4
,
1
0
0

4
7
,
5
0
0

2
7
,
1
0
0

76
7

7
5
3

1
.
8
%

3
9
2

8
1
4

4
3
3
82
6

9
0
5

9
.
2
%

4
5
4

8
9
6

5
2
9
10

%
3.
7
%

9
.
2
%
10
%
7.
3
%
10
%
4.
8
%
10
%
9.
9
7
%
TA
B
L
E

C
-
1
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
8
PP
Be
n
z
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
1
9
GW
-
1
6
R

G
W
-
1
9
A

G
W
-
2
0

G
W
-
2
2

G
W
-
2
3
Da
t
e
:
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
La
b
:
La
b

S
e
t

#
:
An
a
l
y
t
e
Ra
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
s

(
p
C
i
/
L
)
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a

4
5
1

+
72
.
0

3
2
2

+
61
.
8

3
2
7

+
70
.
8

3
4
8

+
56
.
2

3
6
5

+
59
.
9
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
6

+
7.
4
6
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
7

+
7.
6
1
3,
2
0
0
< 1
2
.
5

+
7.4
1
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
3

+
7.
2
6
3,2
0
0
<
1
2
.
5

+
7.4
5
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
21
<
0
.
8
7
0

+
0.
4
8
7
21
<
0
.
8
8
0

+
0.
4
9
8
21
<
0
.
8
4
6

+
0.4
8
6
21
<
0
.
8
7
3

+
0.
4
9
8
21
<
1
.
0
4

+
0.5
9
6
Np
-
2
3
7
7
<
0
.
1
6
2

+
0.
0
6
9
7
7
<
0
.
1
2
2

+
0.
0
6
7
9
7
<
0
.
1
1
9

+
0.0
6
6
0
7
<
0
.
1
7
3

+
0.
0
7
7
6
7
<
0
.
1
0
4

+
0.0
4
7
2
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6

0
.
9
8
4

+
0.
3
3
0

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
8
5

1
.
6
5

+
0.3
7
3

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
3
1

0
.
7
2
2

+
0.2
9
2
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8

1
.
4
2

+
0.
4
1
9

<

0
.
4
3
7

+
0.
2
7
9

1
.
7
2

+
0.4
4
3

1
.
2
2

+
0.
3
7
9

2
.
0
4

+
0.4
9
1
Sr
-
9
0
42
<
0
.
6
8
4

+
0.
3
6
4
42
<
0
.
9
2
1

+
0.
4
8
8
42
<
0
.
8
5
3

+
0.4
7
0
42
<
0
.
7
2
8

+
0.
4
3
7
42
<
0
.
7
0
9

+
0.4
1
1
Tc
-
9
9
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
8

+
1.
0
5
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
6

+
1.
1
2
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
7
9

+
0.9
7
8
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
9
0

+
1.
0
6
3,7
9
0
<
2
.
0
0

+
1.1
6
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
83
0.
3
3
8

+
0.
1
6
9
83
<
0
.
1
9
5

+
0.
1
5
7
83
<
0
.
2
4
2

+
0.1
6
5
83
0.
3
3
4

+
0.
1
7
1
83
<
0
.
2
1
2

+
0.1
5
7
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
92
<
0
.
0
9
2
8

+
0.
0
7
1
0
92
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
2
9
92
<
0
.
1
5
2

+
0.0
8
4
5
92
<
0
.
1
1
3

+
0.
0
6
1
5
92
<
0
.
1
5
4

+
0.0
7
8
1
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
26
12
.
0

+
0.
8
5
9
26
1.
2
9

+
0.
2
9
3
26
6.
7
0

+
0.6
0
6
26
13
.
4

+
0.
9
4
7
26
12
.
5

+
0.9
0
1
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
27
0.
2
2
0

+
0.
1
4
7
27
<
0
.
1
6
1

+
0.
1
0
1
27
0.
2
3
3

+
0.1
5
6
27
0.
3
4
4

+
0.
1
7
6
27
0.2
9
4

+
0.1
6
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
26
5.
3
4

+
0.
5
6
6
26
0.
6
0
8

+
0.
2
0
1
26
3.
0
3

+
0.4
1
5
26
6.
2
0

+
0.
6
4
4
26
5.
7
5

+
0.6
2
0
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0

4
0
5

+
25
9

<

1
7
0

+
12
2

4
4
3

+
14
6

4
9
5

+
11
8

5
2
3

+
12
1
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
4
6

+
85
.
9
60
,
9
0
0
< 1
4
2

+
87
.
9
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
5
0

+
89
.
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
4
5

+
85
.
1
60
,
9
0
0
< 1
4
8

+
89
.
3
5
0.0
1
5
8
5
GW
-
1
6
R
6/
2
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
GW
-
1
9
A
6/
2
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
0.0
0
1
8
6
0.
0
0
9
0
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
0.
0
1
8
4
GW
-
2
3
6/
2
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
2
2
6/
2
9
/
2
0
GW
-
2
0
6/
2
3
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
0.
0
1
7
0
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
0
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
2
4

G
W
-
2
5

G
W
-
2
6

G
W
-
2
7
GW
P
L

R
E
R

1
1
e
.
(
2
)

1
1
e
.
(
2
)

1
1
e
.
(
2
)
or

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
RP
D
25
0

+
45
.
9

2
7
5

+
49
.
3

0
.
3
7

4
8
1

+
80
.
3

3
7
9

+
74
.
7

4
0
0

+
71
.
9
3,
2
0
0
< 1
2
.
6

J

+
7.
2
8

<

1
2
.
6

J

+
7.
4
6

<

1
2
.
5

+
7.
4
7

<

1
2
.
8

+
7.5
1

<

1
3
.
1

+
7.
5
6
21
<
0
.
7
5
5

+
0.
4
4
2

<

0
.
8
8
1

+
0.
5
1
6

<

0
.
9
9
1

+
0.
5
6
2

<

0
.
8
9
4

+
0.5
1
3

<

0
.
8
7
8

+
0.
5
0
0
7
<
0
.
3
5
3

+
0.
1
2
4

<

0
.
3
8
8

+
0.
1
3
0

<

0
.
1
8
1

+
0.
0
7
0
5

<

0
.
1
6
8

+
0.0
7
7
4

<

0
.
2
9
3

+
0.
0
9
4
4
0.
6
8
0

+
0.
1
8
6

0
.
7
2
1

+
0.
1
7
6

0
.
1
6

1
.
8
9

+
0.
4
2
6

0
.
7
6
7

+
0.3
1
6

0
.
8
9
9

+
0.
1
8
8
1.
5
4

+
0.
4
1
2

1
.
5
4

+
0.
3
9
4

0
.
0
0

2
.
2
5

+
0.
4
5
6

1
.
8
7

+
0.4
6
4

2
.
5
6

J

+
0.
5
1
0
42
<
0
.
8
4
6

+
0.
5
1
3

<

0
.
6
8
0

+
0.
3
8
2

<

1
.
0
2

+
0.
5
5
8

<

0
.
9
6
1

+
0.5
3
2

<

1
.
0
9

+
0.
6
5
7
3,
7
9
0
2.
2
5

+
1.
2
0

<

1
.
8
0

+
1.
1
0

<

1
.
8
2

+
1.
0
4

<

1
.
7
9

+
1.0
2

<

1
.
9
1

+
1.
0
5
83
0.
6
5
3

J

+
0.
2
8
8

<

0
.
3
3
9

+
0.
2
3
5
83
0.
2
6
1

+
0.
1
8
0
83
< 0
.
2
5
8

+
0.1
6
9
83
0.
8
6
4

J

+
0.
2
3
5
92
<
0
.
1
4
5

+
0.
0
3
5
1

<

0
.
2
6
4

+
0.
1
5
9
92
<
0
.
2
0
7

+
0.
1
1
3
92
< 0
.
2
8
6

+
0.1
4
9
92
<
0
.
1
5
8

+
0.
0
8
5
3
26
8.
7
9

+
0.
9
8
7

8
.
4
1

+
1.
0
5

0
.
2
6

6
4
.
1

+
2.
1
4

2
0
.
8

+
1.1
2

1
6
.
4

+
1.
5
4
27
0.
3
6
8

+
0.
2
3
8

0
.
1
6
2

+
0.
1
6
2

0
.
7
2

1
.
3
7

+
0.
3
9
0

0
.
5
6
0

+
0.2
1
1

0
.
4
5
0

+
0.
2
8
4
26
4.
6
6

+
0.
7
1
6

4
.
2
2

+
0.
7
5
0

0
.
4
2

3
2
.
5

+
1.
5
2

1
1
.
4

+
0.8
2
7

9
.
2
7

+
1.
1
6
0.
0
3
10
.
5
%
0.
1
4
6

0
.
0
3
7

0
.
0
3
9
29
4

+
20
5

2
6
6

+
15
2

0
.
1
1

5
9
2

+
19
2

5
6
5

+
15
0

4
4
6

+
20
0
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
3

+
14
1

<

2
3
6

+
13
7

<

1
4
2

+
82
.
1

<

1
4
7

+
84
.
5

<

2
6
0

+
13
6
GW
-
2
4
5/
1
1
/
2
0
0.
0
1
3
9
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
GW
-
2
5
6/
2
3
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
GW
-
2
4

D
u
p
.
GW
-
2
7
GW
-
2
6
5/
1
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
0.
0
1
2
5
GW
-
3
2
9
0.
0
3
3
8
6/
1
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
0.
0
2
7
5
6/
2
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
0.
0
9
6
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
1
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
2
8

G
W
-
2
9

G
W
-
3
6

G
W
-
5
6
R
11
e
.
(
2
)

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

R
E
R

GW
P
L
or
RP
D
40
1

+
75
.
8

2
3
9

+
39
.
1

3
8
7

+
67
.
0

3
9
3

+
65
.
7

3
9
0

+
67
.
6

0
.
0
3
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
5

+
7.
4
2
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
5

+
7.
8
2
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
3

+
7.
7
6

<

1
3
.
4

+
7.
8
0
21
< 0
.
6
8
9

+
0.
3
9
2
21
<
0
.
8
2
1

+
0.
4
7
3
21
<
0
.
9
3
7

+
0.
5
2
9

<

0
.
7
7
4

+
0.
4
1
8
7
< 0
.
1
0
9

+
0.
0
6
3
9
7
<
0
.
4
2
6

+
0.
1
8
2
7
<
0
.
2
8
9

+
0.
0
4
5
4

<

0
.
2
3
7

+
0.
0
2
9
9
0.
5
8
0

+
0.
1
5
7

0
.
8
5
8

+
0.
2
6
4

1
.
2
6

+
0.
2
4
4

1
.
1
2

+
0.
2
1
9

1
.
1
1

+
0.
2
1
7

0
.
0
0.8
4
7

J

+
0.
3
6
3

0
.
9
5
5

+
0.
3
5
6

1
.
2
3

+
0.
3
7
9

1
.
7
7

J

+
0.
4
3
2

1
.
6
5

J

+
0.
4
0
7
42
<
0
.
7
7
8

J

+
0.
4
8
3
42
<
0
.
8
9
4

+
0.
5
0
0
42
<
1
.
1
6

+
0.
7
0
3

<

1
.
2
0

+
0.
7
2
7
3,
7
9
0
2.
6
0

+
1.
2
0
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
7
5

+
1.
0
3
3,
7
9
0
66
.
8

+
2.
7
9

6
6
.
6

+
2.
8
0

0
.
0
5
83
0.
2
8
5

+
0.
2
1
7
83
< 0
.
2
1
3

+
0.
1
5
8
83
<
0
.
2
8
5

+
0.
2
2
0
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
8
5

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
7
5
92
<
0
.
1
6
8

+
0.
0
6
7
8
92
<
0
.
0
8
2
4

+
0.
0
6
2
0
92
<
0
.
1
2
4

+
0.
0
6
1
7
92
<
0
.
1
4
6

+
0.
0
7
6
0

<

0
.
0
7
9
8

+
0.
0
5
3
1
6.
1
9

+
0.
7
1
6
26
7.
8
7

+
0.
6
7
4
36
.
4
38
.
3

+
2.
3
7
26
10
.
9

+
1.
2
7

1
1
.
9

+
1.
2
8

0
.
5
5
<
0
.
2
6
1

+
0.
1
9
4
27
0.
2
4
7

+
0.
1
3
2
27
1.
4
1

+
0.
5
0
6
27
<
0
.
3
7
1

+
0.
2
4
0

0
.
3
8
0

+
0.
2
5
3

0
.
0
3
2.
8
8

+
0.
4
7
9
26
4.
0
5

+
0.
4
8
5
26
21
.
4

+
1.
7
7
26
5.
1
2

+
0.
8
7
4

5
.
9
4

+
0.
8
9
9

0
.
6
5
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
5
8

0
.
0
3
14
.
7
%
67
0

+
13
7

<

2
7
0

+
21
8

6
2
4

+
15
7

3
1
0

+
20
7

4
4
4

+
17
8
60
,
9
0
0
19
7

+
94
.
1
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
5

+
13
2
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
5
4

+
13
6

<

2
5
7

+
14
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
0
8
6
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
GW
-
3
4
9
GW
-
5
6
R
6/
1
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
GW
-
5
6
R

D
u
p
.
6/
1
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
0.
0
1
5
2
TA
S
L
GW
-
3
6
6/
9
/
2
0
GW
-
2
8
6/
1
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
2
0.
0
1
2
0
GW
-
2
9
6/
2
3
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
0.
0
1
7
6
-
-
-
-
0.
0
6
3
6
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
2
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
5
7

G
W
-
5
8

G
W
-
6
0

G
W
-
6
3
11
e
.
(
2
)

G
W
P
L

1
1
e
.
(
2
)

1
1
e
.
(
2
)
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
30
8

+
68
.
8

3
6
8

+
77
.
5

3
6
.
6

+
8.
9
7

1
1
4

+
24
.
7
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
9

+
8.
2
0
21
< 0
.
8
1
9

+
0.
4
7
4
7
< 0
.
2
4
9

+
0.
0
8
3
3
0.
3
2
3

+
0.
1
2
1

0
.
9
0
6

+
0.
1
8
8

<

0
.
1
0
3

+
0.
0
7
0
9

0
.
2
1
7

+
0.
1
0
5
0.
8
0
6

J

+
0.
3
8
6

1
.
7
6

J

+
0.
4
7
3

<

0
.
4
9
0

+
0.
3
0
1

0
.
6
5
4

J

+
0.
3
8
5
42
<
1
.
1
1

+
0.
6
4
4
3,
7
9
0
<
2
.
0
0

+
1.
1
4
83
0.
2
6
2

+
0.
2
1
2
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
9
3
83
0.
3
1
2

+
0.
2
2
9
83
0.
4
5
3

+
0.
2
4
9
92
<
0
.
1
3
7

+
0.
0
4
9
6
92
< 0
.
1
0
9

+
0.
0
6
2
0
92
<
0
.
1
8
8

+
0.
0
8
2
7
92
< 0
.
1
9
2

+
0.
0
9
0
0
3.
2
1

+
0.
5
2
1
31
.
2
25
.
1

+
1.
9
1

6
.
1
3

+
0.
7
0
2

6
.
3
3

+
0.
7
2
2
0.
1
0
2

+
0.
1
0
2
27
0.
5
8
7

+
0.
3
2
6

<

0
.
1
9
5

+
0.
1
4
4

0
.
2
3
7

+
0.
1
7
2
1.
5
0

+
0.
3
5
8
26
12
.
9

+
1.
3
7

3
.
2
6

+
0.
5
0
9

3
.
2
4

+
0.
5
1
5
0.
0
3

0
.
0
4
6

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
44
7

+
17
6

4
9
8

+
14
4

<

1
6
7

+
12
0

<

2
3
3

+
18
8
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
5
0

+
13
6
GW
-
6
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
2
-
-
-
-
0.
0
3
8
2
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
2
0.
0
0
4
4
6
-
-
GW
-
5
7
6/8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
6
0
6/
2
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
6/
1
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
5
8
-
-
-
-
0.
0
0
9
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
2
0.
0
0
9
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
3
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
6
4
GW
-
6
6
R
GW
P
L

R
E
R

G
W
P
L
or
RP
D
32
1

+
71
.
5

4
0
0

+
54
.
6
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
5

+
7.
4
8
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
4

+
7.
4
8
21
< 0
.
6
8
6

+
0.
4
0
7
21
< 0
.
8
0
2

+
0.
4
5
9
7
< 0
.
1
5
7

+
0.
0
6
2
5
7
< 0
.
2
5
2

+
0.
0
9
5
4
0.
9
7
3

+
0.
1
9
4

1
.
4
0

+
0.
2
1
9

1
.
4
6

1
.
1
4

+
0.
3
3
9

2
.
7
0

+
0.
3
2
0

1
.
0
8

J

+
0.
2
7
7

1
.
5
1

+
0.
2
4
3
3.
2
6

+
0.
4
1
0

2
.
4
5

+
0.
3
7
0

1
.
4
7

2
.
1
5

+
0.
4
4
9

3
.
1
2

+
0.
6
5
4

1
.
8
3

J

+
0.
2
9
1

1
.
6
1

+
0.
5
0
6
42
< 0
.
8
1
1

+
0.
3
9
4
42
< 0
.
7
9
7

+
0.
4
0
6
3,
7
9
0
1.8
2

+
1.
1
2
3,
7
9
0
3.2
8

+
1.
1
3
83
< 0
.
2
4
5

+
0.
1
6
3
83
0.
4
0
9

+
0.
2
3
3
92
< 0
.
1
3
6

+
0.
0
6
6
4
92
< 0
.
1
4
2

+
0.
0
6
6
8
26
9.5
4

+
0.
7
6
1
26
9.5
8

+
1.
3
5
27
0.
2
8
0

+
0.
1
5
4
27
< 0
.
5
5
3

+
0.
3
26
4.4
4

+
0.
5
2
3
26
4.2
1

+
0.
8
9
6
0.
0
3
0.
0
3
37
8

+
12
3

3
2
1

+
15
2
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
4
5

+
85
.
6
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
1
4

+
16
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
6
4
8/
2
7
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
6
4
-
-
-
-
GW
-
6
4

D
u
p
.
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2/
2
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
GW
-
3
5
9
5/
1
4
/
2
0
GW
-
6
6
R
GW
-
6
4
6/
2
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
6
4
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
11
/
1
2
/
2
0
0.
0
1
3
2
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
0.
0
1
2
6
-
-
-
-
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
4
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
7
7
GW
-
8
8
GW
P
L
RE
R

R
E
R

G
W
P
L
or

o
r
RP
D

R
P
D
32
0

+
66
.
3
36
5

+
68
.
4
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
2

+
7.
7
8
3,
2
0
0
11
6

+
15
.
7
21
< 0
.
7
6
1

+
0.
4
4
4
21
<
0
.
7
8
8

+
0.
4
4
6
7
< 0
.
1
1
7

+
0.
0
5
4
6
7
<
0
.
2
9
2

J

+
0.
0
8
8
9
1.5
0

+
0.2
3
5

1
.
8
2

+
0.
4
4
9

1
.
6
8

+
0.
2
4
8

2
.
0
0

+
0.
2
8
3

0
.
8
5

1
.
5
7

J

+
0.
3
5
6

1
.
6
2

J

+
0.
3
5
5

0
.
1
0

1
.
4
6

+
0.
2
4
4
3.1
0

+
0.4
0
1

2
.
6
1

+
0.
5
0
2

2
.
7
7

+
0.
5
6
1

2
.
0
5

+
0.
5
3
2

0
.
9
3

2
.
1
2

+
0.
3
6
0

2
.
6
1

J

+
0.
3
9
0

0
.
9
2

1
.
3
4

J

+
0.
3
7
2
42
<
2
.
2
3

+
0.
6
9
9
42
<
0
.
8
9
6

+
0.
5
1
8
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
3

+
1.
0
7
3,
7
9
0
2.
1
7

+
1.
2
3
83
< 0
.
1
8
0

+
0.
1
4
5
83
0.6
6
3

J

+
0.
2
0
9
92
< 0
.
1
0
8

+
0.
0
5
5
2
92
<
0
.
1
1
3

+
0.
0
6
1
0
26
10
.
5

+
0.
7
7
2
26
5.
9
4

+
0.
9
3
9
27
0.
2
1
3

+
0.
1
2
3
27
<
0
.
1
3
9

+
0.
0
9
2
4
26
4.1
4

+
0.
4
8
7
26
2.
4
8

+
0.
6
2
0
0.0
3
0.
0
3
40
6

+
17
0
46
8

+
18
1
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
5
2

+
87
.
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
5
8

+
13
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
GW
-
2
7
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
7
7
GW
-
7
7

D
u
p
.
8/
2
7
/
2
0
8/
2
7
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
GW
-
4
3
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
7
7
2/
2
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
7
7
GW
-
7
7

D
u
p
.
11
/
1
2
/
2
0
11
/
1
2
/
2
0
-
-
GW
-
7
7
6/
2
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
8
8
6/
1
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
0.
0
0
7
3
6
0.
0
1
2
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
5
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
8
9
GW
-
9
0

G
W
-
9
1
GW
P
L
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

R
E
R

or
RP
D
38
7

+
70
.
7

3
0
4

+
58
.
1

4
0
5

+
62
.
9

3
6
1

+
61
.
9

0
.
5
0
3,
2
0
0
<
1
4
.
0

+
8.
1
9
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
0

+
7.
6
3
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
1

+
7.
7
3

<

1
3
.
0

+
7.
4
6
21
<
0
.
9
0
2

+
0.
5
0
8
21
<
0
.
9
4
4

+
0.
5
5
7
21
<
0
.
5
7
1

J

+
0.
3
4
7

<

0
.
5
3
4

J

+
0.
3
1
7
7
<
0
.
2
6
1

+
0.
1
1
7
7
<
0
.
2
7
8

+
0.
0
3
8
9
7
<
0
.
2
3
8

+
0.
0
9
0
0

<

0
.
2
6
1

+
0.
0
9
8
7
1.4
7

+
0.
2
2
9

1
.
2
4

+
0.
2
2
2

6
.
0
3

+
0.
4
9
7

0
.
7
4
0

J

+
0.
2
1
6

1
.
1
9

+
0.
2
2
1

1
.
3
2

+
0.
2
4
3

1
.
5
0

+
0.
2
6
0

0
.
5
1
1.4
5

+
0.
3
0
6

2
.
3
8

J

+
0.
4
8
5

2
.
1
7

+
0.
6
0
0

1
.
0
1

J

+
0.
2
1
9

2
.
1
7

J

+
0.
4
5
1

1
.
8
1

+
0.
4
4
9

4
.
0
8

+
0.
5
9
0

3
.
0
6
42
<
0
.
9
6
2

+
0.
6
1
6
42
<
0
.
9
9
7

+
0.
5
7
5
42
<
0
.
6
9
2

+
0.
4
1
2

<

5
.
0
0

U

+
0.
5
0
0
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
9

+
1.
0
6
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
9

+
1.
0
6
3,
7
9
0
6.
1
7

+
1.
3
8

7
.
4
3

+
1.
4
3
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
8
2
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
7
3
83
<
0
.
3
1
4

+
0.
1
7
9

<

0
.
2
2
2

+
0.
1
6
7
92
<
0
.
1
6
5

+
0.
0
8
2
0
92
<
0
.
0
8
0
9

+
0.
0
4
6
1
92
<
0
.
2
5
1

+
0.
1
2
7

<

0
.
1
2
8

+
0.
0
4
7
8
26
5.
4
1

+
0.
9
1
2
26
6.
9
3

+
0.
9
5
2
26
5.
7
7

+
0.
6
9
1

6
.
1
0

+
0.
7
1
9

0
.
3
3
27
0.
1
4
0

+
0.
1
6
2
27
<
0
.
2
3
6

+
0.
1
9
9
27
<
0
.
2
3
7

+
0.
1
4
3

0
.
3
5
8

+
0.
2
0
2

0
.
4
9
26
3.
3
9

+
0.
7
2
3
26
3.
1
9

+
0.
6
4
3
26
2.
6
6

+
0.
4
7
1

3
.
0
1

+
0.
5
0
8

0
.
5
1
0.0
3
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3
12
.
8
%
58
0

+
15
2

3
3
7

+
21
1

2
9
4

+
20
4

<

2
7
0

+
23
2
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
5
5

+
14
0
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
7
3

+
15
0
60
,
9
0
0
< 3
1
5

+
17
1

<

3
1
3

+
16
7
-
-
-
-
2/
2
0
/
2
0
GW
-
8
9
8/
2
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
GW
-
9
1
7/
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
6
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
GW
-
8
9
GW
-
9
0
6/
1
8
/
2
0
-
-
-
-
11
/
1
0
/
2
0
0.
0
0
7
9
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
9
1

D
u
p
.
7/
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
6
GW
-
3
7
9
0.
0
0
9
0
2
GW
-
8
9
GW
-
8
9
6/
1
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
-
0.
0
0
9
5
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
0.
0
1
0
0
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
6
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
9
2

G
W
-
9
3

G
W
-
9
4

G
W
-
9
5

G
W
-
9
9
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
52
.
1

+
13
.
1

4
2
9

+
75
.
8

3
8
8

+
80
.
0

3
7
4

+
67
.
7

5
8
1

+
99
.
4
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
1

+
7.7
8
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
2

+
7.
6
0
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
7

+
7.
8
2
3,
2
0
0
< 1
3
.
2

+
7.
6
6
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
4

J

+
7.7
6
21
<
0
.
9
4
4

+
0.5
4
8
21
<
0
.
8
3
5

+
0.
4
8
5
21
<
0
.
7
7
1

+
0.
4
5
1
21
<
0
.
8
1
3

+
0.
4
8
0
21
<
0
.
7
9
3

+
0.4
5
4
7
<
0
.
2
6
0

+
0.1
4
0
7
<
0
.
2
8
9

J

+
0.
0
8
8
2
7
<
0
.
1
9
8

+
0.
0
8
9
7
7
<
0
.
4
0
8

+
0.
1
9
2
7
<
0
.
3
0
9

+
0.1
6
1
0.
2
4
0

+
0.1
2
6

1
.
5
5

+
0.
2
4
4

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
4
0

0
.
4
9
2

+
0.
1
5
7

0
.
5
9
3

+
0.1
5
9
0.
7
1
6

J

+
0.3
7
6

1
.
7
4

J

+
0.
4
9
0

1
.
0
2

+
0.
3
5
5

0
.
7
4
5

+
0.
3
0
8

0
.
8
9
0

+
0.3
6
8
42
<
0
.
8
0
1

+
0.4
8
9
42
<
1
.
2
5

+
0.
7
9
1
42
<
1
.
0
8

+
0.
6
7
6
42
< 1
.
2
3

+
0.
7
1
2
42
< 1
.
2
8

+
0.7
9
7
3,
7
9
0
3.
2
1

+
1.2
2
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
7

+
1.
0
5
3,
7
9
0
8.
0
9

+
1.
4
0
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
8
6

+
1.
0
8
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
8
0

+
1.0
4
83
< 0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.1
7
8
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
7
2
83
<
0
.
1
9
3

+
0.
1
4
0
83
<
0
.
2
7
4

+
0.
2
1
5
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.2
6
4
92
<
0
.
1
0
3

+
0.0
6
3
6
92
<
0
.
0
8
0
7

+
0.
0
3
6
9
92
<
0
.
1
0
8

+
0.
0
5
2
0
92
<
0
.
1
4
2

+
0.
0
7
4
1
92
<
0
.
1
2
9

+
0.1
0
3
26
7.
4
9

+
0.9
5
8
26
12
.
2

+
1.
2
6
26
18
.
5

+
1.
0
4
26
13
.
0

+
1.
3
0
26
15
.
8

+
1.3
7
27
<
0
.
2
2
2

+
0.1
5
5
27
0.
1
2
0

+
0.
1
3
9
27
0.5
4
2

+
0.
1
9
8
27
0.
4
8
2

+
0.
3
1
4
27
<
0
.
3
7
2

+
0.2
7
9
26
3.
6
9

+
0.6
7
4
26
5.
3
3

+
0.
8
3
4
26
8.
8
0

+
0.
7
1
8
26
6.
6
6

+
0.
9
3
1
26
7.
4
9

+
0.9
6
5
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
5

0
.
0
3
2
0

0
.
0
3
<
1
7
3

+
12
0

4
9
4

+
13
5

<

3
5
0

+
30
9

3
5
3

+
21
1

4
8
1

+
18
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
5
5

+
14
7
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
6
1

+
14
1
60
,
9
0
0
< 1
4
4

+
89
.
7
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
0

+
12
9
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
7

+
12
9
GW
-
9
3
6/
1
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
9
2
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
5/
2
1
/
2
0
GW
-
9
5
GW
-
9
4
6/
1
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
9
9
6/
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
6/
1
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
0.
0
1
1
0
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
0.
0
1
9
8
0.
0
2
2
2
0.
0
2
6
1
0.
0
1
5
7
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
7
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
0
0

G
W
-
1
0
1

G
W
-
1
0
2

G
W
-
1
0
3

G
W
-
1
0
4
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
42
2

+
63
.
9

4
0
2

+
63
.
2

3
7
6

+
67
.
5

3
5
4

+
68
.
7

3
2
9

+
57
.
5
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
8

J

+
7.6
0
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
6

J

+
7.
3
2
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
1

J

+
7.
4
8
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
6

+
7.
5
4
3,2
0
0
< 1
3
.
1

+
7.
6
6
21
<
0
.
7
8
8

+
0.4
5
8
21
<
0
.
7
9
9

+
0.
4
5
8
21
<
0
.
7
5
4

+
0.
4
3
7
21
<
1
.
0
6

+
0.
5
8
4
21
<
0
.
5
2
4

J

+
0.
3
2
2
7
<
0
.
3
3
6

+
0.0
4
7
1
7
<
0
.
3
1
0

+
0.
1
0
4
7
<
0
.
3
7
3

+
0.
1
2
5
7
< 0
.
1
3
4

+
0.
0
5
9
3
7
<
0
.
1
2
5

+
0.
0
8
3
5
0.
4
2
9

+
0.1
4
0

0
.
3
5
7

+
0.
1
5
2

0
.
3
0
5

+
0.
1
2
3

0
.
9
6
0

+
0.
2
6
2

1
.
2
1

+
0.
2
3
1
<
0
.
4
4
0

+
0.2
7
8

0
.
5
6
4

+
0.
3
2
5

1
.
2
2

+
0.
3
9
7

1
.
5
3

+
0.
4
2
9

2
.
0
6

+
0.
4
5
9
42
< 1
.
1
2

+
0.6
4
1
42
< 1
.
0
2

+
0.
5
7
8
42
<
0
.
8
6
9

+
0.
5
0
7
42
< 0
.
8
9
2

+
0.
4
8
0
42
< 5
.
0
0

U

+
0.
5
0
7
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
8
3

+
1.0
7
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
7
1

+
0.
9
7
9
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
6

+
1.
0
6
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
0

+
1.
0
2
3,7
9
0
2.
5
9

+
1.
3
6
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.2
8
3
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
6
3
83
0.6
9
6

J

+
0.
2
5
4
83
< 0
.
2
7
1

+
0.
1
8
6
83
<
0
.
2
3
5

+
0.
1
4
8
92
<
0
.
1
5
7

+
0.0
9
2
6
92
<
0
.
1
2
1

+
0.
0
6
0
1
92
<
0
.
1
6
4

+
0.
1
0
4
92
< 0
.
2
6
7

+
0.
1
4
4
92
<
0
.
1
1
7

+
0.
0
6
3
3
68
.
6
45
.
8

+
2.5
9
26
2.
0
8

+
0.
5
0
9
26
1.
6
0

+
0.
4
5
0
26
18
.
1

+
1.
1
2
26
13
.
2

+
1.
0
3
27
1.
2
3

+
0.4
7
8
27
<
0
.
1
1
6

+
0.
0
7
7
3
27
<
0
.
2
6
8

+
0.
1
3
0
27
0.
2
5
8

+
0.
1
4
9
27
0.
3
8
3

+
0.
2
1
9
43
.
0
25
.
2

+
1.9
2
26
0.
8
8
3

+
0.
3
3
6
26
1.
0
5

+
0.
3
5
1
26
9.0
1

+
0.
7
9
1
26
5.
5
9

+
0.
6
7
5
0.
1
1
7

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
27
0

+
20
2

4
6
6

+
18
3

4
5
6

+
17
9

3
8
6

+
25
3

4
3
2

+
18
0
60
,
9
0
0
2,
0
4
0

+
26
3
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
5

+
13
5
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
2

+
12
6
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
4
9

+
91
.
6
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
9
8

+
15
6
0.
0
1
6
6
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
5
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
6/
2
2
/
2
0
5/
1
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
GW
-
1
0
3
GW
-
1
0
2
GW
-
1
0
1
TA
S
L
GW
-
1
0
0
5/
2
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
5
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
5/
2
1
/
2
0
7/
6
/
2
0
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
6
GW
-
1
0
4
0.0
0
3
2
1
0.
0
0
2
6
5
TA
S
L
0.
0
2
6
6
5
0.
0
7
4
7
5
5
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
8
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
0
5

G
W
-
1
0
6

G
W
-
1
0
7

G
W
-
1
0
8

G
W
-
1
0
9
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
42
4

+
64
.
2

4
1
5

+
71
.
0

2
8
1

+
50
.
1

3
8
3

+
66
.
1

3
8
1

+
62
.
6
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
9

J

+
7.
4
6
3,
2
0
0
< 1
2
.
8

J

+
7.
5
5
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
0

J

+
7.
6
8
3,2
0
0
<
1
2
.
9

J

+
7.
2
9
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
4

J

+
7.
7
1
21
<
0
.
8
0
2

+
0.
4
6
3
21
<
0
.
7
6
4

+
0.
4
3
7
21
<
0
.
7
7
8

+
0.
4
4
3
21
<
0
.
7
3
7

+
0.
4
3
9
21
<
0
.
7
6
7

+
0.
4
4
1
7
<
0
.
4
1
3

+
0.
0
6
4
9
7
<
0
.
3
1
0

+
0.
1
6
2
7
<
0
.
4
0
0

+
0.
1
5
9
7
<
0
.
3
7
7

+
0.
0
5
6
4
7
<
0
.
4
1
0

+
0.
1
2
2
1.
3
3

+
0.
2
3
5

0
.
3
5
2

+
0.
1
3
6

0
.
2
0
5

+
0.
1
1
3

0
.
6
4
3

+
0.
1
8
3

0
.
3
5
0

+
0.
1
2
6
1.
5
9

+
0.
3
9
6

<

0
.
5
2
6

+
0.
3
3
9

<

0
.
7
1
9

+
0.
4
2
2

<

0
.
4
1
4

+
0.
2
4
9

0
.
8
0
2

+
0.
3
3
1
42
1.
1
8

+
0.
6
8
1
42
<
0
.
6
9
4

+
0.
4
4
5
42
<
0
.
6
7
4

J

+
0.
4
0
5
42
0.7
7
6

J

+
0.
4
0
2
42
<
0
.
9
8
5

+
0.
5
8
2
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
8
6

+
1.
1
5
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
2

+
1.
0
7
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
8
3

+
1.
0
7
3,7
9
0
< 1
.
8
8

+
1.
0
4
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
7
9

+
1.
0
5
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
2
5
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
7
0
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
4
2
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
7
4
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
4
1
92
<
0
.
2
2
1

+
0.
1
0
8
92
<
0
.
2
1
9

+
0.
0
9
7
2
92
<
0
.
1
2
0

+
0.
0
8
7
9
92
<
0
.
1
2
2

+
0.
0
8
9
2
92
<
0
.
1
4
9

+
0.
1
0
4
26
12
.
3

+
1.
2
0
26
2.
4
8

+
0.
5
4
6
26
2.
3
9

+
0.
6
1
7
26
1.
2
9

+
0.
4
3
7
26
0.8
0
9

+
0.
3
2
5
27
<
0
.
3
7
8

+
0.
2
8
0
27
<
0
.
2
7
9

+
0.
1
3
5
27
<
0
.
4
2
4

+
0.
2
1
5
27
<
0
.
3
7
7

+
0.
1
9
7
27
<
0
.
2
4
9

+
0.
1
3
1
26
6.
3
2

+
0.
8
5
0
26
1.
2
9

+
0.
3
8
8
26
1.
4
4

+
0.
5
1
2
26
<
0
.
5
0
5

+
0.
3
4
3
26
0.6
1
5

+
0.
2
6
2
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
39
7

+
17
1

3
5
0

+
12
8

2
6
6

+
15
2

3
5
7

+
12
9

3
6
9

+
25
1
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
3

+
13
1
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
4

+
12
2
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
9

+
13
9
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
4

+
12
8
60
,
9
0
0
< 2
3
5

+
13
2
5
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
GW
-
1
0
6
5/
1
9
/
2
0
5/
1
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
1
0
5
GW
-
1
0
7
5/
1
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
5/
1
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
1
0
9
6/
4
/
2
0
TA
S
L
5
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
GW
-
1
0
8
0.
0
1
8
8
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
5
0.
0
0
3
9
2
0.0
0
4
4
3
0.
0
0
1
6
6
0.
0
0
1
9
2
5
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
2
9
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
1
0

G
W
-
1
1
1

G
W
-
1
1
2

G
W
-
1
2
6

G
W
-
1
2
7
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

1
1
e
.
(
2
)

1
1
e
.
(
2
)
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L
35
4

+
58
.
8

2
5
3

+
53
.
3

4
2
7

+
72
.
6

3
5
8

+
67
.
2

3
1
5

+
63
.
1
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
1

J

+
7.
6
8
3,
2
0
0
<

1
3
.
4

J

+
7.
7
5
3,
2
0
0
<
1
3
.
5

+
7.
9
0
21
< 0
.
7
8
7

+
0.
4
4
7
21
<
0
.
7
9
8

+
0.
4
5
8
21
<
0
.
7
7
6

+
0.
4
5
6
7
< 0
.
4
1
0

+
0.
1
2
8
7
<
0
.
4
5
5

+
0.
2
0
3
7
<
0
.
3
4
9

+
0.
2
3
9
0.
8
1
0

+
0.
1
8
4

0
.
6
1
8

+
0.
1
6
5

2
.
4
4

+
0.
3
2
4

1
.
3
0

+
0.2
2
3

1
.
2
1

+
0.
2
2
0
1.2
2

+
0.
3
6
2

0
.
7
6
4

+
0.
3
1
1

1
.
8
5

+
0.
4
0
7

1
.
7
2

J

+
0.3
7
2

1
.
1
7

J

+
0.
4
1
2
42
< 0
.
9
0
8

+
0.
5
6
0
42
<
0
.
8
6
1

+
0.
5
2
1
42
<
0
.
7
8
3

+
0.
4
9
4
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
7
9

+
1.
0
5
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
2

+
1.
0
7
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
3

+
1.
0
6
83
< 0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
4
1
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
5
7
83
<
0
.
2
5
7

+
0.
2
1
2
83
0.
3
8
6

+
0.2
4
5
83
<
0
.
2
8
0

+
0.
2
0
4
92
< 0
.
1
2
5

+
0.
0
6
2
5
92
<
0
.
2
0
2

+
0.
0
9
8
92
<
0
.
1
4
7

+
0.
0
9
4
7
92
<
0
.
1
4
3

+
0.0
7
4
7
92
<
0
.
1
2
1

+
0.
0
2
8
3
26
1.7
8

+
0.
4
5
6
26
<
0
.
3
5
7

+
0.
2
3
8
26
17
.
3

+
1.
4
5

9
.
7
3

+
0.8
8
5

8
.
0
2

+
0.
7
8
3
27
< 0
.
2
4
7

+
0.
1
3
0
27
<
0
.
2
0
7

+
0.
0
7
8
8
27
0.
2
4
4

+
0.
2
0
3

0
.
2
5
8

+
0.1
6
5

0
.
2
1
2

+
0.
1
4
2
26
1.0
1

+
0.
3
5
3
26
<
0
.
2
8
5

+
0.
1
6
5
26
8.
5
9

+
1.
0
2

4
.
9
1

+
0.6
3
4

4
.
1
1

+
0.
5
5
9
0.0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
49
8

+
14
4

<

2
7
8

+
23
3

5
8
7

+
15
3

6
0
9

+
13
0

3
6
3

+
15
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
2
6

+
12
3
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
5

+
13
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
4
0

+
13
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
GW
-
1
2
7
6/
9
/
2
0
GW
-
1
1
0
6/
4
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
-
-
-
-
0.0
1
4
6
0.
0
0
0
9
3
2
0.
0
2
5
4
0.
0
1
2
2
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
2
5
GW
-
1
2
6
5
-
-
-
-
0.
0
0
3
0
8
GW
-
1
1
2
6/
4
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
6/
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
-
2
GW
-
1
1
1
6/
4
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
5
-
-
-
-
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
0
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
2
8

G
W
-
1
2
9

G
W
-
1
3
0

G
W
-
1
3
1

G
W
-
1
3
2
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
39
2

+
69
.
8

3
9
3

+
59
.
0

2
5
4

+
48
.
1

2
6
2

+
42
.
6

3
5
8

+
56
.
2
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
7

+
7.
5
0
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
9

+
7.
5
5
3,
2
0
0
< 1
2
.
5

+
7.5
1
3,2
0
0
< 1
2
.
2

+
7.
3
8
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
4

+
7.
3
7
21
<
0
.
8
2
1

+
0.
4
5
9
21
<
0
.
5
4
1

J

+
0.
3
2
5
21
<
0
.
7
7
1

+
0.4
5
5
21
<
0
.
8
6
4

+
0.
5
1
3
21
<
0
.
9
3
3

+
0.
5
4
6
7
<
0
.
0
4
1
7

+
0.
0
2
7
8
7
<
0
.
2
8
8

+
0.
0
9
2
8
7
<
0
.
3
7
9

+
0.1
3
9
7
<
0
.
3
3
1

+
0.
1
4
2
7
<
0
.
2
7
6

+
0.
1
4
9
1.
3
0

+
0.
3
9
0

0
.
4
7
1

+
0.
1
6
8

0
.
6
8
6

+
0.1
6
0

0
.
7
7
4

+
0.
1
7
2

0
.
9
4
8

+
0.
2
0
6
1.
7
5

+
0.
4
4
7

2
.
8
4

+
0.
5
0
1

1
.
5
3

+
0.4
2
3

0
.
9
8
9

+
0.
4
0
3

<

0
.
6
8
0

+
0.
4
3
7
42
<
1
.
0
4

+
0.
5
9
9
42
<
5
.
0
0

U

+
0.
5
0
3
42
<
0
.
8
7
2

+
0.5
1
0
42
<
0
.
8
3
7

+
0.
4
5
5
42
<
0
.
8
3
3

+
0.
5
1
9
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
7
7

+
1.
0
5
3,
7
9
0
2.
0
5

+
1.
2
1
3,
7
9
0
3.
3
0

+
1.1
3
3,7
9
0
< 1
.
9
1

+
1.
1
0
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
7
8

+
1.
0
1
83
0.
2
7
5

+
0.
1
9
1
83
<
0
.
2
4
1

+
0.
1
8
0
83
0.
3
0
5

+
0.2
2
1
83
0.
3
4
5

+
0.
2
4
3
83
0.
7
1
1

+
0.
4
1
9
92
<
0
.
2
1
8

+
0.
1
2
4
92
<
0
.
1
6
5

+
0.
0
7
3
1
92
<
0
.
1
5
6

+
0.0
6
9
6
92
<
0
.
2
3
8

+
0.
1
1
1
92
<
0
.
2
3
9

+
0.
0
9
1
5
26
11
.
1

+
0.
7
8
1
27
1.
0
3

+
0.
3
0
1
26
9.
3
7

+
1.3
9
26
5.
4
5

+
1.
1
4
26
10
.
4

+
1.
4
0
27
0.
2
8
9

+
0.
1
7
0
27
<
0
.
1
7
2

+
0.
1
0
3
27
<
0
.
3
0
4

+
0.2
5
3
27
<
0
.
5
5
4

+
0.
2
2
0
27
<
0
.
3
2
3

+
0.
2
3
4
26
5.
4
6

+
0.
5
4
7
26
0.
5
2
1

J

+
0.
2
0
7
26
4.
8
6

+
1.0
1
26
2.
0
3

+
0.
7
2
4
26
5.
3
9

+
1.
0
1
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
45
9

+
13
2

4
6
6

+
22
2

3
2
8

+
12
5

2
6
1

+
11
6

2
9
5

+
16
8
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
4
1

+
83
.
9
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
0
9

+
17
0
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
0
6

+
17
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
1
1

+
16
4
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
0
5

+
16
8
GW
-
1
2
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
6
GW
-
1
2
8
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
5/
1
8
/
2
0
0.
0
1
4
4
0.
0
0
6
2
2
5
5/
1
8
/
2
0
5/
1
1
/
2
0
GW
-
1
3
2
GW
-
1
3
0
5
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
6/
2
2
/
2
0
5
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
TA
S
L
0.
0
1
6
0
0.
0
1
6
2
0.
0
0
1
6
1
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
5
5
GW
-
1
3
1
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
1
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
3
3

G
W
-
1
3
4

G
W
-
1
3
5

G
W
-
1
3
6
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

R
E
R

G
W
P
L
or
RP
D
36
0

+
56
.
2

2
6
6

+
45
.
9

3
9
5

+
70
.
4

4
3
6

+
69
.
3

0
.
4

3
9
9

+
58
.
3
3,2
0
0
<
1
2
.
8

+
7.
6
3
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
3

+
7.
3
2
3,2
0
0
< 1
2
.
6

+
7.5
0

<

1
2
.
2

+
7.
5
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
3

+
7.
3
1
21
<
0
.
8
0
2

+
0.
4
7
0
21
< 0
.
8
0
3

+
0.
4
7
8
21
<
0
.
7
7
4

+
0.4
4
7

<

0
.
8
2
2

+
0.
4
7
3
21
< 0
.
8
0
7

+
0.
4
6
0
7
<
0
.
3
8
9

+
0.
1
9
5
7
< 0
.
3
2
7

+
0.
0
9
9
8
7
<
0
.
4
4
5

+
0.1
2
4

<

0
.
2
1
6

+
0.
0
9
2
0
7
< 0
.
3
9
6

+
0.
2
3
0
0.6
8
4

+
0.
1
6
3

0
.
8
1
3

+
0.
1
7
2

0
.
6
0
4

+
0.1
4
9

0
.
8
5
9

+
0.
1
9
1

1
.
0
5

1
.
3
2

+
0.
2
2
3
0.8
6
8

+
0.
4
8
0

2
.
5
8

+
0.
4
9
5

1
.
4
3

+
0.4
3
7

1
.
3
9

+
0.
5
5
0

0
.
0
6

1
.
3
0

+
0.
4
4
7
42
0.8
5
2

+
0.
5
5
2
42
< 0
.
7
3
9

+
0.
4
6
2
42
<
0
.
8
9
1

+
0.4
8
1

<

0
.
9
4
3

+
0.
5
8
3
42
< 0
.
7
7
2

+
0.
4
4
9
3,7
9
0
<
1
.
7
0

+
0.
9
6
9
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
6
9

+
0.
9
9
3
3,7
9
0
80
.
7

+
2.9
9

7
0
.
4

+
2.
8
5
3,
7
9
0
4.0
5

+
1.
1
6
83
<
0
.
5
3
8

+
0.
3
8
3
83
< 0
.
4
6
5

+
0.
3
1
5
83
0.
4
5
3

+
0.3
7
2

<

0
.
4
7
1

+
0.
2
6
8
83
< 0
.
4
7
2

+
0.
3
2
0
92
<
0
.
4
5
3

+
0.
1
2
5
92
< 0
.
2
8
3

+
0.
0
5
1
92
<
0
.
3
3
3

+
0.0
6
3
8

<

0
.
2
8
1

+
0.
0
5
0
8
92
< 0
.
3
7
1

+
0.
1
4
9
26
8.
5
7

+
1.
2
7
26
8.9
9

+
1.
3
4
26
14
.
2

+
1.6
7

1
3
.
8

+
1.
6
6

0
.
1
7
26
15
.
8

+
1.
7
9
27
<
0
.
2
7
9

+
0.
1
6
5
27
< 0
.
4
3
6

+
0.
2
2
3
27
<
0
.
4
5
7

+
0.2
9
5

0
.
5
2
0

+
0.
3
9
4
27
< 0
.
5
1
9

+
0.
3
1
2
26
4.
4
2

+
0.
9
1
1
26
3.1
5

+
0.
7
9
5
26
6.
9
0

+
1.1
7

6
.
7
2

+
1.
1
7

0
.
1
1
26
5.8
6

+
1.
1
2
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
2.
5
%
0.
0
3
35
0

+
12
7

2
9
8

+
12
1

3
2
1

+
20
5

5
3
5

+
18
2

3
6
5

+
19
3
60
,
9
0
0
< 3
1
4

+
16
3
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
1
0

+
16
9
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
7
8

+
14
9

<

3
1
6

+
16
6
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
0
4

+
15
8
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
0.
0
1
7
5
TA
S
L
5/
1
2
/
2
0
GW
-
1
3
6
5/
1
4
/
2
0
5/
1
2
/
2
0
5
5
GW
-
1
3
3
GW
-
1
3
4
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
0.
0
1
3
1
5
5
0.
0
2
0
5
0.
0
2
0
0
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
GW
-
1
3
5
GW
-
1
3
5

D
u
p
.
5/
1
4
/
2
0
5/
1
4
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
GW
-
3
3
9
0.0
0
9
4
6
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
2
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
3
7

G
W
-
1
3
8

G
W
-
1
3
9

G
W
-
1
4
0
GW
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
46
4

+
72
.
3

3
2
1

+
62
.
8

3
9
8

+
69
.
0

3
4
0

+
68
.
1
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
5

+
7.
5
3
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
6

+
7.
3
4
3,
2
0
0
< 1
3
.
8

+
7.
8
0
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
9

J

+
7.
4
9
21
<
0
.
6
6
1

+
0.
3
8
0
21
<
0
.
7
6
5

+
0.
4
2
9
21
<
0
.
8
5
7

+
0.
5
0
6
21
< 0
.
8
1
1

+
0.
4
7
2
7
<
0
.
1
6
8

+
0.
0
9
0
7
7
<
0
.
1
3
1

+
0.
0
4
7
3
7
<
0
.
3
7
1

+
0.
1
6
7
7
< 0
.
3
9
4

+
0.
0
5
9
1.
5
0

+
0.
4
0
7

2
.
0
3

+
0.
3
8
9

1
.
1
8

+
0.
2
3
3

1
.
3
9

+
0.
2
4
7
0.
8
5
5

+
0.
5
0
0

2
.
4
2

+
0.
4
7
1

1
.
7
0

+
0.
4
0
5

1
.
2
7

+
0.
3
4
4
42
<
0
.
7
7
4

+
0.
4
6
2
42
<
0
.
8
8
8

+
0.
5
1
4
42
< 1
.
0
0

+
0.
5
7
0
42
< 0
.
8
4
0

+
0.
5
0
5
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
8

+
1.
0
7
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
4

+
1.
0
3
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
8
0

+
1.
0
6
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
7
5

+
0.
9
9
1
83
0.
3
7
8

+
0.
1
7
9
83
<
0
.
2
3
3

+
0.
1
6
4
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
2
9
83
< 0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
6
3
92
<
0
.
1
1
6

+
0.
0
5
2
0
92
<
0
.
1
7
0

+
0.
0
7
3
5
92
<
0
.
1
2
2

+
0.
0
4
7
6
92
< 0
.
2
1
2

+
0.
0
6
9
6
27
12
.
6

+
0.
8
8
6
27
15
.
8

+
1.
0
3
27
5.
7
6

+
0.
8
2
2
27
7.5
7

+
0.
9
2
1
27
<
0
.
3
0
4

+
0.
1
7
7
27
0.3
1
8

+
0.
2
1
7
27
<
0
.
2
1
4

+
0.
1
6
6
27
< 0
.
3
7
7

+
0.
2
7
7
26
6.
3
2

+
0.
6
3
1
26
8.
2
9

+
0.
7
3
2
26
2.
8
6

+
0.
5
8
1
26
3.5
2

+
0.
6
5
7
0.
0
3
7
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
39
3

+
25
8

5
0
0

+
17
9

4
6
8

+
18
1

3
8
1

+
25
2
60
,
9
0
0
<
1
5
2

+
92
.
8
60
,
9
0
0
< 1
4
9

+
84
.
8
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
4

+
12
6
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
4

+
13
4
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
5
6/
3
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
GW
-
1
3
7
GW
-
1
3
8
16
0
-
3
8
7
6
4
GW
-
1
3
9
0.0
1
0
5
0.
0
0
8
5
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
0.
0
1
8
7
0.
0
2
4
5
5
GW
-
1
4
0
5/
2
1
/
2
0
6/
3
0
/
2
0
6/
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
3
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
GW
-
1
4
1

I
-
1
-
3
0

P
3
-
9
5

N
E
C
R
GW
P
L

R
E
R

G
W
P
L

G
W
P
L
or
RP
D
46
7

+
75
.
0

4
2
9

+
70
.
7

0
.
3
7

2
6
0

+
53
.
7

2
1
1

+
42
.
5
3,2
0
0
< 1
3
.
6

+
7.
7
8

<

1
3
.
3

+
7.6
8
3,
2
0
0
< 1
2
.
9

+
7.
6
6
3,
2
0
0
< 1
3
.
3

+
7.5
5
21
<
0
.
5
4
0

J

+
0.
3
2
2

<

0
.
5
5
9

J

+
0.3
3
0
21
<
0
.
6
9
0

+
0.
3
9
3
21
<
0
.
7
1
6

+
0.4
0
4
7
<
0
.
2
5
8

+
0.
1
2
3

<

0
.
2
8
4

+
0.0
9
1
4
7
<
0
.
4
6
3

+
0.
1
8
9
7
<
0
.
2
3
7

+
0.1
0
7
2.
0
3

+
0.
2
8
2

2
.
0
3

+
0.2
8
0

0
.
0
0

0
.
6
3
9

+
0.
1
4
8

0
.
7
1
8

+
0.1
7
8
1.
8
9

+
0.
4
6
5

2
.
4
0

+
0.5
7
3

0
.
6
9

0
.
8
2
3

+
0.
3
7
9

<

0
.
6
2
5

+
0.4
0
1
42
< 5
.
0
0

U

+
0.
4
8
4

<

0
.
8
0
9

+
0.4
7
8
42
<
0
.
9
6
7

+
0.
5
5
9
42
< 1
.
0
5

+
0.6
2
4
3,7
9
0
< 1
.
8
3

+
1.
1
0

<

1
.
8
9

+
1.1
6
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
6
3

+
0.
9
4
8
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
9
1

+
1.0
6
83
<
0
.
3
7
1

+
0.
2
4
4

<

0
.
2
3
6

+
0.1
5
8
83
<
0
.
4
6
5

+
0.
3
6
1
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.1
7
6
92
<
0
.
1
7
8

+
0.
1
2
7

<

0
.
1
0
6

+
0.0
5
4
2
92
<
0
.
3
5
2

+
0.
1
3
1
92
0.
0
8
0
6

+
0.0
6
5
1
27
5.
9
0

+
0.
7
1
1

6
.
5
2

+
0.7
3
5

0
.
6
1
26
15
.
4

+
1.
7
1
26
5.
1
2

+
0.8
5
5
27
<
0
.
1
8
7

+
0.
1
4
4

0
.
3
3
2

+
0.1
8
4
27
<
0
.
3
9
1

+
0.
3
1
5
27
0.
2
1
6

+
0.1
9
3
26
2.
8
1

+
0.
4
9
3

3
.
0
6

+
0.5
0
8

0
.
3
5
26
6.
8
3

+
1.
1
4
26
1.
9
6

+
0.5
3
2
0.
0
3
9.
2
%
0.
0
3

0
.
0
3
38
6

+
21
4

6
2
8

+
13
2

1
.
0

5
0
0

+
17
7

2
9
8

+
12
2
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
0
9

+
16
4

<

3
1
5

+
16
3
60
,
9
0
0
<
3
1
3

+
17
0
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
6
1

+
14
1
5
0.
0
0
8
3
5
0.0
0
5
8
6
0.
0
2
0
9
0.
0
0
9
1
5
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
6
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
5
P3
-
9
5

N
E
C
R
I-
1
-
3
0
GW
-
1
4
1
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
6/
3
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
5/
1
1
/
2
0
6/
1
6
/
2
0
GW
-
1
4
1

D
u
p
.
6/
3
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
6
GW
-
3
6
9
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
4
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
GW
P
L

R
E
R

R
E
R

R
E
R

or

o
r

o
r
RP
D

R
P
D

R
P
D
46
0

+
76
.
2
3,
2
0
0
<
1
2
.
9

J

+
7.
5
8
21
<
0
.
7
5
5

+
0.
4
3
6
7
<
0
.
1
7
3

+
0.
0
2
8
8
0.
8
2
9

+
0.
1
8
6
0.
8
3
9

+
0.
3
7
8
42
<
0
.
8
5
2

+
0.
5
2
4
3,
7
9
0
<
1
.
8
0

+
1.
0
9
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
4
9
92
<
0
.
1
5
9

+
0.
0
6
6
7
48
11
.
4

+
1.
3
3

1
1
.
9

+
1.
3
7

1
1
.
1

+
1.2
5

0
.
4
3

1
1
.
2

+
1.
2
8

1
2
.
4

+
1.
3
9

0
.
6
4

1
3
.
6

+
1.7
0

1
3
.
1

+
1.
6
0

0
.
2
1
27
0.
4
4
0

+
0.
2
9
8

0
.
3
5
0

+
0.
2
7
5

0
.
5
9
3

+
0.3
4
3

0
.
5
5

<

0
.
4
5
5

+
0.
3
2
7

0
.
3
8
7

+
0.
2
8
3

0
.
1
6

<

0
.
3
1
9

+
0.3
6
4

0
.
4
2
0

+
0.
3
1
8

0
.
2
1
79
6.
7
0

+
1.
0
3

6
.
8
1

+
1.
0
4

6
.
3
5

+
0.9
4
7

0
.
3
3

6
.
8
1

+
1.
0
0

6
.
3
3

+
0.
9
9
2

0
.
3
4

6
.
9
5

+
1.2
2

7
.
0
6

+
1.
1
7

0
.
0
7
0.
1
8
0
18
.
2
%

3
.
3
%

0
.
6
%
45
6

+
17
9
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
3
5

+
13
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
1
8
0

B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
7
5
9
7
GW
-
3
4
8
0.0
1
8
1

B
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
4
8
9
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
3
0

B
0.
0
3
0

B
0.
0
3
1

B
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2/
2
0
/
2
0
16
0
-
3
7
5
9
7
2/
2
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
3/1
2
/
2
0
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
2
5

B
0.
0
2
0
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
3/
1
2
/
2
0
GW
-
3
5
8
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
TA
S
L
-
-
1/
1
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
7
3
8
1
5/
1
2
/
2
0
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
-
1
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
5
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
RE
R

R
E
R

R
E
R

or

o
r

o
r
RP
D

R
P
D

R
P
D
11
.
4

+
0.
7
0
7

1
2
.
3

+
0.7
6
5

0
.
8
6

1
1
.
0

+
0.
9
2
6

1
1
.
0

+
0.
9
2
2

0
.
0
0

1
2
.
4

+
0.
6
8
9

1
1
.
9

+
0.
9
4
4

0
.
4
3
0.
5
1
4

+
0.
1
7
1

0
.
2
9
1

+
0.1
4
9

0
.
9
8

0
.
2
1
5

+
0.
1
5
6

0
.
3
8
2

+
0.
1
9
1

0
.
6
8

0
.
2
5
4

+
0.
1
5
7

0
.
3
9
6

+
0.
2
0
2

0
.
5
6
6.
4
5

+
0.
5
3
3

6
.
6
8

+
0.5
6
2

0
.
3
0

6
.
8
3

+
0.
7
2
5

5
.
7
5

+
0.
6
6
6

1
.
1

6
.
5
7

+
0.
5
0
8

6
.
1
3

+
0.
6
8
0

0
.
5
2
0.
0
%

1
6
.
6
%

6
.
5
%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
2
0
0
0.0
1
8
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
0
.
0
4
0

<
0
.
0
4
0

0.
0
2
0
8
0.
0
1
7
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
16
0
-
3
7
8
0
7
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
4/
9
/
2
0
6/
1
5
/
2
0
6/
1
5
/
2
0
16
0
-
3
7
8
0
7
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
7/
7
/
2
0
7/
7
/
2
0
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4/
9
/
2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
-
2
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
7
-
1
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
7
-
1
GW
-
4
0
8
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
GW
-
4
1
8
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
4
7
-
2
GW
-
6
6
9
-
-
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
6
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
RE
R

R
E
R

R
E
R

or

o
r

o
r
RP
D

R
P
D

R
P
D
13
.
4

+
1.
6
5

1
1
.
2

+
1.
3
6

1
.
0
3

1
0
.
5

+
1.
2
8

1
1
.
5

+
1.
3
9

0
.
5
3

1
2
.
8

+
1.
4
4

1
2
.
2

+
1.
4
6

0
.
2
9
0.
6
9
8

J

+
0.
4
4
4

<

0
.
2
8
5

+
0.
2
5
2

0
.
8
1

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
3
0
8

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
3
1
5

<

0
.
2
7
2

+
0.
2
6
9

<

0
.
2
1
2

+
0.
4
0
5

0
.
1
2
6.3
7

+
1.
1
4

6
.
2
8

+
1.
0
2

0
.
0
6

5
.
5
8

+
0.
9
4
2

5
.
4
0

+
0.
9
5
2

0
.
1
3

6
.
1
1

+
0.
9
9
3

5
.
9
0

+
1.
0
3

0
.
1
5
2.
4
%

3
.
2
%

3
.
6
%
-
-
TA
S
L
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
0.
0
1
8
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
1
8
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
3
9
9
0.
0
1
7
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
S
L
9/
1
5
/
2
0
9/
1
5
/
2
0
GW
-
4
0
9
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
1
6
7
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
-
1
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
-
1
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
1
9
6
0.
0
1
9
2
8/
2
0
/
2
0
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
-
1
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
-
-
-
-
16
0
-
3
9
5
3
6
-
1
-
-
-
-
8/
2
0
/
2
0
GW
-
4
1
9
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
TA
B
L
E

C
-
2
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
7
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Np
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
Sr
-
9
0
Tc
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
P3
-
9
7

N
E
C
R
RE
R

R
E
R

G
W
P
L
or

o
r
RP
D

R
P
D
20
1

+
47
.
3
3,
2
0
0
< 1
3
.
2

+
7.5
3
21
<
0
.
9
1
3

+
0.5
3
4
7
<
0
.
1
1
6

+
0.0
7
7
6
0.
6
2
7

+
0.1
6
5
1.
5
5

J

+
0.4
3
2
42
<
0
.
9
1
3

+
0.5
6
3
3,
7
9
0
< 1
.
9
6

+
1.0
9
83
<
0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.1
6
7
92
<
0
.
0
8
0
2

+
0.0
4
5
8
13
.
3

+
1.
4
1

1
1
.
1

+
1.
2
8

1
.
1
6

1
0
.
2

+
1.
4
0

1
2
.
5

+
1.
7
9

1
.
0
1
27
5.
7
7

+
0.8
6
2
0.4
3
3

+
0.
3
0
7

<

0
.
2
0
5

+
0.
2
0
6

0
.
6
2

<

0
.
2
8
4

+
0.
2
6
9

0
.
5
5
5

+
0.
4
2
0

0
.
5
4
27
<
0
.
2
8
0

+
0.1
8
4
5.
8
9

+
0.
9
4
4

6
.
0
7

+
0.
9
4
4

0
.
1
3

5
.
2
6

+
1.
0
1

7
.
1
0

+
1.
3
5

1
.
0
9
26
3.
0
1

+
0.6
2
5
2.
4
%

3
0
.
1
%
0.
0
3
27
0

+
11
1
60
,
9
0
0
<
2
5
8

+
14
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
1
8
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
0
1
6
1
-
-
-
-
0.
0
1
8
1
-
-
0.
0
2
1
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
12
/
1
5
/
2
0
12
/
1
5
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
4
0
8
3
4
-
1
16
0
-
4
0
8
3
4
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C
P3
-
9
5

S
W
C

D
u
p
.
11
/
1
0
/
2
0
11
/
1
0
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
-
1
16
0
-
4
0
4
8
4
-
1
GW
-
2
7
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GW
-
3
0
6
0.
0
0
8
9
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
P3
-
9
7

N
E
C
R
6/
1
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
5
9
4
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J -

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U -

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

G
W
Q
D
P

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Ta
b
l
e

C
-
3
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
20
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
8
Le
a
c
h
a
t
e

P
i
p
e

I
D
:
1A

1
B

2
A

2
B

3
A

3
B

4
A

4
B

5
A

5
B
Da
t
e
:
6/
2
/
2
0

5
/
2
6
/
2
0

6
/
2
/
2
0

5
/
2
6
/
2
0

6
/
2
/
2
0

5
/
2
6
/
2
0

6
/
2
/
2
0

5
/
2
6
/
2
0

6
/
2
/
2
0
La
b
:
TA
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D
TA
D
TA
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D
28
0
-
1
3
7
2
3
3

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
0
1
0

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
2
3
3

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
0
1
0

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
2
3
3

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
0
1
0

2
8
0
-1
3
7
2
3
3

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
0
1
0

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
2
3
3
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)

6
.
8
2

7
.
2
8

7
.
6
5

6
.
7
6

7
.
6
4

7
.
4
8

7
.
4
2

8
.
0
9

8
.
2
2

8
.
0
0
SC

(
m
m
h
o
s
/
c
m
)

>

1
0
0

3
1
.
6

8
7
.
9

6
8
.
8

7
8
.
9

5
7
.
3

9
3
.
6

5
3
.
5

7
3
.
0

5
9
.
6
Eh

(
m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
)

1
9
7

9
6

9
2

2
8

-
9
5

8
9

4
7

8
9

6
2

8
4
Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

<

1
0

<

1
0

<

1
0

<

1
0

1
2

<

1
0

<

1
0

<

1
0

<

1
0

<

1
0
2-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e

(
M
E
K
)

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6
.
0

<

6.
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2
.
0

<

2.
0
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0
<
1
.
0
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0

<

5
.
0
<

5
.
0
1,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1.
0

<

1
.
0
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0

<

1
.
0
Po
l
y
c
h
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d

B
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ta
b
l
e

C
-
3
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
20
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
3
9
Le
a
c
h
a
t
e

P
i
p
e

I
D
:
Da
t
e
:
La
b
:
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
SC

(
m
m
h
o
s
/
c
m
)
Eh

(
m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
)
Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ac
e
t
o
n
e
2-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e

(
M
E
K
)
Ca
r
b
o
n

d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

1,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Po
l
y
c
h
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d

B
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
0
1
6
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
2
1
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
3
2
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
4
2
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
4
8
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
5
4
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
6
0
6A

6
B

7
A

7
B

8
A

8
B

9
A

9
B

1
0
A

1
0
B
6/
1
/
2
0

5
/
2
8
/
2
0

6
/
1
/
2
0

5
/
2
8
/
2
0

6
/
1
/
2
0

5
/
2
8
/
2
0

6
/
1
/
2
0

5
/
2
8
/
2
0

6
/
1
/
2
0
TA
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D
28
0
-
1
3
7
0
6
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
1
5
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
0
6
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
1
5
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
0
6
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
1
5
1

2
8
0
-1
3
7
0
6
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
1
5
1
7.
3
6

7
.
5
2

8
.
1
2

7
.
8
6

7
.
4
0

7
.
6
1

7
.
1
3

7
.
4
3

7
.
6
7

7
.
4
3
Ta
b
l
e

C
-
3
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
20
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
0
Le
a
c
h
a
t
e

P
i
p
e

I
D
:
Da
t
e
:
La
b
:
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)
SC

(
m
m
h
o
s
/
c
m
)
Eh

(
m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
)
Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ac
e
t
o
n
e
2-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e

(
M
E
K
)
Ca
r
b
o
n

d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

1,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Po
l
y
c
h
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d

B
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
s

(
PPg/
L
)
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
0
1
6
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
2
1
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
3
2
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
4
2
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
4
8
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
5
4
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
6
0
Tr
i
p

B
l
a
n
k

T
r
i
p

B
l
a
n
k

T
r
i
p

B
l
a
n
k
5/
2
6
/
2
0

5
/
2
8
/
2
0

6
/
1
/
2
0
TA
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D
28
0
-
1
3
7
0
6
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
7
1
5
1
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
Ta
b
l
e

C
-
4
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

20
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
1
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a

5
,
8
0
0

+
32
3

4
,
4
0
0

+
13
0

1
,
4
3
0

+
12
7

1
,
7
3
0

+
12
8

9
4
5

+
10
9

7
,
1
2
0

+
22
0

6
5
7

+
10
4
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4

<

1
3
.
0

+
7.
5
6

<

1
2
.
3

+
7.
6
5

<

1
3
.
0

+
7.
6
3

<

1
2
.
3

+
7.
3
6

<

1
2
.
7

+
7.
3
9

<

1
2
.
7

+
7.
6
2

<

1
3
.
1

+
7.
6
7
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9

<

1
.
6
3

+
0.
9
4
8

<

1
.
5
6

+
0.
8
9
6

<

1
.
7
2

+
0.
9
8
7

<

1
.
2
4

+
0.
7
1
9

<

3
.
4
4

+
1.
9
8

<

1
.
4
9

+
0.
8
6
5

<

1
.
6
2

+
0.
9
4
5
Ne
p
t
u
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
7

<

0
.
3
3
8

+
0.
1
0
3

<

0
.
3
0
5

+
0.
1
6
5

<

0
.
2
8
0

+
0.
0
9
3
9

<

0
.
3
1
2

+
0.
1
8
2

<

0
.
3
2
7

+
0.
0
4
5
8

<

0
.
3
1
1

+
0.
1
5
2

<

0
.
1
3
0

+
0.
1
5
0
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6

<

0
.
1
2
2

+
0.
0
6
6
3

0
.
1
8
0

+
0.
1
1
4

0
.
1
3
8

+
0.
0
9
2
2

0
.
2
4
6

+
0.
1
4
3

0
.
4
7
7

+
0.
1
8
2

0
.
2
4
9

+
0.
1
3
2

0
.
3
4
7

+
0.
1
2
1
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8

0
.
6
2
3

+
0.
3
9
7

<

0
.
8
2
4

+
0.
4
3
9

0
.
8
6
9

+
0.
5
0
2

<

0
.
9
2
7

+
0.
5
9
4

1
.
1
3

+
0.
6
9
7

1
.
0
0

+
0.
5
1
4

1
.
4
1

+
0.
4
6
2
St
r
o
n
t
i
u
m
-
8
9
/
9
0

4
.
8
5

J

+
2.
2
6

0
.
8
6
8

+
0.
5
0
4

3
.
2
7

J

+
1.
5
3

1
.
2
8

+
0.
7
9
1

<

4
.
9
5

+
2.
9
0

<

0
.
8
6
3

+
0.
5
3
8

0
.
6
4
6

J

+
0.
4
2
2
Te
c
h
n
e
t
i
u
m
-
9
9

1
9
.
1

J

+
2.
1
1

4
,
0
7
0

+
61
.
1

1
2
8

+
4.
0
5

7
4
5

+
11
.
3

1
7
4

+
5.
1
1

8
,
6
5
0

+
12
9

2
1
6

+
5.
1
4
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0

<

0
.
2
7
6

+
0.
2
2
3

<

0
.
4
4
5

+
0.
3
4
5

<

0
.
2
7
3

+
0.
1
8
2

1
.
8
6

J

+
0.
3
7
3

0
.
6
6
0

J

+
0.
2
8
2

0
.
5
6
1

+
0.
2
4
4

<

0
.
2
9
7

+
0.
2
0
8
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2

<

0
.
1
2
7

+
0.
0
6
3
4

<

0
.
3
5
6

+
0.
1
7
4

<

0
.
1
2
1

+
0.
0
4
7
1

<

0
.
2
4
3

J

+
0.
1
4
4

0
.
2
0
1

+
0.
1
5
2

<

0
.
1
2
8

+
0.
0
6
4
5

<

0
.
1
3
5

+
0.
0
3
0
9
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4

4
2
.
5

+
2.
4
8

6
1
6

+
16
.
5

1
8
.
5

+
1.
6
8

9
6
.
3

+
4.
7
7

8
4
.
8

+
4.
1
6

1
7
.
5

+
1.
8
1

2
1
.
2

+
1.
8
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5

1
.
9
4

+
0.
6
1
5

2
6
.
1

+
3.
8

0
.
5
0
3

+
0.
3
2
5

3
.
6
7

+
1.
0
5

2
.
1
5

+
0.
7
9
2

<

0
.
4
7
0

+
0.
3
5
3

0
.
9
7
1

+
0.
4
5
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8

2
6
.
9

+
1.
9
8

1
5
7

+
8.
3
3

1
4
.
1

+
1.
4
7

5
3
.
3

+
3.
5
5

5
6
.
0

+
3.
3
6

8
.
5
9

+
1.
2
7

1
8
.
5

+
1.
6
9
To
t
a
l

U
r
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0

7
,
4
6
0

+
61
7

<

1
9
1

+
15
7

2
,
6
5
0

+
29
1

5
6
5

+
15
0

6
1
4

+
23
2

4
9
8

+
14
3

7
1
2

+
16
5
Tr
i
t
i
u
m

<

2
4
1

+
15
5

<

3
0
5

+
17
8

2
7
,
4
0
0

+
85
3

3
6
8

+
20
8

1
,
8
6
0

+
26
0

<

3
0
3

+
19
6

8
9
9

+
20
2
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
1
6
6
4A
6/
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
0
2
5
5
3B
5/
2
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
0.
0
4
1
7
2B
5/
2
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
0.
1
5
8
0.
4
7
4
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
1B
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2A
6/
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
3A
6/
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
1A
6/
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
0
8
0
0.
0
5
4
9
TA
S
L
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U
-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ta
b
l
e

C
-
4
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

20
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
2
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Ne
p
t
u
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
St
r
o
n
t
i
u
m
-
8
9
/
9
0
Te
c
h
n
e
t
i
u
m
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
To
t
a
l

U
r
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
1,
3
7
0

+
93
.
7

4
4
6

+
73
.
2

1
,
1
1
0

+
88
.
9

6
9
9

+
78
.
1

1
4
,
3
0
0

+
27
6

5
5
6

+
65
.
9

5
,
3
2
0

+
18
7
<
1
2
.
3

+
7.
1
7

<

1
3
.
0

+
7.
8
0

<

1
2
.
6

+
7.
7
2

<

1
3
.
6

+
7.
9
1

<

1
3
.
1

+
7.
8
3

<

1
3
.
7

+
7.
9
9

<

1
2
.
9

+
7.
6
8
<
1
.
3
4

+
0.
7
6

<

2
.
1
5

+
1.
2
3

<

1
.
5
0

+
0.
8
6
3

<

2
.
7
3

+
1.
6
1

<

2
.
1
6

+
1.
2
4

<

1
.
9
7

+
1.
1
4

<

1
.
8
9

+
1.
1
0
<
0
.
2
2
9

+
0.
1
6
6

<

0
.
2
4
8

+
0.
0
3
1
3

<

0
.
2
1
6

+
0.
1
7
4

<

0
.
3
5
6

+
0.
2
3
9

<

0
.
3
4
2

+
0.
1
6
1

<

0
.
2
4
7

+
0.
1
4
3

<

0
.
3
3
7

+
0.
1
0
9
0.
2
0
1

+
0.
1
2
7

0
.
2
0
2

+
0.
0
8
9
2

0
.
1
8
3

+
0.
1
0
8

0
.
3
0
4

+
0.
1
0
4

0
.
1
5
3

+
0.
0
9
1
4

0
.
1
9
2

+
0.
0
8
7
4

0
.
1
4
3

+
0.
0
8
7
6
<
0
.
7
3
5

+
0.
4
6
5

0
.
8
2
1

+
0.
4
2
5

1
.
0
8

+
0.
5
1
7

0
.
9
9
8

+
0.
3
4
6

0
.
7
2
2

+
0.
3
4
4

1
.
1
1

+
0.
3
6
5

1
.
0
9

+
0.
3
7
3
1.
7
9

+
0.
5
8
1

1
.
0
8

J

+
0.
5
3
2

1
.
6
4

+
0.
6
5
0

2
.
2
9

J

+
0.
5
8
3

<

0
.
8
1
2

+
0.
5
0
6

1
.
4
4

J

+
0.
5
1
2

<

0
.
6
6
1

+
0.
3
9
3
1,
7
6
0

+
26
.
5

2
5
9

+
5.
4
8

7
7
1

+
11
.
6

3
2
3

+
6.
1
1

2
1
,
7
0
0

+
32
4

3
5
4

+
6.
3
6

8
,
5
5
0

+
12
8
0.
6
0
4

+
0.
4
2
3

<

0
.
3
5
4

+
0.
2
4
0

<

0
.
4
4
7

+
0.
3
4
5

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
1
7
7

<

0
.
2
7
1

+
0.
2
2
5

<

0
.
3
2
1

+
0.
2
0
3

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
6
6
<
0
.
3
0
3

+
0.
0
5
5
5

<

0
.
1
7
2

+
0.
0
4
2
8

<

0
.
3
1
5

+
0.
0
5
8
7

<

0
.
1
2
9

+
0.
0
6
6
3

<

0
.
1
6
2

+
0.
0
7
8
2

<

0
.
2
3
1

+
0.
0
9
6
2

<

0
.
2
2
8

+
0.
1
2
2
36
.
6

+
2.
8
1

4
4
.
7

+
2.
4
7

1
8
.
9

+
1.
8
9

4
6
.
5

+
3.
0
9

2
0
.
4

+
1.
7
5

2
7
.
8

+
2.
0
1

7
.
3
4

+
1.
0
3
1.
6
2

+
0.
6
5
9

3
.
1
8

+
0.
7
3
5

0
.
7
0
5

+
0.
4
0
7

2
.
5
3

+
0.
8
5
3

0
.
9
2
1

+
0.
4
2
9

1
.
2
6

+
0.
5
1
8

0
.
4
6
4

+
0.
3
0
0
32
.
5

+
2.
6
5

6
6
.
3

+
3.
0
0

1
2
.
4

+
1.
5
4

9
3
.
7

+
4.
3
5

1
3
.
8

+
1.
4
3

2
1
.
9

+
1.
8
0

4
.
8
9

+
0.
8
2
4
34
2

+
12
6

4
2
9

+
25
0

3
6
0

+
15
3

3
2
2

+
15
0

3
2
2

+
15
0

4
8
0

+
17
3

4
1
8

+
16
0
<
3
1
1

+
17
7

3
,
6
0
0

+
33
8

<

3
1
1

+
18
9

8
,
4
0
0

+
48
5

3
4
0

+
16
7

4
,
2
1
0

+
36
0

7
4
5

+
18
9
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
6B
7A
5/
2
8
/
2
0
6/
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
7B
5/
2
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
2
7
7
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
6A
6/
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
5B
5/
2
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
4B
5/
2
6
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
2
0
7
0.
0
1
4
6
0.
0
4
1
0
0.
0
3
6
8
0.
0
6
5
0
0.
0
9
6
3
5A
6/
2
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
1
9
6
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U
-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
Ta
b
l
e

C
-
4
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

20
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Mi
x
e
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
3
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9
Ne
p
t
u
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
7
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8
St
r
o
n
t
i
u
m
-
8
9
/
9
0
Te
c
h
n
e
t
i
u
m
-
9
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8
To
t
a
l

U
r
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0
Tr
i
t
i
u
m
5,
1
9
0

+
14
5

2
,
0
3
0

+
11
5

5
7
8

+
66
.
8

7
7
3

+
56
.
1

5
,
2
3
0

+
25
1

3
5
3

+
43
.
3
22
6

+
13
.
1

1
4
8

+
11
.
8

2
9
9

J

+
14
.
8

1
3
.
6

+
8.
1
2

2
,
0
8
0

+
34
.
2

<

1
3
.
1

+
7.
7
0
<
2
.
0
2

+
1.1
7

<

1
.
8
5

+
1.
0
6

2
.
0
9

+
0.
9
2
3

<

1
.
6
2

+
0.
9
5
2

2
6
.
6

J

+
1.
4
4

<

2
.
0
0

+
1.
1
4
<
0
.
3
1
4

+
0.0
9
8
2

<

0
.
2
7
2

+
0.
1
3
0

<

0
.
2
1
1

+
0.
0
2
1
8

<

0
.
3
2
3

+
0.
1
1
4

<

0
.
2
4
3

+
0.
0
9
2

<

0
.
4
7
7

+
0.
1
3
8
0.
1
6
5

+
0.
0
8
1
6

0
.
2
3
1

+
0.
1
1
2

0
.
1
6
3

+
0.
0
8
2
1

0
.
2
0
1

+
0.
0
8
9
6

0
.
3
2
1

+
0.
1
1
4

0
.
1
2
6

+
0.
0
7
9
8
<
0
.
5
1
5

+
0.
3
0
6

0
.
7
3
3

+
0.
3
6
2

0
.
6
7
3

+
0.
3
2
1

<

0
.
5
0
4

+
0.
3
1
3

6
1
.
8

+
1.
9
4

0
.
6
1
1

+
0.
3
6
7
<
0
.
9
9
4

+
0.6
3
3

<

0
.
7
5
3

+
0.
4
0
2

1
.
7
3

J

+
0.
5
2
3

<

0
.
8
4
7

+
0.
5
2
2

1
,
1
5
0

J

+
9.
7
0

1
.
7
4

J

+
0.
5
6
7
10
,
1
0
0

+
15
2

3
,
6
1
0

+
54
.
2

1
,
0
5
0

J

+
15
.
8

1
,
2
1
0

+
18
.
2

7
9
5

+
13
.
2

3
3
1

+
6.
1
8
0.
7
1
3

J

+
0.3
6
7

<

0
.
3
2
8

+
0.
2
0
8

<

0
.
3
3
2

+
0.
2
4
3

<

0
.
2
9
2

+
0.
2
0
2

<

0
.
6
0
0

U

+
0.
2
5
2

<

0
.
3
8
0

+
0.
2
4
0
<
0
.
2
4
6

+
0.1
0
3

<

0
.
2
0
5

+
0.
0
9
3
2

<

0
.
2
3
9

+
0.
1
0
6

<

0
.
1
2
0

+
0.
0
7
0
8

<

0
.
1
6
6

+
0.
0
8
0
3

<

0
.
3
0
3

+
0.
1
6
7
14
.
3

+
1.
3
6

1
1
.
1

+
1.
3
1

2
2
.
8

+
1.
7
4

4
.
7
5

+
0.
8
2
6

1
4
2

+
5.
5
0

3
.
8
1

+
0.
7
5
1
0.
6
6
4

+
0.
3
8
0

0
.
5
4
0

+
0.
3
3
0

1
.
2
5

+
0.
4
8
3

<

0
.
3
4
3

+
0.
1
8
6

6
.
6
1

+
1.
3
2

<

0
.
2
5
7

+
0.
0
9
7
7
10
.
9

+
1.
2
1

6
.
7
5

+
1.
0
4

1
4
.
4

+
1.
3
9

3
.
2
8

+
0.
6
7
7

8
6
.
4

+
4.
2
9

2
.
3
1

+
0.
5
8
9
<
2
4
2

+
21
1

3
2
6

+
12
6

2
6
3

+
23
4

<

2
0
9

+
17
9

4
,
0
8
0

+
36
9

2
3
1

+
13
5
55
8
,
0
0
0

+
8,
3
8
0

1
3
,
5
0
0

+
61
6

8
8
3
,
0
0
0

+
13
,
2
0
0

3
9
4

+
16
8

1
1
,
9
0
0

+
57
7

<

2
4
3

+
15
4
0.
0
4
2
9
10
A
6/
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
2
5
7
1
9B
5/
2
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
0
0
9
8
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
8A
6/
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
8B
9A
5/
2
8
/
2
0
6/
1
/
2
0
TA
S
L
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
10
B
5/
2
8
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
3
7
8
0.
0
0
6
9
0.
0
2
0
1
0.
0
3
2
4
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
U
-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

C
R
D
L
.

B
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
s
ee

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)

--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
TA
B
L
E

C
-
5
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
Ev
a
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
o
n
d

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
4
Po
n
d

I
D
:
20
0
0

P
o
n
d

M
W

P
o
n
d

N
W

P
o
n
d

1
9
9
5

P
o
n
d
Da
t
e
:
7/
7
/
2
0

7
/
7
/
2
0

7
/
9
/
2
0

7
/
7
/
2
0

7
/
9
/
2
0
La
b
:
TA
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D

T
A
D
28
0
-
1
3
8
3
5
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
8
3
5
1

2
8
0
-
1
3
8
4
3
9

2
8
0
-
1
3
8
3
5
1
An
a
l
y
t
e
pH

(
s
t
d
.

u
n
i
t
s
)

7
.
2
4

6
.
9
3

7
.
7
9

8
.
7
3

7
.
5
5
SC

(
m
m
h
o
s
/
c
m
)

>

1
0
0

>

1
0
0

>

1
0
0

>

1
0
0

6
2
.
7
Eh

(
m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
)

7
5

-
2
2
4

8
5

4
4

-
1
9
7
Fu
l
l
n
e
s
s

3
/
8

3
/
8

1
/
2

1
/
4

1
/
2
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Br
o
m
i
d
e

1
,
4
0
0

J

8
5
0

J

3
9

6
8
0

J

1
3
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

1
2
0
,
0
0
0

7
6
,
0
0
0

6
0
,
0
0
0

5
4
,
0
0
0

2
2
,
0
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

3
,
3
0
0

J

5
,
0
0
0

J

5
,
7
0
0

3
,
6
0
0

J

1
,
5
0
0
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
17
0

1
6
0

7
9

6
6

1
7
0
Bi
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e

1
7
0

1
6
0

7
9

2
2

1
7
0
Ca
r
b
o
n
a
t
e

<

1
0

<

1
0
.
0

<

1
0
.
0

4
3

<

1
0
.
0
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

7
9
0

1
,
1
0
0

1
,
4
0
0

1
,
1
0
0

4
3
0
Ma
g
n
e
s
i
u
m

2
,
8
0
0

1
,
8
0
0

7
3
0

1
,
2
0
0

5
5
0
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m

1
,
9
0
0

1
,
2
0
0

8
3
0

9
0
0

4
0
0
So
d
i
u
m

5
0
,
0
0
0

3
8
,
0
0
0

2
9
,
0
0
0

3
2
,
0
0
0

1
4
,
0
0
0
Me
t
a
l
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n

<

0
.
1
0

0
.
2
5

<

0
.
1
0

<

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
1
TD
S

2
1
3
,
0
0
0

J

1
2
0
,
0
0
0

J

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

9
8
,
0
0
0

J

3
4
,
0
0
0
An
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)

3
,
4
7
4

2
2
6
1

1
,
8
1
3

1
6
0
7

6
5
5
Ca
t
i
o
n
s

(
m
e
q
/
L
)

2
,
4
9
3

1
8
8
7

1
,
4
1
3

1
5
6
9

6
8
6
Ba
l
a
n
c
e

(
%
)

1
6
.
4
%

9
.
0
%

1
2
.
4
%

1
.
2
%

2
.
3
%
PC
B
s

(
PPg/
L
)
TA
B
L
E

C
-
6
En
e
r
g
y
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
2
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

R
e
p
o
r
t
E
v
a
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
o
n
d

R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Pa
g
e

C
-
4
5
Gr
o
s
s

B
e
t
a

1
,
8
9
0

+
28
2

9
1
2

+
15
9

1
,
1
0
0

+
15
5

9
5
0

+
14
3

5
3
8

+
70
.
9
Ca
r
b
o
n
-
1
4

1
7
1

+
12
.
6

<

1
3
.
4

+
8.
1
9

1
3
4

+
11
.
7

3
7
.
2

+
9.
1
5

7
9
.
9

+
10
.
2
Io
d
i
n
e
-
1
2
9

<

4
.
9
7

J

+
2.
8
7

<

2
.
9
1

J

+
1.
7
1

<

3
.
9
6

J

+
2.
3
5

<

2
.
3
3

J

+
1.
3
5

<

1
.
0
2

J

+
0.
6
1
8
Np
-
2
3
7

<

0
.
2
6
4

+
0.
0
3
6
9

<

0
.
2
6
8

+
0.
1
4
5

<

0
.
3
3
3

+
0.
1
0
4

<

0
.
2
8
2

+
0.
1
9
9

<

0
.
2
0
2

+
0.
0
8
6
2
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
6

0
.
4
3
2

+
0.
1
5
8

0
.
6
5
8

+
0.
1
7
1

<

0
.
1
9
0

+
0.
1
1
2

0
.
2
6
2

+
0.
1
1
7

0
.
7
3
5

+
0.
1
9
9
Ra
d
i
u
m
-
2
2
8

4
.
2
7

J

+
0.
8
0
7

2
.
2
4

J

+
0.
4
8
7

2
.
6
1

J

+
0.
5
0
9

3
.
0
9

J

+
0.
5
7
6

3
.
1
6

J

+
0.
5
5
2
Sr
-
9
0

9
8
.
9

+
4.
0
0

2
9
.
4

+
2.
1
4

9
4
.
8

+
3.
8
2

1
2
2

+
4.
1
5

4
9
.
1

+
2.
3
2
Tc
-
9
9

5
3
.
1

+
2.
7
9

2
0
.
8

+
1.
9
7

5
1
.
3

+
2.
7
4

1
1
.
4

+
1.
5
8

1
0
.
5

+
1.
5
9
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
0

<

0
.
3
0
9

+
0.
2
1
8

<

0
.
2
4
9

+
0.
1
6
6

<

0
.
3
0
0

+
0.
2
1
3

<

0
.
2
7
7

+
0.
1
8
1

<

0
.
2
6
0

+
0.
1
9
2
Th
o
r
i
u
m
-
2
3
2

<

0
.
3
4
8

+
0.
1
8
1

<

0
.
1
2
5

+
0.
0
5
1
6

<

0
.
2
4
4

+
0.
1
1
7

<

0
.
2
1
8

+
0.
1
0
8

<

0
.
2
8
3

+
0.
1
5
5
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
4

3
3
6

+
11
.
8

2
9
.
6

+
1.
7
3

3
4
2

+
10
.
3

1
4
.
9

+
1.
1
3

1
7
.
0

+
1.
1
9
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
5

2
3
.
3

+
3.
4
7

1
.
9
0

+
0.
4
9
2

1
9
.
3

+
2.
7
3

0
.
7
3
5

+
0.
3
0
1

1
.
0
4

+
0.
3
3
1
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
-
2
3
8

5
4
8

+
15
.
0

4
5
.
6

+
2.
1
4

3
7
7

+
10
.
8

1
7
.
5

+
1.
2
2

2
2
.
8

+
1.
3
7
Ur
a
n
i
u
m

(
m
g
/
L
)
Po
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
-
4
0

1
,
4
2
0

+
24
5

1
,
0
1
0

+
23
2

<

3
8
7

+
37
0

7
2
4

+
21
0

4
1
2

+
10
7
Tr
i
t
i
u
m

1
,
3
0
0

+
25
4

<

3
1
5

+
18
7

1
,
7
5
0

+
27
6

5
4
1

+
21
3

1
,
5
6
0

+
27
1
19
9
7

P
o
n
d
7/
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
8
NW

P
o
n
d
7/
9
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
8
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
8
7/
7
/
2
0
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
8
TA
S
L
16
0
-
3
8
9
5
8
7/
7
/
2
0
20
0
0

P
o
n
d
19
9
5

P
o
n
d
MW

P
o
n
d
7/
7
/
2
0
TA
S
L
1.
6
2
2
0.
0
5
2
0.
0
6
8
0.
1
3
5
1.
1
1
8
<
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

P
Q
L
J
-

V
a
l
u
e

i
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

(
s
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
)
--

-

N
o
t

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual February 2021
Groundwater Monitoring Report

ATTACHMENT 1

FIELD DATA SHEETS

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual February 2021
Groundwater Monitoring Report

ATTACHMENT 2

DATA VALIDATION

EnergySolutions Utah Division of Water Quality
2020 Annual February 2021
Groundwater Monitoring Report

ATTACHMENT 3

LABORATORY DATA PACKAGES

Files cannot be combined due to laboratory protocols for document security.

Laboratory data packages provided as individual files to preserve document
security and signatures.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page G-1 Appendix G April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX G

SWCA VEGETATION STUDY

(SWCA, 2011)

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of
Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County,
Utah
Prepared for
EnergySolutions
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
January 2011

FIELD SAMPLING OF BIOTIC TURBATION OF SOILS AT
THE CLIVE SITE, TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH

Prepared for

EnergySolutions
423 West 300 South
Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Prepared by

Hope Hornbeck, Bridget Crokus, Eleanor Gladding, Amanda Childs

SWCA Environmental Consultants
257 East 200 South
Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

January 12, 2010

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
i
CONTENTS
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 Field Sampling Locations ............................................................................................................. 1 
2 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 4 
2.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 4 
2.1.1 Plot 1: Mixed Grassland ........................................................................................................ 4 
2.1.2 Plot 2: Juniper-sagebrush ...................................................................................................... 6 
2.1.3 Plot 3: Black Greasewood ..................................................................................................... 7 
2.1.4 Plot 4: Halogeton-disturbed .................................................................................................. 8 
2.1.5 Plot 5: Shadscale–Gray Molly .............................................................................................. 9 
2.1.6 Plant Root Densities and Rooting Depths ........................................................................... 10 
2.2 Mammals ..................................................................................................................................... 13 
2.2.1 Mammal Trapping............................................................................................................... 13 
2.2.2 Mammal Burrow Surveys ................................................................................................... 18 
2.3 Ants ............................................................................................................................................. 22 
2.3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 22 
2.3.2 Ant Identification Results ................................................................................................... 23 
2.3.3 Mound Dimension Results .................................................................................................. 23 

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Ant Collection Results
Table A-1. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 1 ............................................................................................ A-1 
Table A-2. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 2 ............................................................................................ A-4 
Table A-3. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 3 ............................................................................................ A-4 
Table A-4. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 4 ............................................................................................ A-5 
Table A-5. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 5 ............................................................................................ A-7

FIGURES

Figure 1. Mixed grassland vegetation association (Plot 1). ......................................................................... 5 
Figure 2. Juniper-sagebrush vegetation association (Plot 2). ....................................................................... 7 
Figure 3. Black greasewood vegetation association (Plot 3). ...................................................................... 8 
Figure 4. Halogeton-disturbed vegetation association (Plot 4). ................................................................... 9 
Figure 5. Shadscale–gray molly vegetation association (Plot 5)................................................................ 10 
Figure 6. Mojave seablite biomass measurements in Plot 4. ..................................................................... 11 
Figure 7. Plot 3 soil cross section with compacted clay layer at approximately 60 cm depth. .................. 13 
Figure 8. Trapping station layout, where X represents extra-large traps and x represents large traps. ...... 14 

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
ii
TABLES

Table 1. Plot 1 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities (plants per 100m2; nd = no data) ................................................................................................................................................. 5 
Table 2. Plot 2 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities (plants / 100 m2;
nd = no data) ................................................................................................................................................. 6 
Table 3. Plot 3 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities (plants / 100 m2;
nd = no data) ................................................................................................................................................. 7 
Table 4. Plot 4 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities (plants / 100 m2; nd = no data)* ............................................................................................................................................... 8 
Table 5. Plot 5 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities (plants / 100 m2;
nd = no data)* ............................................................................................................................................... 9 
Table 6. Average root density (roots per cm) and maximum rooting depth (cm) of dominant plant species
in Plots 3 and 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 12 
Table 7. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 1 .......................................................................................................................... 15 
Table 8. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals Recaptured, and Number Found
Deceased in Trap in Plot 2 .......................................................................................................................... 15 
Table 9. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals Recaptured, and Number Found
Deceased in Trap in Plot 3 .......................................................................................................................... 16 
Table 10. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals Recaptured, and Number Found
Deceased in Trap in Plot 4 .......................................................................................................................... 17 
Table 11. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 5 .......................................................................................................................... 17 
Table 12. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 1 ..................................................................................... 18 
Table 13. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in the Southwestern Quadrant of Plot 1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 
Table 14. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 2 ..................................................................................... 20 
Table 15. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in the Northeastern Quadrant of Plot 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 
Table 16. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 3 ..................................................................................... 21 
Table 17. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in the Northeastern Quadrant of Plot 3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 
Table 18. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 5 ..................................................................................... 22 
Table 19. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in Plot 5 .......................................... 22 

MAPS

Map 1. On-site field plots. ............................................................................................................................ 2 
Map 2. Off-site field plots. ............................................................................................................................ 3 
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
1
1 INTRODUCTION
EnergySolutions operates a mixed-waste nuclear disposal facility at their Clive Site in Clive, Utah on
privately-owned lands. Nuclear waste emits radiation for thousands of years. Over the course of time entire landscapes may change due to biologic, climatic, and geologic shifts. Because site conditions may
radically change before nuclear waste is entirely depleted, careful consideration must be given to
projections of future site conditions.
Waste products at the Clive Site are buried in an impermeable clay layer and covered with concrete.
Small amounts of radiation may be absorbed by surrounding soils. Soil turbation (mixing) by plants and animals is a potentially important pathway through which buried waste can be transported to the soil surface or to different layers of the subsurface soil profile. Studies indicate that ants, burrowing mammals,
and deeply rooted plants are the primary biota of interest for movement and mixing of soils in arid ecosystems. Ants and burrowing mammals provide constant mixing of the soil column, whereas plants can move buried wastes through root uptake and translocation of contaminants to various parts of the
plant.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) was contracted by EnergySolutions to gather soil turbation
data at five sites in and around the Clive Site. Sites were established in three locations at the Clive Site,
and two locations off the Clive site on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
SWCA’s field sampling objectives were to 1) identify ant species present and nest density of each
species, and quantify surface features of each nest; 2) identify plant species present and estimate the
percent cover and stem densities of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees in each vegetative association; and 3) identify burrowing mammal species present and density of mammal burrows in each vegetative
association, and quantify volume of soil excavated at each mammal burrow. In addition to the field
sampling objectives, site excavations were conducted at six locations in two field plots (Plot 3 and Plot 4) located on the Clive Site. The objective of the site excavations was to measure the aboveground and
belowground biomass of dominant plant species, and to determine the maximum rooting depth and width
of root masses for dominant plant species.
The following report presents the field sampling data. These results, along with other variables, will be
placed into a predictive landscape model currently being developed by Neptune and Company, Inc. Once complete, the model will contribute understanding of future conditions at the Clive Site.
1.1 Field Sampling Locations
Field sampling was conducted in September and October 2010 in five 1-ha plots (100 × 100 m; 10,000 m2) that were each subdivided into four 50 × 50–m subplots. Field plots were oriented from north to
south. Three plots were established in each of the three primary vegetation associations present at the
Clive Site: 1) shadscale–gray molly, 2) black greasewood, and 3) halogeton-disturbed (Map 1). Two plots were established off of the Clive Site in vegetation associations that represent 1) potential vegetation on
elevated soil mounds with lower soil salinities, and/or 2) potential future climatic conditions that would be cooler than present-day conditions at the Clive Site (Map 2). The two off-site field plots were on lands
administered by the BLM: one in a mixed grassland association and one in a juniper-sagebrush
association. Additional field sampling of plant stem densities was conducted on December 13, 2010.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
2

Map 1. On-site field plots.
Plot 05
Plot 03
Plot 04
CLIVE COMPLEX RD
SA
H
A
R
A

R
D
DESERET WELL RD
CLIV
E C
OMPLEX RD
CLIVE COMPLEX RD
Great
Salt Lake
Desert
Low
AragoniteKnolls
80
Contains Privileged Information: Do Not Release
Imagery taken from National
Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP)
natural color aerial photography 1-m
resolution, 2009.
0 0.25 0.5
miles
0 0.25 0.5
km
On-site Plot Locations
Local Roads
Land Ownership
BLM
Private
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 8:51:30 AM
V:\16s\16981\Maps\Report\On-site_plot_locations.mxd
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
3

Map 2. Off-site field plots.
Plot 02
Plot 01
CEDAR MOUNTAIN RD
OLD MUTTON RD
RECLAIMED RD
Great
Salt Lake
Desert
Low
AragoniteKnolls
80
Contains Privileged Information: Do Not Release
Imagery taken from National
Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP)
natural color aerial photography 1-m
resolution, 2009.
0 0.25 0.5
miles
0 0.25 0.5
km
Local Roads
Off-site Plot Locations
Land Ownership
BLM
National Wilderness Area
Private
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 9:26:32 AMV:\16s\16981\Maps\Report\Off-site_plot_locations.mxd
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
4
2 RESULTS
Five field plots were established: three in the primary vegetation associations present at the Clive Site
(shadscale–gray molly, black greasewood, and halogeton-disturbed), and two in nearby upland areas (mixed grassland and juniper-sagebrush).
2.1 Vegetation
Vegetation sampling was performed from September 30 through October 12, 2010. In each field plot, two
of the four subplots were randomly selected for sampling. Five 50-m-long transects were oriented south to
north every 10 m from the southeastern corner of the subplot. Ten 1-m2 sampling quadrats were sampled at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 35, 40 and 45 m along each 50-m transect for a total of 50 sample quadrats per
subplot, or 100 quadrats per plot (100 m2 or 1% of each 10,000 m2 plot area).
Plot 1 (mixed grassland) and Plot 2 (juniper-sagebrush) were located to the southeast of the Clive Site on BLM-administered lands. Plots 3 and 4 (black greasewood and halogeton-disturbed) were located in the
Clive Site. Plot 5 (shadscale–gray molly) was located immediately west of the Clive Site on adjacent
private property.
Additional field sampling of plant stem densities was performed on December 13, 2010. In each plot, one
transect comprised of 10 quadrats was randomly selected in each of the previously sampled plot quadrants. A total of 100 quadrats, or 20 quadrats per plot, were sampled and vegetation cover and stem densities were recorded for each species in each quadrat. Stem counts were made as follows: individual shrubs were counted
as 1 stem; perennial bunchgrasses were counted as 1 stem; annual grass culms (grass stems) were each counted as 1 stem; and annual forb species were counted where plant condition allowed counting. Plants were counted
only if rooted in the plot. Bunch grasses were counted if 50% or more of the plant base was rooted in the plot.
From these data we modeled species-specific relationships between percent cover and plant density and used the model parameters to calculate stem densities from percent cover for the entire data set.
Forty-one plant species were identified in the five field plots. Because many desert forbs are spring ephemerals
and field sampling was conducted at the end of the growing season, the plant species diversity and cover, particularly for herbaceous forbs, is underrepresented. Of the few forb species that were detected during
vegetation cover sampling, all were dead or senesced, with the exception of Halogeton (Halogeton
glomeratus), a late-season invasive annual weed.
Biological soil crusts are a dominant feature of vegetation communities throughout the Great Salt Lake
basin. Soil crusts were present in all five vegetation associations sampled, but were more prevalent in the
low desert vegetation associations (e.g., black greasewood, haltogeton-disturbed, and shadscale-gray molly) present on and adjacent to the Clive Site.
2.1.1 Plot 1: Mixed Grassland
Plot 1 comprised a mix of native and non-native grass species with a few scattered shrubs and forbs (Figure 1,
Table 1). The ground cover was dominated by biological soil crust (52%). Twenty plant species were recorded. Eleven species of grass, dominated by needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), comprised
approximately 25% of total cover. The mixture of primarily desirable non-native grass species present in Plot 1
and surrounding grasslands is the result of recent fire disturbance and subsequent seeding with a mixture of needle-and-thread, intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), bluegrass (Poa spp.), crested
wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum), slender wheatgrass (Elymus
trachycaulus), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and other species. The reseeded area covers a large portion of uplands surrounding the Clive Site, and these desirable non-native grass species have become
established in the area and are likely to persist.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
5
Table 1. Plot 1 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and
Stem Densities (plants per 100m2; nd = no data)
Cover Type Name Percent Cover Plants / 100m2
Shrubs Broom snakeweed 2.0% 48.6
Forbs Bur buttercup 2.2% nd
Grasses Needle-and-thread grass 12.3% 495.6
Cheatgrass 3.7% 20,783.5
Intermediate wheatgrass 2.6% 47.9
Sandberg bluegrass 2.3% 360.4
Crested wheatgrass 1.6% 37.3
Slender wheatgrass 1.1% 111.5
Tall wheatgrass 1.1% 13.5
Western wheatgrass 1.0% nd
Indian ricegrass 0.7% 39.2
Ground Cover Biological soil crust 51.6%
Plant litter 16.1%
Bare ground 1.7%
Total 100.0%

Figure 1. Mixed grassland vegetation association (Plot 1).
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
6
2.1.2 Plot 2: Juniper-sagebrush
Plot 2 comprised an overstory of Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma; 6.2%) with a multilayered mid-level canopy of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis; 17.1%), and a subcanopy of
broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae; 1.0%), grasses (9.8%), and forbs (1.4%) (Figure 2, Table 2).
This plot was the most diverse of the five field plots with 25 plant species recorded. The ground cover was dominated by biological soil crust (44.9%) and plant litter (23.5%), with some bare ground (9.9%)
where game and livestock trails pass through the plot.
Table 2. Plot 2 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem
Densities (plants / 100 m2; nd = no data)
Cover Type Name Percent Cover Plants / 100 m2
Trees Utah juniper 6.2% 7.0
Shrubs Big sagebrush 17.1% 36.9
Broom snakeweed 1.0% 24.7
Varying buckwheat 0.3% 11
Prickly phlox 0.3% 9
Spiny hopsage 0.2% 1
Forbs Curveseed buttercup 1.2% nd
Globemallow 0.1% nd
Milkvetch 0.1% nd
Grasses Cheatgrass 3.7% 20,417.6
Needle-and-thread grass 2.9% 128.3
Muttongrass 1.4% 207.7
Bluebunch wheatgrass 0.6% 23.1
Sangberg bluegrass 0.6% 170.7
Fringed fescue 0.4% 16,045.9
Indian ricegrass 0.2% 17.0
Ground Cover Biological soil crust 44.9%
Plant litter 23.5%
Bare ground 9.9%
Total 100.0%

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
7

Figure 2. Juniper-sagebrush vegetation association (Plot 2).

2.1.3 Plot 3: Black Greasewood
Plot 3 comprised primarily black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus; 4.5%) and halogeton (0.7%) (Figure 3, Table 3). The ground cover was dominated by biological soil crust (84.8%). Six plant species
were recorded within the sample quadrats. Total cover was greater than 100% in some areas due to the
presence of a shrub overstory. Total cover is slightly less than 100% due to rounding error.
Table 3. Plot 3 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities
(plants / 100 m2; nd = no data)
Cover Type Name Percent Cover Plants / 100m2
Shrubs Black greasewood 4.5% 11.5
Mojave seablite 0.3% 6.6
Gray molly 0.2% 34.4
Shadscale saltbush 0.1% 16.4
Forbs Halogeton 0.7% 720.5
Fivehook smotherweed <0.1% 1.5
Ground Cover Biological soil crust 84.8%
Plant litter 6.1%
Bare ground 2.3%
Total 99.1%
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
8

Figure 3. Black greasewood vegetation association (Plot 3).

2.1.4 Plot 4: Halogeton-disturbed
Plot 4 comprised scattered native shrubs (5.2%) and halogeton (3.3%) (Figure 4, Table 4). The ground cover is dominated by biological soil crust (85.6%). Nine plant species were recorded. Crested wheatgrass
and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) are not included in Table 4 because they were detected at trace levels (less than 0.005%). Total cover was slightly less than 100% due to rounding error.
Table 4. Plot 4 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem
Densities (plants / 100 m2; nd = no data)*
Cover Type Name Percent Cover Plants / 100m2
Shrubs Shadscale saltbush 2.3% 107.2
Mojave seablite 1.5% 19.3
Gray molly 1.2% 68.9
Black greasewood 0.2% 0.4
Forbs Halogeton 3.3% 3534.0
Fivehook smotherweed 0.5% 28.9
Bur buttercup <0.1% nd
Ground Cover Biological soil crust 85.6%
Plant litter 4.3%
Bare ground 0.2%
Total 99.2%
*Two plant species were detected at trace levels (<0.01%): squirreltail and crested wheatgrass.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
9

Figure 4. Halogeton-disturbed vegetation association (Plot 4).

2.1.5 Plot 5: Shadscale–Gray Molly
Plot 5 comprised native shrubs (13.3%) and scattered weeds (1.1%) (Figure 5, Table 5). The ground cover is dominated by biological soil crust (70.7%) and plant litter (11.7%). Fifteen plant species were recorded.
Nine of these plant species are listed in the footnote in Table 5 because they were detected at trace levels
(less than 0.01%). Total cover was slightly greater than 100% due to the presence of a shrub overstory.
Table 5. Plot 5 Average Vegetation Percent Cover, Ground Cover, and Stem Densities
(plants / 100 m2; nd = no data)*
Cover Type Name Percent Cover Plants / 100m2
Shrubs Shadscale saltbush 12.5% 430.1
Gray molly 0.6% 34.7
Black greasewood 0.2% 0.6
Forbs Halogeton 0.9% 959.1
Bur buttercup 0.1% nd
Grasses Cheatgrass 0.1% 126.1
Ground Cover Biological soil crust 70.7%
Plant litter 11.7%
Bare ground 3.8%
Total 100.6%
Nine plant species were detected at trace levels (<0.01%): squirreltail, fivehook smotherweed, rockcress sp., burningbush, alkali
birdsbeak (Cordylanthus maritimus), broom snakeweed, Sandberg bluegrass, Mojave seablite, and an unknown forb species.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
10

Figure 5. Shadscale–gray molly vegetation association (Plot 5).

2.1.6 Plant Root Densities and Rooting Depths
Excavations were conducted to examine the root density and maximum rooting depth of dominant plant species on the Clive Site. Excavations were performed in the two plots on the Clive Site: Plot 3 (black
greasewood) and 4 (halogeton-disturbed). Three excavation locations were selected in each plot and
excavated using a backhoe. Six locations were excavated.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
11

Figure 6. Mojave seablite biomass measurements in Plot 4.

The focus of the excavations was to obtain cross-sections of the rooting mass of dominant plant species in each field plot. The roots were carefully exposed by gradual removal of vertical layers of soil with the
backhoe and hand tools. Root density measurements were collected by measuring the width of the rooting mass and by counting visible roots across a set of sample widths or for the entire width of the root mass. Root density measurements were taken at the soil surface and at 10 cm increments until no roots could be
detected. Roots were continuous at just below the soil surface in all excavated soil profiles. A summary of the average root densities and maximum rooting depth of dominant plant species in Plots 3 and 4 is given
in Table 6.
Root densities were higher near the surface of the soil, where roots were mostly fibrous with few woody structures. A few large, woody roots were encountered in deeper soils. Rooting depths were shallower
than expected, with the maximum rooting depth of dominant woody plant species ranging from 40 to 70
cm. Woody plant species maximum rooting depths were proportional to aboveground plant mass with an aboveground height:root depth ratio of 1:1 and an aboveground width:root depth ratio of approximately
1.4:1. The herbaceous dominant in Plot 4, halogeton, had higher ratios of plant height and width to
maximum rooting depth (1.4:1 and 1.7:1, respectively). The low proportion of roots to aboveground biomass is expected for annual plants, which invest the bulk of their energy in reproduction and little
energy in root systems.

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
12
Table 6. Average root density (roots per cm) and maximum rooting
depth (cm) of dominant plant species in Plots 3 and 4
Plot 3 Plot 4
Excavation Number Excavation Number
1 2 3 1 2 3
Rooting Depth (cm) Black greasewood
roots/cm

0 2.7 0.9 1.8 – – –
10 2.7 2.0 0.9 – – –
20 0.7 0.4 0.4 – – –
30 0.3 0.2 0.2 – – –
40 0.1 0.2 0.2 – – –
50 0.2 0.1 0.0 – – –
60 0.1 0.2 0.0 – – –
70 2.0 0.0 – – – –
80 0.0 – – – – –
Rooting Depth (cm) Halogeton
roots/cm
0 – – – – – 2.0
10 – – – – – 2.0
20 – – – – – 0.2
30 – – – – – 0.0
Rooting Depth (cm) Mojave seablite
roots/cm
0 – – – – 2.4 –
10 – – – – 0.5 –
20 – – – – 0.5 –
30 – – – – 0.2 –
40 – – – – 0.1 –
50 – – – – 0.0 –
Rooting Depth (cm) Shadscale saltbush
roots/cm
0 – – – 2.0 2.0 1.6
10 – – – 2.0 0.5 0.9
20 – – – 0.7 0.3 0.5
30 – – – 0.5 0.2 0.2
40 – – – 0.1 0.1 0.3
50 – – – 0.3 0.0 0.0
60 – – – 2.0 – –
70 – – – 0.3 – –
80 – – – 0.0 – –
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
13
In Plot 3, a compacted layer of clay was encountered at approximately 60 cm depth in all three excavation sites. Plant roots spread out laterally across the top of this dense clay layer that appears as a smooth line
of soil across the bottom of the soil cross section in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Plot 3 soil cross section with compacted clay layer at approximately 60 cm depth.

2.2 Mammals
2.2.1 Mammal Trapping
Each 1.0-ha plot was subdivided into 25 20 × 20–m subplots. At the center of the each subplot, two Sherman® live traps were placed, for a total of 50 traps per plot. Of the 50 traps, 37 were large traps
(approximately 8 × 8 × 23 cm) and 13 were extra-large traps (approximately 10 × 10 × 40 cm). One large
trap was placed at each trapping station and one extra-large trap was placed at every other station. The remaining stations had one additional large trap placed in them. Figure 8 illustrates the trapping station
design.

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
14
Xx xx Xx xx Xx
xx Xx xx Xx xx
Xx xx Xx xx Xx
xx Xx xx Xx xx
Xx xx Xx xx Xx

Figure 8. Trapping station layout, where X represents extra-large traps and x represents large traps.

The traps were placed at trapping stations for a minimum of three days prior to the beginning of trapping efforts in order to acclimate the animals to the presence of the traps. The traps were set during the week of the new moon (October 4–7, 2010) before dusk, and checked the following mornings. The traps were
baited with a four-grain horse feed rolled in molasses. Cotton balls were also placed in the traps to be used as bedding by any captured small mammal.
Captured mammals were identified to species and released. Mouse species were marked with nail polish
before release; however, kangaroo rats did not tolerate the marking process. Additionally, during the course of trapping, it became apparent that at least some mice were chewing off the mark or pulling out
marked fur, making recapture information difficult to obtain. For these reasons, no attempts to analyze
recapture data were made.
2.2.1.1 PLOT 1
The mixed grassland plot yielded three species of small mammal: deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus),
northern grasshopper mouse (Onchomys leucogaster), and Great Basin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
microps). Deer mice accounted for 22 of the 24 captured mammals (92%). One northern grasshopper
mouse and one Great Basin kangaroo rat were captured. Northern grasshopper mice were only trapped at
Plot 1. Plot 1 experienced the only mortalities during trapping (13% of captures). No cause of death was apparent in any of the three mortalities. Table 7 summarizes the mammal captures at Plot 1.
20 m
20 m
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
15
Table 7. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 1 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
10/5/2010
P. maniculatus 4 0 0
Subtotal 4 0 0
10/6/2010
P. maniculatus 4 0 1
Subtotal 4 0 1
10/7/2010
D. microps 1 0 0
O. leucogaster 1 n/a 0
P. maniculatus 6 3 1
Subtotal 8 3 1
10/8/2010
P. maniculatus 8 4 1
Subtotal 8 4 1
Total 24 7 3

2.2.1.2 PLOT 2
The most individuals (43) were captured at the juniper-sagebrush plot. Deer mice comprised 84% of the captures, Great Basin kangaroo rats 14%, and Ord’s kangaroo rat (D. ordii) 2%. Ord’s kangaroo rats were captured only at this site. One deer mouse gave birth to four live young in a trap. Table 8 summarizes the
mammal captures at Plot 2.
Table 8. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 2 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
10/5/2010
P. maniculatus 7 0 0
Subtotal 7 0 0
10/6/2010
P. maniculatus 8 2 0
Subtotal 8 2 0
10/7/2010
D. microps 3 n/a 0
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
16
Table 8. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 2 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
D. ordii 1 n/a 0
P. maniculatus 10 0 0
Subtotal 14 0 0
10/8/2010
D. microps 3 n/a 0
P. maniculatus 11 3 0
Subtotal 14 3 0
Total 43 5 0

2.2.1.3 PLOT 3
Two deer mice were captured in the black greasewood plot. Table 8 summarizes the mammal captures at
Plot 3. Table 9 summarizes the mammal captures at Plot 3.
Table 9. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 3 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
10/5/2010
Subtotal 0 0 0
10/6/2010
P. maniculatus 1 0 0
Subtotal 1 0 0
10/7/2010
P. maniculatus 1 1 0
Subtotal 1 1 0
10/8/2010
Subtotal 0 0 0
Total 2 1 0

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
17
2.2.1.4 PLOT 4
One deer mouse was captured during the last night of trapping in the halogeton-disturbed plot. Table 10
summarizes the mammal captures at Plot 4.
Table 10. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 4 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
10/5/2010
Subtotal 0 0 0
10/6/2010
Subtotal 0 0 0
10/7/2010
Subtotal 0 0 0
10/8/2010
P. maniculatus 1 0 0
Subtotal 1 0 0
Total 1 0 0

2.2.1.5 PLOT 5
Four deer mice were captured in the shadscale–gray molly plot. Table 11 summarizes the mammal captures at Plot 5.
Table 11. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 5 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
10/5/2010
Subtotal 0 0 0
10/6/2010
P. maniculatus 1 0 0
Subtotal 1 0 0
10/7/2010
P. maniculatus 1 0 0
Subtotal 1 0 0
10/8/2010
P. maniculatus 2 1 0
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
18
Table 11. Summary of Species Captured, Number of Individuals
Recaptured, and Number Found Deceased in Trap in Plot 5 
Species Captured Recaptured Deceased
Subtotal 2 1 0
Total 4 1 0

2.2.2 Mammal Burrow Surveys
Each 1.0-ha plot was surveyed for mammal burrows by walking transects approximately 3 m (10 feet)
apart, depending on topography and vegetation. These surveys were conducted September 28 and 30, October 21, and November 4, 2010. The universal transverse mercator (UTM) location was recorded
using a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit for individual burrows or a group of similar
burrows. If a group of burrows was recorded, an approximate area was recorded. Burrows were identified to species level when possible; however, in many cases burrows were assigned a likely “group” of
burrowers (i.e., mouse/vole/rat). Considering the large number of deer mice captured during trapping
efforts, it is possible burrows in this particular category are deer mice burrows.
The plots on the Clive Site (Plots 3–5) were found to have far fewer burrows than the reference plots
(Plots 1 and 2) on BLM land. Though the Clive Site field plots had fewer burrows, those burrows had
larger amounts of displaced soil at their entrances than the BLM field plots.
After burrow surveys were completed, soil volumes were collected in a randomly selected ¼-plot (0.25
ha) in each plot. The obviously mounded or disturbed soil around a burrow entrance was collected and measured (in L).
2.2.2.1 PLOT 1
A total of 235 burrow locations were located during the burrow survey (see Table 12). The majority
(56%) of burrows were identified as mouse/vole/rat burrows.
Table 12. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 1 
Burrow Type Number of Burrows
Ground squirrel 2
Kangaroo rat 102
Mouse/vole/rat 131
Total 235

The southwest quadrant of Plot 1 was randomly selected for burrow soil volumes. Because of heavy disturbance in the area from cattle grazing, human foot traffic, and winds, it was somewhat difficult to
determine exact amounts of disturbed soils at burrow entrances. Only small amounts of soil were found around burrow entrances. This may indicate burrowing activity is only taking place in a shallow sub-surface layer. Table 13 summarizes soil mound volumes in Plot 1.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
19
Table 13. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in
the Southwestern Quadrant of Plot 1 
Burrow ID Kangaroo Rat (L) Mouse/Vole/Rat (L) Total (L)
1SW104 3.500 – 3.500
1SW105 – 0.010 0.010
1SW106 – 0.200 0.200
1SW107 – 0.010 0.010
1SW108 0.050 – 0.050
1SW110 1.250 – 1.250
1SW111 0.300 – 0.300
1SW112 0.560 – 0.560
1SW113 – 0.030 0.030
1SW114 – 0.010 0.010
1SW115 0.250 – 0.250
1SW116 0.050 – 0.050
1SW117 2.500 – 2.500
1SW118 – 0.080 0.080
1SW119 0.030 – 0.030
1SW120 0.030 – 0.030
1SW121 0.090 – 0.090
1SW122 0.030 – 0.030
1SW123 0.030 – 0.030
1SW124 0.200 – 0.200
1SW125 0.150 – 0.150
1SW126 0.100 – 0.100
1SW127 – 0.010 0.010
1SW128 2.860 – 2.860
1SW129 0.050 – 0.050
1SW130 – 0.040 0.040
1SW131 – 0.050 0.050
1SW132 – 0.030 0.030
1SW133 – 0.100 0.100
1SW134 – 0.020 0.020
Total 12.030 0.590 12.620

Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
20
2.2.2.2 PLOT 2
A total of 239 burrows were located during the burrow survey (see Table 14). The majority (93%) of
burrows were identified as kangaroo rat burrows.
Table 14. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 2 
Burrow Type Number of Burrows
Badger 1
Kangaroo rat 222
Mouse/vole/rat 16
Total 239

The northeast quadrant of Plot 2 was randomly selected for burrow soil volumes. Because of the extreme
sandiness of the soil in the northeastern quadrant and windiness at the site, it was difficult to determine the amount of disturbed soil outside of burrows. Burrows with no recent digging (prior few days) had
very small amounts of soil disturbed at their entrances. The eastern portion of Plot 2 is very sandy and
dune-like. This sandy area is most likely experiencing constant soil mixing at the surface and shallow subsurface. Most burrows in Plot 2 appeared to be shallow, sub-surface burrows and only one deep
badger burrow was identified. Table 15 summarizes soil mound volumes in Plot 2.
Table 15. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in
the Northeastern Quadrant of Plot 2 
Burrow ID Badger (L) Kangaroo Rat (L) Mouse/Vole/Rat (L) Total (L)
2NE002 – 0.050 – 0.050
2NE006 – – 0.010 0.010
2NE007 – 0.010 – 0.010
2NE009 – 0.150 – 0.150
2NE010 – – 0.060 0.060
2NE012 – 0.225 – 0.225
2NE015 6.000 – – 6.000
2NE019 – 1.350 – 1.350
2NE020 – 6.830 – 6.830
2NE021 – 2.975 – 2.975
2NE025 – 0.060 – 0.060
2NE026 – 0.185 – 0.185
2NE027 – – 0.100 0.100
2NE028 – 0.050 – 0.050
2NE029 – 0.200 – 0.200
2NE037 – – 0.010 0.010
2NE040 – 0.010 – 0.010
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
21
Table 15. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in
the Northeastern Quadrant of Plot 2 
Burrow ID Badger (L) Kangaroo Rat (L) Mouse/Vole/Rat (L) Total (L)
2NE041 – 0.040 – 0.040
2NE044 – – 0.010 0.010
2NE046 – 0.300 – 0.300
2NE048 – 0.100 – 0.100
2NE051 – 15.010 – 15.010
2NE052 – 9.500 – 9.500
2NE104 – 0.800 – 0.800
Total 6.000 37.845 0.190 44.035

2.2.2.3 PLOT 3
Three burrows were located during the burrow survey (see Table 14).
Table 16. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 3 
Burrow Type Number of Burrows
Ground squirrel 1
Kangaroo rat 1
Mouse/vole/rat 1
Total 3

The northeastern quadrant of Plot 3 was randomly selected for burrow soil volumes. One burrow was
found in this quadrant (see Table 17).
Table 17. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in
the Northeastern Quadrant of Plot 3 
Burrow ID Mouse/Vole/Rat (L) Total (L)
3NE003 1.000 1.000
Total 1.000 1.000

2.2.2.4 PLOT 4
No burrows were found in Plot 4.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
22
2.2.2.5 PLOT 5
One burrow was located during the burrow survey (see Table 18).
Table 18. Number of Burrows, by Type, in Plot 5 
Burrow Type Number of Burrows
Mouse/vole/rat 1
Total 1

The southwestern quadrant of Plot 5 was randomly selected for burrow soil volume. One burrow was
present in the quadrant (see Table 19).
Table 19. Summary of Soil Mound Volume (in L) by Burrow Type in
Plot 5 
Burrow ID Mouse/Vole/Rat (L) Total (L)
5SW001 13.750 13.750
Total 13.750 13.750

2.3 Ants
2.3.1 Methods
2.3.1.1 FIELD METHODS
Each field plot was surveyed via pedestrian transects to ensure 100% coverage of the whole plot. Ant
mounds were located, the UTM location of each mound was recorded using a handheld GPS unit, details regarding the mound were recorded, and sample specimens were taken from the mound. Each plot was
surveyed three times. The first time was the most intensive and required mapping and data recording of each mound, whereas the other two visits were only to collect additional specimens. Multiple specimen collection was done to determine if more than one species was utilizing the same mound, because data on
desert ant species suggest that this is possible. At minimum, 10 individuals from each mound were collected on the first survey, and then 5–10 each survey thereafter. At each mound, sample specimens were collected with either forceps or aspirator and placed into a vial filled with a 95% ethyl alcohol
solution and labeled with the sample number and date.
The following information was collected at each mound:
 Height and width/diameter (in order to calculate the surface area of the mound)
 A photograph of the mound
 A brief description of the mound and its location, i.e., soil and vegetation features
 The orientation of the mound entrance, i.e., N, S, NNE, etc.
 Date, observer, plot number, subplot number, and UTM coordinates
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
23
2.3.1.2 ANT IDENTIFICATION METHODS
Identification of ant species was performed by Kenneth J. Kingsley, a Ph.D. entomologist with extensive
experience in insect identification. He examined all of the 188 vials containing the collected species under
a binocular dissecting microscope, and identified each of the 1,628 collected ants to genus and all
Pogonomyrmex individuals to species, using the keys in Allred (1982)1.
2.3.2 Ant Identification Results
A total of 1,624 ants in the genus Pogonomyrmex was collected in all plots and determined to be the
western harvester ant, (P. occidentalis [Cresson]). Four other ants collected in Plot 1 were determined to be in the genus Lasius, with species not positively determined but most likely niger (Linnaeus). The
western harvester ant is a widely distributed ant occurring throughout most of Utah and many other
western states. It frequently occurs in areas that are relatively flat and have been recently disturbed by human activities2. A table for each field plot listing the number of ants collected by mound, date, and
species can be found in Appendix A.
2.3.3 Mound Dimension Results
Because the mounds were roughly conical in shape, the formula for surface area of a cone was used to estimate area of the mounds. The maximum (basal) diameter of each mound, as measured by the field
crew, was then entered into a Microsoft Excel© spreadsheet, which was used to calculate the surface area
of the mound. It is possible that the basal area of the mound may have some mathematical relationship to the depth and subterranean area of the nest and the quantity of soil excavated, but that relationship has not
been clearly established for P. occidentalis mounds in the particular soil types present on the sampling
sites. Table 20 summarizes the results of the mound dimension survey.
Table 20. Mound Surface Area and Density By Plot
Plot Average surface area
(dm²)
Average mound density
(mounds/hectare)
Plot 1 95 33
Plot 2 39 2
Plot 3 120 7
Plot 4 84 16
Plot 5 138 6
Average across plots 97 13

Density of the mounds was determined by tallying the number of mounds observed per plot and
calculating the density per hectare.
1 Allred, D.M. 1982. Ants of Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 42(4):415–511. 2 Allred, D.M. 1982. Ants of Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 42(4 ):415–511.
Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah
24
This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Ant Collection Results

A-1
PLOT 1
Four Lasius individuals and 804 Pogonomyrmex occidentalis individuals were collected in Plot 1.
Table A-1. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 1 
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P1-NE-20 10/5/2010 13 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-20 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-20 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-21 10/5/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-21 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-21 10/7/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-22 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-22 10/6/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-22 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-23 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-23 10/6/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-23 10/6/2010 2 Lasius sp.
P1-NE-23 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-24 10/5/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-24 10/6/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-24 10/7/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-25 10/5/2010 20 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-25 10/6/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-25 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-31 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-31 10/6/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-NE-31 10/7/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-17 10/5/2010 17 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-17 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-17 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-18 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-18 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-18 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-19 10/5/2010 15 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-19 10/6/2010 9 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-19 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-26 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-26 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-26 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis

A-2
Table A-1. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 1 
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P1-NW-27 10/5/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-27 10/6/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-27 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-28 10/5/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-28 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-28 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-29 10/5/2010 15 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-29 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-29 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-30 10/5/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-30 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-NW-30 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-1 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-1 10/6/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-1 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-10 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-10 10/6/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-10 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-11 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-11 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-11 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-12 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-12 10/5/2010 2 Lasius sp.
P1-SE-12 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-12 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-13 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-13 10/6/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-13 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-14 10/5/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-14 10/6/2010 9 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-14 10/7/2010 4 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-15 10/5/2010 13 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-15 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-15 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-2 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-2 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SE-2 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis

A-3
Table A-1. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 1 
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P1-SW-16 10/5/2010 17 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-16 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-16 10/7/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-3 10/5/2010 13 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-3 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-3 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-4 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-4 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-4 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-5 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-5 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-5 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-6 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-6 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-6 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-7 10/5/2010 10 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-7 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-7 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-7 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-8 10/5/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-8 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-8 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-9 10/4/2010 9 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-9 10/5/2010 13 P. occidentalis
P1-SW-9 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
Total 806

A-4
Plot 2
A total of 20 Pogonomyrmex occidentalis individuals were collected in Plot 2.
Table A-2. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 2
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P2-SE-2 10/4/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P2-SE-2 10/5/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P2-SE-2 10/6/2010 7 P. occidentalis
Total 20

Plot 3
A total of 148 Pogonomyrmex occidentalis individuals were collected in Plot 3.
Table A-3. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 3
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P3-NW-4 10/4/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P3-NW-4 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P3-NW-4 10/9/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P3-SE-3 10/4/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P3-SE-3 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P3-SE-3 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P3-SE-5 10/5/2010 9 P. occidentalis
P3-SE-5 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P3-SE-5 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-1 10/4/2010 10 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-1 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-1 10/7/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-2 10/4/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-2 10/6/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-2 10/7/2010 9 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-6 10/5/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-6 10/6/2010 2 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-6 10/7/2010 10 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-7 10/5/2010 10 P. occidentalis
P3-SW-7 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis
Total 148

A-5
Plot 4
A total of 477 Pogonomyrmex occidentalis individuals were collected in Plot 4.
Table A-4. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 4
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P4-NE-13 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-13 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-13 10/7/2010 10 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-14 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-14 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-14 10/7/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-15 10/4/2010 18 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-15 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-15 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-16 10/4/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-16 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NE-16 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-1 10/4/2010 19 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-1 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-1 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-2 10/4/2010 17 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-2 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-2 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-3 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-3 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-3 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-4 10/4/2010 14 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-4 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-NW-4 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-10 10/4/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-10 10/6/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-10 10/7/2010 10 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-11 10/4/2010 15 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-11 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-11 10/7/2010 8 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-12 10/4/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-12 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-12 10/7/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-9 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-SE-9 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis

A-6
Table A-4. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 4
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P4-SE-9 10/7/2010 15 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-5 10/4/2010 22 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-5 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-5 10/7/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-6 10/4/2010 20 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-6 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-6 10/7/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-7 10/4/2010 17 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-7 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-7 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-8 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-8 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P4-SW-8 10/7/2010 5 P. occidentalis
Total 477

A-7
Plot 5
A total of 177 Pogonomyrmex occidentalis individuals were collected in Plot 5.
Table A-5. Ant Species by Mound in Plot 5
Mound No. Collection Date Number of Ants Collected Species
P5-NW-5 10/4/2010 11 P. occidentalis
P5-NW-5 10/5/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P5-NW-5 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-NW-6 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P5-NW-6 10/5/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-NW-6 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-1 10/4/2010 20 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-1 10/5/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-1 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-3 10/4/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-3 10/5/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-3 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-4 10/4/2010 15 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-4 10/5/2010 7 P. occidentalis
P5-SE-4 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SW-1 10/4/2010 12 P. occidentalis
P5-SW-1 10/5/2010 5 P. occidentalis
P5-SW-1 10/6/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P5-SW-2 10/4/2010 16 P. occidentalis
P5-SW-2 10/5/2010 6 P. occidentalis
P5-SW-2 10/6/2010 5 P. occidentalis
Total 177

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page H-1 Appendix H April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX H

FEDERAL CELL FACILITY ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page I-1 Appendix I April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX I

FEDERAL CELL FACILITY CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY
CONTROL MANUAL

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page I-2 Appendix I April 9, 2021
Revision 0

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 – CQA/QC ACTIVITIES

Work Elements:
Document Control ......................................................... Specifications 1-4 Page 3
General Requirements ................................................... Specifications 5-23 Page 4
Foundation Preparation ................................................. Specifications 24-30 Page 13
Clay Liner Borrow Material .......................................... Specifications 31-35 Page 16
Clay Liner Test Pad ....................................................... Specifications 36-38 Page 18
Clay Liner Placement .................................................... Specifications 39-55 Page 22
Depleted Uranium Waste Placement ............................. Specifications 56-64 Page 32
Fill Placement with Compactor ..................................... Specifications 65-77 Page 38
Fill Placement without Compactor ................................ Specifications 78-85 Page 44
Pre-Final Cover Settlement Monitoring ........................ Specifications 86-92 Page 47
Radon Barrier Borrow Material ..................................... Specifications 93-97 Page 51
Radon Barrier Test Pad ................................................. Specifications 98-100 Page 53
Radon Barrier Placement ............................................... Specifications 101-122 Page 57
Frost Protection Layer Placement ................................. Specifications 123-127 Page 67
Filter Zone (Side Slope) ................................................ Specifications 128-133 Page 69
Rock Erosion Barrier (Side Slope) ................................ Specifications 134-139 Page 71
Evaporative Zone Layer Placement (Top Slope) .......... Specifications 140-143 Page 73
Surface Zone Layer Material Preparation (Top Slope) . Specifications 144-147 Page 75
Surface Zone Layer Material Placement (Top Slope) ... Specifications 148-156 Page 77
Drainage Ditch Imported Borrow .................................. Specifications 157-160 Page 79
Drainage Ditches ........................................................... Specifications 161-166 Page 81
Inspection Road ............................................................. Specifications 167-171 Page 84
Permanent Chain Link Fences ....................................... Specifications 172-174 Page 86
Settlement Monitoring ................................................... Specifications 175-180 Page 90
Annual As-Built Report ................................................. Specifications 281-183 Page 92

TABLE 1 – MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CLSM Page 94

FIGURE 1 – Federal Cell Settlement Monuments, XXXXXX

Appendix A – List of CQA/QC Documentation Forms
Appendix B – Testing Methods
Appendix C – Rock Quality Scoring

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - DOCUMENT CONTROL

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 3 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
1) SCOPE: This work element applies to all
construction activities in the Federal Cell
embankment.

2) QC DOCUMENTATION APPROVAL: QC
documentation shall be approved/rejected by the
QC Supervisor and submitted to Quality Assurance.
Sign the reports indicating documentation is adequate,
correct, and has been accepted by QC. Provide QA with
copies of the documentation and obtain their signature
on the documentation indicating QA acceptance. Ensure
that corrective actions required by QA personnel are
accomplished.
Review the documentation generated by QC. Report
deficiencies to the QC Supervisor and Quality
Assurance. Verify that corrective action has been taken
(where required) and recorded on the QC
documentation. Countersign reports indicating
documentation is adequate, correct, and has been
accepted by QA. Record findings on the Daily Quality
Assurance Report.

3) QC DOCUMENTATION FILES: Original QC
documents shall be maintained. A copy shall be
saved into the electronic database.

After the QC documentation has been accepted by QA,
a copy of the original shall be saved into the electronic
database.
Periodically review the electronic database to ensure the
correct documentation is being saved.
4) QA DOCUMENTATION FILES: Original QA
documents shall be maintained. A copy shall be
saved into the electronic database.
None

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 4 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
5) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

6) RUNON CONTROL DURING PROJECT: The
perimeter berms shall be constructed to a minimum
of three feet above the ground elevations (GL)
shown in the engineering drawings. Berm material
will be as specified in Specification 33. The first lift
of material shall have an uncompacted thickness of
no greater than 12 inches. There is no lift thickness
specification for subsequent lifts. Elevations for the
berms between the specified ground elevations shall
be linearly interpreted between the shown
elevations. The berms shall be a minimum of four
feet wide at the top and shall be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of a standard Proctor.

Verify that the required berms have been constructed to
the specified dimension. Record any findings on the
Daily Construction Report. Conduct laboratory
classification (ASTM D2487) and Standard Proctor tests
(ASTM D698) at a rate of one test per 5,000 linear feet
of berm, with a minimum of one test per berm. Conduct
one density test per 300 linear feet of the first lift and
subsequent lifts of the berm to ensure that it meets
specifications. Record density tests on the Field Density
Test form.
Verify that berms have been tested and inspected by QC
personnel and that appropriate density test have been
conducted.
7) RUNOFF CONTROL DURING PROJECT:
Berms shall be constructed around the outside
Perimeter of waste placement areas to a height of
three feet. This height is measured as the elevation
above the as-built elevation of the liner protective
cover. Berms shall be a minimum of three feet wide
at the top. Berm material will be as specified in
Specification 33. The first lift of material shall have
an uncompacted thickness of no greater than 12
inches. There is no lift thickness specification for
subsequent lifts. The berm will be constructed on
top of the clay liner such that the berm is not in
contact with native ground. The berm shall be
constructed directly on top of clay liner or liner
protective cover that has been compacted to at least
90 percent of a standard Proctor. A minimum
distance of 10 feet shall be maintained between the
toe of the berm and the toe of the waste. The berms
shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
a standard Proctor.
Verify that the required berms have been constructed to
the specified dimension. Record any findings on the
Daily Construction Report. Conduct laboratory
classification (ASTM D2487) and Standard Proctor tests
(ASTM D698) at a rate of one test per 5,000 linear feet
of berm, with a minimum of one test per berm. Conduct
one density test per 300 linear feet of the first lift and
subsequent lifts of the berm to ensure that the
specification is met. Record density tests on the Field
Density Test form.

Verify that the berms have been tested and inspected to
the correct criteria by QC personnel.

Review documentation to verify that the weekly access
ramp inspections have been performed.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 5 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

Contact water shall be controlled inside the runoff
control berm system. Contact water is defined as
any storm water that falls within the runoff berm
system in the active, unfinished portions of the
embankment. Access ramps that cross runoff berms
shall be constructed and maintained to prevent such
runoff from leaving the lined portion of the
embankment.

Storm runoff for up to a 10-year, 24-hour event that
runs off from those portions of the embankment that
have been completed to final cover design shall be
managed and controlled to prevent such runoff from
contacting contaminated waste material in the
active unfinished portions of the embankment.

After the first lift of radon barrier material for an
entire side slope area (i.e., from the toe of waste to
the side slope breakover) has been pushed out to the
design lift thickness the adjacent runoff berm for
that side slope area may be removed. During
placement of this first lift of radon barrier, there is
no minimum offset to the runoff berm.

Inspect the access ramps that cross runoff berms on a
weekly basis for the presence of runoff control channels
and document the inspection on the Daily Construction
Report.

8) MONTHLY BERM INSPECTION: The berms
are to be inspected monthly. Inspect for obvious
damage to berms. Ensure berm height where roads
cross berms.
Inspect the berm on a monthly basis and document the
inspection and any corrective actions taken (if required)
on the Daily Construction Report. Marker posts
indicating the required berm height should be placed at
both sides of a road at the point where the road crosses
the berm. This is to aid in identifying damage to the
berm due to road traffic. Notify the Project Manager and
review documentation to verify any noted damage and
required repairs. After repairs are completed, re-inspect
the berm. Continue this process until the berm meets
specification.

Verify that the monthly berm inspections have been
performed and properly documented. Verify proper
installation of marker posts.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 6 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
9) BERM MAINTENANCE: The runon and runoff
berms shall be surveyed and improved, as required,
by September 1 of each year.

To insure the minimum runoff berm height is
maintained (per Specification 7), inspect and survey
waste offsets (area between the toe of runoff berms
and the toe of waste slopes), and remove any
accumulated sediment, waste and/or soil materials,
as required, by September 1 of each year.

Survey the berms at 100 foot intervals and key points
(i.e., changes in direction of the berm). Notify the
operations Manager of any noted damage and required
repairs. After repairs are completed, re-inspect the berm.
Continue this process until the berm meets specification.

Inspect and survey the runoff berms and waste offsets at
100 foot intervals and key points (i.e., changes in
direction). This can be performed in conjunction with
the annual berm survey. Notify the Operations Manager
of areas requiring removal of accumulated materials
(cleaning). After cleaning is completed, re-inspect and
re-survey, as needed, the waste offset(s). Continue this
process until the runoff berms/waste offsets meet
specification.

Verify that the berms are surveyed and improved, as
required.

Verify that waste offsets are inspected, surveyed and
cleaned, as required.
10) MOVING OR BREACHING A RUNOFF
CONTROL BERM: When moving or breaching a
berm, the work must be authorized by the QC
Supervisor prior to commencing work. A temporary
breach of a berm may be accomplished without a
temporary berm, provided the work is expected to
be completed and the berm replaced the same day.
A temporary berm will be designed to ensure runoff
is contained within the cell and approved by the
Engineering Manager.

A berm may be partially or completely breached during
cover construction (e.g., one or more of the requirements
in the Runoff Control During Project specification
above is no longer met) as long as runoff control is
maintained from potentially contaminated areas to clean
areas as approved by the Engineering Manager.
Review the work to be performed. Document the
approval to move or breach a berm on the Breach of
Berm form.

Ensure runoff control is maintained to prevent
potentially contaminated liquids running into clean
areas and document on the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the approval to move or breach a berm has
been properly documented on the Breach of Berm form.

Review Daily Construction Reports to ensure proper
documentation.
11) NUCLEAR DENSITY/MOISTURE GAUGE
CALIBRATION: Each nuclear density gauge
shall have current calibration, performed in
accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications,
Check calibration labels to ensure equipment is
calibrated prior to using.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 7 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
prior to use on the project.

12) SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR LOTS: For
sample locations chosen by random numbers, two
random numbers shall be employed. The first
number (X) shall be between zero and the largest
east-west distance of the lot. The second number
(Y) shall be between zero and the largest north-
south distance of the lot. The test location will be
located at X feet east and Y feet south of the north-
west corner of the lot. For a linear lot (e.g. the
intersection of lifts), a single random number shall
be generated.

Generate random numbers for each lot by using a
calculator or computer with a random number generator.
Locate the test location within five feet of the location
specified by the random numbers. If the sample location
is outside the lot, generate two new random numbers.
Verify that the test sample locations are being chosen by
random number.
13) TEST METHODS: All tests shall be performed in
accordance with the test methods specified in
Appendix B.

14) QA AUDITING: EnergySolutions shall contract
with an independent firm to perform an annual audit
of the CQA/QC program. The auditor shall:

A. audit at least 15 percent of the CQA\QC
documentation; and

B. observe QC procedures for field
density/moisture tests, classification tests,
Proctors, permeability tests, and surveying.

The audits must be coordinated so that field
activities are audited. Each audit shall include
observations of field activities that occur while the
auditor is on-site. A copy of the auditor’s report
shall be submitted to the Director of the Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control
(Director).

Schedule times with the QA auditor to observe the
specified testing. Cooperate with QA auditor in the
review of QC documentation.
Cooperate with QA auditor in the review of QC
documentation. Verify that a copy of the report has been
submitted to the Director.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 8 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
15) TEST FAILURE PROTOCOL: Unless otherwise
specified in this Manual, any failing test shall be
addressed as follows:

A. Document the failing test result in applicable
QC records.

B. Notify construction personnel of the failing test
result and re-work as needed.

C. After re-work is complete, re-test and
document results.

D. If the re-test results pass, approve the work.

E. If the re-test results fail, require further re-work
until passing results are achieved.

F. Any circumstance where re-work is not desired
or possible shall be documented on a
Nonconformance Report (NCR). Any
circumstance addressed via NCR in accordance
with this specification requires Director
notification and written approval prior to
proceeding. The Director approval shall be
obtained in accordance with Specification 23.

Document all failing tests and corrective actions for
those failures. When applicable, obtain documentation
of Director notification.
Ensure documentation is present for all failed tests.
Review documentation and corrective actions. Notify
Director as required. Provide QC with documentation of
the Director notification.
16) QUALITY OF ROCK: Applies to the following
cover materials.

Federal Cell: Type A Filter Zone Rock, Type B
Filter Zone Rock, Type A Rip Rap and Type B Rip
Rap.

The rock shall have a "Rock Quality" score of at
least 50 based on the following tests: Specific
Gravity (ASTM C128), Absorption (ASTM C127),
As described in NUREG-1623, Appendix F, perform at
least one petrographic examination for each rock source
prior to use in accordance with ASTM C295. If a
combination of limestone, sandstone, and igneous rock
is found for a source, percentages of each type of
material shall be determined for scoring.

Perform Na soundness, LA abrasion, absorption, and
specific gravity testing at a rate of one set of tests per
10,000 cubic yards of rock with a minimum of four tests
Verify the frequency of laboratory quality control tests
and compliance of test results.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 9 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
Sodium Soundness (ASTM C88), and L.A.
Abrasion (ASTM C131 or ASTM C535). The
procedures for scoring "Rock Quality" are found in
Appendix C

per embankment. Samples may be collected at the
source location or from onsite stockpiles. Record the
location of all collected samples in the Sampling Log.

17) QC PROCEDURES: Quality Control procedures
to perform the actions described in this Manual are
designated CL-QC-PR and maintained by
document control. Other QC procedures are
described in designated ASTM tests.

18) PRE-CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION
& COMMUNICATION: Prior to each
construction phase, and at the beginning of each
construction season for ongoing phases,
construction personnel will review construction
phase-specific drawings, specifications, and
procedures. A pre-construction meeting will also
discuss key personnel and requirements for the
construction phase. The Director shall be invited 48
hours in advance to a pre-construction meeting. The
construction phase-specific drawings shall be
submitted to the Director in accordance with
Specification 23 for review and approval at least 30
calendar days prior to construction.

As waste placement is ongoing, this pre-construction
documentation & communication section is not
applicable to waste placement. Waste placement will
be completed in accordance with this Manual and
approved engineering drawings listed in
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005.

Obtain documentation confirming that the construction
phase-specific drawings have been approved by the
Director.

Verify that the construction phase-specific drawings
have been provided to the Director at least 30 calendar
days prior to construction. Provide QC with
documentation of Director approval.

19) PROJECT MANAGER: The Project Manager
shall be designated at the beginning of each
construction phase. If not designated or not
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 10 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
available, the Engineering Manager shall assume
the role of the Project Manager.

20) NATIVE MATERIAL: Natural soil from areas
surrounding the Clive Facility. Native material may
be used as fill during waste placement or in the
construction of liner and cover provided the
material meets project specific specifications.

21) OFF-SITE FILL/BACKFILL MATERIAL: Fill
or backfill material may consist of licensed waste,
native material, or other materials from off-site
sources.

Fill or backfill material from off-site sources shall
conform to the following requirements:

A. It shall consist of only natural soil and rock.

B. It shall not exceed the Exempt limit of UAC
R313-19-13(2)(a)(i)(B).

C. It shall not contain any of the following:
1. Biodegradable materials.
2. Hazardous waste, including but not
limited to listed or characteristic waste.
3. Material regulated by any other State or
Federal regulatory program.

D. It shall only be used in the fill and waste
portions of the Federal Cell embankment.

E. The following records shall be maintained:
1. The identity / location of the source(s) of
the material.
2. The volume and weight of the material.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 11 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
3. Documentation that the material meets the
prohibitions of Specification 21.C.

22) DIRECTOR EXEMPTION: Any requirement
within this Manual may be exempted by the
Director of the Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control. Exemptions will be confirmed in
writing.

23) DIRECTOR NOTIFICATION AND
APPROVAL: EnergySolutions shall
simultaneously copy the DWMRC, LLRW Section
Manager on all Director notifications within this
Manual. Unless otherwise stated in the specification
all notifications will be in the form of a letter.

Request for Approval
EnergySolutions shall obtain Director approval for
various work tasks included in this CQA/QC
Manual. The pertinent specifications will state the
scope and timeframe needed for Director’s approval
or denial.
A written Request for Approval (RFA) shall be
submitted by EnergySolutions for work tasks
requiring Director approval. Email is an acceptable
form of submission for RFA matters, including
responses by the Division. The RFA along with
supporting documentation shall be sent to the
Director, with simultaneous copies sent to the
LLRW Section Manager and assigned staff. The
heading of the RFA shall include a reference to the
Specification number, the response timeframe goal
(in State business days), and a description of the
activity requiring approval. Additional details of
the work activity, including the basis for the
requested action shall be included in the body of the
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 12 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
RFA. The response timeframes included in this
CQA/QC manual are goals for Division responses
to RFAs. The Division recognizes the importance
of timely responses to specific RFA matters. The
Director agrees to make reasonable efforts to
respond to RFAs on or before the specified
timeframes. Director approval of RFA matters is
not automatic. If staff has not responded within the
timeframe goal, or if other circumstances exist that
require the need of urgent attention,
EnergySolutions may escalate the matter to the
LLRW Section Manager. If the LLRW Section
Manager is not responsive, EnergySolutions may
escalate the matter to the Director.

Designee for Director
For purposes of this CQA/QC Manual,
EnergySolutions may treat an email or letter signed
by Section Staff in response to a specific RFA as
constituting formal Director approval.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - FOUNDATION PREPARATION

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 13 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
24) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

25) CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Remove
vegetation, debris, organic, or deleterious material
from areas to be excavated for construction of cells.
Grubbing depth will depend on the type of
vegetation, debris, organic, or deleterious material
on the site. If the area is free of these materials then
no clearing and grubbing will be necessary.

Inspect the area once clearing and grubbing has been
completed. Record observations and corrective actions
(where required) on the Daily Construction Report.
Verify and document that the clearing and grubbing has
been inspected by QC.
26) EXCAVATION: Excavation shall be made to the
lines, grades, and dimensions prescribed in the
approved construction phase-specific drawings.
Any over excavation shall be backfilled with native
materials and compacted to 95 percent of Standard
Proctor. The uncompacted lift thickness shall not
exceed nine inches.
Observe the cell excavation. Record observations and
corrective actions taken (where required) on the Daily
Construction Report.

In areas of over excavation, conduct in-place density
tests of backfill at a rate of one test per lot and record the
results on the Field Density Test form. A lot is defined
as a maximum of 10,000 square feet of a lift of a
specified type of material. Test locations shall be chosen
on the basis of random numbers (described in
Specification 12).
a. Approve lots which meet the specified compaction.
b. Rework and retest lots not meeting the specified
compaction.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
100,000 square feet for each material type. At least one
proctor shall be performed for each material type.
Record the location of the sample on the Sampling Log.

Observe QC personnel to ensure that the tests and
observations are being performed correctly. Verify that
the tests are being performed at the correct frequency
and that the documentation is being completed correctly.
27) SCARIFICATION AND COMPACTION: The
foundation shall consist of either:

A. For in-situ sands: Inspect the surface for
cracks. If cracking of the surface is
Inspect and verify the foundation meets the compaction
specifications. Record observations and corrective
actions on the Daily QC Report.

Conduct in-place density tests at a rate of one test per lot
and record the results on the Field Density Test form. A
Observe QC personnel to ensure that the tests and
observations are being performed correctly. Verify that
the tests are being performed at the correct frequency
and that the documentation is being completed correctly.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - FOUNDATION PREPARATION

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 14 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
observed, then scarify the in-situ sands and
compact to at least 95 percent of a
Standard Proctor. If no cracking is
observed, then scarification is not
necessary prior to compacting to at least 95
percent of a Standard Proctor.

B. For in-situ non-sandy soil: Scarify the in-
situ soils to at least six inches and compact
it to at least 95 percent of a Standard
Proctor.

lot is defined as a maximum of 10,000 square feet of a
lift of a specified type of material. Test locations shall
be chosen on the basis of random numbers (described in
Specification 12).

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
100,000 square feet for each material type. At least one
proctor shall be performed for each material type.
Record the location of the sample on the Sampling Log.

28) FINAL GRADING: The foundation surface shall
be smooth-drum rolled prior to clay liner
placement. The foundation shall be free from
surface debris, soft (wet) spots greater than three
inches deep, and loose soil areas with a loose
surface greater than three inches deep. Foundation
shall be at or below design elevation.

Survey the foundation on a 50 foot grid and at key points
(i.e. embankment break lines). Final survey
measurements will be documented and provided to the
QC Supervisor and Quality Assurance.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
29) UNSUITABLE MATERIAL: Remove unsuitable
material as required. Unsuitable material is non-soil
material or soil which cannot be reworked to meet
the compaction criteria.
Define areas of unsuitable material and notify the
Project Manager that such areas must be removed.
Observe the areas once the unsuitable material has been
removed. Report corrective actions (where required) on
the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the removal of unsuitable material has been
properly documented.
30) FOUNDATION APPROVAL: Foundation areas
shall be approved by the Engineering Manager (or
designee). Prior to covering, the Engineering
Manager (or designee) shall prepare a "Notice of
Acceptance" indicating that the foundation areas
meet the required specifications.

The Engineering Manager may delegate
Engineering Manager duties to a qualified designee
provided that the Engineering Manager is
responsible for and shall personally review, correct
Accompany the Engineering Manager (or designee) on
a walk-through of the foundation area. Obtain the
Notice of Acceptance from the Engineering Manager
(or designee) before construction of the clay liner
begins.
Confirm that QC has obtained the Notice of Acceptance.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - FOUNDATION PREPARATION

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 15 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
when necessary and approve any work performed
by a subordinate or associate on the Engineering
Manager’s behalf in accordance with Utah Code §§
58-22-102(16) and -603(1)(b).

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER BORROW MATERIAL

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 16 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
31) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

32) CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Remove
vegetation, debris, organic, or deleterious material
from areas to be used for borrow. Grubbing depth
will depend on the type of vegetation, debris,
organic, or deleterious material on the site. If the
area is free of these materials then no clearing and
grubbing will be necessary.

Inspect the area once clearing and grubbing has been
completed. Record observations and corrective actions
(where required) on the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the clearing and grubbing has been inspected
and recorded by QC.
33) MATERIAL: Satisfactory material shall be
defined as CL or ML soils based on the Unified Soil
Classification with at least 85 percent passing the
No. 200 sieve (silt and clay), a plasticity index (PI)
between 10 and 25, and a liquid limit (LL) between
30 and 50.
Perform laboratory classification tests (ASTM D 2487)
at a rate of one test per lot prior to use of material in the
clay liner. A lot is defined as a maximum of 5,000 cubic
yards (compacted) of specified material type. Record the
location of the classification sample on the Sampling
Log.
a. Approve lots (which meet the specified
classification) for use in the clay liner.
b. Lots not meeting the specified classification cannot
be used.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.
34) PROTECTION: The clay borrow material shall be
handled in such a manner as to prevent
contamination with radioactive waste material or
other deleterious material. Acceptable clay borrow
material may contain up to five percent additional
rocks (less than or equal to one inch) and sand
above the content found in the classification test.

Visually check clay liner materials for contamination by
foreign materials. If any foreign materials are identified,
the percentage of foreign material shall either be
estimated in accordance with ASTM D2488 or
calculated in accordance with ASTM D2487. Document
findings on the Daily Construction Report. Notify the
Project Manager to have operations remove or rework
clays which have been contaminated above the specified
requirements. Re-inspect the clay liner material and
document corrective actions (where required) on the
Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the clay liner material is being inspected for
contaminants and that the inspection and corrective
actions (if required) are properly documented.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER BORROW MATERIAL

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 17 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
35) PROCESSING: These procedures may be used to
provide suitable material for construction of the
clay liner.

A. If used, apply deflocculant at a rate determined
by the Engineering Manager (based on test pad
data). If used, the choice of deflocculant and
the application rate shall be verified in the Clay
Liner Test Pad.

B. Mix the deflocculant thoroughly into the soils
by tilling or similar action.

Measure the mixing areas and verify that the application
rate of the deflocculant is equal to or greater than the rate
determined by the Engineering Manager. Record the
size of the mixing areas and the amount of deflocculant
applied on the Embankment Construction Lift Approval
Form.

Observe the mixed clay and notify the Project Manager
of areas which are not adequately mixed. Re-inspect
after corrected. Document observations and corrective
actions, if required, on the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the size of the mixing areas and the amount
of deflocculant applied has been properly documented.

Verify that the clay is being inspected correctly and the
inspection documented.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 18 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
36) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

37) NOTICE OF TEST PAD CONSTRUCTION: In
accordance with Specification 23 the clay liner test
pad plan shall be approved by the Director. The clay
liner test pad plan shall be provided to the Director
at least 14 calendar days prior to test pad
construction.

The Director shall be notified 48 hours in advance
of the start-up of test pad construction.

Obtain documentation confirming that the test pad plan
has been approved by the Director.

Obtain documentation confirming that the Director has
been notified, as required.
Verify that the test pad has been provided to the Director
at least 14 calendar days prior to construction of the test
pad. Provide QC with documentation of Director
approval.

Notify the Director 48 hours in advance of the start-up
of test pad construction. Provide QC with
documentation of Director notification.

38) TEST PAD(S): A test pad with minimum
dimensions of 60 feet by 75 feet will be constructed
using the procedure outlined in the approved test
pad plan.

Prior to use of manually operated compaction
equipment, a small test pad with minimum
dimensions of five feet by five feet (sized
appropriately for the equipment used) will be
constructed. The purpose of this small test pad is to
establish equipment and procedures for
construction of clay liner in locations where large
equipment is not practical (e.g. repairs). If manually
operated compaction equipment is not used on the
project, a small test pad is not required.

A new clay liner test pad shall be constructed each
time there is a change in specifications, construction
procedures, unified soil classification, or types of
equipment.

Clay liner test pads are to be constructed and tested
in accordance with the following specifications:
Observe the construction of test pads. Measure each test
pad to ensure that it is constructed to at least the size
required. Record the test pad size on the Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form.

The large test pad shall be divided into three lots per lift
(approximately 1,500 square feet per lot). Each lift of
the small test pad shall equal a lot.

Observe the construction of the test pads. Verify that the
test pad has been measured and is properly documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 19 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

A. Prior to compaction, conduct at least one
classification and gradation test for each test
pad.

B. Place the clay in at least three lifts with the first
lift uncompacted thickness not exceeding
twelve inches. Remaining lifts shall have a
loose material thickness not exceeding nine
inches for each lift.

C. The clay material will have a dry clod size less
than or equal to one inch.

D. The clay is to be placed and compacted by
equipment proposed for use during
construction of the clay liner.

E. The lifts of clay shall be bonded by providing a
rough upper surface on the underlying layer of
clay liner. The surface should have changes in
grade of approximately one inch or more at a
rate of two or more per linear foot.

F. The clay is to be compacted to at least 95
percent of a standard Proctor with moisture
content between one-half a percentage point

Conduct classification and gradation tests (as described
in Appendix B) at a rate of one of each type of test per
test pad.

Measure the lift thickness at a rate of one test per lot.
Record thicknesses on the Embankment Construction
Lift Approval Form.

Inspect the loose clay material during the unloading and
spreading process for each uncompacted lift to ensure
any dry clods that are present are less than or equal to
one inch. Notify the Project Manager to have operations
remove clods greater than one inch. Record inspection
of the clod size on the Embankment Construction Lift
Approval Form and re-inspect the uncompacted lift if
necessary. Record any corrective actions performed on
the Daily Construction Report.

Record type of equipment used, and number of passes
on the Embankment Construction Lift Approval Form.

Perform a visual inspection to verify that there are
adequate changes in grade. Any areas of concern shall
be verified by placing a straight edge at least two feet
long on the surface and counting the number of points
approximately one inch or more below the straight edge.
Notify the Project Manager of any deficiencies. Re-
inspect after the Project Manager has corrected
deficiencies.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.

Verify that the number of lifts and lift thicknesses has
been documented. Verify that the clod size inspection
has been performed and documented for each
uncompacted lift thickness.

Verify that the dry clod size inspection has been
performed and documented, including corrective actions
as necessary.

Perform a minimum of one visual inspection per test
pad.

Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 20 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
below optimum and five percentage points
over optimum. Compaction of the large test
pad is to be accomplished by at least four
passes of suitable compaction equipment.

G. The clay is to be constructed to provide a
permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10-6
cm/sec. Permeability testing on the bottom lift
will be performed at the surface. Permeability
testing on the second lift will be performed
greater than or equal to two inches below the
surface. Permeability testing on the third lift
will be performed greater than or equal to four
inches below the surface.

H. The procedures used to construct the test pad
shall be reviewed and approved by a Utah
licensed Professional Engineer.

I. In accordance with Specification 23 the test
pad certification report shall be approved by
the Director at least 14 calendar days from the
time the certification report was submitted and
prior to using the new test pad construction
method.
Conduct in-place moisture-density tests at a rate of one
test per lot, with a minimum of three tests per lift for
large test pads and one test per lift on small test pads.
The test location shall be chosen on the basis of random
numbers (described in Specification 12). Record the test
result on the Field Density Test form.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified moisture and
compaction.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified permeability to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest (moisture/density and permeability) lots after
rework has been completed.
d. Any additional work under b. shall be included in
the test pad construction method.

Conduct in-place permeability tests at a rate of one test
per lot per lift. The permeability test shall be run within
five feet of the moisture-density test (see Appendix B).
Record the test result on the Field Permeability Test
form.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified permeability.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified permeability to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest (moisture/density and permeability) lots after
rework has been completed.
d. Any additional work under b. shall be included in
the test pad certification report.

Provide the Utah licensed Professional Engineer with
copies of the documentation for the test pad for review
and approval.

Obtain documentation confirming that the test pad
certification report has been approved by the Director.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.

Verify that proper approval has been obtained for the
test pad and that the necessary construction procedure
documents are in place for use during clay liner
construction.

Verify that the test pad certification report has been
provided to the Director. Provide QC with
documentation of Director approval.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 21 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
39) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

40) LIFT IDENTIFICATION: Each lift shall be
given a unique lift identification number for testing
and surveying purposes.

Assign a lift identification number to each lift. Use the
lift identification number to identify all paper work for
that lift.
Verify that a lift identification number has been assigned
to each lift. Verify that the lift identification number is
used on all paper work for that lift.
41) PLACEMENT: The clay liner will be prepared,
placed, and compacted using equivalent type of
equipment and mixing and compacting procedures
that were approved in the test pad.

If equipment used to prepare, place, and/or compact
clay liner differs by make and/or model from the
equipment identified in the approved test pad,
equipment equivalency shall be determined and
approved by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer
prior to use. The Director shall be notified at least
48 hours in advance of implementing an equipment
change and the Director shall approve the
equivalency determination prior to use of the
equivalent equipment. The Director approval shall
be obtained in accordance with Specification 23.

See Specification 33 for material specifications
unless more restrictions were implemented during
the test pad. The clay material shall have a dry clod
or rock size less than or equal to one inch.

Observe the clay liner placement. Record the equipment
and procedures used to place the clay liner and any
corrective actions (where required) on the Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form.

Obtain documentation of equipment equivalency.
Obtain documentation that the Director has been
notified and approved of an equipment equivalency
determination.

Inspect the loose clay material during the unloading and
spreading process for each uncompacted lift to ensure
any dry clods or rocks that are present are less than or
equal to one inch. Notify the Project Manager to have
operations remove clods or rocks greater than one inch.
Record inspection of the clod or rock size on the
Embankment Construction Lift Approval Form. Re-
inspect and record any corrective actions performed on
the Daily Construction Report.

Verify the equipment and procedures used to construct
the clay liner have been documented.

Verify that use of equivalent equipment has been
approved by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer.
Notify the Director 48 hours prior to using equipment
that has been determined equivalent by a Utah licensed
Professional Engineer. Provide QC with documentation
of Director approval.

Verify that the clod or rock inspection has been
performed and documented.
42) LIFT BONDING: The lifts of clay shall be
bonded by providing a rough upper surface on the
underlying lift. The surface should have changes in
Perform a visual inspection to verify that there are
adequate changes in grade. Any areas of concern shall
be verified by placing a straight edge at least two feet
Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 22 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
grade of approximately one inch or more at a rate
of two or more per linear foot.
long on the surface and counting the number of points
approximately one inch or more below the straight edge.
Notify the Project Manager of any deficiencies. Re-
inspect the surface after corrective actions have been
completed. Document any deficiencies and corrective
actions taken on the Daily Construction Report.

43) LIFT THICKNESS: The first lift of material shall
have an uncompacted thickness of no greater than
12 inches. For the remaining lifts, the loose lift
thickness shall not exceed the lesser of the lift
thickness used to construct the test pad or nine
inches.

A. Thickness for the lift will be established by
installing grade poles on at least a 70-foot grid
and at all control points. The grade poles must
not be installed deeper than three inches into
the underlying clay liner. The grade poles must
be marked at the appropriate depth to establish
the grade. After the grade for the lift has been
checked and approved by QC personnel, the
grade poles shall be removed.

- OR -

B. Survey to determine lift thickness using the
same grid spacing described in Specification
43.A. Survey equipment shall have a tolerance
no more than ± 0.1 foot.

Verify that the required grading tolerance is achieved as
follows:
a. Ensure that the required frequency for placement of
grade poles has been met.
b. Compare soil level with the marked level on the
grade poles.
c. Visually check between poles for high or low spots.
d. Define high out of specification areas and notify the
Project Manager to rework those areas.
e. Re-inspect areas reworked and approve areas
meeting criteria.
f. Continue "b" through "d" above until all areas meet
criteria.
g. Indicate areas meeting criteria on the Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form.

- OR –

a. Verify survey equipment is within a tolerance of ±
0.1 foot.
b. Verify correct set-up and operation of equipment.
c. Visually check between survey points for high or
low spots.
d. Define high out of specification areas and notify the
Project Manager to rework those areas.
e. Document survey results on a survey report.

Observe QC personnel to ensure that the measurements
are being performed correctly. Verify that the
measurements are being performed at the correct
frequency and that the documentation is being
completed. Verify that the inspection has been
performed and documented for each uncompacted lift
thickness.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 23 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
44) KEYING-IN: Segments of cell clay liner
constructed at times more than 30 days apart from
each other shall be keyed-in to each other by one of
the following two methods:

A. Key-in vertical steps no greater than nine
inches and at least twice as wide as they are
high.

- OR -

B. sloping the full thickness of old liner at a
maximum slope of 5(H):1(V).

The surface shall be maintained in accordance with
Specification 47.

Verify that the new liner has been properly keyed-in to
the existing liner. Record deficiencies on the
Embankment Construction Lift Approval Form.
Verify that the keying-in of the liner has been
documented.
45) COMPACTION: Clay liner material will be
compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor
with moisture content between one-half of a
percentage point below and five percentage points
over optimum.
Conduct in-place moisture-density tests at a rate of one
test per lot and record the results on the Field Density
Test form. A lot is defined as 1,000 cubic yards
(compacted) of a single lift. The test location shall be
chosen on the basis of random numbers (described in
Specification 12) and documented on the Lift Approval
Form.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
borrow lot. A borrow lot is defined as 5,000 cubic yards
(compacted) or less of a specific material type. Record
the location of the Proctor sample on the Sampling Log.
Document results of the proctor on the Proctor Form.

Visually observe at least one lift being compacted and
one in-place moisture-density test per project area per
construction season. Verify that the tests are being
performed at the correct frequency and that the
documentation is being completed.
46) PERMEABILITY: Clay liner will have an in-
place permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10-6
cm/sec.

Conduct in-place permeability tests at a rate of one test
per lot and record the results on the Field Permeability
Test form. A lot is defined as 2,000 cubic yards of
compacted clay liner. The permeability test shall be run
within five linear feet of a moisture density test location.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified permeability.
Visually observe at least one in-place permeability test
per project area per construction season. Verify that the
tests are being performed at the correct frequency and
that the documentation is being completed.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 24 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified permeability to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest (moisture/density and permeability) lots after
rework has been completed.
d. Restore all test areas to assure no leaks.

47) LINER DRYING PREVENTION: Desiccation
cracks shall not exceed one-fourth inch wide and
three-inches deep in the clay liner. Areas with
desiccation cracks exceeding this specification shall
be identified as new lots to be reworked and shall
be reported to the Director.

To prevent the clay liner from drying one (or more)
of the following methods shall be employed:

A. Apply water to the clay liner surface on an as
needed basis

B. Cover the clay liner with nine inches of loose
clay

C. Cover the clay liner with at least one foot of
loose liner protective cover material

Observe the liner surface for drying and document
results on the Daily Construction Report.

Notify the Project Manager and QA of any desiccation
cracks larger than specification identified in the clay
liner.

Clay liner with larger than specification desiccation
cracks shall be reworked and retested in accordance with
one of the following methods:
a. Scarify the in-place clay, moisture condition as
needed, then recompact and retest the clay material
in accordance with Specifications 41, 45, and 46.
b. Excavate all material that has larger than
specification desiccation cracks and replace with
new clay in accordance with Specifications 40
through 46.

Document methods used to prevent the clay liner from
drying on the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the liner is being inspected correctly and the
inspection documented. Report discrepancies to the
Director as required.

Verify methods used to prevent clay liner from drying
have been documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 25 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
D. Cover the clay liner with six inches of clay
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of a
standard proctor.

Newly constructed liner will be covered in
accordance with method B, C, or D above within 30
days of clay liner lift approval.

Note: Placement of the next lift of clay liner or liner
protective cover meets the requirements above.

Conduct in-place density tests at a rate of one test per lot
and record the results on the Field Density Test form. A
lot is defined as 1,000 cubic yards (compacted) of a
single lift. The test location shall be chosen on the basis
of random numbers (described in Specification 12) and
documented on the Lift Approval Form.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
borrow lot. A borrow lot is defined as 5,000 cubic yards
(compacted) or less of a specific material type. Record
the location of the Proctor sample on the Sampling Log.
Document results of the proctor on the Proctor Form.

Document that clay or protective cover soils have been
placed over approved clay liner lifts within 30 days of
lift approval.

Verify that density tests are being performed at the
correct frequency and that the documentation is being
completed

.
48) SNOW REMOVAL: When clay liner material is
to be placed and the work area is covered with
snow, the snow must be removed.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the clay liner for
damage. Notify the Project Manager of any
deficiencies/damage and re-inspect areas after repairs
are completed. Record these corrective actions (where
required) in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that snow removal is being documented and the
clay liner has been inspected.
49) COLD WEATHER PLACEMENT OF CLAY
LINER: For purposes of this Manual, “frozen” is
defined as a soil temperature of less than or equal to
27ºF. Clay liner shall not be placed above frozen
material. In addition, no frozen material shall be
processed or placed.

If the air temperature has dropped below 32ºF since
the last lift of clay liner was approved, one of the
following three scenarios apply:
As needed, observe the area where clay liner is to be
placed. If frozen material is observed, cease placement
of clay liner. If frozen material is suspected, measure
soil temperature. Document the stopping of placement
in the Daily Construction Report.

Review ambient air temperature records as measured at
the site meteorological station. Document status of clay
liner cover placement on the Daily Construction Report.
Measure the liner/foundation temperature when
Verify that clay liner is tested as required (and the testing
documented) during cold weather conditions.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 26 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
A. If less than 30 days have passed since the date
of lift approval and the last lift of clay liner has
been covered since the approval date with at
least nine inches of loose clay or six inches of
compacted clay, then the cover clay may be
worked with no additional testing of the lower
approved lift.

B. If less than 30 days have passed since the date
of lift approval and the last lift of clay liner has
not been covered with at least nine inches of
loose clay or six inches of compacted clay,
then:

1. Perform spring start-up testing as
discussed below; or

2. Measure the liner/foundation temperature
approximately one inch beneath the
surface at a frequency of one measurement
per lot (defined as no more than 100,000
square feet). If the temperature one inch
beneath the surface is greater than 32ºF, no
additional actions are required. If the
temperature one inch beneath the surface
is less than 32ºF and greater than 27ºF, re-
roll the surface with one pass of the same
type of construction equipment (i.e., a
compactor for intermediate lifts or a
smooth drum roller for the final surface)
and continue with liner construction. If the
temperature 1 inch beneath the surface is
less than or equal to 27ºF, re-work and re-
test density and permeability of the
triggered under B.2. of this specification, at the specified
frequency. Clay temperature shall be measured between
6:00 AM and 8:00 AM on the day that clay liner will be
placed. Temperature measurements shall include a
location that is most likely to be coldest; i.e., if there is
a portion of the liner that is shaded or at a low point. To
ensure a stable reading, the temperature probe shall be
left in place for at least two minutes prior to taking the
reading.

If the initial clay temperature measurement is less than
or equal to 27ºF, the affected area may be resampled
before 8:30 AM the same day as follows:
a. Measure the liner/foundation temperature at a
frequency of one measurement per lot (defined as no
more than 10,000 square feet).
b. Lots where the temperature is greater than 27ºF do
not require rework other than re-roll the surface with
one pass of the same type of construction
equipment; except that the lot where the initial
temperature less than or equal to 27ºF was measured
shall be reworked regardless of resampling results.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 27 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
affected area after the clay temperature has
risen above 27ºF.

C. If more than 30 days have passed since the date
of lift approval, perform spring start-up testing.

50) SPRING START-UP: See Specification 49 for
situations that trigger this specification.

For spring start-up testing, the surface lift is treated
as protective cover, regardless of whether it was an
approved lift of clay liner at one time or not.
Excavate nine inches below the clay surface and re-
test for density and permeability. Excavation for
testing purposes may consist of removing the
protective cover lift; or may be performed by
‘potholing’ only at the testing locations. Areas that
have been ‘potholed’ for permeability testing shall
be repaired by applying the same level of effort as
prescribed by the approved test pad for liner
construction.

Perform density and permeability testing at the
frequencies outlined for liner construction in
Specifications 43 through 46. This testing may be
performed outside of the approved lift area so long as
the area tested is representative of the clay in the
approved lift area (i.e., was constructed at the same time
and with the same method). Moisture testing is not
required for spring start-up.
a. Approve lots that meet specification. The protective
cover lift may then be worked in place and tested to
become the next lift of clay liner.
b. For lots that do not meet specification, test the
surface at successively deeper nine inch increments
until a passing lift is found; remove all failing lot;
re-work all failing lot; and re-test.

Document that repairs are completed to the same level
of effort as required by the approved test pad for clay
liner construction.

51) CONTAMINATION OF CLAY LINER: The
clay liner material shall not become contaminated
with radioactive soils or debris during construction.
The in-place clay liner material may contain up to
five percent additional rocks and sand above the
content found in the classification test.

Prior to compaction, visually check the clay liner
material for contamination by foreign materials in
accordance with ASTM D2488. Remove or rework clay
liner material that has been contaminated above the
specified requirements. Document corrective actions
(when required) on the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the clay liner is being inspected for
contaminants and that the inspection and corrective
actions (if required) are properly documented.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 28 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
52) FINAL GRADING: Final grading shall be at or
above design elevations.
Survey on a 50 foot grid and at key points (i.e.,
embankment break lines). Final survey measurements
will be documented and provided to the QC Supervisor
and Quality Assurance.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
53) HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON CLAY LINER:
Heavy equipment travel will be minimized on top
of the finished clay liner. Heavy equipment will not
be operated on saturated clay liner.

Observe work on clay liner. Notify the Project Manager
of problems with equipment on the clay liner. Re-inspect
problem areas once corrected. Record corrective actions
taken (where required) on the Daily Construction
Report.

Verify that the work is being inspected.
54) DIRECTOR APPROVAL: In accordance with
Specification 23 the Director shall approve
documentation associated with completed clay
liner. Documentation shall include all QC and QA
records associated with clay liner construction, as
well as photographs of the completed liner surface.
In addition, 48 hour notification shall be provided
to the Director prior to placement of soil material
over the clay liner (waste or soil protective cover).
However, Director approval of clay liner
documentation is not required prior to placement of
waste over the clay liner.

Notify Quality Assurance that the clay liner is prepared
and ready for inspection by the Director. Obtain written
authorization on the Liner Inspection Form from Quality
Assurance that the clay liner has been inspected. Obtain
documentation of Director notification from Quality
Assurance.
Notify the Director that the clay liner is prepared and
ready for inspection at least 48 hours prior to covering
with soil protective cover material. Obtain written
Director approval of the clay liner prior to the placement
of material over clay liner (waste or soil protective
cover). Provide QC with documentation of notification.
55) LINER PROTECTIVE COVER: At least one
foot of compacted native soils, free of debris, shall
be constructed on top of the clay liner. This layer is
termed “Liner Protective Cover”. Contaminated
equipment may be used to place Liner Protective
Cover. Liner Protective Cover shall be constructed
through one, or a combination, of the following
methods:

a. Clay liner placed in excess of clay liner design
elevations may be considered part of the Liner
Protective Cover.

Inspect, test and approve excess clay liner in accordance
with Work Element “Clay Liner Placement”.

Verify that excess clay liner has been constructed and
tested in accordance with Work Element “Clay Liner
Placement”.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 29 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
b. Constructed Liner Protective Cover using
native soils free of debris as follows:

a. Soil material will be placed in lifts with a
compacted average thickness not
exceeding 12 inches.

i. Thickness for the lift will be
established by installing grade
poles on at least a 70-foot grid and
at all control points. The grade
poles must not be installed deeper
than three inches into the
underlying clay liner. The grade
poles must be marked at the
appropriate depth to establish the
grade. After the grade for the lift
has been checked and approved by
QC personnel, the grade poles shall
be removed.

- OR -

ii. Survey to determine lift thickness
using the same grid spacing
described in Specification 43.A.
Survey equipment shall have a
tolerance no more than ± 0.1 foot.

b. Each lift shall be compacted to at least 90
percent of a standard Proctor. Moisture
testing is not required.

Verify that the required grading tolerance is achieved as
follows:
a. Ensure that the required frequency for placement of
grade poles has been met.
b. Compare soil level with the marked level on the
grade poles.
c. Visually check between poles for high or low spots.
d. Define high out of specification areas and notify the
Project Manager to rework those areas.
e. Re-inspect areas reworked and approve areas
meeting criteria.
f. Continue "b" through "d" above until all areas meet
criteria.
g. Indicate areas meeting criteria on the Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form.

- OR –

a. Verify survey equipment is within a tolerance of ±
0.1 foot.
b. Verify correct set-up and operation of equipment.
c. Visually check between survey points for high or
low spots.
d. Define high out of specification areas and notify the
Project Manager to rework those areas.
e. Document survey results on a survey report.

Conduct in-place density tests at a rate of one test per lot
and record the results on the Field Density Test form. A
lot is defined as 1,000 cubic yards (compacted) of a
single lift. The test location shall be chosen on the basis
of random numbers (described in Specification 12) and
documented on the Lift Approval Form.

Observe QC personnel to ensure that the measurements
are being performed correctly. Verify that the
measurements are being performed at the correct
frequency and that the documentation is being
completed. Verify that the inspection has been
performed and documented for each lift.

Verify that the tests are being performed at the correct
frequency and that the documentation is being
completed.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - CLAY LINER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 30 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
borrow lot. A borrow lot is defined as 5,000 cubic yards
(compacted) or less of a specific material type. Record
the location of the Proctor sample on the Sampling Log.
Document results of the proctor on the Proctor Form.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DEPLETED URANIUM WASTE PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 31 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
56) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell Embankment.

57) DEFINITION OF WASTE:

Depleted Uranium Containers – Cylinders
containing depleted uranium ranging from 11 to 12
Mg full. The cylinders with a 12-Mg capacity are
12 ft (3.7 m) long by 4 ft (1.2 m) in diameter.
Most have a steel wall that is 5/16 in (0.79 cm)
thick. Similar but slightly smaller cylinders with a
capacity of 9 Mg are also managed. Drums
containing depleted uranium have a gross volume
of 55 gallons and from 0.6 to 1.0 Mg full.

58) DEPLETED URANIUM CONTAINER
PLACEMENT: Depleted Uranium Containers
shall be placed below ground surface level within
the Federal Cell Embankment.

The maximum allowable load on the clay liner
surface is less than 3,000 psf.

When CLSM is required as structural fill in a
Depleted Uranium Engineering Review in order to
meet the load specification, the first four feet of
CLSM shall be placed around the depleted uranium
containers within 14 calendar days of depleted
uranium container disposal.

Have the Engineering Manager perform a Depleted
Uranium Container Engineering Review. Ensure that the
bearing pressure at the clay liner surface meets
specification for the load associated with placement of
depleted uranium containers.

Document the date of depleted uranium containers
disposal and the date of the CLSM pour and include with
the Lift Approval Form.

Confirm that the Depleted Uranium Container
Engineering Review has been completed.

If CLSM is required to meet the load specification
requirement, verify the first four feet of CLSM was
placed around a depleted uranium container within 30
calendar days of depleted uranium containers disposal.
59) CLSM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS:

CLSM shall have the following characteristics:

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DEPLETED URANIUM WASTE PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 32 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
A. The design mix will be approved by the
Engineering Manager prior to use in the cell
area and meets the material specifications
provided in Table 1 “Material Specifications
for Portland Cement CLSM”.

B. The CLSM passes a Slump Test (ASTM
C143), Flow Consistency Test (ASTM D6103)
or Efflux test (procedure provided in Appendix
B of this Manual), as applicable. Passing
criteria for each test is specified in Table 1
“Material Specifications for Portland Cement
CLSM”.

For each day’s production, perform an initial screening
test. Perform subsequent acceptance tests as required by
lot size. The results of these tests and corrective actions,
if any, shall be documented on the CLSM Testing Form.
a. Initial screening tests shall be performed on the first
load of CLSM for each day that CLSM is poured.
This screening test shall be performed from the
“front end” of the load. The initial screening test
includes either a Flow Consistency Test (ASTM
D6103) or Efflux test (procedure given in Appendix
B. The results from this initial screening test shall
indicate whether or not any adjustments need to be
made at the batch plant to ensure loads meet design
specifications.
b. If adjustments are made to the load to produce a
product that passes the testing requirements,
perform initial screening testing on the subsequent
two loads to verify that the batch plant adjustments
are sufficient
c. CLSM pouring shall only be authorized to proceed
upon verification that the initial load (and
subsequent two loads if the initial load failed) meets
mix specifications.
d. Acceptance tests shall be performed at a rate of one
test per lot, with a minimum of one acceptance test
performed for each CLSM pour. A lot is defined as
100 cubic yards of CLSM. Sampling for acceptance
tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM
D5971 (“Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed
CLSM”). These acceptance tests shall be performed
from a composite of two samples from near the
middle of the load.
1) Accept loads that meet specification.
2) For loads with unsatisfactory results, accept the
first part of the load and reject the remainder, or
modify the load and/or pour techniques and
retest.
Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DEPLETED URANIUM WASTE PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 33 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

C. The CLSM shall have minimum 28-day
strength of 150 pounds per square inch (psi) as
determined by ASTM D4832. A minimum of
three cylinders shall be cast for compressive
strength testing.

D. The CLSM shall have a wet unit weight in all
cases of at least 100 lbs/ft3 as determined by
ASTM D6023 “Standard Test Method for
Density (Unit Weight), Yield, Cement Content,
and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Controlled
Low-Strength Material (CLSM)”.

E. A load ticket shall be furnished for each truck
of CLSM to be poured.

Cast a minimum of three cylinders per 2,000 cubic yards
of CLSM placed, with at least one set per lift for lifts
smaller than 2,000 cubic yards. Perform compressive
strength testing in accordance with ASTM D4832 at 28
days to ensure the minimum strength requirements are
met. This test may be performed in-house or sent off-site
to an AMRL certified laboratory. If the CLSM does not
meet specification, evaluate why it failed and implement
corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Record the
reason for the failure and the corrective action on the Lift
Approval Form.

Conduct a unit weight test (ASTM D6023) in
conjunction with sampling for compressive strength
testing of Specification 59.C.

Obtain the load ticket for each truck load of CLSM and
ensure the load meets the mix specifications provided in
Table 1 “Material Specifications for Portland Cement
CLSM” of this Manual. Reject any loads not meeting the
mix specifications. Include the load ticket with the Lift
Approval Form for the CLSM lift. During each CLSM
pour, a QC Technician shall be present at or near the
pour at all times and shall visually observe pour
activities. Document discrepancies on the Daily
Construction Report.

Verify compressive strength testing is being performed
at the correct frequency.

Verify unit weight testing is being performed at the
correct frequency.

Verify that the load tickets have been obtained by QC
personnel for each truck load of CLSM and that the load
ticket has been checked against Table 1 “Material
Specifications for Portland Cement CLSM”
60) SNOW REMOVAL: When depleted uranium
containers are to be placed and the work area is
covered with snow and/or ice, the snow and/or ice
must be removed so that no more than one-quarter
inch remains on the surface. Isolated individual
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the waste lift for
damage. Notify the Project Manager of
deficiencies/damage. Construction may not continue
without corrective action and re-inspection of
deficiencies/damage. Record corrective action (where
required) in the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that snow removal is being performed and
documented and the waste lift has been inspected.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DEPLETED URANIUM WASTE PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 34 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
clumps of snow and/or ice may be present, but shall
be no larger than two-inches in diameter.

61) CLSM POURS AROUND DEPLETED
URANIUM CONTAINERS: In-filling of the
placed depleted uranium containers with CLSM
shall be maximized.

Unless specifically exempted by the Director (e.g.,
ALARA considerations, contents already cemented,
etc.), depleted uranium containers shall either have
their lids removed or the lid shall be pierced with a
hole size of at least eight square inches (i.e., two inch
by four inch) to allow flow of CLSM into the
container.

Ensure lids are removed or container are punctured. Holes
shall be a minimum of eight square inches (i.e., two inch
by four inch). If a container is exempted from this
requirement, ensure a copy of the Director’s approval is
within the records. Record results on the CLSM
Inspection Form.

Review inspection results to ensure that adequate holes
exist for containers where lids remain on the container.
If a container is exempted, verify that Director approval
has been obtained.
62) FINAL CLSM POUR SURFACE: The final
CLSM surface will be a horizontal plane with no
exposed containers that impedes contact with the
surface area during proof rolling.

Visually inspect the final CLSM pour surface to ensure
the area is acceptable for proof rolling.

63) PROOF-ROLL TESTING: A proof roll test shall
be performed on all CLSM lifts a minimum of three
calendar days following completion of the CLSM
pour and prior to placement of any lifts on top of the
completed pour. The test shall consist of a loaded
truck (rock truck, cement truck, or other vehicle of
equal or greater wheel surface load) driving across
the entire footprint of the completed CLSM pour.
Inspect the entire cured CLSM pour surface. Following
inspection, direct the truck (rock truck, cement truck, or
other vehicle of equal or greater wheel surface load)
across the entire CLSM pour surface. Inspect the surface
during rolling for any cracking or depressions resulting
from the proof-rolling. Identify any surface cracks or
depressions with a vertical displacement of one-half
inch or greater, or cracks greater than ½-inch in depth.
Mark these areas for repair or re-work. Document
observations on the Lift Approval Form.

Approve all lift areas not marked for repair or rework.
For any areas with surface cracking or depressions with
a vertical displacement of one-half inch or greater, or
cracks greater than one-half inch in depth, one of the
following methods shall be followed to remedy the
Review the documentation to ensure proof-roll testing is
being performed and properly documented.

Review the documentation to ensure rework, if required,
has been performed and documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DEPLETED URANIUM WASTE PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 35 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
failed area(s):
a. The area may be compacted and then re-poured.
Following three days from the re-pour, perform
another proof-roll test to evaluate if the repair was
adequate; or
b. Remove the CLSM from the marked area and
replace it with new CLSM. Following three days
from the re-pour, perform another proof-roll test of
the area to evaluate if the repair was adequate.
Repeat this process until satisfactory results are
achieved; or
c. Place a six-inch CLSM cap over the pour lift area
after the area in question has been compacted. With
the exception of edges at the perimeter of a lift, the
six-inch cap shall extend a minimum of three feet
past the damaged areas created during proof-
rolling in each direction. Following a minimum of
three calendar days, perform a proof-roll test of the
six-inch cap area to evaluate if the cap was
adequate. This process may also be repeated (i.e.,
placement of additional cap to a 12-inch cap) until
satisfactory results are achieved.

64) SIX-INCH CAP: A six-inch cap is required over
repaired area as described in Specification 63.
Areas poured with a CLSM cap shall still require a
proof-rolling test (as described in Specification 63)
to verify performance of the cap. With the exception
of edges at the perimeter of a lift, the six inch cap
shall extend a minimum of three feet in each
direction past the edge of the area that requires a
cap.

The six inch cap shall have minimum 28-day
strength of 500 psi as determined by ASTM D4832.
Visually inspect the CLSM pour area and identify the
highest elevations that require a six-inch cap. Survey
and document these designated elevations on the CLSM
Inspection Form. Following completion of the six-inch
cap, perform a final survey of the lift as required for
determining lift thicknesses above. Document the
survey on a survey report. Ensure that the thickness of
the cap is six inches above all areas requiring a CLSM
cap. Document the inspection and completion of the
CLSM cap on the Lift Approval Form.

Perform compressive strength testing of the CLSM used
for caps at the rate of one test per 1,000 cubic yards of
CLSM placed, with at least one test per lift. Test
Review the documentation associated with the CLSM
cap.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DEPLETED URANIUM WASTE PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 36 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
Table 1 specifications do not apply to the CLSM
cap.

specimens/samples shall be collected in accordance with
ASTM D5971. The samples shall then be tested in
accordance with ASTM D4832. The test results are
documented in the compressive strength report which is
referenced on the Lift Approval Form. If the CLSM cap
does not meet specification, evaluate why it failed and
implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
Document corrective actions on the Daily Construction
Report.

Verify that compressive strength testing is performed at
a rate of one per CLSM lift. Ensure that the compressive
strength of the cap is greater than or equal to 500 psi.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITH COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 37 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
65) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

66) APPLICABILITY: This work element is
applicable to fill placed and compacted with the
CAT 826 compactor.

Document equipment used for compaction on the Lift
Approval Form.

67) DEFINITIONS:

Machine Pass is defined as movement of the
compactor across an area of the lift in any direction,
which also meets compaction criteria calculated by
an algorithm in the compactor’s system. For
example, movement of the compactor from south to
north across the lift, which also meets compaction
criteria calculated by an algorithm in the
compactor’s system, constitutes one machine pass;
the return trip from north to south, which also meets
compaction criteria calculated by an algorithm in
the compactor’s system, constitutes a second pass.

Wheel Pass is defined as movement of any of the
compactor’s drums across an area of the lift, which
also meets compaction criteria calculated by an
algorithm in the compactor’s system. Since there
are forward and rear drums on the CAT 826
compactor, each machine pass constitutes two
wheel passes. The CCS compaction tracking system
reports wheel passes.

68) LINER PROTECTION: The compactor shall not
be operated on the surface of finished clay liner or
on the surface of the Liner Protective Cover directly
over the clay liner. When operating on a slope that
terminates on the surface of the Liner Protective
Cover, the compactor shall be operated in a manner
to prevent impact to the Liner Protective Cover.
When disposal and compaction is being performed on or
adjacent to the first lift above the Liner Protective Cover,
observe compactor operation for protection of the liner
and Liner Protective Cover. Document observations,
failures, and any corrective actions on the Daily
Construction Report.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITH COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 38 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
When compacting near the toe of the slope, the
compactor shall be operated parallel to the toe of the
slope.

69) LIFT IDENTIFICATION: Each lift shall be
given a unique lift identification number.

Assign a lift identification number to each lift. Use the
lift identification number to identify all paperwork for
that lift.

Verify that a unique lift identification number has been
assigned to each lift. Verify that the lift identification
number is used on all paperwork for that lift.

70) LIFT ACCEPTANCE: At the time of acceptance,
the date and time of lift approval shall be recorded.

No fill material will be disposed on a lift until the
prior lift is approved.

Record the date and time of lift approval on the Lift
Approval Form.

Verify that the previous fill lift has been approved prior
to fill disposal.
Verify that the date and time of lift approval is recorded
on the Lift Approval Form.
71) LIFT THICKNESS: The fill material will be
placed in lifts with a compacted average thickness
not exceeding 24 inches.
Survey the mean elevation of the top of each lift by
surveying at least five points over a 10,000 square foot
area. Where practical, survey the corners and at least one
spot in the middle. If the average thickness of these
surveys exceeds 24 inches, notify the Project Manager
to have lift reworked. The lift shall be re-surveyed with
at least five more points per 10,000 square feet after it is
reworked. Survey measurements will be documented on
a survey report and forwarded to Quality Assurance. Lift
thickness may also be verified via GPS.
a. Approve lifts with an average less than or equal to
the specified lift thickness.
b. Remove excess material from the thicker areas of
the lift if the average lift thickness is greater than 24
inches, and re-compact lift in the areas where fills
are removed.

- OR -

Download the CCS system report of beginning and
ending lift elevations. For lifts that are not sloped,
survey data may be used for beginning lift elevation. Lift
thickness shall be reported using CCS in accordance
Perform a monthly assessment of the survey
documentation performed by the QC personnel to ensure
that the measurements and observations are being
performed correctly. Verify that the surveys are being
performed at the correct frequency and that the
documentation is being completed.

Verify that the survey data has been received from the
QC personnel and that the data meets thickness
specifications.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITH COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 39 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
with current operating procedure. When calculating the
average lift thickness on a side slope, no point shall be
more than 2.1 feet. If CCS is used to document lift
thickness on the side slope, there shall be no white pixels
shown in the lift. CCS data may be supplemented by
GPS for areas where compactor coverage is
inconclusive.

72) LIFT AREA: Identify the dimensions and the
location of the northwest corner of the lift. There is
no minimum lift area for this work element.

Locate the northwest corner of each lift, and document
the location and lift dimensions.

73) CLASSIFICATIONS: Soil classification testing is
not required for fill placed using this work element.

74) TERRACING OF LIFTS: Lifts constructed at
times more than 30 days apart from each other shall
have at least one foot, measured horizontally,
removed from the outer edge of the old lift (except
for CLSM lifts). For compaction adjacent to CLSM
surfaces, lift compaction will be conducted as close
to the CLSM as the compactor can achieve.

Inspect the intersections between old and new lifts.
Verify that the outer one foot of the old lift is being
removed (except for CLSM lifts). Record any problems
and corrective actions taken on the Daily Construction
Report.
Verify that the required inspections are being performed
and documented.
75) COMPACTION WITH CCS: When using the
CCS system, each lift and lift interface shall be
compacted by at least four machine passes with the
CAT 826 compactor. The lift surface shall be firm
and unyielding to the compactor’s weight. A
minimum of 90 percent of the grid points reported
for the lift by CCS shall exhibit adequate
compaction and machine passes. Adequate
compaction as well as meeting the minimum
number of wheel passes is reported by CCS when
each pixel turns green. Furthermore, a maximum of
56 square feet of non-green pixels may be adjacent
to each other within the lift area limits. “Adjacent”
means that two pixels share a common side; pixels
Document the CCS system report of compaction for
each lift area. Compactive effort is reported by CCS on
a roughly one foot x one foot grid; with each on-screen
pixel representing one square foot. Ensure that the CCS
reports a minimum of four machine passes (i.e., 8 wheel
passes) for at least 90 percent of the grid points in the
lift. Record this information on the Lift Approval Form.
Perform a QC inspection of the compacted lift by
observing the CCS control screen for evidence of
uniform and adequate compaction. This condition is
indicated by having a minimum of 90 percent of the
screen green. Visually compare all adjacent non-green
pixels against the 3.3 foot by 16.5 foot and 7.5 foot by
7.5 foot area legends on the system screen to ensure the
Perform a monthly assessment of the compaction
documents generated by the QC technician.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITH COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 40 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
that share only a common corner are not adjacent to
each other.

A. Additional compaction may be required if,
after the minimum number of passes is
complete, the minimum percentage of grid
points do not exhibit adequate compaction, as
reported by the CCS system.

B. Evaluate the lift interface when compacting
adjacent to an obstruction (e.g., a previously
poured CSLM surface, irregular CLSM side
slope, CWF caisson, etc.). Visually inspect for
obstructions that may affect compaction data.
More than 56 square feet of non-green adjacent
pixels are permitted in this situation if QC
visually observes and documents a minimum
of six machine passes to within 12 inches of the
obstruction.

maximum number of adjacent pixels is not exceeded.
Print the CCS report as a color image and include with
the Lift Approval Form. Record QC inspection results
on the Lift Approval Form.

Perform a visual inspection of the obstruction/Soil
interface. Identify areas of the obstruction that present
an obstacle for the CAT 826 compactor. Visually
observe the compactor operator make a minimum of six
machine passes to within 12 inches of the obstruction.
Document the observations on the Lift Approval form.

76) COMPACTION WITHOUT CCS: If the CCS
system is not available to be used for compaction
under this work element, the following
requirements apply.

A. Notice shall be provided to Director within 24
hours of beginning to approve lifts without
CCS. This notice may be provided via email.

B. Written notice shall be provided to Director no
later than three calendar days (72 hours) after
beginning to approve lifts without CCS. The
written notice shall explain why CCS is down;
an estimate of when CCS will be back online;
a map of the areas being compacted without
CCS; and a map of interim settlement

Notify Director within 24 hours of beginning to approve
lifts without CCS. Provide QC with documentation of
DRC notification.

Provide written notice to Director no later than three
calendar days after beginning to approve lifts without
CCS. Provide QC with a documentation of written DRC
notification. Note: Verbal and written notification may
be submitted by the Engineering Manager, or designee,
and then provided to Quality Assurance.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITH COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 41 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
monuments over the area being compacted
without CCS.

C. Compaction without CCS is limited to 10
calendar days per occurrence.

D. Each lift and lift interface shall be compacted
by at least six machine passes with the CAT
826 compactor. The lift surface shall be firm
and unyielding to the compactor’s weight.
Additional compaction may be required if,
after the minimum number of passes is
complete, any of the following are observed:

1. The lift surface exhibits ruts or
compression (excluding depressions
caused by the tines of the compactor
wheel) in excess of four inches;

2. The fill material exhibits pumping
behavior, or has other indications of
excess moisture content; or

3. The lift does not appear to be uniformly
compacted.

Document that the minimum number of passes is
completed for each lift area. Passes shall be counted by
the QC technician or by using a GPS unit
communicating with the GPS unit on the compactor.

Perform a visual inspection of the compacted lift
surface. If rutting or other indications of inadequate
compaction are present, direct the equipment operator to
complete additional passes until the situation is
corrected. If additional passes are unable to correct the
situation, moisture adjustment or other corrective
actions may be needed and the lift shall not be approved
until these actions are completed. Record any problems
and corrective actions taken on the Daily Construction
Report.

Survey lift elevation and thickness in accordance with
Specification 71, with the further requirement that the
greater of the following number of points shall be
surveyed per lift:
a. At least five points; or
b. One point per 2,000 square feet of lift area.

Record the number of passes and visual inspection
results on the Lift Approval Form.

Review the compaction documents generated by the QC
technician.

77) SNOW REMOVAL: When fill material is to be
placed and the work area is covered with snow
and/or ice, the snow and/or ice must be removed so
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the fill lift for
damage. Notify the Project Manager of
deficiencies/damage. Construction may not continue
Verify that snow removal is being performed and
documented and the fill lift has been inspected.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITH COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 42 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
that no more than one quarter inch remains on the
surface. Isolated individual clumps of snow and/or
ice may be present, but shall be no larger than two
inches in diameter.

without corrective action and re-inspection of
deficiencies/damage. Record corrective action (where
required) in the Daily Construction Report.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITHOUT COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 43 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
78) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

79) LIFT IDENTIFICATION: Each lift shall be
given a unique designation for testing and
surveying purposes.

Assign a lift identification number to each lift. Use the
lift identification number to identify all paper work for
that lift.
Verify that a unique lift identification number has been
assigned to each lift. Verify that the lift identification
number is used on all paper work for that lift.
80) LIFT ACCEPTANCE: At the time of acceptance,
the date and time of lift approval shall be recorded.

No fill material will be placed on a lift until the prior
lift is approved.

The QC technician shall record the date and time of lift
approval on the Lift Approval Form.

Verify that the previous lift has been approved prior to
placing more fill.
Verify that the date and time of lift approval is recorded
on the Lift Approval Form.
81) LIFT THICKNESS: The waste material will be
placed in lifts with a compacted average thickness
not exceeding 12 inches.
Survey the mean elevation of the top of each lift by
surveying at least five points over a 10,000 square foot
area. Where practical, survey the corners and at least one
spot in the middle. If the average thickness of these
surveys exceeds 12 inches, notify the Project Manager
to have operations rework the lift. The lift shall be re-
surveyed with at least five more points per 10,000
square feet after it is reworked. Survey measurements
will be documented and forwarded to Quality
Assurance.

Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.
82) COMPACTION: Each lift shall be compacted to
90 percent of a standard Proctor.

The moisture content of all lifts shall be equal to at
least two percent and no greater than up to three
percentage points above the optimum moisture.
Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
15,000 cubic yards (compacted) or less of a specific
material type.

Conduct in-place moisture-density tests at a rate of one
test per lot and record the results on the Field Density
Test form. A lot is defined as 1,000 cubic yards
(compacted) of a single lift. At least one test will be
performed per lift. The test location shall be chosen on
the basis of random numbers (described in Specification
12) and will be documented on the Lift Approval Form.
Approve lots for compaction criteria where:
Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITHOUT COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 44 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
a. material is observed to be properly compacted
across the surface of the lot; and
b. moisture/density test results meet moisture and
compaction specifications.

For lots where the dry density reading from a nuclear
gauge moisture/density test is less than or equal to the
required percentage of the standard Proctor and/or
moisture content is less than two percent or greater than
three percentage points above optimum moisture:

a. Identify the lot(s) (including dimensions) requiring
further compaction, and re-work the material. Re-
test at the location previously tested. Test one more
location in each re-worked lot. Identify the test
location using the lot dimensions and random
numbers (described in Specification 12).

1) If the test results from both tests meet
moisture/density requirements, approve the lot;

2) If either test fails, repeat the above process until
all tests at both locations meet moisture and
compaction requirements.

- OR -

b. If the lot is observed by the QC Technician to be
adequately compacted, investigate the reason for the
low density reading. If it is determined that the test
results were improperly influenced, take two more
density tests within five feet of the original test.
Note: All tests are to be recorded on a Field Density
Test form.

If the results from both tests meet moisture/density
requirements, record both tests and approve the lot.

Ensure that resolution of any reworked lots are properly
accomplished and documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILL PLACEMENT WITHOUT COMPACTOR

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 45 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

If either test fails to meet moisture/density
specifications – and the test results were not
improperly influenced - follow instructions for a.2
above.

83) TERRACING OF LIFTS: Lifts constructed at
time more than 30 days apart from each other shall
have at least three feet, measured horizontally,
removed from the outer edge of the old lift.

Inspect the intersections of old and new lifts. Verify that
the outer three feet of the old lifts are being removed
(except for CLSM lifts). Document inspections on the
Lift Approval Form. Record any problems on the Daily
Construction Report.

Verify that the required inspections are being performed
and documented.

84) FINAL GRADING BEFORE TEMPORARY
COVER PLACEMENT: Top of fill elevations
shall be at or below design elevations.

A visual inspection is performed at the top of fill
surface for any deficiencies (e.g., large rocks, etc.).

Survey the top lift of fill on a 50 foot grid and at key
points (i.e., embankment break lines). Final survey
measurements will be documented on a survey report
and provided to the QC Supervisor and Quality
Assurance.

Perform the visual inspection. Notify the Project
Manager of any deficiencies. Document inspection
results on the Daily Construction Report and re-inspect
deficiencies. If satisfactory, notify QA that the surface
is ready for QA inspection.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.

Perform a visual inspection of the final elevation surface
and provide written approval.

85) REGULATORY APPROVAL: In accordance
with Specification 23 the Director shall approve the
final surface before cover construction begins.

Obtain written authorization from Quality Assurance
that the final surface has been inspected. Obtain
documentation (e.g., notice of inspection, email, letter)
confirming the Director inspection and approval.
Notify Director (by email) that the final surface is ready
for inspection. Provide QC with documentation of
Director inspection and approval.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – PRE-FINAL COVER SETTELEMENT MONITORING

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 46 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
86) PRE-FINAL COVER SETTLEMENT
MONUMENTS: Prior to cover construction,
Interim settlement monuments will be constructed
on top of the fill final surface. Interim settlement
monuments shall consist of approximately 18-inch
long #5 or greater rebar that is welded to a metal
plate. The metal plate shall be approximately 18
inches square with a thickness of 3/16 inch to 1/4
inch. The metal plate shall be placed on the top of
waste surface and secured by the temporary cover.
Each monument shall be labeled, flagged, surveyed,
and documented.

Inspect interim cover settlement monuments for
compliance with the specification prior to installation.
Perform a surveillance of interim settlement monument
installation activities.
87) INTERIM SETTLEMENT MONUMENT
PLACEMENT: Interim settlement monuments
shall be placed as close as practical to the locations
of final cover settlement monuments identified in
Figure 1.

Perform and document a post-construction survey of the
location of the pre-final cover settlement monuments.
Verify that surveys have been performed and
documented.

88) SURVEY REQUIREMENTS: Surveys shall be
performed with GPS or approved equivalent
equipment. Tolerance shall be no more than ± 0.1
foot.

Operate survey equipment in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations. Verify equipment
accuracy with a known benchmark.

89) SURVEY INTERVAL: The interim settlement
monuments shall be surveyed within 30 days of
temporary cover installation. New monuments
shall be surveyed again during the months of
January, March, May, July, September, and
November. After at least one year of data has been
obtained for a monument, it shall be surveyed semi-
annually during the months of May and November
until final cover construction begins. Weather
conditions at the time of the survey and a discussion
of the potential for frost to be present shall be
documented in the survey report. Continue surveys
Perform and document the required surveys. Provide
survey data to the Engineering Manager.
Verify that interim settlement monument surveys are
completed and documented as required.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – PRE-FINAL COVER SETTELEMENT MONITORING

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 47 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
until the conditions of Specification 91 are
satisfied.

90) INSPECTIONS: Monthly, inspect temporary
cover for the presence of erosion gullies. If the
inspection indicates that waste material is exposed
due to erosion, the temporary cover shall be
repaired in that area within seven calendar days.

Annually by July 1 of each year, maintain the
temporary cover surface. Maintenance shall consist
of filling in and compacting any erosion gullies
and, if necessary, re-grading to prevent ponding on
the temporary cover.

Perform and document monthly inspections.

Document maintenance activities. Document any areas
requiring filling or re-grading.
Verify monthly inspections were completed and
documented.

Verify that annual temporary cover maintenance
activities were completed and documented.
91) ANNUAL REPORTING: Survey data for interim
settlement monuments shall be compiled and
analyzed to evaluate total and differential
settlement. This data and analysis shall be
submitted to Director with the annual as-built
report.

Review and analysis of interim settlement
monument data will include the following:

• A drawing identifying the location of each
interim settlement monument,
• Graphical or tabular presentation of the
incremental settlement for each monument
(how much each monument has moved since
the last set of readings),
• Graphical or tabular presentation of the total
settlement for each monument,
• Graphical or tabular presentation of the time
rate of settlement for each monument (to
include both the overall rate from the first data

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – PRE-FINAL COVER SETTELEMENT MONITORING

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 48 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
for the monument, and the incremental rates
for each period),
• Graphical or tabular presentation of the
differential settlement for each interim
settlement monument with respect to the
nearest adjacent interim settlement monument,
and
• A discussion about the general nature of the
observed settlement, and any areas of the
landfill that are behaving in an anomalous
manner.

92) TRANSITION TO FINAL COVER: If distortion
is less than 0.007 foot/foot between adjacent
interim settlement monuments, and each interim
settlement monument has at least one year’s
monitoring data; then final cover construction may
proceed. The Engineering Manager shall make this
evaluation from interim settlement data. If the
criteria are met, a written report shall be prepared
and forwarded to Director at least seven calendar
days prior to removing the interim settlement
monuments. Final cover construction shall be
completed within three years of interim settlement
monument removal over that specific area.

If an area is not approved for final cover
construction by the end of the XXth year of the XX-
year open cell period (as described in Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005), an
analysis of projected future distortions shall be
performed and submitted to the Director. The
analysis shall evaluate, at a minimum, potential
settlement through the end of year XX of the open
cell period. If the analysis indicates that the future
distortions between any two adjacent monuments
will be more than 0.007 foot/foot, then additional
Obtain documentation of Director notification at least
seven calendar days prior to removing the interim
settlement monuments.

Verify that QC has obtained documentation of Director
notification.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – PRE-FINAL COVER SETTELEMENT MONITORING

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 49 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
engineering analyses will be done and a plan to
stabilize settlement prior to final cover construction
provided to the Director. The plan to stabilize
settlement shall accomplish set goals prior to the
open cell time limit.

Immediately prior to placement of the first lift of
radon barrier, the interim settlement monuments
shall be removed and the temporary cover surface
restored.

Top of temporary cover elevations shall be at or
below design elevations. Additional clean debris-
free soil material shall be placed; or excess
temporary cover material shall be cut, as needed.

When placing clean debris-free soil material for
this purpose, the soil shall be placed in lifts with a
compacted average thickness not exceeding 12
inches and compacted to 90 percent of a standard
Proctor. If an area has settled more than 12 inches,
bulk waste may be placed in accordance with the
applicable work elements and specifications of this
manual, so long as at least 1 foot of temporary cover
is in place prior to radon barrier construction.

Director shall be notified at least 48 hours in
advance of the start-up of temporary cover removal
in previously placed areas.

Inspect and document that all interim settlement
monuments have been removed prior to final cover
construction.

Survey and document the top of temporary cover
surface on a 50 foot grid and at key points (i.e.,
embankment break lines) to confirm that the design
elevations are not exceeded.

Document lift thickness and compaction for any
temporary cover material placed to bring the temporary
cover surface to design elevations.

Obtain documentation of Director notification.
Document the lift area and location on the Daily
Construction Report.

Verify that interim settlement monuments have been
removed.

Verify that the temporary cover surface does not exceed
design elevations.

Verify that documentation is complete.

Notify Director at least 48 hours in advance of
temporary cover removal. Provide QC with
documentation of Director notification.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER BORROW MATERIAL

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 50 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
93) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

94) CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Remove
vegetation, debris, organic, or deleterious material
from areas to be used for borrow. Grubbing depth
will depend on the type of vegetation, debris,
organic, or deleterious material on the site. If the
area is free of these materials then no clearing and
grubbing will be necessary.

Inspect the area once clearing and grubbing has been
completed. Record observations and corrective action
(where required) on the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the clearing and grubbing has been inspected
and documented by QC.
95) MATERIAL--NATURAL CLAY MIXTURE:
Satisfactory material shall meet the specifications
as CL or ML soils based on the Unified Soil
Classification System with at least 85 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve (silt and clay), a plasticity
index (PI) between 10 and 25, and a liquid limit
(LL) between 30 and 50.

Perform laboratory classification tests (ASTM D 2487)
at a rate of one test per lot prior to use of material in the
radon barrier. A lot is defined as a maximum of 5,000
cubic yards (compacted) of specified material type.
Record the location of the classification sample on the
Sample Log.

Verify that the frequency of laboratory tests is in
compliance with the specification.
96) PROTECTION: The borrow material will be
handled in such manner as to prevent contamination
with radioactive waste material or other deleterious
material. Acceptable material may contain up to
five percent additional rocks (less than or equal to
one inch) and sand above the content found in the
classification test.

Visually check radon barrier materials for
contamination by foreign materials in accordance with
ASTM D2488. Remove or rework clays that have been
contaminated above the specified requirements.
Document corrective actions (where required) on the
Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the radon barrier is being inspected for
contaminates and that the inspection and corrective
actions (if required) are properly documented.
97) PROCESSING: These procedures may be used to
provide suitable material for construction of the
radon barrier.

A. If used, apply deflocculant at a rate determined
by the Engineering Manager.

Measure the size of the mixing areas and verify that the
application rate of the deflocculant is equal to or greater
than the rate determined by the Engineering Manager.
Record the size of the mixing areas and the amount of
deflocculant applied on the Embankment Construction
Lift Approval Form.

Verify that the size of the mixing areas and the amount
of deflocculant applied has been properly documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER BORROW MATERIAL

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 51 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

B. Mix the deflocculant thoroughly into the soils
by tilling, or similar action.

Observe the mixed clay and notify the Project Manager
of areas which are adequately mixed.

Verify that the clay is being inspected correctly and
documented by QC.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 52 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
98) SCOPE: This work element applies to the Federal
Cell embankment.

99) NOTICE OF TEST PAD CONSTRUCTION: In
accordance with Specification 23 the radon barrier
test pad plan shall be approved by the Director. The
radon barrier test pad plan shall be provided to the
Director at least 14 calendar days prior to test pad
construction.

The Director shall be notified 48 hours in advance
of the start-up of test pad construction.
Obtain documentation confirming that the test pad plan
has been approved by the Director.

Obtain documentation confirming that the Director has
been notified as required.
Verify that the test pad plan has been provided to the
Director at least 14 calendar days prior to construction
of the test pad. Provide QC with documentation of
Director approval.

Notify the Director at least 48 hours in advance of the
start-up of test pad construction. Provide QC with
documentation of Director notification.

100) TEST PAD(S): A test pad with minimum
dimensions of 60 feet by 75 feet shall be constructed
using the procedure approved in the test plan for
construction of the radon barrier.

Prior to use of manually operated compaction
equipment, a small test pad with minimum
dimensions of five feet by five feet (sized
appropriately for the equipment used) shall be
constructed. The purpose of this small test pad is to
establish equipment and procedures for
construction of radon barrier in locations where
large equipment is not practical (e.g. repairs). If
manually operated compaction equipment is not
used on the project, a small test pad is not required.

A new radon barrier test pad shall be constructed
each time there is a change in specifications,
construction procedures, unified soil classification,
or types of equipment.

Observe the construction of test pads. Measure test pads
to ensure that they are constructed to the size indicated.
Record the test pad size on the Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form.

The large test pad shall be divided into three lots per lift
(approximately 1,500 square feet per lot). Each lift of
the small test pad shall equal a lot.

Observe the construction of the test pads. Verify that the
test pad has been measured and is properly documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 53 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
Radon barrier test pads are to be constructed and
tested in accordance with the following
specifications:

A. Prior to compaction, conduct at least one
classification and gradation test for each test
pad.

B. Place the clay in at least three lifts with the first
lift uncompacted thickness not exceeding
twelve inches. Remaining lifts shall have a
loose material thickness not exceeding nine
inches for each lift.

C. The clay material will have a dry clod size less
than or equal to one inch.

D. The clay is to be placed and compacted by
equipment proposed for use during
construction of the radon barrier.

E. The lifts of clay shall be bonded by providing a
rough upper surface on the underlying layer of
radon barrier. The surface should have changes
in grade of approximately one inch or more at a
rate of two or more per linear foot.

Conduct classification and gradation tests (as described
in Appendix B) at a rate of one of each type of test per
test pad.

Measure the lift thickness at a rate of one test per lot.
Record thickness on the Embankment Construction Lift
Approval Form.

Inspect the loose clay material during the unloading and
spreading process for each uncompacted lift to ensure
any dry clods that are present are less than or equal to
one inch. Notify the Project Manager to have operations
remove clods greater than one inch. Record inspection
of the dry clod size on the Embankment Construction
Lift Approval Form and re-inspect the uncompacted lift
if necessary. Record any corrective actions performed
on the Daily Construction Report.

Record type of equipment used, and number of passes
on the Embankment Construction Lift Approval Form.

Perform a visual inspection to verify that there are
adequate changes in grade. Any areas of concern shall
be verified by placing a straight edge at least two feet
long on the surface and counting the number of points
approximately one inch or more below the straight edge.
Notify the Project Manager of any deficiencies. Re-
inspect after the Project Manager has corrected
deficiencies.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.

Verify that the number of lifts and lift thicknesses has
been documented. Verify that the clod size inspection
has been performed and documented for each
uncompacted lift thickness.

Verify that the dry clod size inspection has been
performed and documented, including corrective actions
as necessary.

Perform a minimum of one visual inspection per test
pad.

Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 54 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
F. The clay is to be compacted to at least 95 percent
of a standard Proctor with moisture content
between one-half a percentage point below
optimum and five percentage points over
optimum. Compaction of the large test pad is to
be accomplished by at least four passes of
suitable compaction equipment.

G. The clay is to be constructed to provide a
permeability of less than or equal to the
specified permeability as indicated in
specification 111 and as shown on the approved
engineering drawings listed in Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005.
Permeability testing on the bottom lift will be
performed at the surface. Permeability on the
second lift will be performed greater than or
equal to two inches below the surface.
Permeability on the third lift will be performed
greater than or equal to four inches below the
surface.

H. The procedures used to construct the test pad
shall be reviewed and approved by a Utah
licensed Professional Engineer.

I. In accordance with Specification 23 the
approval of the test pad certification report by
the Director shall be obtained at least 14
Conduct in-place moisture-density tests at a rate of one
test per lot per lift. The test location shall be chosen on
the basis of random numbers (described in Specification
12). Record the test result on the Field Density Test
form.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified moisture and
compaction.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified moisture and compaction to have the areas
reworked.
c. Retest (moisture/density and permeability) lots after
rework has been completed.
d. Any additional work under b. shall be included in the
test pad construction method.

Conduct in-place permeability tests at a rate of one test
per lot per lift. The permeability test shall be run in close
proximity to the moisture-density test. Record the test
result on the Field Permeability Test form.
a. Approve lots that meet the specified permeability.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified permeability to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest (moisture/density and permeability) lots after
rework has been completed.
d. Any additional work under b. shall be included in
the test pad construction method.

Provide the Utah licensed Professional Engineer with
copies of the documentation for the test pad for review
and approval.

Obtain documentation confirming that the test pad
certification report has been approved by the Director.
Review documentation and verify the frequency of tests
and compliance of test results.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.

Verify that proper approval has been obtained for the
test pad and that the necessary construction procedure
documents are in place for use during radon barrier
construction.

Verify that the test pad certification report has been
provided to the Director. Provide QC with
documentation of Director approval.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER TEST PAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 55 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
calendar days from the time the certification
report was submitted and prior to using the new
test pad construction method.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 56 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
101) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

102) NOTICE OF COVER CONSTRUCTION:
The Director shall be notified of start-up for each
phase of cover construction.

Obtain documentation of Director notification. Notify the Director of start-up for each phase of cover
construction. Provide QC documentation of Director
notification.

103) PROJECT AREA: Radon barrier projects
shall have a minimum total area of 300,000 square
feet, unless otherwise approved in advance, in
writing by Director. The Director approval shall be
obtained in accordance with Specification 23.
Placement of radon barrier shall be made to the
lines, grades, and dimensions prescribed in the
approved phase-specific plans. Radon barrier
projects may continue over more than one
construction season, so long as the specifications
for cold weather placement and spring start-up are
met (Specifications 116 and 117). A radon barrier
project may consist of any number of lift areas. The
project area shall be documented in phase-specific
plan drawings.

104) LIFT IDENTIFICATION: Each lift shall be
given a unique lift identification number for testing
and surveying purposes.
Assign a lift identification number to each lift. Use the
lift identification number to identify all paper work for
that lift.
Verify that a lift identification number has been assigned
to each lift. Verify that the lift identification number is
used on all paper work for that lift.

105) PLACEMENT: The radon barrier will be
prepared, placed and compacted using equivalent
type of equipment and mixing and compacting
procedures that were approved in the test pad
(Specification 100).

If equipment used to prepare, place, and/or compact
clay liner differs by make and/or model from the
equipment identified in the approved test pad,
equipment equivalency shall be determined and
Observe the radon barrier placement. Record the
equipment and procedures used to place the radon
barrier, along with any corrective actions (where
required) on the Daily Construction Report.

Obtain documentation of equipment equivalency.

Verify the equipment and procedures used to construct
the radon barrier have been documented and that it is an
equivalent type of equipment used to construct the test
pad.

Verify that us of equivalent equipment has been
approved by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 57 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
approved by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer
prior to use. The Director shall be notified at least
48 hours in advance of implementing an equipment
change and in accordance with Specification 23 the
Director shall approve the equivalency
determination prior to use of the equivalent
equipment.

The clay material shall have a dry clod size less than
or equal to one inch.

Obtain documentation that the Director has been
notified and approved of an equipment equivalency
determination.

Inspect the loose clay material during the unloading and
spreading process for each uncompacted lift to ensure
any dry clods that are present are less than or equal to
one inch. Notify the Project Manager to have operations
remove clods greater than one inch. Record inspection
of the clod size on the Embankment Construction Lift
Approval Form and re-inspect the uncompacted lift.
Record any corrective actions performed on the Daily
Construction Report.

Notify the Director 48 hours prior to using equipment
that has been determined equivalent by a Utah licensed
Professional Engineer. Provide QC with documentation
of Director approval.

Verify that the clod inspection has been performed and
documented.
106) LIFT BONDING: The lifts shall be bonded by
providing a rough upper surface on the underlying
layer of radon barrier. The surface should have
changes in grade of approximately one inch or more
at a rate of two per linear foot.

Perform a visual inspection to verify that there are
adequate changes in grade. Any areas of concern shall
be verified by placing a straight edge at least two feet
long on the surface and counting the number of points
approximately one inch or more below the straight edge.
Notify the Project Manager of any deficiencies. Re-
inspect the surface after corrective actions have been
completed. Document any deficiencies and corrective
actions taken on the Daily Construction Report.

Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.
107) LIFT THICKNESS: The first lift of material
shall have an uncompacted thickness of no greater
than 12 inches. For the remaining lifts, the loose lift
thickness shall not exceed the lesser of the lift
thickness used to construct the test pad or nine
inches.

A. Thickness for the lift will be established by
installing grade poles on at least a 70-foot grid
Verify that the required grading tolerance is achieved as
follows:
a. Ensure that the required frequency for placement of
grade poles has been met.
b. Compare soil level with the marked level on the
grade poles.
c. Visually check between poles for high or low spots.
d. Define out of specification areas and notify the
Project Manager to rework those areas.
Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 58 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
and at all control points (at a minimum, each
corner of the area; also at break lines). The
grade poles must not be installed deeper than
three inches into the underlying clay radon
barrier. The grade poles must be marked at the
appropriate depth to establish the grade. After
the grade for the lift has been checked and
approved by QC personnel, the grade poles
shall be removed.

- OR -

B. Survey to determine lift thickness. Survey
equipment shall have a tolerance no more than
± 0.1 foot.

e. Review areas reworked and approve areas meeting
criteria.
f. Continue "b" through "d" above until all areas meet
criteria.
g. Indicate areas meeting criteria in the Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form.

- OR -

a. Verify survey equipment is within a tolerance of ±
0.1 foot,
b. Verify correct set-up and operation of equipment,
c. Document survey results on a survey report.

108) KEYING-IN: Segments of cell radon barrier
constructed at times more than 30 days apart than
each other shall be keyed-in to each other by one of
the following methods:

A. Key-in vertical steps no greater than nine
inches and at least twice as wide as they are
high.

- OR -

B. Slope the full thickness of old radon barrier at
a maximum slope of 5:1.

The surface shall be maintained in accordance with
Specification 114.

Verify that the new liner has been properly keyed-in to
the existing liner. Record deficiencies on the
Embankment Construction Lift Approval Form.
Verify that the keying-in of the liner has been
documented.
109) COMPACTION: Radon barrier material will
be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard
Proctor with moisture content between one-half a
Conduct in-place moisture-density tests at a rate of one
test per lot and record the results on the Field Density
Test form. A lot is defined as 500 cubic yards
Visually observe at least one in-place moisture-density
test per project area. Verify that the tests are being
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 59 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
percentage point below optimum and five
percentage points over optimum.
(compacted) of a single lift. The test location shall be
chosen on the basis of random numbers (described in
Specification 12).
a. Approve lots which meet the specified moisture and
compaction.
b. Rework and retest lots not meeting the specified
moisture or compaction.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
borrow lot. A borrow lot is defined as 3,000 cubic yards
(compacted) or less of a specific material type. Record
the location of the Proctor sample on the Sampling Log.

performed at the correct frequency and that the
documentation is being completed.
110) PERMEABILITY: The radon barrier shall
have an in-place permeability of less than or equal
to 1 x 10-6 cm/sec for the bottom layer. The radon
barrier shall have an in-place permeability of less
than or equal to 5 x 10-8 cm/sec for the final top foot.
Conduct in-place permeability tests at a rate of one test
per lot and record the results on the Field Permeability
Test form. A lot is defined as 2,000 compacted cubic
yards of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec radon barrier or 5 x 10-8 cm/sec
radon barrier. The permeability test shall be run within
five linear feet of a moisture-density test location.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified permeability.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified permeability to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest (moisture/density and permeability) lots after
rework has been completed.
d. Restore all test areas to assure no leaks.

Visually observe one lift being compacted per
construction season.
111) LAYER THICKNESS: Construct the radon
barrier for the Federal Cell embankment as shown
on the approved engineering drawings listed in
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005.

112) TRANSITIONS BETWEEN RADON
BARRIERS WITH DIFFERENT SPECIFIED
PERMEABILITIES: The radon barrier with the
higher permeability (i.e. the bottom radon barrier)
shall be final graded to no greater than design
Survey the radon barrier surface on a 50 foot grid and at
key points. Final survey measurements will be
documented and provided to the QC Supervisor and
Quality Assurance.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 60 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
elevation and no less than 0.4 feet below design
elevation. Survey on a 50 foot grid and key points
(i.e., embankment break lines).

113) RADON BARRIER DRYING
PREVENTION: Desiccation cracks shall not
exceed one-fourth inch wide and three-inches deep
in the radon barrier. Areas with desiccation cracks
exceeding this specification shall be identified as
new lots to be reworked and shall be reported to the
Director.

To prevent the radon barrier from drying one (or
more) of the following methods shall be employed:

A. Apply water to the radon barrier surface on an
as needed basis

B. Cover unfinished radon barrier with six inches
of loose clay

C. Cover finished radon barrier with 12 inches of
the next design layer(s) or six inches of loose
clay material. If clay material is used, remove
loose clay prior to placing next design layer

Observe the radon barrier surface for drying and
document results on the Daily Construction Report.

Notify the Project Manager and QA of any desiccation
cracks larger than specification identified in the radon
barrier.

Radon barrier with larger than specification desiccation
cracks shall be reworked and retested in accordance with
one of the following methods:
a. Scarify the in-place clay, moisture condition as
needed, then recompact and retest the clay material
in accordance with Specifications 106, 110, and
111.
b. Excavate all material with larger than specification
desiccation cracks and replace with new clay in
accordance with Specifications 105 through 111.

Document methods used to prevent the radon barrier
from drying on the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the radon barrier is being inspected correctly
and the inspection documented. Report discrepancies to
the Director as required.

Verify that the scheduling and methods used to prevent
unfinished and finished radon barrier from drying have
been documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 61 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
Unfinished or finished radon barrier will be covered
in accordance with method B or C above within 30
days of the last activity for the lift.

Document that protective measures have been placed
over unfinished and finished radon barrier lifts within 30
days of the last lift activity.

114) SNOW REMOVAL: When radon barrier
material is to be placed and the work area is covered
with snow, the snow must be removed without
damaging approved radon barrier.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect radon barrier for
damage. Notify the Project Manager of
deficiencies/damage. Re-inspect after the Project
Manager has corrected deficient/damaged areas. Record
corrective actions (where required) in the Daily
Construction Report.

Verify that snow removal is being documented and the
radon barrier had been inspected.
115) COLD WEATHER PLACEMENT OF
RADON BARRIER: For purposes of this Manual,
“frozen” is defined as a soil temperature of less than
or equal to 27ºF. Radon barrier shall not be placed
above frozen material. In addition, no frozen
material shall be processed or placed.

If the air temperature has dropped below 32ºF since
the last lift of radon barrier was approved, one of
the following three scenarios apply:

A. If less than 30 days have passed since the date
of lift approval and the last lift of radon barrier
has been covered since the approval date with
at least nine inches of loose clay or six inches
of compacted clay, then the cover clay may be
worked with no additional testing of the lower
approved lift.

B. If less than 30 days have passed since the date
of lift approval and the last lift of radon barrier
has not been covered with at least nine inches
of loose clay or six inches of compacted clay,
then:
As needed, observe the area where radon barrier is to be
placed. If frozen material is observed, cease placement
of radon barrier. If frozen material is suspected, measure
soil temperature. Record the stopping of placement in
the Daily Construction Report.

Review ambient air temperature records as measured at
the site meteorological station. Document status of
radon barrier cover placement on the Daily Construction
Report. Measure radon barrier temperature when
triggered under B.2. of this specification at the design
frequency. Clay temperature shall be measured between
6:00 AM and 8:00 AM on the day that radon barrier will
be placed. Temperature measurements shall include a
location that is most likely to be coldest; i.e., if there is
a portion of the radon barrier that is shaded or at a low
point. To ensure a stable reading, the temperature probe
shall be left in place for at least two minutes prior to
taking the reading

If the initial radon barrier temperature measurement is
less than or equal to 27ºF, the affected area may be
resampled before 8:30 AM the same day as follows:

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 62 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
1. Perform spring start-up testing as
discussed in Specification 116; or
2. Measure the radon barrier temperature
approximately one inch beneath the
surface at a frequency of one measurement
per lot (defined as no more than 100,000
square feet). If the temperature one inch
beneath the surface is greater than 27ºF,
re-roll the surface with one pass of the
same type of construction equipment (i.e.,
a compactor for intermediate lifts or a
smooth drum roller for the final surface)
and continue with radon barrier
construction. If the temperature one inch
beneath the surface is less than or equal to
27ºF, re-work and re-test density and
permeability of the affected area after the
clay temperature has risen above 27ºF.

C. If more than 30 days have passed since the date
of lift approval, perform spring start-up testing.

In addition, the final lift of 5 X 10-8 cm/sec radon
barrier requires that the next design layer be placed
over the radon barrier prior to the end of the work
day when ambient temperatures will drop below 32
degrees Fahrenheit. If this protective cover is not
applied prior to freezing conditions, an additional
density test and permeability test shall be performed
directly prior to covering the radon barrier final
surface with the next design layer. This process
must be repeated whenever any final surface
material is not covered with the next design layer
prior to overnight freezing conditions.

a. Measure the radon barrier temperature at a
frequency of one measurement per lot (defined as no
more than 10,000 square feet).
b. Lots where the temperature is greater than 27ºF do
not require rework; except that the lot where the
initial temperature less than or equal to 27ºF was
measured shall be reworked regardless of
resampling results.

Perform an additional density test and permeability test
on 5 x 10-8 cm/sec final surface that has been exposed to
overnight freezing conditions prior to placement of the
next design layer. If passing test results are achieved, but
it is not possible to cover all of the exposed radon barrier
material with the next design layer prior to the end of the
workday, testing must be repeated for the exposed
materials at a frequency of one test per 2,000 cubic yards
of exposed material. This testing may be performed
outside of the approved lift area so long as the area tested
is representative of the clay in the approved lift area (i.e.,
was constructed at the same time and with the same
method).

Verify that radon barrier is tested (and the testing
documented) during cold weather conditions.
116) SPRING START-UP: See Specification 115
for situations that trigger this specification.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 63 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

For spring start-up testing, the surface lift is treated
as protective cover, regardless of whether it was an
approved lift of radon barrier at one time or not.
Excavate nine inches below the clay surface and re-
test for density and permeability. Excavation for
testing purposes may consist of removing the
protective cover lift; or may be performed by
‘potholing’ only at the testing locations. Areas that
have been ‘potholed’ for permeability shall be
repaired by applying the same level of effort as
prescribed by the approved test pad for radon
barrier construction.

Perform density and permeability testing at frequencies
of one test per lot size of 500 or 2,000 cubic yards,
respectively. This testing may be performed outside of
the approved lift area so long as the area tested is
representative of the clay in the approved lift area (i.e.,
was constructed at the same time and with the same
method). Moisture testing is not required for spring
start-up.
a. Approve lots that meet specification. The protective
cover lift may be worked in place and tested to
become the next lift of radon barrier.
b. For lots that do not meet specification, test the
surface at successively deeper nine inch increments
until a passing lift is found; remove all failing lots;
re-work all failing lots; and re-test.

Document that repairs are completed to the same level
of effort as required by the approved test pad for radon
barrier construction.

117) CONTAMINATION OF RADON
BARRIER: The radon barrier material shall not
become contaminated with radioactive soils or
debris during construction. The in-place clay may
contain up to five percent additional rocks (less than
or equal to one inch) and sand above the content
found in the classification test.

Visually check radon barrier for contamination by
foreign materials in accordance with ASTM D2488.
Remove or rework clays which have been contaminated
above the specified requirements. Document corrective
actions (where required) on the Daily Construction
Report.
Verify that the radon barrier is being inspected for
contaminants and that the inspection and corrective
actions (if required) are properly documented
118) FINAL GRADING: Final grading shall be
from design elevation to 0.2 feet above design
elevation.

Survey the final grade surface of the radon barrier on a
50 foot grid and at key points (i.e., embankment break
lines). Final survey measurements will be documented
and provided to Quality Assurance.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
119) EROSION CONTROL FOR EXPOSED
SOIL: If Director-approved final elevation 5 x 10-8
cm/sec radon barrier soil surfaces are not covered

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 64 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
by the next design layer within 30 days of lift
approval, the following erosion control repair
measures shall apply.

Monthly, inspect exposed radon barrier soil
surfaces for evidence of erosion. Rivulet or gullied
areas wider than six inches or deeper than six inches
require maintenance to fill the rivulet or gully and
restore the area to design elevation. Soils imported
as fill shall meet the requirements of Specification
96. Maintenance shall be performed within 30
calendar days when needed.

Erosion control blankets, mats, or fiber mulch may
be used, in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions, for erosion prevention.

Director shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to
deployment of erosion control blankets, mats, or
fiber mulch. If used, such erosion control materials
shall be removed prior to filter zone construction.

Perform monthly inspections. Document the inspection
as well as associated maintenance activities on the Daily
Construction Report.

Obtain documentation of Director notification.

Review documentation to verify that monthly
inspections have been performed.

Notify Director at least 48 hours prior to deployment of
erosion control blankets, mats, or fiber mulch. Provide
QC with documentation of Director notification.
120) RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLING FOR
EXPOSED SOIL: If Director-approved final
elevation 5 x 10-8 cm/sec radon barrier soil surfaces
are not covered by the next design layer within 30
days of final approval, the area shall be either:

A. sampled and radiologically released in
accordance with the Environmental
Monitoring Plan; or

B. have a minimum of six inches of clay removed
and replaced prior to placement of the next
design layer. Under this option, no
environmental sampling is required.

Coordinate sampling and analysis with environmental
personnel. Attach a copy of the release report to the lift
approval documentation.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - RADON BARRIER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 65 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
121) HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON RADON
BARRIER: Heavy equipment travel will be
minimized on top of the finished radon barrier.
Heavy equipment will not be operated on saturated
radon barrier.

Observe work on radon barrier. Notify the Project
Manager of problems with equipment on the radon
barrier. Re-inspect radon barrier and record corrective
actions taken (where required) on the Daily
Construction Report.

Verify that the work is being inspected.
122) DIRECTOR APPROVAL: The Director
shall approve documentation associated with
completed radon barrier. Documentation shall
include all QC and QA records associated with
construction, as well as photographs of the
completed surface. The Director approval shall be
obtained in accordance with Specification 23. In
addition, 48 hour notification shall be provided to
the Director prior to placement of the next design
layer over the finished radon barrier.
Notify Quality Assurance that the radon barrier is ready
for inspection by the Director. Obtain written
authorization on the Radon Barrier Inspection Form
from Quality Assurance that the radon barrier has been
inspected. Obtain documentation of Director
notification. Confirm Director approval of the radon
barrier documentation.
Provide written approval of the radon barrier. Notify the
Director that the radon barrier is ready for inspection.
Provide QC with documentation of Director
notification.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FROST PROTECTION LAYER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 66 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
123) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

124) MATERIAL: The frost protection layer
consists of well graded bank run borrow material as
described in the approved engineering drawings
listed in Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005.

125) GRADATION: Gradation of the frost
protection layer bank run borrow material shall be
16” minus material.

Perform gradation testing, in accordance with ASTM
D5519 or C136, at a rate of one test per 10,000 cubic
yards with a minimum of four tests per embankment.
Record the location of all samples in the Sample Log.

If any deficiencies are identified in gradation testing,
notify the Project Manager to have operations rework
the material. After reworking (if necessary), retest the
material and record corrective actions (where required)
in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.
126) PLACEMENT: Frost protection layer bank
run borrow material will be placed over the radon
barrier zone as specified on the approved
engineering drawings. Bank run borrow material
shall be handled in such a manner as to prevent
segregation of finer materials.

Observe the placement of the frost protection layer bank
run borrow material. Ensure that soil fines are not
concentrated in localized areas. If soil fines are
concentrated in localized areas, notify the Project
Manager to have operations evenly distribute the fines
or to remove them. Re-inspect after the Project Manager
makes changes. Record observations and corrective
actions (where required) in the Daily Construction
Report.

Verify that QC personnel observe the placement of the
frost protection layer such that fines are not concentrated
in localized areas.
SNOW REMOVAL: When frost protection layer
bank run borrow material is to be placed and the
work area is covered with snow, the snow must be
removed.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the bank run
borrow material for damage. Advise the project manager
of any deficiencies/damage. Record corrective actions
(where required) in the Daily Construction Report.

Review the documentation and verify the depth
specification from the approved engineering drawings is
met. Verify that inspections were conducted.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FROST PROTECTION LAYER PLACEMENT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 67 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
127) FINAL GRADING: Thicknesses for the frost
protection layer will be established by installing
grade poles on at least a 70’ grid and at all control
points or by GPS survey. The grade poles must be
marked at the appropriate depth to establish grade.
After the grade has been checked and approved by
QC personnel, the grade poles shall be removed.

Verify the required grade is achieved at all control
points. Rework and re-verify areas not meeting the
specified grade. Visually inspect for rock greater than
16” during lift placement. Mark oversized rock for
removal and verify removal. Record observations and
corrective actions (where required) in the Daily
Construction Report
Review the documentation and verify the depth
specification from the approved engineering drawings is
met. Verify that inspections were conducted.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILTER ZONE (SIDE SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 68 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

128) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment side slope.

129) FILTER ZONE PERMEABILITY: The
filter zone rock on the Federal cell embankment will
have a minimum permeability of 3.5 cm/sec.

Perform permeability testing at a rate of one test per
10,000 cubic yards placed. Record the location of all
samples in the "Sampling Log".
a. Approve rock for use in the filter zone which meets
the specified permeability.
b. Rock not meeting the specified permeability cannot
be used.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.
130) GRADATION: Federal Cell embankment
rock gradation shall be as specified on currently
approved engineering drawings listed in
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005.
If filter zone rock material is to be stockpiled, perform
gradation testing at a rate of one test per 10,000 cubic
yards stockpiled. If filter zone rock material is
transferred directly to the cell from the production plant,
perform at least one gradation test per source per day
material is placed, or at least one test per 10,000 cubic
yards. A minimum of four tests is necessary over the
entire embankment.

In addition, perform a minimum of one test per change
in soil type by ASTM D2488. Record the location of all
samples in the Sampling Log.

If any deficiencies are identified in gradation testing,
notify the Project Manager to have operations rework
the material. After reworking (if necessary), retest the
material and record corrective actions (where required)
in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify the frequency of laboratory quality control tests
and compliance of test results.
131) PLACEMENT: Filter zone material will be
placed over the frost protection layer. The thickness
of the filter zone layer for the Federal Cell
embankment shall be as specified on currently
approved engineering drawings listed in
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
Observe the placement of the filter zone material.
Ensure that the filter zone is uniform in appearance with
no soil fines or rock concentrated in localized areas. If
the filter zone is not uniform in appearance, notify the
Project Manager to have operations evenly distribute the
filter zone material. Re-inspect the filter zone material
Review documentation and verify that QC personnel
observe the placement of the filter zone material such
that it is uniform in appearance.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – FILTER ZONE (SIDE SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 69 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
UGW450005. Filter zone material shall be handled
in such a manner as to prevent the segregation of
finer materials.

and record corrective actions (where required) in the
Daily Construction Report.
132) SNOW REMOVAL: When filter zone
material is to be placed and the work area is covered
with snow, the snow must be removed.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the filter zone for
damage. Notify the Project Manager of any
deficiencies/damage. Re-inspect the filter zone and
record corrective actions (where required) in the Daily
Construction Report.

Verify that snow removal is being documented and the
filter zone has been inspected.
133) FINAL GRADING: Thickness for the lift will
be established by installing grade poles on at least a
50’ grid and at all control points. The grade poles
shall consist of PVC pipe (approximately ½-inch
diameter) with surveyor’s ribbon (or other
distinguishable markings) attached to the
appropriate lift thickness. The poles shall be held in
place by placing the filter rock adjacent to the base
of the grade pole to secure it in a vertical position
(long axis of the grade pole perpendicular to the
radon barrier surface). With the grade pole marked
at the appropriate thickness and secured at the
appropriate locations, the filter rock may be placed
throughout the project area. The base of the grade
poles shall rest on the surface of the radon barrier
and therefore will not damage the radon barrier
surface. After the grade has been checked and
approved by QC personnel, the grade poles shall be
removed from the filter zone.

Verify that the grade poles are marked at the appropriate
depth to establish grade for the layer that will be placed.

Verify the required grade is achieved at all control points
throughout the placed filter rock in the project area.
Confirm that the in-place thickness of the filter zone
material is between 90 percent and 125 percent of the
design thickness. Rework and re-verify areas not
meeting the specified grade. Ensure all grade poles have
been removed following verification of grade.
Document all inspections and corrective actions, where
required, on the Daily Construction Report.
Observe the installation of some of the grade poles to
ensure that the installation method has been followed
and verify that the grade poles have not penetrated or
damaged the surface of the radon barrier.

Review documentation for final grading.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - ROCK EROSION BARRIER (SIDE SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 70 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
134) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment side slope.

135) GRADATION: Gradation of the rock erosion
material shall be as specified on the currently
approved engineering drawings listed in
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005.

In addition to rock quality scoring, perform gradation
testing, in accordance with ASTM D5519 or C136, at a
rate of one test per 10,000 cubic yards with a minimum
of four tests per embankment. Record the location of all
samples in the Sampling Log.

If any deficiencies are identified in gradation testing,
notify the Project Manager to have operations rework
the material. After reworking (if necessary), retest the
material and record corrective actions (where required)
in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify the frequency of laboratory quality control tests
and compliance of test results.
136) PLACEMENT: Rock erosion material will be
placed over the filter zone. Thickness of rock
erosion barrier for the Federal Cell embankment
shall be as described in the currently approved
engineering drawings listed in Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005. Rock
erosion material shall be handled in such a manner
as to prevent segregation of finer materials.

Observe the placement of the rock. Ensure that soil fines
are not concentrated in localized areas. If soil fines are
concentrated in localized areas, notify the Project
Manager to have operations evenly distribute the fines
or to remove them. Re-inspect after the Project Manager
makes changes. Record corrective actions (where
required) in the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that QC personnel observe the placement of the
rock erosion material such that soil fines are not
concentrated in localized areas.
137) SNOW REMOVAL: When rock erosion
barrier material is to be placed and the work area is
covered with snow, the snow must be removed.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the rock erosion
barrier for damage. Notify the Project Manager of any
deficiencies. Re-inspect and record corrective actions
(where required) in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that snow removal is being documented and the
rock erosion barrier has been inspected.
138) FINAL GRADING: Thickness for the lift will
be established by installing grade poles on at least a
70 foot grid and at all control points or by GPS
survey. The grade poles shall consist of PVC pipe
(approximately one-half inch diameter) with
surveyor ribbon (or other distinguishable
markings). The grade poles must be marked at the
appropriate depth to establish grade. After the grade
Verify the required grade is achieved at all control
points. Confirm that the in-place thickness of the rock
erosion barrier is between 90 percent and 125 percent of
the design thickness. Notify the Project Manager of
areas not meeting the specified grade. Re-verify after
rework has been completed. Document all inspections
and corrective actions (where required) on the Daily
Construction Report.
Review the documentation for final grading.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - ROCK EROSION BARRIER (SIDE SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 71 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
has been checked and approved by QC personnel,
the grade poles shall be removed.

139) NOTICE OF COVER CONSTRUCTION:
Provide written notice of the completion of cover
construction to the Director within 30 days of
completion of each phase of cover construction in
the "cut and cover" operation.

Obtain documentation of Director notification. Within 30 days of completion of each phase of cover
construction, notify the Director of completion of cover
construction. Provide QC with documentation of
Director notification. Note: The Engineering Manager,
or designee, may notify the Director and provide Quality
Assurance documentation of the notification.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – EVAPORATIVE ZONE LAYER PLACEMENT (TOP SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 72 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
140) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment top slope.

MATERIAL: Satisfactory Unit 4 clay material
shall be defined as CL, ML or CL-ML soils based
on the Unified Soil Classification.
Perform laboratory classification tests at a rate of one
test per lot prior to use of material. A lot is defined as a
maximum of 5,000 cubic yards (placed) of specified
material type. Record the location of the classification
sample on the Sample Log.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.

141) PLACEMENT: Evaporative zone layer
material will be placed over the frost protection
zone layer as specified on currently approved
engineering drawings listed in Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005.

.
142) CONTAMINATION OF EVAPORATIVE
ZONE MATERIAL: Evaporative zone material
shall not become contaminated with radioactive
soils or debris during construction. The in-place
clay may contain up to 5 percent additional rocks
and sand above the content found in the
classification test.

Visually check evaporative zone material for
contamination by foreign materials in accordance with
ASTM D2488. Remove or rework material which has
been contaminated above the specified requirements.
Document corrective actions (where required) on the
Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the evaporative zone material is being
inspected for contaminants and that the inspection and
corrective actions (if required) are properly documented.
LIFT THICKNESS: The evaporative zone
material may be placed in a single lift or multiple
lifts, without a maximum loose lift thickness.
Thickness for the lift will be established by
installing grade poles on at least a 70-foot grid and
at all control points. The grade poles must be
marked at the appropriate depth to establish the
grade. After the grade for the lift has been checked
and approved by QC personnel, the grade poles
shall be removed.
Verify that the required grading tolerance is achieved as
follows:
a. Ensure that the required frequency for placement of
grade poles has been met.
b. Compare soil level with the marked level on the
grade poles.
c. Visually check between poles for high or low spots.
d. Define out of specification areas and advise the
project manager to rework those areas.
e. Review areas reworked and approve areas meeting
criteria.
f. Continue "b" through "d" above until all areas meet
criteria.
Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – EVAPORATIVE ZONE LAYER PLACEMENT (TOP SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 73 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
g. Indicate areas meeting criteria in the “Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form”..

- OR –

Perform a survey using GPS to determine lift
thickness.

There is not a compaction (density) requirement for
the evaporative zone layer.

- OR –

a. Verify GPS equipment calibration,
b. Verify correct set-up and
operation of GPS equipment.

143) LIFT BONDING: The lifts of evaporative
material shall be bonded by providing a rough
upper surface on the underlying layer of
evaporative material. The surface should have
changes in grade of approximately one inch or
more at a rate of two per linear foot.

Verify that there are adequate changes in grade by
placing a straight edge at least two feet long on the
surface. Count the number of points approximately one
inch or more below the straight edge.
Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.
SNOW REMOVAL: When evaporative zone
material is to be placed and the work area is covered
with snow, the snow must be removed.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the evaporative
zone for damage. Advise the project manager of any
deficiencies/damage. Record corrective actions (where
required) in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that snow removal is being documented and the
evaporative zone has been inspected.
FINAL GRADING: Final grade shall be from
design elevation to 0.2 feet above design elevation.
Survey the final grade surface of the evaporative zone
on a 50 foot grid and at key points (i.e., embankment
break lines). Final survey measurements will be
documented in the survey report and provided to Quality
Assurance.
Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – SURFACE ZONE LAYER MATERIAL PREPARATION (TOP SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 74 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
144) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment top slope.

145) MATERIAL: The surface zone layer material
shall be Satisfactory Unit 4 Material defined as CL,
ML, and CL-ML soils based on the Unified Soil
Classification.

Perform laboratory classification tests at a rate of 1 test
per lot prior to use of material. A lot is defined as a
maximum of 5,000 cubic yards (placed) of specified
material type. Record the location of the classification
sample on the Sample Log.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.

Gravel admixture shall meet the requirements of the
Quality of Rock specification as described in
Specification 16. The gravel admixture shall be well
graded gravel with 100% passing a 3” screen and
less than 10% passing a 0.75” screen

Perform gradation testing (ASTM C136 or D2487) at a
frequency of 1 test per 5,000 cubic yards of gravel. In
addition, perform a minimum of one gradation test
(ASTM C136 or D2487) per change in soil type. Record
observations and corrective actions (where required) in
the Daily Construction Report.
Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.
146) PROTECTION: The surface material shall be
handled in such a manner as to prevent
contamination with radioactive waste material or
other deleterious material.

Visually check surface materials for contamination by
foreign materials. Remove surface materials which have
been contaminated above the specified requirements.
Document corrective actions (where required) on the
Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the surface layer material is being inspected
for contaminates and that corrective actions (if required)
are properly documented.
147) PROCESSING These procedures may be used
to provide suitable material for construction of the
surface layer.
1. Apply gravel to surface material at a rate
determined by the Engineering Manager to
arrive at a volumetric mixture of 15% ±3%
gravel for application to the Embankment’s
top slope.
2. Apply gravel to surface material at a rate
determined by the Engineering Manager to
arrive at a volumetric mixture of 50% ±3%
gravel for application to the Embankment’s
side slope.
3. Mix the gravel into the soils to obtain a
uniform appearance by tilling or similar action
Measure the mixing areas and verify that the application
rate of the gravel is equal to the rate determined by the
Engineering Manager. Record the size of the mixing
areas and the amount of gravel applied on the
Embankment Construction Lift Approval Form.
Verify that the size of the mixing areas and the amount
of gravel applied has been properly documented and
meets specification

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – SURFACE ZONE LAYER MATERIAL PLACEMENT (TOP SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 75 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
148) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment top slope.

149) MATERIAL: Surface zone layer material
shall be prepared according to Specifications 144 to
147 in Work Element – Surface Zone Layer
Material Preparation.

.

.

150) PLACEMENT: Surface zone layer material
will be placed over the evaporative zone layer as
specified on currently approved engineering
drawings listed in Groundwater Quality Discharge
Permit UGW450005. Surface zone layer material
shall be handled in such a manner as to prevent
contamination from waste material and segregation
of finer materials.

151) CONTAMINATION OF SURFACE ZONE
MATERIAL Surface zone material shall not
become contaminated with radioactive soils or
debris during construction. The in-place clay may
contain up to five percent additional rocks and sand
above the content found in the classification test.

Visually check surface zone material for contamination
by foreign materials in accordance with ASTM D2488.
Remove or rework material which has been
contaminated above the specified requirements.
Document corrective actions (where required) on the
Daily Construction Report.
.
Verify that the surface zone material is being inspected
for contaminants and that the inspection and corrective
actions (if required) are properly documented.

152) LIFT THICKNESS: The surface material may be
placed in a single lift or multiple lifts, without a
maximum loose lift thickness. Thickness for the lift
will be established by installing grade poles on at
least a 70-foot grid and at all control points.
Verify that the required grading tolerance is achieved as
follows:
a. Ensure that the required frequency for placement of
grade poles has been met.
b. Compare soil level with the marked level on the
grade poles.
c. Visually check between poles for high or low spots.
d. Define out of areas and advise the project manager
to rework those areas.
e. Review areas reworked and approve areas meeting
criteria.
f. Continue "b" through "d" above until all areas meet
criteria.
Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – SURFACE ZONE LAYER MATERIAL PLACEMENT (TOP SLOPE)

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 76 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
g. Indicate areas meeting criteria in the “Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form”

- OR –

Perform a survey using GPS to determine lift
thickness.

- OR –

a. Verify GPS equipment calibration,
b. Verify correct set-up and operation of GPS
equipment.

153) SNOW REMOVAL: When surface zone layer
material is to be placed and the work area is
covered with snow, the snow must be removed.
Observe that snow is removed. Inspect the surface zone
layer material for damage. Advise the project manager
of any deficiencies/damage. Record corrective actions
(where required) in the Daily Construction Report.

Verify that snow removal is being documented and the
surface zone layer material has been inspected
154) FINAL GRADE: Final grade shall be from design
elevation to 0.2 ft above design elevation.
Survey the final grade surface of the evaporative zone
on a 50 ft grid and at key points (i.e., embankment break
lines). Final survey measurements will be documented
in the survey report and provided to Quality Assurance.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
155) SEEDING: The surface zone layer material shall
be seeded with an approved seed mixture and at an
application rate defined by the Engineering
Manager.

Observe the seeding process. Ensure full coverage is
attained. Advise the project manager of any deficiencies
in coverage. Record the application rate and any
observations/corrections on the Daily Construction
Report.

Review the Daily Construction Report and verify that
seeding meets the criterion provided by the Engineering
Manager.

156) NOTICE OF COVER CONSTRUCTION:
Provide written notice of the completion of cover
construction to the Director within 30 days of
completion of each phase of cover construction in
the "cut and cover" operation.

Obtain documentation of Director notification. Within 30 days of completion of each phase of cover
construction, notify the Director of completion of cover
construction. Provide QC with documentation of
Director notification. Note: The Engineering Manager,
or designee, may notify the Director and provide Quality
Assurance documentation of the notification.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DRAINAGE DITCH IMPORTED BORROW

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 77 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
157) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment ditch.

158) CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Remove
vegetation, debris, organic, or deleterious material
from areas to be used for borrow. Grubbing depth
will depend on the type of vegetation, debris,
organic, or deleterious material on the site. If the
area is free of these materials then no clearing and
grubbing will be necessary.

Inspect the area once clearing and grubbing has been
completed. Record observations and corrective actions
(where required) on the Daily Construction Report.
Verify that the clearing and grubbing has been inspected
by QC.
159) MATERIAL: The imported borrow shall be
classified as CL or ML soils by ASTM D-2487.
Perform laboratory classification tests at a rate of one
test per lot prior to use of material in the road. A lot is
defined as a maximum of 5,000 cubic yards (compacted)
of specified material type. Record the location of the
classification sample on the Sampling Log.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified
classification.
b. Lots not meeting the specified classification cannot
be used.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.
160) LIFT THICKNESS: Drainage ditch borrow
material shall be placed in lifts with an
uncompacted thickness of less than or equal to nine
inches.

A. Thickness for the lift will be established by
installing grade poles on at least a 50-foot grid
lengthwise and at all control points. The grade
poles must be marked at the appropriate depth
to establish the grade. After the grade has been
checked and approved by QC personnel, the
grade poles shall be removed.

Verify that the required grading is achieved as follows:
a. Ensure that the required frequency for placement of
grade poles has been met.
b. Compare soil level with the marked level on the
grade poles.
c. Visually check between poles for high or low spots.
d. Define those areas that are high out of specification
and advise the Project Manager to re-work those
areas.
e. Review areas re-worked and approve areas meeting
criteria.
f. Continue “b” through “d” above until all areas meet
criteria.
g. Indicate areas meeting criteria in the “Embankment
Construction Lift Approval Form”.

Verify the frequency of measurements and compliance
of test results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – DRAINAGE DITCH IMPORTED BORROW

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 78 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

- OR -

B. Survey to determine lift thickness on at least a
50-foot grid lengthwise and at all control
points. Survey equipment shall have a
tolerance no more than ± 0.1 foot.
- OR -

a. Verify survey equipment is within a tolerance of ±
0.1 foot.
b. Verify correct set-up and operation of equipment.
c. Visually check between survey points for high or
low spots.
d. Define high out of specification areas and notify the
Project Manager to rework those areas.
e. Document survey results on a survey report.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - DRAINAGE DITCHES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 79 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
161) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

162) EXCAVATION: Excavation shall be made to
the lines, grades, and dimensions prescribed in the
approved phase-specific plans. Temporary
(operational) ditches may be constructed to these
phase-specific plans. Final design grade and
dimensions (as shown in the approved engineering
drawings listed in Groundwater Quality Discharge
Permit UGW450005) are not required to be met
before final closure of the Federal cell embankment.

Prior Director approval in writing must be obtained
before diverting ditches from the current approved
design. The purpose and duration of diversion shall
be specified in any request to do so. The Director
approval shall be obtained in accordance with
Specification 23.

Any over excavation shall be backfilled with
drainage ditch borrow material and compacted to 95
percent of standard Proctor. The uncompacted lift
thickness shall not exceed nine inches.
Provide daily observation of the ditch excavation.
Record observations and corrective actions (where
required) on the Daily Construction Report.

Obtain documentation confirming that the Director has
approved the plans for diverting ditches

In areas of over excavation, conduct in-place density test
at a rate of one test per lot, with a minimum of one test
per phase, and record the results on the Field Density
Test form. A lot is defined as a maximum of 10,000
square feet of a single lift of a specified type of material.
Test locations shall be chosen on the basis of random
numbers (described in Specification 12).
a. Approve lots which meet the specified compaction.
b. Rework and retest lots not meeting the specified
compaction.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
100,000 square feet for each material type. At least one
proctor shall be performed for each material type.
Record the location of the sample on the Sampling Log.
Verify daily observations and corrective actions have
been documented.

Verify that Director approvals have been obtained
before diverting ditches. Provide QC with approval
documentation.

Verify the frequency of laboratory tests and compliance
of test results.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - DRAINAGE DITCHES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 80 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
163) FINAL GRADING: Smooth roll the
excavated surface to prepare for filter zone material.
Final grading of this surface shall be ± 0.1 of a foot.
Inspect the surface for smoothness. Survey the surface
on a 50 foot grid and at key points (i.e., changes in
direction of the ditch). Final survey measurements will
be documented on the survey report and provided to
Quality Assurance.

Review the final survey data. Verify the frequency of the
survey points.
164) FILTER ZONE AND ROCK EROSION
BARRIER: The filter zone and rock erosion barrier
shall be constructed in accordance with
Specifications 128 thru 138 as appropriate.

See Specifications 128 thru 138. See Specifications 128 thru 138.
165) EROSION CONTROL FOR EXPOSED
SOIL: If reviewed and approved drainage ditch soil
surfaces are not covered by filter zone within 30
days of lift approval, the following erosion control
repair measures shall apply.

Monthly, inspect exposed drainage ditch soil
surfaces for evidence of erosion. Rivulet or gullied
areas wider than six inches or deeper than six inches
require maintenance to fill the rivulet or gully and
restore the area to design elevation. Maintenance
shall be performed within 30 calendar days when
needed, unless additional time is approved by
Director.

Erosion control blankets, mats, or fiber mulch may
be used, in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions, for erosion prevention.

Director shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to
deployment of erosion control blankets, mats, or
fiber mulch. If used, such erosion control materials
shall be removed prior to filter zone or riprap
construction.

Perform monthly inspections. Document the inspection
as well as associated maintenance activities on the Daily
Construction Report.

Obtain documentation of Director notification

Review documentation to verify that monthly
inspections have been performed.

Notify Director at least 48 hours prior to deployment of
erosion control blankets, mats, or fiber mulch. Provide
QC with documentation of Director notification.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - DRAINAGE DITCHES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 81 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
166) RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLING FOR
EXPOSED SOIL: If reviewed and approved
drainage ditch soil surfaces are not covered by
filter zone or riprap within 30 days of lift approval,
the area shall either

A. be sampled and radiologically released in
accordance with the Environmental
Monitoring Plan; or

B. have a minimum of six inches of ditch material
removed and replaced prior to filter zone or
riprap placement. Under this option, no
environmental sampling is required.

Coordinate sampling and analysis with environmental
personnel. Attach a copy of the release report to the lift
approval documentation.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - INSPECTION ROAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 82 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
167) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

168) MATERIAL: The material used to construct
the inspection road shall conform to a relevant
UDOT roadbase specification and be approved in
writing by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer
prior to use.

Obtain written material approval from a Utah licensed
Professional Engineer. Perform or obtain laboratory
gradation testing at a rate of one test per lot prior to use
of material in the road. A lot is defined as a maximum
of 3,000 cubic yards (compacted) of specified material
type. Record, as needed, the location of the classification
sample on the Sampling Log.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified
classification.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified classification to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest lots after rework has been completed.

Verify written material approval, the frequency of
laboratory tests and compliance of test results.
169) SUBSURFACE PREPARATION: The
subsurface will be scarified and re-compacted to at
least 95 percent of a standard proctor (ASTM
D698).
Conduct in-place density tests at a rate of one test per lot
and record the results on the Field Density Test form. A
lot is defined as 200 cubic yards (compacted) of
material. The test location shall be chosen on the basis
of random numbers (described in Specification 12).
a. Approve lots which meet the specified compaction.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified compaction to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest lots after rework has been completed.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
borrow lot. A borrow lot is defined as 3,000 cubic yards
(compacted) or less of a specific material type. Record
the location of the Proctor sample on the Sampling Log.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.
170) ROAD THICKNESS: The compacted road
shall be 12 inches thick plus or minus 0.2 feet.
Measure the thickness of the road at both edges of the
road at no greater than 50 foot intervals. Record the
results on the Lift Approval Form.
a. Approve lots which meet the specified thickness.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified thickness to have the areas reworked.
Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - INSPECTION ROAD

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 83 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
c. Retest lots after rework has been completed.

171) COMPACTION: The road will be compacted
to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM
D698).
Conduct in-place density tests at a rate of one test per lot
and record the results on the Field Density Test form. A
lot is defined as 200 cubic yards (compacted) of
material. The test location shall be chosen on the basis
of random numbers (described in Specification 12).
a. Approve lots which meet the specified compaction.
b. Notify the Project Manager of lots not meeting the
specified compaction to have the areas reworked.
c. Retest lots after rework has been completed.

Proctors shall be performed at a rate of one test per
borrow lot. A borrow lot is defined as 3,000 cubic yards
(compacted) or less of a specific material type. Record
the location of the Proctor sample on the Sampling Log.

Verify the frequency of tests and compliance of test
results.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - PERMANENT CHAIN LINK FENCES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 84 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
172) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

173) MATERIALS: All burial embankments and
waste storage areas, including immediately adjacent
drainage structures, shall be controlled areas,
surrounded by six-foot high, chain link fence. All
permanent fences shall be chain link, six feet high,
topped with three strand barbed wire, top tension
wire and twisted selvedge.

Zinc coated chain link fence shall meet the
requirements of ASTM A392 with Class I coating.
Aluminum Coated fence fabric shall meet the
requirements of ASTM A491.

Fence Fabric: Fence fabric shall be made of 0.148
inch or larger diameter wire. The fabric shall have
twisted selvedge.

Wire and Ties: Tension wires shall be 0.177 inch or
larger diameter spiral type. Ring ties for tying fabric
to supporting members shall be made of 0.148 inch
or larger diameter wire. Wire ties for tying fabric to
support members shall be made of 0.12 inch or
larger diameter wire. Ties to line posts shall be made
of 0.192 inch or larger diameter wire. All wire shall
have Class II coating as specified by ASTM A116.

Barbed Wire: Barbed wire on zinc coated fence shall
meet the requirements of ASTM A121, including a
Class I zinc coating. Barbed wire shall be made of
0.099 inch or larger diameter wire with 0.080 inch
or larger diameter wire four point barbs on five inch
centers. When aluminum or aluminum coated fence
is used, aluminum coated barbed wire shall be used
meeting the requirements of ASTM A0491. The
Obtain a copy of the manufacture's specification for the
materials to be used in the construction of the fence.
Verify that the materials meet the required
specifications. Document materials acceptance on the
Daily Construction Report.

Verify that the materials to be used in the construction
of the fence have been approved and documented.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - PERMANENT CHAIN LINK FENCES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 85 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
support arm on the fence for the barbed wire shall
be capable of supporting a 200 pound vertical load
at the end of the arm without permanent deflection.

Posts: Line posts may be "H" section or pipe. The
minimum strength requirements are as follows:

A. Load at top: 600 lbs.

B. Maximum Moment: 1200 ft-lbs.

C. Maximum permanent set: 0.010 in.

"H" posts shall be coated in accordance with the
requirements of ASTM A123. Pipe posts shall
conform to the requirements of ASTM A120
(Schedule 40) for zinc coated pipe. All pipe posts
shall be fitted with a weather resistant tip, designed
to fit securely over the post, and carry an apron
around the outside of the post.

Fittings: Fittings shall be malleable cast iron or
pressed steel and be coated in accordance to ASTM
A123.

Gates: Gate posts and frames shall be constructed of
the sizes shown on the approved plans for the
various gate dimensions. The corners of the gate
frame shall be fastened together with pressed steel
or malleable iron corner ells riveted or welded in
accordance with the plans. Welded steel gate frames
shall be galvanized after fabrication in accordance
with the provision of ASTM A123. Chain link fence
fabric for covering the gate frames shall be the same
as required for the fence. Each gate shall be
furnished complete with necessary galvanized
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - PERMANENT CHAIN LINK FENCES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 86 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
hinged, latch, and drop bar locking device for the
type of gate used on the project.

174) INSTALLATION: The steel posts shall be set
true to line and grade in concrete bases. The
distances between posts shall be uniform and not
exceeding 10 feet. Fence corners and ends shall be
constructed in accordance with Detail A on sheet L9
of the approved engineering drawings listed in
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005. Gates shall be constructed in
accordance with Detail B on sheet L9 of the
approved engineering drawings.

A minimum of six inches of concrete shall be
provided below the bottom of each post. End posts,
pull posts, corner posts, and gate posts shall have a
concrete base at least 12 inches in diameter. Bases
for line posts shall be at least 10 inches in diameter.

Pull posts shall be provided at 500 feet maximum
intervals. Changes in line of 30 degrees or more
shall be considered as corners.

The fabric shall be stretched taut, and securely
fastened to the posts. Fastening to end, gate, corner,
and pull posts shall be with stretcher bars and metal
bands, spaced at one foot intervals. The fabric shall
be cut and each span fastened independently at all
pull and corner posts. Fastening to line posts shall
be with tie wire, metal bands, or other approved
method at 14 inch intervals. The top edge of fabric
shall be attached to the top rail or tension cable at
approximately 24 inch intervals. The bottom edge
of the fabric should be installed within one inch of
the ground surface. The bottom tension wire is
required and shall be attached to the fabric with tie
Verify that the fence is constructed in the location shown
on the plans and in accordance with sheet L9. Document
any problems in the Daily Construction Report.

Spot check the depth and diameter of the post holes to
verify that the holes meet the required specification.
Document any problems in the Daily Construction
Report.

Inspect the fence for proper placement of pull and corner
posts. Document any problems in the Daily
Construction Report.

Inspect the fencing fabric to verify that it has been
installed in accordance with the specifications.
Document any problems in the Daily Construction
Report.
Verify that the fence has been inspected and problems
have been properly documented.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT - PERMANENT CHAIN LINK FENCES

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 87 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
wires at 24 inch intervals and shall be secured to the
end or pull posts with brace bands.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – SETTLEMENT MONITORING

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 88 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
175) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

176) SETTLEMENT MONUMENTS: Settlement
monuments shall consist of approximately four-foot
long #5 or greater rebar that is welded to a metal
plate. The metal plate shall be approximately 18
inches square with a thickness of 3/16 inch to 1/4
inch. The rebar shall be sized to extend no more
than six inches above the rock erosion barrier
surface. The settlement plate shall be placed on top
of the final approved radon barrier and then secured
by the rock cover layers as they are built. Each
monument shall be permanently labeled, flagged,
and documented on a reference drawing.

Inspect settlement monuments for compliance with the
specification prior to installation. Observe installation to
ensure that the radon barrier is not damaged.
Perform a surveillance of monument installation
activities.
177) SETTLEMENT MONUMENT
PLACEMENT: Settlement monuments shall be
placed at the locations identified on Figure 1.

Perform and document a post-construction survey of the
placed settlement monument.

Verify that surveys have been performed and
documented.
178) SURVEY REQUIREMENTS: Surveys shall
be performed with GPS or approved equivalent
equipment. Tolerance shall be no more than ± 0.1
feet.

Calibrate and operate survey equipment in accordance
with the manufacturer’s recommendations

179) SURVEY INTERVAL: Settlement
monuments shall be set and surveyed for initial
location within 30 days of the completion of final
cover construction. New monuments shall be
surveyed again at 2, 4, and 12 months (± 10
calendar days) after the initial survey. Thereafter,
monuments shall be surveyed once annually
between October 1 and December 31 until a
minimum of five years after initial placement.
Weather conditions at the time of the survey and a
discussion of the potential for frost to be present
shall be documented in the survey report.
Perform and document the required surveys in a survey
report. Provide survey data to the Engineering Manager.

Verify that monument surveys are completed and
documented as required.

FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – SETTLEMENT MONITORING

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 89 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021

During the annual survey, perform a visual
inspection of the completed cover to evaluate
potential areas of settlement that may not be
captured by the settlement monument network.

Perform and document the required surveys in a survey
report. Provide survey data to the Engineering Manager.

Document observations made during the inspection, and
denote areas where differential settlement may be
occurring. Provide documentation to the Engineering
Manager.

Verify that new monument surveys are completed and
documented as required.

180) REPORTING: Settlement monitoring data
shall be summarized and evaluated in the annual as-
built report for the embankment.

Calculate total and differential settlement for each
settlement monument against the most recent
measurement and against the baseline monument
location.

Total settlement of more than 1.5 feet at any
settlement monument or differential settlement of
more than 1.0 percent slope between adjacent
monuments shall be reported to and evaluated by
the Engineering Manager within 30 days of
measurement and discussed in the annual as-built
report.

Any failure in the settlement monuments shall be
documented. A replacement monument shall be
reset as close as possible to the previous location,
surveyed, and documented.

Provide settlement monitoring data to the Engineering
Manager.
Perform a surveillance of visual inspection activities.
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – ANNUAL AS-BUILT REPORT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 90 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
181) SCOPE: This work element applies to the
Federal Cell embankment.

182) AERIAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS: An
aerial survey of all areas within 100 feet of Section
32 shall be performed within three months prior to
the Annual As-built Report submittal.

The aerial survey shall be performed by a registered
land surveyor.

Survey control points shall be identified in the
survey report.

Survey tolerance shall not exceed ± 0.75 ft. Actual
tolerance of the survey shall be stated in the report.

183) ANNUAL AS-BUILT VOLUMES:
Calculate embankment volumes from the aerial
survey data using AutoCAD or approved equivalent
equipment.

As required in I.H.6 of Groundwater Quality
Discharge Permit UGW450005, provide plan view
and cross-sections of the as-built embankment(s)
based on the aerial survey data. Include in each
cross-section the profile of the maximum
authorized waste elevation. Also include in each
cross-section the elevation profile of the top of the
uppermost approved waste lift (as of the time the lift
was approved). Provide a clear key to each cross-
section to define the meaning of each symbol and
line used.

For each embankment, report the design capacity,
capacity used to date, and remaining capacity,
including overburden. Compare remaining capacity
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL
TABLE 1 - QA/QC ACTIVITIES
WORK ELEMENT – ANNUAL AS-BUILT REPORT

SPECIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE

REVISION: 0 page 91 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
with the surety reserve capacity for each
embankment. Report any volume of waste that is
placed over the design top of waste.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

REVISION: 0 page 92 of 110 Date: April 9, 2021
FEDERAL CELL CQA/QC MANUAL

TABLE 1

MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CLSM
PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM MAXIMUM FREQUENCY
WET UNIT WEIGHT ASTM D6023 100 lbs/ft3 None One Test/2,000 Cubic Yards/Lift
SLUMP
-OR-
FLOW
-OR-
FLOW CONSISTENCY
EnergySolutions Slump Test
(Appendix B)
EnergySolutions Efflux Test
(Appendix B)
Flow Consistency (ASTM
D6103)
Eight inches

NA

Eight inches
None

26 seconds

None
One Test/100 Cubic Yards/Lift

One Test/100 Cubic Yards/Lift

One Test/100 Cubic Yards/Lift
28 DAY COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
ASTM D4832 150 psi None One Test/2,000 Cubic Yards Placed at
28 days
CEMENT None 50 lbs for each cubic yard of
CLSM
None Inspect each load ticket prior to pour
POZZOLAN None None 375 lbs for each cubic yard of
CLSM
Inspect each load ticket prior to pour
AGGREGATE SIZE Gradation Test Certificate
from Batch Plant
ASTM C117
ASTM C136
Percent Passing Sieve
100 3/8"
60 #8
Percent Passing Sieve
30 200
One certification per day if material is
received from exterior batch plant
or
One test per stockpile if material is
received from onsite batch plant.

Gradation certificate shall be
received by QC Technician prior to
pouring any CLSM

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page J-1 Appendix J April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX J

COVER / LINER CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page J-2 Appendix J April 9, 2021
Revision 0

TABLE J-1
PHASE 1 MATERIAL ESTIMATES

VOLUME
(cy)
UNIT
COST SUBTOTAL
LINER
Clay Liner 7,089 $ 2.94 $ 20,823
CLEAN FILL MATERIAL
Unit 3 Material Fill above DU 110,031 $ 2.94 $ 323,210
TOP SLOPE
Radon Barrier (clay)
1x10-6 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile and Place 871 $ 2.99 $ 2,605
Remove Overburden 285 $ 2.99 $ 851
5x10-8 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile, Amend Place 871 $ 2.99 $ 2,605
Remove Overburden 285 $ 2.99 $ 851
Top Slope Frost Protection Layer (bankrun) 1,307 $ 3.59 $ 4,693
Evaporative Zone (clay/loam) 1,611 $ 2.99 $ 4,817
Gravel Augment 131 $ 7.47 $ 979
$ 17,400
SIDE SLOPE
Radon Barrier (clay)
1x10-6 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile and Place 864 $ 2.99 $ 2,582
Remove Overburden 95 $ 2.99 $ 284
5x10-8 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile, Amend Place 864 $ 2.99 $ 2,582
Remove Overburden 95 $ 2.99 $ 284
Rock Cover
SS Frost Protection Layer (Clay) 11,775 $ 2.99 $ 35,212
Filter Zone 7,850 $ 68.10 $ 534,577
Side Rock 11,775 $138.21 $ 1,627,520
$ 2,203,042
DITCH
Clay Backfille (compacted) 8,689 $ 2.99 $ 25,983
Grading 8,689 $ 2.41 $ 20,940
Erosion Materials (rock) 3,867 $ 7.47 $ 28,887 INSPECTION ROAD AND FENCE
Inspection Road base 15,333 $ 2.99 $ 45,852
Fence 2,000 $ 22.35 $ 44,702 SUBTOTAL $ 2,730,839
SG&A Overhead Costs (working conditions) 5.50% $ 150,196
Contingency 10% $ 273,084
Engineering and Redesign 2.25% $ 61,444
Profit 10% $ 273,084
Management Fee and Legal Expenses 4% $ 109,243
DEQ Oversight 4% $ 109,243
TOTAL $ 3,707,113
Cost per Square Foot (waste footprint) $ 158

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page J-3 Appendix J April 9, 2021
Revision 0

TABLE J-2
FULL DESIGN MATERIAL ESTIMATES

VOLUME
(cy) UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
LINER
Clay Liner 415,776 $ 2.94 $ 1,221,322 CLEAN FILL MATERIAL
Unit 3 Material Fill above DU 6,453,522 $ 2.94 $ 18,956,889 TOP SLOPE
Radon Barrier (clay)
1x10-6 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile and Place 51,090 $ 2.99 $ 152,776
Remove Overburden 16,691 $ 2.99 $ 49,910
5x10-8 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile, Amend Place 51,090 $ 2.99 $ 152,776
Remove Overburden 16,691 $ 2.99 $ 49,910

Top Slope Frost Protection Layer
(bankrun) 76,635 $ 3.59 $ 275,145
Evaporative Zone (clay/loam) 51,090 $ 2.99 $ 152,776
Gravel Augment 7,683 $ 7.47 $ 57,395
$ 890,688
SIDE SLOPE
Radon Barrier (clay)
1x10-6 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile and Place 40,535 $ 2.99 $ 121,213
Remove Overburden 51,090 $ 2.99 $ 152,776
5x10-8 Clay Layer
Mine, Stockpile, Amend Place 40,535 $ 2.99 $ 121,213
Remove Overburden 51,090 $ 2.99 $ 152,776
Rock Cover
SS Frost Protection Layer (Clay) 60,803 $ 2.99 $ 181,819
Filter Zone 40,535 $ 68.10 $ 2,760,321
Side Rock 60,803 $ 138.21 $ 8,403,802
$ 11,893,919
DITCH
Clay Backfille (compacted) 509,620 $ 2.99 $ 1,523,926
Grading 509,620 $ 2.41 $ 1,228,183
Erosion Materials (rock) 226,807 $ 7.47 $ 1,694,259 INSPECTION ROAD AND FENCE
Inspection Road base 7,219,609 $ 2.99 $ 21,588,948
Fence 3,337 $ 22.35 $ 74,585 SUBTOTAL $ 59,072,720

SG&A Overhead Costs (working
conditions) 5.50% $ 3,249,000
Contingency 10% $ 5,907,272
Engineering and Redesign 2.25% $ 1,329,136
Profit 10% $ 5,907,272
Management Fee and Legal Expenses 4% $ 2,362,909
DEQ Oversight 4% $ 2,362,909 TOTAL $ 80,191,218
Cost per Square Foot (waste footprint) $ 58

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page K-1 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX K

DRAINAGE DITCH CALCULATIONS

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-2 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
PERIMETER DITCH CALCULATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL CELL FACILITY
The following calculations are performed to justify the perimeter ditch design proposed in Engineering
Drawings 14004-C01 and 14004-C03.
K.1Perimeter Ditch Flow Capacity Evaluation
The drainage area contained by the Federal Cell Facility perimeter drainage ditch includes the landfill
embankment and the ditch itself surrounding the Federal Cell Facility. Engineering Drawing 14004-
C03 provides centerline drainage ditch locations and elevations around the Federal Cell Facility. From
Engineering Drawing 14004-C03, the following ditch centerline distances may be estimated:
North Side = 1,226 feet
South Side = 1,226 feet
East Side = 1,919 feet
West Side = 1,919 feet
From these dimensions, an estimate of the total drainage area is calculated:
Drainage Area = (1,226 ft)(1,919 ft) = 2,353,033 ft2
From the ditch lengths and centerline elevations in Drawing 14004-C03, the following ditch slopes are
determined:
North Side = 1,227 feet in length with an elevation change of 0.6 feet; this yields a slope of
(0.6 ft / 1,227 ft) = 4.89 x 10-4 ft/ft
South Side = 1,226 feet in length with an elevation change of 0.7 feet; this yields a slope of
(0.7 ft / 1,226 ft) = 5.71 x 10-4 ft/ft
East Side = 1,919 feet in length with an elevation change of 0.85 feet; this yields a slope of
(0.85 ft / 1,919 ft) = 4.43 x 10-4 ft/ft
West Side = 1,919 feet in length with an elevation change of 0.95 feet; this yields a slope of
(0.95 ft / 1,919 ft) = 4.95 x 10-4 ft/ft
As marked, the east side slope present the least amount of slope and are therefore the limiting slopes for
the analysis.
Based on the ditch slopes and factoring in a triangular geometry for the ditch shape, Manning’s Formula
can be used to determine the maximum flow rate for each side of the cell. The ditch depth is 4 feet with
a total ditch width of 40 feet, a ditch side-slope ratio of 1V:5H is produced.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-3 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Manning’s Formula is:
.486.1 2132SARnQ (1)
where,
Q = Flow in ft3/sec;
A = Cross sectional area of flow in ft2;
R = The hydraulic radius, the area of flow divided by the wetted perimeter, in feet; and,
S = Slope in ft/ft.
n = Manning’s coefficient of roughness, calculated as:
 .0456.0 159.0
50 SDn (2)
D50 is equal to 4.5 inches for the rock in the ditch.
n(east) = 0.016966;
n(west) = 0.017269;
n(north) = 0.017238;
n(south) = 0.017665;
The cross sectional area of the ditch is determined by multiplying the height of the ditch squared by 5,
and the wetted perimeter is determined by multiplying two times the height of the water in the ditch by
the square root of one plus five squared; or:
WP = .5122h (3)
The Manning calculations for flow around the embankment perimeter yields the following tables:
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-4 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Table 1 - East Side Ditch (S = 0.000443 ft/ft)
Height of
Water in
Ditch
(feet)
Flow Cross-
Section Area
in Ditch
(ft2)
Wetted
Perimeter
(ft)
Hydraulic
Radius
(ft)
Flow Rate
(ft3/sec)
Flow Rate
(ft3/min)
0.5 1.25 5.1 0.25 0.90 54.15
1.0 5.00 10.2 0.49 5.73 343.82
1.5 11.25 15.3 0.74 16.90 1,013.70
2.0 20.00 20.4 0.98 36.39 2,183.14
2.5 31.25 25.5 1.23 65.97 3,958.29
3.0 45.00 30.6 1.47 107.28 6,436.61
3.5 61.25 35.7 1.72 161.82 9,709.17
4.0 80.00 40.8 1.96 231.03 13,862.04
Table 2 - West Side Ditch (S = 0.000495 ft/ft)
Height of
Water in
Ditch
(feet)
Flow Cross-
Section Area
in Ditch
(ft2)
Wetted
Perimeter
(ft)
Hydraulic
Radius
(ft)
Flow Rate
(ft3/sec)
Flow
Rate
(ft3/min)
0.5 1.25 5.1 0.25 0.94 56.24
1.0 5.00 10.2 0.49 5.95 357.11
1.5 11.25 15.3 0.74 17.55 1,052.89
2.0 20.00 20.4 0.98 37.79 2,267.53
2.5 31.25 25.5 1.23 68.52 4,111.31
3.0 45.00 30.6 1.47 111.42 6,685.44
3.5 61.25 35.7 1.72 168.08 10,084.51
4.0 80.00 40.8 1.96 239.97 14,397.93
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-5 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Table 3 - North Side Ditch (S = 0.000489 ft/ft)
Height of
Water in
Ditch
(feet)
Flow Cross-
Section Area
in Ditch
(ft2)
Wetted
Perimeter
(ft)
Hydraulic
Radius
(ft)
Flow Rate
(ft3/sec)
Flow
Rate
(ft3/min)
0.5 1.25 5.1 0.25 0.93 56.02
1.0 5.00 10.2 0.49 5.93 355.73
1.5 11.25 15.3 0.74 17.48 1,048.81
2.0 20.00 20.4 0.98 37.65 2,258.75
2.5 31.25 25.5 1.23 68.26 4,095.39
3.0 45.00 30.6 1.47 110.99 6,659.56
3.5 61.25 35.7 1.72 167.42 10,045.46
4.0 80.00 40.8 1.96 239.04 14,342.18
Table 4 - South Side Ditch (S = 0.000571 ft/ft)
Height of
Water in
Ditch
(feet)
Flow Cross-
Section Area
in Ditch
(ft2)
Wetted
Perimeter
(ft)
Hydraulic
Radius
(ft)
Flow Rate
(ft3/sec)
Flow
Rate
(ft3/min)
0.5 1.25 5.1 0.25 0.98 59.05
1.0 5.00 10.2 0.49 6.25 374.93
1.5 11.25 15.3 0.74 18.42 1,105.42
2.0 20.00 20.4 0.98 39.68 2,380.66
2.5 31.25 25.5 1.23 71.94 4,316.42
3.0 45.00 30.6 1.47 116.98 7,018.98
3.5 61.25 35.7 1.72 176.46 10,587.63
4.0 80.00 40.8 1.96 251.94 15,116.25
The calculations in Tables 1 through 4 show the amount of runoff that can be successfully collected in each
section of the Federal Cell Facility perimeter drainage ditch system.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-6 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
K.2 Erosion Evaluation
The geotechnical literature (NUREG/CR-4620, “Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization
Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments”) indicates that an acceptable velocity of water traveling
over a compacted clay surface without significant erosion is no greater than 3 ft/sec. Water velocity may be
calculated using the simple equation:
.A
Qv (4)
In order to calculate the interstitial velocities associated with the ditch flow, the dimensions of the rock
inside the ditch is required. Engineering Drawing 14004-C03 notes that the perimeter ditch is lined with
Type A rock which has a D15 of 2 to 4 inches. A conservative value of 4 inches (yielding the fastest water
velocity) is selected for the following equation to calculate the interstitial velocity:
.4.1
n
Kivf (5)
where,
K is the coefficient of permeability = 0.35(D15)2 = 5.6 in/sec = 0.467 ft/sec
i is the slope
n is the porosity = 0.33
tortuosity factor = 1.4.
The tortuosity factor describes the extra length that a flow must travel to eventually reach the outflow
area. This is calculated as the length of actual flow (Lc) to the total length of the porous media (L).
Typical ranges for this factor can be calculated from ranges provided by Bear (“Dynamics of Fluids in
Porous Media,” Dover Publications, Inc., 1972) for a similar tortuosity factor. The typical range provided
by Bear converts to a range of 1.12 – 1.34 for the tortuosity factor used in this equation. Therefore, a
tortuosity factor of 1.4 is conservatively selected.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-7 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Water velocities and interstitial velocities are calculated for a conservative maximum potential centerline
height of 4 feet of water in each drainage ditch. The calculated velocities are presented in Table 5, which
demonstrate all interstitial velocities are well below 3 ft/sec.
Table 5 - Water Velocities
Location
Area
(ft2)
Flow Rate
(ft3/sec)
Water
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Interstitial
Velocity
(ft/sec)
North 80 239.04 2.99 9.69x10-4
South 80 251.94 3.15 1.13x10-3
East 80 231.03 2.89 8.77x10-4
West 80 239.97 3.00 9.80x10-4
K.3 Storm Events
The performance of the drainage ditches to contain runoff is only important for the active life of the facility
(estimated as 25 years). Upon closure, the drainage ditches will be removed or eventually become silted in
to allow sheet flow across the site over the natural grade of the area. Therefore, a reasonable maximum
storm event over the active life of the facility is the 25-year, 24-hour storm event (1.9 inches). A reasonable
potential worst-case event during the active life of the facility is the 100-year, 24-hour storm event (2.4
inches). Both of these storm events are depicted in the isopluvial maps of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 2, Volume VI (1973).
The rainfall amount at one hour during the 100 and 25-year events is calculated using the equations
provided in NOAA, Atlas 2. For the Clive region , the equation is:
 .24
66789.0322.01 »¼
º«¬
ª¸¹
ᬩ
§

 hour
hourhourhr (6)
Where the (6-hr) and (24-hr) are the precipitation amounts displayed on the isopluvial maps.
Empirical equations are developed for the 15-min, 30-min, 2-hour and 3-hour events, based upon the 1-hour
and 6-hour events:
15-min = 0.57 x (1-hr). (7)
30-min = 0.79 x (1-hr). (8)
2-hr = 0.299 x (6-hour) + 0.701 x (1-hr). (9)
3-hr = 0.526 x (6-hour) + 0.474 x (1-hr). (10)
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-8 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
As is described in the NOAA text, the 12-hour distribution is estimated using graphical methods, based
upon the 6-hour and 24-hour events. Using the equations and methods described above, the following
storm distributions is estimated for the design storm events.
Table 6 - Storm Distributions
Time
(min)
Maximum
Normal Event
(inches)
Potential Worst
Case Event
(inches)
15 0.65 0.73
30 0.9 1.00
60 1.14 1.27
120 1.21 1.40
180 1.27 1.50
360 1.4 1.70
720 1.65 2.05
1,440 1.9 2.40
Over the short active life span of the drainage ditches, it is unreasonable to assume larger storm events such
as the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). These larger storm events are more appropriately utilized in
the longer life elements of the embankment design such as the rock cover over the embankment.
K.4 Drainage Calculations
Drainage calculations for the Federal Cell Facility ditch system are determined from a mass balance over the
system itself, where
(flow in) – (flow out) = Accumulated water (required storage space)
The total accumulated flow into the system is calculated by multiplying the accumulated rainfall by the
weighted total drainage area. The calculated drainage area is equal to 2,353,033 ft2. The run-off coefficient
is equal to 0.5 (for earth with stone surface). Therefore, the total weighted drainage area is equal to
(2,353,033 ft2)(0.5) = 1,175,516 ft2.
Flow out of the system is calculated by multiplying the flow rate at specific depths (as presented in Tables 1
through 4) by the elapsed time of rainfall. The volume of the ditch at a specific depth is calculated by
multiplying the cross-sectional flow area in the ditch at a given depth by the length of the ditch. The volume
associated with a given depth is compared to the required storage volume calculated by subtracting the
available discharge from the accumulated flow into the system. The volume associated with a given depth
is equated the required storage volume by iterating over the depth of water in the ditch to estimate a
maximum flow within the ditch for a particular storm event.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-9 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
The total length of the drainage ditch, calculated from the ditch centerline coordinates provided in
Engineering Drawing 14004-C03 is approximately 6,291 ft. The cross-sectional flow areas of the ditch
varies with depth (as shown in Tables 1 through 4). Conservatively assuming that the discharge rate from
the perimeter berm is dependent on the least sloped ditch (east side ditch = 4.43 x 10-4 ft/ft). Using the
maximum normal storm event described in Table 6, an iterative method is used to equate the required
storage with the available storage volume at a specific water depth. Using the lowest ditch slope (4.43x10-4
ft/ft), the discharge flow rate and volume of required ditch storage is calculated.
Table 7 - Drainage Flows and Storage for the Maximum Normal Storm Event
Rainfall
Duration
(min)
Rainfall
Depth
(in)
Flow Into Ditch
System
(ft3)
Flow Out of
Ditch System
(ft3)
Required
Storage
(ft3)
15 0.65 63,728 12,879 50,849
30 0.9 88,239 25,758 62,481
60 1.14 111,769 51,515 60,254
120 1.21 118,632 103,031 15,601
180 1.27 124,515 154,546 0
360 1.4 137,260 309,092 0
720 1.65 161,771 618,185 0
1440 1.9 186,282 1,236,370 0
K.5 Conclusions
During the maximum normal precipitation event, the greatest volume retained in storage within the Federal
Cell Facility drainage ditch system is approximately 62,481 ft3. This occurs approximately 30 minutes into
the event and decreases over the next couple of hours. This volume equates to a depth of water within the
ditch of approximately 1.41 feet, which is well within the four-foot perimeter ditch height specifications.
Therefore the Federal Cell Facility ditch design adequately contains the maximum normal precipitation
event. Similarly, Table 8 reports the discharge and water perimeter elevations for the worst-case storm
event.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-10 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Table 8 - Drainage Flows and Storage for the Worst Case Storm Event
Rainfall
Duration
(min)
Rainfall
Depth
(in)
Flow Into Ditch
System
(ft3)
Flow Out of
Ditch System
(ft3)
Required
Storage
(ft3)
15 0.73 71,571 14,636 56,935
30 1.0 98,043 29,272 68,771
60 1.27 124,515 58,544 65,971
120 1.4 137,260 117,088 20,172
180 1.5 147,065 175,632 0
360 1.7 166,673 351,265 0
720 2.05 200,988 702,529 0
1440 2.4 235,303 1,405,058 0
During the potential worst-case scenario, the maximum volume retained in storage within the Federal Cell
Facility ditch system is approximately 68,771 ft3, occurring roughly 30 minutes into the event and
decreasing over the couple of next hours. This volume equates to a water height within the ditch slightly
higher than 1.48 feet (well within the four-foot design height of the ditches). It is therefore concluded that
the Federal Cell Facility embankment is capable of adequately containing the worst-case storm precipitation
event.
K.6 Peak Run-Off Rate for Small Watersheds
The maximum length for the travel of water to the discharge point is down the sloped corner of the Federal
Cell Facility, from the crest to the northeast corner of the drainage ditch, then west down the northern
drainage ditch and finally south toward the discharge point in the southwest corner. Engineering Drawing
14004-C03 illustrates this travel distance at approximately distance down the corner slope from the crest to
the shoulder at roughly 584 feet with a slope of 8.74 / 584 = 0.015 ft/ft. From that point, the distance down
the corner slope from the shoulder to the northeast corner is approximately 247 feet with a slope of 34.7 /
247 = 0.14 ft/ft. Flow across the northern drainage ditch is approximately 1,226 feet with a slope of
0.000489 ft/ft. Flow across the western drainage ditch is approximately 1,919 feet with a slope of 0.000495
ft/ft.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-11 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Rainfall intensity (i) is estimated by determining the time of concentration, Tc, or time required for water to
travel from the most distant location in the watershed to the watershed discharge point. The formula for
determining Tc is:
Tc = 0.00013L0.77S-0.385 (11)
The cumulative Tc over the path length of water travel, yields the following:
Table 9 - Travel Time
Path
Length
(ft)
Slope
(ft/ft)
Tc(hr)
584 0.015 0.088
247 0.14 0.019
1,226 0.000489 0.584
1,919 0.000495 0.821
Cumulative 1.513
Therefore, the total time required for water to travel the farthest distance within the watershed is roughly one
hour and thirty-one minutes.
As it is a boundary condition, only the estimate of peak runoff flow rates during the potential worst-case
condition is necessary. If the flow rates for the worst-case scenario are within tolerance, then the normal
conditions will also be within tolerance. From Table 6, the most applicable storm intensity data for the
above abnormal event is 1.27 inches over a one-hour time period. This equates to a rainfall intensity (i) of
1.76 x 10-3 feet/minute. Using this intensity, the drainage area and runoff coefficient values herein described
the estimated peak runoff during the abnormal event is:
Q = CiA = (0.5)(1.76 x 10-3 ft/min)(2,353,033 ft2) = 2,070.7 ft3/min (12)
This value is less than the lowest design flow rates for the 2.5-foot deep ditch described in Tables 1 through
4 (ranging between 3,958 ft3/min and 4,316 ft3/min).
Using the calculations of Tables 1 through 4 as maximum flow, this calculated flow results in depths of
approximately 1.76 feet in all of the ditches (all allowing a freeboard of more than 2 feet). Therefore, the
Federal Cell Facility ditches are sufficiently designed to contain the peak runoff flow from the potential
worst case (and subsequently normal) storm events.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility
Page K-12 Appendix K April 9, 2021
Revision 0
Calculations were performed by Vern C. Rogers and reviewed by Timothy L. Orton, P.E.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________________
Timothy L. Orton, P.E.
Environmental Engineer and Manager
References
Bear. J, (1972). Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Dover Publications, Inc., 1972
NOAA, (2012). “NOAA Atlas 2 Precipitation Frequency Estimates in GIS Compatible Formats.” Accessed
at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/noaaatlas2.htm on 20 October 2012.
NRC, (1986). “NUREG/CR-4620: Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs of
Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments,” June 1986.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page L-1 Appendix L April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX L

METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATING LONG-TERM STABILIZATION DESIGNS

(NUREG/CR-4620)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page M-1 Appendix M April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX M

GEOSYNTEC FEDERAL CELL ENGINEERING EVALUATION

(Geosyntec, 2021)

Federal Cell Engineering Evaluations April 2021

COMPUTATION COVER SHEET

Client:
Energy
Solutions Pro ect: Federal Cell at Clive Facilit Pro ect No.: SLC1025

Title of Computations GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS

Computations by: Signature 3/11/2021
Printed Name Madeline Downing Date
Title Senior Staff Enginee

Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Signature 3/17/2021
Printed Name Bora Batura , PhD, G.E. Date
Title Principal

Computations
Checked by:
Signature 3/17 2021
Printed Name Bora Baturay, PhD, G.E. Date
Title Principal

Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Signature 3/18/2021
Printed Name Madeline Downing Date
Title Senior Staff Enginee

Approved by:
(pm or designate) Si nature 3/18/2021
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P.E. Date
Title Senior Enginee

Approval notes:

Revisions (number and initial all revisions)

No. Sheet Date B Checked b Approval

Page 1 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS
FOR FEDERAL CELL AT THE CLIVE FACILITY
CLIVE, UTAH
Table of Contents
1. Objective ................................................................................................................................3 
2. Background ............................................................................................................................3 
3. Site Characterization ..............................................................................................................4 
3.1 Document Review ....................................................................................................4 
3.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy ...........................................................................................5 
3.3 Groundwater .............................................................................................................6 
3.4 Seismic Hazard Evaluation ......................................................................................7 
4. Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................7 
4.1 Federal Waste Cell Geometry ..................................................................................8 
4.2 Subsurface Material Properties ................................................................................9 
4.3 Federal Cell Cover and Base Liner System Material Properties ..............................9 
4.4 Federal Cell Waste Material Properties for Stability ...............................................10 
4.5 Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................11 
4.6 Design Criteria .........................................................................................................11 
4.7 Analyses Scenarios ...................................................................................................12 
4.8 Short-Term Stability .................................................................................................12 
4.9 Long-Term Stability Analysis ..................................................................................13 
4.10 Pseudostatic Stability ...............................................................................................14 
4.11 Post-Earthquake Stability .........................................................................................15 
4.12 Seismic Deformation ................................................................................................16 
5. Settlement Analysis ...............................................................................................................17 
5.1 Previous Analyses ....................................................................................................18 
5.2 Compressibility Properties of Foundation Soils .......................................................18 
5.3 Federal Cell Loading and Geometry ........................................................................20 
5.4 Elastic Settlement (Immediate) of the Sand-Like Units (1 & 3) ..............................21 
5.5 Primary Consolidation ..............................................................................................22 
5.6 Secondary Compression ...........................................................................................23 
5.7 Consequences of Settlement .....................................................................................24 
6. Liquefaction ...........................................................................................................................25 
6.1 Previous Analyses ....................................................................................................25 
6.2 Seismic Design Parameters ......................................................................................25 
6.3 Liquefaction of Sand-Like Soils ...............................................................................26 

Page 2 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

6.4 Cyclic Softening of Clay-Like Soils ........................................................................26 
7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................27 
7.1 Global Static, Seismic Slope Stability and Deformation .........................................27 
7.2 Settlement .................................................................................................................27 
7.3 Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening ...........................................................................28 
8. References ..............................................................................................................................29 

Attachments
Attachment A: Supporting Documents
Attachment B: Global Static and Seismic Slope Stability Results
Attachment C: Seismic Deformation Analysis
Attachment D: Settlement Analysis
Attachment E: Liquefaction Analysis

Page 3 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

1. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the geotechnical engineering mechanisms related to
the performance of the proposed Federal Cell at the EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions)
Clive Facility in Clive, Utah. The geotechnical analyses performed for the Federal Cell include
static and seismic stability, foundational soil settlement, and liquefaction triggering for the
proposed embankment. The evaluations presented herein have been based on conservative
approaches to evaluate this facility and are designed to capture the potential long-term changes
over the design life. The analyses were performed in accordance with our proposal dated February
17, 2021.
2. BACKGROUND
Based on our understanding of the Federal Cell design, the intended waste to be placed in the
containment cell includes depleted uranium (DU) stored in cylinders and drums and controlled
low strength material (CLSM); a flowable fill which will be placed in between and around the
cylinders and drums. According to the Radioactive Waste Inventory for Clive DU PA Model v1.4
(Neptune, 2015), approximately 690,000 metric tons of the DU filled drums and cylinders are
intended to be placed in the proposed cell. Existing grades at the proposed cell location range
between 4,268 and 4,270 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The Design Drawings
(EnergySolutions, 2020) suggest the average subgrade elevation of the proposed cell is
approximately 4,261 feet amsl, which would be achieved by excavating approximately 7 to 9 feet
below ground surface (bgs).

To support the design of the proposed Federal Cell, EnergySolutions and Neptune and Company,
Inc. (Neptune) developed the Final Report for the Clive Depleted Uranium Performance
Assessment (DU PA) and the DU PA Model v1.4 in 2015 and submitted it to the Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) for review. The DWMRC provided a
review of the DU PA and documented their feedback in their Technical Report dated January 28,
2021 (DWMRC, 2021). EnergySolutions requested that Geosyntec provide assistance to respond
to DWRMC’s feedback and demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives of the Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R313-25-19 through 23 and 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
61.41 through 44, specifically the geotechnical stability evaluations. Geosyntec performed a
review of the referenced Technical Report and has subsequently completed the following
engineering evaluations to help address the technical issues identified by the DWMRC:

Page 4 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 Global static slope stability of the proposed Federal Cell: Short- and long-term stability
including analysis of the various groundwater elevation conditions (current and potential
groundwater level rise);
 Seismic slope stability of the proposed Federal Cell: Pseudostatic stability and deformation
analysis of the most critical stability section;
 Settlement of the proposed Federal Cell foundational soils: Immediate and long-term
settlement analysis including evaluation of embankment response to foundation settlement
over the design life; and
 Liquefaction: Liquefaction triggering analysis caused by potential rise in groundwater
elevation.

3. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The subsurface conditions and proposed Federal Cell liner and cover system components were
characterized based on our review of existing explorations, previous parameterizations performed
for adjacent existing waste cells, and available data provided for our review. The following
sections summarize the documents reviewed, subsurface stratigraphy characterization,
groundwater conditions, and seismic design parameters used to perform our engineering
evaluations presented in this calculation package.
3.1 Document Review
Extensive subsurface explorations have taken place at the Clive Facility dating back to 1984 and
extending through 2020 (Figure 1 presents a site layout of the explorations used in this evaluation).
The following reports provided to us for review were utilized to characterize the subsurface
stratigraphy beneath the proposed Federal Cell, define the groundwater levels critical for the
engineering evaluations, and define the seismic hazard parameters at the facility:
 Hydrogeologic Report for the Clive Facility prepared by Bingham Environmental
(Bingham) dated 1992 (including Addendum 1 and 2);
 Combined Embankment Study for Class A Waste Embankment (CAW) (just North of the
proposed Federal Cell) prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental (AMEC) dated
December 2005;
 Geotechnical Update Report for CAW prepared by AMEC dated February 2011;
 Seismic Hazard Evaluation/Seismic Stability Analysis Update for CAW prepared by
AMEC dated April 2012; and

Page 5 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 Phase 1 Basal Depth Aquifer Study for Clive Facility prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc. (Stantec) dated September 2020.
3.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy
Based on our review of the referenced Hydrogeologic Report (Bingham, 1992), three exploratory
drill holes were excavated beneath the proposed Federal Cell in 1991 by Overland Drilling under
the direction of Bingham personnel. Drill hole logs for GW-36 through GW-38 (Attachment A)
were reviewed to develop a generalized subsurface stratigraphy beneath the proposed Federal Cell
(Bingham, 1992). In general, the geologic units include the following from top to bottom:
 Unit 4 Silty Clay – silty clays, classifying as CL in accordance with Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), containing some fine silt layers and is generally dry near
surface with increasing moisture with depth, and medium stiff to stiff consistency.
 Unit 3 Silty Sand – dense to medium dense silty sands and silts containing few thin clay
layers.
 Unit 2 Silty Clay – interbedded clay and silt layers with a few isolated sand layers up to 2-
feet thick, generally stiff, and saturated clays.
 Unit 1 Silty Sand with interbedded clay/silt lens – generally dense to very dense sands.

As mentioned previously, existing grades beneath the cell range between 4,268 to 4,270 feet above
mean sea level (amsl). The Design Drawings (EnergySolutions, 2020) suggests the average
subgrade elevation of the proposed cell is approximately 4,261 feet amsl. This will result in
excavations ranging between 7 to 9 feet into native Unit 4. Minimal portions of the Unit 4 will
therefore be left in the subgrade. We assume that soft spots of these silty clays will be reworked
and compacted prior to construction of the Federal Cell clay liner. Conservatively we have
assumed approximately 2 feet of Unit 4 silty clay with medium stiff consistency remains beneath
the Federal Cell for the engineering evaluations presented herein. For the purposes of this
calculation package, the subsurface geology and Federal Cell is idealized as shown in Figure 2
below.

Page 6 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Figure 2 Subsurface Stratigraphy

The subsurface conditions beneath the Federal Cell and CAW embankment are generally
consistent, with the exception of Unit 2 extending on average only 45 feet bgs as opposed to the
approximated 64 feet bgs for the CAW. Conditions documented from various explorations are in
general agreement with the hydrogeologic cross sections across the Clive Facility (Attachment A).
The same geologic unit numbers used in the hydrogeologic characterization (Bingham, 1992) are
used herein for consistency. The importance of this finding is the subsurface conditions are
sufficiently uniform and therefore a single idealized profile is appropriate for the Federal Cell.
3.3 Groundwater
The latest static groundwater levels were collected during the referenced Aquifer Study (Stantec,
2020). Depth to water in wells I-1-30, I-1-50, I-1-100, and I-1-700 ranged between 28 to 31 feet.
Groundwater depth reported on well logs GW-36 through GW-38 (used for subsurface stratigraphy

Page 7 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

characterization beneath the Federal Cell) was encountered at approximately 20 feet bgs.
Groundwater records for these wells report a depth of approximately 20 feet between 2016 and
2020. A depth of 20 feet was therefore used to represent the existing conditions in our stability and
settlement analyses.
Based on available historical records, no significant groundwater elevation rises have occurred at
the Facility. However, DWMRC has requested that the proposed Federal Cell be evaluated for
potential geotechnical instabilities over the design life caused by future hypothetical groundwater
rise events. Therefore, we also evaluated a design groundwater level elevation synonymous with
the ground surface elevation as a bounding scenario as requested by DWMRC. The extreme-case
groundwater rise condition was used to evaluate liquefaction triggering and long-term stability of
the proposed Federal Cell.
3.4 Seismic Hazard Evaluation
DMWRC accepted an updated assessment of the seismic hazard for the Clive Facility consistent
with the requirements of the Utah Code of Regulations R313-25-8(5) to justify a 2012 licensing
action (AMEC, 2012). The previously accepted seismic hazard analysis for the site was therefore
used in this analysis. The seismic hazard assessment was based on deterministic assessment of the
84th percentile peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with the Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE) for known active and potentially active faults in the site region and the PGA
obtained from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) considering a 5,000 year return
period to assess the seismic hazard for earthquakes that may occur on unknown faults in the area
surrounding the site. The largest PGA from the assessment was 0.24g which was same for both
deterministic and probabilistic methods. The maximum magnitude (Mw) identified was 7.3. Based
on our review of the seismicmap.org tool created by Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) and California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and
a review of Unified Hazard Tool (UHT) by the US Geologic Survey (USGS), the PGA obtained
using current fault and ground motion estimation models is 0.22g. Therefore, the seismic
parameters previously accepted by DMWRC are considered reasonable estimates of the seismic
hazard for the site and were utilized in Geosyntec’s seismic hazard analyses documented in this
package.
4. SLOPE STABILITY
The evaluation of global slope stability of the Federal Cell waste embankment was identified as
an unresolved requirement in the referenced Technical Report (DWMRC, 2021). Analyses
presented herein for global stability consider the geotechnical response of the site for the 10,000-

Page 8 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

year design life (or compliance period). Deep-seated global slope stability analyses were
performed for both static and seismic conditions. In addition, the stability analyses include
groundwater modeling at current conditions and at the existing ground surface that represents
extreme-case bounding future scenario in terms of pore pressures for stability. The following
sections summarize the methods and analyses performed to demonstrate global static and seismic
stability of the proposed Federal Cell. The graphical output files for the analyses are presented in
Attachment B.
4.1 Federal Waste Cell Geometry
Based on our review of the Design Drawings for the Federal Cell dated February 2021
(EnergySolutions, 2021), the proposed cell will retain the waste previously described in Section 2
with maximum side slopes of 20 percent (%). For slope stability analyses, the cell geometry has
been summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of Federal Cell Design Dimensions
Description Dimension and Unit
Length 1,920 feet
Width 1,225 feet
Height 52 ½ feet, maximum at crest
Base Elevation 4,262 to 4,263 feet
Crest Elevation 4,314.5 feet
Shoulder Side Slopes 20%
Shoulder Side Slope Width 175 feet
Shoulder Side Slope Height 32.5 feet
Cover Top Gradient 2.4%

Page 9 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

4.2 Subsurface Material Properties
The material properties of the subsurface soils used to evaluate slope stability reflect our review
of available geotechnical lab data, boring logs, and previous parameterization of the adjacent CAW
performed and compiled for DWMRC’s 2012 Class A West licensing decision (2005 & 2011).
The subsurface units are generally consistent beneath the CAW and the proposed Federal Cell,
therefore, Geosyntec considers previous material property assignment of the units to be generally
applicable for the analyses presented herein. Based on review of the geotechnical lab data
summarized in 2005 and the DWMRC’s 2012 licensing action, and the boring logs available within
the Federal Cell footprint, Geosyntec made more conservative assumptions for the undrained shear
strength of clay units. The undrained shear strengths test results reflect the in-situ conditions during
the previous explorations. These selections are considered potentially conservative as
consolidation of the underlying clay units are expected to occur during construction of the cell,
resulting in strength gain overtime with pore pressure dissipation. The material properties for use
in slope stability analyses are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Summary of Subsurface Material Properties for Slope Stability
Unit Material
Classification
Depth
Total Unit
Weight,

Undrained Drained
Undrained
Shear
Strength,
Su
Friction
Angle, '
Effective
Cohesion, c'
(f -s) (pcf) (psf) (de ) (psf)
4 CL/ML 0 - 9 118 1,000 29 0
3 SM 9 - 23 120 - 34 0
2 CL-ML 23 - 45 121 1,500 29 1,000
1
SM with
Interbedded thin
lifts of CL-ML
45 - 100 120 - 29 0

4.3 Federal Cell Cover and Base Liner System Material Properties
The material properties for the cover and base liner system components of the Federal Cell were
selected based on review of embankment cell designs, gradations and specifications presented on
the design drawings, a review of estimated properties from literature, and our previous experience
with similar type materials. The material properties for the liner and cover system components for
use in slope stability analyses are presented in Table 3 below.

Page 10 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 3: Summary of Liner and Cover System Material Properties for Slope Stability
System
Component
Material
Classification
Thickness

Total Unit
Weight,


Friction
Angle, '

Apparent
Cohesion, c'
Undrained
Shear
Strength
(inches) (pcf) (de ) (psf) (psf)
Side Rock Rip Rap 18 135 40 - -
Top Slope
Cover
Silty Clay from
Native Unit 4
amended with 15%
ravel
12 120 30 200
-
Filter Zone
Mix of
Gravel/Sand/Fines
(GM-GC)
12 130 34 0
-
Frost
Protection
Cobble/Gravel/Soil
Mixture (GM-GC) 18 130 38 0 -
Radon Clay 24 123 0 1,000 -
Evaporative
Zone
Silty Clay from
Native Unit 4 12 120 29 300 -
Clay Liner Clay 24 123 28 0 1,0001
Liner
Protective
Cove
Silty Sand 12 118 38 250 -
Notes:
1. Undrained strength properties assigned to Clay Liner only. All other materials expected to exhibit drained
strength under the analyzed loading conditions.
4.4 Federal Cell Waste Material Properties for Stability
The Federal Cell waste fill material properties for stability are based on our understanding of the
planned waste placement methods and a review of readily available literature on the shear strength
of CLSM. The stability analyses presented herein assume that the proposed Federal Cell will be
filled with DU in the form of LLRW cylinders and drums surrounded by flowable fill (CLSM) at
a ratio of approximately 1.9 CY of CLSM per CY of DU placed below grade and beneath the
embankment top slope. While the compressive strength is typically used to define specifications
for CLSM (150 psi specified for the neighboring LARW embankment), a long-term degraded
condition over the 10,000-year compliance period is better represented by the residual shear
strength resulting from shear zone failures between the waste cylinders and drums and solidified
CLSM. Alternative characterizations for the waste were considered, however the residual strength

Page 11 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

approach is considered to be an appropriate representation. According to a study titled “Flowable
Backfill Materials from Bottom Ash for Underground Pipeline,” UU triaxial testing of CLSM
suggests that residual strength of CLSM may exhibit strength properties of 36 to 46 degrees for
effective friction angle and an effective cohesion of 49 to 140 kPa (Lee and Kim, 2014).
Conservatively, the Federal Cell waste for stability was assigned a friction angle of 30 degrees
and unit weight of 120 pcf (consistent with unit weight selected for the LARW) with no effective
cohesion. This characterization is conservative and represent the potential long-term degradation
of the CLSM and DU fill over the compliance period.
4.5 Analysis Methodology
Slope stability analyses for Federal Cell was performed using the two-dimensional computer
program SLOPE/W version 10.2.0.19483 (GEOSTUDIO, 2019). GEOSTUDIO programs are a
widely used for geotechnical and geo-environmental modeling and has been in employed by
industry geotechnical engineers since 1977 and used in over 100 countries. SLOPE/W is the
leading slope stability software for soil and rock slopes. GEOSTUDIO, maker of SLOPE/W,
reports that several US Federal clients using their software include USACE, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA NRCS), Federal Bureau of Reclamation, and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The SLOPE/W program can effectively analyze a variety of slope
surface shapes, pore-water pressure conditions, soil properties, and loading conditions. The
selected SLOPE/W analyses were based on the Morgenstern-Price method of slices, which
satisfies both moment and force equilibrium stability on circular sliding surfaces. The method of
slices analysis is consistent with guidelines presented by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Engineering and Design Slope Stability Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1902
(USACE, 2003). The results of the slope stability analyses are typically presented in terms of a
factor of safety (FS) defined as the ratio of the total stabilizing forces/moments along an assumed
sliding plane divided by the total sum of internal and external driving forces/moments acting on
the sliding mass. SLOPE/W stability analysis graphical results include the assumed critical sliding
surface and corresponding rotation center and resulting sliding mass divided into slices for
computational purposes, and material properties.
4.6 Design Criteria
The design criteria for global static and seismic slope stability evaluations presented herein were
adopted from the DWMRC’s CAW licensing action. The accepted criteria are commonly used for
evaluating embankment and dam stability and are consistent with Geosyntec’s experience with
similar projects. The criteria and associated literature references are summarized in Table 4 below.

Page 12 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 4: Geotechnical Design Criteria Summary
Analysis Criteria Reference
Static Stability FS>1.5 USACE (2003)
Seismic Stability
Seismic coefficient (kh) = ½ PGA Hynes-Griffin & USACE (1984)
Pseudostatic, FS > 1.2 Hynes-Griffin & USACE (1984)1
Pseudostatic FS = 1, Post-
earthquake cover deformations
150 300 mm allowable
Makdisi & Seed (1978)
1. FS of 1.2 was conservatively adapted in previous analyses in 2011 accepted by DWMRC for CAW licensing
action based on a review of Hynes-Griffin & USACE (1984).
4.7 Analyses Scenarios
The following conditions were analyzed to evaluate global static slope stability of the Federal Cell.
Upon review of the North-South and East-West geometries and adjacent features of the Federal
Cell and existing groundwater levels, two cross-sections were found to be representative of the
cell embankment for stability analyses: one section adjacent the proposed ditch and inspection
road and one section adjacent an existing waste cell [11(e) or CAW] as shown on the referenced
drawings (EnergySolutions, 2020):
 Short-term with existing groundwater, undrained strength of clay-like soils.
 Long-term with existing groundwater, drained strength.
 Long-term with groundwater rise, drained strength.
4.8 Short-Term Stability
Short-term loading conditions represent temporary construction conditions where pore water
pressures generated by the loads associated with waste embankment construction have not
dissipated in the clay-like soils and soil behavior can be characterized as undrained.
The various modes of failure (i.e., circular failures, block failures, deep-seated, and shallow)
commonly seen in embankments of similar design and geology were evaluated to identify the
critical case for each scenario analyzed. The most critical failure surface is herein reported for each
section and loading condition. The results of short-term stability analyses are presented in terms
of FS as presented in Attachment B and summarized in Table below. The FS for both sections

Page 13 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

exceed the design criteria of 1.5 for static conditions. The proposed cell geometry is therefore
considered stable under short-term conditions.
Table 5: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Short-Term Conditions
Section Groundwater
Factor
of
Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of Safety
Figure
Adjacent Road/Ditch
Existing
Conditions at 20
feet s
2.7
Block Failure
Through Undrained
Unit 2 ative
1.5 B-1
Adjacent Cell 11(e)
Existing
Conditions at 20
feet b s
2.6
Block Failure
Through Undrained
Unit 2 Native
1.5 B-2

4.9 Long-Term Stability Analysis
Long-term slope stability was evaluated considering the two design groundwater levels, existing
conditions (20 feet bgs) and the extreme-case groundwater rise conditions (base elevation), and
drained soil material properties. The drained shear strength of the foundation soils, liner, and cover
materials were selected for a Mohr-Coulomb SLOPE/W material model. Materials are expected to
exhibit drained strength properties in the long-term condition where pore pressures have dissipated
over time, following construction completion of the cell.
The various modes of failure (i.e., circular failures, block failures, deep-seated, and shallow)
commonly seen in embankments of similar design and geology were evaluated to identify the
critical case for each scenario analyzed. The most critical failure surface is herein reported for each
section and loading condition. The results of the long-term stability analysis are presented in terms
of FS summarized in Table below and presented in Attachment B. The FS for all scenarios
analyzed exceed the recommended value. Therefore, the proposed Federal Cell design is
considered stable under long-term conditions.

Page 14 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 6: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Long -Term Conditions
Section Groundwater Factor of
Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
Groundwater Level at Existing 20
feet bgs 3.4 Block Failure
Through Clay Liner 1.5 B-3
Groundwater Level during Future
Rise Event (modeled at base
elevation)
3.4
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
ative
1.5 B-4
Adjacent Cell
11(e)

Groundwater Level at Existing 20
feet bgs 3.3 Block Failure
Through Clay Liner 1.5 B-5
Groundwater Level during Future
Rise Event (modeled at base
elevation)
3.3
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
ative
1.5 B-6

4.10 Pseudostatic Stability
Pseudostatic slope stability procedures are commonly used to evaluate the likely seismic
performance of embankment and dam slopes. The pseudostatic analysis presented in this section
is based on the previously accepted analyses by DWMRC and guidelines presented in the Hynes-
Griffin and Franklin method (Hynes-Griffin, 1984). In pseudostatic analyses, the effects of an
earthquake are evaluated by applying a static horizontal inertial force to the potential sliding mass.
This horizontal inertial force is expressed as the product of the seismic coefficient (k) and the
weight of the potential sliding mass. If resulting forces including the inertial forces are greater than
the resisting forces, then seismic deformations will take place. In accordance with the design
criteria adopted from adjacent cell designs based on Hynes-Griffin and Franklin method (Hynes-
Griffin, 1984), a seismic coefficient equal to 50% of the PGA was used for the pseudostatic
analysis and a FS of 1.2 was adapted as a limiting factor of safety for large deformations. The
analysis also used groundwater conditions that represent the extreme-case groundwater rise event
and undrained material properties for the clay liner and foundational units..
Various modes of failure are evaluated to identify the critical case for each scenario analyzed. The
most critical failure surface has been reported herein for each section and loading condition. The
results of the pseudostatic stability analysis are presented in terms of FS summarized in Table
below and presented in Attachment B. The FS for the scenarios analyzed meet the design criteria.
Therefore, the proposed Federal Cell design is not expected to experience large deformations

Page 15 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

during seismic loading. Simplified seismic deformation analyses for the range of anticipated
deformations are presented in Section 4.1.2.
Table 7: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Pseudostatic
Section Loading Condition Factor
of Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
k = 0.12 g
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.3 Block failure through
Unit 4 Native
1.2

B-7

Adjacent
Cell 11(e)

k = 0.12 g
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.3 Block failure through
Unit 4 Native
1.2

B-8

4.11 Post-Earthquake Stability
To demonstrate the potential effects of cyclic softening in native soils discussed further in Section
6, the proposed Federal Cell was analyzed in SLOPE/W with the potential strength degradation of
the clay-like soils following an earthquake event. To model this in SLOPE/W, the foundational
clay-like soils (Units 2 and 4) and clay liner were modeled with reduced undrained strength
properties. An undrained shear strength degradation of 50% was used to model this phenomenon.
This strength reduction is a lower bound estimate to the strength reduction, if any cyclic softening
were to happen. Justification for this conservative assumption is provided in Section 6. A
minimum FS for stable static conditions of 1.5 was considered acceptable per design criteria
and criteria found in published literature summarized in Section 4.6 above.
Various modes of failure (i.e. failures through deeper clay Unit 2, clay liner, and shallower clay
Unit 4) are evaluated to identify the critical case for each section analyzed. The most critical failure
surface has been reported here for each section and loading condition. The results of the post-
earthquake stability analysis are presented in terms of FS summarized in the Table below and
presented in Attachment B. The minimum FS of 1.5 was achieved for the sections analyzed and
is therefore considered stable in a post-earthquake scenario where clay-like soils have undergone
significant shear strength degradation. A discussion on cyclic softening of clay-like soils is
provided in Section 6 of this package.

Page 16 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 8: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Post-Earthquake Cyclic Softening
Section Loading Condition Factor
of Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.8
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
Native
1.5

B-9

Adjacent
Cell 11(e)

Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.6
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
Native
1.5

B-10

4.12 Seismic Deformation
The seismic deformation analysis for the Federal Cell was performed using the Makdisi and Seed
(1978) simplified method for estimating seismically induced deformations for earthen
embankments and geosynthetics. The site-specific seismic design parameters such as PGA and
Mw required for estimating seismically induced slope deformations were based on the referenced
seismic hazard analysis that justified DWMRC’s 2012 license action and as discussed in Section
3.4, are as follows:
 PGA = 0.24g
 Mw = 7.3
The seismic deformation analysis includes performing a pseudostatic stability analysis and
determining the yield coefficient, ky, resulting in an FS equal to 1. The ky is next compared with
the maximum estimated inertial force, kmax, to empirically estimate the anticipated embankment
deformations based on the earthquake magnitude. In accordance with the current state of practice
and previous analyses for the adjacent cells, seismically induced deformations of 150 to 300 mm
are considered acceptable. The seismic deformation analysis results are summarized in Table 9
and presented in Attachment C.

Page 17 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 9: Federal Cell Seismic Deformation Results
Case/Description ky ümax y
(ft)
H
(ft) y/H kmax/ümax kmax ky/kmax
Estimated
Deformation
(mm)
Critical Section Failure
Through Unit 4 Native, Entire
Slope Face (y/H=1), Adjacent
Cell 11(e)
0.18 0.58 52 52 1 0.34 0.2 0.91 4
Notes:
1. y is depth of sliding mass under evaluations
2. H is average height of the potential sliding mass

Results of the permanent deformation analyses (using undrained strengths and groundwater
rise elevation), estimate seismically induced deformations to be negligible. Therefore, the
performance of the Federal Cell under the provided earthquake ground motions, is considered to
be acceptable in terms of seismically induced deformations.

5. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
The DWMRC raised concerns for the uncertainty in the parameters used for geotechnical analysis
of the proposed Federal Cell foundation settlement and subsequent embankment response in the
referenced Technical Report (DWMRC, 2021). The following sections describe the method of
analysis and results of estimated elastic, primary consolidation, and secondary compression
settlement of the Federal Cell foundational soils and the consequences of these estimates.
Settlement calculations presented herein are considered conservative as the condition modeled
assumes a “wished into place” scenario. In reality, construction of the proposed cell is likely to be
slow enough (on the order of ±10 years) to allow for dissipation of pore pressures in the underlying
fine-grained soils, resulting in near completion of primary consolidation settlement by the end of
waste placement and start of cover construction. Conservatively we assumed primary
consolidation settlements would go on another year following final placement of waste. This is
considered conservative due to the presence of consistent interbedded sandy layers observed in the
subsurface. Sandy soils act as drainage layers that allow for pore pressures to dissipate and expedite
consolidation of the fine-grained soils. Over the course of construction, these fine-grained soils are
expected to experience this consolidation and be nearly complete by end of waste placement. This
phenomenon has been modeled and predicted for the other adjacent cells (AMEC, 2005). Based
on the analysis, Geosyntec’s opinion is that predicted settlement of the cell would not have an
adverse impact on the stable slope conditions as magnitude of settlement is expected be limited

Page 18 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

and would cause only limited flattening of the top slopes. The flattening slopes and potential
differential settlements could reduce the drainage slopes over the cover locally and affect
infiltration. This is something that should be considered during design and construction.
5.1 Previous Analyses
While other adjacent cells varied in geometry and waste fill types, findings of previous settlement
analyses and models for other cells were reviewed for comparison and consistency. The load and
geometry may vary, but the subsurface conditions beneath the adjacent cells are generally
consistent with that of the Federal Cell. Settlements of the foundational soils due to embankment
loading are projected to be on the order of 12 to 16-inches with secondary settlements calculated
over 500-year compliance period on the order of 8-inches. The analysis justifying DWMRC’s
license action for the CAW predicted and modeled these settlements for an embankment height of
approximately 100 feet for various waste types including compressible debris, incompressible
debris, and CLSM. The proposed waste and cover materials for the Federal Cell may have a greater
average unit weight than the CAW (120 pcf versus 100 pcf), but the proposed embankment is
almost half the height of the CAW. Therefore, Geosyntec predicts that the expected foundation
settlement for the Federal Cell will likely be less than the CAW models.
5.2 Compressibility Properties of Foundation Soils
The compressibility properties of the subsurface soils used to evaluate the foundation settlement
were estimated from laboratory testing results for the fine-grained soils and derived from typical
values for the coarse-grained soils at specified in-situ confining pressures. Correlations from
published literature were also used to supplement the laboratory data.
2005 interpretation of various explorations across the Clive Facility (D&M 1984, Bingham 1992,
AGRA 1999, and AMEC 2004) has been provided in Attachment A. In these previous studies,
consolidation tests were performed on fine-grained soil units (Units 2 and 4) that have been
consistently encountered in the subsurface across the Clive Facility. Geosyntec used the interpreted
results provided to evaluate consolidation properties (Cc, Cr, OCR) of these soils that also underlie
the proposed Federal Cell.

Initial void ratios (eo) from the consolidation tests were not provided in the aforementioned lab
summary data table (Attachment A), therefore Geosyntec used in-situ water content (w) laboratory
test results for the underlying soils to estimate the initial void ratio of the fine-grained soils through
the use of published empirical correlations. The eo of the materials was estimated using the
following relationship between water content and the specific gravity for saturated soils:

Page 19 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

𝑒 𝐺𝑠 𝑤/100
Where Gs is the specific gravity of the soils; assumed to equal 2.65.
The modified secondary compression index (Cαε) is typically calculated through interpretation of
the consolidation test results and defined as the slope of the compressive strain plotted against
logarithm of time observed post primary consolidation during the test. A correlation was used that
relates Cαε to the estimated in-situ moisture content. Cαε of the materials was estimated using the
following relationship between water content:

Cαε 0.0001𝑤
Elastic settlement of the coarse-grained materials (Units 1 and 3) are typically estimated through
use of the constrained modulus (Ms) of the soil. The sandy subsurface materials in Unit 3 are
assumed to have an elastic modulus of approximately 1,800 psi and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25. The
subsurface materials in the Lower Sand Unit 1 are assumed to have an elastic modulus of
approximately 2,300 psi and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.38. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratios
were selected based properties of similar soils types are equivalent confining pressures (Qian et al.
2002). The Ms was calculated with equation presented above.
𝑀 𝐸 1 𝑣
1 𝑣1 2 𝑣
where:
vs = Poisson’s ratio of soil, ft; and
Es = elastic modulus of soil, lb/ft2.

The unit weights of geologic units are consistent with the assignments used in the slope stability
analyses discussed earlier.
A summary of the resulting settlement material properties used in our settlement analysis is
provided in Table 10.

Page 20 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 10: Summary of Properties for Foundation Settlement Analysis
Unit
Thick
ness
Unit
Weight
γ
Constrained
Modulus
Ms
Primary
Compression
Index
Cc
Recompression
Index
Cr
Modified
Secondary
Compression
Index
Cαε
OCR Water
content
(%)
Initial
Void
Ratio
eo
(ft) (pcf) (psf) (psf)
4 2 118 - 0.25 0.02 0.004 5 40 1.06
3 14 120 311,040 - - - - - -
2 22 121 - 0.20 0.025 0.0045 1.5 45 1.2
1 55 120 531,560 - - - - - -

5.3 Federal Cell Loading and Geometry
For this calculation package, the settlement evaluation is based on the geometry presented in Table
1. For simplification the load was calculated as the maximum height (52.5 feet) of fill with an
average unit weight of 120 pcf. The loading shape was approximated with a rectangular loading
shape for the purposes of settlement analysis. This is considered representative of the average unit
weight of CLSM, the waste, and the various cover and liner materials. This results in a load over
the foundational soils of approximately 6,300 psf applied at the base of the Federal Cell.
A stress distribution model was developed to assess elastic and consolidation settlement. The
change in stress () is due to the Federal Cell height above the ground surface approximated to
be 6,300 psf. The change in stress in the underlying soils is calculated as the difference between
the existing overburden stress and the overburden pressure due to the Federal Cell. The distribution
of the total stress with depth assumes that the Federal Cell is an infinite embankment. The increase
in stress at depth ((z)) is equal to the change in stress at the surface () distributed over an
effective base area that increases with each depth interval below the surface, this is determined
with the following equations:
(z) = ( * Areabase)/Areaeffective
Areaeffective = (B +z)*(L+z) and
B = Base width of the cell (ft)

Page 21 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

L = Base length of the cell (ft)
z = interval depth below ground surface (ft)
The change in stress within the geologic units was evaluated for each 1-foot interval bgs. The stress
distribution calculations are presented in the settlement analysis calculations presented in
Attachment D.
The magnitude of loading estimated here are the average loading beneath the top deck portion of
the embankment where the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease
linearly over the top slopes to essentially to no loading at the toe of the embankment.
5.4 Elastic Settlement (Immediate) of the Sand-Like Units (1 and 3)
Because of the coarse-grained nature of sand-like units (Units 1 and 3), the settlement of these
layers is anticipated to be primarily the result of elastic or immediate settlement. To evaluate the
potential effects of elastic settlement of the sand units, the units are assumed to behave as an elastic
and homogeneous medium. The foundation settlement is calculated using the Elastic Settlement
Equation, which is:

𝑍∆𝜎
𝑀 𝐻
where:
Ze = elastic settlement of soil layer, ft;
Ho = initial thickness of soil layer, ft;
Δchange in stress, psf (discussed in Section 5.3); and
Ms = constrained modulus of soil, lb/ft2 (provided in Table 9, discussed in Section 5.3).

The change in stress at each 1-foot interval in Units 1 and 3 and the corresponding constrained
modulus were then used to calculate the elastic settlement with the equation presented above for
each layer interval. The results of each interval where then summated to a cumulative estimate for
elastic settlement of Units 1 and 3. The elastic settlement for each unit is summarized in the Table
below and presented in Attachment D. The elastic settlements are expected to occur during
construction of the Federal Cell and be complete prior to cover construction. The elastic settlement
reported herein is therefore not expected to adversely impact the long-term stability of the cover
and will likely not need to be considered or accounted for during cover construction.

Page 22 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 11: Foundation Soil Elastic Settlement
Unit Material Description Estimated Elastic
Settlement (inches)
3 Upper Silty Sand 3
1 Deeper Silty Sand with CL/ML
lens 8

5.5 Primary Consolidation
Because of the fine-grained nature of Units 2 & 4, the settlement of these layers is anticipated to
be a result of consolidation. The subsurface stratigraphy is discussed in Section 3.2 above with
the material properties summarized in Table 10. To calculate the consolidation settlement (Sc),
Units 2 and 4 were broken into 1-foot thick intervals. The total consolidation settlement within
each unit was the summation of the consolidation settlement in the individual 1-foot thick layers.
Based on the consolidation lab data discussed in Section 5.2, the soils are likely overconsolidated.
The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) for Units 2 and 4 are presented in Table 10. The equation for
consolidation settlement for overconsolidated soil is as follows:

𝑆𝐶
1 𝑒 𝐻 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝜎′
𝜎′ 𝐶
1 𝑒 𝐻 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝜎′ 𝛥𝜎
𝜎′

where,
eo = See Table 10 initial void ratio
H = 1 thickness of the compressible layer interval (ft)
Cc = See Table 10 compression index
Cr = See Table 10 recompression index
OCR = See Table 10 overconsolidation ratio
’p = OCR *’vo maximum past pressure (psf)
’vo = varies initial vertical effective stress (psf). Groundwater was assumed at a
depth of 25 feet below the ground surface (existing level)

Page 23 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 = varies change in stress due to overburden loading (psf) (See Section 5.3
for discussion and Attachment C for stress distribution
calculations)
Calculation of primary consolidation settlement of Units 2 and 4 is provided in Attachment D and
summarized in Table 12 below.
5.6 Secondary Compression
Secondary compression is typically observed after primary settlement is substantially complete.
For the purpose of calculations, this is often assumed as the time at which the material reaches
95% degree of consolidation. As discussed earlier, because the waste embankment placement takes
place relatively slowly, the primary consolidation is expected to be substantially complete as the
filling is complete and by the time cover materials are placed. With this assumption and using the
secondary compression parameter presented in Table 10, secondary compression during the
compliance period of 10,000 years was estimated through the following relationship:

𝑆𝑠 Cαε ∗ 𝐻100
𝑡2
𝑡1

Where
Ss time dependent secondary settlement occurring between t1 and t2
Cαε = See Table 9 modified secondary compression index
H100 = varies total thickness of compressible layers at the end of primary
consolidation (for each 1-foot interval in Units 2 and 4)
t1 = 1-year time between the placement of last significant waste in the cell and
cover construction (assumed to be 1 year based on review of
previous analyses and conservative assumptions regarding the pace
of construction)
t2 = 10,000 years time for which secondary settlements are estimated for (compliance
period of 10,000 years)

Summation of the secondary compression of each 1-foot interval of Units 2 and 4 was performed
to estimate the cumulative secondary compression of each unit. The calculations for secondary
compression are presented in Attachment D and summarized in Table 12 below.

Page 24 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 12: Foundation Soil Consolidation and Secondary Compression Settlement
Unit Material Description
Estimated Primary
Consolidation
Settlement (inches)
Estimated Secondary
Compression
Settlement (inches)
4 Upper CL-ML 3 <1
2 Deeper CL-ML 9 5

5.7 Consequences of Settlement
Based on our understanding of the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the proposed Federal Cell and
review of other adjacent cell studies (AMEC, 2005 & 2011), there are two principal geologic units
(Units 2 and 4) which may be subject to long-term settlements. These long-term settlements
estimated in this calculation package are principally a result of consolidation settlements of fine-
grained soils. The upper sand unit (Unit 3) and lowermost sequence of sands with thin lifts of
clays and silts (Unit 1) are not anticipated to impact long-term settlements. The elastic
settlements of those layers were reported in this package to provide a complete picture of the total
estimated settlement in the foundational soils of the proposed Federal Cell. It is the primary
consolidation and secondary compression settlements, however, that should be considered during
design and construction of the cell cover. Based on the results presented in Table 12, 12 inches
of primary consolidation settlement and 6 inches of secondary compression settlement may
result from construction of the Federal Cell. Considering the loading rate, the primary
consolidation settlement will likely occur simultaneously during waste placement and will be
substantially complete by the time the waste reaches its final elevation. We assumed 1 year after
completion of waste placement for completion of primary consolidation, as a conservative estimate
discussed previously. Secondary compression settlements which are relatively small in magnitude,
however, should be considered in cover design to ensure proper drainage is achieved because these
settlements will occur after the cover construction. The analyses assumed a secondary compression
time period of 10,000 years per compliance period requirements. A conservative assumption of
zero secondary compression at the edge of the cell and the maximum magnitude of 6 inches
at the center would result in an average settlement gradient of 6 inches over approximately
600 feet as 0.1 %. Therefore, the current design gradient of 2.4% maybe reduced to 2.3% in an
average sense which is considered negligible.
The magnitude of settlements estimated here are for the top deck portion of the embankment where
the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease linearly over the top

Page 25 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

slopes to essentially no settlement at the toe of the embankment. Therefore, settlement of the
foundational soils as a result of construction of the Federal Cell are not expected to adversely
impact the adjacent cells.
Settlement plate instrumentation may be used during cell construction to monitor consolidation
settlements, project substantial completion of consolidation settlements, and confirm design
assumptions prior to construction of the cover. These results may be useful for future waste cell
designs and construction. Overbuilding the cover and performing inspections and routine
maintenance over the monitoring period may help to mitigate the effects of long-term settlement.
6. LIQUEFACTION
Based on our understanding of the Technical Report (DWMRC, 2021), we understand the 10,000-
year compliance period for the proposed Federal Cell presents a need for conservative approaches
to analyzing the geotechnical stability mechanisms. The following sections summarize the
liquefaction analyses performed for the proposed Federal Cell that support this need. The analyses
presented are based on an extreme groundwater level rise resulting in a groundwater elevation
equal to the current existing ground surface (a 25 feet groundwater rise event).
6.1 Previous Analyses
A groundwater level of 26 feet bgs was used in previous liquefaction analyses for the Clive Facility
(AMEC 2005, 2011, and 2012). Therefore, the upper sand Unit 3 was not considered during their
liquefaction triggering analysis. Previous calculations indicated that liquefaction of the saturated
soil layers below the site (Units 1 and 2 at the time) was not a design issue for the adjacent waste
cells. For the seismic design event analyzed, majority of the soils in the upper 30 to 60 feet of the
subsurface, Unit 2, consist of cohesive deposits, which have a low probability of liquefaction due
to their high clay content. It was also found that the interbedded cohesionless silt and silty sand
deposits in Unit 1 would be also unlikely to liquefy due to their relatively high density. Geosyntec
generally agrees with this prediction for Unit 1 and considers it applicable to the Federal
Cell Unit 1 soils, however consideration for the upper sand Unit 3 was included in the current
analysis to reflect the groundwater level rise condition that would saturate the cohesionless soils.
6.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site-specific seismic design parameters such as PGA and Mw required for estimating
liquefaction triggering were based on the referenced seismic hazard analysis that justified
DWMRC’s 2012 license action and as discussed in Section 3.4, and are as follows:

Page 26 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 PGA = 0.24g
 Mw = 7.3
6.3 Liquefaction of Sand-Like Soils
The liquefaction triggering analysis was performed following the procedures outlined in Idriss and
Boulanger (2008) for the sand-like soils in Unit 3. Sand-like soils are referred to soils which
primarily consist of coarse-grained particles more than 50 percent by weight or very low plasticity
fine-grained soils (i.e., low plasticity silts). The soils classified as clay were not considered
susceptible to liquefaction and their evaluation is discussed in following section.
Boring logs for GW-36 through GW-38 (Bingham, 1992) which were excavated with a hollow-
stem auger (HSA) and extended to depths of 30 feet bgs into proposed Federal Cell area limits
were used to complete the analysis (logs are provided in Attachment A). Due to the limitations of
HSA drilling methods in keeping the drilled hole stable for drilling at or below groundwater level,
SPT blow counts recorded at or below groundwater do not provide a meaningful representation of
the subsurface soil density. Therefore, the liquefaction triggering analysis herein only presents
results for soils with SPT blow-counts above the groundwater readings; approximately 18 to 20
feet bgs. Fines content results were not available for Unit 3 samples collected from GW-36 through
GW-38. The fines content was therefore assumed to represent a silty sand with the lower bound
fines content of 15%.
Detailed calculations for the liquefaction triggering analysis are presented in Attachment E.
Results indicate that sand-like soils within the upper 20 feet below ground surface are not
anticipated to liquefy under the design seismic loading with the exception of a thin layer between
14 and 16 feet bgs encountered in GW-38 that resulted in a FS greater than 1.0 but less than 1.1,
which indicates there is potential for localized liquefaction to occur in this layer. The potential for
seismic settlement in this layer is less than ½ an inch and localized to the location of GW-38
(Figure 1). Considering the dense nature of the sands in Unit 3, localized liquefaction will likely
induce a dilative behavior and not adversely impact the strength of the sands. Therefore, these
affects are not anticipated to undermine the stable conditions of the proposed Federal Cell.
6.4 Cyclic Softening of Clay-Like Soils
Cyclic softening is a phenomenon where fine-grained soils do not undergo liquefaction, but
experience reduction in strength and stiffness caused by cyclic deformations due to increase in
pore pressures during seismic shaking. Previous analysis concluded that cyclic softening is highly

Page 27 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

unlikely, presenting a very low related risk of cyclic softening (of Units 2 and 4 clay-like soils)
(AMEC, 2012). Considering that most clays in upper Unit 4 will be removed as part of construction
of the proposed Federal Cell and given the stiff nature of Unit 2 clays, Geosyntec generally agrees
with this conclusion from the DWMRC’s prior licensing decisions. Geosyntec has evaluated the
global stability of the Federal Cell for a post-earthquake event that results in 50% strength
reduction of all clay-like soils, clay-liner included representing a conservative and less likely
strength reduction scenario. The results of this stability condition are discussed in Section 4.11.
Results indicated that even a strength reduction of 50% in the clay-like soils and liner will still
yield a stable condition post-earthquake.
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Global Static, Seismic Slope Stability and Deformation
Based on the results of Geosyntec’s slope stability analyses, the design of the proposed Federal
Cell will remain stable for global static short-term, long-term, seismic, and post-earthquake
conditions presented in this package. Results are presented in Attachment B. Based on the results
of the seismic deformation analysis, the design of the proposed Federal Cell slopes and cover will
not experience significant seismic induced deformations (<5 mm). Results are presented in
Attachment C.
7.2 Settlement
Based on the results of the settlement analyses, the current load of the proposed Federal Cell may
result in up to 11-inches of elastic settlement of sand-like soils, 12-inches of primary consolidation
of clay-like soils, and 6-inches of secondary compression settlement of clay-like soils. Elastic
settlement and primary consolidation settlement presented in this package should be complete
within one year after the embankment waste placement (within the required settlement monitoring
period) and is not interfere with the post-construction performance of the cover. The 6-inches of
secondary compression settlement of clay-like foundation soils should occur over a compliance
period of 10,000 years and are not projected to impact the long-term performance of the cover and
embankment. The magnitude of settlements estimated here are for the top deck portion of the
embankment where the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease
linearly over the top slopes to essentially no settlement at the toe of the embankment. Therefore,
settlement of the foundational soils as a result of construction of the Federal Cell are not expected
to adversely impact the adjacent cells. Results are presented in Attachment D.

Page 28 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

7.3 Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening
Based on the results of liquefaction triggering analyses and seismically-induced cyclic softening,
these hazards are not projected to undermine the stable condition of the proposed Federal Cell.
Seismically-induced settlements of the sand-like soils are negligible (<1 inch.) Cyclic softening of
the clay-like soils is highly unlikely to occur as a result of the design seismic event (0.24g PGA
and 7.3 Mw). While extremely unlikely, a 50% strength degradation of the clay-like soils would
still yield a stable slope condition post-earthquake. Results of the sand-like soils liquefaction
analysis are presented in Attachment E and the post-earthquake softened clay stability analyses are
provided in Attachment B (Figure B-9 and B-10).

Page 29 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

8. REFERENCES
ASTM International.
AMEC (2005). Combined Embankment Study for Class A Waste Embankment, Clive, Utah,
December 2005.
AMEC (2011). Geotechnical Update Report for Class A Waste Embankment, Clive, Utah,
February 2011.
AMEC (2012). Seismic Hazard Evaluation/Seismic Stability Analysis Update for Clive Facility,
Clive, Utah, April 2012.
Bingham Environmental (1992). Hydrogeologic Report Part 1 & 2 for Clive Facility, Clive, Utah,
July 1992.
Bingham Environmental (1992). Hydrogeologic Report Addendum 1 for Clive Facility, Clive,
Utah, June 1992.
Bingham Environmental (1992). Hydrogeologic Report Addendum 2 for Clive Facility, Clive,
Utah, July 1992.
Division of Waste Management and Radioactive Control (DWMRC) (2021). Technical Report for
Performance Objective R313-25-23 Stability of the Disposal Site after Closure, Federal Cell,
Clive, Utah.
EnergySolutions (2020). Drawings 14004 C01-05 for Federal Waste Cell, Clive Facility, Utah.
GEO-STUDIO International, Ltd. (2019). “SLOPE/W,” version 10.2.0.19483, Calgary, Canada.
Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G. (1984). Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient
Method. Paper GL-84-13, Geotechnical Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, US
Corps of Engineers.
Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W., [2008], Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Monograph 12.
Lee and Kim. (2014). Flowable Backfill Materials from Bottom Ash for Underground Pipeline.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5453207/

Page 30 of 30

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B.Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) (2015). Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model v1.4,
November 2015.
Neptune (2015). Radioactive Waste Inventory for Clive DU PA Model v1.4, November 2015.
Makdisi, F.I., and H.B. Seed [1978] “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment
Earthquake-Induced Deformation," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT7, 1978, pp. 849-867.
Stantec (2020). Phase 1 Basal Depth Aquifer Study for Clive Facility, Clive, Utah, September
2020.
Seismicmaps.org
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003). Engineering and Design Slope Stability,
Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1902, October 2003.
Qian, et al. (2002). Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction.

FIGURES

SITE LAYOUT AND EXISTING EXPLORATIONS
FEDERAL CELL AT CLIVE FACILITY
CLIVE, UTAH
FIGURE NO. 1
PROJECT NO. SLC1025
DATE: MARCH 2021
Notes: 
1. Base image from the Hydrogeologic Report (Bingham, 
1992)
2. Other explorations are known to exist across Section 32 of
the Clive Facility. Explorations shown here were used for 
the Federal Cell geotechnical engineering evaluations.
GW –
(Bingham Enviro, 1992)
SC –
(D&M, 1984)
SC‐7 SC‐8
GW‐36
GW‐37
GW‐38
SC‐1
SC‐10
B‐2
B –
(AMEC, 2005)
GW‐18
GW‐17A
GW‐16
CPT‐6
CPT‐2
CPT‐1
CPT‐5
CPT‐3
CPT‐4
B‐1
CPT –
(AMEC, 2005)

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B

2.7
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Unit 2 Adjacent Road Short Term
Project No.SLC1025
Short Term Undrained GW @ Current Conditions Figure

B-1
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit
Weight(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 121 1,500 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 34 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
2.6
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Unit 2 Adjacent 11e Short Term
Project No.SLC1025
Short Term Undrained GW @ Current Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit
Weight(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 121 1,500 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 34 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
Figure
B-2
3.4
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
Distance
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Clay Liner Adjacent Road
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Current Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap)Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Figure

B-3
3.4
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
Distance
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Long Term Drained
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
Figure

B-4
3.3
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Clay Liner Adjacent 11e
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Current Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap)Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Figure
B-5
3.3
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/19/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Long Term Drained
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
Figure
B-6
1.3
Distance (ft)
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Distance
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Seismic
Project No.SLC1025
Pseudostatic Undrained GW @ Rise Conditions Figure

B-7
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 118 1,000 1
1.3
Distance (ft)
750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Distance
750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Seismic
Project No.SLC1025
Figure

B-8
Pseudostatic Undrained GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 118 1,000 1
1.8
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
Distance
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Softened
Project No.SLC1025
Undrained Clay Like Soils GW @ Rise Conditions (Cyclic Softening)
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Clay Liner Undrained Cyclic
Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 123 500 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface
Layer
Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
Figure
B-9
1.6
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Softened
Project No.SLC1025
Undrained Clay Like Soils GW @ Rise Conditions (Cyclic Softening)
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Figure
B-10
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Clay Liner Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 123 500 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1

ATTACHMENT C

SLC1025
Earthquake Deformation AnalysisMakdisi & Seed Simplified Method
Case/Description ky ümax y (ft) H (ft) y/H kmax/ümax kmax ky/kmax Deformation
(cm)
Deformation
(mm)
Allowable
Deformation
(mm)
FS 1 Critical Section Failure Through Unit 4, entire slope face (y/h =1), adjacent 11(e) 0.180 0.580 52.0 52.0 1.0 0.34 0.20 0.91 0.4 4 150-300
Mw:7.3
PHGA (g):0.24 -
-
umax= 0.58
Makdisi and Seed - deformation analysis md

ATTACHMENT D

Site:CLIVE FEDERAL CELL Project No.:SLC1025
Location:CLIVE UTAH
Client:ES Date:17‐Mar‐21
Prepared by:M.Downing Reviewed by:B.Baturay
Theory
Total settlement made up of three (3) components:
Total Settlement st = Immediate Settlement (si) + Primary Consolidation (sc) + Secondary Settlement (ss)
Primary Consolidation sc
S = Cr Ho(1+eo) log['c/'vo] + Cc Ho1+eo log[('vo + v)/'c]
where Cr =recompression index
Cc = compression index
Ho = initial soil layer thickness'c = effective preconsolidation pressure = OCR 'vo    'vo = initial effective vertical stressv = change in vertical effective stress
eo=initial void ratio
Secondary Settlement ss
ss = C H100 log(t2/t1)
where C = secondary compression index
Ho = thickness of compressible layer at end of primary consolidation
t2 = time for which secondary settlements are calculated (500 years for design life, assume settlement after that is minimul due to log scale projection of creep)
t1 = t100 for primary consolidation - 1 year - estimated by previous analyses of Unit 2 and 4 clay layers (AMEC)
Elastic (Immediate)Ze=Δσ/Ms *Ho
wher Z =elastic settlement of soil layer
Ho= initial thickness of soil layer
Δσ= change in stress in layerMs = constrained modulus of soil estimated with E and v of the insitu soil
CALCULATIONS
Height of Waste and Cover Materials=52.5ft at the tallest point, including coverNew Load for Foundation Average Unit Weight of Cover and Waste=120.0pcf
width B v from Loading =6300.0psf
Depth (FT BGS)B =1225.0ft Based on Cell Limits v Unit 4 L =1920.0ft
CL/ML 2 Unit 4 Unit Weight 118.0pcf
Unit 3 Unit 3 Unit Weight 120.0pcf
SM 16 Unit 2 Unit Weight 121.0pcf
Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit Weight 120.0pcf
CL/ML Unit weight of water 62.4pcf
38 Depth to Water =18.0ft gw @ 25' below current grade, approximately 7 feet of upper material to be removed = 16 feet bgs for modeling
Unit 1
SM Unit 4 Cc =0.250Unit 4 eo =1.1 Unit 3 Ms =311,040
Unit 4 Cr =0.02Unit 2 eo =1.2 Unit 1 Ms=531556
100 Unit 4 Cαε =0.004Unit 4 OCR =5
t1 (t100 for primary
consolidation)1
Unit 2 OCR =1.5
 (comp ance 
period of 10,000 
years f)10000
Unit 2 Cc= 0.2
Unit 2 Cr =0.025Unit 2 Cαε =0.00450
Depth (ft)
Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effective Mat 
Area
(sf)
v (psf)
'vo +v (psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
0.0 6300.0
1.0 0.5 59.0 59.0 2353572.8 6295.8 6354.8 5.0 295.0 1.0 no 0.160 0.840 0.013 0.173
2.0 1.5 177.0 177.0 2356719.8 6287.4 6464.4 5.0 885.0 1.0 no 0.104 0.896 0.014 0.118
3.0 2.5 297.0 297.0 2359868.8 6279.0 6576.0 1.0 0.020
4.0 3.5 417.0 417.0 2363019.8 6270.6 6687.6 1.0 0.020
5.0 4.5 537.0 537.0 2366172.8 6262.3 6799.3 1.0 0.020
6.0 5.5 657.0 657.0 2369327.8 6253.9 6910.9 1.0 0.020
7.0 6.5 777.0 777.0 2372484.8 6245.6 7022.6 1.0 0.020
8.0 7.5 897.0 897.0 2375643.8 6237.3 7134.3 1.0 0.020
9.0 8.5 1017.0 1017.0 2378804.8 6229.0 7246.0 1.0 0.020
10.0 9.5 1137.0 1137.0 2381967.8 6220.7 7357.7 1.0 0.020
11.0 10.5 1257.0 1257.0 2385132.8 6212.5 7469.5 1.0 0.020
12.0 11.5 1377.0 1377.0 2388299.8 6204.2 7581.2 1.0 0.020
13.0 12.5 1497.0 1497.0 2391468.8 6196.0 7693.0 1.0 0.020
14.0 13.5 1617.0 1617.0 2394639.8 6187.8 7804.8 1.0 0.020
15.0 14.5 1737.0 1737.0 2397812.8 6179.6 7916.6 1.0 0.020
16.0 15.5 1857.0 1857.0 2400987.8 6171.5 8028.5 1.0 0.020
17.0 16.5 1978.0 1978.0 2404164.8 6163.3 8141.3 1.5 2967.0 1.0 no 0.042 0.958 0.017 0.05918.0 17.5 2099.0 2099.0 2407343.8 6155.2 8254.2 1.5 3148.5 1.0 no 0.040 0.960 0.017 0.05719.0 18.5 2220.0 31.2 2188.8 2410524.8 6147.0 8335.8 1.5 3283.2 1.0 no 0.039 0.961 0.017 0.056
20.0 19.5 2341.0 93.6 2247.4 2413707.8 6138.9 8386.3 1.5 3371.1 1.0 no 0.038 0.962 0.017 0.05521.0 20.5 2462.0 156.0 2306.0 2416892.8 6130.8 8436.8 1.5 3459.0 1.0 no 0.037 0.963 0.017 0.055
22.0 21.5 2583.0 218.4 2364.6 2420079.8 6122.8 8487.4 1.5 3546.9 1.0 no 0.036 0.964 0.017 0.05423.0 22.5 2704.0 280.8 2423.2 2423268.8 6114.7 8537.9 1.5 3634.8 1.0 no 0.036 0.964 0.017 0.05324.0 23.5 2825.0 343.2 2481.8 2426459.8 6106.7 8588.5 1.5 3722.7 1.0 no 0.035 0.965 0.017 0.052
25.0 24.5 2946.0 405.6 2540.4 2429652.8 6098.6 8639.0 1.5 3810.6 1.0 no 0.034 0.966 0.017 0.05226.0 25.5 3067.0 468.0 2599.0 2432847.8 6090.6 8689.6 1.5 3898.5 1.0 no 0.034 0.966 0.017 0.051
27.0 26.5 3188.0 530.4 2657.6 2436044.8 6082.6 8740.2 1.5 3986.4 1.0 no 0.033 0.967 0.017 0.05028.0 27.5 3309.0 592.8 2716.2 2439243.8 6074.7 8790.9 1.5 4074.3 1.0 no 0.032 0.968 0.017 0.05029.0 28.5 3430.0 655.2 2774.8 2442444.8 6066.7 8841.5 1.5 4162.2 1.0 no 0.032 0.968 0.017 0.049
30.0 29.5 3551.0 717.6 2833.4 2445647.8 6058.8 8892.2 1.5 4250.1 1.0 no 0.031 0.969 0.017 0.04931.0 30.5 3672.0 780.0 2892.0 2448852.8 6050.8 8942.8 1.5 4338.0 1.0 no 0.031 0.969 0.017 0.048
32.0 31.5 3793.0 842.4 2950.6 2452059.8 6042.9 8993.5 1.5 4425.9 1.0 no 0.030 0.970 0.017 0.04733.0 32.5 3914.0 904.8 3009.2 2455268.8 6035.0 9044.2 1.5 4513.8 1.0 no 0.029 0.971 0.017 0.04734.0 33.5 4035.0 967.2 3067.8 2458479.8 6027.1 9094.9 1.5 4601.7 1.0 no 0.029 0.971 0.017 0.046
35.0 34.5 4156.0 1029.6 3126.4 2461692.8 6019.3 9145.7 1.5 4689.6 1.0 no 0.028 0.972 0.017 0.04636.0 35.5 4277.0 1092.0 3185.0 2464907.8 6011.4 9196.4 1.5 4777.5 1.0 no 0.028 0.972 0.017 0.045
37.0 36.5 4398.0 1154.4 3243.6 2468124.8 6003.6 9247.2 1.5 4865.4 1.0 no 0.027 0.973 0.018 0.04538.0 37.5 4519.0 1216.8 3302.2 2471343.8 5995.8 9298.0 1.5 4953.3 1.0 no 0.027 0.973 0.018 0.04439.0 38.5 4639.0 1279.2 3359.8 2474564.8 5988.0 9347.8 1.0 0.011
40.0 39.5 4759.0 1341.6 3417.4 2477787.8 5980.2 9397.6 1.0 0.01141.0 40.5 4879.0 1404.0 3475.0 2481012.8 5972.4 9447.4 1.0 0.011
42.0 41.5 4999.0 1466.4 3532.6 2484239.8 5964.6 9497.2 1.0 0.01143.0 42.5 5119.0 1528.8 3590.2 2487468.8 5956.9 9547.1 1.0 0.01144.0 43.5 5239.0 1591.2 3647.8 2490699.8 5949.2 9597.0 1.0 0.011
45.0 44.5 5359.0 1653.6 3705.4 2493932.8 5941.5 9646.9 1.0 0.01146.0 45.5 5479.0 1716.0 3763.0 2497167.8 5933.8 9696.8 1.0 0.011
47.0 46.5 5599.0 1778.4 3820.6 2500404.8 5926.1 9746.7 1.0 0.01148.0 47.5 5719.0 1840.8 3878.2 2503643.8 5918.4 9796.6 1.0 0.011
SETTLEMENT ANALYSES
Depth (ft)Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effective Mat 
Area
(sf)
v (psf)
'vo +v (psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
49.0 48.5 5839.0 1903.2 3935.8 2506884.8 5910.8 9846.6 1.0 0.011
50.0 49.5 5959.0 1965.6 3993.4 2510127.8 5903.1 9896.5 1.0 0.011
51.0 50.5 6079.0 2028.0 4051.0 2513372.8 5895.5 9946.5 1.0 0.01152.0 51.5 6199.0 2090.4 4108.6 2516619.8 5887.9 9996.5 1.0 0.011
53.0 52.5 6319.0 2152.8 4166.2 2519868.8 5880.3 10046.5 1.0 0.01154.0 53.5 6439.0 2215.2 4223.8 2523119.8 5872.7 10096.5 1.0 0.011
55.0 54.5 6559.0 2277.6 4281.4 2526372.8 5865.2 10146.6 1.0 0.011
56.0 55.5 6679.0 2340.0 4339.0 2529627.8 5857.6 10196.6 1.0 0.01157.0 56.5 6799.0 2402.4 4396.6 2532884.8 5850.1 10246.7 1.0 0.011
58.0 57.5 6919.0 2464.8 4454.2 2536143.8 5842.6 10296.8 1.0 0.01159.0 58.5 7039.0 2527.2 4511.8 2539404.8 5835.1 10346.9 1.0 0.011
60.0 59.5 7159.0 2589.6 4569.4 2542667.8 5827.6 10397.0 1.0 0.011
61.0 60.5 7279.0 2652.0 4627.0 2545932.8 5820.1 10447.1 1.0 0.01162.0 61.5 7399.0 2714.4 4684.6 2549199.8 5812.6 10497.2 1.0 0.011
63.0 62.5 7519.0 2776.8 4742.2 2552468.8 5805.2 10547.4 1.0 0.01164.0 63.5 7639.0 2839.2 4799.8 2555739.8 5797.8 10597.6 1.0 0.011
65.0 64.5 7759.0 2901.6 4857.4 2559012.8 5790.4 10647.8 1.0 0.011
66.0 65.5 7879.0 2964.0 4915.0 2562287.8 5783.0 10698.0 1.0 0.01167.0 66.5 7999.0 3026.4 4972.6 2565564.8 5775.6 10748.2 1.0 0.011
68.0 67.5 8119.0 3088.8 5030.2 2568843.8 5768.2 10798.4 1.0 0.01169.0 68.5 8239.0 3151.2 5087.8 2572124.8 5760.8 10848.6 1.0 0.011
70.0 69.5 8359.0 3213.6 5145.4 2575407.8 5753.5 10898.9 1.0 0.011
71.0 70.5 8479.0 3276.0 5203.0 2578692.8 5746.2 10949.2 1.0 0.01172.0 71.5 8599.0 3338.4 5260.6 2581979.8 5738.9 10999.5 1.0 0.011
73.0 72.5 8719.0 3400.8 5318.2 2585268.8 5731.6 11049.8 1.0 0.01174.0 73.5 8839.0 3463.2 5375.8 2588559.8 5724.3 11100.1 1.0 0.011
75.0 74.5 8959.0 3525.6 5433.4 2591852.8 5717.0 11150.4 1.0 0.011
76.0 75.5 9079.0 3588.0 5491.0 2595147.8 5709.7 11200.7 1.0 0.01177.0 76.5 9199.0 3650.4 5548.6 2598444.8 5702.5 11251.1 1.0 0.011
78.0 77.5 9319.0 3712.8 5606.2 2601743.8 5695.3 11301.5 1.0 0.01179.0 78.5 9439.0 3775.2 5663.8 2605044.8 5688.0 11351.8 1.0 0.011
80.0 79.5 9559.0 3837.6 5721.4 2608347.8 5680.8 11402.2 1.0 0.011
81.0 80.5 9679.0 3900.0 5779.0 2611652.8 5673.6 11452.6 1.0 0.01182.0 81.5 9799.0 3962.4 5836.6 2614959.8 5666.5 11503.1 1.0 0.011
83.0 82.5 9919.0 4024.8 5894.2 2618268.8 5659.3 11553.5 1.0 0.01184.0 83.5 10039.0 4087.2 5951.8 2621579.8 5652.2 11604.0 1.0 0.011
85.0 84.5 10159.0 4149.6 6009.4 2624892.8 5645.0 11654.4 1.0 0.011
86.0 85.5 10279.0 4212.0 6067.0 2628207.8 5637.9 11704.9 1.0 0.01187.0 86.5 10399.0 4274.4 6124.6 2631524.8 5630.8 11755.4 1.0 0.011
88.0 87.5 10519.0 4336.8 6182.2 2634843.8 5623.7 11805.9 1.0 0.01189.0 88.5 10639.0 4399.2 6239.8 2638164.8 5616.6 11856.4 1.0 0.011
90.0 89.5 10759.0 4461.6 6297.4 2641487.8 5609.6 11907.0 1.0 0.011
91.0 90.5 10879.0 4524.0 6355.0 2644812.8 5602.5 11957.5 1.0 0.01192.0 91.5 10999.0 4586.4 6412.6 2648139.8 5595.5 12008.1 1.0 0.011
93.0 92.5 11119.0 4648.8 6470.2 2651468.8 5588.4 12058.6 1.0 0.011

ATTACHMENT E

LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: SLC Federal Cell Clive Fa Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by:
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date: 3/11/2021
Boring: GW-36 Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (ground surface): 0.24 g
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 20.6
Depth Elevation Soil Unit
Weight
Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)
0 0.0
12.0 -12.0 118 Unit 4 Silty CLAY CL 108.0 SPT 72 9 1416 1416 667 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 9
14.0 -14.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 55 1656 1656 782 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 56
16.0 -16.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 61 1896 1896 898 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 62
18.0 -18.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 32 2136 2136 1013 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 33
Notes:
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3]amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] ``
[5]Estimated to result in Cenergy of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6]Crod accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7]Cenergy accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8]Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9]s accounts or t e e ect o t e ners n t e samp er a e ,
[10]CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11]m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12]CN=(Pa/σ'v)1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
23-Dec-91
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 1 GW-36
Boring: GW-36 (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
Fines
Content [11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
%m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC (N1)60CS-Sr FS γlim Fα γmax ΔHi εv Δsi Cum Settle
0.00
100.0 Est 0.477 1.21 10 5.5 16 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.115 1.100 0.16 0.277 5 15 0.59
15.0 Est 0.264 1.07 60 3.3 63 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.274 1 61 182.15
15.0 Est 0.264 1.03 64 3.3 67 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.272 1 65 183.97
15.0 Est 0.324 1.00 33 3.3 36 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.275 1.100 1.32 0.269 1 34 4.90
Settlement 0.00 ft
Settlement 0.0 in
[13](N1)60=N60*CN is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))2] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15](N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18]rd=exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19]Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20]K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21]M7.5,'vc s t e er ve corre at on etween an correcte penetrat on res stance quat on ,
[22]CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')rd(1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 170 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
23-Dec-91
Fines
Content
Method
Page 2 GW-36
LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: SLC Federal Cell Clive Fa Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by:
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date:
Boring: GW-37 Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (ground surface): 0.24 g
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 19.2
Depth Elevation Soil Unit
Weight
Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)
0 0.0
7.0 -7.0 118 Unit 4 Silty CLAY CL 108.0 SPT 72 11 826 826 389 0.75 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 10
10.0 -10.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 27 1186 1186 562 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 26
12.0 -12.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 25 1426 1426 677 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 24
14.0 -14.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 29 1666 1666 792 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 30
16.0 -16.0 120 CLAY lens CL 108.0 SPT 72 22 1906 1906 908 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 22
17.0 -17.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 30 2026 2026 965 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 31
Notes:
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3]amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] ``
[5]Estimated to result in Cenergy of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6]Crod accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7]Cenergy accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8]Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9]s accounts or t e e ect o t e ners n t e samp er a e ,
[10]CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11]m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12]CN=(Pa/σ'v)1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
23-Dec-91
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 3 GW-37
Boring: GW-37 (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
Fines
Content [11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
%m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC (N1)60CS-Sr FS γlim Fα γmax ΔHi εv Δsi Cum Settle
0.00
100.0 Est 0.437 1.51 15 5.5 20 -0.08 0.01 0.99 0.136 1.100 0.21 0.282 5 20 0.75 0.00
15.0 Est 0.332 1.21 31 3.3 35 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.257 1.100 1.04 0.278 1 32 3.73
15.0 Est 0.357 1.15 28 3.3 31 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.212 1.100 0.55 0.275 1 29 1.99
15.0 Est 0.328 1.08 32 3.3 35 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.266 1.100 1.17 0.273 1 33 4.29
100.0 Est 0.372 1.04 23 5.5 29 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.192 1.100 0.42 0.270 5 28 1.55
15.0 Est 0.334 1.01 31 3.3 34 -0.28 0.03 0.95 0.252 1.100 0.96 0.269 1 32 3.59
Settlement 0.00 ft
[13](N1)60=N60*CN is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)Settlement 0.0 in
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))2] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15](N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18]rd=exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19]Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20]K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21]M7.5,'vc s t e er ve corre at on etween an correcte penetrat on res stance quat on ,
[22]CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')rd(1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 170 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
23-Dec-91
Fines
Content
Method
Page 4 GW-37
LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: SLC Federal Cell Clive Fa Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by:
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date:
Boring: GW-38 Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (ground surface): 0.24 g
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 20.7
Depth Elevation Soil Unit
Weight
Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)
0 0.0
7.0 -7.0 118 Unit 4 Silty CLAY CL 108.0 SPT 72 15 826 826 389 0.75 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 14
10.0 -10.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 21 1186 1186 562 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 20
12.0 -12.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 63 1426 1426 677 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 60
14.0 -14.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 31 1666 1666 792 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 32
16.0 -16.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 20 1906 1906 908 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 20
18.0 -18.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 25 2146 2146 1023 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 26
Notes:
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3]amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] ``
[5]Estimated to result in Cenergy of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6]Crod accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7]Cenergy accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8]Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9]s accounts or t e e ect o t e ners n t e samp er a e ,
[10]CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11]m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12]CN=(Pa/σ'v)1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
24-Dec-91
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 5 GW-38
Boring: GW-38 (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
Fines
Content [11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
%m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC (N1)60CS-Sr FS γlim Fα γmax ΔHi εv Δsi Cum Settle
0.02
100.0 Est 0.399 1.46 20 5.5 25 -0.08 0.01 0.99 0.164 1.100 0.29 0.282 5 25 1.04 0.02
15.0 Est 0.375 1.24 25 3.3 28 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.188 1.100 0.40 0.278 1 26 1.43
15.0 Est 0.264 1.11 67 3.3 70 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.275 1 68 181.73
15.0 Est 0.315 1.08 34 3.3 37 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 1.91 0.273 1 35 7.02
15.0 Est 0.404 1.04 21 3.3 25 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.160 1.100 0.28 0.270 1 22 1.03 9.4% 0.26 3.2% 2.0 0.8% 0.02 -0.02
15.0 Est 0.373 0.99 25 3.3 29 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.190 1.100 0.41 0.268 1 26 1.53
Settlement 0.02 ft
[13](N1)60=N60*CN is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)Settlement 0.2 in
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))2] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15](N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18]rd=exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19]Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20]K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21]M7.5,'vc s t e er ve corre at on etween an correcte penetrat on res stance quat on ,
[22]CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')rd(1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 170 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
24-Dec-91
Fines
Content
Method
Page 6 GW-38
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page N-1 Appendix N April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX N

NEPTUNE EROSION ANALYSIS

(NEPTUNE, 2021)

NAC-0166_R0

Clive DU PA Model—Response
to DWMRC 1-28-2021
Comments
5 April 2021

Prepared by

NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1435 Garrison St, Suite 201, Lakewood, CO 80215

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 ii

1. Title: Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
2. Filename: Clive DU PA Model - Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments.docx
3. Description: Responses to UDEQ Letter “Technical Report,” dated January 28, 2021.
Name Date
4. Originator Kelly Crowell, Paul Duffy, and Lauren Foster 5 April 2021
5. Reviewer Paul Black and Sean McCandless 5 April 2021
6. Remarks

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 iii
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... iii
FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ v
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Revised Federal Cell Design .................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Embankment Footprint ..................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Top Slope Surface Layer Thickness ................................................................................. 8
2.3 Transition Zone and Side Slope Frost Protection Layer ................................................... 9
3.0 Results from the DU PA v1.4 Model ................................................................................... 10
4.0 UDEQ Comments and Responses ........................................................................................ 12
4.1 UDEQ Comment 1.1: Erosion Protection Using NUREG-1623 & NUREG/CR-
4620—Design of Erosion Protection for Long-term Stabilization ................................. 13
4.1.1 Comment 1.1 Response ............................................................................................. 13
4.1.1.1 Permissible Velocity Calculation ........................................................................ 13
4.1.1.2 SIBERIA Model of Revised Federal Cell Design ............................................... 16
4.2 UDEQ Comment 1.2: Use of SIBERIA and USLE to Model Federal Cell Erosion ...... 16
4.2.1 Comment 1.2 Response ............................................................................................. 17
4.3 UDEQ Comment 1.3: Hybrid Cover .............................................................................. 17
4.3.1 Comment 1.3 Response ............................................................................................. 17
4.4 UDEQ Comment 3: Resulting Infiltration ...................................................................... 18
4.4.1 Comment 3 Response ................................................................................................ 18
4.4.1.1 Cover Erosion ...................................................................................................... 18
4.4.1.2 Cover Naturalization ........................................................................................... 19
4.4.1.3 Erosion Implementation in DU PA v1.4 ............................................................. 19
4.4.1.4 Cover Naturalization Implementation in DU PA v1.4 ........................................ 21
5.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 22
6.0 Attachments .......................................................................................................................... 22
7.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 22

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 iv
FIGURES
Figure ES-1. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose. ..... 3

Figure 1. Revised (2021) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C01, rev 2). ...................... 7
Figure 2. Former (2020) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C-01, rev. 0). ..................... 8
Figure 3. Top Slope Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1). ...................................................... 9
Figure 4. Transition Zone (2021) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1). ................................. 9
Figure 5. Former Transition Zone (2020) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 0). .................. 10
Figure 6. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose. ......... 12

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CSM conceptual site model
DEQ (Utah) Department of Environmental Quality
DU depleted uranium
DWMRC Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
ET evapotranspiration
GWPL groundwater protection limits
LLRW low-level radioactive waste
MOP member of the public
NRC (United States) Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PA performance assessment
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SER Safety Evaluation Report
TEDE total effective dose equivalent
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 1
Executive Summary
The Clive depleted uranium (DU) performance assessment (PA) evaluates the range of likely
impacts of disposal of DU in a new Federal Cell to be located in the southwest corner of the
licensed area. The DU PA is created as a systems-level model using the GoldSim probabilistic
modeling platform and is currently at version 1.4. The DU PA v1.4 model and supporting
documentation have been evaluated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)
and their contractor, SC&A Inc., for a number of years since its initial publication in 2015
(Neptune 2015b).
The current round of questions (Utah DEQ 2021) ask that the “hybrid” cover design introduced
in the 2020 response to interrogatories (Neptune 2020b) be subject to additional verification. The
hybrid cover features an evapotranspiration (ET) cover system of native soils and vegetation on
the large top slope area; and rip rap armoring of the steeper side slope area. The ET cover has
been selected for its superior performance in minimizing infiltration of atmospheric precipitation
into the waste; while the rock armor cover has been selected for its improved assurance in
minimizing the potential for erosion of the steeper side slopes.
The concerns expressed in Utah DEQ (2021) could be distilled to a simple question: If one
engineers a pile of rocks and soil in Utah’s west desert, will that structure remain in place for
10,000 years or more? Natural forces such as erosion might be expected to have some effect on
the embankment. This response quantifies the likely behavior of these forces; and discusses how
that behavior has been accounted for within the DU PA v1.4 model.
To address these comments, additional erosion modeling of the full hybrid cover system has
been performed using the SIBERIA landscape evolution model, which provides three-
dimensional projections of the effects of sheet and gully erosion. As detailed below, this
modeling projects that the hybrid cover design will provide excellent resistance to erosion. The
DU PA v1.4 actually models greater levels of sheet and gully erosion than projected in the
current work. Accordingly, the disposal system remains within the bounds of previous analyses
that demonstrate acceptable embankment performance.
The Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4 (Neptune 2015b)
provides the following summary of DU PA v1.4 results for the quantitative compliance period of
10,000 years. Additional work preparing interrogatory and comment responses after creation of
version 1.4 has not changed the principal analysis and reported conclusions.
Compliance with the performance objectives for the inadvertent intruder dose of 500 mrem
in a year and for the MOP of 25 mrem in a year is clearly established for all three types of
potential future receptors. This indicates that for the disposal configuration where DU wastes
are placed below grade, doses are expected to remain well below applicable dose
thresholds…
Results are also available for the offsite (MOP) receptors. None of the 95th percentile dose
estimates for these receptors exceeds 1 mrem in a year, and all of the peak mean dose
estimates are at or below 0.1 mrem in a year.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 2
Table ES-1. Peak TEDE: statistical summary
peak TEDE (mrem in a yr) within 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent
For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, as specified in the facility’s permit (UWQB
2009), results are shown in Table ES-2. For all such radionuclides compliance with the
GWPLs is clearly demonstrated.

Table ES-2. Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr, compared to
GWPLs
peak activity concentration within 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB (2009) Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
Figure ES-1 displays Table ES-1 dose results graphically in context with the dose limit of 25
mrem/year for members of the public under R313-25-20. Typical background radiation dose is
also provided on this figure as a point of reference. DU PA v1.4 results are 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude below the dose limit.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 3

Figure ES-1. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose.
As detailed in Section 4.4.1.3 below, DU PA v1.4 overestimates the volume, depth, and impact
of gully erosion. Based on SIBERIA modeling of the clay borrow pit at Clive, DU PA v1.4
calculates how deep the gullies excavate and a volume of gully material is eroded from the
“waste” layers1 when the full cover thickness is penetrated. For the deterministic run, the deepest
gullies reach the top 3 out of 27 waste layers (as a fraction of the overall surface area); and the
averaged activity concentration from the waste layers in gullies is used in the dose calculations.
Results of the deterministic model with gullies turned on/off show no difference in the doses to
onsite receptors, but they do show small differences in uranium hazard. The uranium hazard
quotients are very small (~1e-15); compared with a target threshold of 1.
In comparison, SIBERIA modeling of the hybrid cover design (Neptune 2021a) projects that the
deepest gullies do not penetrate the full cover profile into the waste layers. Accordingly, DU PA
v1.4 overstates likely impacts of erosion on embankment performance.

1 It is acknowledged that the embankment layers between DU and the cover will not be permitted to contain Class A
LLRW until a specific performance assessment authorizing such is approved. Modeled as clean soil fill initially in
DU PA v1.4, this material is discussed in supporting documentation as “waste” since it is expected to accumulate
some activity from the DU waste placed at the cell floor via radon emanation/decay and diffusion.
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
Mean Median 95th %ile
Do
s
e

(
m
r
e
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Ranch worker (DU PA v1.4)
Hunter (DU PA v1.4)
OHV enthusiast (DU PA v1.4)
Dose limit
Typical radiation dose in U.S.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 4
DU PA v1.4 demonstrates compliance with the dose and groundwater protection requirements of
Utah regulations relating to DU disposal. The interrogatory and response process has added to
the record supporting these conclusions but has not caused the quantitative model itself to require
revision. Accordingly, DU PA v1.4 remains the basis for demonstrating compliance of the
disposal facility.
Compliance with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a) is affirmed by DU PA v1.4, together with the supporting
documentation as supplemented by the interrogatory/response cycle.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 5
1.0 Introduction
Beginning in 2009, EnergySolutions contracted Neptune to create a probabilistic performance
assessment (PA) for the disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium (DU) at their Clive,
Utah low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility.
The initial model was submitted as version 1.0 on June 1, 2011 (Neptune 2011) and was revised
to version 1.2 on June 5, 2014 (Neptune 2014). A Safety Evaluation Report (SER) based on
review of version 1.2 was issued by UDEQ in April 2015 (SC&A 2015).
On November 25, 2015, EnergySolutions submitted Radioactive Material License UT2300249:
Safety Evaluation Report for Condition 35.B Performance Assessment; Response to Issues
Raised in the April 2015 Draft Safety Evaluation Report (EnergySolutions 2015). This document
included version 1.4 of the DU PA (Neptune 2015b), prepared in response to open primary and
new interrogatories raised after development and Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control (DWMRC) review of version 1.0; included in Appendix C and Appendix B,
respectively, of the SER.
On May 11, 2017, UDEQ provided Amended and New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA
Modeling Report Version 1.4 Dated November 2015 (Utah DEQ 2017). This document contains
clarifications to the original interrogatories from DU PA version 1.0 that remained open,
clarifications to the interrogatories newly raised with version 1.2 and new interrogatories
introduced with version 1.4 of the DU PA.
On April 2, 2018, EnergySolutions submitted Radioactive Material License UT2300249:
Responses to Amended and New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA Modeling Report
Version 1.4 Dated November 2015 (EnergySolutions 2018). As suggested by UDEQ, this
document included seven topical reports organized consistently with the themes expressed in the
interrogatory package (Utah DEQ 2017).
On July 25, 2019, UDEQ provided Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment (DU PA); Clive
Facility; Model Version 1.4 Amended Interrogatories; Radioactive Materials License #2300249
(Utah DEQ 2019). This document contains amended interrogatories of open issues regarding
version 1.4 of the DU PA model, closes several interrogatories, and introduces two more new
interrogatories. Neptune responded to these interrogatories on April 24, 2020 (Neptune 2020b).
In the 2020 response to interrogatories, a new “hybrid” cover design was introduced. This cover
design incorporates an evapotranspiration cover on the top slope; and a rock armor cover on the
side slope.
On December 3, 2020, UDEQ provided “Comments on EnergySolutions Cover Design System
Described in the DU PA, Draft Federal Cell License Application” (Utah DEQ 2020). This letter
poses 12 technical questions relating to the hybrid cover design. Neptune is preparing a response
to those issues as a separate report (Neptune 2021c).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 6
Additional UDEQ comments were provided under separate cover “RE: Technical Report” dated
January 28, 2021 (Utah DEQ 2021). This second comment document includes concerns relating
to erosion and embankment stability, and is the subject of this response document.
Full text of each comment is quoted using blue text in Arial font, size 10.5 pt, and is indented to
visually distinguish the comment from the response. An example is shown below:
Sample format for quoting comment text.
Utah DEQ (2021) includes comments under three general headings: (1) surface drainage and
erosion protection; (2) geotechnical stability; and (3) infiltration. This response will address
items 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3; and Section 3. Item 1.4 indicated “No applicant response is expected
from this list at this time” and is assumed to be addressed by EnergySolutions under separate
cover.
Comments under Section 2 will be addressed by EnergySolutions under separate cover. Based on
prior assessments of stability for other, larger embankments at the Clive site (Neptune 2015e),
this report assumes that geotechnical stability of the Federal Cell will be affirmed by that work.
2.0 Revised Federal Cell Design
In the 2020 response to interrogatories, the Federal Cell cover design was revised to adopt a rock
armor cover for the side slopes (Neptune 2020b). The ET cover previously analyzed for the top
slopes is retained. The ET cover has been selected for its superior performance in minimizing
infiltration of atmospheric precipitation into the waste; while the rock armor cover has been
selected for its improved assurance in minimizing the potential for erosion of the steeper side
slopes.
The 2020 design has been further revised as discussed below. These revisions have been carried
through new and updated modeling as applicable. Updated drawings 14004-C01 through 14004-
C05 are included as Attachment 1.
2.1 Embankment Footprint
EnergySolutions has revised the embankment footprint in order to provide greater separation
between the Federal Cell and the 11e.(2) Cell to the east. The revised footprint is slightly
narrower east to west and slightly longer north to south than it was in prior drawings. The grade
of the top and side slope areas is unchanged; and the thickness of the cover layers are unchanged
from the drawings submitted previously.
The revised embankment footprint has slightly shorter top slope lengths; and a longer
embankment crest. Figure 1 shows the revised embankment footprint; Figure 2 shows the version
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 7
previously analyzed. Side slope lengths are unchanged. These changes result in a peak
embankment elevation at the crest that is one foot lower than that of the previous footprint2.
The current embankment footprint has been considered in SIBERIA-2D modeling performed to
address UDEQ comments.
The current embankment footprint has also been incorporated in HYDRUS-2D modeling of
erosion, with results presented under separate cover (Neptune 2021c).

Figure 1. Revised (2021) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C01, rev 2).

2 Embankment thickness is considered in DU PA v1.4 in the context of radon emanation. This is modeled as an
average thickness of material between the DU waste and the surface, calculated to be 39.7 feet. The revised
embankment footprint changes this dimension to be 39.6 feet.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 8

Figure 2. Former (2020) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C-01, rev. 0).
2.2 Top Slope Surface Layer Thickness
In the 2020 design change to utilize rip rap armoring on the side slopes, the top slope surface
layer thickness was increased from 6 inches to 12 inches. This change slightly increases the
storage capacity of the ET cover design. SIBERIA-2D evaluation of the full hybrid cover
includes this revision. Figure 3 provides the top slope layering.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 9

Figure 3. Top Slope Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1).
2.3 Transition Zone and Side Slope Frost Protection Layer
The transition zone revision from the ET cover top slope to the rip rap cover side slope has been
revised from that presented in the 2020 design. The revision moves the transition zone to the
shoulder of the embankment and reduces its width. These changes were made to reduce the
impact of increased infiltration through the rip rap portion of the cover. Figure 4 provides the
transition zone detail as currently modeled; Figure 5 displays the prior design.

Figure 4. Transition Zone (2021) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 10

Figure 5. Former Transition Zone (2020) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 0).
Concurrent with this change, the material used as the frost protection layer for the side slope has
been changed. The current design specifies this material to be the same bank run as used for the
frost protection layer on the top slope, where the 2020 design used native clay soils for the side
slope. This material was changed in order to ensure consistent drainage properties from the top
slope onto the side slope at this layer in the cover system. The change also improves
constructability of the transition zone.
SIBERIA-2D evaluation of the full hybrid cover includes these revisions.
3.0 Results from the DU PA v1.4 Model
Since initial submittal of DU PA v1.4 (Neptune 2015b), many technical issues have been
resolved relating to the probabilistic performance assessment (PA) model, through the
interrogatory/response process summarized in Section 1.0. Based on prior evaluations of the
potential for erosion, the DU PA v1.4 model assumes ongoing embankment stability throughout
the 10,000-year compliance period (Neptune 2015e). In this report, Neptune presents analyses of
the hybrid cover design performance in relation to this assumption. If the hybrid cover is
demonstrated to retain stability for the 10,000-year period of performance, then the results of DU
PA v1.4 can be considered to hold as well.
The Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4 (Neptune 2015b)
provides the following summary of DU PA v1.4 results for the quantitative compliance period of
10,000 years. Additional work preparing interrogatory and comment responses after creation of
version 1.4 (Neptune 2015b) has not changed the principal analysis and reported conclusions.
Compliance with the performance objectives for the inadvertent intruder dose of 500 mrem
in a year and for the MOP of 25 mrem in a year is clearly established for all three types of
potential future receptors. This indicates that for the disposal configuration where DU wastes
are placed below grade, doses are expected to remain well below applicable dose
thresholds…
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 11
Results are also available for the offsite (MOP) receptors. None of the 95th percentile dose
estimates for these receptors exceeds 1 mrem in a year, and all of the peak mean dose
estimates are at or below 0.1 mrem in a year.
Table ES-1. Peak TEDE: statistical summary
peak TEDE (mrem in a yr) within 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent
For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, as specified in the facility’s permit (UWQB
2009), results are shown in Table ES-2. For all such radionuclides compliance with the
GWPLs is clearly demonstrated.
Table ES-2. Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr, compared to
GWPLs
peak activity concentration within 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB (2009) Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.

Figure 6 displays Table ES-1 dose results graphically in context with the dose limit of
25 mrem/year for members of the public under R313-25-20. Typical background radiation dose
is also provided on this figure as a point of reference. DU PA v1.4 results are 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude below the dose limit.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 12

Figure 6. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose.
DU PA v1.4 demonstrates compliance with the dose and groundwater protection requirements of
Utah regulations relating to DU disposal. The interrogatory and response process has added to
the record supporting these conclusions but has not caused the quantitative model to require
revision. Accordingly, DU PA v1.4 remains the basis for demonstrating compliance of the
disposal facility.
Compliance with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a) is affirmed by DU PA v1.4, together with the supporting
documentation as supplemented by the interrogatory/response cycle.
Ultimately, the DU PA v1.4 evaluates an above-grade embankment located in a terminal desert
basin. Annual potential evapotranspiration in Utah’s west desert far exceeds precipitation, which
is quite low at an average of roughly 8 inches per year. There are five comparable embankments
for radioactive waste disposal in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Federal Cell, with
comparable dimensions and similar cover designs. Projections of ongoing stability for an
embankment in this context are not only reasonable, they are to be expected.
4.0 UDEQ Comments and Responses
Each comment is quoted in full followed by Neptune’s response.
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
Mean Median 95th %ile
Do
s
e

(
m
r
e
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Ranch worker (DU PA v1.4)
Hunter (DU PA v1.4)
OHV enthusiast (DU PA v1.4)
Dose limit
Typical radiation dose in U.S.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 13
4.1 UDEQ Comment 1.1: Erosion Protection Using NUREG-1623 &
NUREG/CR-4620—Design of Erosion Protection for Long-term
Stabilization
Questions on the potential for erosion were raised in Section 4.4.2 of the April 2015 DU PA SET
(SC&A 2015). The Division expressed concern that gullies will form and enhance radon diffusion,
deep infiltration, and contaminant transport. For this subject matter, interrogatories INT CR
R313-25-8(4)(a)-71/1; INT CR R313-25-25(4)-201/1 and INT CR R313-25-25(4)-205/1 have
been identified to track inquiries and responses regarding various aspects of erosion analysis. In
the latest status of interrogatory 71 (SC&A 2019), SC&A concluded “With the maximum
permissible velocities recommended by NRC and SCS, and the NAC-0108_R0 calculated flow
velocities, gullies can be expected to form. Because the permissible velocity assumptions are
less conservative than NRC recommendations, this interrogatory remains open.”
Within DU PA Final Report (NAC-0147_R), pg 23, 4/24/20) Neptune responded to interrogatory
201 that the erosion analysis using NUREG-1623 had been revised but Neptune appears to
continue to contend that the higher maximum permissible velocity should be satisfactory. This
may not be an appropriate response, particularly for the side slopes, for which an ET cover
system design has been replaced by a rock-armor cover system design. In an unpublished
document SC&A confirmed, “EnergySolutions agreed that the rainfall intensity had been
calculated incorrectly and provided revised calculations [in App. F]. The revised flow velocities for
the top and side slopes were 2.37 and 2.07 feet per second (ft/sec), respectively. Based on a
maximum permissible velocity of 2.5 ft/sec, EnergySolutions concluded that gullies would not
form in an ET cover. Since the ET cover design has been replaced, it appears to the Division that
parameters for the new hybrid cover design have not been accounted for and analyzed properly.”
SC&A has indicated to the Division that no similar calculations were provided for a riprap cover
or the new hybrid cover. In addition, SC&A points out that, work by other investigators (i.e., Smith
and Benson, 2016) has shown that deep gullies can form in riprap covers.
EnergySolutions/Neptune need to provide a quantitative as well as a mechanistic explanation for
the conflicting results and justify, in similar manner, why the hybrid cover design would be
effective for all or part of the compliance period.
The Division needs to restate that the DU PA modeling should rely on engineered barriers during
the initial 500 years or out to the specified service life as determined by barrier design with
adequate technical justification. As explained earlier, it is the Division’s understanding that the
DU PA needs to account for degradation resulting from erosion and discontinued functioning of
the engineered barriers after they have been in service for 500 years or more.
4.1.1 Comment 1.1 Response
This comment is addressed in two parts: (1) permissible velocity calculation for the side slopes;
and (2) SIBERIA modeling of the revised Federal Cell design.
4.1.1.1 Permissible Velocity Calculation
A permissible velocity calculation for the revised embankment geometry and hybrid cover
design is provided below. NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002) describes the permissible velocity method
of evaluating erosion potential of covers.
Note that the comment incorrectly assigns revised flow velocities for the Federal Cell in Neptune
(2018). The cited values of 2.37 and 2.07 ft/sec are associated in that document with the Class A
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 14
West Cell. Calculated flow velocities for the Federal Cell, with shorter top and side slope
dimensions, were 1.60 ft/sec for the top slope and 2.03 ft/sec for the side slope. Regardless, the
calculation is repeated for the current embankment geometry (Figure 1). Because the slopes
remain the same and the dimensions are only slightly different, the results are very similar to
those in Neptune (2018).
Slope Description
The Federal Cell is designed as a covered embankment with relatively steeper sloping sides
nearer the edges. The upper part of the embankment referred to as the top slope has a slope of 2.4
percent, while the side slope is steeper with a slope of 20 percent. The length of the side slope is
175 ft. Top slopes of the embankment have different lengths. The longest top slope length is
477.2 ft.
Flow Concentration
The peak flow unit discharge, Q (cubic feet per second per foot [cfs/ft]), is calculated using the
Rational Formula (NRC 2002):
𝑄=𝐹× 𝑐× 𝑖× 𝐴
where
F is flow concentration factor,
c is dimensionless runoff coefficient,
i is rainfall intensity (inches/hour [in/hr]), and
A is catchment area (acres).
A default value of 3 is recommended in NRC (2002) for the flow concentration factor, F.
A value for the runoff coefficient of 0.5 is recommended for a graveled surface in Table 4.6 of
NUREG 4620 (NRC 1986). NUREG 4620 does not include a runoff coefficient for riprap;
EnergySolutions (2012) rock cover calculations use a runoff coefficient of 0.8 based on an
example calculation in Appendix D of NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002). Accordingly, the value of 0.5
is used for the gravel-amended ET cover top slope and 0.8 is used for the riprap side slope.
The rainfall intensity used for the projection is 18.3 inches for the top slope and 19.8 inches for
the side slope of the Federal Cell. See the response to UDEQ Interrogatory 201 (Neptune 2018)
for a description of the method used to calculate these values.
The catchment area is the area of a 1-ft wide strip along the length of the slope. Using these
values, the peak flow unit discharge, Q, for the top slope and side slope are found to be 0.301
and 0.191 cfs/ft respectively.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 15
Flow Depth
The flow depth, y, is then calculated using the Manning equation for normal depth on a one-foot-
wide strip of the slope. This equation is given by NRC (2002) as
𝑦!"#=𝑄𝑛
*1.486 𝑆$%#23
where
y is flow depth (ft),
n is Manning n, and
S is slope (ft/ft).
A value of 0.05 is used for the Manning’s n based on the calculation method of Bray for natural
channels described in Coon (1998).
Using the previously calculated values for Q and the Manning’s n, flow depths are calculated to
be 0.195 ft for the top slope and 0.078 ft for the side slope.
Maximum Permissible Velocity
A value of 5.0 ft/s is chosen as the maximum permissible velocity (MPV) based on the
characteristics of the channel. This is the value listed for gravel in Table CH13-T103 of Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB 2006) and in Table 4.7 of Nelson et al. (1986). Additional
justification for this value is provided in Neptune (2020b).
The NRC (2002) method requires that the MPV be adjusted to account for the flow depth.
Correction factors developed by Chow are provided in Appendix A of NRC (2002). The
correction factor for flows less than 0.25 ft in depth is 0.5. The adjusted MPV values for both the
top slope and the side slope are adjusted to 2.5 ft/s.
Actual Flow Velocity
The actual flow velocity is determined by dividing the discharge by the flow depth:
𝑉&=𝑄𝑦5
Using this equation, the top slope and side slope velocities are 1.54 ft/s and 2.45 ft/s.
These velocities for the top slope and side slope do not exceed the adjusted MPV, so the design
is acceptable. These empirical calculations are confirmed by RHEM and SIBERIA modeling of
the hybrid cover design, as discussed in Section 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.3, respectively.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 16
4.1.1.2 SIBERIA Model of Revised Federal Cell Design
Neptune (2021b) summarizes a SIBERIA model of the full hybrid cover system, prepared to
evaluate landform evolution of the Federal Cell for 10,000 years. This modeling projects that the
hybrid cover design will provide excellent resistance to erosion. The DU PA v1.4 actually
models greater levels of sheet and gully erosion than projected in the current work, as discussed
in more detail in Section 4.4.1.
4.2 UDEQ Comment 1.2: Use of SIBERIA and USLE to Model Federal
Cell Erosion
Questions on the application of SIBERIA and USLE as intended for modeling erosion of the
embankment cover have been outstanding for some time. For this subject matter the following
seven interrogatories: INT CR R313-25-7(2)-191/1; INT CR R313-25-25(4)-197/1; INT CR R313-
25-25(4)-198/1; INT CR R313-25-25(4)-199/1; INT CR R313-25-25(4)-200/1; INT CR R313-25-
25(4)-202/1; and INT CR R313-25-25(4)-205/1 have been identified to track inquiries and
responses regarding various aspects of applying and utilizing SIBERIA and USLE to model land
form evolution.
In the latest status of interrogatories (SC&A 2019), among many issues, SC&A pointed out that
use of USLE to model cover erosion does not consider effects of gully erosion and may be
inadequate to analyze a dual-slope erosion line. Regarding SIBERIA, SC&A comments that the
“Use of the borrow pit at Clive to model land form evolution with SIBERIA is flawed because no
attempt is made to rationalize the borrow pit parameters with those of the Federal Cell.
Additionally, the description of the borrow pit modeling in Appendix 10 to DU PA v1.4 is
confusing and lacking in detail.” Within the discussion for interrogatory 199 it was surmised that
the SIBERIA modeling may add “little to the ability to characterize the erosion behavior of the
Federal Cell. Six of the seven interrogatories remained opened as of July 2019 (SC&A 2019).
The SIBERIA model used to model erosion in the DU PA not only fails to account for any rock
armor on the side slopes but it is calibrated to the results of an older version of another model,
RHEM, applied to a soil cover. RHEM is described in Nearing et al. (2011) and Al-Hamdan et al.
(2015) as not having been intended for modeling erosion of disturbed soil when that erosion
occurs due to flow concentration. Based on experience at the Facility, the Division believes that
erosion of disturbed soil due to flow concentration is likely to be the case at the proposed Federal
Cell and to continue to be that way for extremely long periods of time. Erosion of the
embankment could be great in magnitude, and it could be an essentially perpetual problem. This
concern needs to be resolved and justification provided for ensuring the Federal Cell is stable
over long periods of time.
As explained within several interrogatories of the DU PA Final Report (NAC-0147_R, 4/24/20)
Neptune’s analysis of erosion and landform evolution appears to have been discontinued. Many
of Neptune’s responses to these interrogatories indicate that “EnergySolutions has chosen to
apply rock armor to the embankment side slopes; therefore, the discussion of SIBERIA and its
applicability no longer applies.”
SC&A has indicated to the Division that in their response, EnergySolutions/Neptune note that rip-
rap is now proposed for the side slopes of the Federal Cell. EnergySolutions has provided no
design basis or information on the expected performance of the rip-rapped side slopes. Modeling
studies by Smith and Benson (2016) using SIBERIA show that, at 1,000 years, the maximum
erosion in a semi-arid climate was about 7 m (23 ft) for a riprap embankment side slope of 41 m
(134 ft) (Smith & Benson 2016, Figure D.1). At 1,000 years (the simulation end date), the rate of
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 17
erosion was increasing at a rate of about 1.8 meters per year (6 ft/yr). This study emphasizes the
need for detailed cover modeling to demonstrate the feasibility that rip-rap side slopes will
perform adequately for an assumed 10,000 year compliance period. EnergySolutions/Neptune
need to provide quantitative analysis of the cover’s long-term response to erosional forces and
explain the analysis mechanistically.
Contrary to what is implied or said in the draft license application [on p. 6-4], it does not appear
that the modeling done to date for erosion at the proposed Federal Cell in the DU PA is
appropriate or adequate. The borrow pit modeled by EnergySolutions/Neptune and proposed as
an analog for the Federal Cell does not seem to offer a suitable match useful for modeling the
erosion potential of the proposed Federal Cell. The materials, dimensions and slopes involved
seem dramatically different. The borrow pit model was for a cover of fine-grained soil. The
borrow pit model is not applicable to the top slope because of substantial differences in
dimensions and slope gradient. The addition of only 15% gravel to the top slope of the proposed
Federal Cell may also not effectively limit erosion to the extent needed. There seems to be no
validated modeling evidence presented to date to indicate that erosion would be prevented or
minimized by that relatively low percentage of gravel. The fractional coverage assumed and
described for plants growing on the cover system, which may affect the modeled rate of erosion,
also seems unlikely.
4.2.1 Comment 1.2 Response
Neptune (2021b) summarizes a SIBERIA model of the full hybrid cover system, prepared to
evaluate landform evolution of the Federal Cell for 10,000 years. This modeling projects that the
hybrid cover design will provide excellent resistance to erosion. The DU PA v1.4 actually
models greater levels of sheet and gully erosion than projected in the current work, as discussed
in more detail in Section 4.4.1.
Appendix B of Neptune (2021b) briefly assesses differences between the SIBERIA
implementations in the current work and Smith and Benson (2016).
4.3 UDEQ Comment 1.3: Hybrid Cover
EnergySolutions has not presented site-specific models of erosion of the proposed hybrid cover
system of the Federal Cell, with an evapotranspirative (ET) cover on the top slope, rock-armor
cover on the side slope, and transitional material on the shoulders. Contrary to what is implied or
said in the draft License Application [on p. 10-21], there is no modeling done to date, which the
Division is aware, that indicates that velocities of flow down the rock-armored side slopes of the
proposed Federal Cell would be less than the threshold velocity initiating erosion. Erosion
modeling for the new hybrid cover must be performed. Consequently, there currently appears to
be no peer review and interrogatory history on the hybrid-cover design.
4.3.1 Comment 1.3 Response
Neptune (2021b) summarizes a SIBERIA model of the full hybrid cover system, prepared to
evaluate landform evolution of the Federal Cell for 10,000 years.
Section 4.1.1 addresses the question of threshold velocity calculations for the riprap side slopes.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 18
4.4 UDEQ Comment 3: Resulting Infiltration
The Introduction and Sections 1 and 2 of this report have highlighted the Division’s concerns
regarding the potential for enhanced infiltration following the expected service life of engineered
features of the disposal site. As previously highlighted NUREG-1573 states “Because site
conditions and the physical properties of engineered barriers will not remain the same throughout
the period covered by the performance assessment analysis, infiltration into the disposal unit
may increase over time. For example, infiltration may be enhanced if the site experiences a
change or loss in vegetation (Gee et al., 1992; and Smyth et al., 1990) and cover performance
may be reduced by plant and animal intrusion, settling and slumping, or erosion.”
It is the Division’s impression that the DU PA modeling treated the end of service life and
subsequent degradation of the proposed engineered cover as a non-contributing factor for
infiltration. Subsequently, the possibility for enhanced infiltration after the initial service life has
apparently not been integrated into the infiltration modeling. However, as NUREG-1573
recommended, the infiltration modeling might approach the progressive stages of cover
performance with the use of temporal variations of the input parameters. “A key feature of the
approach is how progressive stages of cover performance degradation over time are captured in
the infiltration analysis by using ranges of percolation rates and hydraulic parameters for
engineered materials. At each stage of cover degradation, hydraulic parameter values for
engineered materials are developed to represent the state of cover degradation for the stage.”
EnergySolutions/Neptune need to explain quantitatively and mechanistically how the DU PA has
accounted for the potential for enhanced infiltration due to the potential erosion of the cover.
4.4.1 Comment 3 Response
The DU PA, v1.4 accounts for the potential for enhanced infiltration due to long-term
naturalization of the embankment cover by evaluating the potential for damaging erosion; and by
assuming that cover materials themselves naturalize and do not retain as-built hydraulic material
properties.
Evidence at the site and in the local area, as demonstrated in the conceptual site model (CSM)
(Neptune 2015e) and in SIBERIA landscape evolution modeling discussed in Neptune (2021b),
shows that erosion of the cover will not likely occur to a large extent on the embankment. As
discussed in Section 5.6.1.3 of Neptune (2021c), the proposed ET cover is not expected to
degrade to a point where the hydrology of the cover changes significantly, if at all, from erosion
over the 10,000-year period modeled.
4.4.1.1 Cover Erosion
Net sheet erosion of the cover is projected to be negligible. There are several lines of evidence
that point to this conclusion, as described in Neptune (2015d), Neptune (2015e), and Neptune
(2021b). Recent work to evaluate the hybrid cover design has not changed this fundamental
conclusion.
Erosion potential for the hybrid cover design is assessed using the SIBERIA landscape evolution
model, which provides three-dimensional projections of the effects of sheet and gully erosion.
While gullies do develop over time, the depth of the 95th percentile of erosion in these gullies is
only 5 cm after 500 years, and only 34 cm after 10,000 years. The mean values are much lower,
1 cm and 11 cm respectively. Additionally, these results do not include aeolian depositional
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 19
processes, which were estimated to be around 55 cm after 10,000 years or about five times the
rate of erosion over the same time period (Neptune 2020a). Without considering aeolian
deposition the cover remains stable over the next 10,000 years; if deposition is considered, then
it is likely to dominate erosional processes over this same time period.
4.4.1.2 Cover Naturalization
As discussed in Neptune (2015e), Section 8.3, engineered covers can be subject to degradation
processes such as biointrusion, freeze-thaw, and erosion. For the embankment at the Clive Site,
however, these processes will be very slow to develop. The structure of the cover is designed
with an Evaporative Zone and Frost Protection Layer which inhibit biotic intrusion, freeze-thaw
processes and infiltration.
As discussed in Section 5.6.1.3 of Neptune (2021c), a capillary-barrier style ET cover inhibits
downward flow of water through the cover system by creating a capillary break between layers
of different pore size. This type of cover facilitates evapotranspiration via water storage in upper-
layer fine-grained soil and limits downward water movement into lower layers. Radon barrier
layers deeper in the cover limit upward radon movement by retaining water, which limits the
airspace available for gaseous transport. Partially saturated clays maintain low pressure heads
due to the fine pore structure, which inhibits liquid flow upward.
Evidence of slow progress of pedogenesis at the site and surrounding environment is found in the
stratigraphic studies at the Clive site (Neptune (2015e), Section 3.3.3). Recent field studies
(Neptune 2015f) show weak development of soil profiles in the natural setting, with preserved
layers of eolian silt deposits at and beneath the current soil surface. One of the conclusions of
this work is that there is not significant enough soil structural development to influence soil
hydraulic properties at depth (Neptune (2015e), Section 3.3.3). Surficial soils are expected to
have higher hydraulic conductivity (compared to, for example, laboratory testing) due to surface
process like plant and animal activity. However, the coarse nature of the frost protection layer is
designed to isolate these processes to the top of the cover system.
In addition, the Cover Test Cell deconstruction project (EnergySolutions 2020) showed very
little change from the as-built specifications for the upper and lower radon barrier layers after 17
years. No degradation was evident. Absent any plausible mechanistic explanation for soil texture
evolution, and given the observed stability of both natural and constructed soil layers, it is very
difficult to imagine how hydraulic properties of the radon barrier would change appreciably in
this environment. Nevertheless, the consequences of hypothetical degradation of the radon
barrier are incorporated into the DU PA Model v1.4 via the Ksat distribution used in the v1.4
HYDRUS simulations and the GoldSim model; this is discussed further in Section 4.4.1.4.
4.4.1.3 Erosion Implementation in DU PA v1.4
Gully erosion is evaluated in DU PA v1.4 as discussed below. Neptune (2021b) develops a
SIBERIA model for the hybrid cover design over the Federal Cell. Results of this updated
analysis show that DU PA v1.4 overestimates the volume, depth, and impact of gully erosion.
Erosion is considered in DU PA v1.4 as follows (Neptune 2015b):
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 20
The impact of sheet and gully erosion in the Model is evaluated by the application of results
of landscape evolution models of hillslope erosion loss and channel development conducted
for a borrow pit at the site…
A subset of the borrow pit model domain was selected to represent the cover. Gully depths
estimated by the erosion model were extrapolated to 10,000 years and a statistical model was
developed that generated values of the percentage of the cover where gullies ended within a
given depth interval. This model provided an estimate of the volume of embankment cover
material removed by gullies. The depositional area of the gully fan is assumed to be the same
as the area of waste exposed in the gullies, using projections onto the horizontal plane. If
these embankment materials include DU waste components, then this leads to some
contribution to doses and uranium hazards. No associated effects, such as biotic processes,
effects on radon dispersion, or local changes in infiltration are considered within the gullies.
Accordingly, there are gully erosion calculations in the DU PA v1.4, based on SIBERIA
modeling of the borrow pit. That modeling derived a maximum gully depth of less than 3.5
meters and areal coverage for all gullies of less than 1 percent of the cover area at 10,000 years.
In a deterministic run, DU PA v1.4 calculates the total volume of gullies to be 1,127 m3 at
10,000 years; with a total surface area of 1,508 m2 at that time.
Implementation of the gully erosion calculations in DU PA v1.4 was the subject of Interrogatory
CR R313-25-25(4)-205/1; which questioned the relative depth of gullies in probabilistic model
runs. In responding to this comment, Neptune (2018) concludes:
The April 2015 SER (SC&A 2015) also notes that the embankment’s performance with
respect to radon flux would be adequate even with complete removal of the cover system, as
predicted doses are several orders of magnitude below regulatory limits. Thus, the
comparison of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 with other radon flux predictions, which show
only modest differences at relevant depths, does not detract from the conclusion that radon
fluxes are adequately attenuated by the embankment due to the depth of burial of radon-
generating wastes and the prevailing site conditions.
Based on prior SIBERIA modeling of the borrow pit, DU PA v1.4 calculates how deep the
gullies excavate and a volume of gully material is eroded from the “waste” layers3 when the full
cover thickness is penetrated. For the deterministic run, gullies reach the top 3 out of 27 waste
layers (as a fraction of the overall surface area). Out of 10,000 realizations of DU PA v1.4 (seed
2), 69% of the realizations have gullies that reach the top three or four waste layers, while 8% of
realizations do not get as deep as waste layer 1, and no realizations reach waste layer 5.
Based on the gully volume excavated in each waste layer, weighted average activity
concentrations from the waste layers in gullies are used in the dose calculations to first calculate
plant concentrations in the gullies and then used as part of the concentration of contaminants in

3 It is acknowledged that the embankment layers between DU and the cover will not be permitted to contain Class A
LLRW until a specific performance assessment authorizing such is approved. Modeled as clean soil fill initially in
DU PA v1.4, this material is discussed in supporting documentation as “waste” since it is expected to accumulate
some activity from the DU waste placed at the cell floor via radon emanation/decay and diffusion.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 21
beef and game meat. Those concentrations are incorporated into the dose calculations for the
Rancher and Hunter; and into the uranium hazard calculations for rancher and hunter.
Results of the deterministic model with gullies turned on/off show no difference in the doses to
onsite receptors (rancher, hunter), but they do show small differences in uranium hazard
quotients. The uranium hazard quotients are very small (~1e-15); compared with a target
threshold of 1.
These results reflect that the gullies are shallow enough that the concentrations of contaminants
in the gullies do not contribute to doses for the deterministic run, although they do contribute to
the uranium hazard quotients. If long-lived radionuclides were disposed closer to the cover, these
results would be expected to increase though they could remain within applicable dose criteria.
Local changes to infiltration associated with gully development are not considered in DU PA
v1.4. In development of DU PA v1.4, the small area and volume of gullies modeled to be present
at 10,000 years was considered reasonable assurance that gully erosion would have a negligible
impact on infiltration at model year 500, the point of compliance for GWPLs. After this time, the
non-potable groundwater is not considered a dose pathway for the exposure scenarios affecting
onsite and offsite receptors.
SIBERIA modeling of the hybrid cover explicitly evaluates erosion impacts at model year 500 in
order to better quantify the approach taken in DU PA v1.4. The mean erosion observed in this
time period is 1 cm, with the 95th percentile of erosion at 5 cm, indicating that no local changes
to infiltration are expected on the cover during this 500-year period. Additional results are
discussed in Neptune (2021b).
4.4.1.4 Cover Naturalization Implementation in DU PA v1.4
The potential for increased infiltration associated with cover naturalization is addressed by the
incorporation of increased radon barrier Ksat distributions used in the v1.4 HYDRUS simulations
that inform infiltration in the DU PA v1.4 model; and by having the radon barrier clay saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) values change from the as-built conditions to naturalized conditions
for both the lower and upper radon barriers within the DU PA v1.4 model. As-built Ksat values
are 4e-3 cm/day and 8.6e-2 cm/day for the upper and lower radon barriers, respectively (Neptune
2015c). Average Cover Test Cell deconstruction project found that these values were 5e-3 and
1e-2 cm/day, respectively (EnergySolutions 2020); indicating essentially no change from the as-
built condition over 18 years.
Nonetheless, in DU PA v1.4, Ksat values for both radon barriers are modeled to reflect
naturalized values chosen from the log-normal distribution: LN(3.37, 3.23), with a right shift of
0.00432, in cm/day units. These values are two to three orders of magnitude higher than as-built
conditions. The naturalized Ksat values are the same for the upper and lower radon barriers.
These changes are implemented at time zero for the model so that naturalization occurs at the
beginning of the model run. This timing is much earlier than what would be expected to occur at
the site, per Section 4.4.1.2 and validated by the Cover Test Cell deconstruction.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 22
As described in Neptune (2015a), average annual infiltration was incorporated into the GoldSim
DU PA model with a regression equation developed from HYDRUS-1D simulation results.
Average percolation through the cover was not found to be sensitive to saturated conductivity
(Ksat) of the radon barrier, as percolation is determined by the performance of the capillary
barrier in the overlying cover layers. Average water contents in the radon barrier layers,
however, were found to be sensitive to Ksat; higher Ksat was associated with lower average water
content. Section 5.4.1 of Neptune (2021c) discusses this issue in more detail.
As such, increasing the Ksat of the radon barrier at the outset of a model realization to account for
a hypothetical naturalized condition results in lower moisture content in the radon barrier. A
lower moisture content in the radon barriers means that the radon barriers are not functioning as
effectively at keeping radon from migrating to the surface, resulting in higher radon flux.
A test case of DU PA v1.4 was run with naturalization occurring at 500 years to evaluate this
effect. Radon flux results and related dose results decrease about 1–3% under this scenario,
compared with the assumption of immediate naturalization that is embedded in DU PA v1.4.
5.0 Conclusion
DU PA v1.4 demonstrates compliance with the dose and groundwater protection requirements of
Utah regulations relating to DU disposal. The interrogatory and response process has added to
the record supporting these conclusions; but has not caused the quantitative model to require
revision. Accordingly, DU PA v1.4 remains the basis for demonstrating compliance of the
disposal facility.
Compliance with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a) is affirmed by DU PA v1.4 and Deep Time model v1.5,
together with their supporting documentation as supplemented by the interrogatory/response
cycle.
6.0 Attachments
1. Federal Cell engineering drawings, series 14004
7.0 References
Coon, W.F., 1998. Estimation of Roughness Coefficients for Natural Stream Channels with
Vegetated Banks, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2441, prepared in
cooperation with the New York State Department of Transportation, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver CO, 1998
CWCB, 2006. Chapter 13, Hydraulic Analysis and Design, Section 1 Open Channels. In
Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual, pp. CH13-100–CH13-F124,
Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver CO
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 23
EnergySolutions, 2012. Clive Facility, Class A West (CAW) Rock Cover Design Calculations,
prepared for Utah Division of Radiation Control, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City
UT, February 2012
EnergySolutions, 2015. Radioactive Material License UT2300249: Safety Evaluation Report for
Condition 35.B Performance Assessment; Response to Issues Raised in the April 2015
Draft Safety Evaluation Report, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City UT, November
2015
EnergySolutions, 2018. Radioactive Material License UT2300249: Responses to the Amended
and New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA Modeling Report Version 1.4 Dated
November 2015, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City UT, April 2018
EnergySolutions, 2020. Radioactive Material Licenses UT 2300249 Cover Test Cell
Deconstruction Study Final Report, CD20-0123, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City
UT, August 2020
Nelson, J.D., et al., 1986. Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs of
Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments, NUREG/CR-4620, ORNL/TM-10067, United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington DC, June 1986
Neptune, 2011. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model version 1.0, Neptune and Company
Inc., Los Alamos NM, June 2011
Neptune, 2014. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.2, NAC-
0024_R2, Neptune and Company, Inc., Los Alamos NM, August 2014
Neptune, 2015a. Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0015_R4, prepared for EnergySolutions, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM,
October 2015
Neptune, 2015b. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0024_R4, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, November 2015
Neptune, 2015c. Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0026_R4, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, November 2015
Neptune, 2015d. Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0017_R4, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, October 2015
Neptune, 2015e. Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility,
Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-0018_R4, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM,
November 2015
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 24
Neptune, 2015f. Neptune Field Studies, December, 2014, Eolian Depositional History Clive
Disposal Site, NAC-0044_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, March 2015
Neptune, 2018. Erosion Responses for the Clive DU PA Model, NAC-0108_R0, Neptune and
Company Inc., Lakewood CO, February 2018
Neptune, 2020a. Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA, Deep Time Assessment for the
Clive DU PA Model v1.5, NAC-0032_R5, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM,
March 2020
Neptune, 2020b. Clive DU PA Model—Response to Model Version 1.4 Amended Interrogatories,
NAC-0147_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Lakewood CO, April 2020
Neptune, 2021a. Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments, NAC-
0166_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Lakewood CO, March 2021
Neptune, 2021b. Surface Erosion Modeling at the EnergySolutions Clive, Utah Facility, NAC-
0167_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Lakewood CO, 2021
Neptune, 2021c. Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments, NAC-
0165_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Lakewood CO, March 2021
NRC, 1986. Update of Part 61 Impacts Analysis Methodology, Methodology Report, Volume 1,
NUREG/CR-4370, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
NRC, 2002. Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stabilization, NUREG-1623, United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 2002
SC&A, 2015. Utah Division of Radiation Control, EnergySolutions Clive LLRW Disposal
Facility, License No: UT2300249; RML #UT 2300249, Condition 35 Compliance Report;
Appendix A: Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Safety Evaluation Report, Volume
1, prepared for Utah Department of Environmental Quality, SC&A Inc., Vienna VA,
April 2015
Smith, C.L., and C.H. Benson, 2016. Influence of Coupling Erosion and Hydrology on the Long-
Term Performance of Engineered Surface Barriers, NUREG/CR-7200, United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington DC, May 2016
Utah DEQ, 2017. Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, EnergySolutions Clive
LLRW Disposal Facility License No: UT2300249; RML #UT 2300249, Amended and
New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA Modeling Report Version 1.4 Dated
November 2015, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Salt Lake City UT,
May 2017
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 25
Utah DEQ, 2019. Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment (DU PA); Clive Facility; Model
Version 1.4 Amended Interrogatories; Radioactive Materials License #2300249, Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City UT, July 2019
Utah DEQ, 2020. Comments on EnergySolutions Cover System Described in the DU PA, Draft
Federal Cell License Application, DRC-2020-DRC-019244, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City UT, December 2020
Utah DEQ, 2021. Technical Report, Performance Objective R313-25-23, Stability of the
Disposal Site after Closure, DRC-2021-001162, Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Salt Lake City UT, January 2021
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments
5 April 2021 1

Attachment 1:
Federal Cell Drawings 14004-C01 through 14004-C05

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-1 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX O

FEDERAL CELL FACILITY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-1 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

FEDERAL CELL FACILITY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN

Table of Contents

I. General Provisions and Requirements 2

II. Waste Profile Record Requirements 4

III. Incoming Shipment Inspection Requirements 7

IV. Sampling and Analysis Requirements 10

V. Sample Management 18

VI. Sampling and Inspection of Waste at a Location Other Than the Licensee’s Facility 19

VII. Containerized Federal Cell Facility Characterization 22

VIII. Transfer of Waste from the Mixed Waste Facility 24

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-2 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

1. This Waste Characterization Plan (WCP) describes procedures for identifying, characterizing,
controlling, sampling, and accepting incoming depleted uranium for disposal at the Licensee’s
Federal Cell Facility.

2. This WCP is applicable to the radioactive component of all waste destined for disposal at the
Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility.

3. Wastes destined for disposal at the Federal Cell Facility shall be characterized and accepted in
accordance with Section VIII of this WCP.

4. For each waste stream received at the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility from an off-site generator (off-
site waste), the generator shall characterize the waste and the Licensee shall evaluate the associated
Waste Profile Record (WPR) to ensure the waste is acceptable for management prior to allowing that
waste stream to be shipped to the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility. WPR requirements are outlined
in Section II of this WCP.

5. Each shipment shall be inspected, and accepted or rejected, in accordance with Section III of this
WCP.

6. Each waste stream shall be sampled and analyzed, and the data evaluated, in accordance with Section
IV of this WCP.
a. Waste destined for the Federal Cell Facility does not require sampling as long as the
requirements of Section VIII of this WCP are met.
b. Waste that is sampled at a location other than the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility and in
compliance with Section VII of this WCP does not require sampling upon receipt at the
Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility.
c. Waste meeting the definition of debris or pure product may be exempted from chemical
sampling and analysis if the shipment containing debris or pure product is visually inspected
to confirm that no material in the shipment is amenable to sampling and analysis.
d. Other wastes may be exempted from sampling and analysis through a petition to the Director.
i. Petitions to exempt waste streams from sampling may be based on ALARA (e.g.,
dose rate, DAC, removable contamination) or other personnel health and safety
concerns.
ii. Approval by the Director is required prior to managing petitioned wastes without
sampling and analyzing the waste.

7. If a waste sample is analyzed and it is determined that the sample results are non-compliant with the
WPR, the Licensee shall collect at least two additional samples and analyze them for those parameters
that were exceeded. If all of the additional sample results confirm the first analysis, the procedures
for resolving discrepancies outlined in Sections IV.6 and IV.7 of this WCP shall be followed. If all
of the additional sample results do not confirm the results of the first analysis, the original result shall
be viewed as an anomaly and the waste shall be managed in accordance with this WCP.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-3 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

8. Analytical data for this WCP shall be obtained from laboratories meeting one of the following criteria:
a. Laboratories that hold a current National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Conference (NELAC) accreditation, or
b. Laboratories certified by the Utah Department of Health (UDOH), insofar as official
certifications are given, or
c. Laboratories with reciprocity with the State of Utah for the parameter being analyzed, or
d. Laboratories that are certified in a state that has been determined by the UDOH to have a
laboratory certification program equal to or more stringent that Utah’s, or
e. Laboratories approved by the Director.

9. Wastes that do not contain hazardous waste as defined in R315-261 of Utah Administrative Code
may be transferred from the MW Facility for disposal at the Federal Cell Facility in accordance with
Section IX of this WCP.

10. Wastes that contain greater than 1% free liquids are referred to as “liquid wastes” and shall be
managed in accordance with Section V of this WCP.

11. Wastes that contain less than 1% free liquids may be managed within its respective area of the
Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility within locations that have approved secondary containment.

12. Samples sent to the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility for treatability study testing, solidification study
testing, or other pre-shipment waste characterization purposes shall be managed in accordance with
Section VI of this WCP.

13. Following waste receipt and acceptance, waste containers shall be marked or labeled with the
following information:
a. Generator identification number;
b. Licensee identification number;
c. The date the waste was received; and
d. Specific hazards (e.g., “Asbestos”, etc.), when applicable.

14. Errors and omissions (e.g., transcription errors, typographical errors, errors in calculations) within
generator documents shall be corrected as soon as information becomes available.
a. The Licensee shall receive certified written confirmation from the generator for all changes
made.
i. The Licensee shall document this confirmation by placing it with the shipping
paperwork or WPR in the Operating Record.
b. Corrections to paper records shall be made by striking out the incorrect information and
writing the correct information on the page as near the error as practicable or updating
information designated by the generator.
i. These corrections shall be initialed and dated by the person making the correction.
c. Electronic records shall not require correction as long as the generator confirmation is kept
with the electronic record.

15. All documentation described in this WCP shall be retained as follows:
a. Hard copies at least 90 days; and
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-4 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

b. Hard copies shall be scanned and electronic copies retained according to R313-25-33 of the
Utah Administrative Code.

II. WASTE PROFILE RECORD REQUIREMENTS

1. The WPR shall provide the necessary information for management of a waste stream. The following
information shall be provided in the WPR:
a. A description of the generator, including the generator’s:
i. Company or Facility Name;
ii. Generator number and waste stream number assigned by the Permittee;
iii. Mailing address;
iv. Business telephone number, a 24-hour emergency telephone number, or both; and
v. WPR contact person.
b. A description of the waste, including:
i. A determination that the waste does not meet the definition of a hazardous waste as
found in R315-261 of Utah Administrative Code;
ii. Whether the waste contains liquids;
iii. A general indication of the waste’s density;
iv. Any distinguishing color or odor;
v. A statement that the sample(s) used for characterization was representative of the
waste;
vi. If sorbents are used, a statement on the type used; and
vii. Other additional information necessary for determining appropriate management of
the waste stream such as:
A. Chemical, physical, and general characteristics and properties;
B. Information relating to the waste’s generation and history;
C. An indication of the possible presence of non-hazardous waste constituents
such as asbestos, PCBs, chelating agents, etc.; and
(1) The Licensee shall provide to the generator the License limits of
these non-hazardous waste constituents, as applicable.
D. A statement that the waste is not air reactive, water reactive, shock sensitive
or pyrophoric.
E. A statement that the waste is not a listed hazardous waste as defined in
R315-262 of Utah Administrative Code.
viii. A certification that the waste is depleted uranium waste.
c. A description of the radioactive characteristics of the waste, including worst-case isotopic
concentrations.
d. TCLP analytical results for the characteristically hazardous list of elements and compounds
described in R315-261 of Utah Administrative Code (8 metals and 32 organics).
i. Total results on a dry weight basis may be used to show that a waste is not toxic.
The total results shall be divided by a conversion factor of 15 (mg/kg)/(mg/L) in
order to determine whether a TCLP limit has the possibility of being exceeded. For
example, an analytical result of 75 mg/kg for silver on a soil sample would
demonstrate that the characteristic limit of 5 mg/L TCLP silver would not be
exceeded.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-5 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

ii. All analytical data shall meet the laboratory requirements of Section I.10 of this
WCP.
iii. The generator may provide a certification demonstrating process knowledge in place
of some or all of the analytical data (e.g., the waste may have been generated in a
closed system in which organic contaminants could not enter, or the waste may be a
pure product material with associated Material Safety Data Sheets or Safety Data
Sheets etc.).
iv. The Licensee shall follow the requirements of Section IV.6 of this WCP when
waiving chemical analysis.
e. For wastes containing free liquids, the profile shall also include a packaging and
transportation plan for compliance with applicable DOT regulations.

2. The Licensee shall conduct and document Radiological and Chemical Evaluations of the WPR prior
to approving the waste for shipment.
a. The Licensee shall ensure that its Radiological Evaluation is such that profiled waste meets
License limits.
b. The Licensee shall ensure that its Chemical Evaluation is such that profiled waste is not a
hazardous waste.

3. Acceptance of the WPR shall be documented through the issuing of a waste stream specific “Notice
to Transport” (NTT) to the generator.
a. An NTT shall not be issued until all evaluations of Section II.2 of this WCP have been
completed.
b. If a shipment arrives prior to the generator receiving an NTT, the shipment shall be rejected
and the Director shall be notified within 24-hours of the shipment’s arrival.

4. The Licensee may provide information or amend a generator’s WPR in coordination with the
generator:
a. Certification of information amended to a WPR shall be documented in accordance with this
WCP.
b. Prior to the change, the information that changes radiological or chemical characteristics of
the waste shall be evaluated in accordance with Condition II.2 of this WCP.

III. INCOMING SHIPMENT INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

1. In conjunction with each waste shipment or shipment campaign, the Licensee shall conduct a file
review to ensure that there is a current WPR and NTT on file.

2. On the date a shipment arrives at the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility, the following shall be
completed before the Licensee signs the shipping manifest:
a. The Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest or shipping papers shall be reviewed
for discrepancies; and
b. The shipment shall be inspected for compliance with DOT and state radioactive material
shipment regulations. This inspection shall include:
i. an external survey of the transportation packages for gamma radiation; and
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-6 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

ii. a physical inspection of the shipment for Inspection or Appearance Discrepancies as
required by Section III.5 of this WCP.
A. If free liquids are present, a liquid volume determination shall be made prior
to waste management. If the free liquid volume is less than 1% of the waste
by volume, the waste shall be solidified prior to disposal or managed in
accordance with Section V of this WCP.

3. Shipments that have been inspected at a location other than the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility and
conducted in accordance with Section VII of this WCP do not require further inspection upon arrival
at the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility.

4. Incoming Shipment Discrepancies
a. Manifest Discrepancies:
i. Manifest incompleteness
ii. Typographical errors (e.g., wrong telephone number, address, names, etc.)
b. Inspection Discrepancies:
i. Unexpected free liquids exceeding 1% of the waste, by volume.
ii. Damaged, leaking or open container(s).
iii. Waste outside of the container.
c. Appearance Discrepancies:
i. Different appearance than is described in the WPR.

5. Incoming Shipment Discrepancy Resolution
a. Where discrepancies are identified, the discrepancies shall be noted. The generator shall be
contacted within ten days of discovering a discrepancy to determine how the discrepancy can
be resolved. Discrepancies shall be resolved prior to disposal of the waste.
i. The waste shall be labeled “hold” and segregated to clearly identify the shipment(s)
or package(s) with discrepancies and to prevent further management of the waste
until the discrepancy is resolved.
ii. If discrepancies cannot be resolved, the waste shall be returned to the generator.
iii. If the Licensee determines that the waste does not meet the acceptance criteria of its
License, the waste shall be rejected and returned to the generator.
iv. “Resolved” means that the generator has acknowledged the discrepancy and has
approved a path forward for the waste.
b. Notification requirement for Inspection Discrepancies
i. Within 24 hours of discovery, the Licensee shall provide electronic mail or oral
notice of the discrepancy to the Director.
ii. Within 7 calendar days of discovery, the Licensee shall provide written notice of the
discrepancy to the Director. The written notice shall include:
A. a description of the discrepancy;
B. the disposition of the waste;
C. a schedule for resolution of the discrepancy;
D. corrective actions taken; and
E. a schedule for resolving any associated non-compliance with the License.
c. Shipments with unexpected free liquid exceeding 1% of the waste by volume shall be
managed in accordance with Section V of this WCP.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-7 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

d. Leaking shipments or packages shall have the leak immediately contained and the shipment
or package moved into the Restricted Area.
i. The 1% free liquid determination shall be made after the shipment is contained and
within the Restricted Area.
A. If the volume of free liquid exceeds 1% of the waste by volume, the waste
shall be placed “on hold” and managed in accordance with Section V of this
WCP.
B. If the volume of free liquid is less than 1% of the waste by volume, the liquid
may either be solidified in place or managed in accordance with Section V
of this WCP.
e. Any generator with two shipments containing free-liquids in excess of 1% by volume within
a 12 month period shall have their NTT revoked by the Licensee until a corrective action
plan has been completed, approved and implemented.
f. Errors and omissions within generator documents that were missed by the Licensee or
discovered after the waste has been accepted, shall be resolved by making corrections as soon
as the discrepancy is discovered or information becomes available.
g. Appearance discrepancies shall be resolved with the generator by either:
i. Adding information to the WPR; or
ii. Rejecting the waste and arranging for the return of the shipment.

IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

1. Waste shipments sampled off-site in accordance with Section VI or certified in accordance with
Section VII of this plan do not require sampling upon receipt at the Federal Cell Facility.

2. Representative samples shall be collected from incoming shipments. The Licensee shall document
that the samples for radiologic and deferred chemical screening parameters have been taken. The
samples shall be analyzed for the following parameters:
a. Depleted uranium Deferred Chemical Screening Parameters – hazardous waste
characteristics D001-D043 as defined in R315-261 of Utah Administrative Code.
i. The characteristic of ignitability (D001) determination for non-liquid waste shall
consist of screening for oxidizer tendency and further analyses in accordance with
the DOT oxidizer test (SW-846 Method 1040 or equivalent) if the screening results
show the waste could be an oxidizer.
ii. Non-liquid waste does not require an analyses analysis for the characteristic of
corrosivity (D002).
iii. The characteristic of reactivity (D003) shall be assessed using a reactive cyanide
analysis.
A. If a total cyanide analysis is used as an indicator for the presence of cyanide,
on a case-by-case basis, the Licensee shall notify the Director, and justify
its use, prior to using this option.
iv. Samples of Federal Cell Facility waste will be analyzed for all characteristic
parameters (D004-D043).
b. Federal Cell Facility waste shall be analyzed for free liquids through either:
i. visual inspection; or
ii. the Environmental Protection Agency’s Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW-846 9095).
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-8 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

c. Radiological Analytical Parameters – gamma spectroscopy analysis.
i. All significant photo-peaks shall be accounted for using the “unidentified peak
summary”. A peak is not significant if it has less than 0.10 counts per second or has
uncertainty of more than 50%.
ii. When non-gamma radionuclide concentrations contribute to the waste being within
75% of Class A limits, the contributing non-gamma radionuclide(s) shall also be
analyzed.

3. Sampling Frequencies
a. For ease in counting, one rail car (any type) will represent a nominal 100 cubic yards and one
highway shipment (any type) will represent a nominal 20 cubic yards. Actual manifested
volumes might be used for counting purposes.
b. For purposes of sampling and analysis, it is understood that a railcar or highway shipment is
identified by a Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest. At a maximum, each
railcar or each highway shipment trailer shall be considered a separate shipment if the
manifest represents multiple railcars or multiple highway shipment trailers, respectively.
c. Federal Cell Facility Deferred Chemical Screening Parameters – for each waste stream, the
minimum number of samples to be analyzed for deferred chemical screening parameters is:
i. The first shipment to arrive at the site.
ii. Thereafter,
A. Annually or every 36,000 cubic yards whichever occurs first. For off-site
wastes that have never met the definition of a hazardous waste, the first
shipment following or any one shipment prior to the one-year anniversary
date of the most recent shipment that was sampled and analyzed for deferred
chemical screening parameters;
d. Federal Cell Facility Free Liquids Verification – for each waste stream, the minimum number
of free liquid verifications is:
i. one for each shipment through the first 1,000 cubic yards received at the site;
ii. thereafter, one for each set of ten (10) shipments received.
e. Radiological Analytical Parameters – for each waste stream, the minimum number of
samples to be analyzed for radiological analytical parameters (rail or highway) is:
i. one sample for each of the first ten (10) shipments to arrive at the site;
ii. thereafter, one sample for each set of ten (10) shipments received following the first
ten (10) shipments.

4. Required Sample Collection
a. Samples for Deferred Chemical Screening Parameters or Radiological Analytical Parameters
shall be collected as follows:
i. Bulk Rail Shipments. The sample shall be a composite sample consisting of six
aliquots from random locations.
ii. Bulk Highway Shipments. The sample shall be a composite sample consisting of
four aliquots from random locations.
iii. Container Shipments (rail or highway).
A. One composite sample consisting of aliquots from ten (10) percent of the
containers on a shipment.
B. For shipments consisting of six or more containers, at least six aliquots shall
be collected from six different containers.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-9 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

C. For shipments consisting of fewer than six containers, one aliquot shall be
collected from each container.
D. Containers from which aliquots are collected shall be randomly selected or,
if necessary, from all of the containers on a shipment consisting of six or
fewer containers.
b. Each aliquot shall be approximately equal in volume.
c. If there is insufficient volume in a shipment to complete all required analyses, the facility
shall prioritize constituents for analysis.
d. Aliquots shall be collected using one or more of the following clean devices: a shovel, spade,
scoop, thief, auger, sampling tube (Shelby or split tube) or other applicable device.
e. The sample container shall comply with the analytical method.
f. The Licensee shall keep an accurate written record of the custody of each sample from the
time of collection in the field through laboratory analysis.
i. A sample is considered to be in an individual’s custody if it is:
A. in their physical possession;
B. in continuous view after possession has been assumed; or
C. secured or monitored by the custody holder so that no one can gain access
to the sample without being detected by the custody holder.
ii. All transfers of a sample from collection in the field through laboratory analysis shall
be documented and kept in the Operating Record.
iii. Custody seals shall be placed on samples that are not in an individual’s custody.
Custody seals shall be applied in such a manner as to secure the opening of the
outermost sample container.
g. Once all required samples have been collected, the waste may, at the risk of the Licensee, be
disposed prior to receipt and review of analytical results.

5. Review of Analytical Results
a. The Licensee shall perform a review of analytical results received from off-site laboratories.
i. Analytical data from Federal Cell Facility Deferred Chemical Screening Parameters
shall be reviewed against applicable characteristic and listed requirements as defined
in R315-261 of Utah Administrative Code.
ii. Analytical data from Radiological Analytical Parameters shall be reviewed against
License limits.
iii. The Licensee shall document the analytical data reviews.
iv. Retain analytical documents in accordance with Condition I.17 of this WCP.
b. Non-Conforming Waste
i. Waste is non-conforming when the following occurs:
A. The Deferred Chemical Screening Parameters analytical review indicates if
the waste is either a characteristic or listed hazardous waste as determined
by R315-261 of Utah Administrative Code; or
B. The Radiological Analytical Parameters review indicates that the waste did
not meet the acceptance criteria of the License.
(1) For waste exceeding radiological limits, the notification
requirements in Section III.5.b of this WCP shall be followed.
ii. Non-conforming waste shall be labeled “hold” and segregated from other waste
streams and follow the requirements of Condition IV.5.b.iii.
iii. The generator shall be contacted for disposition of non-conforming waste.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-10 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

A. The waste may be rejected and returned to the generator; or
B. The waste may be sent to a facility that has permits in place to manage the
non-conforming waste (e.g., hazardous waste may be moved to the
Licensee’s MW Facility).
iv. Container shipments with non-conforming waste in some of the containers but not
in others may be split such that only those containers which are non-conforming
shall be managed in accordance with Section IV.5.b.iv of this WCP.
v. If the non-conforming waste has been disposed:
A. Within 24 hours of discovery that non-conforming waste has been disposed;
the Licensee shall provide electronic mail or oral notice to the Director.
B. Within 7 calendar days of discovery that non-conforming waste has been
disposed; the Licensee shall provide written notice to the Director. The
written notice shall include:
(1) the name of the generator;
(2) the designation of the non-conforming waste stream;
(3) the amount of non-conforming waste disposed;
(4) the location of the non-conforming waste in the Disposal Cell;
(5) the date the non-conforming waste was accepted;
(6) the date the non-conforming waste was placed in the Disposal Cell;
(7) a description of waste placed on and around the non-conforming
waste;
(8) the plan of action for resolving the non-conformance; and
(9) a compliance schedule for either the removal of the non-conforming
waste from the disposal cell or a written justification to the Director
for approval to leave the non-conforming waste in place.

6. Waiver of Sampling
a. For waste requiring sampling, Deferred Chemical sampling may be waived as described in
this section. Radiological sampling may only be waived through a petition to the Director as
described in Condition I.8.d of this WCP.
b. Individual Shipment Sampling Waivers
i. Some debris wastes (greater than 60 mm) do not lend themselves to chemical
sampling. The following debris items do not require chemical sampling:
A. Solid-phase metals
B. Wood (excluding sawdust or shavings)
C. Concrete (excluding pulverized)
D. Brick
E. Stone (not to include drywall)
F. Glass
G. Plastic (not to include ion-exchange resins)
H. Rubber
I. Other items meeting the definition of R315-268.2 of the Utah
Administrative Code.
ii. Clearly labeled pure product waste, with associated Safety Data Sheets may be
waived for sampling.
iii. If a portion of a waste can be sampled, that portion shall be sampled and analyzed
according to this WCP.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-11 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

iv. A sample may be analyzed for some parameters and waived for others.
v. Explanations of all waivers shall be documented and maintained in the Operating
Record.

7. Logistics
a. Intermodal containers holding waste may be placed on unimproved surfaces adjacent to the
rail track to facilitate sampling or loading operations, provided that the movement to an
approved waste storage area or disposal embankment is completed within 48 hours.
b. Waste which remains in off-site transportation equipment or vehicles (e.g., rail cars, flatbeds,
vans, trucks, etc.) and are awaiting analytical results may remain at the Licensee’s Facility
for up to 30 days.
c. For these logistics items, additional conveyance storage time may be approved by the
Director.

V. SAMPLE MANAGEMENT

1. All samples sent to the Licensee’s Facility shall meet the radiological and chemical acceptance criteria
of Radioactive Material Licenses UT2300249 and UT2300478, and the state-issued Part B Permit.
2. A draft waste profile record, identifying preliminary chemical characterization shall be completed
prior to shipment of a sample to the Licensee’s Facility.
a. Radiological characterization results shall be provided and reviewed by the Licensee to
ensure the sample meets License limits.
b. Available chemical analytical results, waste generation mechanisms, and generator process
knowledge shall be reviewed by the Licensee to ensure the sample meets License limits.

3. The Licensee shall submit a Preshipment Sample Authorization Record to the generator, giving them
authorization to ship the sample. A NTT is not required for submitting a sample.

4. A Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest shall be provided for all samples.

5. Sample shipments shall contain the Licensee-designated Shipment Number (either on paperwork or
a label).

6. The Director shall be notified within 7 calendar days of any sample received at the Licensee’s Facility
that does not meet the criteria in Section VI.1. through VI.4. of this WCP.

7. Sample Requirements.
a. The requirements of R315-261-4(e) of Utah Administrative Code shall be met for all
treatability study samples accepted at the Licensee’s Facility.
b. Samples not regulated under R315-261-4(e) of Utah Administrative Code shall not exceed
15 cubic feet per waste stream unless prior authorization is received from the Director.

8. Samples shall be stored in the on-site laboratory or permitted waste storage areas.

9. Samples shall be disposed or returned to the generator within one-year of receipt.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-12 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

a. The sample (or sample residue) may be combined with other waste in the waste stream from
which it originated.
b. The sample (or sample residue) may be managed as a Licensee-generated waste for storage
and disposal.

VI. SAMPLING AND INSPECTION OF WASTE AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN THE
LICENSEE’S FACILITY

1. Inspection of waste at a location other than the Licensee’s Facility shall meet the incoming shipment
inspection requirements of Section III of this WCP.

2. Sampling of waste at a location other than the Licensee’s Facility for Deferred Chemical Screening
Parameters, Radiological Analytical Parameters, or both shall meet the appropriate sampling and
analysis requirements of Section IV of this WCP.

3. Applicability. The following wastes or situations may be sampled and/or inspected at a location other
than the Licensee’s Facility in accordance with the requirements of this section:
a. Supercompaction performed on waste at a location other than the Licensee’s Facility.
b. Situations where sampling at the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility would interfere with the
applied treatment.
c. Specific cases approved by the Director (e.g., cases where remote sampling promotes the
ALARA principle).

4. The Licensee shall provide the Director with at least 14 calendar days’ notice of its intent to perform
sampling or an inspection at a location other than the Licensee’s Facility.

5. The Licensee’s notice of intent to perform sampling or an inspection at a location other than the
Licensee’s Facility shall be accompanied by a detailed sampling/inspection plan. This plan shall
include at a minimum, the following information:
a. A physical description of the waste being sampled or inspected;
i. The total amount of waste (tonnage and volume) represented by the
sampling/inspection event;
b. The purpose for the sampling/inspection;
c. A description of sampling/inspection activities;
d. The identity of Licensee representatives (personnel) who shall perform the
sampling/inspection;
i. These personnel shall be employed by or consultants of the Licensee;
ii. These personnel shall be independent of the waste generator or treatment facility;
iii. These personnel shall have written documentation demonstrating they have
completed all applicable qualifications and training for performing incoming waste
sampling and/or inspections at the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility;
iv. The Licensee shall retain documentation of training and qualifications for these
personnel in accordance with this WCP.
v. The treatment technology employed;
vii. The projected amount of waste (tonnage and volume) after treatment;
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-13 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

viii. A certification from the generator or treatment facility that the treatment has met
appropriate Federal Cell Facility QA/QC specifications;
ix. A description of off-site treatment operating procedures, including procedures to fill
voids, if applicable;
x. A certification from the Licensee that they have reviewed the generator or treatment
facility’s documentation and concur that the appropriate Federal Cell Facility
QA/QC specifications shall be, or have been, met by this process; and
xi. The generator or treatment facility’s regulatory conditions governing treatment
operations.

6. Waste that has been sampled/inspected at a location other the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility shall
have a tamper-evident seal applied and signed by the Licensee representative performing the
sampling/inspection. The recordkeeping requirements of this WCP shall be followed for all samples
collected.

7. If unable to physically perform sampling, the Licensee representative shall be present to observe and
direct all activities associated with the sampling event.

8. Upon receipt of the waste, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The Licensee shall confirm that the tamper-evident seal is present and uncompromised;
i. If there is evidence that the tamper-evident seal has been broken, the Licensee shall
reject the waste for disposal. Rejected waste may be managed as follows:
A. Returned to the generator/treatment facility; or
B. Managed as a normal shipment, including the inspection and sampling
requirements in Sections III and IV of this WCP; or
C. Upon approval from the Director, accepted for management without
performing inspection or sampling of the waste (i.e., accepting the sampling
results even though the seals have been broken).
(1) A request to accept the waste which may have been tampered with
shall include justification for waiving the inspection and/or
sampling requirements in Sections III and IV of this WCP.

VII. CONTAINERIZED WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

1. Waste that does not meet the certification requirements of this section shall not be disposed at the
Federal Cell Facility.
a. Waste that has been sampled at a location other than the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility and
is in compliance with Section VII of this WCP may be disposed at the Federal Cell Facility
if packaged, transported and accepted in compliance with License requirements for the
Federal Cell Facility.
b. Waste that meets the certification requirements of this section shall be designated Certified
Containerized Federal Cell Facility.

2. Wastes destined for disposal at the Federal Cell Facility shall have a unique Certified Containerized
Federal Cell Facility Profile Record (Federal Cell FacilityWPR) specifically for that waste. Other
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-14 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

wastes from the same generator that require disposal at other areas of the Licensee’s Federal Cell
Facility shall have separate WPRs.

3. Prior to shipment, the Licensee shall document its review and acceptance of the Federal Cell Facility
WPRs for disposal at the Federal Cell Facility. The review shall consist of the following aspects of
the generator’s waste management program:
a. Procedures for radioactive and hazardous waste characterization, packaging, and
transportation. These procedures shall demonstrate that the waste sent under the Federal Cell
Facility WPR meets the following criteria:
i. License radiological requirements;
ii. License prohibitions;
iii. waste acceptance criteria (including the absence of regulated hazardous waste); and
iv. receipt and disposal requirements.
b. Programs and procedures for the following:
i. radiological characterization;
ii. hazardous waste exclusion from Federal Cell Facility packages
iii. free liquid management;
iv. inspections; and
v. void space minimization.
c. Federal Cell Facility Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) specifications applicable
to those items reviewed in VIII.3.a and VIII.3.b. The generator QA/QC program shall be
determined to be acceptable if the documentation reviewed demonstrates the generator’s
ability to correctly characterize, package and ship radioactive waste that does not exceed the
CWF requirements. The generator QA/QC program shall further demonstrate that the
generator understands the prohibitions of the License.
d. Inspection reports or summaries for the previous three years from agencies with oversight
over the generator’s program (e.g., NRC audits, DOE audits, EPA audits, agreement state
compliance records, etc.).
i. Responses and corrective actions to identified deficiencies applicable to waste
characterization, packaging, and/or transportation.
ii. The concurrence from the oversight agency that deficiencies have been adequately
addressed.
e. Generator’s primary point of contact and compliance authority for compliance of shipments
to the Licensee’s Federal Cell Facility.

4. After the Federal Cell Facility WPR has been reviewed and approved in accordance with Section
VIII.3 of this WCP, an NTT shall be issued to the generator. The requirements of Section II.3.b of
this WCP shall be followed.

5. Three calendar years after the first shipment is received at the Clive Facility, and every three years
thereafter, the generator shall certify that the process that generated the waste has not changed.
a. If the process that generated the waste has changed, the Licensee shall re-review the V
specific to the change in accordance with Condition VIII.3 of this WCP.

6. The incoming shipment inspection requirements (including discrepancy management and resolution)
of Section III of this WCP shall be followed with these additional requirements for waste with
unexpected free liquids exceeding 1% of the waste, by volume:
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page O-15 Appendix O April 9, 2021
Revision 0

a. Free liquids determination shall be completed on Class A-unstable waste.
b. Free liquids determination shall not be completed for waste with a contact dose rate greater
than 80 mR/hr.
c. Free liquids inspections shall be performed within the footprint of the disposal cell.
d. The package shall be sealed upon completion of the free liquids determination.

7. The sampling and analysis requirements of Section IV of this WCP are not used for Certified Federal
Cell Facility Waste.

8. Certified Federal Cell Facility Waste shipments that are determined to exceed License limits shall be
rejected, the generator notified within 24 hours of discovery, and the shipment returned to the
generator.
a. The notification requirements of Section III.6.b of this WCP shall be followed.
b. Written approval from the Director shall be required for any waste management other than
‘return to the generator’.

VIII. TRANSFER OF WASTE FROM THE MIXED WASTE FACILITY

1. Transfer of waste from the MW Facility to the Federal Cell Facility, for final disposal, shall be
performed in accordance with the requirements of this section and Attachment II-1-8, Management
of Waste for Disposal at the Federal Cell Facility, of the state-issued Part B Permit.

2. Only waste that does not meet the definition of a hazardous waste and/or waste that has been
completely solidified shall be transferred between the facilities. All waste transfer approvals shall be
based upon regulatory statutes codified within R315-261 and R315-268 of the Utah Administrative
Code.

END OF WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page P-1 Appendix P April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX P

NEPTUNE COVER INFILTRATION ANALYSIS

(Neptune, 2021b)

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page P-2 Appendix P April 9, 2021
Revision 0

5.6.1.2 EnergySolutions’ Response to FPL Construction Specifications

Federal Cell Cover Interrogatories, Comment 6 – Frost Protection Layer:
“[D]iscuss the inherent difficulties of constructing a uniform material from such a specification,
and how consistency of layer properties will be maintained spatially and throughout time so that
the conditions inherent in the PA model are realized in the actual cover system over the service
life and compliance period of the proposed Federal Cell.”
EnergySolutions’ Response:
The Frost Protection Layer material property specification in Drawing 14004-C05 states that the material
is well graded bank run cobble/gravel/soil material with a maximum rock size of 16-inches. The
consistency of layers properties over time is addressed in the Neptune response to this interrogatory dated
December 3, 2020. As-built consistency is addressed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual work element for
Frost Protection Layer Placement (Specifications 123 thru 127). Specifically, Specification 125 requires
gradation testing be performed on the material using ASTM D5519 (“Standard Test Methods for Particle
Size Analysis of Natural and Man-Made Riprap Materials”) or C136 (“Standard Test Methods for Sieve
Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates”) to ensure the material is well graded. The quality control
inspector will note any deficiencies or abnormalities and will notify the Project Manager to have the
material reworked to attain a more uniform gradation. Further, Specification 126 has quality control
observing placement of the Frost Protection Layer to ensure that fines are not concentrated in localized
areas. Again, if the quality control inspector notices any discrepancies, they will notify the Project
Manager and have operations re-distribute the material so that no localized concentration of finer material
is present. In both of these instances, the material will be re-inspected after operations.

NAC-0165_R0

Clive DU PA Model—Response
to DWMRC 12-3-2020
Comments
31 March 2021

Prepared by

NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1435 Garrison St, Suite 201, Lakewood, CO 80215

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 ii

1. Title: Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
2. Filename: Clive DU PA Model - Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments final.docx
3. Description: Responses to UDEQ Letter “Comments on EnergySolutions Cover System
Described in the DU PA, Draft Federal Cell License Application,” dated December 3, 2020.
Name Date
4. Originator Dan Levitt, Paul Duffy, Gregg Occhiogrosso,
Dylan Boyle, and Matthew Bowers
31 March 2021
5. Reviewer Paul Black and Sean McCandless 31 March 2021
6. Remarks

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 iii
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... iii
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v
TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... ix
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.0 Revised Federal Cell Design .................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Embankment Footprint ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Top Slope Surface Layer Thickness ................................................................................. 9
2.3 Transition Zone and Side Slope Frost Protection Layer ................................................. 10
3.0 Results from the DU PA v1.4 Model ................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Target Percolation Threshold .................................................................................... 13
4.0 Hybrid Cover Performance—HYDRUS-2D Modeling ....................................................... 14
4.1.1 Modeling Domain ..................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2 Layering .................................................................................................................... 16
4.1.3 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................ 17
4.1.4 Mesh .......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.5 Rooting Parameters ................................................................................................... 19
4.1.6 Atmospheric Input ..................................................................................................... 20
4.1.7 Initial Conditions ....................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Material Hydraulic Properties ........................................................................................ 21
4.3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 22
4.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 28
5.0 UDEQ Comments and Responses ........................................................................................ 29
5.1 UDEQ Comment 1: Hybrid Cover Percolation Model .................................................. 29
5.1.1 Comment 1 Response ................................................................................................ 30
5.2 UDEQ Comment 2: HYDRUS Snowmelt Algorithm .................................................... 30
5.2.1 Comment 2 Response ................................................................................................ 31
5.2.1.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 31
5.2.1.2 Cover Test Cell Model ........................................................................................ 31
5.2.1.3 Comparison with Regional Snowpack Data ....................................................... 36
5.3 UDEQ Comment 3: Applying Cover Test Cell Data ..................................................... 42
5.3.1 Comment 3 Response ................................................................................................ 42
5.4 UDEQ Comment 4: Regression Model .......................................................................... 45
5.4.1 Comment 4 Response ................................................................................................ 45
5.4.1.1 Variation of Ksat of the Radon Barrier (Layers 4 and 5) in Model v1.4 .............. 46
5.4.1.2 Exploration of Ksat Variation in Upper Cover Soils Layers 1 and 2 ................... 46
5.5 UDEQ Comment 5: Hydraulic Properties ...................................................................... 50
5.5.1 Comment 5 Response ................................................................................................ 50
5.6 UDEQ Comment 6: FPL Properties ............................................................................... 50
5.6.1 Comment 6 Response ................................................................................................ 50
5.6.1.1 FPL Properties ..................................................................................................... 50
5.6.1.2 FPL Construction Specifications ......................................................................... 51
5.6.1.3 Long-Term Durability of the Frost Protection Layer .......................................... 51
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 iv
5.7 UDEQ Comment 7: Capillary Break .............................................................................. 55
5.7.1 Comment 7 Response ................................................................................................ 55
5.8 UDEQ Comment 8: Water Balance Graphs ................................................................... 62
5.8.1 Comment 8 Response ................................................................................................ 62
5.9 UDEQ Comment 9: Abstraction Model ......................................................................... 71
5.9.1 Comment 9 Response ................................................................................................ 71
5.10 UDEQ Comment 10: Characterizing Uncertainty .......................................................... 74
5.10.1 Comment 10 Response .............................................................................................. 74
5.11 UDEQ Comment 11: Tails of the Distribution ............................................................... 77
5.11.1 Comment 11 Response .............................................................................................. 77
5.12 UDEQ Comment 12: Climate Record and Comparison With Other Sites ..................... 80
5.12.1 Comment 12 Response .............................................................................................. 80
5.12.1.1 Climate Record .................................................................................................... 80
5.12.1.2 Comparison Across Sites .................................................................................... 89
6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 96
7.0 Attachments .......................................................................................................................... 96
8.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 96

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 v
FIGURES
Figure ES-1. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose. ..... 4
Figure 1. Revised (2021) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C01, rev 2). ...................... 8
Figure 2. Former (2020) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C-01, rev. 0). ..................... 9
Figure 3. Top Slope Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1). .................................................... 10
Figure 4. Transition Zone (2021) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1). ............................... 10
Figure 5. Former Transition Zone (2020) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 0). .................. 11
Figure 6. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose. ......... 13
Figure 7. Cross section of federal cell, including a 135 m (448.4 ft) of top slope, and detail of the
transition zone of the hybrid cover design. ................................................................. 15
Figure 8. Full length cover design and abbreviated hybrid cover model. ..................................... 16
Figure 9. Model layering and materials for the 2D hybrid cover. ................................................. 17
Figure 10. Boundary conditions used in the 2D hybrid cover model. ........................................... 18
Figure 11. Node spacing detail shown for a portion of the top slope. ........................................... 19
Figure 12. Rooting depths shown for the top slope, transition zone, and side slope. ................... 20
Figure 13. Sorted results from the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling with the maximum, 2nd highest,
median, and minimum percolation results indicated. .................................................. 21
Figure 14. Percolation out of the lower radon barrier, as a function of lateral distance in the 2D
hybrid cover model. ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 15. Tension at the bottom of the lower radon barrier, as a function of lateral distance in
the 2D hybrid cover model. ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 16. Water content at the bottom of the lower radon barrier, as a function of lateral
distance in the 2D hybrid cover model. ....................................................................... 26
Figure 17. Annual percolation out of the lower radon barrier for the entire 135 m length of
proposed ET cover (shown in Figure 8). Results for the Maximum and 2nd highest
show a minor amount of coarseness in the results after 300 years. This is due to the
precision of the model output in HYDRUS, and not a change in behavior of the
model. .......................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 18. Test Cell (reprinted from EnergySolutions (2020)). .................................................... 32
Figure 19. Layers in the 1D Test Cell model. ............................................................................... 33
Figure 20. Monthly tip data collected from the Cover Test Cell. .................................................. 35
Figure 21. 14-day periods of calculated vs observed snow layers at Dugway, UT in temporal
order of occurrence. ..................................................................................................... 38
Figure 22. 14-day periods of calculated vs observed snow layers at Dugway, UT in temporal
order of occurrence. ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 23. Average daily calculated and observed snow layers at Dugway, UT. ......................... 40
Figure 24. Daily Mean Temperature at Dugway, UT averaged across the period of record. ....... 41
Figure 25. Percolation as a function of Ksat for 45 simulations. .................................................... 47
Figure 26. Percolation vs Ksat with h50 = 1500 cm for the same 45 model runs presented above. 49
Figure 27. Reproduced from A.1 Clive Pit Wall Interpretation (C. G. Oviatt, unpublished data)
and stratigraphic comparison with quarry wall studies from Neptune (2020b). ......... 54
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 vi
Figure 28. SWCC for the FPL as modeled in v1.4. ....................................................................... 57
Figure 29. Unsaturated conductivity as a function of pressure head for a coarse and fine material.
..................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 30. Specific moisture capacity for the FPL as modeled in v1.4. ........................................ 59
Figure 31. Evaporation zone pressure head and flux through the FPL vs time for a wet period in
Simulation 20. The red dotted line is drawn at a pressure head of -250 cm. Flux
values are negative for downward flow. ...................................................................... 60
Figure 32. SWCCs for the FPL and two realizations of the evaporation zone layer. The tan
horizontal line is drawn at a tension of 250 cm, while the dotted lines indicate the
corresponding water content for the evaporative zone curves. ................................... 61
Figure 33. Additional nodes were added to the model domain to improve detail in the output for
each layer. Red dots represent observation nodes used in DU PA v1.4; black circles
represent the additional nodes. .................................................................................... 64
Figure 34. Water content at observations nodes on selected days around a large 2.7 cm storm
event. ........................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 35. Water content at observations nodes following a period of high precipitation
frequency that results in flow through the frost protection layer. ............................... 66
Figure 36. Ten years of daily water content in the v1.4 simulation #20 model. ........................... 67
Figure 37. Ten years of daily tension in the v1.4 simulation #20 model. ..................................... 68
Figure 38. Three years of daily water content in the v1.4 simulation #20 model. ........................ 69
Figure 39. Three years of daily tension in the v1.4 simulation #20 model. .................................. 69
Figure 40. Three years of daily (upward) fluxes in the v1.4 simulation #20 model. .................... 70
Figure 41. Three years of daily (downward) fluxes in the v1.4 simulation #20 model. ............... 70
Figure 42. Scatterplot of percolation values computed from both the regression model and
HYDRUS using the same pairs of α and n that were randomly generated. ................ 74
Figure 43. Comparison of Bingham Environmental (1991) water content data with water content
calculated using the regression equation for the DU PA GoldSim model and with the
results of the 20 HYDRUS simulations. Figure 26 of EnergySolutions (2018). ......... 78
Figure 44. Water content in the evaporation zone from 50 HYDRUS simulations used in DU PA
v1.4. ............................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 45. Water content in the evaporation zone from 50 HYDRUS simulations used in DU PA
v1.4. ............................................................................................................................. 80
Figure 46. Total precipitation over various time periods for the 1000y and 100y records. .......... 82
Figure 47. Flux at the bottom of the cover and precipitation for both the 100-year (top) and 1000-
year (bottom) meteorological records for Simulation 1 of 50. Only the last cycle of
the meteorological record is shown. Vertical scales are the same for both plots. ....... 84
Figure 48. Water stress models. .................................................................................................... 85
Figure 49. Histograms of sets of 50 simulations using the 100-year meteorological record (top),
the 1000-year meteorological record with Model v1.4 root water uptake parameters
(middle), and the 1000-year meteorological record with h50 set to 1500 cm (bottom).
..................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 50. Simulation by simulation comparison of percolations derived from scenarios with h50
set to 200 cm (blue) and with h50 set to 1500 cm (green). ........................................... 88
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 vii
Figure 51. Layering of ET cover systems at Clive, Monticello, and Blanding, Utah. .................. 90

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 viii
TABLES
Table 1. Tension (pressure head) used for initial conditions in each model. Values are shown in
cm. ............................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2. Material hydraulic parameters used in DU PA v1.4 modeling. ...................................... 22
Table 3. Parameter sets for α, n, and Ksat used in the 2D hybrid cover models. ........................... 22
Table 4. Average annual percolation out of the radon barrier (model years 400–500); v1.4 results
vs 2D hybrid cover results. .......................................................................................... 28
Table 5. Comparison of the layering on the top and side slopes of the original Federal Cell design
and the revised design. ................................................................................................ 30
Table 6. Material hydraulic properties. ......................................................................................... 34
Table 7. Results of the 1D Test Cell model. .................................................................................. 35
Table 8. Engineering properties of cover layers for DU PA v1.4, the Cover Test Cell, and
NUREG/CR-7028. ....................................................................................................... 44
Table 9. Random sample from trimmed set of values for α, n, and percolation from both
HYDRUS and the regression model. ........................................................................... 73
Table 10. Summary statistics for 100-year and 1000-year climate records. ................................. 81
Table 11. Engineering properties of cover layers in the Clive Federal Cell, DU PA v1.4. ........... 91
Table 12. Engineering properties of cover layers in the Monticello disposal facility. .................. 92
Table 13. Engineering properties of cover layers in the Blanding White Mesa Mill Tailings
Facility. ........................................................................................................................ 93
Table 14. Precipitation and percolation data for the Clive Cover Test Cell, Monticello, and
Blanding facilities. Clive precipitation average calculated for the years 2002–2016 to
match with Cover Test Cell period of service; site average across 28-year
meteorological record is 217.41 mm/yr. ...................................................................... 94

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
bgs below ground surface
CQA/QC Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
DEQ (Utah) Department of Environmental Quality
DU depleted uranium
DWMRC Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
ET evapotranspiration
FPL Frost Protection Layer
GWPL groundwater protection limits
HELP Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance model
LLRW low-level radioactive waste
MOP member of the public
MPV maximum permissible velocity
NRC (United States) Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PA performance assessment
PAWG Performance Assessment Working Group
PE potential evaporation
PET potential evapotranspiration
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SER Safety Evaluation Report
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool
SWCC soil water characteristic curve
SWE snow water equivalent
TEDE total effective dose equivalent
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 1
Executive Summary
The Clive depleted uranium (DU) performance assessment (PA) evaluates the range of likely
impacts of disposal of DU in a new Federal Cell to be located in the southwest corner of the
licensed area. The DU PA is created as a systems-level model using the GoldSim probabilistic
modeling platform and is currently at version 1.4. The DU PA v1.4 model and supporting
documentation have been evaluated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)
and their contractor, SC&A Inc., for a number of years since its initial publication in 2015
(Neptune 2015e).
The current round of comments (Utah DEQ 2020) ask that the “hybrid” cover design introduced
in the 2020 response to interrogatories (Neptune 2020a) be subject to additional verification. The
hybrid cover features an evapotranspiration (ET) cover system of native soils and vegetation on
the large top slope area; and rip rap armoring of the steeper side slope area. The ET cover has
been selected for its superior performance in minimizing percolation of atmospheric precipitation
into the waste; while the rock armor cover has been selected for its improved assurance for
minimizing the potential for erosion of the steeper side slopes.
Additional hydrological modeling of this hybrid cover system has been performed using the
HYDRUS-2D modeling platform. As detailed below, this modeling projects that the rip rap side
slopes are expected to have higher percolation than the ET cover top slope; and that the impact
of this limited area of higher percolation remains within the bounds of previous analyses that
demonstrate acceptable embankment performance.
It is a truism when modeling complex systems such as radioactive waste disposal sites that no
model is perfect, but some models are useful. “Useful,” in this context, means that the model is a
reasonable representation of the system as currently understood and conceptualized, with the
acknowledgement that uncertainties will always remain. Important uncertainties are captured in
the probability distributions of the input parameters.
Decisions can and should be made based on the current model and its results. Standard PA
practice calls for the model to be routinely reviewed and updated as new information and data
from monitoring programs or new relevant research becomes available. This could include new
information about site characteristics, the waste itself, and the process models that have been
abstracted into the systems-level probabilistic model.
Updates to the model can lead to adaptive decision making if new model results indicate a need
to change a current decision. For the Clive site over the next few decades before final closure,
this could simply result, for example, in a change in cover design or procedures governing waste
placement. EnergySolutions is required to provide a surety fund that would accommodate
changes under such an adaptive management program. Alternatively, adaptive updates to the PA
could also demonstrate that initial constraints may safely be relaxed, such as that requiring DU
waste be to placed at an elevation below current native grade. What is described here might be
called a PA maintenance program, the details of which would normally be captured by License
condition outlining the schedule and expectations for routine updates to the PA.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 2
This concept is important in the context of DU PA v1.4 because a number of the outstanding
questions rest all or in part on research that has emerged; and continues to emerge, since
completion of this version of the model in 2015. For example, updated information on the
performance of a somewhat similar ET cover design in Monticello, UT is anticipated to be
available concurrent with preparation of this response document. This emerging research is
certainly of interest to the model and appropriate to incorporate in PA maintenance; but is shown
in the attached responses to support rather than change the fundamental conclusions of DU PA
v1.4.
The Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4 (Neptune 2015e)
provides the following summary of DU PA v1.4 results for the quantitative compliance period of
10,000 years. Additional work preparing interrogatory and comment responses after creation of
version 1.4 have not changed the principal analysis and reported conclusions.
Compliance with the performance objectives for the inadvertent intruder dose of 500 mrem
in a year and for the MOP of 25 mrem in a year is clearly established for all three types of
potential future receptors. This indicates that for the disposal configuration where DU wastes
are placed below grade, doses are expected to remain well below applicable dose
thresholds…
Results are also available for the offsite (MOP) receptors. None of the 95th percentile dose
estimates for these receptors exceeds 1 mrem in a year, and all of the peak mean dose
estimates are at or below 0.1 mrem in a year.
Table ES-1. Peak TEDE: statistical summary
peak TEDE (mrem in a yr) within 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent
For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, as specified in the facility’s permit (UWQB
2009), results are shown in Table ES-2. For all such radionuclides compliance with the
GWPLs is clearly demonstrated…
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 3
Table ES-2. Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr, compared to
GWPLs
peak activity concentration within 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB (2009) Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.

Figure ES-1 displays Table ES-1 dose results graphically in context with the dose limit of 25
mrem/year for members of the public under R313-25-20. Typical background radiation dose is
also provided on this figure as a point of reference. DU PA v1.4 results are 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude below the dose limit.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 4

Figure ES-1. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose.
It is worth noting that many of the open questions regarding DU PA v1.4 reflect new or revised
scenarios asked of the modeling. What if snowmelt behaves differently than the HYDRUS
percolation model predicts? What if the climate record is different from that initially modeled?
What if the material properties of the cover layers vary in this or that direction? Throughout the
review process, these and similar questions have been asked in a way that challenges the
modeling and its overall result that very limited percolation is expected through the
embankment; and thus, very limited impact to groundwater beneath the embankment is
projected.
At the same time, there are many scenarios to suggest that the percolation modeling has been
performed in a way that over-predicts potential impact to groundwater resources. What if desert
plants, adapted to arid conditions, are much more effective at removing water from surface soils
than modeled? What if the basic model structure of HYDRUS, which assumes essentially no
surface runoff of precipitation, overstates the amount of water available to infiltrate? What if this
or that material property understates its ability to minimize percolation?
The results reported above are based on 10,000 realizations of the DU PA model—each of these
realizations could be considered to reflect a unique what if scenario for the model. Through such
modeling, the central tendency of the system is evaluated; and the evaluation indicates very low
potential for radiological doses or groundwater quality impacts.
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
Mean Median 95th %ile
Do
s
e

(
m
r
e
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Ranch worker (DU PA v1.4)
Hunter (DU PA v1.4)
OHV enthusiast (DU PA v1.4)
Dose limit
Typical radiation dose in U.S.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 5
Ultimately, the DU PA v1.4 evaluates an above-grade embankment located in a terminal desert
basin. Annual potential evapotranspiration in Utah’s west desert far exceeds precipitation; and
the site is located above a largely stagnant aquifer in an area with limited natural groundwater
recharge (Bingham Environmental 1994; Stantec 2020). Projections of negligible percolation
into and through an above-grade embankment in this context are not only reasonable, they are to
be expected.
It is appropriate to ask a number of what if questions when considering performance assessment
for radioactive waste disposal. However, at the end of the day it is also vital to recognize that the
performance assessment does not pretend to predict the future; rather, it projects performance
within a formalized scenario derived by NRC in establishing regulations for the safety of
radioactive waste disposal. The scenario itself is understood to be an artifact. NRC (2000)
guidance on performance assessment methodology cautions that “…consideration given to the
issue of evaluating site conditions that may arise from changes in climate or the influences of
human behavior should be limited so as to avoid unnecessary speculation.”
DU PA v1.4 demonstrates compliance with the dose and groundwater protection requirements of
Utah regulations relating to DU disposal. The interrogatory and response process has added to
the record supporting these conclusions but has not caused the quantitative model itself to require
revision. Accordingly, DU PA v1.4 remains a reasonable basis for demonstrating compliance of
the disposal facility.
Compliance with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a) is affirmed by DU PA v1.4, together with the supporting
documentation as supplemented by the interrogatory/response cycle.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 6
1.0 Introduction
Beginning in 2009, EnergySolutions contracted Neptune to create a probabilistic performance
assessment (PA) for the disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium (DU) at their Clive,
Utah low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility.
The initial model was submitted as version 1.0 on June 1, 2011 (Neptune 2011) and was revised
to version 1.2 on June 5, 2014 (Neptune 2014). A Safety Evaluation Report (SER) based on
review of version 1.2 was issued by UDEQ in April 2015 (SC&A 2015).
On November 25, 2015, EnergySolutions submitted Radioactive Material License UT2300249:
Safety Evaluation Report for Condition 35.B Performance Assessment; Response to Issues
Raised in the April 2015 Draft Safety Evaluation Report (EnergySolutions 2015). This document
included version 1.4 of the DU PA (Neptune 2015e), prepared in response to open primary and
new interrogatories raised after development and DWMRC review of version 1.0; included in
Appendix C and Appendix B, respectively, of the SER.
On May 11, 2017, UDEQ provided Amended and New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA
Modeling Report Version 1.4 Dated November 2015 (Utah DEQ 2017). This document contains
clarifications to the original interrogatories from DU PA version 1.0 that remained open,
clarifications to the interrogatories newly raised with version 1.2 and new interrogatories
introduced with version 1.4 of the DU PA.
On April 2, 2018, EnergySolutions submitted Radioactive Material License UT2300249:
Responses to Amended and New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA Modeling Report
Version 1.4 Dated November 2015 (EnergySolutions 2018). As suggested by UDEQ, this
document included seven topical reports organized consistently with the themes expressed in the
interrogatory package (Utah DEQ 2017).
On July 25, 2019, UDEQ provided Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment (DU PA); Clive
Facility; Model Version 1.4 Amended Interrogatories; Radioactive Materials License #2300249
(Utah DEQ 2019). This document contains amended interrogatories of open issues regarding
version 1.4 of the DU PA model, closes several interrogatories, and introduces two more new
interrogatories. Neptune responded to these interrogatories on April 24, 2020 (Neptune 2020a).
In the 2020 response to interrogatories, a new “hybrid” cover design was introduced. This cover
design incorporates an evapotranspiration cover on the top slope; and a rock armor cover on the
side slope.
On December 3, 2020, UDEQ provided “Comments on EnergySolutions Cover Design System
Described in the DU PA, Draft Federal Cell License Application” (Utah DEQ 2020). This letter
poses 12 technical questions relating to the hybrid cover design.
Full text of each comment is quoted using blue text in Arial font, size 10.5 pt, and is indented to
visually distinguish the comment from the response. An example is shown below:
Sample format for quoting comment text.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 7
This response document does not comment on additional UDEQ comments provided under
separate cover “RE: Technical Report” dated January 28, 2021 (Utah DEQ 2021). This second
comment document includes concerns relating to erosion and embankment stability. Neptune is
preparing a response to those issues as a separate report (Neptune 2021).
Section 2.0 summarizes changes to the Federal Cell design. Section 3.0 discusses results from
the DU PA v1.4 model, and how these results relate to the revised design and additional analyses
performed. Section 4.0 presents a new HYDRUS 2D model of the hybrid cover. Section 5.0
responds point by point to the 12 comments presented in Utah DEQ 2020. Conclusions are found
in Section 6.0
2.0 Revised Federal Cell Design
In the 2020 response to interrogatories, the Federal Cell cover design was revised to adopt a rock
armor cover for the side slopes (Neptune 2020a). The ET cover previously analyzed for the top
slopes is retained. The ET cover has been selected for its superior performance in minimizing
percolation of atmospheric precipitation into the waste, while the rock armor cover has been
selected for its improved assurance in minimizing the potential for erosion of the steeper side
slopes.
The 2020 design has been further revised as discussed below. These revisions have been carried
through new and updated modeling as applicable. Updated drawings 14004-C01 through 14004-
C05 are included as Attachment 1.
2.1 Embankment Footprint
EnergySolutions has revised the embankment footprint in order to provide greater separation
between the Federal Cell and the 11e.(2) Cell to the east. The revised footprint is slightly
narrower east to west and slightly longer north to south than it was in prior drawings. The grade
of the top and side slope areas is unchanged; and the thickness of the cover layers are unchanged
from the drawings submitted previously.
The revised embankment footprint has slightly shorter top slope lengths; and a longer
embankment crest. Figure 1 shows the revised embankment footprint; Figure 2 shows the version
previously analyzed. Side slope lengths are unchanged. These changes result in a peak
embankment elevation at the crest that is one foot lower than that of the previous footprint1.
The current embankment footprint has been considered in HYDRUS 2D modeling performed to
address UDEQ comments. Prior hydrological modeling is unaffected by this change, since that
was conducted as one-dimensional modeling not connected to slope length.

1 Embankment thickness is considered in DU PA v1.4 in the context of radon emanation. This is modeled as an
average thickness of material between the DU waste and the surface, calculated in DU PA v1.4 to be 39.7 feet. The
revised embankment footprint changes this dimension to be 39.6 feet.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 8
The current embankment footprint has also been incorporated in SIBERIA modeling of erosion,
with results to be presented under separate cover.

Figure 1. Revised (2021) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C01, rev 2).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 9

Figure 2. Former (2020) Federal Cell footprint (from drawing 14004-C-01, rev. 0).
2.2 Top Slope Surface Layer Thickness
In the 2020 design change to utilize rip rap armoring on the side slopes, the top slope surface
layer thickness was increased from 6 inches to 12 inches. This change slightly increases the
storage capacity of the ET cover design. HYDRUS 2D evaluation of the full hybrid cover
includes this revision. Figure 3 provides the top slope layering.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 10

Figure 3. Top Slope Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1).
2.3 Transition Zone and Side Slope Frost Protection Layer
The transition zone from the ET cover top slope to the rip rap cover side slope has been revised
from that presented in the 2020 design. The revision moves the transition zone to the shoulder of
the embankment and reduces its width. These changes were made to reduce the impact of
increased percolation through the rip rap portion of the cover. Figure 4 provides the transition
zone detail as currently modeled; Figure 5 displays the prior design.

Figure 4. Transition Zone (2021) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 1).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 11

Figure 5. Former Transition Zone (2020) Detail (from drawing 14004-C05, rev. 0).
Concurrent with this change, the material used as the Frost Protection Layer (FPL) for the side
slope has been changed. The current design specifies this material to be the same bank run as
used for the FPL on the top slope; where the 2020 design used native clay soils for the side slope
frost protection layer. This material was changed in order to ensure consistent drainage
properties from the top slope onto the side slope at this layer in the cover system. The change
also improves constructability of the transition zone.
As discussed in Section 4, HYDRUS 2D modeling of the full hybrid cover includes these
revisions.
3.0 Results from the DU PA v1.4 Model
Since initial submittal of DU PA v1.4 (Neptune 2015e), many technical issues have been
resolved relating to the probabilistic performance assessment (PA) model, through the
interrogatory/response process summarized in Section 1.0. In this report, Neptune presents
analyses of the hybrid cover design performance in relation to the percolation assumptions and
results embedded in v1.4 of the DU PA. If the hybrid cover is demonstrated to have comparable
performance to that of the ET cover modeled in DU PA v1.4, then the results of DU PA v1.4 can
be considered to hold as well.
The Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4 (Neptune 2015e)
provides the following summary of DU PA v1.4 results for the quantitative compliance period of
10,000 years. Additional work preparing interrogatory and comment responses after creation of
version 1.4 (Neptune 2015e) have not changed the principal analysis and reported conclusions.
Compliance with the performance objectives for the inadvertent intruder dose of 500 mrem
in a year and for the MOP of 25 mrem in a year is clearly established for all three types of
potential future receptors. This indicates that for the disposal configuration where DU wastes
are placed below grade, doses are expected to remain well below applicable dose
thresholds…
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 12
Results are also available for the offsite (MOP) receptors. None of the 95th percentile dose
estimates for these receptors exceeds 1 mrem in a year, and all of the peak mean dose
estimates are at or below 0.1 mrem in a year.
Table ES-1. Peak TEDE: statistical summary
peak TEDE (mrem in a yr) within 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent
For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, as specified in the facility’s permit (UWQB
2009), results are shown in Table ES-2. For all such radionuclides compliance with the
GWPLs is clearly demonstrated.
Table ES-2. Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr, compared to
GWPLs
peak activity concentration within 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB (2009) Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
Figure 6 displays Table ES-1 dose results graphically in context with the dose limit of
25 mrem/year for members of the public under R313-25-20. Typical background radiation dose
is also provided on this figure as a point of reference. DU PA v1.4 results are 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude below the dose limit.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 13

Figure 6. DU PA v1.4 dose results, R313-25-20 dose limit, and typical background dose.
DU PA v1.4 demonstrates compliance with the dose and groundwater protection requirements of
Utah regulations relating to DU disposal. The interrogatory and response process has added to
the record supporting these conclusions but has not caused the quantitative model to require
revision. Accordingly, DU PA v1.4 remains the basis for demonstrating compliance of the
disposal facility.
Compliance with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a) is affirmed by DU PA v1.4, together with the supporting
documentation as supplemented by the interrogatory/response cycle.
Ultimately, the DU PA v1.4 evaluates an above-grade embankment located in a terminal desert
basin. Annual potential evapotranspiration in Utah’s west desert far exceeds precipitation; and
the site is located above a largely stagnant aquifer in an area with limited natural groundwater
recharge. Projections of negligible percolation into and through an above-grade embankment in
this context are not only reasonable, they are to be expected.
3.1.1 Target Percolation Threshold
Within this response document, scenarios from the comments are sometimes evaluated against a
percolation criteria of 1 mm/yr. This criteria refers to the results of the DU PA v1.4XXX
GoldSim model described in Neptune (2015a). ET cover percolation inputs to this GoldSim
model were generated using a HYDRUS 1D model with a monolayer ET cover. In other words,
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
Mean Median 95th %ile
Do
s
e

(
m
r
e
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Ranch worker (DU PA v1.4)
Hunter (DU PA v1.4)
OHV enthusiast (DU PA v1.4)
Dose limit
Typical radiation dose in U.S.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 14
in v1.4XXX, all layers of the modeled cover have identical material properties. The average
annual percolation through the monolayer cover is 0.91 mm/yr using hydraulic properties
generated from the Hydraulic Props Calc.xls file provided by Dr. Benson, and using inputs for a
fine-grained material from Benson et al. (2011) (NUREG/CR-7028).
Results of the DU PA v1.4XXX GoldSim model indicate that the Tc-99 median concentration is
below the groundwater protection limit (GWPL) of 3790 pCi/L, while the mean and 95th
percentile results exceed the GWPL. Rancher doses are slightly lower in the v1.4XXX model
because the increased percolation suppresses upward radon flux.
This monolayer ET cover scenario is not physically plausible; however, it provides a useful
metric on the percolation limit at which the Tc-99 groundwater protection limit may be
exceeded. The v1.4XXX results indicate that when average annual percolation exceeds
0.91 mm/yr (rounded to 1 mm/yr), mean and 95th percentile concentrations of Tc-99 potentially
exceed the GWPL of 3790 pCi/L.
4.0 Hybrid Cover Performance—HYDRUS-2D Modeling
The percolation results presented in the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling are based upon a 1D model of
an ET cover (Neptune 2015b). This modeling effort reflects a previous design for the federal cell
that included an ET cover on both the top and side slopes (see Section 2.0 Revised Federal Cell
Design). It was demonstrated that in this system lateral flow would be negligible, and therefore a
1D modeling approach would be sufficient to assess cover performance (Neptune 2015f).
Since 2014, modifications have been made to the Federal Cell design (see Section 2.0). The top
layer of the side slope consists of 45.7 cm (18 in) riprap rock, underlain by 30.5 cm (12 in) of a
filter layer. The remaining layers are identical to those specified in the ET portion of the hybrid
cover (Figure 8). Additionally, the surface layer of the ET portion of the hybrid cover design
increased from 15.2 to 30.6 cm (6 to 12 inches). The main concern discussed in the current
comments (Utah DEQ 2020) is a need to determine whether the results presented in the v1.4
HYDRUS modeling are still sufficiently representative of cover performance, given the revised
design of the federal cell cover.
To investigate this concern, a 2D model of the updated hybrid cover design has been developed.
The primary goal of the 2D model is to calculate percolation out of the cover above the waste
zone, and to compare these results to the percolation results presented in the v1.4 HYDRUS
modeling.
4.1.1 Modeling Domain
A cross section of the federal cell is shown in Figure 7, including detail of the configuration of
the ET cover, transition zone, and side slope in the hybrid cover design. To improve
computational efficiency and reduce model run times, only a portion of the hybrid cover design
is modeled (Figure 8). Only the ET portion of the hybrid cover is shortened. In the 2D hybrid
cover model, 56 m of ET cover is included as well as the full 54 m extent of the side slope. The
choice of this abbreviated domain was supported by several model runs with a variety of domain
lengths to ensure that there were not significant boundary effects associated with the truncation.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 15

Figure 7. Cross section of federal cell, including a 135 m (448.4 ft) of top slope, and detail of
the transition zone of the hybrid cover design.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 16

Figure 8. Full length cover design and abbreviated hybrid cover model.
4.1.2 Layering
A representative view of the modeled geometry of each layer for the ET cover, transition zone,
and side slope is shown in Figure 9. Because extremely coarse materials (i.e., riprap) are
problematic to model when paired with an atmospheric boundary (typically requiring very small
mesh refinement and/or timesteps, both which are impractical at the scale of the 2D model and
length of simulation), and to simplify the model domain using only v1.4 modeling parameters,
the material hydraulic parameters for the FPL are used for the top 3 layers of the side slope, as
shown in Figure 9.
With this parameterization of the side slope, Ksat is high enough that no runoff occurs throughout
the simulation, and therefore all precipitation is accounted for in the model domain. In addition,
water content on the side slope layer generally stays below 10%, thus there is no significant
storage in the “riprap” or “filter” layers using this parameterization. Lastly, values of Ksat of
riprap materials are typically very high, however the large pore spaces of this material will be
filled in with fines over time. Therefore, any measured K for the riprap would no longer be
representative of long-term conditions. For the purposes of exploring the hybrid cover design,
the frost protection parameters are therefore considered appropriate for simulating the relatively
higher levels of percolation expected over this portion of the cover.
190 m total length with 136 m of ET cover and 54 m of side slope
110 m total length with 56 m of ET cover
Hybrid cover design
Abbreviated hybrid cover model
ET cover
136 m
Side slope
54 m
ET cover
56 m
Side slope
54 m
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 17

Figure 9. Model layering and materials for the 2D hybrid cover.
4.1.3 Boundary Conditions
An atmospheric boundary condition is used along the top surface of the model and a free
drainage boundary condition along the bottom of the model, as specified in the v1.4 HYDRUS
modeling (Neptune 2015b). A “No Flux” (i.e., no flow) boundary condition is used on the left
boundary of the model domain and along the top of the right side of the model domain as the
model pinches out, as shown in Figure 10. The HYDRUS interface includes a feature called a
“mesh line” which allows the user to define a continuous series of nodes in the domain; the water
flux across the surface is reported at every time step in the output. A mesh line, indicated in pink
dots along the bottom of the ET portion of the hybrid cover, is used in the model to calculate the
flux of water leaving the free drainage boundary condition (bottom of the lower radon barrier)
for the portion that lies directly under the ET component of the hybrid cover. This line indicates
the lateral extend to which waste will be placed in the federal cell (i.e., waste will not be placed
under the side slope).
ET COVER
SIDE
SLOPE
TRANSITION
ZONE
ET COVER TRANSITION ZONE
2.1 m (7 ()
SIDE SLOPE
30.5 cm (12 in)
30.5 cm (12 in)
30.5 cm (12 in)
30.5 cm (12 in)
45.7 cm (18 in)
45.7 cm (18 in)
30.5 cm (12 in)
30.5 cm (12 in)
30.5 cm (12 in)
45.7 cm (18 in)
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 18

Figure 10. Boundary conditions used in the 2D hybrid cover model.
4.1.4 Mesh
A global target mesh spacing of 5 cm is used throughout the 2D hybrid cover model domain.
Additionally, three mesh refinements are specified where the target mesh spacing is set to 1 cm:
1) along the top surface of the model (atmospheric boundary) for both the top and side slopes,
and 2) between the evaporative layer and the frost protection layer. This refinement is needed to
model the sharp pressure head gradients induced by precipitation and evaporation at the surface,
and to provide enough resolution in the model to capture the performance of the capillary break
between the evaporative and frost protection layers.
Due to the horizontal scale of the model, a horizontal stretching factor of 15 is used to reduce the
number of nodes in the domain. Figure 11 shows a small portion of the ET side of the hybrid
cover; higher densities of nodes are seen along the surface and between the evaporative and frost
protection layers, as described above. Figure 11 also shows how the stretching factor can
increase the horizontal distance between nodes, while maintaining the higher resolution in the
vertical direction.
A mesh line is used tocalculate the por2on of
the free drainage fluxes out of the lower radon
barrier under the ET por2on of the hybrid cover
ET COVER SIDE
SLOPE
TRANSITION
ZONE
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 19

Figure 11. Node spacing detail shown for a portion of the top slope.
4.1.5 Rooting Parameters
A rooting depth of 80 cm is used for the ET portion of the hybrid cover (Figure 12), the same as
used in the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling (Neptune 2015b). No rooting is assigned for the side slope
and transition zone. As in the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling, the van Genuchten S-shaped model is
used for the water stress response function for root water uptake, using the same
parameterization; the default HYDRUS value of 3 is specified for the p exponent, and a value
of -200 cm for the h50 parameter (the pressure head or tension at which water uptake is reduce by
50 percent) (Neptune 2015b). HYDRUS now also allows the user to specify the pressure head
below which transpiration stops, known as the permanent wilting point. A tension of 50,000 cm
was specified for the wilting point. This is higher than typically assigned, but it is not impactful
because the S-shape water stress function discussed above effectively cuts off root water uptake
at much lower tensions. For example, the water stress factor is about 0.001 at a pressure head of
only -2000 cm.
Since every attempt is made to make the 2D model as similar as possible to the v1.4 HYDRUS
model runs, the value of h50 is specified in the 2D hybrid cover model to be identical to the value
used v1.4 HYDRUS modeling (-200 cm, as indicated above). However, recent work has shown
that this value is conservative for the expected soils and vegetation at the site. Additional
discussion regarding the root water uptake model is provided in Section 5.12.1.1.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 20
The lack of rooting parameters on the side slope was specified in order to allow maximum
impact of the side slope and transition zone on the percolation out of the ET cover. In reality,
riprap covers, despite their poor soils at the surface, have been shown to be effective at
promoting growth of native vegetation, allowing for transpiration to occur, and ultimately
reducing percolation from the cover system. Benson (2021) showed that by allowing a riprap
cover to grow vegetation, percolation out of the cover was substantially reduced.

Figure 12. Rooting depths shown for the top slope, transition zone, and side slope.
4.1.6 Atmospheric Input
The same 100-year year repeating atmospheric record used in the v1.4 modeling is used for the
2D hybrid cover model, including daily precipitation and calculations of potential
evaporation/transportation. This 100-year record was repeated 5 times in the 2D hybrid cover
model in order to run the 2D models out to 500 years.
4.1.7 Initial Conditions
Unique initial conditions are assigned for each model to reduce the time needed for the models to
reach a quasi-steady state equilibrium (Table 1). Values are selected to allow each model to start
relatively dry and to increase in water content until reaching a quasi-steady state equilibrium.
The results shown in Section 4.3 indicate this state is achieved within approximately 100 years.
Table 1. Tension (pressure head) used for initial conditions in each model. Values are
shown in cm.
Model Surface Layer
Evaporative
Layer
Frost
Protection
Layer
Upper Radon
Barrier
Lower Radon
Barrier
Maximum -500 -500 -500 -6800 -6800
2nd Highest -500 -500 -500 -11400 -11400
Median -1000 -1000 -1000 -12000 -12000
Minimum -1500 -1500 -1750 -78000 -78000

80cm
ET COVER SIDE
SLOPE
TRANSITION
ZONE
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 21
4.2 Material Hydraulic Properties
The v1.4 HYDRUS modeling allows values for α, n, and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)
to vary over a total of 50 model runs. Values for α and n are varied for the surface and
evaporative layers, and Ksat is varied for the upper and lower radon barriers (Table 2). Values for
each of the variables are drawn from unique distributions developed for each parameter (Neptune
2015b). Percolation results from the 50 unique parameter sets range from 0.0067 to 0.183
mm/year (Figure 13).
To select hydraulic parameters for the 5 materials used in the 2d hybrid cover model (Figure 9),
sets of α, n, and Ksat are selected from the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling. Since the 2D hybrid cover
model requires substantially more computational resources than the original v1.4 1D modeling,
four parameter sets from the v1.4 modeling are used to parameterize the materials in the 2D
hybrid cover model. The values of α, n, and Ksat that produced the maximum (0.183 mm/yr), 2nd
highest (0.0814 mm/yr), median (0.015 mm/yr), and minimum (0.0067 mm/yr) percolation are
selected to parameterize the material properties of the 2D hybrid cover model (Table 3).

Figure 13. Sorted results from the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling with the maximum, 2nd
highest, median, and minimum percolation results indicated.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 22
Table 2. Material hydraulic parameters used in DU PA v1.4 modeling.
θr θs α n Ksat
(VWC %) (VWC %) (1/cm) (unitless) (cm/day)
Surface 0.111 0.4089 *Variable Variable 4.46
Evaporative 0.111 0.481 Variable Variable 4.46
Frost Protection 0.065 0.41 0.075 1.89 106.1
Upper Radon 0.1 0.432 0.003 1.172 Variable
Lower Radon 0.1 0.432 0.003 1.172 Variable
*In the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling, values are drawn from distributions developed for α, n,
and Ksat.

Table 3. Parameter sets for α, n, and Ksat used in the 2D hybrid cover models.
V1.4 run
Surface and
Evaporative
Layers
α
(unitless)
Surface and
Evaporative
Layers
n
(unitless)
Upper and
Lower Radon
Barriers
Ksat
(cm/day)
1D HYDRUS
Results
(mm/yr)
Maximum #20 0.028186 1.378016 3.643845 0.183
2nd Highest #30 0.024165 1.349583 7.758327 0.0814
Median #36 0.014343 1.383885 1.005712 0.0149
Minimum #34 0.014338 1.265236 66.50366 0.00667

4.3 Results
The 2D hybrid cover model results are identified using the naming convention shown in the first
column of Table 3. For example, the 2D hybrid cover model results labeled “Maximum”
indicates that the values of α, n, and Ksat that produce the maximum amount of percolation in the
1D simulations (i.e., 0.183 mm/yr) are used in that simulation. The same applies with the 2nd
highest, median, and minimum models.
Percolation out of the lower radon barrier, tension at the bottom of the lower radon barrier, and
water content at the bottom of the lower radon barrier, as a function of horizontal distance along
the hybrid cover, are shown in Figure 14 through Figure 16. The snapshots in time are shown at
20-year intervals for model years 120 through 220. A small representation of the abbreviated
model domain is included at the top of each figure to indicate where along the hybrid cover the
results reflect.
The estimated annual percolation out of the lower radon barrier, for the ET cover portion of the
hybrid cover design, is shown in Figure 17 through 500 years. As seen on the left side of the
charts in Figure 14 through Figure 16, the abbreviated model is sufficiently large that the
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 23
percolation, tension, and water content are spatially constant for approximately the leftmost 10 m
of the domain, which implies that the choice of domain is not creating any undesirable boundary
effects. As such, conditions under the majority of the ET cover are expected to be unaffected by
interactions with the transition zone and side slope. Where the slopes flatten out in Figure 14
through Figure 16, it is assumed that these conditions will continue for the remainder of the ET
portion of the cover (i.e., the full 135 m proposed top slope that continues to the “crest” of the
cell identified in Figure 7). Percolation out of the lower radon barrier in the unaffected portion of
the model is used to estimate the average percolation out of the full 135 m proposed top slope, of
which the results are presented in Figure 17.
The percolation results presented in the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling (last column in Figure 13) are
based on the average percolation observed during a 100-year period of time at the end of the
simulations. To compare the 2D hybrid cover model results to the v1.4 results, the average
percolation is computed over model years 400–500 in order to capture the range of behavior over
the 100-yr precipitation record, while avoiding any transient fluxes early in the simulation
associated with initial conditions. A comparison of the results is shown in Table 4.
It is important to reiterate that the average percolation results shown in Figure 17 do not include
the higher percolation conditions observed under the side slope portion of the 2D hybrid cover
model. DU waste is not designated to be placed under the side slopes, and is proposed to be
confined only to areas that are directly beneath the ET portion of the hybrid cover design.
Therefore, only percolation through the ET portion of the hybrid cover design is presented here
and compared to the v1.4 HYDRUS results in Table 4.
31

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
1

24

Cl
i
v
e

D
U

P
A

M
o
d
e
l
—Re
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

D
W
M
R
C

1
2
-3-20
2
0

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

Figure 14. Percolation out of the lower radon barrier, as a function of lateral distance in the 2D hybrid cover model.
ET
COVER
SIDE
SLOPE
years years years
years years years
31

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
1

25

Cl
i
v
e

D
U

P
A

M
o
d
e
l
—Re
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

D
W
M
R
C

1
2
-3-20
2
0

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

Figure 15. Tension at the bottom of the lower radon barrier, as a function of lateral distance in the 2D hybrid cover model.
ET
COVER
SIDE
SLOPE
years years years
years years years
31

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
1

26

Cl
i
v
e

D
U

P
A

M
o
d
e
l
—Re
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

D
W
M
R
C

1
2
-3-20
2
0

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

Figure 16. Water content at the bottom of the lower radon barrier, as a function of lateral distance in the 2D hybrid cover
model.
ET
COVER
SIDE
SLOPE
years years years
years years years
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 27

Figure 17. Annual percolation out of the lower radon barrier for the entire 135 m length of
proposed ET cover (shown in Figure 8). Results for the Maximum and 2nd highest
show a minor amount of coarseness in the results after 300 years. This is due to the
precision of the model output in HYDRUS, and not a change in behavior of the
model.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 28
Table 4. Average annual percolation out of the radon barrier (model years 400–500); v1.4
results vs 2D hybrid cover results.
V1.4 run
V1.4 results
(mm/yr)
2D hybrid
cover results
(mm/yr)
Maximum #20 0.183 0.395
2nd Highest #30 0.0814 0.319
Median #36 0.0149 0.111
Minimum #34 0.00667 0.202

4.4 Discussion
The results from the 2D model of the hybrid cover indicate that percolation through the riprap
side slope will be higher compared to the ET top slope portion of the cover. In Figure 14, the
right portions of the charts show that percolation out of the side slope exceed 10 mm/yr during
the model simulation. This is ultimately due to the configuration of the side slope, which lacks
features such as a storage and evaporative zone (e.g., the surface and evaporative layers in the
ET portion of the hybrid cover design) and a capillary break (interface between the evaporative
and frost protection layers in the ET portion of the hybrid cover design). With this configuration,
the side slope permits greater percolation, leading to lower tensions and higher water content at
the bottom of the lower radon barrier (Figure 15 and Figure 16), and ultimately higher
percolation near the transition zone (Figure 14).
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show pressure head and water content for the 2D hybrid cover model
domain at snapshots over a 120-year period. Throughout this period, the side slope maintains
relatively lower tension and higher water content in the radon barrier, whereas the radon barrier
below the ET portion of the hybrid cover shows much higher tensions and lower water content.
This is due to the difference in average percolation rate of the ET portion of the hybrid cover
design on the left side of the model compared to that of the side slope on the right side of the
model. This results in a lateral hydraulic gradient in the radon barrier, lateral flow from right to
left, and, consequently, increased percolation beneath the ET cover near the transition zone.
Despite the lateral hydraulic gradient, the low conductivity of the radon barrier material does not
permit enough lateral flow to cause a sizeable increase in the average percolation under the ET
portion of the hybrid cover. As seen in Figure 14, percolation out of the lower radon barrier
beneath the ET cover does increase near the transition zone. However, Figure 17 shows that the
average percolation out of the lower radon barrier over the proposed 135 m of ET cover in the
revised cover design ranges from 0.11 to 0.41 mm/yr for the four models explored.
While 1D modeling performed in support of Model v1.4 (Neptune 2015d) suggested that
percolation is insensitive to the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the radon barrier, in this
configuration, the radon barrier provides a link between the side slope and the ET cover, and as a
result, these simulations suggest that percolation associated with this flow path is quite sensitive
to the radon barrier properties. Consequently, the impact of the hybrid design on the ET portion
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 29
of the cover appears to be most pronounced in the model realization with the highest saturated
hydraulic conductivity in the radon barrier, which happened to be the “Minimum” case described
above. This can be observed in Figure 14 through Figure 16. Ksat for this model realization,
66.5 cm/day, is significantly higher than the other three cases, which ranged from 1.0 to
7.7 cm/day (Table 3).
All values for Ksat used in the v1.4 modeling for the radon barrier are 3-4 orders of magnitude
higher than what has since been measured from samples obtained from the Test Cell
deconstruction (EnergySolutions 2020). Three 5 × 10-8 clay samples (upper radon barrier) were
taken from the Test Cell and submitted for analysis; the results for Ksat ranged from 0.002 to
0.012 cm/day, with a mean of 0.005 cm/day. Five 1 × 10-6 clay samples (lower radon barrier)
were taken from the Test Cell and submitted for analysis; the results for Ksat ranged from 0.001
to 0.041 cm/day, with a mean of 0.011 cm/day. In comparison, the v1.4 modeling used values
that ranged from 0.748 to 66.5 cm/day, with a mean of 6.76 cm/day.
The steepness of the curves in Figure 14 through Figure 16 indicate that elevated percolation,
water content, and lower tensions are restricted to distances close to the transition zone, with the
impacts of the transition zone diminishing rapidly with distance. While the effects of the hybrid
cover design are apparent in these figures, the impact is grossly overestimated as a result of the
high Ksat values used to parameterize the radon barrier. The “Median” model shows the steepest
decline in percolation rates away from the transition zone due to it having the lowest Ksat value
of 1.0 cm/day (although this value is now considered very high in comparison to the site-specific
data obtained discussed above).
The results of the 2D modeling indicate that percolation rates through the ET cover are expected
to remain low (Figure 17), despite the overly conservative parameterization of the radon barrier.
Previous GoldSim modeling of the Federal Cell has indicated that performance criteria for the
site will be met when percolation through the cover is less than approximately 1 mm/yr (Section
3.1.1). Figure 17 shows that the influence of the side slope configuration on the overall
performance of the federal cell hybrid cover design is minimal, and that average percolation is
expected to fall well below this threshold. If site-specific values for radon barrier materials are
incorporated into the HYDRUS modeling, the influence of the hybrid cover on percolation rates
below the ET portion of the hybrid cover is expected to be reduced further, and therefore the
impact of the hybrid design on overall percolation is comparable to modeling used in DU PA
v1.4.
5.0 UDEQ Comments and Responses
Each comment is quoted in full followed by Neptune’s response.
5.1 UDEQ Comment 1: Hybrid Cover Percolation Model
1. A new hybrid-cover design is proposed and included in the Federal-Cell license application.
EnergySolutions and its contractor, Neptune and Company, Inc., need to submit a supplemental
document that describes and justifies with supportive analysis and calculations how results from
the modeling of an evapotranspiration (ET) cover as presented in Clive DU PA Model v1.4 are
applicable to this new hybrid-cover design. Within this supplemental document, identify,
describe, and differentiate cover components, concepts and terminology that are applicable to
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 30
the hybrid-cover design and those that are being newly introduced or adapted for the hybrid-
cover design.
5.1.1 Comment 1 Response
Table 5 below describes the basic layering of the original design of the federal cell compared to
the revised hybrid cover design. Additional detail regarding the revised federal cell design is
provided in Section 2.0. Section 4.0 provides details and results of a 2D model of the hybrid
cover design that compares the performance of the revised cell design to the v1.4 HYDRUS
results.
Table 5. Comparison of the layering on the top and side slopes of the original Federal Cell
design and the revised design.
Original design Hybrid cover
Layer Top slope Thickness
cm (in) Side slope Thickness
cm (in) Top slope Thickness
cm (in)
Side
slope
Thickness
cm (in)
1 Surface 15.2 (6) Surface 15.2 (6) Surface 30.5 (12) Riprap 47.7 (18)
2 Evaporative 30.5 (12) Evaporative 30.5 (12) Evaporative 30.5 (12) Filter 30.5 (12)
3 Frost
Protection 47.7 (18) Frost
Protection 47.7 (18) Frost
Protection 47.7 (18) Frost
Protection 47.7 (18)
4
Upper
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
Upper
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
Upper
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
Upper
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
5
Lower
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
Lower
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
Lower
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)
Lower
Radon
Barrier
30.5 (12)

5.2 UDEQ Comment 2: HYDRUS Snowmelt Algorithm
2. The efficacy of the snowmelt algorithm utilized by HYDRUS remains in question. A validation
of the snowmelt algorithm utilized by HYDRUS is required and has not been presented. A
validation reported in the literature for conditions representative of the Clive Facility needs to be
submitted, or a regional-specific validation study needs to be conducted. It is essential that the
results of the algorithm validation, literature-based or regional-specific, demonstrate the efficacy
of the snowmelt model in HYDRUS for predicting snow accumulation, snow melt, and infiltration
in the Clive region. The submittal of the validation document should present and explain the
validation analysis and justify each of the parameters used in the HYDRUS snowmelt model
based on information in the literature and/or the outcomes of the regional-specific validation.
Part of a regional-specific validation may potentially be obtained by simulating hydrologic
conditions with HYDRUS using meteorological data from a site in the region and/or the Clive
meteorological station, where snow is known to accumulate, hydraulic properties are known
(e.g., from the Cover Test Cell data), and conditions within the profile are monitored for a
comparison between predicted and observed conditions. This will help demonstrate that the
HYDRUS snowmelt sub-model properly predicts snow accumulation, snow melt, infiltration,
measured soil-water content and soil-water storage at various depths.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 31
5.2.1 Comment 2 Response
This comment is addressed in three parts: (1) a literature review; (2) an attempted site-specific
validation using Cover Test Cell data; and (3) correlation of snowpack data from Dugway, UT
against the snowpack predicted by applying the Dugway climate data to the HYDRUS snowmelt
algorithm.
5.2.1.1 Literature Review
A brief literature search was conducted to assess whether the snowmelt algorithm has been
validated for a comparable setting to Clive. The HYDRUS User Manual (Šimůnek et al. 2007)
describes this algorithm as follows:
When heat transport is simulated simultaneously with water flow and atmospheric boundary
conditions, then snow accumulation on top of the soil surface can be simulated. The code
then assumes that when the air temperature is below -2 C all precipitation is in the form of
snow. When the air temperature is above +2 C all precipitation is in the form of liquid, while
a linear transition is used between the two limiting temperatures (-2,2). The code further
assumes that when the air temperature is above zero, the existing snow layer (if it exists)
melts proportionally to the air temperature.
No discussion of validation of the snowmelt algorithm is provided in the HYDRUS User
Manual, however.
The HYDRUS snowmelt infiltration routine has been reported to accurately simulate snowmelt
infiltration rates when compared with measured soil water content during spring thaw for the
Bucegi Mountains (Dobre et al. 2017). However, this work does not include conditions
representative of the Clive facility.
Similarly, Zhao et al. (2016) evaluate soil moisture and temperature simulated in HYDRUS 1D
using both the snow routine and a frozen soil module against measured data for a grassland in
Inner Mongolia. In this work, both the snow routine and the frozen soil module match well
against measured data when the soil is not frozen; and the HYDRUS 1D frozen soil module
better matches the data, particularly at an hourly level, when the soil is frozen. During times the
soil is frozen, the snow routine appears to overstate soil moisture compared with the data and the
frozen soil module. Summary climate data for the Inner Mongolia site is not provided; though
this appears to be an arid location that could be comparable in ways to Clive.
5.2.1.2 Cover Test Cell Model
Given indeterminate results from a literature review, the Cover Test Cell deconstruction data was
looked to as a possible way to validate the HYDRUS snow routine on a site-specific basis. If
HYDRUS could reasonably replicate the Cover Test Cell percolation data when the snow model
was employed, the snow model would be considered sufficient for capturing the effects of snow
formation and melting at the Clive, UT site.
The Cover Test Cell was constructed just south of the proposed site for the Federal Cell, and was
therefore exposed to all the meteorological impacts at the site, including snowfall, over the
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 32
15-year period it was monitored. The measured percolation data out of the bottom of the Cover
Test Cell effectively integrated all the processes of snow accumulation and melting that would
have occurred at the site during this period. Figure 18 shows the design and layering of the Cover
Test Cell as it was constructed at the site.
A simplified 1D model of the Cover Test Cell is constructed in HYDRUS. The snow feature is
left off in one simulation, and is turned on in another. Percolation predictions from the two
models are compared to actual percolation collected below the Cover Test Cell via a lysimeter
tipping bucket.

Figure 18. Test Cell (reprinted from EnergySolutions (2020)).
Model Domain
A 1D column is used to model the Cover Test Cell. Seven layers are used in the 1D Test Cell
model, shown in Figure 19. Because extremely coarse materials (i.e., riprap) are problematic to
model when paired with an atmospheric boundary (typically requiring very small mesh
refinement and/or timesteps, both of which are impractical at the scale of the 1D model and
length of simulation), the material hydraulic parameters for the riprap layer are assigned the
default parameters available in HYDRUS for sandy loam in the first 15.2 cm (6 in), and sand in
the next 30.5 cm (12 in), as shown in Figure 19. Default parameters available in HYDRUS are
based on Carsel and Parrish (1988).
With this parameterization of the riprap material, Ksat is high enough that no runoff occurs
throughout the simulation, and therefore all precipitation is accounted for in the model domain.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 33
In addition, water content in these layers generally stays below 10%, and therefore no significant
storage occurs in these layers using this parameterization.
Table 6 summarizes hydraulic properties used in the simulation. Hydraulic properties for the
remaining layers are taken from EnergySolutions (2020). The Filter A, Sacrificial Soil, and Filter
B layers each had a single sample taken and submitted for material hydraulic property testing, of
which the results are shown in Table 1. For the clay layers, multiple samples are taken from the
5x10-8 cm/s (n=3) and 1x10-6 cm/s (n=5) layers of the Test Cell. A representative sample is
selected for each layer, based the sample’s overall tendency toward the mean of each of the 5
parameters shown in Table 1.
Root Water Uptake
No root water uptake is specified in the model. After passing through the “riprap” layer, water
continues downward through the subsequent layers and ultimately out of the bottom of the
model.

Figure 19. Layers in the 1D Test Cell model.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 34
Table 6. Material hydraulic properties.
Thickness θr θs α n Ksat
cm (in) (VWC %) (VWC %) (1/cm) (unitless) (cm/day)
Sandy Loam 15.2 (6) 0.065 0.41 0.075 1.89 106.1
Sand 30.5 (12) 0.045 0.43 0.145 2.68 712.8
Filter A 15.2 (6) 0.03 0.37 0.329592 2.79 1874880
Sacrificial Soil 30.5 (12) 0 0.3 0.0336735 1.18 24192
Filter B 15.2 (6) 0.07 0.37 0.0591837 4 907200
Upper Radon 30.5 (12) 0 0.39 0.000153061 1.39 0.00216
Lower 182.8 (72) 0 0.39 0.000132653 1.43 0.0020736

Node Resolution and Boundary Conditions
1001 nodes are used for the 320 cm (10.5 ft) 1D Test Cell model, with uniform spacing equating
to approximately 3.2 mm between nodes. An atmospheric boundary condition is specified at the
top node of the model and a free drainage boundary condition at the bottom node of the model.
Atmospheric Input
The same 100-year year repeating atmospheric record used in the v1.4 modeling is used for the
1D Test Cell model, including daily precipitation and calculations of potential evaporation. This
100-year record is repeated 10 times in order to run the 1D model out to 1000 years. Over this
period, the HYDRUS model obtains a quasi-steady state equilibrium, from which the percolation
results are based. Two simulations are performed, one with the snow model turned off, and
another with the snow model turned on.
Initial Conditions
A pressure head of -500 cm was specified for all layers as an initial condition.
Results
Percolation results are calculated as the average percolation out of the system for the last 100
years of the simulation to avoid any transient fluxes early in the simulation associated with initial
conditions, and are presented in Table 7. Actual percolation data from the Cover Test Cell was
collected via a tipping bucket lysimeter beneath the Cover Test Cell for a 15-year period from
2002 through 2016. Monthly total tips are shown in Figure 20, with 1 tip corresponding to
approximately 4.74 cm3 (0.289 in3) of water. After dividing the measured volumes by the area of
the Test Cell, an average percolation rate of 0.2 mm/yr was recorded by the lysimeter tipping
bucket.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 35
Table 7. Results of the 1D Test Cell model.
Model Percolation (mm/yr)
With snow turned off 2.14
With snow turned on 5.32

Figure 20. Monthly tip data collected from the Cover Test Cell.
Discussion
Compared with measured data, HYDRUS overpredicts percolation through the Cover Test Cell
by more than an order of magnitude in both models. However, there are several additional
mechanisms that occurred in the Test Cell that are not accounted for in the 1D Test Cell model.
Figure 18 indicates that the 5 × 10-8 cm/s and 1 × 10-6 cm/s clays are in direct contact with
adjacent subsurface native clays, and no membrane was placed at this boundary to prevent lateral
flow. The Cover Test Cell deconstruction report states that it was assumed that only vertical flow
of water would occur in the test cell. This is likely not a valid assumption, given how the Cover
Test Cell was constructed.
Potential evaporation in the high desert environment at Clive exceeds annual precipitation by a
large margin, leading to extremely dry conditions in the shallow soil environment. In contrast,
the buried portion of the Cover Test Cell (5 × 10-8 cm/s and 1 × 10-6 cm/s clays) likely had
higher water content compared to the surrounding soils because it was constructed of very coarse
materials at the surface, having little storage capacity to hold on to and return water to the
atmosphere via evaporation and resulting in higher levels of percolation.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 36
This is observed in the side slope portion of the hybrid cover model in Section 4.0. That is,
placing highly conductive materials with low storage capacity at the surface allows water to
quickly pass through the shallow depths, and continue to deeper portions of the column where it
is not subject to evaporative processes. This was likely the case with the Cover Test Cell, where
increased downward flux of water through the riprap ultimately lead to higher water content (and
lower tension) in the 5 × 10-8 cm/s and 1 × 10-6 cm/s clays, compared the surrounding native
clays. The difference in pressure heads and water content between the clays in the Cover Test
Cell and the surrounding native clays would result in a hydraulic gradient, creating lateral flow.
Simply put, one of apparent reasons that the Cover Test Cell data did not record as much
percolation per year as the 1D HYDRUS models predict is that a portion of the infiltrated water
was likely leaving the system laterally, and therefore unaccounted for by the tipping bucket
lysimeter.
Another reason that the percolation data from the Cover Test Cell is lower than predicted by the
1D HYDRUS model could be the result of the establishment of vegetation and minor rooting in
some of the layers of the Cover Test Cell. In the 1D HYDRUS models, no root water uptake is
specified in the model. However, during deconstruction of the Cover Test Cell, a small amount
of rooting was observed in the sacrificial soil layer (EnergySolutions 2020). Even a small amount
of roots in the system could lead to significant amounts of water being captured and returned to
the atmosphere via transpiration. Benson (2021) has shown the effectiveness of even minor
amounts of rooting on the performance of covers constructed with riprap at the surface.
Lastly, Figure 18 also shows a “collection drainage trough” on the left side of the diagram. The
aim of this trough was to capture any excess water that did not travel downward into the 5 × 10-8
cm/s clay (the Cover Test Cell diagram indicates a 2.8% slope, and therefore some lateral flow at
this boundary was expected). The data collected from this trough, however, was deemed to be of
poor quality and not reliable, and therefore could not be used in a mass balance calculation.
Despite the actual data not being useful in a quantitative sense, there was reasonable assurance
that this trough did collect some amount of water over the 15-year period of monitoring.
Therefore, it is likely that a portion of the water infiltrating through the Test Cell left the system
through the collection drainage trough, and was therefore unaccounted for by the lysimeter
tipping bucket data.
Accordingly, the Cover Test Cell system is poorly suited to model with a simple 1D column, and
attempting to address the snowmelt question via this pathway is inconclusive.
5.2.1.3 Comparison with Regional Snowpack Data
An analysis is presented that evaluates how well the HYDRUS snowmelt sub-model predicts
snowmelt compared with observed historical data. This analysis is presented in two parts:
snowmelt and snow accumulation.
Snowmelt
The following is a brief overview of how the HYDRUS snowmelt algorithm operates. HYDRUS
calculates snowmelt proportional to the air temperature using a snowmelt constant (M), which is
the amount of snow (given in length units, such as cm of water) that will melt during one day for
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 37
each oC. The HYDRUS model also employs a sublimation constant (S) that accounts for
vaporization that is mediated by potential evaporation.
HYDRUS uses the following equation for calculation of the snow layer at time t:
ℎ!=ℎ!"#+∆ℎ!−(')()!)−(*)(+!)
where
ht is Snow water equivalent (SWE) height of the snow layer at time t (cm)
ht-1 is SWE height of the snow layer at time t-1 (cm)
Δht is Change in SWE height of the snow layer at time t due to precipitation (cm)
S is Sublimation constant
Et is Potential evaporation at time t (cm)
M is Melting constant (cm/˚C)
Tt is Average daily temperature above 0˚C; set to zero if the daily temp is < 0˚C
The change in snow layer, Δht, is determined by the daily temperature and precipitation. If the
temperature is below -2 C, all of the precipitation is assumed to have fallen as snow and adds to
the snow layer. If the temperature is between -2C and 2 C, the precipitation is assumed to have
fallen as a mix of rain and snow, and Δht is reduced in a linear fashion. As noted above, the last
term is set to zero if the daily average temperature is less than zero, as no melting is assumed to
occur. Converting the SWE snow layer to actual snow depth requires an assumption of snow
density; the HYDRUS manual recommends a ratio 10:1 (i.e., 1cm of SWE is equal to 10 cm of
snow).
Daily potential evaporation (PE) is calculated with values for extraterrestrial radiation and daily
maximum, minimum and mean temperatures using the Hargreaves method (see Neptune (2015b)
for details). HYDRUS default values of 0.43 for M and 0.2 for S are used in the calculation. This
algorithm is applied to local climate data to evaluate the efficacy of this snowmelt algorithm that
is used in HYDRUS. Daily temperature, snowfall and snow layer data are obtained for the
nearby site of Dugway, UT (site id 422257) using the SC ACIS Tool (http://scacis.rcc-acis.org/).
Observed snowfall from the Dugway site consists of the daily recorded snowfall and allow for
the snow layer to increase during the 14-day period. Since HYDRUS calculates snow water
equivalent, the snow layer is calculated with the rules outlined in the HYDRUS manual which
uses the ratio of 1 cm snow water to 10 cm of snow.
The observed snow depth data are processed to identify the 25 deepest snow layers separated by
at least 14 days. The 14-day period is arbitrarily determined to balance both typical dynamics for
the melt of a snowfall event at the site as well as issues associated with data gaps in the station
record at Dugway. Shorter time periods enhance the impact of missing data and make
meaningful comparisons more challenging. The day corresponding to the deepest snow layer is
then used as a starting point to apply the HYDRUS snowmelt algorithm. Maximum daily
temperature from the observed Dugway record is used in the HYDRUS-based calculation of
snow melt as part of this regional specific validation exercise. Maximum daily temperatures are
applied to M since daily mean temperatures appeared to underestimate melting. This is likely due
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 38
to the nature of the algorithm, where mean daily temperatures at or below zero fail to capture
melting that occurs during warm periods of the day when temperatures exceed zero.
The snowmelt equation in HYDRUS is run with the data from the Dugway site and compared to
the corresponding observed data for the 14-day period following each of the identified top 25
observed snow depth events. Observed snow layers are plotted along with calculated snow layers
for the 14-day periods (Figure 21 and Figure 22). Two figures with multiple panels are used for
improved clarity of presentation. In these figures, the blue lines are the data for snow depth as
recorded by the Dugway UT station data. The red lines show the snowmelt calculated using the
Dugway UT station meteorological data fed into the HYDRUS snowmelt algorithm. Two of the
25 events were omitted due to what appear to be data quality issues. The snow layer record from
1-29-1980 through 2-12-1980 showed significant melting despite the fact that the mean
maximum temperature for the first 3 days of the record was -8.52 C. Similarly, the snow layer
record from 12-26-2012 through 1-9-2013 showed significant melting despite the mean
maximum temperature for the 14 days being -5.30 C.

Figure 21. 14-day periods of calculated vs observed snow layers at Dugway, UT in temporal
order of occurrence.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 39

Figure 22. 14-day periods of calculated vs observed snow layers at Dugway, UT in temporal
order of occurrence.
Although the Dugway record has some data quality issues including missing data, the HYDRUS
algorithm performs well with respect to the estimation of the snowmelt relative to the available
data (Figure 21 and Figure 22). This performance is based on both the timing associated with the
initial melting and the total duration of the melting events for both the observed and HYDRUS-
estimated snowmelt episodes. These figures show that for the largest melting events in the
historical record at Dugway, direct comparison of the observed data with projections using the
HYDRUS snowmelt algorithm driven by site-specific meteorological data show good agreement.
These largest melting events are critical with respect to the subsequent accurate depiction of
infiltration, measured soil-water content and soil-water storage at various depths.
Snow Accumulation
To evaluate snow accumulation, snowfall is calculated using HYDRUS applied to daily
precipitation and average daily temperatures from the historical record of meteorological data at
Dugway. Because HYDRUS calculates snow water equivalent, the snowfall is again calculated
with the rules outlined in the HYDRUS manual which uses the ratio of 1 cm snow water to 10
cm of snow. HYDRUS assumes for temperatures less than -2 oC, all precipitation is snow, and
for temperatures above +2 oC, all precipitation is rain. For temperatures between -2 oC and +2
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 40
oC, there is a linear conversion from snow to rain (0 oC would be half and half). In this manner,
the calculated snowfall is allowed to accumulate and reduce using the HYDRUS equations
outlined above with maximum daily temperatures applied to M.
Snow layers are calculated for the entire Dugway record (09/21/1950 – 07/08/2013) using the
HYDRUS algorithm and compared to the corresponding observed snow layer. Average daily
calculated snow layers are plotted along with average daily observed snow layers across the
entire year (Figure 23). The HYDRUS algorithm performed well with calculated snow layers
tracking along the observed values. HYDRUS does appear to overestimate compared with
observed snow layers in January and underestimate in February. These values balance out when
averaged from December through February with the calculated snow layer (1.21 cm) only
slightly exceeding the observed snow layer (1.17 cm).

Figure 23. Average daily calculated and observed snow layers at Dugway, UT.
Dugway receives a reasonable amount of snowfall in February when average daily temperatures
move above 2 oC (Figure 24). Under these conditions HYDRUS would not predict snowfall.
Discrepancies may also occur from differences between air and ground temperature, where
warmer ground temperatures should lead to more snowmelt and less snow accumulation. Colder
ground temperatures might limit snowmelt when air temperatures begin to increase. HYDRUS
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 41
does not include ground temperatures in its snow layer calculation. Seasonal lag in ground
temperatures theoretically would lead HYDRUS to overestimate snow accumulation in the early
part of the winter and underestimate snow accumulation in late winter/early spring, which is
consistent with the pattern seen in Figure 23.

Figure 24. Daily Mean Temperature at Dugway, UT averaged across the period of record.
Summary
A quantitative validation of the snowmelt algorithm in HYDRUS is achieved by comparing
HYDRUS-based snowmelt estimates with observed snowmelt and snow accumulation data from
Dugway. The analysis of the 25 largest snow depths on record for the Dugway site focuses
attention on the most critical time periods for the validation of the snowmelt model in HYDRUS.
In general, the snowmelt depicted by HYDRUS tracks the observed snowmelt from Dugway
quite well. Despite small discrepancies, average calculated snow accumulation matches the
average observed snow accumulation. These analyses provide strong support to demonstrate the
efficacy and sufficiency of the snowmelt algorithm utilized by HYDRUS. Collectively, these
analyses help demonstrate that the HYDRUS snowmelt sub-model properly predicts snow
accumulation, snowmelt, and hence infiltration, measured soil-water content and soil-water
storage at various depths.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 42
5.3 UDEQ Comment 3: Applying Cover Test Cell Data
Provide a comparison of the engineering properties determined for the individual components of
the rock-armored Cover Test Cell as studied in connection with its deconstruction to the
properties used in the current model of an evapotranspiration (ET) cover system in the Clive DU
PA Model v1.4. Report how the properties from the Cover Test Cell compare to the naturalized
parameters from NUREG/CR-7028 and to those used in the most recent HYDRUS model of the
evapotranspiration cover. Do an analysis using the Cover Test Cell deconstruction data in the
HYDRUS model for an evapotranspiration cover: i) in as-built initial conditions , (ii) then apply a
deterioration methodology that represents pedogenic evolution of the cover soils over long
periods of time (e.g., due to rooting of overlying plants, burrowing by mammals or insects, frost
activity, wet-dry cycling, differential settlement, etc.) representative of what is reported in the
literature and available from analog studies in the region, and (iii) modify the HYDRUS model as
needed to account for the hybrid cover (evapotranspiration cover on the top slope; rock-armor
cover on the side slope) as currently proposed in the Draft Federal Cell license application. For
each of these analyses, prepare diagrams that display predictions of soil-water content and soil-
water storage at various depths. Submit the results of the analysis including an explanation of
how the different cover types compare.
5.3.1 Comment 3 Response
Much interesting data has been generated with the Cover Test Cell deconstruction project
completed in 2019 (EnergySolutions 2020). However, the Cover Test Cell was constructed to an
earlier version of the rock armor cover design used at the Clive facility; therefore, only data for
the radon barrier clays is comparable between the Cover Test Cell and the ET cover proposed in
DU PA v1.4. Considering that similar material properties were used for the surface/evaporative
zone and radon barrier layers in DU PA v1.4, some comparison can be made with these layers as
well.
NUREG/CR-7028 (Benson et al. 2011) provides recommendations in Section 10.2 regarding
engineering properties for fine-textured earthen storage and barrier layers that can be used in
performance assessments in lieu of site-specific data. These recommendations are based on
covers studied 5 to 10 years after initial construction. The Cover Test Cell was de-constructed
and its material properties tested 18 years after it was placed into service; for a roughly
comparable, if longer, period of system stabilization and naturalization to that evaluated in
NUREG/CR-7028.
Table 8 summarizes engineering properties across the HYDRUS modeling performed in DU PA
v1.4 (Neptune (2015b), Tables 8 and 9); the Cover Test Cell; and NUREG/CR-7028. Average
values are calculated in any cases where a range of values are provided in the source
documentation and discussed in more detail below.
Specifically, in the HYDRUS modeling supporting DU PA v1.4, the parameters of α and n were
varied for the surface layers; and Ksat was varied for the upper and lower radon barrier layers.
Other parameters were deterministic (Neptune 2015b).
For the Cover Test Cell, all radon barrier values represent the average of three (for the upper
radon barrier) to five (for the lower radon barrier) data points, as reported in the EnergySolutions
(2020) appendix “Wisconsin Geotechnical Laboratory, Hydraulic Properties of Soils from a
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 43
Final Cover Test Section in Clive, Utah, Geotechnical Laboratory Report No. 20-17, 2020; Table
1.” The Cover Test Cell also returned data for that cover design’s riprap, filter zone, and
sacrificial soil layers; however, the material properties for these layers do not match the ET cover
design so these data are not included in Table 8.
Values for NUREG/CR-7028 reflect the average of the recommended range in Section 10.2, or
the recommended initial condition for PA modeling. NUREG/CR-7028 recommended values are
applied to both the surface/evaporation zone and radon barrier layers. NUREG/CR-7028 does
not suggest values to use for a layer such as the frost protection layer, which provides a capillary
break within the cover system.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 44
Table 8. Engineering properties of cover layers for DU PA v1.4, the Cover Test Cell, and
NUREG/CR-7028.
Design Basis
Layer Input
Parameter
ET Cover DU PA v1.4
(actual, 50 sims)
Cover Test Cell NUREG/CR-7028
Surface θr (unitless) 0.111 n/a 02
θs (unitless) 0.4089 n/a 0.4
α (1/cm) 0.0169 n/a 0.0204
n (unitless) 1.3 n/a 1.3
Ksat (cm/day) 4.46 n/a 22
Evaporative Zone θr (unitless) 0.111 n/a 0
θs (unitless) 0.481 n/a 0.4
α (1/cm) 0.0169 n/a 0.0204
n (unitless) 1.3 n/a 1.3
Ksat (cm/day) 4.46 n/a 22
Frost Protection θr (unitless) 0.065 n/a n/a
θs (unitless) 0.41 n/a n/a
α (1/cm) 0.075 n/a n/a
n (unitless) 1.89 n/a n/a
Ksat (cm/day) 106.1 n/a n/a
Upper Radon
Barrier
θr (unitless) 0.1 0 0
θs (unitless) 0.432 0.38 0.4
α (1/cm) 0.003 0.0002 0.0204
n (unitless) 1.172 1.39 1.3
Ksat (cm/day) 6.75 5.16E-03 22
Lower Radon
Barrier
θr (unitless) 0.1 0 0
θs (unitless) 0.432 0.38 0.4
α (1/cm) 0.003 0.0002 0.0204
n (unitless) 1.172 1.4 1.3
Ksat (cm/day) 6.75 1.13E-02 22

A number of observations can be made from Table 8. All comparisons are limited to the
surface/evaporative zone and radon barrier layers, since there is not comparable data in the test
cell or NUREG/CR-7028 for the frost protection layer.

2 Inferred from Table 6.3 of NUREG/CR-7028 for all clay layers, though not explicitly discussed in Section 10.2
therein.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 45
In DU PA v1.4, the value for θr is higher than that reported for the Cover Test Cell and inferred
from NUREG/CR-7028. Benson et al. (2011), commonly report a value of zero for θr for all soil
types. Benson’s laboratory also evaluated the soil properties from the Test Cell, and therefore, θr
is reported to be zero for these soils as well. However, other well-used and well-known soils
databases (e.g. Rosetta, Carsel and Parrish (1988)) do not report zero values of θr. The effect of
using a zero value for θr is to increase the storage capacity of the soil. In addition, a zero value of
θr will also affect the water content at which percolation occurs.
Values for θs and n are comparable across these approaches/data sets, while the value for α used
in DU PA v1.4 is comparable to that in NUREG/CR-7028 for the surface/evaporative zone
layers. For the radon barrier layers, the value for α used in DU PA v1.4 is bracketed by those
demonstrated by site-specific Cover Test Cell Data and those recommended by NUREG/CR-
7028, with the Cover Test Cell data being roughly an order of magnitude lower than modeled;
and NUREG/CR-7028 roughly an order of magnitude higher than modeled. Therefore, the α
used in DU PA v1.4 is nicely bounded by site-specific data, and the “generic” value of α
informed by multiple datasets in NUREG/CR-7028.
Finally, values for Ksat vary widely between those reported by site-specific Cover Test Cell data
and those used in DU PA v1.4 and recommended by NUREG/CR-7028. The latter two values
are roughly comparable, while the site-specific data is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude lower. The site-
specific Ksat is very low as a result of construction specifications; and demonstrates little change
from the as-built condition over the Cover Test Cell’s 18-year service life.
Refer to Section 5.2.1.2 for discussion of an attempt to replicate Cover Test Cell data in a
HYDRUS 1D model. Cover Test Cell data are used in that attempt; however, the results
ultimately are inconclusive. Refer to Section 4 for discussion of a HYDRUS 2D model of the
hybrid cover design. While Cover Test Cell data for the radon barrier layers are not directly used
in the HYDRUS 2D model, they are effectively bracketed by the parameters evaluated as
discussed above.
5.4 UDEQ Comment 4: Regression Model
Quantitatively and rationally explain why the regression model used for abstraction of HYDRUS
results into the GoldSim model is insensitive to Ksat of the cover soils. Ensure that the submitted
explanation is consistent with the principles of variably saturated flow and the formulation of
Richards’ Equation in HYDRUS.
5.4.1 Comment 4 Response
The cover system consists of an evaporative zone composed of Unit 4 silty clay and a radon
barrier composed of compacted Unit 4 silty clay, separated by the frost protection layer. The
important properties of the FPL as it relates to cover performance are those that define the soil
water characteristic curve, as the FPL should provide a material contrast when compared to the
overlying evaporative zone; this is explored in Section 5.7.1. While the question was interpreted
as referring to the top two model layers that comprise the evaporative zone, the response below
begins by summarizing the results of the v1.4 HYDRUS simulations, which included variation of
Ksat in the radon barrier, conceptualized as the bottom two model layers. The remainder of the
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 46
response addresses variation of Ksat in the evaporative zone, and describes a new set of
sensitivity simulations that was prepared to explore model sensitivity to this parameter.
5.4.1.1 Variation of Ksat of the Radon Barrier (Layers 4 and 5) in Model v1.4
The set of 50 HYDRUS runs presented with the DU PA Model v1.4 included variation of
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the radon barrier in the bottom two layers of the soil
column; the Ksat values for the other three layers were not varied.
The regression equations indicate that the water content in the radon barriers are sensitive to the
Ksat parameter, as expressed by non-zero ,1 values in Table 10 of Neptune (2015b). Therefore,
this HYDRUS model output is sensitive to the corresponding material Ksat, and this sensitivity is
incorporated into the GoldSim model via the regression equations for water content.
The regression equations indicated that percolation through the cover system is insensitive to the
Ksat of radon barrier. This is largely due to the fact that the percolation through the cover system
hinges on the performance of the capillary barrier interactions in the upper layers of the cover;
this idea is explored extensively in Section 5.7.1 based on the principles of variably saturated
flow. An example of conditions that would cause this capillary barrier to momentarily “break” in
the v1.4 modeling during wetting events is provided in Section 5.8.1. If water penetrates the
cover to the bottom portion of the frost protection layer, below the practical reach of
evapotranspiration, it will eventually percolate through the bottom of the cover.
The Ksat of the radon barrier governs the kinetics of the percolation in the lower portion of the
cover. As such, the average water content of the radon barrier is sensitive to Ksat. If Ksat is higher,
excess moisture drains more quickly through the radon barrier and the water content is elevated
for relatively less time. If Ksat is lower, the equilibration takes longer, and the water content is
elevated for a longer period of time; averaged over long periods (100 years in the v1.4
modeling), lower Ksat values produce a higher water content and higher Ksat values produce a
lower water content. A negative value for ,1 in the regression equations captures this inverse
relationship between Ksat of the radon barrier and the resulting water content of the radon barrier.
5.4.1.2 Exploration of Ksat Variation in Upper Cover Soils Layers 1 and 2
Sensitivity of Ksat in the upper portion of the cover was not evaluated in the v1.4 modeling. This
parameter was fixed at a value of 4.46 cm/day for all 50 simulations. A set of additional runs was
performed in the preparation of this response to explore sensitivity of the cover performance
(percolation) to this Ksat in the top portion of the model. Nine Ksat values were selected based on
the v1.4 distribution of Ksat of the radon barrier and applied to model layers 1 and 2. This was
deemed a reasonable range for exploration given that the radon barrier layers are composed of
the same source material as layers 1 and 2, Unit 4 silty clay. However, it is recognized that, for
materials near the surface, saturated conductivity values are expected to be elevated compared to
laboratory measurements or typical ranges associated with a given soil texture due to factors like
biotic turbation and freeze/thaw cycling (Benson et al. 2011). For example, NUREG/CR-7028
recommends a value of about 22 cm/day for cover soils.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 47
The nine values were selected based on a range spanning the 5th percentile to 95th
percentile values of the radon barrier Ksat distribution. They were, in cm/day: 0.49, 1.07, 1.68,
2.41, 3.37, 4.72, 6.80, 10.69, and 23.25. HYDRUS runs were carried out for five parameter sets
taken from the set of 50 presented in Neptune (2015b) to cover a range of percolation values in
the previous modeling. Other than varying Ksat in the top two model layers, all other model
parameters and structure (meteorological input, initial conditions, averaging procedure for
results, etc.) are identical to the v1.4 process. The simulations selected were numbers 12, 18, 29,
30, and 36. The results of these 45 runs are presented in Figure 25.

Figure 25. Percolation as a function of Ksat for 45 simulations.
The results of these runs show that the lower Ksat values are associated with higher percolation.
While this result may appear somewhat counterintuitive, it is important to note that in
complicated unsaturated zone problems, higher Ksat does not always necessarily imply high flow
through the system as it might in a saturated context. For example, in Section 5.7.1, it is noted
that the frost protection layer, despite having a very high Ksat, has very low unsaturated
conductivity for dry pressure head regimes, and therefore, it can act as an impediment to flow;
this is the operating principle of a capillary barrier. The context here is different, but the same
perspective applies: it is not appropriate to assume that higher Ksat necessarily leads to higher
flow rates through the cover simply because Ksat appears as a multiplicative term in Richard’s
Equation. If the system were such that the boundary conditions were, for example, fixed constant
head boundaries, then this logic may apply. However, as discussed below, in this context, Ksat
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 48
and the boundary fluxes are interdependent, and a more accurate description of the behavior
relies on understanding their relationship.
In this case, the sensitivity of percolation is related to the ability of the topmost layers of the
cover to convey water upward for release out of the model domain via surface evaporation. As
shown in Section 5.8.1, the flow in the top two model layers is usually upward toward the
surface because evaporation creates a down-to-up pressure head gradient. During days without
precipitation, the pressure gradient is established by the potential evaporation and the current
moisture conditions in the profile, and Ksat governs the rate at which water flows toward the
surface. If the Ksat is low, less water is able to move toward the evaporative surface (the topmost
node in the 1D model), and more water is retained in the profile. Subsequent precipitation events
would be met with a wetter profile, and therefore, a breakthrough of the capillary barrier is more
likely. The net result, in the case shown here for the ET cover design, is that lower Ksat in the
upper layers ultimately result in higher rates of percolation.
During and immediately after precipitation events, downward flow is also governed by Ksat of the
surface layers. If Ksat is very low, the soil profile will not imbibe all of the meteoric water and
runoff will occur. Runoff was indeed observed in the model output for the lowest three Ksat
scenarios, though runoff events were infrequent. For example, for Simulation 12, the run with the
lowest Ksat listed above, runoff was recorded for 62 days in the last 100 years, totaling about 31
cm of water, compared to approximately 900 cm of infiltration into the column. Conversely,
Simulation 12 with the highest Ksat showed no runoff and 931 cm of infiltration through the top
node of the model over the same 100-year period.
For water that has infiltrated, its ultimate fate depends on whether the capillary barrier can
maintain a pressure regime of low flow in the frost protection zone (Section 5.7.1), allowing
evapotranspiration processes to dry out the upper layers of the column. These model results
suggest that, for the cover soil layers, low Ksat throttles the release of water via
evapotranspiration to a greater degree than Ksat inhibits infiltration via runoff. Comparing the
same two model runs of Simulation 12, the low Ksat run recorded 683 cm of evaporation from the
top of the model, while the high Ksat run recorded 799 cm of evaporation. In summary, Ksat in the
top layers of the model is interdependent with the boundary flux at the top of the model. For very
low Ksat values, this causes a throttling of evaporation that results in higher percolation.
The discussion above centers on evaporation from the top node rather than transpiration through
the root zone. This is because, as parameterized in v1.4, outflow from the model is very
evaporation dependent due to the root water uptake parameters, which conservatively limit root
uptake to a relatively narrow range of pressure heads. This idea is explored thoroughly in Section
5.12.1.1, but warrants mentioning here, because the Ksat dependence on percolation is contingent
upon this conservatism. If the root water uptake parameters are relaxed as described in Section
5.12.1.1 (i.e., h50 is set to 1500 cm) for the 45 model runs, the sensitivity of percolation to Ksat
disappears entirely. The results of this second set of runs are shown in Figure 26. Percolation is
reduced dramatically to values resembling the lowest results from the v1.4 HYDRUS
simulations. This is due to the roots providing another viable mechanism for water to leave the
domain.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 49
Another conservatism that was not explored here is the limiting pressure on the top model node,
which HYDRUS calls “hCritA”. This is the minimum pressure head that HYDRUS allows at the
top of the model and is set to -15,000 cm for these simulations. For these materials, this typically
yields a volumetric water content around 14%, or about 30% saturation. This also limits
evaporation at the surface conservatively with respect to percolation, as soil in top few
millimeters of the cover will be much drier than this during periods of high temperature and
insolation.

Figure 26. Percolation vs Ksat with h50 = 1500 cm for the same 45 model runs presented
above.
To summarize, the sensitivity of percolation to Ksat in the evaporative zone of the model was
explored by preparing a set of 45 new simulations based on the parameterization and structure of
the runs presented in the v1.4 modeling. Increasing percolation was associated with low Ksat
values in the evaporative zone due to its interdependence with the surface boundary evaporative
flux. However, this low range of Ksat values that resulted in increased percolation do not
accurately characterize the hydraulic properties of the surface soils. As described in NUREG-
7028, near surface processes will ultimately increase the Ksat of materials in the upper layers of a
cover system over time. Further investigation of model conservatisms in the v1.4 model
structure, which tend to suppress both transpiration and evaporation, suggests that the range of
results presented in Model v1.4 is adequate to represent the range of expected behavior in the
cover system.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 50
5.5 UDEQ Comment 5: Hydraulic Properties
Some hydraulic properties (saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil-water characteristic curves
(SWCCs)) used in the PA of the evapotranspiration cover for the proposed Federal cell are
based on historic data (ca. 1980s, early 1990s) obtained from laboratory tests using small
specimens that do not represent larger-scale features that affect the shape and connectivity of
the pore spaces in soils exposed to long-term pedogenic processes, or that yield an unrealistic
representation of the SWCC at lower water contents. Since low-water-content conditions are
expected for Clive’s desert conditions, particularly in the summer, this issue is important.
EnergySolutions should collect and test samples of sufficiently large scale to generate
appropriate saturated hydraulic conductivities and SWCC data and submit these results. If this is
not possible at this stage of the project, EnergySolutions needs to incorporate the new snapshot-
in-time SWCC data obtained from the recent Cover Test Cell deconstruction, at least for the
radon barrier. Other relevant approaches will need to be used for overlying soil layers. Submit
the results of an evaluation of hydraulic properties in relation to the above considerations.
5.5.1 Comment 5 Response
The Cover Test Cell data provide contemporary snapshot-in-time SWCC data for Clive clay soils
as used in radon barrier layers. These data are summarized and explored in Section 5.3.1 above.
While Cover Test Cell data for the radon barrier layers are not directly used in DU PA v1.4 or
the HYDRUS 2D model, they are effectively bracketed by the parameters evaluated.
5.6 UDEQ Comment 6: FPL Properties
Show that the hydraulic properties assigned to the Frost Protection Layer of the
evapotranspiration cover, which were obtained from the Rosetta database, are representative of
long-term conditions naturally developing at the Clive site. Compare the hydraulic properties
assigned to the Frost Protection Layer with the measured and/or described properties of the
Sacrificial Soil Layer from the Cover Test Cell deconstruction. In answering the above questions,
describe how the hydraulic properties assigned to the Frost Protection Layer, a material that has
been defined with a wide-ranging gradational specification, will be consistent with the hydraulic
properties of the Frost Protection Layer that is expected to be constructed given the
aforementioned gradation specification. Also, discuss the inherent difficulties of constructing a
uniform material from such a specification, and how consistency of layer properties will be
maintained spatially and throughout time so that the conditions inherent in the PA model are
realized in the actual cover system over the service life and compliance period of the proposed
Federal Cell. Discuss how these properties are expected to change or degrade over time, e.g.,
due to extreme weather events or other phenomena.
5.6.1 Comment 6 Response
This comment is addressed in three parts: (1) properties of the Frost Protection Layer;
(2) construction specifications and controls needed to ensure that the as-built cover reflects the
modeled properties; and (3) long-term durability of the FPL as a distinct layer over the
compliance period of the Federal Cell.
5.6.1.1 FPL Properties
Material hydraulic parameters for the cover layers, including the FPL, used in DU PA v1.4 are
summarized in Table 2. There are two purposes for the FPL. One is to protect layers below the
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 51
FPL from freeze/thaw cycles, wetting/drying cycles, and to inhibit plant, animal, or human
intrusion (Neptune 2015b). The second purpose is to create a strong capillary barrier that will
deter downward infiltration from the surface and evaporative layer into the FPL. Smesrud and
Selker (2001) and many other studies have shown that a cover design with a fine-grained layer
over a coarse-grained layer provides a strong capillary barrier to restrict the flow of water.
The FPL consists of particles ranging in size from 16 inches to clay size particles. In the
HYDRUS model used with the DU PA v1.4 GoldSim model, the FPL was modeled as a sandy
loam because a sandy loam represents a coarse-grained material with some silt and clay
(Neptune 2015b). Hydraulic properties of sandy loam for the FPL were selected using the
HYDRUS hydraulic properties pull-down menu, which use properties from the Carsel and
Parrish (1988) database of hydraulic parameters.
In order to evaluate the efficacy of the FPL in the DU PA modeling, a what-if scenario
HYDRUS model was built using all properties from the Clive DU PA HYDRUS model, but with
the cover layering, cover thickness, and cover hydraulic properties taken from the tailings cover
design for the White Mesa Mill Site near Blanding Utah (MWH Americas 2007).
The cover design from MWH Americas (2007) was selected because the two sites (Clive and
White Mesa) are similar in climate and setting, but the White Mesa design does not have a strong
capillary barrier (with a fine layer over a coarse layer). Average annual precipitation at Blanding
and Clive is approximately 13.3 and 8.3 inches per year, respectively; the Blanding site has about
60% more precipitation that the Clive site.
MWH Americas (2007) report an average flux rate through the cover system of 1E-4 cm/day
(0.4 mm/yr). When the White Mesa cover layering, cover thickness, and cover hydraulic
properties are used with all other components of the Clive DU PA HYDRUS model, the
percolation out of the bottom of the cover is 1.2 mm/yr; two orders of magnitude higher than the
average annual percolation for the 50 DU PA v.1.4 HYDRUS simulations (0.02 mm/yr). It is
notable that even with less precipitation at the Clive site, percolation was higher at the Clive site
with White Mesa layering than that reported for the White Mesa study (0.4 m/yr).
The results of this what-if scenario model exercise demonstrate the effectiveness of the FPL in
the Clive DU PA cover design. In addition, this discussion is relevant to Comment 12 discussed
below, and the comparison of some western waste sites.
5.6.1.2 FPL Construction Specifications
EnergySolutions has informed Neptune that this will be addressed under separate cover.
5.6.1.3 Long-Term Durability of the Frost Protection Layer
Part 3 of this comment is addressed by considering the following question: Assuming distinct
layers are present at the time of construction, is it reasonable to expect that those layers will
persist over geologic time?
In short, given the environmental and geological conditions at the Clive site, it is likely the FPL
will persist. Note also that the bank run material to be used for the FPL is mined from a gravel
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 52
pit located at an outcrop a few miles north of the site. These materials have persisted as a distinct
deposit since the beginning of the current interglacial climate cycle some 11.6 thousand years
ago (Neptune 2020b).
An assessment of the stability of distinct layers in the cover at the Clive begins with a review of
a similar evaluation of an analog at the Hanford site. The Hanford and Clive sites share
important similarities that are relevant to the potential for soil layers to mix, hence making
Hanford a reasonable analog for the Clive site. At Hanford, Bjornstad and Teel (1993) found that
natural processes (deflation, compaction, illuviation, cryoturbation, bioturbation) did not pose a
significant threat over the next 1,000 years to the stability of engineered barriers. Their assertion
regarding the lack of threat to the stability of the layers within an engineered barrier was based
on: 1) the arid to semi-arid desert environment, and 2) the location of the site within a basin
where significant eolian deposition of fine-grained silt occurs. These are the critical features that
Clive and Hanford have in common with respect to the stability of geologic layers.
Both Clive and Hanford are situated in arid to semi-arid desert environments. The arid climates
correspond to low primary productivity, relatively sparse insect and mammal activity and hence,
minimal bioturbation. SWCA (2011) observed limited density of diversity of vegetation with
average plant species cover consisting of: 14.3% black greasewood, 5.9% Sandberg bluegrass,
3% cover each of shadscale saltbrush and gray molly. Importantly, observed ground cover was
dominated by 79.2% biological soil crust which provide an effective stabilization for the soil
surface. These studies also found that root densities were largely concentrated near the surface of
the soil, with few large, woody roots were encountered in deeper soils. Rooting depths were
shallow, with the maximum rooting depth of dominant woody plant species ranging from 16 to
28 inches. Consequently, plants have negligible impacts on soil turnover.
The density and diversity of burrowing animals including ants and mammals are also limited by
the environmental conditions at the Clive site. SWCA found a low density of ant and mammal
burrows with an average of 24 ant mounds per hectare (9.7 per acre), with anthills covering 4.6%
of the ground surface in field study sites (SWCA 2012). Most of the below ground ant nest
volume is within 24 inches (60 cm) of the soil surface due to the presence of compacted clay and
caliche layers. Ant nest volume and corridor densities generally decrease with depth with most of
the activity occurring in the upper layers.
Within the survey, four categories of mammal burrows were identified: ground squirrels,
kangaroo rats, mice/rats/voles and one badger. Kangaroo rats and the mice/rats/voles represented
the vast majority of identified burrows, with only 2 burrows associated with ground squirrels and
1 badger burrow identified. For the PA model, maximum burrow depth was set at 200 cm based
on best professional judgment (Neptune 2015e). This depth is consistent with that used at NNSS
by Wolf et al. (2005), and represents the likely average vertical extent of multiple badger
excavations (Kennedy et al. 1985). Mammal burrows on average are much shallower and at the
Hanford Site, small mammals generally do not burrow below 10 inches (25 cm) depth (Bjornstad
and Teel 1993). Although badgers are capable of burrowing to depths over 2 m, it is thought that
most “badger burrows” are enlargement of small mammal burrows that were further excavated in
pursuit of prey (Bylo et al. 2014). Collectively, the results of these site-specific plant and animal
surveys provide strong evidence that Clive, like Hanford, has little exposure to meaningful
mixing of soil layers from either plant or animal activity.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 53
Both Clive and Hanford are located in arid to semi-arid desert environments that reside in basins
with significant eolian deposition of fine-grained silt. Neptune evaluated the nature, thickness,
and thickness variations of eolian sediments at the upper part of the sedimentary section in 9
excavated sections at the Clive site on December 15 to December 17, 2014 (Neptune 2015c).
The degree of soil development in the eolian silt is gradational through the deposits indicating
soil formation contemporaneous with eolian deposition. The primary mode of eolian deposition
at the Clive site is deposition of fine-grained silt from suspension fallout during episodic
windstorms (Neptune 2015c). Well-developed soil horizons are not superimposed on the upper
part of the eolian section. This conceptual model is supported by an analysis of a near continuous
record of eolian deposition and a lack of soil formation preserved at the Clive site since the
regression of Lake Bonneville below the Clive elevation (approximately 13,500 years B.P.)
(Figure 27: taken from Neptune (2015c)). Ultimately, aeolian deposition acts fast enough that
true soil horizons cannot form.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 54

Figure 27. Reproduced from A.1 Clive Pit Wall Interpretation (C. G. Oviatt, unpublished
data) and stratigraphic comparison with quarry wall studies from Neptune (2020b).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 55
In summary, survey data from the site suggest that there are no plant or animal mechanism to
disturb surface soil layers. This is consistent with analysis conducted for similar purposes at the
analog Hanford site. An additional similarity with the analog Hanford site is the significant
aeolian deposition that prevents formation of soil layers. Together these two factors strongly
preclude the existence of any plausible mechanism that would significantly disturb the layers of a
cover. This conceptual model is supported by the work shown from analyses performed on the
site (Figure 27). Ultimately, given the environmental and geological conditions at the Clive site,
it is considered likely that the FPL will persist.
5.7 UDEQ Comment 7: Capillary Break
The Division is concerned that the sharp contrast in hydraulic properties at the interface between
the Evaporative Zone and the Frost Protection Layer as well as at the Frost Protection Layer and
the Radon Barrier result in capillary breaks in the model that may not be consistent spatially or
temporally with actual physical conditions throughout the cover system for 10,000 years.
Document and explain mechanistically why the water content below the Evaporative Zone
appears insensitive to meteorological conditions, based on the HYDRUS simulation outputs.
Document and explain what is/are the controlling mechanism(s) responsible for the apparent lack
of flow across these interfaces, and how will these mechanisms be maintained or remain
operative throughout the required service life and the compliance period associated with the
cover. Perform sensitivity analyses with both sharper and softer contrasts in hydraulic properties
(e.g., Ksat and SWCC) between the layers by systematically varying Ksat, α, and n of the
Evaporative Zone and Frost Protection Layer. Document how predictions made for the cover
model change if the interface with the Frost Protection Layer is removed, damaged, made more
heterogeneous, or comprised of materials that soften or diminish the contrasts at the interfaces.
Discuss how, if a capillary break across the interface with the Frost Protection Layer is
responsible in the model for minimal downward flow, the actual variation in water contents above
and below the Frost Protection Layer will vary systematically with the sharpness of the break.
5.7.1 Comment 7 Response
Questions 7 and 8 center on the performance of the evapotranspiration cover system. These
responses address concerns regarding the sensitivity of the flow through the cover to
meteorological events, specifically describing how the cover's design functions to store and
release infiltrated water in the upper layers while maintaining a steady moisture condition in the
lower layers for all but the most intense storm events. The response to Question 7 lays out the
theoretical basis for this behavior based on the theory of unsaturated flow, and demonstrates how
model output comports with the theoretical understanding. The response to Question 8 delves
deeper into the model output to further support the ideas developed in the response to Question
7, including a detailed presentation of the moisture profile's evolution in response to precipitation
events.
The focus of both responses is to demonstrate that, owing to the semi-arid climate and the cover
design, changes in moisture content and flow are largely isolated to the topmost layers of the
cover system. A brief review of the theory of operation for capillary barrier style ET covers is
given below to provide context, and to build a foundation for a mechanistic understanding of the
modeled behavior.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 56
Capillary barriers take advantage of differences in soil water characteristic curves (SWCC) to
inhibit downward flow through the cover system. These differences arise from the pore size
distribution of the materials in the various cover layers. In ET covers, including the proposed
cover at the Clive site, a finer grained material is typically placed on top of a coarser grained
material, intentionally creating an interface of differing pore sizes. As noted in EPA (2011):
The discontinuity in pore sizes between the coarser-grained and finer-grained layers forms a
capillary break at the interface of the two layers. The break results in the wicking of water
into unsaturated pore space in the finer grained soil, which allows the finer grained layer to
retain more water than a monolithic cover system of equal thickness.
The purpose of the upper, fine grained material (known as the evaporation zone in the model) is
to maximize the potential for water storage to facilitate its removal by evapotranspiration, while
at the same time minimizing the downward flux into the underlying coarse material (known as
the FPL in the model). The fine-grained material should also have sufficient permeability to
accept precipitation into the soil, in order to limit other undesirable impacts such as excessive
runoff and allow for plant growth on the surface. The permeability of the material also impacts
the rate at which water is redistributed in the fine-grained material due to moisture gradients,
which can be important for moving water upward into the evaporative zone after a precipitation
event. The goal of the ET cover design is to store all precipitation in the upper fine grained layer
and make it available for removal upward out of the soil column by ET. If designed properly,
and site conditions allow, no water flows through the coarse material.
A lack of significant flux below the coarse layer, as can been seen in some of the HYDRUS
model simulations for the Clive cover, might superficially suggest that the results are insensitive
to meteorological conditions, but they are actually a product of both meteorology (e.g., potential
ET, precipitation amount and pattern) and the cover design. The key questions addressed below
are: 1) Under what circumstances can the evaporative zone material store and release the
incoming precipitation while limiting flow to the underlying coarse material, thereby making
flows in the lower cover seemingly unresponsive to precipitation? 2) Can this be explained
mechanistically using the principles of unsaturated flow? 3) What are the critical material
properties governing these mechanisms?
The mechanics of this interaction are best understood by examining the SWCCs of the materials
involved, which govern water content and hydraulic conductivity as a function of pressure head
(tension). As an example, the SWCCs and properties discussed below are taken from the v1.4
HYDRUS model simulation that produced the highest percolation through the cover (simulation
20 of 50). However, the analysis can and will be applied to a variety of parameter sets as
requested by the comment.
Under unsaturated conditions, a coarse material that lacks a significant fraction of fine pores will
not imbibe water under high water tension (negative pressure head, h) because of the small
capillary forces associated with a larger pore structure. Large pores cannot hold water or support
flow at high tensions because capillary forces vary as the inverse of pore radius, which implies
that large pores are empty at high tension. Figure 28 shows the SWCC for the FPL as
implemented in the v1.4 HYDRUS model, which used the Van Genuchten model with α and n
equal to 7.5 m-1 and 1.89, respectively. Under normal circumstances, this material will be quite
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 57
dry in a semi-arid environment as the specific retention (i.e., the water content under only gravity
drainage) is quite low. Specific retention can be approximated as the water content at a tension of
3 m (Stephens 1996), which equates to a water content only about 0.02 above the irreducible
water content (θr) for this material.

Figure 28. SWCC for the FPL as modeled in v1.4.
For this material, at higher tensions (h), even large changes in tension result in very small
changes in volumetric water content. For example, an order of magnitude change in tension from
100 m to 10 m is associated with a change of water content from 0.066 to 0.072 for the SWCC
shown in Figure 28. As stated above, this is due to the lack of small pore sizes in the material.
The importance of prevailing tensions in the system is also reflected in the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity function for the materials, as shown in Figure 29. Though a coarse material
typically has a high hydraulic conductivity under saturated conditions (Ksat), under high tension
unsaturated conditions, the conductivity can be very low. The modeled frost protection layer, for
example, has a Ksat of over 100 cm/day, but at a tension of 10 m, the conductivity is virtually
zero (~3E-7 cm/day). Unsaturated conductivity vs pressure head is shown in Figure 29 for the
FPL and the evaporation zone as simulated in the same high percolation model simulation 20.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 58

Figure 29. Unsaturated conductivity as a function of pressure head for a coarse and fine
material.
Note that the conductivity for the evaporation layer exceeds that of the FPL in the high tension
regime down to pressure heads of about -0.6m, despite the fact that the Ksat of the FPL is nearly
two orders of magnitude greater than that of the evaporation zone.
At lower tensions, the larger pores in a coarse material can become saturated, and as a result the
water content and conductivity increase markedly. As can be seen in Figure 28, the SWCC bends
sharply at around tensions of 2 m to 10 m. An order of magnitude change in tension in this range,
for example from 3 m to 0.3 m, would result in a water content change from 0.087 to 0.218,
while the conductivity would change four orders of magnitude from about 4.5E-5 cm/day to
4.9E-1 cm/day. The dramatic increase in conductivity is due to the fact that frictional forces vary
inversely with the fourth power of the pore radius.
Thus, the range of tensions maintained in the frost protection zone and at the interface with the
evaporation zone will be of critical importance to the flow through it, as lower tensions would
engage larger pores in flow and storage. Water coming downward through the cover would have
to generate a large enough pressure pulse to overcome the difference in capillary forces between
the fine and coarse layers in order to fully penetrate the cover system. Stephens (1996)
summarized this effect as follows:
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 59
Owing to heterogeneity, the downward percolation of water or redistribution may virtually
cease where the infiltrated water migrating through a fine soil encounters a dry and relatively
uniform, coarse textured layer. This occurs when the pressure head in the water pulse is not
sufficiently great to force water to enter the large pores of the coarse soil.
This can also be observed through the lens of specific moisture capacity, which is defined as the
first derivative of the SWCC with respect to pressure head (dθ/dh), and interpreted as the volume
of water released or taken into storage per unit change in pressure head. The specific moisture
capacity for the FPL is shown in Figure 30. Note that for tensions above about 2.5 m, the specific
moisture capacity is essentially zero, meaning that little water is taken or released from storage
despite potentially large changes in pressure. The value of the pressure head associated with this
threshold depends, of course, on the SWCC for the material. However, any coarse material
suitable for a capillary barrier will have similar-shaped SWCC and specific moisture capacity.

Figure 30. Specific moisture capacity for the FPL as modeled in v1.4.
The cover performance thus hinges on whether the evaporative zone can store and release the
incoming precipitation while maintaining sufficiently high tensions such that the coarse material
cannot store or conduct a significant amount of water. If tension deviations occur at significantly
higher values, (i.e., to the right side of the specific moisture capacity curve in Figure 30), then we
should expect the flow through the FPL and below to be insensitive.
Figure 31 shows this behavior in the model output for Simulation 20. Fifty years are shown,
including a notably wet period beginning at around model year 890. The tension at the interface
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 60
of the evaporative zone and FPL (green curve) is constantly changing as water is moved in and
out of the model domain via precipitation and evapotranspiration. The flux through the FPL
(blue curve) is insensitive to most of the oscillations, except when the tension dips to around 250
cm or below (red line). For those periods, we see a response in the flow through the frost
protection layer, as predicted by examination of Figure 30. At around model year 890, there are
two significant drops in tension, with the second drop down to around 100 cm. This produces the
most significant downward flux in the period shown.

Figure 31. Evaporation zone pressure head and flux through the FPL vs time for a wet
period in Simulation 20. The red dotted line is drawn at a pressure head of -250 cm.
Flux values are negative for downward flow.
While the above discussion focuses on the SWCC for the coarse frost protection layer, the
SWCC of the finer evaporation zone material also warrants discussion. In fact, the regression
model in the DU PA Model v1.4 reflects that percolation is sensitive to the SWCC parameters in
the evaporation zone. This can be understood in the context of the threshold effect described
above for the coarse layer.
For the cover to perform effectively as a capillary barrier, the evaporation zone needs to store
and release infiltrated water while maintaining a range of pressure heads that preclude flow in
the underlying frost protection layer. Performance can thus be estimated by evaluating how much
water can be stored in the evaporative zone while keeping tensions below this critical range.
Figure 32 shows the SWCC for the FPL along with the evaporation zone layer for two different
simulations from the v1.4 modeling.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 61

Figure 32. SWCCs for the FPL and two realizations of the evaporation zone layer. The tan
horizontal line is drawn at a tension of 250 cm, while the dotted lines indicate the
corresponding water content for the evaporative zone curves.
Examination of Figure 32 shows that, at a tension of 250 cm, the volumetric water content of the
evaporation zone in simulation 6 (red) would be at around 38%, while the water content for the
evaporation zone in simulation 20 (blue) would be around 28%. Viewed through this lens, it is
not surprising that the resulting percolation in simulation 6 was much lower than in simulation
20 (7.9E-3 mm/yr and 1.8E-1 mm/yr, respectively), as the evaporation zone in simulation 6 can
store much more water before significant breakthrough of the FPL occurs. This is precisely the
effect mentioned in the question as the “sharpness of the break” in material properties.
The 50 simulations performed to support Model v1.4 each had a different SWCC for the
evaporation zone, and thus comprise a systematic set of simulations that vary the sharpness of
the material contrast at this interface. The regression equations for percolation and water content
incorporate these relationships. The parameters of the van Genuchten SWCC model are θs, θr, α,
and n. The first two specify the saturated and residual water contents, respectively, which define
the endpoints at either end of the SWCC as shown in Figure 32. The remaining parameters
define the shape of the intervening curve. Alpha can be simply interpreted as inversely
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 62
proportional to the pressure head at which the inflection point on the right side of Figure 32
occurs, commonly known as the air entry pressure head. Simulation 20 has a higher α
(0.028 1/cm) than Simulation 6 (0.011 1/cm), and, therefore, a lower air entry pressure. The n
parameter is related to the grain size distribution, and can be simply interpreted as inversely
related to the slope of the central portion of the SWCC. For example, the FPL has the highest n
value in Figure 32 (1.89, vs. 1.28 and 1.38 for simulations 6 and 20, respectively) and, therefore,
the least steep slope in the central portion of the curves pictured.
With these relationships in mind, close examination of Figure 32 would predict that the best
performing evaporative zone materials should have low α and low n, as these properties would
be most conducive to water storage while maintaining relatively high pressure heads (i.e.,
pushing the evaporation zone curves up and to the right in Figure 32). Conversely, based on
Figure 32, poor performance would be associated with high α and high n. These relationships
manifest in exactly this fashion the regression equations of Model v1.4, which associate higher α
and higher n in the evaporation zone with increased percolation. These relationships would be
reversed, of course, when discussing the properties of the frost protection layer, in which high α
and high n are desirable for limiting percolation.
In summary, a mechanistic explanation for the capillary barrier performance is presented based
on the theory of unsaturated flow. Insensitivity of conditions in the lower portion of the cover to
meteorological forcing is the expected and intended behavior in such a cover design, as the
evaporative zone stores and releases water while maintaining a pressure regime in which the
coarse underlying materials do not allow flow. An example of the predicted behavior in the
model output was presented. The sensitivity of the sharpness of the material contrast was
evaluated in the 50 simulations performed for v1.4. The relationships predicted by the regression
equations comport with the predictions of the analysis of the system dynamics based first
principles of unsaturated flow. As suggested by the question, the material contrast is fundamental
to the performance of the cover system.
5.8 UDEQ Comment 8: Water Balance Graphs
Provide annual water balance graphs over a 10-year period for each of the model layers, in
addition to water balance graphs provided earlier. Some graphs should lead up to and follow
extreme weather events, and all should have sufficient detail so that the mechanisms controlling
flow can be understood and validated.
5.8.1 Comment 8 Response
Building on the theory presented in Section 5.7.1, plots of tension, water content, and
upward/downward fluxes are provided for v1.4 simulation #20 to demonstrate the mechanisms
controlling flow through the top slope ET cover materials through time. As discussed in the
Section 5.7.1, a capillary barrier is created by placing a fine-grained material (evaporative zone
layers) on top of a coarse material (frost protection layer). This configuration is of critical
importance to the performance of the ET cover design for the site; the capillary barrier prevents
water from traveling downward into the radon barrier clays, allowing water to be stored in the
evaporative zone where it is subject to evapotranspiration processes. The capillary barrier is
formed due to the differences in soil water characteristic curves of the material that arise from
different pore size distribution of the materials. In this section, the mechanisms controlling flow
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 63
across this critical barrier are discussed using the output of observation nodes placed at key
locations within the model column. The model output shows that the capillary barrier is effective
at preventing water from passing through it, however during rare and extreme wetting events,
conditions may develop that result in a “break” of the capillary barrier.
A 10-year period is selected, from model years 390 to 400, over which one large (2.7 cm) storm
and several successive moderate (0.5 cm) precipitation events occur during the Fall/Winter cycle
of model years 390/391. This 2.7 cm storm is the 4th largest storm in the 100-year record,
surpassed only by three slightly larger storms approximately 2.77 cm in magnitude. The effects
of this single large storm, followed by several moderate storms, can be observed from the output
provided by observation nodes placed within each layer that output daily values of tension, water
content, and flux.
Figure 32 compares the SWCC for the FPL and evaporative layer and indicates that in order to
have communication between these layers, the tension must be lowered to approximately 250 cm
in the evaporative zone. It is only at this point that the large pores of the FPL become available to
transmit water, and the hydraulic conductivity of the FPL is high enough to transmit water.
During this 10-year period, the capillary break is “broken” through the reduction of tension in the
evaporative layers to less than 250 cm, resulting increases in water content and elevated
downward fluxes in the frost protection and radon barrier layers.
Previously, only 6 observation nodes were used in the v1.4 models, one at the center node of
each layer, and one additional observation node at the bottom of the model (indicated with red
squares in Figure 33). An additional 9 observation nodes were added in the domain, one
additional at the top and bottom nodes of each layer (indicated with black circles in Figure 33).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 64

Figure 33. Additional nodes were added to the model domain to improve detail in the
output for each layer. Red dots represent observation nodes used in DU PA v1.4;
black circles represent the additional nodes.
Water content output from the observation nodes for selected days around the large 2.7 cm storm
is shown in Figure 34. Model day 142729, the blue line, is the day that precedes the storm. While
elevated water content can be observed in the lower portion of the evaporative zone
(approximately 20-45 cm below the surface) from previous precipitation events, water content is
comparatively lower at the surface. On model day 142730, when the 2.7 cm storm occurs, water
content suddenly increases to almost 40% at the surface of the model, while the lower nodes are
largely unchanged. Three days later (model day 142733) strong evaporative processes at the
surface have lowered the water content in the upper portion of the evaporative zone
(approximately 0-20 cm below the surface), and the pulse of water can be seen via elevated
water contents in the lower portion of the evaporative zone (approximately 20-45 cm below the
surface). After an additional 3 days (model day 142739) the surface has returned to a water
content similar to that before the storm, and the pulse of water can be seen lower into the
evaporative zone. Despite the magnitude of this large storm, elevated levels of water content are
only observed in the evaporative zone. This pattern of wetting and subsequent drying out of the
evaporative zone, without appreciable impact to water content in the frost protection layer, is
how the cover system has been designed to work, and this pattern repeats throughout the climate
record.
However, prolonged periods of high precipitation frequency and low evapotranspiration can
exceed the evaporation zone’s capacity to store and release water without inducing flow in the
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 65
FPL, which ultimately results in drainage out of the lower clay layers; the moisture profiles in
Figure 35 show one such instance. As Section 5.7.1 indicates, increased flow between the
evaporative and frost protection zones occurs when the tension in the evaporative zone is lower
than approximately 250 cm. On day 142870, water content at the top of the FPL is at its
maximum following a particularly wet period in the meteorological record, and output is shown
in 10-day increments thereafter. With each 10-day increment, water content increases in the
lower portion of the FPL as water moves downward from the evaporation zone. These two
moisture profiles show two distinct behavior patterns of the cover over short timescales. In
Figure 34, moisture fluctuations are limited to the evaporation zone, while in Figure 35, a
pressure pulse results in percolation through the frost protection layer. To appreciate how these
patterns manifest at the broader timescales, the figures and discussion that follow show similar
behavior playing out over periods of years, and contextualize them further by the inclusion of the
corresponding meteorological record.

Figure 34. Water content at observations nodes on selected days around a large 2.7 cm
storm event.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 66

Figure 35. Water content at observations nodes following a period of high precipitation
frequency that results in flow through the frost protection layer.
Daily output for the ten model years (model years 390 to 400) of water content in the top,
middle, and bottom nodes of each layer for v1.4 simulation #20 is shown in Figure 36. In the
upper portion of the figure, the horizontal bands of colors represent water content as it changes
through time. Red colors indicate approximately 10% volumetric water content, green colors
20%, blue 30%, and purple approaching 40%. In the lower half of the figure the daily
precipitation and calculated PET record input to the model is provided. Figure 37 provides daily
tension in each observation node through time. Tension is shown on a log10 scale due to the
wide range of tensions present across the cover materials at any particular time during the
simulation. Yellow colors represent tension of approximately 100 cm, blue colors represent
tensions greater than 1000 cm, and purple indicates tensions over 10,000 cm.
For a closer look at annual cycles in the model, the first three years are selected of the ten shown
in Figure 36 and Figure 37. Water content and tension are shown for this three-year period in
Figure 38 and Figure 39, respectively. Additionally, the upward and downward daily fluxes are
shown in Figure 40 and Figure 41.

31

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
1

67

Cl
i
v
e

D
U

P
A

M
o
d
e
l
—Re
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

D
W
M
R
C

1
2
-3-20
2
0

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

Figure 36. Ten years of daily water content in the v1.4 simulation #20 model.
31

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
2
1

68

Cl
i
v
e

D
U

P
A

M
o
d
e
l
—Re
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

D
W
M
R
C

1
2
-3-20
2
0

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

Figure 37. Ten years of daily tension in the v1.4 simulation #20 model.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 69

Figure 38. Three years of daily water content in the v1.4 simulation #20 model.

Figure 39. Three years of daily tension in the v1.4 simulation #20 model.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 70

Figure 40. Three years of daily (upward) fluxes in the v1.4 simulation #20 model.

Figure 41. Three years of daily (downward) fluxes in the v1.4 simulation #20 model.
The pink line in the lower portion of the figures show the calculated daily PET, which can be
used to orient the reader to where the seasons are along this time series. PET is highest in the
summer, and lowest in the winter. Therefore, as indicated on the charts, this three-year period
begins in the winter of model year 390, and after three years terminates at the end of the fall of
model year 392.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 71
Early in the precipitation record, a large 2.7 cm storm occurs over a single day in the early fall of
model year 390. Following this large event, water content increases and tension decreases in the
surface and evaporative layers as the water is taken into storage (Figure 38 and Figure 39).
Strong downward fluxes are observed in the shallow layers immediately following this large
precipitation event (Figure 41). However, despite this large addition of water to the evaporative
zone, the tension in the evaporative layer remains relatively high. Green colors indicate the
tension remains well above the 250 cm threshold needed to break the capillary barrier in this
configuration (Section 5.7.1); bright green colors correspond to approximately 600–800 cm.
While this storm is particularly large in magnitude, it takes place at a point in the year following
the warm and dry summer. The summer period has left the upper layers with higher tensions and
low water content, with the ability to absorb this large 2.5 cm precipitation event without
reducing the tensions sufficiently (i.e., below approximately 250 cm) to cause a “break” in the
capillary barrier.
Following the large 2.7 cm storm in the fall of model year 390, the winter of model year 391
contains a series of moderate storms (approximately 0.5 cm) that build upon the wet conditions
established by the large 2.7 cm storm, and cause a break in the capillary barrier. The capillary
break is identified in Figure 38 where a noticeable increase in water content occurs in the frost
protection layer, yellow colors corresponding to approximately 12%. This same instance is
indicated in Figure 39 where the yellow colors indicate tension has been reduced to around 100
cm, allowing communication between the layers as predicted by Figure 32.
Following the winter of model year 390, the surface and evaporative layers return to lower levels
of water content and high tension as PET increases and dries out these layers. During this period,
upward fluxes are observed in the evaporative zone (Figure 40). While conditions in the
evaporative zone return to tensions that prevent significant communication between the
evaporative and frost protection layers, elevated downward fluxes are observed in the radon
barrier for at least one year (Figure 41). The following winter of model year 391/392 is not as
intense as the previous winter. Water content in the evaporative zone remains low enough that
tensions are maintained well above the 250 cm threshold, and little communication is seen
between the evaporative zone and the frost protection zone.
5.9 UDEQ Comment 9: Abstraction Model
Demonstrate the efficacy of the abstraction model used to determine percolation rates used in
GoldSim by conducting an independent set of blind-forward simulations with HYDRUS over a
broader range of conditions to represent the range of percolation rates in the abstraction model.
Directly compare percolation rates from the independent forward simulations to those predicted
from the abstraction model for the same conditions.
5.9.1 Comment 9 Response
The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the efficacy of the abstracted regression model
used to determine percolation rates used in the GoldSim v1.4 PA model. This was accomplished
by running an independent set of blind-forward simulations in HYDRUS for a set of relevant
input values that represent the range of percolation rates in the abstracted regression model.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 72
Regression equation (41) from the unsaturated zone modeling white paper (Neptune 2015b) is
presented here:
!"#$%= −0.32921 +5.56826 ∗4 +0.19538 ∗"
Where Infil is the net infiltration through the cover (percolation) in mm/yr.
The percolation rates from the blind-forward HYDRUS runs were then compared to those
predicted from the abstracted regression model for the same conditions.
Regression models are only ever considered appropriate or relevant for the range of the data for
which they are fit. Extrapolation of a regression equation outside the range of the data is usually
discouraged or inappropriate. Even within the range the uncertainty is greater at both ends of a
regression model than in the middle, largely because there is more information (data) relevant to
fitting the middle as the tail data is usually sparser. In addition, the lack of correlation between
parameters in the HYDRUS model can cause implausible combinations of inputs, which can
result in outlier effects.
Consequently, 10 blind-forward runs were made to cross-validate the regression model used in
the GoldSim v1.4 PA model that come from within the range of the response (percolation)
realizations, and to also avoid the potential for outliers that might arise from unlikely
combinations of inputs to unduly influence the regression.
The regression in the equation above was based on 50 HYDRUS runs, 90 percent or more of
which have percolation that ranges from about 0.02 to 0.1 mm/yr. This was the focus of this
effort to demonstrate through cross-validation that the regression equation is reasonable. Section
5.11 addresses concerns about the tails of the distribution of percolation and water content in
each cover layer in HYDRUS compared to GoldSim. The simulated GoldSim model has longer
tails because thousands of realizations are obtained, in which case the realizations reach further
into the tails of the input distributions. The runs that are far into the tails of the inputs are much
more unreliable than those from the center and stretch the regression equations for percolation
and water content beyond the range of the inputs for the abstracted regressions. This response
focuses on results that are considered more reliable because they do not represent combinations
of inputs from the tails of their distributions.
Ten random draws from the distributions of the 4 and n parameters used in the regression were
generated from within the output range of percolation rates from 0.02 to 0.1 mm/yr. These were
then fed into both the HYDRUS model and the regression equation presented above. Table 9
presents the values for 4 and n, and the resulting percolations from both-HYDRUS and the
abstracted regression equation.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 73
Table 9. Random sample from trimmed set of values for α, n, and percolation from both
HYDRUS and the regression model.
α (1/cm) n Percolation
Regression
Percolation
HYDRUS
0.019924 1.385094 0.052351 0.0562
0.029998 1.278558 0.013219 0.0232
0.016467 1.281967 0.018487 0.0251
0.011261 1.402093 0.062961 0.0542
0.010965 1.295776 0.008608 0.0233
0.01874 1.315412 0.012952 0.0231
0.017969 1.382271 0.068538 0.0844
0.011956 1.323457 0.013646 0.0238
0.026246 1.399699 0.032545 0.0322
0.011679 1.320503 0.032144 0.0307

Figure 42 shows that the output from these 10 blind forward realizations from HYDRUS provide
general agreement with the values produced by the regression model. These blind forward runs
indicate that the abstracted regression equation is reasonable for the range of data that are
important in the GoldSim v1.4 PA model.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 74

Figure 42. Scatterplot of percolation values computed from both the regression model and
HYDRUS using the same pairs of α and n that were randomly generated.
5.10 UDEQ Comment 10: Characterizing Uncertainty
The standard error of the mean is used to account for uncertainty in input parameters in the PA
models. Provide the rational basis for the appropriateness of this approach to characterize
uncertainty, including appropriate documentation of supporting information from the hydrologic
literature specific to unsaturated flow and vadose-zone processes.
5.10.1 Comment 10 Response
A challenge with the development of probabilistic PA models is putting the right numbers in the
model. Despite the existence of information that can be used to characterize aspects of input
distributions, aggregating information from sources with varying spatial and temporal scales to
meet the needs of a PA model is non-trivial. PA models represent processes with varying
intrinsic temporal and spatial scales, yet PA models cover large spaces (volumes or areas) and
are run for thousands of years. Available data typically do not correspond to the spatial and
temporal resolution of a PA model. Data gleaned from literature review generally correspond to
points in time and space and as such, characterize variability associated with the underlying
populations. (Blöschl and Sivapalan 1995) address this issue using the framework that
distinguishes among the process scale, observation scale and modeling scale. We consider the
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 75
observation scale to be equivalent to the population distribution. In this context, informing PA
models with population distributions can grossly over-represent the variability of input
parameters within the context of the spatial and temporal resolution of a PA model.
Consequently, the development of input distributions for PA models involves scaling the
available data such that larger spatial and temporal domains are characterized.
A number of different approaches have been assessed to accommodate the depiction of processes
with varying spatial and temporal scales in modeled systems (Arora et al. 2019; de Rooij 2011;
Rödenbeck et al. 2001; Yang et al. 2017). This issue can be addressed by running PA models in
one of two ways: 1) by drawing random numbers from input distributions at every time step or,
2) by selecting a random realization from each input parameter distribution at the beginning of
time and applying that value throughout time. These two ways of modeling are sometimes called
fast and slow models in the literature on stochastic averaging, where it is understood that fast
models are approximations to slow models and are formed through averaging processes (cf.,
Thompson et al. (2015)).
Complex models that have disparate process, observation and modeling scales require either
downscaling or upscaling to ensure that the models properly characterize the data when forming
input distributions for the model. For PA models it is almost always the case that spatial and
temporal upscaling is needed. This issue is also addressed in NUREG/CR 6805 (Neuman et al.
2003).
As described in the literature, including the cited references herein, there are several reasons why
stochastic averaging is considered necessary and appropriate. Similarly, the Goldsim PA model
built for this site does not allow for option #1 for several somewhat related reasons: i. the relative
computational intractability; ii. these types of models are often called “systems-level” models
and are aimed at the needs of decision making under uncertainty, in which case it is uncertainty
in parameters that is of importance in the context of the decision to be made; and, iii. the
complications this approach causes for global (simultaneous) sensitivity analysis of a
probabilistic model. Consequently, #2 must be addressed. This problem is common to all
complex modeling of which PA modeling is only one.
With approach #2, the input distribution must reflect values that are plausible across the duration
of the simulation period. Clearly in this case, using the underlying distribution of data is
inappropriate. For example, when a value representing the 99th percentile of the underlying
distribution of the data is selected for use throughout the simulation period, this corresponds to a
highly improbable outcome. In fact, comparing this to case #1 where draws from input
distributions are selected randomly at each time step, this corresponds to a probability of:
(1-.99)^(length of simulation)
If 1,000 years are simulated, this corresponds to what is effectively a zero-probability event.
Hence, when approach #2 is used, input distributions need to be scaled in such a way that there is
lower variability relative to the distribution of the underlying data.
When assumptions of linearity and stationarity are applied, then simple averaging provides an
exact solution for this type of scaling. That is, characterizing the input distribution to a linear and
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 76
stationary model using the mean and standard deviation of the mean (i.e., standard error) of the
available data can be shown to be analytically correct. In this sense, correct implies that this
approach can be shown to provide unbiased estimates for the mean and variance of the output of
interest. This type of analytical analysis helps inform the approach for scaling input distributions
for parameters in PA models.
As more complex non-linear functions are considered, the results and determination of a best
approach become less clear. Exploring this with both analytical and simulation approaches for
non-linear functions shows that simple averaging can provide a biased estimate of the mean and
variance in the output (Black et al. 2019). For example, when a quadratic function is considered,
application of simple averaging results in an estimate of the mean of the process of interest was
biased by approximately 3%. Similarly, for this same case the estimate of the variance of the
process of interest was biased by approximately 2.5%. These results are consistent with the work
of Vogel et al. (1991), who considered the space-time variability of soil hydraulic properties.
Black et al. (2019), also explored the more general case where the function of interest consists of
the product of two independent variables. Similar results were found that using the simple
averaging approach for characterizing the input distributions results in a small bias in the
estimates of both the mean and the variance.
While this is an area of active research with respect to the implementation of scaling approaches
for input distributions for PA models, these results provide important context regarding the use
of the standard error of the mean is used to account for uncertainty in input parameters in the PA
models. There are many complex functions and relationships embedded within PA models.
Functions that are multivariate, highly non-linear, and involve differential equations, exist in PA
models. Ultimately, the aggregate impact of all the functions within a PA model is the function
of interest with respect to assessing the impact of different approaches to scaling.
Of comfort for the GoldSim DU PA model is that the form of the marginal relationship between
the most important/sensitive input parameters and a response of interest in a PA model lies
somewhere between a linear and quadratic (Neptune (2015e), Figures 7 and 8). That is, these
types of complex models are ultimately dependent on only a few input variables for a specific
endpoint. Given this, the impact of scaling with the standard error of the mean to account for
uncertainty in input parameters is a slight bias in the estimation of the mean and the variance.
Ultimately, scaling of some form must be performed to avoid adversely impacting decisions,
because, otherwise, uncertainty will almost certainly be over-estimated, perhaps severely, and
PA decisions risk being made based on values from the tails of the output distributions.
Ultimately, there are no analytical solutions for upscaling for non-linear non-additive models. PA
models tend to be highly non-linear and highly multiplicative. The issue has been recognized
more generally (see references as examples), and research in this area continues to be performed
in various institutions around the world. However, for now there are no simple solutions.
Neptune will continue to perform its own research in this area and has made some breakthroughs
with the use of a novel statistical approach, but this research is not complete. For the current
GoldSim PA model, completed more than five years ago, the best available methods were used,
and not much has changed since, especially with respect to PA in general.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 77
As noted in NUREG/CR 6805 (Neuman et al. 2003), upscaling is necessary. Also, simple
averaging tends to be a very powerful process, in which case the complexity of PA models might
include trade-offs in negative and positive bias so that the center of the probabilistic output is
reasonable.
Tail behavior in the output of non-linear multiplicative PA models is probably more adversely
affected than the centers of the output distributions, but there are other issues in PA modeling
related to lack of correlation structure that probably create more extreme tail effects. Lack of
correlation structure between input variables, and lack of autocorrelation across time almost
certainly leads to more extreme tail effects than the upscaling effect of non-linear and
multiplicative relationships. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider the tails, and especially
the upper tails, outside the range of reasonable results. In effect, the center of the output of PA
models is probably far more reliable than the tails.
A further issue that suggests that upscaling using simple averaging might often be sufficient is
that global sensitivity analysis of complex models always reveals only a few input parameters
that are sensitive for a given output of a PA model. Consequently, it is scaling of those few
inputs that matters the most. When addressing the few inputs parameters that are sensitive, the
lack of analytical solutions for scaling non-linear multiplicative models is not as severe as it
might first seem. Often the response variable of interest is explained in large part by a linear
relationship with the most sensitive input parameters.
For complex models such as PA models, scaling must be done to rectify spatial and temporal
scale differences between processes, observations and models. To not do so would result in far
more problems in a PA model than arise from using averaging as a simple approach to scaling.
5.11 UDEQ Comment 11: Tails of the Distribution
Explain mechanistically why tails of the distribution for water content predicted in GoldSim differ
from those predicted by HYDRUS. Demonstrate that the tails of the distribution for water content
are properly accounted for in GoldSim.
5.11.1 Comment 11 Response
It appears that this comment relates to Figure 26 provided in the 2018 response to interrogatories
(EnergySolutions 2018). Figure 43 below reproduces that figure.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 78

Figure 43. Comparison of Bingham Environmental (1991) water content data with water
content calculated using the regression equation for the DU PA GoldSim model and
with the results of the 20 HYDRUS simulations. Figure 26 of EnergySolutions (2018).
Figure 43 was created in context with an interrogatory relating to DU PA v1.2; and thus plotted
Bingham Environmental (1991) data against those HYDRUS and GoldSim simulations (i.e.,
associated with DU PA v1.2; which has since been superseded by DU PA v1.4). This figure does
not accurately reflect the state of DU PA v1.4 in terms of the relationship between the water
content predicted by GoldSim against that predicted by HYDRUS. Figure 44 presents water
content in the evaporation zone from the 50 HYDRUS simulations used in DU PA v1.4.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 79

Figure 44. Water content in the evaporation zone from 50 HYDRUS simulations used in
DU PA v1.4.
Figure 44 demonstrates that the tails of the distribution for water content are reasonably
accounted for in GoldSim in DU PA v1.4. Note that this figure is compared with 1000 runs of
DU PA v1.4.
Figure 45 compares water content in the evaporation zone from the 50 HYDRUS simulations
used in DU PA v1.4 with the results of the DU PA v1.4 for 50 runs rather than 1000 runs. Figure
45 demonstrates that the tails of the distribution for water content are very well accounted for in
GoldSim in DU PA v1.4.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 80

Figure 45. Water content in the evaporation zone from 50 HYDRUS simulations used in
DU PA v1.4.
5.12 UDEQ Comment 12: Climate Record and Comparison With Other
Sites
Explain mechanistically why the percolation rates predicted with the original DU PA, Model v1.4,
and those utilizing the 1000-year precipitation record differ. Compare the predictions from the
models (e.g., water-content records, fluxes, etc.), and provide a mechanistic reason for the
differences in percolation rate between the sets of predictions that is consistent with the
principles of variably saturated flow and soil-atmosphere interactions. Present, justify, and
document why the model predicts percolation rates that are 10x lower than those that are being
measured in field studies of similar covers in Blanding, and Monticello, Utah.
5.12.1 Comment 12 Response
This comment includes two topics, which will be addressed separately below.
5.12.1.1 Climate Record
The results presented for the 1000-year meteorological record presented in Neptune (2020a)
were in error. We appreciate the question from the Department, as it prompted a re-examination
of the results and discovery of the error, which occurred in the processing of the potential
evapotranspiration (PET) record for input to HYDRUS. This led to unrealistically high PET and,
as the question notes, low percolations. The PET record was revised and the 50 simulations were
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 81
run again. The parameterization of the simulations is the same as documented in Table 9 of
Neptune (2015b).
The 1000-year meteorological record is prepared using the same methodology as the Model v1.4
100-year record, such that the average behavior across the records is similar. Average annual
precipitation and PET for both records are summarized in Table 10. While averages are similar,
the 1000-year record contains higher maximum daily precipitation events, as intended. For
example, there are 48 daily precipitation events higher than 2.77 cm in the 1000-year record,
which was the maximum daily precipitation in the 100-year record.
Table 10. Summary statistics for 100-year and 1000-year climate records.
Meteorological Record Average Precipitation
(cm/yr) Average PET*
(cm/yr) Maximum Daily Precipitation
(cm)
100-year (Model v1.4) 21.4 128.7 2.77
1000-year 21.9 127.1 4.49
*PET computed via the Hargreaves equation as documented in the Model v1.4 Unsaturated Zone White Paper.

The 1000-yr and 100-yr precipitation records are further compared in Figure 46. At both annual
and quarterly scales, the 1000-yr record contains broader ranges of total precipitation than the
100-yr record, though both datasets have similar means. Additionally, the 1000-yr record
contains more periods with exceptionally high precipitation, which are shown in Figure 46 as
points. These values are characterized by being greater than the 3rd-quartile of each dataset by an
amount at least 1.5 times the interquartile range.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 82

Figure 46. Total precipitation over various time periods for the 1000y and 100y records.
Simulations are run for 2000 years, repeating the 1000-year meteorological record twice. Results
are computed by averaging the flux at the bottom of the model over the last 1000 years of the
simulation in order to capture the range of behavior over the record, while avoiding any transient
fluxes early in the simulation associated with initial conditions. On average, percolations with
the 1000-year record are about 10 times higher than the corresponding simulations in Model
v1.4, with an average value of 0.23 mm/yr, compared to 0.024 mm/yr in the Model v1.4
simulations. The maximum percolation with the 1000-year record is 1.3 mm/yr, whereas the
maximum in Model v1.4 is about 0.2 mm/yr. This maximum occurs for the same parameter set
using both meteorological records, simulation 20 of 50, which is discussed at length in Section
5.7.1 due to having the least favorable evaporation zone SWCC of the 50 simulations.
Histograms of the results from these sets of runs are shown below in the top two panels of Figure
49.
The higher percolations are due to the atmospheric conditions breaking the capillary barrier
pressure threshold more often; this idea is described at length Section 5.7.1. Water fluxes
through the cover respond in a non-linear fashion to extreme precipitation events. The new 1000-
year meteorological record contains precipitation patterns that are more intense on a variety of
timeframes. For example, years 214 and 796 have the wettest 60-day periods in the entire 1000-
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 83
year record, with frequent intense precipitation that causes tensions in the evaporation zone to
fall well below the capillary barrier threshold and remain in that range for a prolonged period in
nearly every model realization, regardless of the evaporative zone SWCC. This causes a notable
increase in the flux at the bottom of the cover system.
By contrast, many model realizations of Model v1.4 (100-year record) had no significant spikes
in flow through the bottom of the cover. Using the 1000-year record, these simulations with the
more favorable SWCCs in the evaporation zone exhibited relatively stable long-term trends in
percolation, punctuated by a few rapid increases when the capillary barrier was overcome by
intense periods of precipitation and/or periods of low potential evapotranspiration. Results from
both meteorological records are presented below for Simulation 1 of 50. In the 100-year record,
the flux at the bottom of the cover is not responsive to the meteorological forcings because the
capillary barrier is isolating the bottom of the cover from the top. Using the 1000-year record,
however, the capillary barrier is unable to provide full isolation, and the fluxes are persistently
higher with notable rises around years 214 and 796 (years 1214 and 1796 in the plot, as only the
second 1000-year cycle is shown).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 84

Figure 47. Flux at the bottom of the cover and precipitation for both the 100-year (top) and
1000-year (bottom) meteorological records for Simulation 1 of 50. Only the last cycle
of the meteorological record is shown. Vertical scales are the same for both plots.
By contrast, for the realizations with least favorable evaporation zone SWCCs, the 1000-year
meteorological record keeps tensions very near the critical range (200–700 cm) throughout the
simulation. As a result, flow through the bottom of the cover is much more responsive to the
meteorological forcing, as high precipitation events readily push tensions below the threshold
pressure at which the FPL has significantly higher hydraulic conductivity, as described in
Section 5.7.1. Further investigation of the persistently high moisture conditions observed for
these simulations reveals that the ratio of actual transpiration to potential transpiration is rather
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 85
low, considering the relatively wet conditions. For example, actual transpiration is about 19% of
potential transpiration for Simulation 20, despite prevailing root zone tensions less than 1000 cm,
typically thought to be favorable for root water uptake.
This highlights a powerful conservatism in the root water uptake parameters. The v1.4 HYDRUS
model uses the S-shaped root water uptake efficiency curve (ɑ) to govern plant water uptake as a
function of water tension. Plants can struggle to draw water from soil if the water is very tightly
held in the soil pore spaces. In very dry soils with tension above the permanent wilting point
(usually regarded as on the order of 10,000 cm for most plants), transpiration ceases entirely.
The S-shaped curve is defined by two parameters, including one called h50; h50 defines the
pressure head at which root water uptake is reduced by 50% due to water stress. The S-shaped
curve used in the v1.4 Model is depicted by the blue line in Figure 48, below, with h50 equal to
200 cm. This greatly reduces the root water uptake in the model, as transpiration is reduced
drastically when soil moisture tensions exceed a few hundred centimeters in the root zone, which
is very common in the model output. Therefore, even in relatively wet conditions, the model is
conservatively throttling root water uptake, leading to low transpiration utilization, as mentioned
above. A second S-shaped curve, with h50 equal to 1500 cm, is also plotted in the figure for
comparison.
Two other water stress models are shown in Figure 48 that use the Feddes water stress model
(Feddes et al. 1978) rather than the S-shaped model. One is taken from the HYDRUS input files
for the Blanding model (MWH Americas 2007). The other is from Taylor and Ashcroft (1972), a
compilation of root water extraction parameters for a variety of food crops. For these two
models, root water uptake would be uninhibited by water stress at tensions below about 1500 cm,
and uptake would still be above 50% up to tensions of about 4000–5000 cm.

Figure 48. Water stress models.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 86
The impacts of this parameterization are not readily apparent when using the 100-year
meteorological record, as breakthrough of the capillary barrier is relatively rare and fleeting.
However, simulations performed using the 1000-year record show persistently wet periods
following intense precipitation that are slow to recover to a drier condition, and despite that, the
ratio of actual transpiration to potential transpiration is still low. This prompted further
examination of the root water uptake model. To appreciate the impacts of this conservatism,
another set of 50 simulations using the 1000-year meteorological record were run with h50 set to
1500 cm. All other parameters are identical to the previous sets of simulations, which varied
three parameters as described in Neptune (2015b).
Under this scenario, percolations are below 0.1 mm/yr for all simulations, and transpiration
efficiency increases dramatically (e.g., from 19% to 66% for Simulation 20). Figure 49 shows
histograms for the 100-year record (Model v1.4 simulations), the 1000-year record with h50 set to
200 cm, and the 1000-year record with h50 set to 1500 cm. Figure 50 shows a simulation-by-
simulation comparison of the results. It is notable that the maximum percolation value for the
1000-year simulations using h50=1500 cm is lower than the maximum from the Model v1.4
simulations that used the 100-year record. The average percolation, however, is about two times
higher than the v1.4 simulations (0.042 mm/yr vs. 0.024 mm/yr).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 87

Figure 49. Histograms of sets of 50 simulations using the 100-year meteorological record
(top), the 1000-year meteorological record with Model v1.4 root water uptake
parameters (middle), and the 1000-year meteorological record with h50 set to 1500 cm
(bottom).
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 88

Figure 50. Simulation by simulation comparison of percolations derived from scenarios
with h50 set to 200 cm (blue) and with h50 set to 1500 cm (green).
The overall effect of increasing the root water uptake efficiency is a more stable soil moisture
profile that recovers more quickly from perturbations. As a result, more pore space is available to
accommodate infiltration from subsequent precipitation events. Daily evaporation is often lower
when the root water uptake is increased, as the root zone competes with the surface evaporation
for water, and as a result, the upward hydraulic gradient during dry periods is diminished. In
short, the root water uptake model used in the v1.4 HYDUS simulations is extremely
conservative. When the root water uptake parameters are made less conservative for the 1000-
year climate record, percolations are below 0.1 mm/yr for all simulations.
In summary, simulations performed with the v1.4 HYDRUS model structure and the 1000-year
meteorological record produce higher percolations than those predicted using the 100-year
record. A powerful conservatism in the root water uptake model contributes heavily to the
change in results. When this conservatism is relaxed, the predicted percolations are well within
the bounds of the v1.4 HYDRUS simulations.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 89
5.12.1.2 Comparison Across Sites
The second part of the comment asks that the hybrid cover design proposed for the Federal Cell
be compared with similar covers in Blanding and Monticello, Utah; and the estimated
percolation rates through the Federal Cell compared with percolation data collected from the
covers at the other two sites. Figure 51 depicts the basic layering of the cover designs.
Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 summarize important engineering/hydraulic properties of the
various layers in the Clive, Monticello, and Blanding cover designs. Table 14 summarizes
precipitation and percolation data available across these sites, including monitoring from a Cover
Test Cell at Clive, UT that was constructed to evaluate a previous riprap cover design. See
Section 5.2.1.2 for more details on the design and material properties of the materials used in the
Clive Test Cell.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 90

Figure 51. Layering of ET cover systems at Clive, Monticello, and Blanding, Utah.

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 91
Table 11. Engineering properties of cover layers in the Clive Federal Cell, DU PA v1.4.
Layer Input Parameter3 ET Cover DU PA v1.4 (actual, 50 sims)
Surface
θr (unitless) 0.111
θs (unitless) 0.4089
α (1/cm) 0.0169
n (unitless) 1.3
Ksat (cm/day) 4.46
Evaporative Zone
θr (unitless) 0.111
θs (unitless) 0.481
α (1/cm) 0.0169
n (unitless) 1.3
Ksat (cm/day) 4.46
Frost Protection
θr (unitless) 0.065
θs (unitless) 0.41
α (1/cm) 0.075
n (unitless) 1.89
Ksat (cm/day) 106.1
Upper Radon Barrier
θr (unitless) 0.1
θs (unitless) 0.432
α (1/cm) 0.003
n (unitless) 1.172
Ksat (cm/day) 6.75
Lower Radon Barrier
θr (unitless) 0.1
θs (unitless) 0.432
α (1/cm) 0.003
n (unitless) 1.172
Ksat (cm/day) 6.75

3 Values for α and n in the surface and evaporative zone layer; and for Ks in the radon barrier layers were variable in
the 50 simulations run for v1.4; average value reported here.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 92
Table 12. Engineering properties of cover layers in the Monticello disposal facility.
Monticello Input Parameter Table
Layer Input Parameter Monticello
Gravel Amended θr (unitless) n/a
θs (unitless) n/a
α (1/cm) n/a
n (unitless) n/a
Ksat (cm/day) 30.24
Water Storage & Protection θr (unitless) 0
θs (unitless) 0.3
α (1/cm) 0.0011
n (unitless) 1.31
Ksat (cm/day) 3.6288
Biota Barrier θr (unitless) n/a
θs (unitless) n/a
α (1/cm) n/a
n (unitless) n/a
Ksat (cm/day) n/a
Water Storage & Protection θr (unitless) 0
θs (unitless) 0.29
α (1/cm) 0.001
n (unitless) 1.5
Ksat (cm/day) 0.0320
Sand θr (unitless) n/a
θs (unitless) n/a
α (1/cm) n/a
n (unitless) n/a
Ksat (cm/day) n/a
Tailings θr (unitless) n/a
θs (unitless) n/a
α (1/cm) n/a
n (unitless) n/a
Ksat (cm/day) n/a

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 93
Table 13. Engineering properties of cover layers in the Blanding White Mesa Mill Tailings
Facility.
Blanding Input Parameter Table
Layer Input Parameter Blanding
Gravel Amended
θr (unitless) 0.045
θs (unitless) 0.254
α (1/cm) 0.0145
n (unitless) 1.406
Ksat (cm/day) 5.6
Water Storage & Protection
θr (unitless) 0.055
θs (unitless) 0.404
α (1/cm) 0.0145
n (unitless) 1.406
Ksat (cm/day) 7.4
Compacted Cover (Clay Radon Barrier)
θr (unitless) 0.046
θs (unitless) 0.334
α (1/cm) 0.0229
n (unitless) 1.261
Ksat (cm/day) 3.6
Interim
θr (unitless) 0.059
θs (unitless) 0.439
α (1/cm) 0.0125
n (unitless) 1.461
Ksat (cm/day) 10.4
Tailings
θr (unitless) n/a
θs (unitless) n/a
α (1/cm) n/a
n (unitless) n/a
Ksat (cm/day) n/a

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 94
Table 14. Precipitation and percolation data for the Clive Cover Test Cell, Monticello, and
Blanding facilities. Clive precipitation average calculated for the years 2002–2016 to
match with Cover Test Cell period of service; site average across 28-year
meteorological record is 217.41 mm/yr.
Reference Trinity
Consultants
(2021)
EnergySolutions
(2017)
Benson et al. (2008) Energy Fuels (2021)
Study Clive Clive Test Cell Monticello Blanding
Year
Precipitation
(mm/yr)
Percolation
(mm/yr)
Precipitation
(mm/yr)
Percolation
(mm/yr)
Precipitation
(mm/yr)
Percolation
(mm/yr)
2001 172.5 -- 377.7 0 -- --
2002 147.9 0.652 228.6 0 -- --
2003 183.8 0.446 364 0 -- --
2004 230.1 0.178 442 0.2 -- --
2005 258.1 0.455 519.7 3.8 -- --
2006 187.7 0.256 447.3 0.2 -- --
2007 210.6 0.237 304.5 0 -- --
2008 81.3 0.229 99.8 0.4 -- --
2009 206.2 0.14 -- -- -- --
2010 227.8 0.164 -- -- -- --
2011 246.1 0.11 -- -- -- --
2012 167.4 0.023 -- -- -- --
2013 209.8 0.0001 -- -- -- --
2014 213.6 0 -- -- -- --
2015 247.7 0 -- -- -- --
2016 271.3 0.231 -- -- 59.9 0
2017 193.8 -- -- -- 222.7 0.65
2018 170.2 -- -- -- 163.4 0.9
2019 342.6 -- -- -- 307.9 1.01
2020 116.3 -- -- -- 127.8 0.89
Average 205.96 0.208 347.95 0.575 176.34 0.69

There are several important distinctions between the designs. The Clive and Monticello designs
both employ fine materials at the surface, creating an evaporative zone where water is stored and
released through evapotranspiration processes, combined with a layer of coarse material placed
below the fine materials that creates a capillary barrier to prevent downward flow, holding water
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 95
in the evaporative zone more effectively. From the Monticello design, it is surmised that the
biota barrier gravel likely creates an effective capillary barrier; however, parameterization for
this layer was not available in the references reviewed.
In contrast, the Clive Test Cell and the cover design for the Blanding site do not include a
capillary break. While fine materials are used in the upper layers of the Blanding cover to create
a water storage zone, the design lacks a capillary break that would allow this water to be held in
the storage zone more effectively. The Clive test cell lacks both a storage zone in the surface
layers (consisting of riprap and coarse filter materials), and a capillary break between the
evaporative zone and lower clay radon barrier layers. The hydrologic principles and mechanisms
that govern the performance of a capillary barrier are expanded upon in detail in Section 5.7.1.
The differences in cover design and average precipitation between the sites provides some
insight into the difference in percolation measured from the covers, and the predicted
performance for the Clive cover design from the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling.
Precipitation is higher for the Monticello site compared to the Clive Cover Test Cell and
Blanding covers. While measured percolation rates are higher for the Monticello site compared
to the Clive Test Cell, they are similar to those monitored at Blanding. At first glance, the higher
rates of percolation at Monticello, compared to the Clive Test Cell, may be intuitive since
Monticello has roughly double the precipitation. However, another way to look at the results is
that, despite Monticello receiving roughly double the amount of annual precipitation, only a very
small fraction of this additional water is able to successfully travel through the cover. As such,
despite the markedly higher precipitation at Monticello, the cover is effective at limiting
percolation. The rates of percolation through the Clive Test Cell and Blanding covers may reflect
the more arid climate at these sites, as these covers lack both the storage and capillary barrier
features employed in the Monticello cover design.
In fact, this is what the HYDRUS modeling results indicate when a similar design is subjected to
the climate at Clive, UT. As noted in Section 5.12.1.1 above, average percolation for the 50
simulations run in DU PA v1.4 is 0.024 mm/yr; about an order of magnitude lower than the
Cover Test Cell and slightly more than an order of magnitude lower than the reference
Monticello and Blanding sites.
Figure 51 offers some possible explanations for this predicted difference in percolation. The
Federal Cell design is similar to that of the high-performance Monticello cover, and includes an
evaporative zone in the surface layers to store and release water through time, and a strong
capillary break between the evaporative zone and lower radon barrier layers. By employing
similar features used in the Monticello cover, but subjecting such a cover to only half the amount
of precipitation, results very low predicted rates of infiltration. Additionally, it is also possible
that the Monticello design has shown increased performance in the years following those
reported in Table 14. It is our understanding that additional data is nearing publication. If the
Monticello cover continues to show improvement in its performance, despite the much higher
levels of precipitation, the results predicted by the v1.4 HYDRUS modeling become increasingly
justified.
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 96
6.0 Conclusion
DU PA v1.4 demonstrates compliance with the dose and groundwater protection requirements of
Utah regulations relating to DU disposal. The interrogatory and response process has added to
the record supporting these conclusions; but has not caused the quantitative model to require
revision. Accordingly, DU PA v1.4 remains the basis for demonstrating compliance of the
disposal facility.
Compliance with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a) is affirmed by DU PA v1.4 and Deep Time model v1.5,
together with their supporting documentation as supplemented by the interrogatory/response
cycle.
7.0 Attachments
1. Federal Waste Disposal Cell engineering drawings, series 14004
8.0 References
Arora, B., et al., 2019. Understanding and Predicting Vadose Zone Processes, Reviews in
Mineralogy & Geochemistry 85 (2019) 303–328
Benson, C.H., 2021. Facilitating Informed Decision-Making for Waste Containment Systems,
proceedings of the Waste Management Symposia 2021, March 7–11, Phoenix AZ, 2021
Benson, C.H., et al., 2011. Engineered Covers for Waste Containment: Changes in Engineering
Properties and Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment, NUREG/CR-7028,
Volume 1, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, December
2011
Benson, C.H., et al., 2008. Hydraulic Properties and Geomorphology of the Earthen Component
of the Final Cover at the Monticello Uranium Mill Tailings Repository, Geo Engineering
Report No. 08-04, April 2008
Bingham Environmental, 1991. Hydrogeologic Report, Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility,
South Clive, Utah, prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Bingham Environmental, Salt Lake
City UT, October 1991
Bingham Environmental, 1994. Hydrogeologic Report, Mixed Waste Disposal Area, Envirocare
Waste Disposal Facility, South Clive, Utah, prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Bingham
Environmental, Salt Lake City UT, November 1994
Bjornstad, B.N., and S.S. Teel, 1993. Natural Analog Study of Engineered Protective Barriers at
the Hanford Site, PNL-8840, UC-510, prepared for United States Department of Energy,
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland WA, September 1993
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 97
Black, P., et al., 2019. Scaling Input Distributions for Probabilistic Models - 19472, proceedings
of the Waste Management Symposia 2019, March 3-7, Phoenix AZ, 2019
Blöschl, G., and M. Sivapalan, 1995. Scale Issues in Hydrological Modelling: A Review,
Hydrological Processes 9 (1995) 251–290
Bylo, L.N., et al., 2014. Grazing Intensity Influences Ground Squirrel and American Badger
Habitat Use in Mixed-Grass Prairies, Rangeland Ecology and Management 67 (2014)
247–254 doi: 10.1016/j.rama.2016.07.001
Carsel, R.F., and R.S. Parrish, 1988. Developing Joint Probability Distributions of Soil Water
Retention Characteristics, Water Resources Research 24 (5) 755–769
de Rooij, G.H., 2011. Averaged Water Potentials in Soil Water and Groundwater, and Their
Connection to Menisci in Soil Pores, Field-Scale Flow Phenomena, and Simple
Groundwater Flows, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15 (2011) 1601–1614 doi:
10.5194/hess-15-1601-2011
Dobre, R.G., et al., 2017. Snowmelt Infiltration Using Hydrus-1D Based on a Snow Surface
Energy Balance Model for Bucegi Mountains, Romania, available from
https://www.sgem.org/index.php/elibrary-research-
areas?view=publication&task=show&id=3455
Energy Fuels, 2021. Q4-20 Data Quality Report for the Primary Test Section, White Mesa Mill—
Tailings Management Cell 2, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., San Juan County UT,
January 2021
EnergySolutions, 2015. Radioactive Material License UT2300249: Safety Evaluation Report for
Condition 35.B Performance Assessment; Response to Issues Raised in the April 2015
Draft Safety Evaluation Report, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City UT, November
2015
EnergySolutions, 2017. Radioactive Material License No. UT2300249, License Condition 28B:
2016 Cover Test Cell Annual Report, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City UT, February
2017
EnergySolutions, 2018. Radioactive Material License UT2300249: Responses to the Amended
and New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA Modeling Report Version 1.4 Dated
November 2015, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City UT, April 2018
EnergySolutions, 2020. Radioactive Material Licenses UT 2300249 Cover Test Cell
Deconstruction Study Final Report, CD20-0123, EnergySolutions LLC, Salt Lake City
UT, August 2020
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 98
EPA, 2011. Fact Sheet on Evapotranspiration Cover Systems for Waste Containment, EPA 542-
F-11-001, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, February
2011
Feddes, R.A., et al., 1978. Simulation of Field Water Use and Crop Yield, Simulation
Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen, Netherlands, 1978
Kennedy, W.E., et al., 1985. Biotic Transport of Radionuclides from a Low-level Radioactive
Waste Site, Health Physics, 49 (1) 11–24
MWH Americas, 2007. Infilitration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa
Mill Site, Blanding, Utah, prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., MWH Americas
Inc., Salt Lake City UT, November 2007
Neptune, 2011. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model version 1.0, Neptune and Company
Inc., Los Alamos NM, June 2011
Neptune, 2014. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.2, NAC-
0024_R2, Neptune and Company, Inc., Los Alamos NM, August 2014
Neptune, 2015a. Safety Evaluation Report Response, NAC-0053_R0, prepared for
EnergySolutions, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, November 2015
Neptune, 2015b. Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0015_R4, prepared for EnergySolutions, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM,
October 2015
Neptune, 2015c. Neptune Field Studies, December, 2014, Eolian Depositional History Clive
Disposal Site, NAC-0044_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, March 2015
Neptune, 2015d. Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0016_R4, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, October 2015
Neptune, 2015e. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model v1.4, NAC-
0024_R4, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, November 2015
Neptune, 2015f. Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA, Clive DU PA
Model v1.4, NAC-0022_R2, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, November
2015
Neptune, 2020a. Clive DU PA Model—Response to Model Version 1.4 Amended Interrogatories,
NAC-0147_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Lakewood CO, April 2020
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 99
Neptune, 2020b. Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA, Deep Time Assessment for the
Clive DU PA Model v1.5, NAC-0032_R5, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM,
March 2020
Neptune, 2021. Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 1-28-2021 Comments, NAC-
0166_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Lakewood CO, March 2021
Neuman, S.P., et al., 2003. A Comprehensive Strategy of Hydrogeologic Modeling and
Uncertainty Analysis for Nuclear Facilities and Sites, NUREG/CR-6805, United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, July 2003
NRC, 2000. A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facilities: Recommendations of NRC's Performance Assessment Working Group,
NUREG-1573, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, June
2000
Rödenbeck, C., et al., 2001. Dynamical Systems with Time Scale Separation: Averaging,
Stochastic Modelling, and Central Limit Theorems, Progress in Probability 49 (2001)
189–190
SC&A, 2015. Utah Division of Radiation Control, EnergySolutions Clive LLRW Disposal
Facility, License No: UT2300249; RML #UT 2300249, Condition 35 Compliance Report;
Appendix A: Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Safety Evaluation Report, Volume
1, prepared for Utah Department of Environmental Quality, SC&A Inc., Vienna VA,
April 2015
Šimůnek, J., et al., 2007. HYDRUS (2D/3D), Software Package for Simulating the Two- and
Three-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in Variably-
Saturated Media, User Manual Version 1.0, PC-Progress, Prague, Czech Republic,
January 2007
Smesrud, J.K., and J.S. Selker, 2001. Effect of Soil-Particle Size Contrast on Capillary Barrier
Performance, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (10) 885–
888
Stantec, 2020. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report - Final, Clive Disposal Facility,
prepared for EnergySolutions LLC, Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Salt Lake City UT,
September 2020
Stephens, D.B., 1996. Vadose Zone Hydrology, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton FL
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 100
SWCA, 2011. Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah,
prepared for EnergySolutions, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City UT,
January 2011
SWCA, 2012. Vegetated Cover System for the EnergySolutions Clive Site: Literature Review,
Evaluation of Existing Data, and Field Studies Summary Report, prepared for
EnergySolutions, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City UT, August 2012
Taylor, S.A., and G.M. Ashcroft, 1972. Physical Edaphology, Freeman and Co., San Francisco
CA
Thompson, W.F., et al., 2015. Stochastic Averaging of Dynamical Systems with Multiple Time
Scales Forced with alpha-Stable Noise, U. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
2015
Trinity Consultants, 2021. Summary Report of Meteorological Data Collected at
EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility, January 2020 through December 2020 and
January 1993 through December 2020, Trinity Consultants, Salt Lake City UT, February
2021
Utah DEQ, 2017. Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, EnergySolutions Clive
LLRW Disposal Facility License No: UT2300249; RML #UT 2300249, Amended and
New Interrogatories Related to Clive DU PA Modeling Report Version 1.4 Dated
November 2015, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Salt Lake City UT,
May 2017
Utah DEQ, 2019. Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment (DU PA); Clive Facility; Model
Version 1.4 Amended Interrogatories; Radioactive Materials License #2300249, Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City UT, July 2019
Utah DEQ, 2020. Comments on EnergySolutions Cover System Described in the DU PA, Draft
Federal Cell License Application, DRC-2020-DRC-019244, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City UT, December 2020
Utah DEQ, 2021. Technical Report, Performance Objective R313-25-23, Stability of the
Disposal Site after Closure, DRC-2021-001162, Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Salt Lake City UT, January 2021
Vogel, T., et al., 1991. Porous Media with Linearly Variable Hydraulic Properties, Water
Resources Research 27 (10) 2735–2741
Wolf, M., et al., 2005. Mammal Parameter Specifications for the Area 5 and Area 3 RWMS
Models, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, September 2005
Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 101
Yang, C., et al., 2017. Analysis of Temporal Variation and Scaling of Hydrological Variables
Based on a Numerical Model of the Sagehen Creek Watershed, Stochastic Environmental
Research and Risk Assessment doi: 10.1007/s00477-017-1421-0
Zhao, Y., et al., 2016. Modeling of Coupled Water and Heat Transfer in Freezing and Thawing
Soils, Inner Mongolia, Water 8 (424) 1–18

Clive DU PA Model—Response to DWMRC 12-3-2020 Comments
31 March 2021 102

Attachment 1:
Federal Cell Drawings 14004-C01 through 14004-C05
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page Q-1 Appendix Q April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX Q

DEPLETED URANIUM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

(Neptune, 2015 and 2021c)

 NAC-0024_R4

Final Report for the Clive DU PA
Model

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
November 24, 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 ii

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 iii
1. Title: Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
2. Filename: Clive DU PA Model Final Report v1.4.docx
3. Description: This report describes details of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4, and references report Appendices
(white papers) for further details not included in the main body of this report.

Name Date
4. Originator K. Catlett, G. Occhiogrosso, R. Lee 24 November 2015
5. Reviewers D. Levitt, P. Black, M. Sully 25 November 2015
56. Remarks

This report describes the Clive DU PA Model v1.4.

6/5/2014: Added revisions due to ES comments.

5 Aug 2014: Modifications completed in response to interrogatories. – R Perona, J Tauxe

28 Oct 2015: This document is incomplete for v1.3. It is superseded by v1.4. Changes were made to engineering
drawings and associated fallout, including inventory to make v1.4. U solubility in deep time was reverted to v1.2 in
v1.4.

28 Oct 2015: Updated for v1.4 with new disposal unit description and updated model results based on latest
engineering drawings. – G. Occhiogrosso
8-11 Nov 2015: Review, edit, modify text throughout. K. Catlett
12-24 Nov 2015: Review, edit, add SA results. K. Catlett and G. Occhiogrosso

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 iv

This page intentionally left blank, aside from this statement.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 v
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.0
 Background .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.1
 Depleted Uranium .......................................................................................................... 11

1.2
 The Clive Waste Disposal Facility ................................................................................. 12

1.3
 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................ 12

1.4
 Performance Assessment ............................................................................................... 16

1.5
 Technical Evolution of PA and PA Modeling ............................................................... 18

1.6
 Report Structure ............................................................................................................. 19

2.0
 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 20

2.1
 General Approach .......................................................................................................... 20

2.2
 General Facility Description .......................................................................................... 23

3.0
 Features, Events and Processes ............................................................................................ 26

4.0
 Conceptual Site Model ......................................................................................................... 26

4.1.1
 Disposal Site Location .............................................................................................. 27

4.1.2
 Disposal Site Description ......................................................................................... 27

5.0
 Model Structure ................................................................................................................... 43

5.1
 Summary of Important Assumptions ............................................................................. 43

5.1.1
 Points of Compliance ............................................................................................... 43

5.1.2
 Time Periods of Concern .......................................................................................... 43

5.1.3
 Closure Cover Design Options ................................................................................. 44

5.1.4
 Waste Concentration Averaging ............................................................................... 44

5.1.5
 Environmental Media Concentration Averaging ...................................................... 44

5.1.6
 Members of the Public ............................................................................................. 44

5.1.7
 Inadvertent Human Intrusion .................................................................................... 44

5.1.8
 Deep Time Evaluation .............................................................................................. 45

5.2
 Distribution Averaging ................................................................................................... 45

5.3
 Model Evaluation through Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis .................................. 46

5.4
 Clive DU PA Model Structure ....................................................................................... 47

5.4.1
 Materials ................................................................................................................... 48

5.4.2
 Processes .................................................................................................................. 48

5.4.3
 Inventory .................................................................................................................. 48

5.4.4
 Disposal .................................................................................................................... 49

5.4.5
 Exposure and Dose ................................................................................................... 50

5.4.6
 Groundwater Protection Level Calculations ............................................................ 51

5.4.7
 Deep Time ................................................................................................................ 51

5.4.8
 Supplemental Containers .......................................................................................... 51

6.0
 Results of Analysis .............................................................................................................. 52

6.1
 Groundwater Concentrations ......................................................................................... 54

6.1.1
 Summary of Results for Groundwater ...................................................................... 54

6.1.2
 Sensitivity Analysis for Groundwater ...................................................................... 58

6.2
 Receptor Doses ............................................................................................................... 60

6.2.1
 Summary of Results for Doses ................................................................................. 60

6.2.2
 Sensitivity Analysis for Doses ................................................................................. 61

6.3
 Receptor Uranium Hazard Indices ................................................................................. 63

6.3.1
 Summary of Results for Uranium Hazard ................................................................ 63

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 vi
6.3.2
 Sensitivity Analysis for Uranium Hazard Index ...................................................... 63

6.4
 ALARA .......................................................................................................................... 64

6.5
 Deep Time Results ......................................................................................................... 66

6.5.1
 Sedimentation and Lake Timing Results .................................................................. 68

6.5.2
 Lake Sediment Concentrations ................................................................................. 68

6.5.3
 Lake Water Concentrations ...................................................................................... 75

6.5.4
 Radon flux results after the first lake ....................................................................... 79

6.5.5
 Rancher radon results after the first lake .................................................................. 81

7.0
 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 82

7.1
 Interpretation of Results ................................................................................................. 82

7.2
 Comparison to Performance Objectives ......................................................................... 84

8.0
 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 85

9.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 87

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 90

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 vii
Figures
Figure 1. Location of the Clive site operated by EnergySolutions (base image from Google
Earth). .......................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2. Disposal and Treatment Facilities operated by EnergySolutions. ................................. 25

Figure 3. Top level of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4. ................................................................... 49

Figure 4. Control Panel for the Modeling of the Clive Disposal Facility. .................................... 50

Figure 5. Time history of 99Tc well concentrations; 1000 realizations shown. ............................ 56

Figure 6. Time history of 99Tc well concentrations: statistical summary of the 1000
realizations shown in Figure 5. ................................................................................... 57

Figure 7. Partial dependence plot for peak 99Tc groundwater concentration in 500 years. .......... 59

Figure 8. Partial dependence plots for the mean ranch worker dose, assuming waste below
grade. ........................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 9. Evolution of sediment thickness in deep time. .............................................................. 69

Figure 10. Time of appearance of first intermediate lake to reach the Clive elevation. ............... 70

Figure 11. Time history of concentrations of uranium-238 in sediments ..................................... 72

Figure 12. Time history of concentrations of thorium-230 in sediments ..................................... 73

Figure 13. Time history of concentrations of radium-226 in sediments ....................................... 74

Figure 14. Time history of concentrations of uranium-238 in lake water, 1000 realizations
shown. ......................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 15. Time history of concentrations of uranium-238 in lake water .................................... 77

Figure 16. Time history of concentrations of thorium-230 in lake water ..................................... 78

Figure 17. Time history of concentrations of radium-226 in lake water ...................................... 79

Figure 18. 222Rn ground surface flux in deep time. ...................................................................... 81

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 viii
Tables
Table ES-1. Peak TEDE: statistical summary ................................................................................ 7

Table ES-2. Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr, compared to GWPLs ........ 7

Table ES-3. Cumulative population TEDE: statistical summary ................................................... 8

Table ES-4. Statistical summary of lake water concentrations at peak lake occurrence, 90 ky ..... 9

Table ES-5. Statistical summary of sediment concentrations at peak lake occurrence, 90 ky ....... 9

Table ES-6. Summary of the results of the Clive DU PA Model ................................................... 9

Table 1. Exposure Pathways Summary ........................................................................................ 38

Table 2. Summary statistics for peak mean groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr,
compared to GWPLs ................................................................................................... 54

Table 3. Sensitivities of select peak groundwater concentrations within 500 years. .................... 58

Table 4. Peak of the mean TEDE: statistical summary within 10,000 yr. .................................... 60

Table 5. Sensitivities of peak TEDE within 10,000 yr ................................................................. 61

Table 6. Peak of the mean uranium hazard index within 10,000 years. ....................................... 63

Table 7. Sensitivities of uranium hazard index within 10,000 yr ................................................. 64

Table 8. Cumulative population TEDE: statistical summary ....................................................... 64

Table 9. Cumulative receptor population: statistical summary .................................................... 65

Table 10. Statistical summary of the flat rate ALARA costs ....................................................... 65

Table 11. Statistical summary of deep time sediment concentrations at model year 90,000.
Based on 1000 realizations. ........................................................................................ 71

Table 12. Statistical summary of deep time lake concentrations at model year 90,000. Based
on 1000 realizations. ................................................................................................... 75

Table 13. Statistical summary of radon-222 flux concentrations after the first lake recedes. ...... 80

Table 14. Statistical summary of doses to ranchers after the first lake recedes. ........................... 82

Table 15. Summary statistics for peak mean groundwater activity concentration of 99Tc
within 500 yr ............................................................................................................... 84

Table 16. Peak mean TEDE for ranch worker: statistical summary ............................................. 84

Table 17. Summary of results of the Clive DU PA Model ........................................................... 85

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 1
Executive Summary
Neptune and Company, Inc., (Neptune) under contract to EnergySolutions, LLC
(EnergySolutions), has developed a computer model (the Clive DU PA Model, or the Model) to
support decision making related to the proposed disposal of depleted uranium (DU) wastes at the
low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility at Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions.
The Model provides a platform on which to conduct analyses relevant to performance assessment
(PA), as required by the State of Utah in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R313-25, License
Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Utah 2015). Specifically, a PA is
required in UAC R313-25-9, Technical Analyses. The model may also serve to inform decisions
made by the Site operator to gain maximum utility of the resource that is the Clive Facility.
Depleted uranium is the remains of the uranium enrichment process, of which the fissionable
uranium isotope 235U is the product. The leftover uranium, depleted in 235U, is predominantly
238U, but may include small amounts of other U isotopes. In general, DU will contain very small
amounts of decay products in the uranium, thorium, actinium, and neptunium series of decay
chains. Some specific DU waste, resulting from introduction of uranium recycled from used
nuclear reactor fuel (reactor returns) into the separations process, contains varying amounts of
contaminants, in the form of fission and activation products. Since some of the DU evaluated in
this PA includes reactor returns, it is here termed “DU waste”. The national inventory of DU is
on the order of 700 Gg (700,000 Mg, or metric tons) in mass as uranium hexafluoride (DUF6),
and the bulk of it exists in its original storage cylinders, awaiting conversion to oxide form for
disposal. This conversion is being performed at the Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky
gaseous diffusion plant (GDP) sites, using new purpose-built “deconversion” plants to produce
triuranium octoxide( U3O8). A much smaller mass of DU waste was generated by the Savannah
River Site (SRS) in the form of uranium trioxide (UO3), a powder stored in several thousand
200-L (55-gal) drums. While the composition of the SRS DU is reasonably well known, the
content of the GDP DU is not well documented. For the purposes of this assessment, it was
necessary to assume that some uncertain fraction of the GDP DU waste was contaminated to the
same extent as the SRS DU waste. DU waste from both sources is considered in the Clive DU PA
Model.
The Model is written using the GoldSim probabilistic systems analysis software, which is well-
suited for the purpose. In order to provide decision makers with a broad perspective of the
behavior and capabilities of the Facility, the model considers uncertainty in input parameter
values. This probabilistic assessment methodology is encouraged by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) in constructing PAs and the models
that support them. The Model can be run in deterministic mode, where a single set of median
model inputs is used, but running in probabilistic Monte Carlo mode provides greater insight into
the model behavior, and especially into model sensitivity to the distribution of input parameter
values. In Monte Carlo mode, a large number of realizations are executed with values drawn at
random from the input parameter distributions using Latin Hypercube Sampling to ensure equal
probability across the range of the input distributions. The distributions of results, therefore,
reflect the uncertainty in these values. To the extent that the model reflects the uncertain state of
knowledge at a site, the model provides insight about how the site works, and what should be
expected if different actions are taken or different wastes are disposed. In this way, the model
aids in decision making, even in the face of uncertainty.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 2
The Clive Facility is located at the eastern edge of the Great Salt Desert, west of the Cedar
Mountains, and approximately 100 km (60 mi) west of Salt Lake City, Utah. Clive is a remote
and environmentally inhospitable area for human habitation. Human activity at Clive has
historically been very limited, due largely to the lack of potable water, or even water suitable for
irrigation. The site is located on flat ground, with the bottom of the waste disposal cells shallowly
excavated into local lacustrine silts, sands, and clays. A single waste disposal cell, or
embankment, is considered in this model: the Federal cell housing DU. This cell is modeled with
an engineered cover, as per design documents. The top of the cell is above grade, and the cover
has layers of an evapotranspiration (ET) cover system of earthen origin. In time, this cover is
expected to become vegetated with native plants, and occupied to a limited extent by animals
including insects and mammals. As plant communities become established, they are likely to
keep the cover system fairly dry through transpiration.
Water balance modeling of the cover indicates that some water penetrates the cover system, and
this infiltration has the potential to leach radionuclides from the waste and transport them down
through the cell liner and unsaturated zone to the aquifer. In the saturated zone (aquifer),
contaminants are transported laterally to a hypothetical monitoring well located about 27 m
(90 ft) from the edge of the interior of the cell. Since the side slopes of the cell are modeled to not
contain DU waste, the effective distance to the well from the DU waste itself is about 73 m
(240 ft). This environmental transport pathway is relevant for long-lived and readily-leached
radionuclides such as 99Tc. Contributions to groundwater radionuclide concentrations from the
proposed DU waste are calculated for comparison to groundwater protection limits (GWPLs)
during the next 500 years, as stipulated in the water discharge permit (UWQB 2009).
In addition to water advective transport, radionuclides are transported via diffusion in both water
and air phases within the cover system, which can provide upward transport pathways. Gaseous
radionuclides, such as 222Rn, partition between air and water. Soluble constituents partition
between water and solid porous media. Coupled with all these process are the activities of biota,
with plants transporting contaminants to their above-ground surface tissues via their roots, and
burrowing animals (ants and small mammals) moving bulk materials upward and downward
through burrow excavation and collapse. Biota do not play a major role in contaminant transport
contributing to human doses or uranium hazard according to model results. The model does not
consider the effects of enhanced radon diffusion from a compromised radon barrier, but the
model does include an expanded assessment of the performance of the radon barriers with respect
to infiltration.
Once radionuclides reach the ground surface at the top of the engineered cover via the
aforementioned processes, they are subject to suspension into the atmosphere and dispersion to
the surrounding landscape. Atmospheric transport of gases (222Rn) and contaminants sorbed to
suspended particles is modeled using a standard modeling platform approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), called AERMOD. The results of this model are
abstracted into the Clive DU PA Model, and contributions of airborne radionuclides to dose and
uranium toxicity hazard are evaluated.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 3
The impact of sheet and gully erosion in the Model is evaluated by the application of results of
landscape evolution models of hillslope erosion loss and channel development conducted for a
borrow pit at the site. The model domain for the borrow pit includes the borrow pit floor, a 10-ft
high pit face at a 1:1 slope and several hundred meters of ground surface upslope from the pit
face at a slope of 0.003 (0.3 percent). The soil characteristics are consistent with the Unit 4 silty
clay, though the landscape evolution model did not consider the presence of vegetation or rock
cover. While composed of similar soil, the surface layer of the top slope of the ET cover
proposed for the Federal DU Cell has a slope of about 2 percent, a gravel composition of 15
percent, and will be re-vegetated with a mix of native and non-native species. While the cover on
the top slope part of the embankment has a greater slope than that of the undisturbed area upslope
from the borrow pit face, the top slope characteristics included vegetation and gravel admix that
would act to slow erosion and channel formation.
A subset of the borrow pit model domain was selected to represent the cover. Gully depths
estimated by the erosion model were extrapolated to 10,000 years and a statistical model was
developed that generated values of the percentage of the cover where gullies ended within a given
depth interval. This model provided an estimate of the volume of embankment cover material
removed by gullies. The depositional area of the gully fan is assumed to be the same as the area
of waste exposed in the gullies, using projections onto the horizontal plane. If these embankment
materials include DU waste components, then this leads to some contribution to doses and
uranium hazards. No associated effects, such as biotic processes, effects on radon dispersion, or
local changes in infiltration are considered within the gullies.
Given the remote and inhospitable environment of Clive, it is not reasonable to assume that the
traditional residential receptors considered in other PAs will be present here. Traditionally, and
based on DOE (DOE M 435.1) and NRC guidance (10 CFR 61), members of the public are
evaluated outside the fence line or boundary of the disposal facility, and inadvertent intruders are
assumed to access the disposal facility and the disposed waste directly, in activities such as well
drilling or house construction. For disposal facilities in the arid west, these types of strictly
defined default scenarios do not adequately describe likely human activities. Their inclusion in a
PA for a site in the arid west, such as Clive, will usually result in unrealistic underestimation of
the performance of a disposal system, which does not lend itself to effective decision making for
the Nation’s needs to dispose of radioactive waste.
At Clive, there is no potable water resource to drill for, and historical evidence suggests there is
little likelihood that anyone would construct a residence on or near the site. There are present day
activities in the vicinity, however, that might result in receptor exposures if these activities are
projected into the future when the facility is closed and after institutional control is lost. Large
ranches operate in the area, so ranch hands work in the vicinity. Pronghorn antelope are found in
the region, and hunters will follow them. Both of these activities are facilitated by the use of off-
highway vehicles (OHVs). OHV enthusiasts also ride recreationally for sport in areas near the
facility.
In addition to these receptors, there are specific points of exposure within the vicinity of the Clive
Facility where individuals might be exposed. About 12 km (8 miles) to the west, OHV
enthusiasts use the Knolls Recreation Area. Interstate-80 and a railroad are located to the north,
with an associated rest area on the highway. Closer to the Clive Facility, the Utah Test and
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 4
Training Range access road is used on occasion. The Model hence evaluates dose and uranium
hazard to these site-specific receptors.
The State of Utah follows federal guidance by categorizing receptors in a PA in UAC Rule
R313-25-9 and 10 CFR 61.41 according to the labels “member of the public” (MOP) and
“inadvertent human intruder” (IHI). NRC offers two definitions of inadvertent intruders in
10 CFR 61:
§ 61.2 Definitions. Inadvertent intruder means a person who might occupy the
disposal site after closure and engage in normal activities, such as agriculture,
dwelling construction, or other pursuits in which the person might be
unknowingly exposed to radiation from the waste.
§ 61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion. Design,
operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must ensure protection of any
individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying the site or
contacting the waste at any time after active institutional controls over the
disposal site are removed.
NRC offers one reference to an MOP in the context of the general population:
§ 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity.
Concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to the general
environment in ground water, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not
result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems [0.25 mSv] to
the whole body, 75 millirems [0.75 mSv] to the thyroid, and 25 millirems
[0.25 mSv] to any other organ of any member of the public. Reasonable effort
should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general
environment as low as is reasonably achievable.
DOE definitions in DOE M 435.1 (the Manual accompanying DOE Order 435.1) are much more
specific. However, the applicable federal agency that regulates disposal of low-level radioactive
waste at the Clive Facility is NRC. For the Clive Facility and the Model, based on the NRC
definitions, the ranch hand, hunter and OHV enthusiast are expected to engage in activities both
on and off the site. These receptors fit the NRC definition of inadvertent intrusion because they
are assumed to occupy the site, albeit for limited periods of time, and also because the use of
OHVs on the cover may precipitate the creation of gullies. The receptors that are located at
specific offsite locations, instead, fit the NRC definition of MOP. The Model presents predicted
doses to the receptors identified above, under the conditions and assumptions that provide the
basis for the Model. These doses are presented as the results of the Model. A comparison of
doses to both MOP and IHI performance objectives is also presented.
The Model addresses radiation doses to human receptors who might come in contact with
radionuclides released from the disposal facility into the environment subsequent to facility
closure. In accordance with UAC Rule R313-25-9, doses are calculated within a 10,000-year
compliance period. The doses are compared to a performance criterion of 25 mrem in a year for a
MOP, and 500 mrem in a year for an inadvertent intruder. The dose assessment component of the
PA model, like the transport modeling components described above, supports probabilistic Monte
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 5
Carlo analysis. Spatiotemporal scaling is a critical component of the Model development. For
example, the Model differentiates the impact of short-term variability in exposure parameters
(values applicable over a few years or decades, such as individual physiological and behavioral
parameters) from the longer-term variability of transport parameters (values applied over the full
10,000-year performance period, such as hydraulic and geochemical parameters). This distinction
facilitates assessment of uncertainties that relate to physical processes from uncertainties relating
to inter-individual differences in potential future receptors.
In addition to radiation dose, uranium is also associated with non-radiological toxicity. The
potential chemical toxicity of uranium disposed at the Clive Facility is evaluated in the Model.
Potential receptor chronic daily intake of uranium is compared to toxicological criteria developed
by EPA that pertain to a threshold of adverse effect associated with kidney toxicity.
These doses and the supporting contaminant transport modeling that provides the dose model
with radionuclide concentrations in exposure media are evaluated for 10,000 yr, in accordance
with UAC R313-25-9(5)(a). After that time, the modeling focus turns to long-term, or “deep
time” scenarios. Peak activity of the waste occurs when the progeny of the principal parent, 238U
(with a half-life that is approximately the age of the earth— over 4 billion years), reach secular
equilibrium. This occurs at roughly 2.1 My from the time of isotopic separation, and the model
evaluates the potential future of the site in this context. At 2.1 My the activity of the last modeled
member of the chain, 210Pb, is equal to that of 238U, within less than one half of one percent.
While the calculation could be carried out further in time to achieve a greater degree of accuracy,
there is no benefit in doing so for decision-making purposes. This time frame borders on
geologic, and needs to take into account the likely possibility of future deep lakes in the
Bonneville Basin. The return of such lakes is understood to be inevitable, and the Clive Facility,
as constructed, will not survive in its current configuration. Many lakes, of intermediate and deep
size, are expected to occur in the 2.1-My time frame, following the climate cycle periodicity of
about 100,000 yr, based on current scientific understanding of paleoclimatology. In these
timeframes, it is also important to consider processes such as eolian (i.e., wind-borne) deposition,
which can be seen in geologic formations in the Clive area. Deposition builds up the ground
surface over time, such that the ground surface when a lake returns is 2 – 3 m higher than the
current ground surface.
As each lake returns, estimates are made of the radionuclide concentrations in the lake and in the
sediments surrounding and subsuming the site. Because the exact behavior of lake intrusion and
site destruction is speculative, the model makes several conservative assumptions. Upward
movement of radionuclides, via diffusion and biota, is assumed to occur until the first lake
returns. At that point in time, the radionuclides that are above ground are assumed to comingle
with sediments, dispersed over an uncertain area approximately the size of an intermediate lake.
In the presence of a lake, the radionuclides migrate into the water, in accordance with their
aqueous solubility. For U3O8, which is considered to be the only form of uranium oxide
remaining by the time the first lake arrives (since UO3 moves out of the waste first and what is
left will become more like U3O8 or UO2 in the presence of a wetter climate), the solubility of U is
very low. As each lake recedes, radionuclides are co-deposited with the sediment, only to be
dissolved into the water again with the next lake. This is a very conservative approach, especially
for the lake concentrations, since in reality each blanket of sediment could entrap constituents,
and the concentrations in water and sediment over time should decrease consequently. The
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 6
analysis, therefore, focuses on the arrival of the first lake, which will be the most destructive in
terms of sudden release of radionuclides, and would provide the least amount of sediment to
encapsulate them. Subsequent lakes would see progressively less radionuclide activity as the site
is slowly buried under ever-deeper lacustrine deposits through the eons.
The utility of such a calculation, aside from responding to the UAC, is to inform decisions
regarding the placement of wastes in the embankment. With downward pathways influencing
groundwater concentrations, and upward pathways influencing dose and uranium hazard, a
balance must be achieved in the placement of different kinds of waste. In version 1.0 of the Clive
DU PA Model (Neptune 2011), three different options for configuration of the DU waste within
the Class A South embankment (subsequently renamed the Federal DU Cell) were evaluated.
These options included a “3-m model”, named because the top of the DU waste was 3 m below
the embankment cover, and also 5-m and 10-m models. No DU waste is included under the side
slopes for this PA. In addition to these disposal options, two scenarios related to embankment
erosion were evaluated in the Clive DU PA Model v1.0. The first essentially assumed a stable
embankment for 10 ky, with infilling of the cap and continual airborne deposition replacing fine
sediments that are resuspended themselves and subsequently dispersed offsite. The second
scenario was one in which gullies were formed that, depending on the DU waste disposal
configuration, might intersect and expose the DU waste to the environment.
In version 1.4 of the Model, which supports the results described herein, the erosion modeling as
described above and all modeling was conducted under the assumption that gullies will occur on
the embankment. Additionally, the only DU waste configuration presently evaluated is for
disposal of these wastes in layers of the embankment below the current grade of surrounding soil.
Dose results for each type of potential receptor are presented in Table ES-1.
There is a question of which statistic from the many Model realizations is most appropriate for
comparison to performance criteria. The statistics in Table ES-1 represent summaries of the
mean, median, and 95th percentiles of the dose at 10,000 yr for the 10,000 realizations. The peak
mean dose is sometimes of interest for comparison with performance objectives, and in this
model, the peak mean dose occurs at or near 10 ky. In effect, 10 ky is the worst case year in terms
of dose. Under these circumstances, the 95th percentile is analogous to the 95% upper confidence
interval of the mean at 10 ky that is commonly used to represent reasonable maximum exposure
in CERCLA risk assessments.
Compliance with the performance objectives for the inadvertent intruder dose of 500 mrem in a
year and for the MOP of 25 mrem in a year is clearly established for all three types of potential
future receptors. This indicates that for the disposal configuration where DU wastes are placed
below grade, doses are expected to remain well below applicable dose thresholds even if gullies
are assumed to occur on the embankment.
Results are also available for the offsite (MOP) receptors. None of the 95th percentile dose
estimates for these receptors exceeds 1 mrem in a year, and all of the peak mean dose estimates
are at or below 0.1 mrem in a year.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 7
Table ES-1. Peak TEDE: statistical summary
peak TEDE (mrem in a yr) within 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent
For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, as specified in the facility’s permit (UWQB
2009), results are shown in Table ES-2. For all such radionuclides compliance with the GWPLs
is clearly demonstrated. The mean values for 99Tc and 129I are much greater than the median,
indicating that the distributions of these concentrations have a very strong degree of skewness.
Table ES-2. Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr, compared to GWPLs
peak activity concentration within 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB (2009) Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
Sensitivity analyses on the Model results indicate that receptor doses are dominated by radon
inhalation, whereas the downward migration pathway is dominated by groundwater
concentrations of 99Tc. A trade-off is indicated in terms of DU waste placement. The lower the
DU waste is placed, particularly the 99Tc-contaminated DU waste, the greater the groundwater
concentrations of 99Tc, but the lower the doses due to increases in the diffusion path length to the
ground surface. Conversely the higher the DU waste is placed in the embankment, the lower the 99Tc groundwater concentrations, and the greater the dose to receptors. Placement of DU waste
below surface grade in the Federal DU cell satisfies both dose and groundwater performance
objectives. Sensitivity analyses on the groundwater concentration of 99Tc indicate that these
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 8
results are primarily sensitive to the α parameter of van Genuchten equation and secondarily to
the molecular diffusion coefficient.
In addition to the dose assessment for hypothetical individuals described above, the structure of
the model allows the cumulative population dose to be tracked. For the objective of keeping
doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), estimated dose to the entire population of ranch
workers, hunters, and OHV enthusiasts over the 10,000-yr simulation was evaluated. These
cumulative population doses are shown in Table ES-3.
The population doses presented in Table ES-3 may be evaluated relative to doses received from
natural background radiation and by considering the person-rem costs suggested in recent NRC
(2015) guidance. The NRC has suggested value of a statistical life (VSL)-based cost of $5,100
per person rem. Using such a cost, the total ALARA cost over 10 ky (for example, $61,200 using
the mean estimate of total population dose, or $6 per yr.) is very small compared to the cost of
waste operations and disposal. Average annual individual background dose related to natural
background radiation in the United States is approximately 3.1 mSv (310 mrem; NCRP, 2009),
which for the total cumulative receptor population of about 3,200,000 individuals in 10,000 years
is approximately 992,000 rem—a level that is many orders of magnitude greater than the
population doses shown in Table ES-3. ALARA is intended to support evaluation of options to
reduce doses in a cost-effective manner. Given the results of this ALARA analysis, it is not clear
that further reduction in dose is necessary.
Table ES-3. Cumulative population TEDE: statistical summary
population TEDE (person-rem) within 10,000 yr
receptor type mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
total population 12 11 26
ranch worker 2.8 2.5 5.7
hunter 1.5 1.3 3.0
OHV enthusiast 8.3 7.4 17
Results are based on 10,000 realizations of the Model.
TEDE: Total effective dose equivalent
The final set of analyses conducted with the Model are the deep-time analyses. As described
above, the deep-time model is very conservative in many ways with respect to dispersal of the
DU waste material. Deep lakes that obliterate the Federal DU Cell are assumed to return
periodically. Simplified processes are used to keep the deep time model from becoming overly
complicated for the amount of uncertainty in both parameters and processes.
Concentrations of 238U in lake water and sediment at the time of peak lake occurrence (90,000
years) are presented in Tables ES-4 and ES-5. These results simply show the concentrations that
might occur in response to obliteration of the site by wave action during return of a lake to the
elevation of Clive and subsequent dispersal of the waste in a relatively confined system. The
concentrations presented would continue to decrease with each lake and climate cycle as more
sediment is deposited with each lake event, and each lake event allows radionuclides to be
dispersed ever further afield.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 9
Table ES-4. Statistical summary of lake water concentrations at peak lake occurrence,
90 ky
Lake concentrations (pCi/L) at 90,000 yr
radionuclide mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
uranium-238 2.1E-5 0.018 0.11
radium-226 0.15 0.54 2.4
thorium-230 0.15 0.55 2.4
Results are based on 1,000 simulations of the Model
Table ES-5. Statistical summary of sediment concentrations at peak lake occurrence, 90 ky
Sediment concentrations (pCi/g) at 90,000 yr
radionuclide mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
uranium-238 1.8E-3 2.0E-2 9.5E-2
radium-226 1.2E-3 5.0E-3 2.2E-2
thorium-230 1.2E-3 5.0E-3 2.3E-2
Results are based on 1,000 simulations of the Model
The deep-time model disperses the above-ground radionuclides that have migrated upward from
the DU waste prior to the occurrence of the first returning lake. The current disposal scenario has
the entire DU waste disposed below grade. The model assumes that no material below grade is
dispersed. Based on these results, it is reasonable to expect that the deep-time concentrations
could be close to or possibly less than background concentrations for uranium in soil of about
1 pCi/g (Myrick, et al., 1981, Table 30) and approximately 2 pCi/L for background uranium
concentrations in the Great Salt Lake (CRWQCB, 1990, Table 5). In addition, the return of the
first lake is considered likely to be several tens of thousands of years, or even a few hundreds of
thousands of years, into the future, at which point eolian deposition will result in sedimentation
deposits around the site of several meters. This deposition will both stabilize the site and make it
even less likely that any below-grade material will be dispersed.
The quantitative results for all Model analyses are summarized in Table ES-6. Doses to all
receptors are always less than the 500-mrem (IHI) and 25-mrem (MOP) annual performance
criteria. Groundwater concentrations are always less than the GWPLs. Even in the case of 99Tc,
the peak median, mean and 95% groundwater concentrations are well below the GWPL of
3,790 pCi/L.

Table ES-6. Summary of the results of the Clive DU PA Model
performance objective meets performance
objective?
Dose to MOP below regulatory threshold of 25 mrem in a year Yes
Dose to IHI below regulatory threshold of 500 mrem in a year Yes
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 10
Groundwater maximum concentration of 99Tc in 500 years < 3790
pCi/L Yes
ALARA average total population cost equivalent over 10,000 years: $61,200

The results overall suggest clearly that the below-grade disposal configuration can be used to
dispose of the quantities of DU waste included in the Model in a manner adequately protective of
human health and the environment.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 11
1.0 Background
One of the responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to ensure the safe
disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive waste. Non-defense-related depleted
uranium (DU) waste falls under the jurisdiction of NRC, and requires a disposal option that is
protective of human health and the environment. NRC currently regulates the disposal of DU
waste as a low-level radioactive waste, in cooperation with “Agreement States”. The
EnergySolutions low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Clive, Utah is a candidate for
disposal of DU waste, and Utah is an Agreement State that has regulatory authority to determine
if such disposal can occur in compliance with Utah and NRC regulatory requirements.
Adequate protection of human health and the environment is evaluated by conducting a
Performance Assessment (PA). A PA is used to model potential transport of radionuclides from
the disposed inventory to the accessible environment, and to estimate radiation dose to potential
human receptors. The estimated doses are compared to performance objectives, which are
specified as dose limits. If the estimated doses are less than the performance objectives, then
adequate protection of human health has been demonstrated.
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 (the Model), a
computer model developed to inform PA for disposal of specific DU waste materials at the Clive
Facility. This report provides a summary of the approach taken and the results that can be
obtained from the Model, and is accompanied by supporting documentation that includes details
of the Model development and quality assurance program.
1.1 Depleted Uranium
In order to produce suitable fuel for nuclear reactors and/or weapons, uranium has to be enriched
in the fissionable 235U isotope. Uranium enrichment in the US began during the Manhattan
Project in World War II. Enrichment for civilian and military uses continued after the war under
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and its successor agencies, including the DOE.
The uranium fuel cycle begins by extracting and milling natural uranium ore to produce "yellow
cake," which is a varying mixture of uranium oxides. Low-grade natural ores contain about 0.05
to 0.3% by weight of uranium oxide while high-grade natural ores can contain up to 70% by
weight of uranium oxide. Uranium found in natural ores contains two principal isotopes –
uranium-238 (99.3% 238U) and uranium-235 (0.7% 235U). The uranium is enriched in 235U before
being made into nuclear fuel, which generates a product consisting of 3% to 5% 235U for use as
nuclear fuel and a by-product of DU (between 0.1% and 0.5 235U). The DU has some commercial
applications including counterweights and military applications as artillery. However, the
commercial demand for depleted uranium is currently much less than the amounts generated for
nuclear fuel. Use of 238U as fuel for breeder reactors has not been seriously considered in this
country. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has about 700 Gg (700,000 Mg or metric tons)
of DUF6 in storage, containing roughly 464 Gg of uranium. Hence, the need to find disposal
options for DU waste.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 12
1.2 The Clive Waste Disposal Facility
EnergySolutions operates a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility west of the Cedar
Mountains in Clive, Utah, as shown in Figure 1. Clive is located along Interstate-80,
approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of the highway, in Tooele County. The facility is approximately
80 km (50 mi) east of Wendover, Utah and approximately 100 km (60 mi) west of Salt Lake City,
Utah. The facility sits at an elevation of approximately 1302 m (4275 ft) above mean sea level
(amsl) and is accessed by both road and rail transportation.
Currently, the Clive Facility receives low-level radioactive waste shipped via truck and rail. The
Clive disposal facility is licensed to accept Class A low-level radioactive waste. Under current
NRC regulations, DU waste is considered Class A waste, in which case the Clive site is an option
for disposal. However, NRC is currently considering options for updating 10 CFR 61, and the
State of Utah has updated their regulations (UAC-R313-25-9 [Utah 2015]), which force the
requirement of a PA for disposal of DU. Pending the findings of the Clive DU PA, DU waste will
be disposed in an above-ground engineered disposal embankment that is clay-lined with clay
barriers and an ET cover. The disposal embankment is designed to perform for a minimum of
500 years based on requirements of 10 CFR 61.7, and hence provides a possible solution for the
long-term disposal of DU.
Clive is a remote and environmentally inhospitable area. Human activity at Clive has,
historically, been very limited. The regulations (10 CFR 61 and Utah regulations R313-25-9)
indicate the need to evaluate performance with respect to members of the public and inadvertent
human intruders. However, the difference between these two categories of human receptors is
somewhat blurred because of the types of human activities that are reasonable to consider in the
general area of the disposal facility. These two categories of receptors are described further below
in the context of the regulatory context of the Clive DU PA.
1.3 Regulatory Context
EnergySolutions is permitted by the State of Utah to receive Class A Low Level under Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R313 25, License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive
Waste. The wastes that are received must be classified in accordance with the UAC
R313 15 1009, Classification and Characteristics of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. The
classification requirements in UAC R313-15-1009 reflect those outlined in NRC’s 10 CFR 61
Section 55, but include additional references to radium 226 (226Ra). Further, groundwater
protection levels (GWPLs) must be adhered to, as outlined in the site’s Ground Water Quality
Discharge Permit (UWQB, 2010).
Title 10 CFR 61 (Code of Federal Regulations, 2007) is the Federal regulation for the disposal of
certain radioactive wastes, including land disposal at privately-operated facilities such as that
managed and operated by EnergySolutions at Clive, Utah. It contains procedural requirements,
performance objectives, and technical requirements for near-surface disposal, including disposal
in engineered facilities with protective earthen covers, which may be built fully or partially
above-grade. Near-surface disposal is defined as disposal in or within the upper 30 m (100 ft) of
the earth’s surface (10 CFR 61.2).
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 13

Figure 1. Location of the Clive site operated by EnergySolutions (base image from Google
Earth).

Performance objectives are evaluated by preparing a PA model. DU presents an interesting case
because the uranium is nearly all 238U, meaning that secular equilibrium is not attained for more
than 2 My, and during that time, activity associated with the DU continues to increase. At the
time of the development of the regulation, DU waste as such did not, and was not expected to,
exist in significant quantities. The nature of the radiological hazards associated with DU presents
challenges to the estimation of long-term effects from its disposal. Recognition of this special
behavior of DU has prompted the NRC to revisit the regulation. Until that process is complete,
however, 10 CFR 61 stands as the controlling regulation.
The key endpoints of a PA are estimated future potential doses to members of the public (MOP).
The performance objectives specified in Subpart C of 10 CFR 61 are in the following section:
§ 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity.
Concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to the general
environment in ground water, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not
result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems [0.25 mSv] to
the whole body, 75 millirems [0.75 mSv] to the thyroid, and 25 millirems
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 14
[0.25 mSv] to any other organ of any member of the public. Reasonable effort
should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general
environment as low as is reasonably achievable.
The location of a member of the public (MOP) is not defined clearly in the NRC statute. Under
DOE Order 435.1 the MOP is defined as someone who does not access the disposal facility, but
is located outside of the fence line or boundary of the facility. However, NRC does not similarly
define an MOP, unless the disposal facility is not considered part of the natural environment.
Otherwise, an MOP is not restricted other than through the activities in which the MOP might
engage.
In addition to addressing MOP, 10 CFR 61 requires additional assurance of protecting individuals
from the consequences of inadvertent intrusion. An inadvertent intruder is someone who is
exposed to waste without intent, and without realizing that exposure might occur (after loss of
institutional control). This is distinct from the intentional intruder, who might be interested in
deliberately disturbing the site, or extracting materials from it, or who might be driven by
curiosity or scientific interest. Intentional intruders are not evaluated in a PA.
§ 61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion. Design,
operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must ensure protection of any
individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying the site or
contacting the waste at any time after active institutional controls over the
disposal site are removed.
The distinction between MOP and an inadvertent intruder is clear in DOE Order 435.1, but is not
as clear in NRC 10 CFR 61. Under DOE Orders, a MOP does not engage in activities within the
boundaries of the disposal facility, and an inadvertent intruder inadvertently accesses the waste
material directly. Consequently, the locations of MOP and intruder are different under DOE
Orders. However, the NRC indicates that an inadvertent intruder is defined as follows:
§ 61.2 Definitions. Inadvertent intruder means a person who might occupy the
disposal site after closure and engage in normal activities, such as agriculture,
dwelling construction, or other pursuits in which the person might be
unknowingly exposed to radiation from the waste.
Because of the remoteness of the Clive Facility and, hence, the types of activities in which
humans might engage, the distinction is made for this PA that ranchers, hunters and OHV
enthusiasts are inadvertent intruders because they “engage in normal activities, such as
agriculture, dwelling construction, or other pursuits in which the person might be unknowingly
exposed to radiation from the waste”. This facility is regulated under NRC, in which case the
definitions in 10 CFR 61 are most relevant. However, it is noted that the ranchers, hunters and
OHV enthusiasts do not intrude into the waste to create a direct exposure. Other receptors
evaluated in the PA Model who are located offsite are regarded as MOPs. The results of this
Model are calculated without regard for MOP and IHI categorization. The Model simply
evaluates dose to each receptor, providing the information necessary for comparison with
performance objectives.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 15
No dose limit is specified in 10 CFR 61 for the inadvertent intruder. However, since Part 61 has
been issued, the standard used by NRC and others for LLW disposal licensing has been an annual
dose of 500 mrem. The 500 mrem-in-a-year standard is also used in the DOE waste
determinations implementing the Part 61 performance objectives (NUREG-1854), and as part of
the license termination rule dose standard for intruders (10 CFR 20.1403).
The scope of a PA may be limited to the evaluation of MOP and inadvertent intrusion, and also to
the issue of site stability. The performance standard for stability requires the facility to be sited,
designed, and closed to achieve long-term stability to eliminate to the extent practicable the need
for ongoing active maintenance of the site following closure. The intent was to provide
reasonable assurance that long-term stability of the disposed waste and the disposal site will be
achieved. To help achieve stability, the NRC suggested to the extent practicable that disposed
waste should maintain gross physical properties and identity over 300 years, under the conditions
of disposal, with a further suggestion that the disposal facility should be evaluated for at least a
500-year time frame. About the same time as Part 61 was promulgated, the NRC also put in place
requirements for design of uranium mill tailings piles such as the Vitro site which is collocated
with the Clive Facility. The NRC specified that the design shall 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.
This raises the issue of appropriate compliance periods for a waste form that does not reach peak
radioactivity for more than 2 My. Section 2(a) of R313-25-9(5)(a) states:
For purposes of this performance assessment, the compliance period shall be a
minimum of 10,000 years. Additional simulations shall be performed for the
period where peak dose occurs and the results shall be analyzed qualitatively.
The intent of this Model, therefore, is to evaluate impacts to receptors for a period of 10,000
years, and long-term performance of the disposal system beyond that time. The regulation does
not address time frame for site stability. Given the long period of time before DU reaches secular
equilibrium, it is difficult to determine when peak dose might occur. Consequently, the Clive DU
PA Model has been implemented quantitatively for 10 ky, and has run additional simulations for
2.1 My, the time at which DU reaches peak activity. The results of the PA Model will be used to
inform decisions about the suitability of the Clive facility for disposal of DU waste, the amount
of DU waste that can be disposed safely, and different options for the engineered design and the
placement of the waste within the disposal system. These decisions will be made in light of the
doses to the receptors identified for the Model, groundwater concentrations of 99Tc and other
radionuclides, and the long-term effects on site stability and dispersal of DU waste in returning
lakes and lake sediment.
Site stability might also be considered to be a qualitative criterion for evaluating the concept of
maintaining receptor impacts to be “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA). However, the
10 CFR 20.1003 defines ALARA in the context of dose to populations. In addition, 10 CFR
61.42 states that "reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in
effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable". The ALARA process is
described in more detail in the white paper Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA
Collective Radiation Doses and Risks (Appendix 12). ALARA is evaluated in terms of
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 16
population doses for the design options that are considered. This allows design options to be
compared, and, ultimately, to be optimized. . NRC (2015) suggests a value of $5,100 for the cost
per person rem, with a possible range of $3000 to $7500 (NRC 2015).
In addition to the radiological criteria, the State of Utah imposes limits on groundwater
contamination, as stated in the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (UWQB, 2010). Part
I.C.1 of the Permit specifies that GWPLs in Table 1A of the Permit shall be used for the Class A
LLW Cell. Table 1A in the Permit specifies general mass and radioactivity concentrations for
several constituents of interest to DU waste disposal. These GWPLs are derived from Ground
Water Quality Standards listed in UAC R317-6-2 Ground Water Quality Standards. Exceptions
to values in that table are provided for specific constituents in specific wells, tabulated in Table
1B of the Permit. This includes values for mass concentration of total uranium, radium, and gross
alpha and beta radioactivity concentrations for specific wells where background values were
found to be in exceedance of the Table 1A limits.
According to the Permit, groundwater at Clive is classified as Class IV, saline ground water,
according to UAC R317-6-3 Ground Water Classes, and is highly unlikely to serve as a future
water source. The underlying groundwater in the vicinity of the Clive site is of naturally poor
quality because of its high salinity and, as a consequence, is not suitable for most human uses,
and is not potable for humans. However, the Clive DU PA Model calculates estimates of
groundwater concentrations at a virtual well near the Federal DU cell for comparison with these
GWPLs. Part I.D.1 of the Permit specifies that the performance standard for radionuclides is 500
years.
1.4 Performance Assessment
Within the regulatory framework described above, a PA addresses doses to potential human
receptors within a time frame of compliance. The Clive DU PA Model also addresses
performance of the system for approximately 2.1 My—until secular equilibrium of 238U and its
decay products is reached. The PA process starts with the regulatory context but is itself a
decision support process. Decisions may be made based on the results of the PA modeling that is
performed. In the context of decision analysis, this requires steps that include:
1. State a problem,
2. Identify objectives (and measures of those objectives – i.e., attributes or criteria),
3. Identify decision alternatives or options,
4. Gather relevant information, decompose and model the problem (structure, uncertainty,
preferences),
5. Choose the “best” alternative (the option that maximizes the overall benefit),
6. Conduct uncertainty analysis, sensitivity analysis and value of information analysis to
determine if the decision should be made, or if more data/information should be collected
to reduce uncertainty and, hence, increase confidence in the decision, and
7. Go back (iterate) if more data/information are collected.
The problem addressed here is one of potential disposal of DU waste at the Clive Facility. The
objectives are to minimize risk to human health and the environment. Risk is measured in terms
of dose and uranium toxicity hazard to the human receptors that are identified for analysis. The
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 17
decision options that are evaluated relate to different waste configuration options for DU waste
disposal. Given that context, the next step of the PA process is to gather information, and build a
PA model. There are several steps involved, each one building on the previous step. The
modeling process starts with evaluating features, events and processes (FEPs) that might be
important for evaluating performance, and using the FEPs analysis to build a conceptual site
model (CSM). These steps are described in full in the FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted
Uranium at the Clive Facility (Appendix 1), and the Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of
Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility (Appendix 2).
Development of the CSM sets the stage for subsequent model structuring, which is the first step
needed to build the numerical model of the system. All relevant FEPs are captured in the model
structure, from waste inventory, mechanisms for transport through the engineered system,
migration through the natural environment to the accessible environment, to identification of
human receptors, exposure pathways and dose assessment. The model structure leads to
specification of the model. Probability distributions are specified for each input parameter. The
type of information available for each input parameter is highly variable, hence requiring varied
approaches for specification. Different methods that are used are described in the white paper
Development of Probability Distributions (Appendix 14).
Model structuring and specification completes the numerical model. The model is computed
using the GoldSim systems analysis software (GTG, 2010). GoldSim is probabilistic simulation
software that includes a graphical user-interface that is convenient for developing PA models.
GoldSim is inherently a systems-level software framework. The focus of a GoldSim model is on
the decision making process, which includes managing uncertainty and coupling all processes.
This PA model is intended to reflect the current state of knowledge with respect to the proposed
DU disposal, and to support environmental decision making in light of inherent uncertainties.
The development of the model is iterative, where the iterations depend on model evaluation,
which is performed at various levels. During model construction the model is evaluated
iteratively as new components are added. Once a complete model is assembled then the model is
subjected to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. The goals of the uncertainty analysis are to
evaluate results against the performance objectives and to understand the values of the results
with respect to the model formation. The sensitivity analysis is used to identify components of
the model that are most influential on the output. This leads to model iteration as suggested in
Step 7 above.
Building a model to inform PA is a large undertaking. There are many intricacies that must be
accommodated starting with development of FEPs, moving through the CSM, mathematical
abstraction of environmental processes, numerical model structuring, development of probability
distributions for the input parameters, and model evaluation. This complex process is described
briefly in this document, and is described in more detail in the supporting documents (see
Appendices). In addition to complete documentation, the GoldSim model itself is fully contained,
with internal documentation of every aspect of the model structure. The extensive documentation
is provided for two reasons: The first is simply that it provides access to all information used in
the Model. This is done in the spirit of openness, transparency and, hence, defensibility. The
second is in the context of the quality assurance program that requires tracking of all information
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 18
from its source through to the final model. The QA program implemented for this Model is
described in full in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (Appendix 17).
1.5 Technical Evolution of PA and PA Modeling
Since PA modeling began in the late 1970s through early 1990s at many of the radioactive waste
disposal facilities around the U.S., many different approaches to modeling have been used. These
approaches span the range from deterministic process-level modeling to probabilistic systems-
level modeling. Early PA models tended towards deterministic modeling for several reasons: 1)
PA modeling was initially performed with a focus on groundwater modeling, which was, and still
is, often performed using deterministic process-level models, 2) there were computational or
technological difficulties with taking a probabilistic approach, and 3) PA regulations and
guidance were established mostly with deterministic performance objectives, which was
interpreted as a reason for performing deterministic modeling. In particular, PA for low-level
radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities followed deterministic performance objectives.
However, the regulations for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Yucca Mountain Project
(YMP) (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 191, “Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and
Transuranic Radioactive Wastes,” and Title 40, CFR Part 197, “Public Health and Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada”) provide an exception to the
deterministic objectives, and consequently, PA models for these radioactive waste disposal
facilities have been developed probabilistically.
Technological advances in the last decade have also allowed more PA modeling to move towards
a probabilistic approach. Finally, PA modeling is multi-disciplinary, and as more technical
disciplines have been brought into PA modeling, there has been increased recognition of the
potential benefits of probabilistic systems-level modeling.
Systems-level models are usually computationally simpler than process-level models. However,
the systems-level PA model might still have large numbers of parameters, which reveals the
complexity of dealing with PA modeling even at a systems-level scale. The large number of
parameters is a consequence of the many constituents of concern that are usually included in PA
models, and the need to characterize transport properties for each of these constituents
(e.g., partitioning coefficients, solubility, plant uptake factors). However, it is unlikely that more
than a few of these parameters are important predictors for a given PA endpoint (e.g., dose to a
member of the public, groundwater protection levels). Along these lines, another advantage of
systems-level modeling performed in a probabilistic environment is the ability to identify
parameters that are most important or sensitive for a given endpoint. Because system-level
models may be probabilistic, global sensitivity analysis methods can be used to identify the most
sensitive parameters (see the white paper entitled Sensitivity Analysis in Appendix 15).
The advantages of system-level models are that they are capable of 1) coupling of different
processes without the need for the application of ad hoc boundary conditions, 2) using an
appropriate spatial and temporal scaling relative to the decisions that need to be made, 3) having
the ability to characterize and manage uncertainty through probabilistic modeling, and 4) being
used to perform global sensitivity analysis. Use of the global sensitivity analysis can potentially
lead to refinement and enhancements of the underlying models or the identification and collection
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 19
of new data (e.g., research studies or monitoring) as necessary to reduce uncertainty of certain
parameters or variables. Use of a system-level model can also provide the ability to rapidly and
efficiently explore alternative conceptualizations of the system, which allows a greater ability to
address scenario and conceptual model uncertainties.
System-level models are often supported by process-level models. Each component of a system-
level model requires model building, which can include abstraction from a process-level model.
The purpose of the abstraction is to be able to capture the essence of the process-level model in
the probabilistic system-level model, so that its relative importance or sensitivity can be
evaluated. As a consequence of the development of system-level modeling frameworks such as
GoldSim, PA models are often developed following this approach, with global sensitivity
analysis driving iteration until the model results indicate a clear response and decision path.
1.6 Report Structure
The remainder of this report provides a more complete introduction to the PA modeling process
applied to the Clive DU waste disposal option, briefly describes the FEPs process, and follows
with a brief description of the CSM. The CSM description is aimed more at identifying
components of the model that might be significant in the model results. Model building always
leads to insights into the important components of a model, and that is conveyed in terms of
important aspects of the CSM.
The model structure is described prior to presentation of results, which are the main focus of this
report. Results are presented for the 10-ky quantitative model and for the deep-time model. For
the 10-ky model, the important results from a regulatory perspective include doses to the
receptors that have been identified as critical. Groundwater concentrations are evaluated for the
next 500 yrs. For the deep-time model, which models the performance of disposal of DU at Clive
for the next 2.1 My, results are presented in terms of lake water concentrations assuming the
return of a deep pluvial lake in the Bonneville Basin, and sediment concentrations that remain
after the pluvial lake recedes.
A summary is provided that includes further interpretation of results and comparison with
performance objectives. More complete documentation of the details of the model development
is contained in the Appendices, and also in the GoldSim model itself. This compendium of
documents provides a thorough treatise of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 20
2.0 Introduction
The safe storage and disposal of DU waste is essential for mitigating releases of radioactive
materials and reducing exposures to humans and the environment. Currently, a radioactive waste
facility located in Clive, Utah and operated by EnergySolutions is proposed to receive and store
DU waste that has been declared surplus from radiological facilities across the nation. The Clive
Facility has been tasked with evaluating disposal of the DU waste in an economically feasible
manner that protects humans from future radiological releases.
To assess whether the Clive Facility location and containment technologies are suitable for
protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land disposal of radioactive
waste set forth in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 (10 CFR 61) Subpart C, and
promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), must be met. In order to support the
required radiological PA, a model is needed to evaluate doses to human receptors that would
result from the disposal of DU and its associated radioactive contaminants.
This section provides an introduction to the general approach taken to developing version 1.4 of
the Clive DU PA Model. The focus is on methods that have been undertaken at each step along
the path, from description of the problem and the disposal facility under consideration, FEPs
identification, CSM development, approaches to numerical modeling and evaluation of results.
2.1 General Approach
Performance Assessment models are complex probabilistic systems-level models that evaluate
the long-term effects to human health and the environment of disposal of radioactive waste. The
approach includes the following steps:
1. Identification of disposal options – in this case use of the Federal DU cell at the Clive
Facility in Utah for disposal of DU waste, and specifics of the disposal configuration. This
includes consideration of the regulatory environment in which the PA model is to be
evaluated.
2. Identification of important FEPs that should be considered in the evaluation of the Clive
disposal facility. This includes identification of human receptors who might be engaged in
activities near or on the disposal facility.
3. Development of a CSM that captures the relevant FEPs. This includes evaluation of the
FEPs for the likelihood of occurrence and their consequence. If, for a given FEP the
likelihood of occurrence or consequence is considered too small, then the FEP is not
included in the CSM.
4. Development of a numerical or computational model for the PA. This translates the CSM
into numerical code for processing. This includes model structure and model specification.
The Clive DU PA Model is developed fully probabilistically, with coupling of all
processes included in the model.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 21
5. Model evaluation, including:
a. uncertainty analysis, which compares the probabilistic output to the performance
objectives,
b. sensitivity analysis, which is used to identify the important parameters or components
of the model in terms of prediction of the model output. This leads to model refinement
or data collection if the uncertainties in the decisions that need to be made are
considered to be too large.
6. Reporting of the PA model and its results, including:
a. doses to potential human receptors,
b. population doses evaluated in the context of ALARA,
c. groundwater concentrations at a specified location, and
d. deep time concentrations in lake water and lake sediment.
7. Quality Assurance.
A PA is a type of systematic (risk) analysis that addresses what can happen, how likely it is to
happen, what the resulting impacts are, and how these impacts compare to regulatory standards.
The essential elements of a performance assessment are
• a description of the site and engineered system,
• an understanding of events and processes likely to affect long-term facility performance,
• a description of processes controlling the movement of contaminants from waste sources
to the general environment,
• a computation of metrics reflecting system performance including concentrations, doses,
and other human health risk metrics to members of the general population, and
• an evaluation of uncertainties in the modeling results that support the assessment.
The role of PA in a regulatory context is often restricted to the narrow use of evaluating
compliance. In the present case, the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 can be used to evaluate
compliance—and inform a PA document that presents the argument that demonstrates
compliance—with 10 CFR 61 Subpart C and the corresponding provisions of the Utah
Administrative Code. In addition to that role, however, and because of the long-term nature of the
analysis, the intent of the Model is not to estimate actual long-term human health impacts or risks
from a closed facility. We believe that it is technically inappropriate to view the model results in
terms of actual long-term human health effects. The purpose of the Model is to provide a robust
analysis that can examine and identify the key elements and components of the site, the
engineered system, and the environmental setting that could contribute to potential long-term
impacts. Because of the time-scales of the analysis and the associated uncertainty in knowledge
of characteristics of the site, the waste inventory, the engineered system and its potential to
degrade over time, and changing environmental conditions, a critical part of the PA process is
also the consideration of uncertainty and evaluation of model and parameter sensitivity in
interpretation of PA modeling results.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 22
A probabilistic model includes a mathematical analysis of stochastic events or processes and their
consequences. Probabilistic analysis acknowledges that events and processes are inherently
uncertain, and hence involves characterization of uncertainty around expectation. Model output
hence is expressed with the same characteristics of expectation and uncertainty, which lends itself
to a global or probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis for probabilistic models is
used to identify the parameters (variables) that are the most important predictors of the output for
a given endpoint (e.g., dose to a resident, concentrations in groundwater). The important
predictors are those that explain most of the variability in the output variable of interest. Usually,
for a given endpoint of interest, this is no more than a handful of input or explanatory variables.
Because PA models are usually complex, dynamic, non-linear systems, these global sensitivity
analysis methods involve complex non-linear regression models that capture the impact of each
input variable across its specified range (range of its probability distribution).
Performance Assessment concerns modeling radioactive waste disposal facilities into the long-
term future. As such, PA models must address both the spatial and temporal magnitude of PA. It
is critical in a PA model to addresses the scale of the decisions that need to be made. Modeling is
performed at the spatial and temporal scale that is needed to support PA decisions related to
closure. In effect, system-level models might be fairly coarse, but this has advantages for
evaluating how the system evolves over time. For example, all processes involved are fully
coupled in the same model, probabilistic modeling can be performed to both characterize and
manage uncertainty, and statistics and decision analysis can be incorporated into the modeling
framework.
Results from a systems-level model are aimed at the decision objectives at the spatial and
temporal scales of interest. These results are presented as probability distributions for the
endpoints of interest (peak doses, concentrations, etc.), and comparisons are made with
performance objectives where appropriate (dose, groundwater concentrations).
Given the PA model construction with respect to the spatio-temporal scales of the model, there
are two levels of response. The first is for each hypothetical individual included in the model.
Dose results are available for each receptor in every year of the model, up to 10 ky. Each dose
result at this level represents individual doses resulting from the concentrations in various
exposure media predicted by the model at that time. The dose parameters, however, are specific
to the individual. This approach to modeling dose was taken for a few reasons: 1) There are not
many receptors at Clive, in which case, from a computational perspective it was feasible to
consider each individual receptor, and 2) this approach allows population dose to be estimated
directly from the individual doses.
Although individual peak doses are available in the model, the output of interest is the mean
dose. Traditionally this has been estimated as the mean dose to a hypothetical average individual.
With this model, the mean dose is estimated directly from the individual doses. Mean doses are
evaluated in each year of the model, but traditionally for PA, interest lies primarily in the worst
case year, in which case the peak mean dose across time is the metric of interest.
The effect is that average (mean) doses are available at multiple scales. Traditional comparison
with performance objectives is performed with the peak mean dose, meaning the highest mean
dose in a year across the 10-ky performance period. In this model, for which radioactivity is
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 23
increasing with time for the DU waste, the greatest dose almost always occurs at 10 ky, and 500
years for groundwater concentrations. So peak mean dose results at 10 ky are presented. Note
that there will be 10,000 estimates of dose for each receptor if 10,000 realizations are run. This is
usually enough simulations to stabilize an estimate of the mean. The dose assessment model is
described in detail in the white paper entitled Dose Assessment (Appendix 11).
If the distribution of the peak of the means is treated as if each simulation result is independent,
then the 95th percentile of the distribution is somewhat analogous to the notion of a 95% upper
confidence interval that is commonly used under CERCLA. Comparisons may be made with the
PA performance objectives using the median, mean and 95th percentile of the output distribution
for each endpoint of interest.
For the ALARA analysis, the model is set up so that the population dose can be estimated for
each receptor class in each year of the model. The 10,000 realizations provide 10,000 estimates
of population dose in each year of the model. The population dose distribution can also be
processed to include the cost to human health and society by assigning a dollar value to
person-rem. This process is described in detail in the Decision Analysis white paper (Appendix
12).
Once the results are obtained and compared to the performance objectives, a global sensitivity
analysis is performed to identify the parameters that are the most influential in predicting each
endpoint of interest. Often this is only a handful of parameters for each endpoint. The results of
the sensitivity analysis can be used to determine if it might be useful to collect more data or
otherwise refine the model before making final decisions. This is ostensibly a decision analysis
task, which can be performed using the sensitivity analysis results as a basis for determining the
benefit of collecting new data. The potential benefits would be seen in reduction in uncertainty in
the model results. The sensitivity analysis methods used for this model are described in the white
paper entitled Sensitivity Analysis Methods (Appendix 15).
This holistic approach to PA modeling is aimed at providing insights into disposal system
performance. Although the model predicts or estimates doses to human receptors, among other
endpoints, the more important aspect of this type of modeling is to gain an understanding of how
the system might evolve over the time frames of interest, and to use this understanding to support
decision making including ability to safely dispose of waste and optimization of waste placement
within the disposal system.. No matter what doses are predicted, it is important to understand
why those modeled doses are observed, and hence, what are the important features of the disposal
system with regards to protection of human health and the environment.
2.2 General Facility Description
The EnergySolutions low-level radioactive waste disposal facility is west of the Cedar Mountains
in Clive, Utah, as shown in Figure 2. Clive is located along Interstate-80, approximately 5 km
(3 mi) south of the highway, in Tooele County. The facility is approximately 80 km (50 mi) east
of Wendover, Utah and approximately 100 km (60 mi) west of Salt Lake City, Utah. The facility
sits at an elevation of approximately 1302 m (4275 ft) above mean sea level (amsl). The Clive
Facility is adjacent to the above-ground disposal cell used for uranium mill tailings that were
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 24
removed from the former Vitro Chemical company site in South Salt Lake City between 1984
and 1988 (Baird et al., 1990).
Currently, the Clive Facility receives waste shipped via truck and rail. Pending the findings of the
PA, DU waste will be stored in a permanent above-ground engineered disposal embankment that
is clay-lined with composite clay barriers and an ET cover. The disposal embankment is designed
to perform for a minimum of 500 years based on requirements of 10 CFR 61.7. The
EnergySolutions Clive Facility is divided into three main areas (Figure 2):
• the Bulk Waste Facility, including the Mixed Waste, Low Activity Radioactive Waste
(LARW), 11e.(2), and Class A LLW areas,
• the Containerized Waste Facility (CWF), located within the Class A LLW area, and
• the Treatment Facility (TF), located in the southeast corner of the Mixed Waste area.
The DU waste under consideration is proposed for disposal in the Federal DU cell. The terms
“cell” and “embankment” are here used interchangeably. That is, this Clive DU PA Model
considers only to the long-term performance of DU disposed in this waste cell. The Federal Cell
housing DU is next to the 11e.(2) cell, which is dedicated to the disposal of uranium processing
by-product waste and not considered in this analysis (Figure 2).
The general aspect of the Federal DU cell is that of a hipped cap, with relatively steeper sloping
sides nearer the edges. The upper part of the embankment, known as the top slope, has a
moderate slope, while the side slope is markedly steeper (20% as opposed to 2.4%). For this PA
Model, no waste is placed under the side slopes, in which case modeling focuses on waste placed
under the top slope. The embankment is also constructed such that a portion of it lies below-
grade. Details of the design of the embankment are contained in the white paper entitled
Embankment Modeling (Appendix 3).
DU waste from the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the gaseous diffusion plants (GDP) at
Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky has been proposed for disposal at the Clive facility.
There are three categories of DU waste that are considered:
1. Depleted uranium oxide (UO3) waste from the Savannah River Site (SRS) proposed for
disposal at the Clive facility,
2. DU from the GDPs, which exists in two principal populations:
a) DU contaminated with fission and activation products from reactor returns introduced
to the diffusion cascades, and
b) DU consisting of only “clean” uranium, with no such contamination.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 25

Figure 2. Disposal and Treatment Facilities operated by EnergySolutions.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 26
The DU oxides that are to be produced at these sites “deconversion” plants will be primarily
U3O8. The contamination problem arises from the past practice of introducing irradiated nuclear
materials (reactor returns) into the isotopic separations process. Irradiated nuclear fuel underwent
a chemical separation process to remove the plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Uranium,
then thought to be a rare substance, was also separated out, but contained some residual
contamination from activation and fission products. This uranium was again converted to UF6 for
re enrichment, and was introduced to the gaseous diffusion cascades, contaminating them and the
storage cylinders as well. Decay products (226Ra), activation products (241Am, 237Np, 238Pu, 239Pu,
240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu), and fission products (90Sr, 99Tc, 129I, 137Cs) potentially contaminate the DU
waste. The proposed inventory that is evaluated in the Model is described fully in the white paper
entitled Waste Inventory (Appendix 4).
3.0 Features, Events and Processes
The conceptual site model (CSM) describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of the Clive facility. The CSM, therefore, encompasses everything from the inventory of disposed
wastes, the migration of radionuclides contained in the waste through the engineered and natural
systems, and the exposure and radiation doses to hypothetical future humans. These site
characteristics are used to define variables for the quantitative PA model that is used to provide
insights and understanding of the future potential human radiation doses from the disposal of DU
waste.
The content of the CSM informs the Model with respect to regional and site-specific features,
events and processes, such as climate, groundwater, and human receptor scenarios. The CSM
accounts for and defines relevant features, events, and processes (FEPs) at the site, materials and
their properties, interrelationships, and boundaries. These constitute the basis of the Model, on
which, or through which, radionuclides are transported to locations where receptors might be
exposed.
A key activity in developing a PA for a radiological waste repository is the comprehensive
identification of relevant external factors that should be included in quantitative analyses. These
factors, termed “features, events, and processes” (FEPs), form the basis for scenarios that are
evaluated to assess site performance.
The universe of FEPs that were screened and identified as relevant for the Clive Facility PA are
documented in the white paper entitled FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the
Clive Facility (Appendix 1) and further elaborated in the CSM document (Conceptual Site Model
for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility – Appendix 2).
4.0 Conceptual Site Model
The important components of the conceptual site model are described in the following sections.
Details are contained in the white paper entitled Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted
Uranium at the Clive Facility (Appendix 2).
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 27
4.1.1 Disposal Site Location
EnergySolutions operates a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility west of the Cedar
Mountains in Clive, Utah, as shown in Figure 1. Clive is located along Interstate-80,
approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of the highway, in Tooele County. The facility is approximately
80 km (50 mi) east of Wendover, Utah and approximately 100 km (60 mi) west of Salt Lake City,
Utah. The facility sits at an elevation of approximately 1,302 m (4,275 ft) above mean sea level
(amsl) and is accessed by both highway and rail transportation. The Clive Facility is adjacent to
the above-ground disposal cell used for uranium mill tailings that were removed from the former
Vitro Chemical company site in South Salt Lake City between 1984 and 1988 (Baird et al.,
1990).
4.1.2 Disposal Site Description
Currently, the Clive Facility receives waste shipped via truck and rail. DU waste is proposed for
disposal in a permanent above-ground engineered disposal embankment that is clay-lined with
clay barriers and an ET cover. The disposal embankment is designed to perform for a minimum
of 500 years based on requirements of 10 CFR 61.7, which provides a long-term disposal
solution with minimal need for active maintenance after site closure. More detail relating to the
properties of the disposal embankment is provided in Section 0.
The EnergySolutions Clive Facility is divided into three main areas (Figure 2): the Bulk Waste
Facility, including the Mixed Waste, Low Activity Radioactive Waste (LARW), 11e.(2), and
Class A LLW areas, the Containerized Waste Facility (CWF), located within the Class A LLW
area, and the Treatment Facility (TF), located in the southeast corner of the Mixed Waste area.
This analysis considers only the Federal DU cell.
4.1.2.1 Embankment
Depleted uranium waste is proposed for disposal in the Federal DU cell. The Federal DU Cell is
about 541 × 402 m (1,775 × 1,318 ft), with an area of approximately 22 ha (54 acres), and an
estimated total waste volume of about 2.0 million m3 (71 million ft3). A drainage ditch surrounds
the disposal cell. The cell is constructed on top of a compacted clay liner covered by a protective
cover. Waste will be placed above the liner and will be covered with a layered engineered cover
constructed of natural materials. The top slopes will be finished at a 2.4% grade while the side
slopes will be no steeper than 5:1 (20% grade).
The design of Federal DU cell cover has been engineered to discourage erosion, reduce the
effects of infiltration, and to protect workers and the public from radionuclide exposure. The cell
cover consists of layers including two clay radon barriers, a frost protection layer, an evaporative
zone layer, and a surface layer. The clay radon barriers are designed to minimize infiltration of
precipitation and runoff and reduce the migration of radon from the waste cell. The detailed
properties of each cell layer may be found in the white paper on Unsaturated Zone Modeling
(Appendix 5).
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 28
4.1.2.2 Waste Inventory
The waste inventory is limited to the disposal of DU wastes of two general waste types:
1) depleted uranium trioxide (DUO3) waste from the Savannah River Site (SRS) and 2)
anticipated DU waste as U3O8 from gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) at Portsmouth, Ohio and
Paducah, Kentucky. The quantity and characteristics of DU waste from other sources that has that
already been disposed of at the Clive Facility was not included. A full list of radionuclides has
been established for the PA modeling effort. The radionuclide species list was based upon
process knowledge, radionuclides analyzed for (though not necessarily detected) in the DU waste
material, and decay products with half-lives over five years. The species list consists of the
following radionuclides:
fission products:
Sr-90, Tc-99, I-129, Cs-137
progeny of uranium isotopes:
Pb-210, Rn-222, Ra-226, -228, Ac-227, Th-228, -229, -230, -232, Pa-231
uranium isotopes:
U-232, -233, -234, -235, -236, -238
transuranic radionuclides:
Np-237, Pu-239, -239, -240, -241, -242, Am-241
The waste inventory is discussed in more detail in the Waste Inventory white paper (Appendix 4)
and in the Conceptual Site Model white paper (Appendix 1).
4.1.2.3 Climate
The following sections briefly describe the aspects of the regional climate that influence the
performance of the site and engineered features. Further details are provided in the Conceptual
Site Model white paper (Appendix 1), and in the Unsaturated Zone Modeling white paper
(Appendix 5). In general the climate is dry, with evapotranspiration potential that exceeds
precipitation on an annual basis. This leads to low infiltration rates, and subsequent relatively
slow movement of radionuclides to groundwater. Also, the embankment is largely above grade,
and the dry, sometimes windy, environment could lead to drying out of the embankment beyond
what is considered in typical unsaturated zone models.
4.1.2.3.1 Temperature
Regional climate is regulated by the surrounding mountain ranges, which restrict movement of
weather systems in the vicinity of the Clive facility. The most influential feature affecting
regional climate is the presence of the Great Salt Lake, which can moderate downwind
temperatures since it never freezes (NRC, 1993). The climatic conditions at the Clive Facility are
characterized by hot and dry summers, cool springs and falls, and moderately cold winters (NRC,
1993). Frequent invasions of cold air are restricted by the mountain ranges in the area. Data from
the Clive Facility from 1992 through 2009 indicate that monthly temperatures range from
about -2°C (29°F) in December to 26°C (78°F) in July (Whetstone, 2006).
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 29
4.1.2.3.2 Precipitation
The Clive Facility is characterized as being an arid to semi-arid environment where evaporation
greatly exceeds annual precipitation (Adrian Brown, 1997). Data collected at the Clive Facility
from 1992 through 2004 indicate that average annual rainfall is on the order of 22 cm (8.6 in) per
year (Whetstone, 2006). Precipitation generally reaches a maximum in the spring (1992-2004
monthly average of 3.2 cm [1.25 in] in April), when storms from the Pacific Ocean are strong
enough to move over the mountains (NRC, 1993; Whetstone, 2006). Precipitation is generally
lighter during the summer and fall months (1992-2004 monthly average of 0.8 cm [0.32 in] in
August) with snowfall occurring during the winter months (Whetstone, 2006; NRC, 1993; Baird
et al., 1990).
4.1.2.3.3 Evaporation
Because of warm temperatures and low relative humidity, the Clive Facility is located in an area
of high evaporation rates. NRC (1993) indicates that average annual pond evaporation rate at the
Clive Facility is 150 cm/yr (59 in/yr), with the highest evaporation rates between the months of
May and October. Previous modeling studies indicate that the Dugway climatological station
nearby is comparable to the Clive site with respect to evaporation and have reported pan-
evaporation estimates of 183 cm/yr (72 in/yr), which is considerably greater than average annual
rainfall (Adrian Brown, 1997). Because of the high evaporation rate, the amount of groundwater
recharge due to precipitation is likely very small.
4.1.2.4 Unsaturated Zone
The engineered features of the landfill, including cap, waste, and liner, are all in the unsaturated
zone (UZ), at least within the 10,000-yr duration of the quantitative model. The part of the UZ
that extends from the bottom of the cell liner to the water table consists of naturally-occurring
lake sediments from the ancestral Lake Bonneville.
Diffusion in the water phase may also play a role in the transport of waterborne contaminants in
the UZ, since the advective flux is expected to be small. The concentration gradients in the UZ
are also expected to be predominantly vertical, so diffusion will also occur in the vertical
direction, oriented with the column of cells.
Diffusion in the air phase within the UZ below the facility will not be modeled, since the only
diffusive species would be radon, which is of greater concern at the ground surface. Upward
radon diffusion to the ground surface will be dominated by radon parents in the waste zone, and
is modeled within the engineered cap. Unsaturated zone processes, material properties, and
parameters represented in the PA model are described in detail in the Unsaturated Zone Modeling
White Paper. The primary concerns for the PA are movement through the unsaturated zone of
mobile radionuclides, such as 90Sr, 99Tc, and 129I to groundwater and the upward diffusive
movement of radon.
4.1.2.4.1 Infiltration
Recharge is an important process in controlling the release of contaminants to the groundwater
pathway. Site characteristics influencing movement of water from precipitation through the
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 30
vadose zone to the water table at the Clive site include climate, soil characteristics, and native
vegetation. Engineered barriers are used at the Clive site to control the flow of water into the
waste. A hydrologic model of the waste disposal system must realistically represent precipitation,
the source of water to the system, runoff, evaporation, transpiration, and changes in storage to
estimate the flow through the system. Under natural conditions plants remove water from the
upper soil zone through root uptake and transpiration reducing the water available for seepage
deeper into the profile. The same processes occur in an engineered cover layer that has been
revegetated. Seepage through a cover system can occur when soils become wet enough to
increase their conductivity to water. Cover surface layers with adequate storage capacity can hold
the water in the near surface until it can move back into the atmosphere through evaporation
reducing the seepage of water to the waste.
Steady-state water infiltration rates and water contents for the cover layers required as input for
the Clive DU PA GoldSim model were calculated from a regression model developed from
infiltration modeling using the HYDRUS-1D software package. This section describes the
development of HYDRUS-1D models for the Clive DU PA model and the abstraction of the
HYDRUS-1D results into the probabilistic framework employed by GoldSim. The HYDRUS-1D
model (Šimůnek et al., 2009) was selected for simulating the performance of the ET cover
proposed for the DU waste cell because of its ability to simulate processes known to have a
significant role in water flow in landfill covers in arid regions.
The one-dimensional version of the software rather than two-dimensional version was selected
for simulating flow in the Federal DU cell ET cover since previous numerical modeling of flow
in the similar ET cover design for the Class A West cover demonstrated that subsurface lateral
flow was not significant (EnergySolutions, 2012). To test the importance of 2-D flow effects in
the ET cover design 2-D transient flow simulations were conducted for representative sections of
the cover. The approach taken was to model a section of the side slope in two-dimensions.
Representative hydraulic properties were assigned to the ET cover layers and the models were
run with daily atmospheric boundary conditions for 100 years. Root water uptake was modeled
assuming the roots extended to the bottom of the evaporative zone layer and a rooting density
that decreased with depth. The results of these 2-D simulations demonstrated that water flow in
the cover system for both designs is predominantly vertical with no significant horizontal
component. These results demonstrate that 1-D models can be used to provide a defensible
analysis of cover performance for the ET cover design due to the lack of lateral flow.
Model development requires construction of a computational grid based on the geometry of the
model domain. Hydraulic properties for each layer required for the model were available from
previous studies at the site or were estimated from site-specific measurements such as particle
size distributions. Some of the hydraulic properties were variable in this modeling as described
below. HYDRUS requires daily values of precipitation, potential evaporation, and potential
transpiration to represent the time-variable boundary conditions on the upper surface of the cover.
Representative boundary conditions were developed from records of nearby meteorological
observations. Parameters for describing root water uptake were available from the literature.
The process of abstracting a detailed flow model into a probabilistic model that could be
implemented in GoldSim required the development of distributions for hydraulic property
parameters for the cover materials that influence water balance. Included in the distributions used
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 31
was a distribution for the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of the radon barriers for the
modeling. This distribution included values from a range of in-service (“naturalized”) clay barrier
Ks values described by Benson et al. (2011, Section 6.4, p. 6-12). Multiple HYDRUS-1D
simulations with varying hydraulic property inputs were conducted to provide values of
infiltration flux into the waste zone, and water content within each ET cover layer as a function
of hydraulic property parameter values. From these simulation results a statistical model was
developed that related values of hydraulic properties from the statistical distributions to values of
infiltration flux and cover layer water content. This statistical model was then implemented in
Clive DU PA model to provide for each realization a steady-state infiltration flux and layer water
contents that included the uncertainty in these parameters. The ET cover and unsaturated zone
infiltration modeling approaches and results are described in detail in the Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper (Appendix 5).
4.1.2.5 Geochemical
The conceptual model for the transport of radionuclides at the Clive Facility allows sufficient
meteoric water infiltration into the waste zone to allow dissolution of uranium and daughters,
fission products and potential transuranic contaminants (along with native soluble minerals). At
first, leaching is likely to be solubility-limited with respect to uranium, and the leachate will
migrate away from the source with the uranium concentration at the solubility limit. The other
radionuclides are unlikely to be at a solubility limit. Depending upon the amount of water
available, these radionuclides will either re-precipitate, once the thermodynamic conditions for
saturation are reached, or remain in solution and be transported to the saturated zone. This water
is expected to be oxidizing, with circum-neutral to slightly alkaline pH (similar to the upper
unconfined aquifer), and an atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide. However, the amount
of total dissolved solids (TDS) is expected to be initially lower than the upper aquifer.
The composition of this aqueous phase will change as it reaches the saturated zone, with some
increase in dissolved solids and potentially lower dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The
saturated zone for this PA model includes only the shallow, unconfined aquifer. Transport of
radionuclides is expected to be restricted to this aquifer and not migrate to the lower aquifer due
to a natural upward gradient at the facility. The chemical composition of the saturated zone is
characterized as somewhat alkaline pH likely due to the presence of carbonates, mainly oxidizing
though transient reduced conditions may exist, with high levels of dissolved ions of mainly
sodium and chlorine.
The transport of dissolved radionuclides can also be limited by sorption onto the solid phase of
associated minerals and soils within each of the zones considered in this PA model. The transport
of uranium is limited by both solubility and the sorption of radionuclides in groundwater.
Sorption consists of several physicochemical processes including ion exchange, adsorption, and
chemisorption. Sorption is represented in the PA model as a partitioning coefficient (Kd) value.
Distributions of radionuclide-specific partitioning coefficients and solubilities were developed for
the PA model considering the geochemical conditions in the cell, the unsaturated zone, and the
shallow aquifer at the Clive facility. The development of these distributions is described in detail
in the Geochemical Modeling white paper (Appendix 6). The primary concerns for the model
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 32
include the geochemical properties of 99Tc as they affect movement to groundwater and of
uranium in its different chemical forms for the 10-ky and deep-time models.
4.1.2.6 Saturated Zone
Contaminants moving vertically in the UZ below the cell enter the saturated zone (SZ) beneath
the disposal facility. The rate of recharge is the same as the Darcy flux (the rate of volume flow
of water per unit area) through the overlying UZ, and is expected to be small enough that vertical
transport within the SZ would be small. Most SZ waterborne contaminant transport will be in the
horizontal direction, following the local pressure gradients, which are reflected in water table
elevations in the shallow aquifer. A point of compliance in the groundwater has been established
at 27 m (90 ft) from the edge of the embankment interior, so saturated transport is modeled to
that point. Note that in the case of the proposed DU waste disposal, only the top slope section of
the embankment would contain DU waste, so the effective distance from the DU waste to the
well is lengthened by the width of the side slope section, to about 73 m (240 ft).
Saturated zone groundwater transport generally involves the processes of advection-dispersion
and diffusion. Mean pore water velocity in the saturated zone is assumed to be determined by the
Darcy flux and the porosity of the sediment. A range of values will allow the sensitivity analysis
(SA) to determine if this is a sensitive parameter in the determination of concentrations at the
compliance well and resultant potential doses. Modeling of fate and transport for the saturated
zone pathway will include advection, linear sorption, mechanical dispersion, and molecular
diffusion. Saturated zone processes and parameters represented in the PA model are described in
detail in the Saturated Zone Modeling white paper (Appendix 7). The primary concern for the
model is the breakthrough of 99Tc at the monitoring well.
4.1.2.7 Air Modeling
Gaseous and particle-bound contaminants that have migrated to the surface soil layer are
potentially subject to dispersion in the atmosphere. The effect of mechanical disturbance on
human exposure to soil particulates is evaluated in the PA based on the effect of off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use. However, although this mechanism may be consequential for human
exposure, it is not likely to be a significant contributor to the overall rate of fine particulates
emissions from the embankment over time. Eolian (wind-related) disturbance is the primary
cause of particulates emissions from the embankment and is the process modeled in the PA to
estimate particulate emissions.
In addition to particulate emissions of contaminated surface soil due to eolian erosion, emissions
of gas-phase radionuclides diffusing across the surface of the embankment into the atmosphere
are considered in the PA model. Note that this effect is counter-balanced by replacement with
eolian material that moves onto the cap. Diffusion modeling of radionuclide gases in the
embankment, and estimation of flux into the atmosphere, is described in the Radon white paper
(Appendix 18). For both particulate-bound and gaseous radionuclides, atmospheric dispersion
modeling employing local meteorological data is conducted to calculate breathing-zone air
concentrations above the embankment and at specific locations in the area where off-site
receptors may be exposed (see Dose Assessment white paper – Appendix 11).
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 33
Atmospheric dispersion may result in significant bulk transport of fine particles modeling off of
the embankment. Atmospheric dispersion modeling is also used to calculate the deposition flux
of resuspended embankment particles in the areas adjacent to the embankment where ranchers
and recreational receptors may be exposed. As particulates from the embankment are deposited
on surrounding land, this surrounding area may become a secondary source of radionuclide
exposure.
Atmospheric dispersion modeling was conducted outside of the GoldSim modeling environment,
into which the model was abstracted. An atmospheric dispersion model is a mathematical model
that employs meteorological and terrain elevation data, in conjunction with information on the
release of contamination from a source, to calculate breathing-zone air concentrations at locations
above or downwind of the release. Some models may also be used to calculate surface deposition
rates of contamination at locations downwind of the release.
Both particle resuspension and atmospheric dispersion are first modeled outside of the GoldSim
PA model, and the results are then incorporated into GoldSim. The particulate emission model
used is a relatively simple model that has been adopted by EPA to estimate an annual-average
emission rate of respirable particulates (approximately 10 µm and less, i.e., PM10) from the
ground surface. The air dispersion model used is AERMOD, which is EPA’s recommended
regulatory air modeling system for steady-state releases and suitable for calculating annual-
average contaminant breathing zone air concentrations at various distances and in various
directions from a source release. These models are described in detail in the Atmospheric
Transport Modeling white paper (Appendix 8). Given the massive dilution that occurs for
windblown sediments, it is unlikely that this pathway will result in offsite accumulation of large
amounts of transported radionuclides. Accumulation onsite is more likely.
4.1.2.8 Biologically Induced Transport
Biological organisms play an important role in soil mixing processes, and therefore are
potentially important mediators of transport of buried wastes from deeper layers to shallower
layers or the soil surface. Three broad categories are evaluated for their potential effect on the
redistribution of radionuclides at the Clive facility: plants, ants, and burrowing mammals. The
impact of these flora and fauna will be limited largely to the top several meters, as their potential
influence as contaminant transport mechanisms is greater in the cover layers than in the
underlying waste, although contaminant concentrations are lower in the cover layers. Details for
all three categories can be found in the Biological Modeling white paper (Appendix 9).
4.1.2.8.1 Plants
Biotic fate and transport models have been developed to evaluate the redistribution of soils, and
contaminants within the soil, by native flora and fauna. The Clive Facility is located in the
eastern side of the Great Salt Lake Desert, with flora and fauna characteristic of Great Basin
alkali flat and Great Basin desert shrub communities.
Plant-induced transport of contaminants is assumed to proceed by absorption of contaminants
into the plants roots, followed by redistribution throughout all the tissues of the plant, both above
ground and below ground. Upon senescence, the above-ground plant parts are incorporated into
surface soils, and the roots are incorporated into soils at their respective depths.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 34
Functional factors that contribute to the plant section of the biotic transport model include
identifying dominant plant species, grouping plant species into categories that are significantly
similar in form and function with respect to the transport processes, estimating net annual
primary productivity (NAPP), a measure of combined above-ground and below-ground biomass
generation), determining relative abundance of plants or plant groups, evaluating root/shoot mass
ratios, and representing the density of plant roots as a function of depth below the ground surface.
Field surveys of the Clive site and surrounding areas were conducted by SWCA Environmental
Consultants in September and December 2010 to identify plant species present in different
vegetative associations around the Clive Site (SWCA, 2011). Five different vegetative
associations were surveyed, with three associations representing the alkali flat/desert flat type
soils found in the vicinity of Clive, and two associations representative of desert scrub/shrub-
steppe habitat characteristic of slopes and slightly higher elevations with less-saline soil
chemistry. A one hectare (100 m × 100 m) plot was established in each vegetative association,
and each plot was surveyed for dominant plant species present, and the percent cover and density
of each species. In addition, a small number of black greasewood, shadscale, halogeton, and
Mojave seablite plants were excavated to obtain root profile measurements and above-ground
plant dimensions. Plots 3 through 5 represent current vegetation at the Clive site, while Plots 1
and 2 are representative of less-saline soils that may develop on top of the waste cell cover.
A total of 41 plant species were identified on the five survey plots. Eighteen species each
comprised at least 1% of the total cover on at least one plot. These 18 species were considered the
most important for the purpose of modeling plant mediated transport of radiochemical
contaminants at Clive. Species were grouped into five functional plant groups: grasses, forbs,
greasewood, other shrubs, and trees. Greasewood is separated from other shrubs because of its
status as a phreatophyte that can extend taproots in excess of five meters to reach groundwater.
Annual and perennial grasses were grouped due to similar maximum rooting depths. Despite the
ability of Greasewood to extend taproots, it will only do so if there is a water source to mine.
There is no evidence in the Clive data that greasewood in the area of Clive extends to the water
table. Also, the radon barrier acts as an impediment to deep rooting. Consequently, plant
pathways for radionuclide transport are likely to have a limited effect in the current model.
4.1.2.8.2 Ants
Ants fill a broad ecological niche in arid ecosystems as predators, scavengers, trophobionts and
granivores. However, it is their role as burrowers that is of main concern for the purposes of this
model. Ants burrow for a variety of reasons but mostly for the procurement of shelter, the rearing
of young and the storage of foodstuffs. How and where ant nests are constructed plays a role in
quantifying the amount and rate of subsurface soil transport to the ground surface at the Clive
site. Factors relating to the physical construction of the nests, including the size, shape, and depth
of the nest, are key to quantifying excavation volumes. Factors limiting the abundance and
distribution of ant nests such as the abundance and distribution of plant species, and intra-specific
or inter-specific competitors, also can affect excavated soil volumes. Important parameters
related to ant burrowing activities include nest area, nest depth, rate of new nest additions,
excavation volume, excavation rates, colony density, and colony lifespan.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 35
Modeling soil and contaminant transport by ant species assumes that ants move materials from
lower cells to those cells above while excavating chambers and tunnels within a nest. These
chambers and tunnels are assumed to collapse over time and return soil from upper cells back to
lower cells.
Surveys for ants at Clive were limited to surface surveys of ant colonies, including identification
of ant species, measurements (length, width, and height) of ant mounds, and determination of ant
nest densities in each vegetative association (SWCA, 2011). No excavations of ant nests were
performed at Clive to support this initial PA model, although excavations could be conducted to
support future model iterations if ant nest depth and volume are found to be sensitive parameters.
Total nest depth and nest volume were extrapolated from mound surface dimensions based on
correlations from data observed at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (Neptune 2006) for
the dominant ant species at Clive. Only two species of ants were identified during the surveys,
with the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis, accounting for 62 of the 64 nests
identified. The second ant species, a member of the genus Lasius, was only encountered twice,
both times in the mixed grassland plot. Harvester ants also tend to create the largest and deepest
burrows. Consequently, the characteristics of the harvester ants were included in the model. For
details of biological models, refer to the Biological Modeling white paper. Although the effect of
burrowing ants is modeled, it is not expected to have a large influence on model results because
ant nests will not penetrate to the waste layer, which is about 5m or more below ground surface
for the disposal configurations considered. This is based on site-specific investigations indicating
most ant burrowing will occur in the upper layers of the cover and be minimal below a depth of
42 inches (SWCA 2013, p.28).
4.1.2.8.3 Burrowing Mammals
Burrowing mammals can have a profound impact on the distribution of soil and its contents near
the soil surface. The degree to which mammals influence soil structure is dependent on the
behavioral habits of individual species. While some species account for a large volume of soil
displacement, others are less influential. Functional factors such as burrowing depth, burrow
depth distributions, percent burrow by depth, tunnel cross-section dimension, tunnel lengths, soil
displacement by weight, soil displacement by volume and animal density per hectare play a
critical role in determining the final soil constituent mass by depth within the soil.
Modeling soil and contaminant transport by mammal species within the Clive PA model assumes
animals move materials from lower cells to those cells above while excavating burrows. Burrows
are assumed to collapse over time and return soil from upper cells back to lower cells. Thus, the
balance of materials is preserved through time.
Each Clive plot was surveyed for small mammal burrows during September and October 2010
(SWCA 2011). Burrows were identified by animal category. Within the survey area four
categories of mammal burrows were identified: ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, mouse/rats/voles,
and one badger. Due to the small number of badger and ground squirrel burrows, the decision
was made to treat all burrowing mammals as a single unit for modeling purposes. Small mammal
trapping was conducted on the five Clive plots during the new moon in October 2010 to identify
the principal small mammal fauna present in each vegetative association. Each 1-ha plot was
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 36
subdivided into 25 20-m × 20-m subplots. At the center of the each subplot, two Sherman® live
traps were placed, for a total of 50 traps per plot.
Deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) were the most abundant small mammal captured during
trapping, and were the only mammal captured in the plots located on the Clive Facility (Plots 3,
4, and 5). Plots 3, 4, and 5 were characterized by very low mammal densities, as evidenced by
both the trapping results and the burrow surveys. With such a small population in plots 3, 4, and
5, the decision was made to average these plots. While the surface layer materials for the cap of
the Clive embankment may be conducive to the development of mammal burrows, the burrows
are sufficiently shallow that it is unlikely that they will have a significant impact on radionuclide
transport, and hence on doses to human receptors.
4.1.2.9 Erosion
The Federal DU cell is subject to erosion by the forces of wind and water. The conceptual model
assumes that wind blows material off-site (see Section 4.1.2.7), even while it replaces material
that is removed from the cap. Water removes cap material through sheet erosion and the
formation of channels (gullies).
Once an initiating event has occurred, wherein a “nick” is formed in the surface of the cover (by
natural or anthropogenic events), gully formation follows from water flowing in narrow channels,
particularly during heavy rainfall events. Gully erosion typically results in a gully that has an
approximate “V” cross section which widens (lateral growth) and deepens (vertical growth)
through time until the gully stabilizes. The formation of gullies is a concern on uranium mill
tailings sites and other long-term above-ground radioactive waste sites (NRC 2010). Gully
erosion has the potential to move substantial quantities of both cover materials and waste, should
the waste material be buried close to the surface. Gully outwash forms depositional fans on the
slopes of the embankment. Gullies might form initially on the embankment through disturbance
attributed to animal burrowing, or by human induced mechanisms such as cattle paths or OHV
tracks.
Two approaches have been used in the Clive DU PA model to evaluate the influence of erosion
on embankment performance. The first is a screening gully model that was applied in version 1.0
of the Clive DU PA model. The current approach used in the Clive DU PA model to evaluate the
influence of erosion on embankment performance is to apply results from a landscape evolution
model of a borrow pit area at the Clive Site as an analogue for embankment cover erosion.
Assumptions for this approach include:
• The geometry of the borrow pit wall and upslope area are sufficiently similar to that of the
embankment top slope and side slope.
• The borrow pit materials (unit 4) are sufficiently similar to the layers of the embankment
(unit 4 with gravel, unit 4, and radon barrier clays).
• Surface elevation changes at 10,000 years can be extrapolated from SIBERIA model
results from 100 yr, 500 yr and 1000 yr.
• The results at 10,000 years approximate steady state of gullies. This steady state situation
is implemented from time zero in this model.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 37
• The area of waste that is deposited on the fan is the same as the area of waste exposed in
the gullies, using projections onto the horizontal plane.
• The excavation of ET Cover cells was not considered in the calculations below for
contaminants in the excavated mass from the gully because it was assumed that
significantly more contaminant mass was in the waste than in the cap and that the material
extracted from the waste layers would be on the top of the fan.

Implementation of this approach in GoldSim is described in more detail in the Erosion Modeling
white paper (Appendix 10).
4.1.2.10 Dose Assessment
The dose assessment in the Model addresses potential radiation dose to any receptor who may
come in contact with radioactivity released from the disposal facility into the general
environment (10 CFR 61.41).The objective of a dose assessment in a radiological PA is to
provide estimates of potential doses to humans over time from radioactive releases from a
disposal facility after closure, as described in Section 3.3.7 of NRC (2000 – NUREG 1573). As
described below, the critical groups in the Model are defined as ranchers and recreationalists.
The radiation dose limit for protection of the general population is 25 mrem/yr, as a total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE). Dose limits for radiological PAs are defined in UAC Rule
R313-25-20 and10 CFR 61.41as an equivalent of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body,
0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other organ of any member
of the public. However, the radiation dosimetry underlying these dose metrics is based on a
methodology published by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in
1959. More recent dose assessment methodology has been published as ICRP Publication 30
(ICRP, 1979) and ICRP Publication 56 (ICRP, 1989), employing the TEDE approach. As stated
in Section 3.3.7.1.2 of NRC (2000), “As a matter of policy, the Commission considers 0.25
mSv/year (25 mrem/year) TEDE as the appropriate dose limit to compare with the range of
potential doses represented by the older limits…”
The period of performance for a radiological PA defined in UAC Rule R313-25-9 requires
evaluation for a minimum compliance period of 10 ky, with additional simulations for a
qualitative analysis for the period where peak hypothetical dose occurs. The scope of this Model
includes modeling of the disposal system performance to the time of peak hypothetical
radiological dose (or peak radioactivity, as a proxy), and to quantify dose within the time frame
of 10 ky.
4.1.2.10.1 Receptors and Exposure Scenarios
Receptors in a PA are categorized in UAC Rule R313-25-20 and -21 and10 CFR 61.41 according
to the labels “member of the public” (MOP) and “inadvertent human intruder” (IHI). The
regulatory basis for, and interpretation of these categories of receptors is provided in Section 1.3.
The MOP is essentially a receptor who is exposed outside the boundaries of the facility. Refer to
Section 5.1.7 where the definition of IHI as specifically applied in the PA is described:
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 38
“Inadvertent intrusion is often used in terms of direct but inadvertent access to the
waste (e.g. through well drilling or basement construction), for which the initiator
is exposed. However, such direct activities are unlikely at this site. The types of
activities here do not result in direct exposure to the waste by the initiator, but
potentially to future receptors.”
Ranching Scenario. The land surrounding the Clive Facility is currently utilized for cattle and
sheep grazing. Ranchers typically use off-highway vehicles (OHVs, including four-wheel drive
trucks) for transport. Activities are expected to include herding, maintenance of fencing and other
infrastructure, and assistance in calving and weaning. Ranchers may be exposed to contamination
via the pathways outlined in Table 1.
Recreational Scenario. Recreational uses on the land surrounding the Clive Facility may involve
OHV use, hunting, target shooting of inanimate objects, rock-hounding, wild-horse viewing, and
limited camping. As soil develops on the rip-rap surface of the cap and plant succession
proceeds, the disposal unit may become more attractive for different types of recreational
activities. It is assumed in the Clive DU PA Model that recreational OHV riders (“Sport”
OHVers; i.e., OHV users who use their vehicles for recreation alone) and hunters using OHVs
(“Hunters”), both of whom may also camp at the site, represent the most highly-exposed
recreational receptors. Recreationalists may be exposed to contamination via the pathways
outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. Exposure Pathways Summary
exposure pathway ranching recreation
Inhalation (wind derived dust) × ×
Inhalation (mechanically-generated dust) × ×
Inhalation (gas phase radionuclides) × ×
Ingestion of surface soils (inadvertent) × ×
Ingestion of game meat

× (Hunter)
Ingestion of beef ×
External irradiation – soil × ×
External irradiation – immersion in air × ×

The ranching and recreation scenarios are characterized by potential exposure related to activities
both on the disposal site and in the adjoining area. Specific off-site points of potential exposure
also exist for other receptors based upon present-day conditions and infrastructure. Unlike
ranching and recreational receptors who might be exposed by a variety of pathways on or
adjacent to the site, these off-site receptors would likely only be exposed to wind-dispersed
contamination, for which inhalation exposures are likely to predominate. Five specific off-site
locations and receptors are evaluated in the Clive PA, including:
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 39
• Travelers on Interstate-80, which passes 4 km to the north of the site;
• Travelers on the main east-west rail line, which passes 2 km to the north of the site;
• Workers at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR, a military facility) to the south of
the Clive facility, who may occasionally drive on an access road immediately to the west
of the Clive Facility fence line;
• The resident caretaker at the east-bound Interstate-80 rest facility (the Grassy Mountain
Rest Area at Aragonite) approximately 12 km to the northeast of the site, and,
• OHV riders at the Knolls OHV area (BLM land that is specifically managed for OHV
recreation) 12 km to the west of the site.
4.1.2.11 ALARA
CFR (Section 61.42) defines a second decision rule that pertains to populations as well as
individuals. The regulation states "reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of
radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable" (or
ALARA). The ALARA concept can be applied to either individuals or populations. In the context
of the Clive DU PA Model, ALARA is applied to collective doses germane to the receptor
populations described in Section 4.1.2.10.
The ALARA process is also described in DOE regulations and associated guidance documents
such as 10 CFR Part 834 and DOE 5400.5 ALARA (10 CFR 834; DOE 1993, 1997), and in other
NRC documents (NRC, 1995, 2000, 2004, 2015). The definitions in each case are very similar;
indicating that exposures should be controlled so that releases of radioactive material to the
environment are as low as is reasonable taking into account social, technical, economic, practical,
and public policy considerations.
The probabilistic Clive DU PA Model is designed to estimate individual annual doses to
hypothetical individuals in future populations that may be exposed to radionuclide releases from
the Clive Facility. The model is also able to aggregate individual doses into estimates of
collective and cumulative population dose on an annual basis as well as over the 10-ky period of
performance. Given this model structure, an opportunity exists with the Clive DU PA Model to
evaluate ALARA in the context of population dose.
The overall implication of the various Agency regulations and guidance documents regarding
ALARA is that many factors should be taken into account when considering the potential
benefits of different options for disposal of radioactive waste. Previous guidance from NRC
(2004) suggests several different options for addressing consequences over thousands of years, as
is necessary for the DU PA. The options essentially correspond to different discount rates. NRC
recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, where the former approximates the real
rate of return on long-term government debt, and the latter approximates the marginal pretax real
rate of return on average investment in the private sector. NRC relied on OMB (2003) for its
central arguments, noting that OMB also recognizes that special circumstances might arise when
considering long time frames, for which ethical and technical arguments might support the use of
lower discount rates. Consequently, NRC suggests also performing analysis with a zero percent
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 40
discount rate, and sensitivity analysis across a range of possible discount rates. The most recent
(NRC, 2015) guidance does not mention discount rates, so none are applied here (which
implicitly assumes a zero rate).
In order to implement ALARA in a logical system, and so that economic factors are taken into
consideration, a decision analysis is implied. Decision analysis is the appropriate mechanism for
evaluating and optimizing disposal, closure and long term monitoring and maintenance of a
radioactive waste disposal system. Decision options for disposal at Clive include engineering
options and waste placement. More generally, if decision analysis is applied, then a much wider
range of options can be factored into the decision model, such as transportation of waste, risk to
workers, and effect on the environment.
The decision analysis in this context is essentially a benefit-cost analysis, within which different
options for the placement of waste are evaluated. For each option, the Model predicts doses to the
array of receptors, and the consequences of those doses are assessed as part of an overall cost
model, which also includes the costs of disposal of waste for each option. The goal is to find the
best option, which is the option that provides the greatest overall benefit. The consequences of
risk can be measured through a simplification that is available in ALARA guidance, including
NRC 2015, which provides the basis for, and history of, assigning a dollar value to person-rem as
a measure of radiation dose.
In assigning a value to the person-rem cost to society of radiation dose, the agencies have
simplified the basis for a full decision analysis. This is reasonable for a first pass at a decision
analysis associated with the proposed disposal at Clive. Hence, the value of $5,100 is applied to
the population dose. Application of the ALARA process to the Clive DU PA Model is described
more completely in the Decision Analysis white paper (Appendix 12).
4.1.2.12 Groundwater Concentrations
Apart from individual and population dose evaluations, evaluation of the PA also requires
comparison of groundwater concentrations with groundwater protection levels, or GWPLs. That
is, the State of Utah imposes limits on groundwater contamination, as stated in the Ground Water
Quality Discharge Permit (UWQB, 2010). Part I.C.1 of the Permit specifies that GWPLs in Table
1A of the Permit shall be used for the Class A LLW Cell. Table 1A in the Permit specifies
general mass and radioactivity concentrations for several constituents of interest to DU waste
disposal. This includes values for mass concentration of total uranium, radium, and gross alpha
and beta radioactivity concentrations for specific wells where background values were found to
be in exceedence of the Table 1A limits. Part I.D.1 of the Permit specifies that the performance
standard for radionuclides is 500 years. Relevant GWPLs for Clive are:
• Strontium-90 42 pCi/L,
• Technetium-99 3,790 pCi/L,
• Iodine-129 21 pCi/L,
• Thorium-230 83 pCi/L,
• Thorium-232 92 pCi/L,
• Neptunium-237 7 pCi/L,
• Uranium-233 26 pCi/L,
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 41
• Uranium-234 26 pCi/L,
• Uranium-235 27 pCi/L,
• Uranium-236 27 pCi/L, and
• Uranium-238 26 pCi/L.
The main concern for the PA model is the potential for transport of 99Tc, a contaminant in the DU
waste, to the point of compliance.
Note that according to the Permit, groundwater at Clive is classified as Class IV, saline ground
water, according to UAC R317-6-3 Ground Water Classes, and is highly unlikely to serve as a
future water source. The underlying groundwater in the vicinity of the Clive site is of naturally
poor quality because of its high salinity and, as a consequence, is not suitable for most human
uses, and is not potable for humans. However, the Clive DU waste PA will calculate estimates of
groundwater concentrations at the location of a virtual well near Federal DU cell for comparison
with the GWPLs.
4.1.2.13 Deep Time Assessment
The approach to deep time modeling is briefly described in the Conceptual Site Model for
Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility white paper (Appendix 2). A more in-depth
discussion of the deep time modeling methodology is described in Deep Time Assessment for the
Clive PA white paper (Appendix 13). The focus of the deep time evaluation is to assess the
potential impact of glacial epoch pluvial lake events on the Federal DU cell from 10 ky through
2.1 My post-closure. (note that this model is termed the “deep-time” model.) A pluvial lake is a
consequence of periods of extensive glaciation, and results from low evaporation, increased cloud
cover, increased albedo, and increased precipitation in landlocked areas. Given that long-term
climatic cycles of 100 ky are considered very likely in the next 2.1 My (Hayes et al., 1976;
Shackleton, 2000), it is assumed that deep lakes will return to the Bonneville Basin in the future.
In addition to deep lakes, intermediate sized lakes are also assumed to occur, periodically during
a 100-ky glacial cycle. Events that might occur in deep time other than the occurrence of
intermediate lakes and the cyclic return of deep lakes (e.g., meteor strikes and a large eruption at
Yellowstone) are not considered further in this model because their likelihood is relatively small,
and their consequences are likely to be much greater and far reaching for human civilization.
For the deep time scenarios, the PA model provides a qualitative assessment of the future
consequences of present-day disposal of DU waste to the environment. While no exposure or
dose assessment is attempted, tracking of radioactive species concentrations provides insight into
waste disposal and embankment construction design and performance. Long-term historical
information on the area surrounding the Clive site is sparse, providing only a broad depiction of
historical behavior of lake cycles in the Bonneville Basin. Thus, the model utilized for projecting
into the long-term future is largely conceptual or stylized, providing a similarly broad depiction
of future behavior
There are two components of the model used to represent the deep time scenarios. The first is
modeling lake formation and dynamics in the Bonneville Basin. The second is modeling the fate
of the Federal DU cell and disposed DU waste.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 42
For the first component, the deep time evaluation focuses on potential releases of radioactivity
following a series of pluvial lake events caused by glacial cycles assumed to occur
(approximately) every 100 ky. The 100-ky glacial periodicity is based on historical ice core and
the benthic marine isotope data for the past 800 ky. These cycles are also consistent with
information regarding orbital forcing, and the periodicity suggested by the Milankovitch cycles.
These 100 ky glacial cycles form the basis for modeling the return and recurrence of lake events
in the Bonneville Basin. The lake formation model is applied to each 100 ky cycle similarly. One
deep lake is assumed to occur every in each 100 ky cycle, and several intermediate lakes are
allowed to form during the transgressive and regressive phases of the deep lake. Note that the
current 100-ky cycle is not modeled differently than future glacial cycles, despite evidence that
the current inter-glacial period might last for another 50 ky (Berger and Loutre, 2002). In the
model, therefore, an intermediate lake can return sooner than might be expected in the current
100-ky cycle. The precise timing of the return of a lake at or greater than the elevation of Clive is
not as important as the event itself.
For the second component, it is assumed that destruction of the Federal DU cell and fate of the
DU waste will result from the effects of wave action from an intermediate or deep lake. In effect,
it is assumed that a lake is large enough that obliteration of the embankment will occur. In this
obliteration scenario, all of the embankment material above grade is dispersed across a large
localized area through wave action, although this includes all the DU waste, even if some DU
waste was disposed below grade. Inclusion of the below grade waste is conservative, since it
allows more DU waste to migrate into returning lakes and future sediment. The waste material is
mixed with sediment and then enters the lake system via dissolution. A simplifying, conservative
assumption is to limit dissolution to a column above the waste dispersal area. This assumption is
conservative because lake water will probably mix more extensively, creating greater dilution. As
a result, these assumptions lead to greater concentrations of waste than is probably reasonable.
The conservatism is included in this model because of the lack of data that exists to quantify the
processes.
The deep-time model assumes that the form of DU available for deep-time transport is U3O8,
which is far less soluble than UO3. Fate and transport modeling performed using the PA Model
indicates that the relative soluble UO3 will have migrated transported to groundwater within 50
ky. Consequently, the deep time model focuses on U3O8 as the form of DU available for deep-
time transport. While the lake is present, some waste in the water column will bind with
carbonate ions and precipitate out into oolitic sediments, while the remaining waste will fall out
with the sediment as the lake eventually recedes. The model assumes the waste is fully mixed
with the accumulated sediments, a conservative assumption, since some waste is likely to be
buried rather than mixed with future lake sediments. The extent of mixing of previous sediment
with new sediment is not well understood; hence an assumption that the sediments completely
mix is expedient, and probably leads to conservative results. All of the waste that has dissolved
into the lake re-enters the lake sediment once the lake recedes. Overall sediment concentrations
decrease over time because the amount of waste does not change other than through decay and
ingrowth, whereas more sediment is added over time.
Thus the deep-time model should be regarded as conceptual and heuristic. The intent is to present
a picture of what the long-term future might hold for the DU waste disposal embankment, rather
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 43
than to provide a quantitative, temporally-specific, prediction of future conditions, or an
assessment of exposure or dose to human receptors. The type of glacial climate change
envisioned in the deep-time model will probably have wide-reaching consequences for the planet
and human society that are far beyond the scope of a PA for disposal of radioactive waste.
5.0 Model Structure
5.1 Summary of Important Assumptions
The results of the Clive DU PA Model depend critically on the model structure, the model
specification (input probability distributions, for example) and the assumptions that underlie the
model. That is, the results are fully dependent, or conditional, on the Model. The most important
assumptions are identified in this section.
5.1.1 Points of Compliance
Points of compliance in a PA are usually defined in terms of the location in the accessible
environment at which human health is evaluated in the dose assessment, and the location at
which groundwater concentrations are used for comparison to GWPLs. For this model, the
primary receptors (ranchers, recreators) are assumed to spend time on the site, and off the site in
the general vicinity. Other receptors are defined at points in space (See Section 4.1.2.10.1). Note
that the ALARA analysis addresses the same points of compliance.
Groundwater concentrations are evaluated at a virtual well located 27 m (90 ft) from the interior
of the waste embankment. In the case of the proposed DU waste disposal, only the top slope
section of the embankment would contain DU waste, so the effective distance from the DU waste
to the well is lengthened by the width of the side slope section, to about 73 m (240 ft).
For the deep-time model, there are no receptors that are considered, and doses are not calculated.
Instead, concentration of radionuclides are estimated in lake water and in lake sediment in the
general vicinity of the Federal DU cell.
5.1.2 Time Periods of Concern
There are four time periods that have import in this PA. The PA model is run fully quantitatively
for dose endpoints for 10 ky. Peak mean dose is estimated and used for comparison with
performance objectives for this time frame. The ALARA analysis is also performed for this
period of time.
An institutional control period of 100 y is assumed, during which time doses are not calculated,
because access to the site is assumed to be not possible.
Groundwater concentrations are compared to GWPLs for the first 500 years of the model, since
this is the compliance period that is applied to the GWPLs under Utah Code.
The deep-time model is run for 2.1 My because the DU does not achieve secular equilibrium
until about that time. That is, the model is run to peak activity of the DU, rather than to peak
dose, which is undefined that far into the future.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 44
5.1.3 Closure Cover Design Options
The engineered system in the PA model allows for evaluation of many different disposal
configurations. DU waste is assumed to not be disposed under the side slopes. There are 27 waste
layers in the model, each about 0.45 m thick, starting with Layer 1 directly under the cap. The
layers are numbered one through 27, with the 27th layer at the bottom of the waste cell. Layers 22
through 27 are below grade. Only one type of waste can be placed in a specific layer. Although
the model is setup to allow for many different waste disposal configurations only one is
considered in this version of the Clive DU PA model:
GDP contaminated waste in Layer 22 –GDP uncontaminated waste in Layers 23-26 –
SRS waste in Layer 27. Note that fill material is assumed for the 9 m between the cap and
Layer 21. This model places all waste below grade.
The initial model v1.0 had three configurations that spanned a fairly wide range of options, from
disposal near the cap, to disposal primarily below grade. In the current model, DU waste is only
being considered to be disposed below grade.
5.1.4 Waste Concentration Averaging
Within each waste layer the contents of the waste are assumed to include the waste material and
the fill material needed to occupy the layer volume. Since each layer represents a mixing cell, the
concentration of the radionuclides is averaged throughout the layer. That is, each drum or
cylinder is not modeled separately. This is typical of PA models, and is reasonable provided
transport from the actual configuration does not differ greatly from transport from the modeled
configuration.
5.1.5 Environmental Media Concentration Averaging
Similarly to the waste layers, concentrations in the environmental media are averaged throughout
the cell that represents the medium. For example, the concentration of uranium in deep-time lake
sediment is the average concentration throughout the sediment layer that is defined by its model
cell.
5.1.6 Members of the Public
MOP is defined in terms of the receptors who perform activities in the vicinity of the Clive
facility. This includes receptors at specific locations offsite as described in Section 0.
5.1.7 Inadvertent Human Intrusion
Following NRC 10 CFR 61, inadvertent intrusion is defined in terms of receptors who might
perform some activities onsite. This includes ranchers, hunters and OHV enthusiasts. Inadvertent
intrusion is often used in terms of direct but inadvertent access to the waste (e.g. through well
drilling or basement construction), for which the initiator is exposed. However, such direct
activities are unlikely at this site. The types of activities here do not result in direct exposure to
the waste by the initiator, but potentially to future receptors. However, the receptors identified
here are engaged in onsite activities, and are hence indirectly exposed to the DU waste.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 45
5.1.8 Deep Time Evaluation
The deep-time evaluation depends on the return of a lake in the Bonneville Basin that is large
enough to obliterate the Federal DU cell. Such a lake is assumed to occur more than once in each
100-ky glacial cycle. Once the Federal DU cell is obliterated, the material is assumed to disperse
within the vicinity of Clive. The dispersed radionuclides then migrate into lake water through
diffusion. All radionuclides that leave the sediment return to the sediment as the lake recedes,
either physically or chemically. The wastes are assumed to mix with lake sediment in each lake
cycle.
The outputs of interest are concentrations of radionuclides in lake water and in lake sediment, as
well as radon flux after the first lake recedes.
Note that in version 1.0 of the model, all DU waste is assumed dispersed with the arrival of the
first intermediate lake. However, the DU waste in versions 1.2 and 1.4 of the model is disposed
below grade in which case dispersion of the waste itself does not occur. In these updated model
versions only the radionuclides that have moved above the ground surface are dispersed.
5.2 Distribution Averaging
Most parameters in the Clive DU PA Model correspond to physical quantities that represent an
average of some type. Some parameters represent averages over time, as they represent typical
behavior that will be used throughout the 10-ky performance period, such as annual precipitation.
Other parameters represent averages over space. For example, properties of vegetation represent
an average vegetation effect across a model area, while soil properties represent an average
across a volume of material represented by a model cell. When data are available that represent
small amounts of time relative to the 10,000 years, or small areas/volumes relative to the model
cells, then it is the mean of the data distribution that needs to be modeled.
To capture the temporal domain of the model, time steps in this type of systems-level dynamic
probabilistic model are usually on the order of several to many years. Consequently, the average
effects over long time frames, assuming no catastrophic changes in the system, are far more
important than the effects on the scale of days, hours, minutes or seconds. Spatial and temporal
scaling of available data, which are usually collected at points in time and space, is critical for the
success of systems-level models. Scaling in this context is essentially an averaging process both
spatially and temporally. Simple averaging works well if the effect on the response of a variable
or parameter is linear. Otherwise, some care needs to be taken in the spatio-temporal averaging
process. In addition, these types of models are characterized by differential equations and
multiplicative terms. Averaging is a linear construct that does not translate directly in non-linear
systems. Again, care needs to be taken to capture the appropriate systems-level effect when
dealing with differential equations and multiplicative terms.
Another important statistical issues that is often overlooked in PA is correlation between inputs.
Many parameters in the Clive DU PA Model are related to one another. One parameter may be
physically constrained by the value of another parameter, or they may simply tend to vary
together. When joint data are available, a simple approach is to simply calculate the sample
correlation of the parameters in the data and apply the same correlation to the parameters in the
model to induce a joint distribution. A simple correlation structure may not fully capture the
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 46
relationship between two parameters but often provides a reasonable first approximation. Where
a correlation structure is used in the Clive DU PA Model, the correlation algorithms implemented
in GoldSim for Gaussian copula are used (Iman and Conover 1982, Embrechts et al. 2001).
Where data and expertise are available, it is generally preferable to construct joint distributions
for the parameters by constructing a marginal distribution for one parameter and conditional
distributions for the remaining parameters. By fitting a distinct conditional distribution of the
second parameter for each possible value of the first parameter, a more realistic relationship
might be constructed than can be achieved through simple correlation
The statistical methods used for appropriate spatio-temporal scaling and correlation effects are
described in the Development of Probability Distributions white paper (Appendix 14).
5.3 Model Evaluation through Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
The Clive DU PA is built as a probabilistic systems-level model. Systems-level modeling is
geared towards decision objectives, and is a style of bottom-up modeling for which model
refinement and iteration is performed in response to model evaluation. Model evaluation is
performed throughout model development, but in the final stages it involves uncertainty analysis
and sensitivity analysis. Quantitative assessment of the importance of inputs is necessary when
the level of uncertainty in the system response exceeds the acceptable threshold specified in the
decision making framework. One of the goals of sensitivity analysis is to identify which variables
have distributions that exert the greatest influence on the response.
Uncertainty is captured directly for probabilistic system-level models. The input probability
distributions are used to capture the range of possible parameter values. For probabilistic models,
sensitivity analysis is performed simultaneously for all input parameters. This approach is termed
global sensitivity analysis. It is a very powerful tool at the disposal of probabilistic modeling for
identifying parameters that are important predictors of the model output, and it is not constrained
by the user’s preconceptions of what may be important. In addition to global sensitivity analysis,
probabilistic models can be evaluated numerically in an uncertainty analysis and for value of
information. Uncertainty analysis in this context involves comparison of the output distribution to
performance metrics. A determination can then be made based on the comparison of the
compliance of the disposal system. Value of information analysis can be performed to identify
parameters for which uncertainty reduction in the output of interest might best be achieved, if it is
necessary to reduce uncertainty. This approach can also be used in the context of ALARA
contamination goals, to determine if further uncertainty reduction can reasonably be performed.
Sensitivity analysis is a very important tool for understanding the model. For those parameters
that are deemed as important, and if the uncertainty analysis indicates, then there are options for
further model refinement. These options include further data collection, and refinement of the
model. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are applied to each endpoint (model output)
separately. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that some of the endpoints are sensitive to
different inputs. For example, output doses might be sensitive to parameters that are related to
radon production and transport, whereas the groundwater concentrations might be sensitive to 99Tc inventory or Kd. Consequently, each endpoint might have different needs regarding further
data collection or model refinement.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 47
Sensitivity analysis can be used to help identify those inputs for which uncertainty reduction
through further information collection will have the most impact on reducing uncertainty in the
model response. However, sensitivity analysis of high dimensional probabilistic models can be
computationally challenging. These challenges can be met through machine learning methods
applied to probabilistic simulation results. Further details are provided in the Sensitivity Analysis
Methods white paper (Appendix 15).
Another aspect of uncertainty when running probabilistic simulations is simulation stability. The
final statistics of interest might relate to the mean output, or a percentile of the output, and
therefore may require a large number of simulations for stability of the estimate of the statistic.
The question is, how large? The number of simulations needed can be determined by running a
different number of simulations for each endpoint and statistic of interest. Otherwise, simulation
uncertainty could interfere with the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.
5.4 Clive DU PA Model Structure
The Clive DU PA Model is written using the GoldSim systems modeling software. Like other
such models, its structure is hierarchical, with nested “Containers” providing the means to
organize the model into different conceptual parts (see

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 48
Figure 3). This model uses Containers to basic modeling constructs such as Materials, and
contaminant transport Processes that are global (model-wide) in scope. Other containers are
devoted to distinct topics, such as Inventory definitions, Disposal calculations, Exposure and
Dose calculations, comparisons to GWPLs, and the development of Deep Time Scenarios.
Supplemental containers define dashboards used for running the model and displaying results,
collected Results from calculations around the model, Simulation Settings for model controls,
and Documentation. The role of each of these is discussed below. For instructions on how to use
the model, consult the Clive DU PA Model User Guide.
The purpose of this model is to simulate, to a degree sufficient for decision making, the fate and
transport of radionuclides proposed for disposal in the Clive Facility, and to assess their potential
effects on future individuals and populations. This is done in the realm of environmental
transport modeling coupled with the modeling of health physics and toxicity to humans.
5.4.1 Materials
Any physical model of an environmental system must contain some sort of materials as a basis
for representing the physical environment. Water, air, waste, soils, and other porous media are
defined in this container, and are referenced throughout the model. The arrangement of these
materials in space, and their interconnectivity, is intended to represent a large block of the
environment, including the Clive Facility, or in this case the Federal DU Cell within that facility,
and its surroundings. The spatial definition of the environment is in the Disposal container.
5.4.2 Processes
Contaminant transport in the environment is driven by several processes in this model, including
advection in water, diffusion in water, diffusion in air, uptake and redistribution by plants, and
disturbance by burrowing animals. The parameters defining these processes are global in model
scope, and so are defined at this high level. The actual implementation of these processes in
moving radionuclides in the environment, is done mostly in the Disposal container.
Radioactive decay and ingrowth, chemical solubility in water, soil/water partitioning, and
air/water partitioning are also fundamental processes that determine fate and transport of
radionuclides, though these are defined in the Materials container, since they are directly related
to materials.
5.4.3 Inventory
The mass of radionuclides introduced as waste into the model is called the inventory. Inside this
container, the total mass of various types of DU waste is defined, as are the concentrations of the
radionuclides in each type of waste. These inventories can be selected individually or in
combination by the user by using the Control Panel dashboard (see Figure 4), and is then
introduced to the modeling cells that represent the waste layers, in the Disposal container.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 49

Figure 3. Top level of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4.

5.4.4 Disposal
For the first 10,000 yr following disposal, calculations are performed for the fate and transport of
radionuclides from the inventory into and throughout the modeled environment, in the Disposal
container. Here the physical location of modeling cells is defined, each with materials
representing what would be found at that location. For example, modeling cells represent the
cover container Unit 4, Unit 2 (shallow aquifer), clays, and other porous media, as well as water
and air. Cells representing the aquifer contain Unit 2 sediments and water, but no air, since this
regions is saturated with water by definition. Waste cells contain waste and backfill as porous
media, air and water, and are provided a mass of radionuclides from the inventory. As the model
progresses through time, these radionuclides migrate into other part of the physical system, and
eventually are found in environmental media (air, water, soils) that receptors will encounter. The
Disposal container performs essentially all the contaminant transport calculations to necessary to
estimate future concentrations of radionuclides in these exposure media.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 50

Figure 4. Control Panel for the Modeling of the Clive Disposal Facility.

5.4.5 Exposure and Dose
The exposure and dose calculations, which also include estimates of uranium toxicity hazard, are
performed in this Exposure_Dose container. Receptors are hypothetical future humans who have
behaviors similar to those of people around the site today: There are ranch workers, hunters, and
OHV enthusiasts, all of whom are expected to have direct access to the site after institutional
control is lost. There are also receptors who travel in the area, using highways, railroads, and
access roads. These receptors are represented with a range of attributes and behaviors, from age
to time spent on an OHV, and each encounters exposure media. As they breathe dust-laden air
and walk on contaminated soils, for example, their exposures result in doses from radionuclides
and toxic effects from uranium as a heavy metal. All of these calculations are performed in this
container, and provide results that can be compared to performance objectives such as peak dose
limits.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 51
5.4.6 Groundwater Protection Level Calculations
In addition to the performance objectives provided by the State of Utah and the NRC for dose
limits, there are GWPLs to be considered. In the Disposal container, the model provides
radionuclide concentrations at a hypothetical monitoring well located about 27 m (90 ft) from the
interior of the waste embankment. In the case of the proposed DU waste disposal, only the top
slope section of the embankment would contain DU waste, so the effective distance from the DU
waste to the well is lengthened by the width of the side slope section, to about 73 m (240 ft). For
those radionuclides that have GWPLs defined, the maximum well concentrations within 500 yr
are compared to the GWPL values. These comparison calculations are performed in the GWPLs
container.
5.4.7 Deep Time
All the calculations described above are aimed at producing results for comparisons to
performance objectives that pertain to the first 10,000 yr after disposal. Following that, and out to
the time of peak activity, is considered deep time. Peak activity of the DU waste, which is
predominantly 238U, is the time at which the decay products of the parent reach secular
equilibrium with the parent. In this case, the peak activity is at about 2.1 million years. For the
purposes of the model, then deep time is that duration from 10,000 y to 2.1 My.
Given the distinct time frame, the deep time calculations are independent of much of the rest of
the model, except that the radionuclide mass in the embankment, as calculated in the Disposal
container, is used as a source of radionuclides for dispersal in future lakes. The
DeepTimeScenarios container produces estimates of radionuclide concentrations in the water of
future lakes, in the sediments that they deposit, as well as radon flux calculations and rancher
scenario dose estimates after the first lake recedes.
5.4.8 Supplemental Containers
The Dashboards container is simply a location in the model for storing Dashboard elements,
which are dialog-box-like controls for operating the model and for conveniently viewing results.
The model can be executed and browsed without using any dashboards, though their convenience
makes them quite useful.
The Simulation Settings container hosts a small number of elements that are used simply to
control the simulation. Logical switches and values controlled by the dashboards are kept here,
and the container will probably be of little interest to the average user.
The dashboards provide access to several results of general interest, most of which are collected
in the Results container. In addition to those referenced by the dashboards, there are many other
results that provide a more detailed look into the model. Also inside this container are the results
needed for performing sensitivity analyses, such as those discussed later in this report.
Documentation contains records pertinent to model development, such as the Change Log,
illustrations about particular model processes, and a large collection of references supporting the
model. The sub-container Documentation\References holds nearly 1 GB of reference materials in
PDF format.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 52
6.0 Results of Analysis
The Clive DU PA Model was run in order to evaluate the performance of the disposal system and
to understand the sensitivity of input parameters on those results. Endpoints of interest include:
• groundwater concentrations of radionuclides for which GWPLs are specified,
• dose and uranium toxicity hazard to various receptors,
• 222Rn flux in the deep time analysis, and
• lake water and sediment concentrations of 238U in the deep time analysis.
Statistical results (e.g. mean, median, 95th percentile) are based on probabilistic simulations of
10,000 realizations. Sensitivity analysis has been performed on each of the model endpoints of
interest.
The DU waste is disposed below the grade of the surface soil surrounding the embankment, about
11 m (36 ft) below the surface of the embankment. The disposal volume above the DU waste is
assumed to be backfilled with clean material for the purposes of this DU analysis. The waste is
arranged as follows: The bottom waste layer contains SRS DU, the four waste layers above that
contain Clean GDP DU, and the top waste layer contains Contaminated GDP DU. Details
regarding these wastes can be found in the Waste Inventory white paper.
Each waste layer is roughly 0.45 m (18 in) in thickness. In general, the effect of the layer is that
the higher the waste is emplaced in the volume, the greater influence it has on doses, which are
derived from surface soils. The lower the waste, the greater its influence on groundwater
concentrations. For this reason, the contaminated GDP DU wastes are placed above the clean
GDP DU wastes, in order to position the 99Tc that is present in contaminated wastes as far from
the groundwater as possible. Details on this modeling can be found in the Embankment Modeling
white paper. This arrangement allows exploration of the Clive DU PA Model and hence the
performance of the system.
Groundwater protection levels are defined in the Clive Facility’s groundwater discharge permit
(UWQB 2009). Radionuclides with GWPLs and for which concentrations are evaluated include 90Sr, 99Tc, 129I, 230Th, 232Th, 237Np, 233U, 234U, 235U, 236U, and 238U (see Section 4.1.2.12). The
Clive DU PA Model estimates contributions to groundwater concentrations from the DU wastes
for 500 yr, assuming transport to a hypothetical monitoring well. Details on the groundwater
transport calculations are provided in the Unsaturated Zone Modeling and Saturated Zone
Modeling white papers (Appendices 5 and 7).
Possible human receptors are of the following basic types, and details are available in the Dose
Assessment white paper (Appendix 11):
• Ranch workers (mostly ranch hands), hunters, and OHV enthusiasts are expected to be
present on and near the embankment after the institutional control period.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 53
• Other receptors have doses evaluated at specific locations, including the nearby highway
(Interstate-80), the Knolls OHV Recreations Area (Knolls), the nearby rail road
(Railroad), the Grassy Mountain Rest Area on I-80 (Rest Area), and the Utah Test and
Training Range access road (UTTR).
• All receptors are considered in population dose calculations.
Erosion and the formation of gullies in the embankment cap are modeled using SIBERIA, a
landscape evolution model, abstracted into this version of the Clive DU PA Model. It is
considered more realistic than the screening exercise applied in v1.0 but has limitations because a
Borrow Pit at Clive was used for the modeling rather than the Federal DU Cell and assumptions
had to be made to apply the SIBERIA results to the Federal DU Cell. As well, the formation of
gullies is not integrated with contaminant transport within the column in that erosion is not
considered for infiltration, diffusion, biotic transport or other processes in the embankment
column. The model may be run with or without inclusion of gully formation, so that their effect
on modeled doses may be explored. In the following presentation of results, gully calculations are
included. Details on the erosion calculations are provided in the Erosion Modeling white paper
(Appendix 10).
Deep time is considered to be that time after 10,000 yr, the period of performance for assessing
dose as specified in the Utah regulation. Endpoints related to the deep time assessment include
lake sediment concentrations of 238U, 230Th and 226Ra, and concentrations of 238U, 230Th and 226Ra
in lakewater, when lakes are present, as well as 222Rn flux and corresponding rancher dose after
the first lake recedes. Lake and sediment concentrations are presented in graphical format to
illustrate effects with lakes coming and going with time. Summary statistics of these results are
presented for 90,000 years, which is the timestep at which the greatest percentage of lakes is
present in the 10,000 realizations that were run. Details on the deep time calculation methods are
provided in the Deep Time Assessment white paper (Appendix 13).
Results for all these endpoints are summarized in tables below. The means and 95th percentiles
are used for comparison with performance objectives. Graphs of time histories and sensitivity
analysis results are also shown, although in cases where results are qualitatively similar, only a
single representative graph is presented. The results presented below in tables and sensitivity
analysis results and figures are primarily from the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 run for 10,000
realizations with seed 2. Where noted, the results presented in other figures and tables with 1000
realizations are from the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 run for 1000 realizations with seed 1. In both
cases, Latin Hypercube Sampling is enabled using mid-points of strata, and Repeat Sampling
Sequences is enabled. GoldSim solution precision is set to High.
Some output distributions are positively skewed, with a long tail. The long tails are probably due
to a combination of factors that include skewed input distributions that reasonably reflect
uncertainty in upper values of a parameter, multiplicative effects in the model, and missing
correlations between some input parameters. This can lead to implausible combinations of input
values. Consequently, results that are far into the tail of the output distributions might be
unreliable.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 54
6.1 Groundwater Concentrations
Peak groundwater activity concentrations within 500 yr resulting from the proposed waste
disposal are calculated for all radionuclides at a hypothetical monitoring well placed about 27 m
(90 ft) from the toe of the waste in the DU Federal Cell. In the case of the proposed DU waste
disposal, only the top slope section of the embankment would contain DU waste, so the effective
distance from the DU waste to the well is lengthened by the width of the side slope section, to
about 73 m (240 ft).
6.1.1 Summary of Results for Groundwater
For those radionuclides for which GWPLs exist, as specified in the facility’s permit (UWQB
2009), results are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that these statistics summarize the
concentrations at 500-yrs. In general, concentrations increase with time, in which case the
statistics presented are of the concentrations at 500 yrs. Because all modeled estimates are of
mean concentrations, the statistics represent the mean, median and 95th percentile of the (peak of
the) mean concentration. As such, the 95th percentile is analogous to a 95% upper confidence
limit on the mean. The large difference between the mean and median concentrations, when
values are reported for each, indicates that these output distributions are markedly positively
skewed.
Table 2. Summary statistics for peak mean groundwater activity concentrations within
500 yr, compared to GWPLs
activity concentration at 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL1
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
90Sr 42 0 0 0
99Tc 3790 26 4.3E-2 150
129I 21 1.7E-2 4.3E-11 1.1E-1
230Th 83 2.2E-28 0 0
232Th 92 1.4E-34 0 0
237Np 7 1.5E-19 0 3.7E-27
233U 26 5.6E-24 0 3.9E-28
234U 26 2.1E-23 0 2.2E-28
235U 27 1.6E-24 0 2.0E-29
236U 27 2.7E-24 0 3.3E-29
238U 26 1.5E-22 0 1.8E-27
1GWPLs are from UWQB (2009) Table 1A.
Results are based on 10,000 realizations, seed 2

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 55
Since the DU waste is emplaced below grade in the embankment, modeled monitoring well
concentrations are greater than they would be if the DU were emplaced at a higher elevation
within the embankment for two reasons: 1) The waste is closer to the groundwater, and so has a
shorter travel distance, bringing the peak closer in time, and 2) the waste is more concentrated if
it is arranged into a smaller volume, thereby decreasing the duration of breakthrough at the well,
while increasing its amplitude.
For most radionuclides in Table 2 the groundwater concentrations are negligible compared to the
GWPLs. The exceptions are 99Tc and 129I, although the 95th percentile values for these
radionuclides are still more than an order of magnitude below the respective GWPLs. The
distributions of these concentrations are highly skewed, largely because of the skew in some if
the input distributions. For example, the distributions for Kd for 99Tc and 129I are expressed as
left-truncated normal distributions, which is a skewed distribution.
In the case of 129I, this radionuclide was not detected in any samples collected from the SRS
drums (see the Waste Inventory white paper – Appendix 4). Not only was 129I not detected, but it
was not identified in any sample. However, because 129I may be present at concentrations below
the detection limits these limits were used directly for creating the input distribution for inventory
of 129I. This probably greatly overestimates the inventory of 129I in the DU waste.
The 99Tc inventory concentration distribution is derived from three datasets that suggest very
different potential waste concentrations, with particular uncertainty in the concentration of 99Tc in
the GDP waste. Consequently, the input distribution covers more than one order of magnitude of
possible 99Tc concentrations. With more data or better information, it is reasonable to expect that
this uncertainty could be reduced.
Technetium-99 is selected to represent a time history of monitoring well concentrations, as
shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows each of the 1,000 realizations, and Figure 6 shows a statistical
summary of those realizations. Note that the model results are based on 10,000 realizations, on
which the summary statistics in Table 2 are based. Subsequent time histories will show only the
statistical summaries. Of particular interest is that the concentrations of 99Tc are considerably less
than the GWPL, and concentrations of 99Tc increase over time up to the 500-yr compliance
period.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 56

Figure 5. Time history of 99Tc well concentrations; 1000 realizations shown.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 57

Figure 6. Time history of 99Tc well concentrations: statistical summary of the 1000
realizations shown in Figure 5.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 58
6.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Groundwater
A sensitivity analysis of the 99Tc and 129I groundwater concentrations was performed in order to
determine which modeling parameters are most significant in predicting its value. As seen in
Figure 7 and tablulated in Table 3, the most sensitive parameter for both 99Tc and 129I
groundwater concentrations was van Genuchten’s α. This parameter is included in the regression
equations for water content and infiltration, which affect both advection and diffusion of
radionuclides to groundwater. The next most sensitive parameter for both radionuclide
concentrations was molecular diffusivity in water, which controls diffusion. The soil-water
partition coefficient (Kd) was the 3rd most sensitive parameter for both radionuclides. Kd controls
sorption to the solid phase, with higher Kd resulting in increased sorption which retards migration
of the radionuclides.
Overall, the controlling mechanism is infiltration. The infiltration rate is sufficiently small that
waste inventory and Kd are not the primary drivers. Note also that the sensitivity indices are not
very large. It is typical in a model is well structured and specified, that a few input variables have
sensitivity indices that are quite large collectively. Otherwise, the model might not be well
formed, or the signal is very low. The latter appears to be the case here. Consider that the 50th
percentile is essentially zero, in which case the ability of an input variable to differentiate signal
responses is a challenge.
Sensitivity analyses for other results are presented in Appendix 19.
Table 3. Sensitivity Indices of select peak groundwater concentrations within 500 years.
Radionuclide SI rank input parameter sensitivity
index (SI)
waste emplaced below grade
99Tc 1 Unit 4 ET Layers log of van Genuchten’s α 32
2 Molecular Diffusivity in Water 25
3 Kd for Tc 1 14
4 Activity Concentration of Tc-99 in SRS DU
Waste
11
5 Unit 4 ET Layers log of van Genuchten’s n 4
129I 1 Unit 4 ET Layers log of van Genuchten’s α 36
2 Molecular Diffusivity in Water 30
3 Kd for I 1 18
4 Unit 4 ET Layers log of van Genuchten’s n 6
1 For iodine for technetium, the same Kd value was used for all materials.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 59

Figure 7. Partial dependence plot for peak 99Tc groundwater concentration in 500 years.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 60
6.2 Receptor Doses
Radiation doses to receptors are calculated as the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), and are
compared to the performance objective of a peak dose of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) in a year, achieved
within 10,000 yr (Utah 2010). Comparison with the inadvertent intrusion standard of 5 mSv
(500 mrem) in a year is also considered in relation to human-induced gully erosion.
6.2.1 Summary of Results for Doses
The dose results are summarized in Table 4, which shows the statistics for peak TEDE for all
receptors for DU waste emplaced below surface grade. These results include consideration of
dose related to gully erosion. The greatest doses occur at or near 10,000 years. The peak mean
dose results are presented below at 10,000 years, along with median and 95th percentile values of
the doses at 10,000 years.

Table 4. Peak of the mean TEDE: statistical summary within 10,000 yr.
TEDE (mrem in a yr) at 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 6.2E-2 5.1E-2 1.5E-1
hunter 4.5E-3 3.8E-3 9.9E-3
OHV enthusiast 8.4E-3 7.5E-3 1.8E-2
I-80 receptor 1.6E-6 1.3E-6 4.2E-6
Knolls receptor 4.6E-6 1.9E-6 1.8E-5
rail road receptor 2.5E-6 2.0E-6 6.6E-6
rest area receptor 4.1E-5 3.4E-5 9.7E-5
UTTR access road receptor 9.1E-4 7.4E-4 2.2E-3
Results are based on 10,000 realizations, seed 2.

Note that the doses to the offsite receptors are very small relative to the doses for receptors that
may be exposed on the embankment. Consequently, the attributes of the dose results for offsite
receptors are not explored in this discussion. Of greater interest are the doses to the ranchers,
hunters and OHVers. These three classes of receptors were modeled with the intent of capturing
dose to each hypothetical individual in the relevant populations (see the Dose Assessment white
paper – Appendix 11). The data presented hence represent summary statistics for the peak of the
mean dose to a diverse set of hypothetical individuals within each group of receptors. The peak
of the mean doses occurs at 10,000 years in the Clive DU PA Model, because dose increases with
time for DU. Consequently, the 95th percentile is analogous to a 95% upper confidence limit of
the mean dose at 10,000 years that might be used under CERCLA, for example.
The greatest doses are to ranch workers, which are greater than the doses to hunters and OHV
enthusiasts by about an order of magnitude or more. In all cases the summary statistics present
values that are far below the IHI performance objective of 5 mSv (500 mrem) in a year. Although
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 61
the model results include consideration of dose that may occur subsequent to gully formation
initiated by inadvertent intrusion, these values are also far less than the MOP performance
objective of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) in a year.
An evaluation of pathway-specific doses for the three onsite receptors indicates that effectively
100% of the dose is associated with the inhalation exposure pathway. There is practically zero
dose related to external radiation from soil or inadvertent soil ingestion, which is because
virtually no radionuclides have been transported to surface soil on the cap through the overlying
11 m (36 ft) of embankment within 10,000 years. Even in gullies, soil concentrations of 210Pb,
deposited as the progeny of 222Rn subsequent to air-phase diffusion, only reaches concentrations
of approximately 0.03 pCi/g. Because surface soil particulate radionuclide concentrations and
associated dose pathways are so low, the inhalation pathway doses are necessarily related to
inhalation of gas-phase radionuclides such as 222Rn.

6.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Doses
Sensitivity analysis was performed on the results for the mean TEDE at 10 ky to ranch workers,
hunters, and to OHV enthusiasts. Sensitive parameters are summarized in Table 5, and the partial
dependence plot for the ranch worker is shown in Figure 8.
Table 5. Sensitivities of peak TEDE within 10,000 yr
receptor SI rank input parameter sensitivity
index (SI)
waste emplaced below grade
ranch worker 1 Radon Escape/Production Ratio for Waste 44
2 Kd for Ra in sand 8
3 Molecular
 Diffusivity
 in
 Water
  4
hunter 1 Radon Escape/Production Ratio for Waste 61
2 Kd for Ra in sand 10
3 Molecular Diffusivity in Water 6
4 Resuspension Flux 5
OHV enthusiast 1 Radon Escape/Production Ratio for Waste 69
2 Kd for Ra in sand 12
3 Molecular Diffusivity in Water 7

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 62

Figure 8. Partial dependence plots for the mean ranch worker dose, assuming waste below
grade.
As shown in Table 5, the most sensitive input parameter for all receptors is the radon E/P ratio,
which defines the fraction of 222Rn that escapes into the mobile environment when formed by
radioactive decay from its parent, 226Ra. Radon that does not escape but remains within the
matrix of the radium-containing waste material stays in place and decays to polonium and then to 210Pb. Note that the higher the E/P ratio, the higher the dose.
The next most sensitive input is the soil/water partition coefficient (Kd) for radium in sand, the
parent radionuclide of radon. Radon gas inhalation is an important dose pathway for all receptors
at the ground surface. Increased radium partitioning to the solid phase tends hinders migration of
dissolved radium, which reduces surface radon flux and thus doses, as can be seen in the partial
dependence plot in Figure 8. Molecular diffusivity in water is the next most important input;
increased diffusion of radionuclides through the unsaturated zone tends to increase doses.
The sensitivity analysis confirms that radon is the greatest dose driver in the model. The sensitive
parameters for radiation dose are associated with the release and transport of radon. Diffusivity
and Kd affect transport to the ground surface, while higher values of the radon E/P ratio are
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 63
associated with higher radon doses. As described in the Dose Assessment white paper (Appendix
11), radon dose is not often calculated in a PA. Instead, radon flux at the surface of a disposal
system is commonly calculated and compared to a radon-specific flux criterion. This example
perhaps indicates the importance of considering the impact of radon in a dose calculation. If dose
due to radon inhalation was not included in the results, the rancher doses shown in Table 4 would
be orders of magnitude lower than those shown.
6.3 Receptor Uranium Hazard Indices
Uranium hazard indices (HIs) within 10,000 yr are calculated for each receptor scenario as the
sum of hazard quotients (HQs) for the ingestion exposure pathways defined in Table 1. A HQ is
the ratio of the average daily dose (i.e., chemical intake) of a chemical to the corresponding
reference dose for that chemical, where a reference dose is an estimate of daily exposure likely to
be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. The uranium HI values are compared to
EPA’s standard HI threshold of 1.0, a level that indicates that the average daily dose is below the
dose associated with health effects.
6.3.1 Summary of Results for Uranium Hazard
The uranium HI results are summarized in Table 6, which shows the statistics for the peak of the
mean uranium HI for all receptors.
The HIs for uranium are extremely small relative to threshold of 1.0, indicating essentially no
possibility of observing health effects from uranium toxicity. Similar to the dose results presented
above, this indicates that disposal of DU waste below grade, at the bottom of the embankment, is
protective of human health and the environment. These values are in compliance with the
regulatory standards. Peak mean uranium HI results, across time, occur essentially at 10,000
years since concentrations at the ground surface increase with time within 10,000 years.
Table 6. Peak of the mean uranium hazard index within 10,000 years.
uranium hazard index at 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 3.0E-8 4.4E-16 8.5E-9
hunter 1.6E-9 3.4E-17 7.9E-10
OHV enthusiast 2.2E-9 4.8E-17 1.1E-9

6.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Uranium Hazard Index
Sensitivity analysis was performed on the results for the mean uranium hazard index to ranch
workers, hunters, and to OHV enthusiasts, summarized in Table 7. Sensitivities of uranium
hazard index within 10,000 yr. The most sensitive input parameter for the ranch worker uranium
HI is the beef transfer factor for Tc. Transfer factors define the amount of an element taken up
into muscle tissue of animal per unit of intake by the animal. As such, this is an important
parameter when determining dose via the ingestion pathway. For the hunter and OHV receptors,
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 64
all inputs exhibited relatively low sensitivity indices, suggesting that the absolute uranium HI are
so low that the model signal it too small to find differentiating factors that explain the results.
Table 7. Sensitivities of uranium hazard index within 10,000 yr
receptor SI rank input parameter sensitivity
index (SI)
waste emplaced below grade
ranch worker 1 Beef Transfer Factor for Tc 44
2 Unit 4 ET Layers Bulk Density 7
hunter 1 Unit 3 Porosity 9
2 Contaminated Fraction of GDP DU 9
3 Mammal Burrow Excavation Rate 7
4 Tree Root/Shoot Ratio 7
OHV enthusiast 1 Contaminated Fraction of GDP DU 13
2 Mammal Burrow Excavation Rate 12
3 Tree Root/Shoot Ratio 6

6.4 ALARA
The focus of the assessment for establishing doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) is
an evaluation of potential doses to the entire population of hypothetical individuals. This
calculation addresses the cumulative dose to all ranch workers, hunters, and OHV enthusiasts,
summed across all individuals and all years of the 10,000-yr simulation. These cumulative
population doses, expressed as the TEDE, are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Cumulative population TEDE: statistical summary
population TEDE (person-rem) within 10,000 yr
receptor type mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
total population 12 11 26
ranch worker 2.8 2.5 5.7
hunter 1.5 1.3 3.0
OHV enthusiast 8.3 7.4 17

These population doses represent the sum of the doses to all hypothetical individuals in each year
over the 10,000-yr simulation. Table 9 below shows statistics of the average number of
cumulative individuals at 10,000 years for the total population as well as the different receptor
types.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 65
Table 9. Cumulative receptor population: statistical summary
population at 10,000 yr
receptor type mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
total population 3.2E6 3.2E6 3.3E6
ranch worker 1.0E5 1.0E5 1.1E5
hunter 7.6E5 7.6E5 7.9E5
OHV enthusiast 2.3E6 2.3E6 2.4E6
One measure for evaluating the population dose levels shown in Table 8 is by comparing these
doses with radiation doses related to natural sources. Average annual individual background
doses related to ubiquitous natural background radiation in the United States is approximately
3.1 mSv (310 mrem) (NCRP, 2009). For the total population of about 3 million individuals,
natural background radiation dose is therefore approximately 930,000 rem, a level that is many
orders of magnitude higher than the population doses shown in Table 8.
A second measure for these population doses can be obtained by considering the person-rem
costs suggested in NRC (see the Decision Analysis white paper – Appendix 12). Prior to 1995,
NRC suggested a flat $1,000 per person-rem cost. Subsequent to 1995, NRC suggested a value of
$2,000 with a discounting factor of 7% for the first 100 years, and 3% thereafter. NRC also
suggested that a range of $1,000 to $6,000 might be reasonable, with a best estimate of $2,000.
NRC noted that the intent of raising the person-rem costs from $1,000 to $2,000 was to
accommodate discounting in an economic analysis. Note that the intent of the NRC approach is
to capture the societal effects of added dose to the public. However, more recently, NRC (2015)
suggests a value of $5,100 per person-rem. Further discussion is provided in Appendix 12. If a
flat rate of $5,100 is applied to the population dose estimates provided above in Table 8, then the
costs associated with these scenarios are provided in Table 10.
Table 10. Statistical summary of the flat rate ALARA costs
population ALARA costs over 10,000 yr
simulation scenario mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
total population $61,200 $56,100 $132,600
ranch worker $14,280 $12,750 $29,070
hunter $7,650 $6,630 $15,300
OHV enthusiast $42,330 $37,740 $86,700
Note that discounting could also be applied, but this would simply result in lower costs. This
analysis shows that the ALARA costs involved are small (for the total population, about $13 per
year, or considerably less than $1 per day) and that the estimated population dose is a fraction of
natural background radiation dose. The reasons for this are that there are few receptors in the
model that are involved in ranching, hunting or OHV activities at the site at any particular time,
the concentrations are low, and, hence, the individual doses are also low.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 66
6.5 Deep Time Results
The deep time model addresses in a heuristic fashion the fate of the Federal DU Cell from 10 ky
to 2.1 My, the time at which DU reaches secular equilibrium. The model addresses the needs
identified in the Section 5(a) of R313-25-9 of the UAC to perform additional simulations for the
period where peak dose occurs, for which the results are to be analyzed qualitatively. Even
though the deep-time model runs to 2.1 My and there is huge uncertainty in predicting human
society and evolution that far into the future, rancher doses are calculated to provide a context for
radon fluxes which are calculated when no lake is present. The output of the deep time model is
also presented in terms of concentrations of radionuclides in relevant environmental media.
The deep-time model considers the return of lakes in the Bonneville Basin that reach or exceed
the elevation of Clive. Two classes of lakes are considered. The first is a deep lake similar to
Lake Bonneville that inundates the Clive facility. It is deep and adds to materials that are
currently on Bonneville Basin floor. This type of lake is assumed to occur once every 100 ky in
line with the 100-ky climate cycles that have occurred for the past 1 My or so. The second type of
lake is shallower and is termed an intermediate lake. It is also assumed to inundate the Clive
facility and adds sediment materials but is not a deep lake like Lake Bonneville. It is more similar
to the Gilbert Lake that occurred at the end of the last ice age. This type of lake is assumed to
occur several times in each climate cycle in response to colder, wetter conditions.
Return of a lake at or above the elevation of Clive is assumed to result in the destruction of the
Federal DU Cell. The above-grade embankment material and radionuclides are assumed to be
dispersed through wave action. The dispersal area forms the basis for the lake volume in which
radionuclides are dissolved and ultimately settle back to the basin floor through precipitation or
through evaporation as the lake recedes. The lake cycle involves movement of the radionuclides,
subject to continuing decay and ingrowth, from the sediment into lake water and back to
sediment as the lake forms and recedes. The dispersed radionuclides are assumed to be fully
mixed with the accumulated sediment. Sediment accumulates on average at the rate of about
17 m per 100-ky climate cycle. The current Unit 3 layer of sediment at Clive, which is derived
from Lake Bonneville, is assumed to be a confining layer.
The lake cycle effects on transport processes are complex. Sediment core records show
significant mixing of sediment, but also can be used to identify significant lake events in the past
several hundred thousand years. The extent of sediment mixing is not well understood. The
mechanisms for dispersal of a relatively soft pile of material in the middle of a desert flat are not
well understood. The extent of mixing of dissolved materials in a deep lake is also not well
understood. The Model, consequently, is simplified to the point of acknowledging lake return,
destruction of the Federal DU Cell, and cycling of radionuclides between periodic lakes and basin
sediments.
In particular, the model overly simplifies the lake cycle processes and the effect of those
processes on the transport of radionuclides. It limits the dispersal of radionuclides through time.
Destruction of the Federal DU Cell is assumed to occur with a lake that at least reaches the
elevation of Clive. This means that even a very shallow lake is assumed to destroy the
embankment. With the sediment acting as one large mixing cell, lake water diffusion can occur
across the entire depth of the sediment, no matter how deep. The simplified model ignores
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 67
increased precipitation and cooler conditions as the time of lake return approaches, which would
move radionuclides downwards in the sediment. With these simplifying assumptions, some
(perhaps unreasonably) high lake water and sediment concentrations are predicted by the Model.
The area of dispersal of the Federal DU Cell is captured with a simple distribution that reflects
the area of an intermediate lake. This fixes a dispersal area. Dissolution into the lake is assumed
to occur and to be mixed in the entire lake. The same dispersal area is used for both intermediate
and deep lakes, limiting both the volume of water within which dissolved materials might mix
and the area in which precipitates and evaporates can return.
Although the embankment material is dispersed within a specified dispersal area, isolation of any
part of the sediment profile is assumed not to occur. That is, the sediment is assumed to
completely mix with previous sediment for every lake event. Lake sedimentation does not allow
burial or isolation of previously formed sediment layers. Since different lakes can be identified in
sediment cores, this again limits the dispersal of the radionuclides.
The model, therefore, represents a closed system that cycles radionuclides from lake water to
sediment and back again. Decreased concentrations in sediment are obtained because of the
increased sediment load, but the mass of radionuclides available to diffuse into each lake is not
different in time, except from decay and ingrowth.
Deep Time Model results such as radon flux are considered in the context of gauging system
performance and may provide limited insight into the behavior of the disposal system in deep
time. Based on potential future radon fluxes, a rancher dose was calculated in deep time to
provide a context for the radon flux results, consistent with the rancher scenario from the first
10,000 years of the model.
Conceptually, deep time will result in a combination of repeated isolation of sediment layers and
more dispersal than modeled. This will cause mixing over ever increasing areas and volumes,
rather than mixing within a closed system. Consequently, concentrations of radionuclides will
decrease with each lake cycle and with each climate cycle. However, the constraints of the model
do not allow lake water concentrations to decrease with each cycle, and sediment concentrations
decrease only because of the additional mass of sediment within which the DU waste is mixed.
In light of the simplifications in the model, the results for the deep time scenario are presented
primarily within the first 100-ky cycle, in which the first intermediate or deep lake will return and
the Federal DU Cell will be obliterated. Consideration of model assumptions should be used
when interpreting results beyond the first 100-ky cycle. Summary statistics lake water
concentrations are presented at 90,000 years, which is the timestep at which the greatest
percentage of lakes is present. The focus of the deep-time results is, consequently, the effects of
dispersal on concentrations of 238U and its progeny in lake water and sediments within the first
100-ky climate cycle, as well as 222Rn flux and rancher dose after the first lake recedes. Progeny
of 238U presented include 230Th and 226Ra. Unless otherwise noted, deep time results are
presented for 1000 realizations in order to capture the temporal changes in these results most
clearly.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 68
6.5.1 Sedimentation and Lake Timing Results
Thickness of the sediment above the DU waste is shown in Figure 9. The next lake to reach the
elevation of Clive is assumed to occur no sooner than 50 ky into the future, so only eolian
deposition, at a constant (uncertain) rate, contributes to accumulation of sediments in the vicinity
of Clive. Note that the embankment exists until the advent of the first lake, so the eolian
deposition thickness up to 50 ky is the only sediment accumulation in the vicinity of Clive. When
a lake reaches the Clive elevation, eolian deposition is augmented by the deposition of lake-
derived sediments. Because the number and timing of such lakes and the depth of deposited
sediment are uncertain, the variability in sediment thickness after 50 ky is considerably greater
than in the initial 50-ky modeling period. The change in the slope of the sediment thickness curve
at approximately 75 ky reflects the deposition of sediment from deep lakes that often appear at
this time within the 100-ky climate cycle.
The increasing depth of material covering the disposed DU waste over time will result in
attenuation of radon flux. However, this rate of attenuation will be partly offset by the slowly
increasing activity of the radioactive progeny of 238U. Modeling results indicate that sediment
accumulation overwhelms the influence of progeny ingrowth. This is revealed by inspection of
the results of individual model realizations, where radon flux is always highest at the model time
when the first intermediate lake recedes and then decreases over time to the end of the modeling
period. Hence, the time of peak radon flux is equivalent to the time when the first lake to reach
the elevation of Clive (and destroy the embankment by wave action) has just receded from the
location of the below-grade disposed DU waste.
The time when the first intermediate lake returns after 50 ky is modeled as a Poisson process and
varies with each model realization. Approximately 95% of intermediate lakes occur within the
first 90 ky of the simulation. Deep lake start times are modeled as a log-normal distribution
which typically occur before 100 ky but sometime occur after that point in time. As shown in
Figure 10, the likelihood that the first lake to reach Clive has appeared increases with time from
50 ky such that there is approximately a 80% probability that a lake will have appeared by
approximately 80 ky. At that time the advent of an intermediate lake is overtaken by the
probability that a deep lake will begin within this 100-ky climate cycle.
6.5.2 Lake Sediment Concentrations
Results are presented similarly in Table 11 for concentrations of 238U and its progeny in sediment
derived from successive lakes. These results are statistical summaries of lake concentrations at
90 ky. The peak occurrence of a lake across 10,000 realizations, the time at which a lake is most
likely to be present, is at 90 ky. By that point in time, 230Th and 226Ra have ingrown sufficiently
to be present concentrations greater than those of 238U.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 69
Figure 9. Evolution of sediment thickness in deep time.

As described in the Deep Time White Paper, sediment thickness increase with time at a rate of
about 12m per 100 ky climate cycle.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 70

Figure 10. Time of appearance of first intermediate lake to reach the Clive elevation.

In the model the first lake is expected to appear in the bottom half of the current climate cycle.
However, more recent work on climate change suggests instead that the first lake might not reach
the elevation of Clive for several 100 ky (see the Deep Time White Paper).

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 71
Table 11. Statistical summary of deep time sediment concentrations at model year 90,000.
Based on 1000 realizations.
25th Percentile Median Mean 95th Percentile
U-238 sediment
concentration
(pCi/g)
1.7E-4 1.8E-3 2.0E-2 9.5E-2
Ra-226 sediment
concentration
(pCi/g)
6.9E-5 1.2E-3 5.0E-3 2.2E-2
Th-230 sediment
concentration
(pCi/g)
7.0E-5 1.2E-3 5.0E-3 2.3E-2

Time history plots of radionuclide concentrations in future lake sediments for 238U and its
progeny 230throium and 226radium are presented in Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13,
respectively, over 2.1 My. These plots show a large increase in concentrations as a consequence
of the first lake event, with subsequent decreases as the sediment load increases.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 72

Figure 11. Time history of concentrations of uranium-238 in sediments
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 73

Figure 12. Time history of concentrations of thorium-230 in sediments
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 74

Figure 13. Time history of concentrations of radium-226 in sediments

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 75
6.5.3 Lake Water Concentrations
A summary of lake water concentrations of 238U and some of its progeny are presented in Table
12. These results are statistical summaries of lake concentrations at 90 ky, the time at which a
lake is most likely to be present. By that point in time, 230Th and 226Ra have ingrown sufficiently
to be present computable concentrations.
Table 12. Statistical summary of deep time lake concentrations at model year 90,000. Based
on 1000 realizations.
25th Percentile Median Mean 95th Percentile
U-238 lake
concentration
(pCi/L)
1.4E-7 2.1E-5 1.8E-2 1.1E-1
Ra-226 lake
concentration
(pCi/L)
8.5E-3 1.5E-1 5.4E-1 2.4
Th-230 lake
concentration
(pCi/L)
8.7E-3 1.5E-1 5.5E-1 2.4

To illustrate the dynamic nature of lake returns and related lake concentrations a time history plot
of 238U lake concentrations for all 1000 realization is presented in Figure 14. Intermediate lakes
appear as single peaks, whereas deep lakes increase in concentration over their approximately
20-ky cycle.
Time history plots of lake water concentration statistics for 238U and its progeny, 230Th and 226Ra,
are presented in Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17, respectively, across 2.1 My. These are
presented on a log scale to capture the full concentration range. The jagged nature of the plots is
due to the fact that lake water concentrations are zero when there is no lake present, and
intermediate lakes only occur on average 3 times per 100 ky. Peak lake water concentrations
tend to occur near the end of the period of the deep lake, which provides time for the
radionuclides to dissolve into the lake.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 76

Figure 14. Time history of concentrations of uranium-238 in lake water, 1000 realizations
shown.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 77

Figure 15. Time history of concentrations of uranium-238 in lake water
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 78

Figure 16. Time history of concentrations of thorium-230 in lake water
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 79

Figure 17. Time history of concentrations of radium-226 in lake water

6.5.4 Radon flux results after the first lake
A statistical summary of radon flux results after the first lake recedes are presented in Table 13.
The time when the first intermediate lake returns after 50 ky is modeled as a Poisson process and
varies with each model realization. Therefore, the time of peak radon flux also varies with each
realization. Mean and median values are below the 10,000-yr timeframe regulatory limit of 20
pCi/m2s. An interpretation of the significance of these concentrations is presented in the
calculations of dose to a ranch worker in Section 6.5.5, below.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 80
Table 13. Statistical summary of radon-222 flux concentrations after the first lake recedes.
Radon-222 flux after first lake recedes (pCi/m2-s)
simulation scenario mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
radon-222 18 4.0 80
Results are based on 10,000 realizations, seed 2

Radon flux over time is shown in Figure 18. Although radon flux will be highest at times closest
to 50 ky, in most realizations a lake will not have occurred until closer to 60 ky. The change in
the slope of radon flux curve before 100 ky in Figure 18 reflects the deposition of sediment from
a deep lake that appears by this time within the 100-ky climate cycle.
The peak of the mean radon flux shown in Figure 18 is approximately 13 pCi/m2-s. The peak
occurs in the Model at about 65,000 yr. This value is lower than the mean radon flux after the
first lake recedes (above) since that value occurs at various points in time and the mean flux in
Figure 18 is calculated for each point in time.
Although the median and mean sediment thickness track closely (Figure 9), the mean radon
ground surface flux is much larger than the median. This strongly skewed result for radon flux is
a consequence of the nonlinearities inherent in the NRC radon ground surface flux calculation.
These are equations (9) through (12) in NRC (1989), here reproduced without detailed
explanation:

The definitions of variables are available in the NRC Regulatory Guide (1989), but it is clear that
these equations will produce a highly nonlinear result, Jc, which is the ground surface flux of
radon. So, even though all the inputs to the calculation are essentially normal distributions, the
complexity of dividing one by another and involving powers (e.g. ex) and hyperbolic tangent,
produces a nonlinear result.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 81

Figure 18. 222Rn ground surface flux in deep time.

6.5.5 Rancher radon results after the first lake
Doses to a rancher receptor are calculated to provide a context for the radon flux calculations,
using radon flux after the first lake recedes. The rancher exposure scenario provided the greatest
dose to a receptor in the Model from 10,000 years, so it was used here for comparison. Rancher
dose is less than 1 mrem/yr even at the 95th percentile of the results.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 82
Table 14. Statistical summary of doses to ranchers after the first lake recedes.
Rancher dose after first lake recedes (mrem/yr)
simulation scenario mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
rancher dose 0.14 0.03 0.62
Results are based on 10,000 realizations, seed 2

One of the objectives of a PA, as defined in the UAC R313-25-9 is site stability. The
performance standard for stability requires the facility must be sited, designed, and closed to
achieve long-term stability to eliminate to the extent practicable the need for ongoing active
maintenance of the site following closure. If the intent is to minimize the need for ongoing active
maintenance, as stated, then obliteration of the Federal DU Cell in deep time achieves this goal,
since concentrations are low and the need to maintain the site disappears completely. In addition,
continued deposition through eolian processes in inter-glacial periods, or through lake deposition
otherwise, will continue to affect the site, either by providing additional cover, or through
continued mixing with newly formed sediment layers.
7.0 Summary
This report has laid out the approach taken to developing the PA model for DU waste disposal
options at the Clive facility, and has presented results of the updated Model (Clive DU PA Model
v1.4) with accompanying sensitivity analyses. The purpose of this section is to summarize the
results, provide additional interpretation of the results, and to compare the results more directly to
performance objectives in a compliance evaluation.
7.1 Interpretation of Results
Important results of the quantitative PA Model can be summarized, given the compliance time
frames of interest, in terms of doses to receptors, groundwater concentrations of soluble
radionuclides, and disposal system evolution in deep time. The DU waste disposal configuration
evaluated in the Model assumed burial below the grade of the area surrounding the embankment.
The Model was run assuming that gullies are static in the simulation period, forming immediately
in the first year.
Doses to all receptors are driven primarily by inhalation exposure to radon, with higher doses
expected when the waste is emplaced closer to the embankment surface. However, groundwater
concentrations of 99Tc would be expected to increase as the waste is emplaced lower in the
disposal facility. These concentrations are driven van Genuchten’s α and molecular diffusivity.
These results highlight the trade-off between disposal configurations that place DU waste higher
or lower in the disposal facility. Transport mechanisms move waste either up into the accessible
environment or down towards groundwater. The modeling results indicate that the groundwater
performance objectives can still be satisfied when DU waste is placed below grade, which also
minimizes dose to receptors on the ground surface.
For the configuration used in the Model v1.4, erosion was included in the model, but it was not
expected to make a difference in the dose results since the waste was buried much deeper (11 m)
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 83
than the gully maximum depth (2 m). The impact of gullies has not been fully developed in terms
of their effect on biotic activity, radon transport, or infiltration.
The ALARA analysis results indicate that population doses are small compared to natural
background radiation dose, and costs are low compared to disposal and other costs. The
population doses are small because the population itself is small, and the doses to any
hypothetical individual in the population are also small. Taking this ALARA approach to site
performance would suggest that this is a good site for disposal of DU waste. There is room for
improvement in this simple ALARA decision analysis. For example, other factors could be
included in the analysis such as transportation and worker safety factors, and the cost per person
rem could be reevaluated. However, the small population, because of the remoteness of the
facility and the low individual doses suggest that the disposal system meets ALARA-based
performance objectives.
The deep-time model should be regarded as heuristic or highly stylized. Nevertheless, it models
the basic concepts of the return of lakes in the Bonneville Basin at or above the elevation of the
Clive facility. A sufficiently deep lake destroys the DU disposal facility, redistributes
radionuclides that have moved above ground into the lake sediment, and repeats the cycles of
radionuclides moving into lake water and settling back into sediment. Sedimentation rates are
about 12 m per 100 ky, and the DU waste is assumed to mix with the sediment across time. There
are several components of this heuristic model that could be regarded as conservative in the sense
of over-predicting concentration in both lake water and lake sediment. For example,
1. In version 1.4 of the model all DU waste is disposed below grade. With this waste
disposal configuration, none of the waste is dispersed directly. Waste material that would
be dispersed under this scenario only includes radionuclides that have transported into the
above grade volume of the disposal system. Note also that eolian deposition occurs until
the first lake returns, in which case the site will be more stable than at present and the
below grade waste will be further below grade. Dispersal of the waste on occurs for the
small fraction of waste that has migrated into the above ground component of the disposal
system. The model does not account for increased wetter and cooler conditions that occur
before the first lake returns and would move radionuclides downward from the
embankment.
2. In the model a lake is assumed to destroy the site when it reaches the Clive elevation,
which can cause mixing of waste in a very shallow lake, a lake that perhaps does not have
sufficient power to destroy the facility. Research into the power needed for a lake to
destroy the facility might indicate the minimum elevation needed for such an event.
3. Sediment mixing is assumed to occur with every lake cycle, even though some lake
cycles might result only in burial with new sediments. The resulting concentrations reflect
concentrations associated with the first lake event, consistent with the timing of the
maximum lake water and lake sediment concentrations.
Peak lake water concentrations of 238U at 90,000 yr average about 2.1E-E pCi/L, even given the
conservatism in the model, with a 95th percentile of about 0.11 pCi/L. The peak of the mean
concentrations of 238U in sediment average about 0.02 pCi/g, with a 95th percentile of about
0.1 pCi/g. Given the simplified and biased model structure, these lake water and sediment
concentrations are substantial overestimates.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 84
7.2 Comparison to Performance Objectives
Comparisons to performance objectives are presented for doses to ranch workers, since dose to
other receptors are smaller, and groundwater concentration for 99Tc, the radionuclide with
concentrations closest to the GWPL. The evaluations are for waste disposed of below grade and
include erosion. Quantitative performance objectives do not exist for the ALARA analysis or for
the deep-time concentrations endpoints.
The concentrations reported by the PA model represent estimates of the concentration in each
year, or the peak concentration within the 500-yr period of groundwater compliance. The peaks
of those concentrations are collected. Because the groundwater concentration of 99Tc increases
with time, the peak concentrations occur at 500 yr. Since the timing of these peaks in different
realizations is the same, the peak of the mean concentrations is identical to the mean of the peak
concentrations. The 10,000 model realizations provide 10,000 estimates of the peak
concentrations. Summary statistics for the distribution of the mean of the peak 99Tc
concentrations are presented in Table 15. Summary statistics for peak mean groundwater activity
concentration of 99Tc within 500 yr. The mean, median, and 95th percentile values are below the
GWPL.
Table 15. Summary statistics for peak mean groundwater activity concentration of 99Tc
within 500 yr
activity concentration at 500 yr (pCi/L)
radionuclide GWPL
(pCi/L) mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
99Tc 3790 26 0.043 150

The results of the analyses depend critically on the model structure, specification and underlying
assumptions. For example, the release of 99Tc to the environment in the early modeling period
would be restricted if waste containerization were taken into account; and 99Tc inventory
concentrations might be overestimated. The model could be optimized for compliance with
GWPLs and dose performance objectives so that both are fully met.
The dose results for ranch workers are presented in Table 16. Peak mean TEDE for ranch worker:
statistical summary. The statistics represent summaries of the peak mean doses achieved within
10,000 yr. The 95th percentile is analogous to the 95% upper confidence interval of the mean that
is commonly used to represent reasonable maximum exposure conditions in CERCLA risk
assessments. Both the mean and the 95th percentile are much lower than the MOP performance
objective of 25 mrem/yr.
Table 16. Peak mean TEDE for ranch worker: statistical summary
TEDE (mrem in a yr) at 10,000 yr
receptor mean median
(50th %ile) 95th %ile
ranch worker 0.062 0051 0.15

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 85
8.0 Conclusions
Model results are dependent on the model structure, model specification and assumptions upon
which they are based. All conclusions depend on the model structure, specification and
assumptions. Changes in any aspect of the model could cause different results. Within this
context the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 demonstrates that the below-surface-grade configuration
option for the subject DU waste is adequately protective of human health and the environment as
projected for the next 10,000 years. Protectiveness is assessed under Utah Administrative Code
R313-25-9 Section 5(a) by consideration in this PA Model of:
• dose to site-specific receptors,
• concentrations in groundwater (to 500 years),
• ALARA, and
• consideration of deep-time scenarios.
The model was run with the waste buried below grade, beneath extra fill material. It was also run
with gully formation assumed to occur near the beginning of the simulation period. Simplified
summary results for these scenarios are presented in Table 17.
Table 17. Summary of results of the Clive DU PA Model
performance objective
meets
performance
objective?

Dose to MOP below regulatory threshold of 25 mrem in a year Yes
Dose to IHI below regulatory threshold of 500 mrem in a year Yes
Groundwater maximum concentration of 99Tc in 500 years < 3790 pCi/L 2 Yes
ALARA average total population cost equivalent over 10,000 years $61,200
2Groundwater concentrations of all other radionuclides are significantly less than their respective GWPLs.

The configuration evaluated for the Clive DU PA Model v1.4, including erosion, demonstrates
that the disposal facility can adequately protect human health and the environment when
disposing of the subject DU waste:
• all disposal options evaluated exhibit doses that are less than the inadvertent intrusion
performance objective,
• there are clearly disposal configurations for which the predicted doses are less than the
MOP performance objective, and
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 86
• there are disposal options for which groundwater concentrations do not exceed GWPLs.
In addition, the ALARA analysis indicates that ALARA costs from population doses that might
be realized for the duration of the 10 ky model are small. On a per year basis, the ALARA costs
are less than $13 per year at the 95th percentile of total population dose.
The Federal DU cell was assumed to be destroyed by the return of a deep lake. The deep-time
model indicates that concentrations in media such as lake water and sediment will continue to
decrease with each lake and climate cycle and that destruction of the site will lead to dispersal of
radionuclides in the Bonneville Basin.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 87
9.0 References
Adrian Brown (Adrian Brown Consultants), 1997. Volume I, LARW Infiltration Modeling Input
Parameters and Results, Report 3101B.970515.
Baird R.D., Bollenbacher, M.K., Murphy, E.S., et al. 1990. Evaluation of the Potential Public
Health Impacts Associated with Radioactive Waste Disposal at a Site Near Clive, Utah.
Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation, Salt Lake City UT.
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 & Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment,
NUREG/CR-7028, Office of Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
Berger, A. and M. F. Loutre, 2002. “An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?” Science, 297:
1287- 1288.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 1990. Water and Sediment
Quality Survey of Selected Inland Saline Lakes. CRWQCB Central Valley Region.
October 1990.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/swamp/historic_reports_and_faq_she
ets/bckgrnd_saline_lakes/survey_select_inlandsalinelakes_90.pdf
DOE (US Department of Energy). 1997. Applying the ALARA Process for Radiation Protection
of the Public and Environmental Compliance with 10 CFR Part 834 and DOE 5400.5
ALARA Program Requirements, Volume 1 Discussion, DOE-STD-ALARA1draft. United
States Department of Energy, Washington DC. April 1997.
Embrechts, P., Lindskog, F., and McNeil, A. (2001). Modelling Dependence with Copulas and
Applications to Risk Management, Department of Mathematics, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zurich.
EnergySolutions, 2012, Utah Low-Level Radioactive Material License (RML UT2300249)
Updated Site-Specific Performance Assessment, October 8, 2012, EnergySolutions, LLC,
Salt Lake City, UTHays, J.D., J. Imbrie, and N.J. Shackleton, 1976, Variations in the
Earth’s orbit; Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, Science, Vol. 194, No. 4270, pp. 1121-1132. (see
p. 1126. )Iman, R.L., and Conover, W.J. (1982). “A Distribution-Free Approach to
Inducing Rank Correlation Among Input Variables,” Communications in Statistics:
Simulation and Computation,11 (3): 311-334.
ICRP. Radiation protection recommendations as applied to the disposal of long-lived solid
radioactive waste: ICRP Publication 81. Annals of the ICRP 28:13-22, 1998.
Myrick, T.E., B.A. Berven, and F.F. Haywood, 1981, State background-radiation levels: Results
of measurements taken during 1975-1979, Oak Ridge National Laboratory report
ORNL/TM-7343, Oak Ridge TN. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/5801538
Neptune. 2006. Ant Parameter Specifications for the Area 5 and Area 3 RWMS Models. Neptune
and Company, Inc.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 88
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection). 2009. Report 160. Ionizing Radiation
Exposure of the Population of the United States. National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements, Washington, D.C. Online at
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/253/2/293.full.pdf.
Neptune 2011. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, version 1.0. Submitted to
EnergySolutions, June 1, 2011.
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by
Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research, Task WM 503-4, June 1989.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement to
Construct and Operate a Facility to Receive, Store, and Dispose of 11e.(2) Byproduct
Material Near Clive, Utah, NUREG-1476, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
NRC. 1995. Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy,
NUREG-1530, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December 1995.
NRC, 2000. A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facilities. NUREG-1573. Division of Waste Management, Office of Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C., October 2000
NRC, 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
NUREG/BR-0058, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Revision 4, September 2004.
NRC, 2010. Workshop on Engineered Barrier Performance Related to Low-Level Radioactive
Waste, Decommissioning, and Uranium Mill Tailings Facilities. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. August 3 – 5, 2010.
NRC. 2015. Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy. Draft
report for comment. NUREG-1530, Rev. 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
Office of Management and Budget, 2003. Regulatory Analysis, Circular No. A-4, September 17,
2003.
Shackleton, N.J., 2000, The 100,000-year Ice-Age cycle identified and found to lag temperature,
carbon dioxide, and orbital eccentricity, Science, Vol. 289(5486), pp. 1897-1902.
Šimůnek, J., M. Šejna, H. Saito, M. Sakai, and M. Th. van Genuchten, 2009, The HYDRUS-1D
Software Package for Simulating the One-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat, and
Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated Media, Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA.
SWCA 2011. Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah.
SWCA Environmental Consultants Inc. Prepared for EnergySolutions, Salt Lake City, UT.
SWCA, 2013, EnergySolutions. Updated Performance Assessment –SWCA’s Response to First
Round DRC Interrogatories, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah,
September 2013.
Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 89
Utah 2015. License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Utah Administrative
Code Rule R313-25. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
UWQB (State of Utah, Division of Water Quality, Utah Water Quality Board), 2009. Ground
Water Quality Discharge Permit No. 450005, 23 Dec 2009.
Whetstone, 2006. EnergySolutions Class A Combined (CAC) Disposal Cell Infiltration and
Transport Modeling Report, Salt Lake City Utah, May 2006.

Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model
24 November 2015 90
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
Appendix 2 Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
Appendix 3 Embankment Modeling
Appendix 4 Waste Inventory
Appendix 5 Unsaturated Zone Modeling
Appendix 6 Geochemical Modeling
Appendix 7 Saturated Zone Modeling
Appendix 8 Air Modeling
Appendix 9 Biological Modeling
Appendix 10 Erosion Modeling
Appendix 11 Dose Assessment
Appendix 12 Decision Analysis (ALARA)
Appendix 13 Deep Time Assessment
Appendix 14 Development of Probability Distributions
Appendix 15 Sensitivity Analysis Methods
Appendix 16 Model Parameters
Appendix 17 Quality Assurance Project Plan
Appendix 18 Radon
Appendix 19 Sensitivity Analysis Results
Appendix 20 Comparison of Results across Models
Appendix 21 Technical Responses to April 2015 Draft SER

 NAC-0020_R2

FEP Analysis for Disposal of
Depleted Uranium at the
Clive Facility
5 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 ii
1. Title: FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
2. Filename: Clive DU PA FEP Analysis v1.4.docx
3. Description: This documents the development and analysis of features, events, and processes
for disposal of depleted uranium at the Clive, Utah Facility.
Name Date
4. Originator Jenifer Linville 28 May 2011
5. Reviewer John Tauxe 28 May 2014
6. Remarks
5 Nov 2015: Updated from v1.2 to v1.4. - D.Levitt.

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 iii

This page intentionally left blank, aside from this statement.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v

1.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0
 Identification of Features, Events, and Processes .................................................................. 1

2.1
 Compilation of FEPs ......................................................................................................... 2

2.2
 Normalization and Consolidation of FEPs ....................................................................... 2

3.0
 Classifying Features, Events, and Processes .......................................................................... 3

4.0
 Screening of FEPs .................................................................................................................. 4

4.1
 Regulatory Considerations, Guidance, and Supporting Information ................................ 4

4.1.1
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR 61 ............................................................ 5

4.1.2
 Utah Administrative Code R313: Radiation Control .................................................. 5

4.1.3
 Additional Guidance ................................................................................................... 6

4.2
 Scope of Assessment and Physical Reasonableness ......................................................... 7

5.0
 Screening Results ................................................................................................................... 7

6.0
 Use of FEPs for Conceptual Model and Scenario Development ........................................... 9

7.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix: FEP Listings ................................................................................................................ 15

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 v
TABLES
Table 1. List of Initial FEPs by Reference .................................................................................... 16

Table 2. List of consolidated FEPs evaluated for inclusion in the conceptual site model and
scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 49

Table 3. List of FEPs dismissed from further consideration. ........................................................ 57

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 1
1.0 Introduction
The safe storage and disposal of depleted uranium (DU) waste is essential for mitigating releases
of radioactive materials and reducing exposures to humans and the environment. Currently, a
radioactive waste facility located in Clive, Utah (the “Clive facility”) operated by
EnergySolutions is proposed to receive and store DU waste that has been declared surplus from
radiological facilities across the nation. The Clive facility has been tasked with disposing of the
DU waste in an economically feasible manner that protects humans from radiological releases.
To assess whether that the proposed Clive facility DU disposal location and containment
technologies are suitable for protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land
disposal of radioactive waste set forth in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61
(10 CFR 61) Subpart C, promulgated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), must
be met. In order to support the required radiological performance assessment (PA), a detailed
computer model is being developed to evaluate the potential detrimental effects on human health
that would result from the disposal of DU and its associated radioactive contaminants.
A key activity in developing a PA for a radiological waste repository is the comprehensive
identification of relevant external factors that should be included in quantitative analyses. These
factors, termed “features, events, and processes” (FEPs), form the basis for scenarios that are
evaluated to assess site performance.
Although it is not a governing regulation for the disposal of LLW and DU at Clive, Title 40 CFR
Part 191, promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provides a useful
and general definition for the scope of a PA analysis of a radiological disposal facility. The PA
1) identifies the processes and events that might affect the disposal system, 2) examines the
effects of these processes and events on the performance of the disposal system, and 3) estimates
the cumulative releases of radionuclides considering the associated uncertainties caused by all
significant processes and events (40 CFR 191). The identification of FEPs is essential to the
development of the conceptual site model (CSM) and model scenario development process (see
Conceptual Site Model white paper).
This report serves to document and examine the universe of FEPs that may apply to the disposal
of depleted uranium (DU) waste at the Clive Facility. FEPs that are screened and identified as
relevant for the Clive facility PA are identified in this white paper and are further elaborated in
the CSM white paper.
This document is considered to be a living document that is synchronized with current
conceptual models, analysis, and modeling of the PA. As concepts and modeling evolve, so too
will this document.
2.0 Identification of Features, Events, and Processes
The identification of FEPs for use in the Clive DU PA Model was an iterative process that began
with compiling an exhaustive list of candidate FEPs that could affect the long-term performance
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 2
of the radiological waste repository. As an initial step, all potentially relevant FEPs from a
variety of reference sources were collected. The initial list from external sources was modified as
additional FEPs were identified that are specific to the Clive facility.
This exhaustive initial compilation of FEPs led to significant redundancy across the original
sources. Redundancy was addressed by the modification of the candidate list of FEPs through
normalization (removal of redundant FEPs) and assignment of FEPs categories (grouping of
common FEPs). This section describes the FEP identification process, including implementation
of the normalization, categorization and screening processes.
2.1 Compilation of FEPs
The initial list of FEPs pertaining to the efficacy of disposal of radioactive wastes in general was
compiled from several scenario development documents published for other nuclear waste
disposal facilities, including those for Yucca Mountain Project, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
and several foreign radioactive waste projects. The primary literature source for FEP analysis is
Guzowski and Newman (1993). They compiled over 700 potentially disruptive FEPs from a
review of scenario documentation from other waste repositories around the world.
The facilities considered in Guzowski and Newman have substantially different geological,
environmental and regulatory settings from those of the Clive facility. Consequently, the
collection of FEPs in Guzowski and Newman provides a substantial list that should be
considered for any PA, but they are also missing FEPs that pertain more particularly to the waste
disposal facility at Clive. Site-specific understanding of the environmental and engineered
attributes of the Clive facility, and the potentially affected region and population, was used to
augment the initial compilation of FEPs.
Additional FEPs were also identified from the Nuclear Energy Agency database (NEA, 2000). In
this initial compilation step, nearly 1,000 FEPs were identified from the literature and site-
specific considerations. Initial FEPs compiled from all sources are listed in Table 1 in the
Appendix.
2.2 Normalization and Consolidation of FEPs
Subsequent to the initial compilation of FEPs, steps were taken to reduce redundancy. Initially,
FEPs were sorted alphabetically and duplicates were deleted. Recorded FEP values that were
different only in vernacular/diction (e.g., “climate change” versus “change in climate”) were
normalized to capture a single primary FEP value for a series of identical or closely-related
concepts. To address duplication of FEPs where similar terminology was stated dissimilarly,
initial FEPs were grouped by keyword content (e.g., “climate” “waste” “groundwater”) and
evaluated for possible normalization or consolidation. Where possible, FEPs were normalized to
a standard terminology.
Similar but not identical FEPs were maintained, to be evaluated as part of the consolidation step.
At this point, each FEP was considered for its similarity to other FEPs, so that they could be
grouped into fewer classes, making the list more manageable. For example, all geochemical
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 3
processes were grouped together. These would be easier to address as a group for inclusion in the
CSM. Likewise, all coastal processes could be considered for exclusion as a group. For each
FEP, the rationale behind its grouping was noted. No FEPs were excluded at this step, but nearly
all were consolidated with others. This consolidation process reduced the total number to 135
unique FEP groupings.
3.0 Classifying Features, Events, and Processes
Following the normalization and consolidation steps, the 135 unique FEP groups were carried
forward to the classification step and were considered for inclusion in the conceptual model
scenarios. The classification is principally an organizational tool for the FEP analysis, although
the categories identified also relate to components of the CSM. The 135 unique FEP groups
were classified into the following 18 categories:
• Celestial
• Celestial
• Climate change
• Containerization
• Contaminant Migration
• Engineered Features
• Exposure
• Hydrology
• Geochemical
• Geological
• Human Processes
• Hydrogeological
• Marine
• Meteorology
• Model Settings
• Other Natural Processes
• Source Release
• Tectonic/Seismic/Volcanic
• Waste

These categories are relevant to the development of scenarios and are integral to the CSM for the
Clive Facility. Occasionally, a FEP could have been classified into more than one category.
However, the overall goal of the FEP analysis is to identify those processes that should be
carried forward into the CSM, and subsequently into the modeling. Provided each FEP is
identified in one of the categories, it was carried forward to the CSM. Ultimately, each FEP was
given due consideration, and the implementation of relevant FEPs in the final modeling was
rather independent of the classification.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 4
4.0 Screening of FEPs
The long list of FEPs was screened in consideration of regulatory concern and professional
judgment based on physical reasonableness, probability of occurrence, severity of consequence,
and assessment scope.
The most basic screening criterion is regulatory concern. Regulatory requirements for
performance of EnergySolutions’ Clive facility are published in 10 CFR 61 and Utah
Administrative Code R313. While the mention of something that can be construed as a feature,
event, or process in the text of a regulation triggers its consideration in this FEP analysis, it does
not mean that the FEP must become part of the PA analysis or modeling.
A subjective element of the FEP screening process is consideration of assessment scope and
physical reasonableness. Physical reasonableness is a professional judgment based on logical
arguments using available data and information to support a conclusion of whether or not
conditions can exist within the period of regulatory concern that will result in the occurrence of a
particular event or process that affects disposal system performance. In addition to meeting
screening criteria, some FEPs were retained as model parameters specifically because they
pertain to scenario development itself (e.g., exposure terms).
The inclusion or dismissal of FEPs and associated rationale is documented in support of
constructing the conceptual model and scenarios. The product of this screening procedure is the
identification of those FEPs that, either alone or in conjunction with others, could affect the
performance of the disposal system.
4.1 Regulatory Considerations, Guidance, and Supporting
Information
This section discusses the regulatory language, guidance, and other supporting information to be
considered in developing scenarios and conceptual models for the Clive DU PA Model. Specific
considerations of NRC’s land disposal performance requirements (10 CFR 61 Subpart C) are
required for the scenario development and are important to document as part of the FEP
compilation and screening activity. In addition, observations and recommendations previously
published by radioactive waste disposal facility working groups and technical advisers are also
considered, although most of these are focused on geologic disposal of radioactive wastes.
Specific provisions of regulations for the operation and closure of a land-disposal LLW facility
were specifically considered if they were mentioned in a regulatory document.
Based on these provisions, 55 of 135 FEPs were identified as relevant for evaluation in the
conceptual model or exposure scenarios. The remaining FEPs were dismissed from further
consideration for various reasons. Some, like a direct impact from a large meteorite, are simply
beyond the scope of the analysis. Tsunami and other marine phenomena do not apply at the Clive
facility. Several FEPs from the original sources were dismissed because they apply only to
geologic repositories, or to specific types of containment like copper canisters for used nuclear
fuel.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 5
4.1.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR 61
This regulation contains Federal procedural requirements and performance objectives applicable
to land disposal of radioactive waste. Specific considerations of 10 CFR 61 include attributes of
facility siting, facility engineering (including post-closure stability and control), site monitoring,
record-keeping, protection of health and safety, and a minimum time frame for which an
assessment must be conducted to ensure long-term stability of the disposal site. The types of
objectives mentioned in 10 CFR 61 include:
• long-term effectiveness based on physical siting of the disposal unit (including site
geology and hydrology),
• protection of the general population (in terms of radiological dose),
• protection of inadvertent intruders (dose),
• protection of individuals during operations (dose),
• isolation and segregation of wastes,
• limitation of releases of radionuclides via pathways in air, water, surface water, plant
uptake, or exhumation by burrowing animals,
• long-term stability of the disposal site,
• evaluation of engineering failures, including erosion, mass wasting, slope failure,
settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration through covers, and surface drainage,
• site monitoring requirements,
• identification of natural resources whose exploitation could result in inadvertent
exposure, and
• efficacy of institutional controls.
4.1.2 Utah Administrative Code R313: Radiation Control
The Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Rules 313-15 (Standards for Protection Against
Radiation) and 313-25 (License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste) mirror
the provisions for land disposal of radioactive waste provided in 10 CFR 61. Notable
performance objectives of near-surface disposal sites established of UAC Rule R313-25 include:
• protection of the general population,
• protection of inadvertent intruders,
• consideration of releases of radionuclides through pathways via air, water, surface water,
plant update, and exhumation of burrowing animals,
• protection of individuals during operations,
• long-term stability of the disposal site,
• prevention of erosion, mass wasting, slope failure, settlement of wastes and backfill,
infiltration through covers, and surface drainage,
• site monitoring requirements, and
• identification of natural resources whose exploitation could result in inadvertent
exposure.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 6
The majority of the FEPs identified as relevant under 10 CFR 61 are also applicable under UAC
Rule R313-25 and are retained for analysis.
4.1.3 Additional Guidance
The NRC’s PA working group has identified additional considerations in NRC’s Performance
Assessment Methodology (NRC 2000). The working group identifies two specific areas of
interest in conducting a PA: pathway analysis and dose assessment.
Pathway analysis involves the mechanisms of radionuclide transfer through the biosphere to
humans. These mechanisms, or transport and exposure pathways, must be identified and
modeled. Pathway analysis should result in the determination of the total intake of radionuclides
by the average member of the critical group. The critical group is defined as the “...group of
individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest dose from radioactive releases from the
disposal facility over time, given the circumstances under which the analysis would be carried
out” (NRC 2000).
Various considerations should be taken into account when analyzing the transport of
radionuclides through the biosphere (to humans). These considerations should include
• modeling the movement of radionuclides through the environment and the food chain,
adequately reflecting complex symbiotic systems and relationships,
• considering mechanisms of (biotic and) human uptake of radionuclides, and
• identifying usage, production, and consumption parameters, for various food products
and related systems, that may vary widely, depending on regional climate conditions,
local or ethnic diet, and habits.

The dose assessment requires that the dosimetry of the exposed individual be modeled. The
objective of dose modeling in a LLW PA is to provide estimates of potential doses to humans, in
terms of the average member of the critical group, from radioactive releases from a LLW
disposal facility, after closure.
A “current conditions” philosophy is initially applied to determine which pathways are to be
evaluated. That is to say that current regional land use and other local conditions in place at the
time of the analysis will strongly influence pathways that are considered to be significant. The
conceptual model and scenarios must consider each of the general pathways discussed in
10 CFR 61.13. Additional pathways for consideration are published in NUREG/CR-5453
(Shipers, 1989) and NUREG-1200 (NRC, 1994). NUREG-1200 discusses example potential
“scenarios by which radioactivity may be released from the disposal facility and cause the
potential for radiological impacts on individuals.” Shipers (1989) identifies exposure pathways,
and scenarios regarding transport mechanisms that could contribute to the release of radioactive
materials from the disposal facility leading to human exposure, in the context of near-surface
LLW disposal.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 7
4.2 Scope of Assessment and Physical Reasonableness
The final phase of FEP screening is the application of professional judgment in terms of the
scope of the PA and the physical reasonableness of evaluating those FEPs in the CSM and
scenarios. Performance objectives include protection of the general population from releases of
radioactivity (10 CFR 61.41), protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion (§61.42), and
stability of the site after closure (§61.44). Assumptions of the scope of the PA include:
• Performance assessment reflects post-closure conditions. Because PA considers the site
only after closure, consideration of the protection of individuals during operations
(§61.43) is not within the scope of the evaluation and FEPs related to operations are not
considered relevant to the CSM or scenarios.
• Land-use assumptions relative to human exposures post-closure are based on current
conditions and likely future conditions. Therefore urban settlement, residential use,
farming, and aquaculture and FEPs pertaining to these incongruous uses are not included
in the CSM or scenarios because of the high concentrations of salt in the soil and
groundwater of this site. However, hunting, ranching, and recreational use are considered
viable scenarios.
• Intentional human intruders are not protected.

5.0 Screening Results
Using the identification and screening processes described in Sections 1 through 3, FEPs
were consolidated from an exhaustive list of over 900 to 135 FEPs or FEP
categories. Of this consolidation, 90 FEPs are retained for further consideration
and 45 FEPs were dismissed from inclusion in the PA model. All FEPs
considered and retained for inclusion in the CSM and scenarios are reported in

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 8
Table 2 in the Appendix. FEPs that were considered and dismissed from evaluation in the CSM
and scenarios are listed in Table 3, along with a brief rationale for their exclusion.
In summary, FEPs retained for consideration in the PA, CSM, and scenarios pertain to regulatory
aspects of post-closure protection of human health and long-term stability of the disposal facility
for the duration and spatial scope of the assessment period. FEPs that were dismissed from
consideration in the PA include those that do not fall within the scope of the PA, were
characterized as extremely unlikely to occur or having a low magnitude of consequence of
affecting the performance of the repository, or were dismissed based on site-specific
considerations.

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 9
6.0 Use of FEPs for Conceptual Model and Scenario
Development
The CSM provides detailed descriptions of the physical environment, the engineered disposal
facility, the sources and chemical forms of disposed wastes, potentially affected media, potential
release pathways and exposure routes, and potential receptors. The CSM considers broad
categories of FEPs that are relevant to these attributes, but individual FEPs may or may not be
addressed in the CSM based on the scope of the assessment and the scenarios developed. This
section identifies the FEPs that are considered for inclusion in the CSM and are addressed in the
development of scenarios for the PA model. These are grouped into several categories, and listed
in tabulated form in Appendix B. Those FEPs that were dismissed from consideration in the
modeling are listed in Appendix C. Some FEPs may overlap or repeat between categories.
Meteorology
Frost weathering and other meteorological events (e.g., precipitation, atmospheric dispersion,
resuspension) are considered in the conceptual model. Weathering may occur from frost cycles.
Resuspension of particulates from surface soils allows redistribution by atmospheric dispersion,
which is a meteorological phenomenon. Dust devils are also possible at the site and a tornado
occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999, which was the first tornado in Utah in over 100 years.
Climate change
Features, events, and processes of climate change considered in the conceptual model include
effects on hydrology (including lake effects), hydrogeology, biota, and human behaviors. Lake
effects include appearance/disappearance of large lakes and associated phenomena
(sedimentation, wave action, erosion/inundation). Wave action, including seiches, is included in
the CSM.
Hydrology
Hydrology is addressed in the conceptual model since it influences many processes in
contaminant transport. Examples of FEPs considered for the conceptual model include
groundwater transport, inundation, and water table changes.
Hydrogeological
Several hydrogeological FEPs were identified for consideration in the conceptual model.
Groundwater transport, in both the unsaturated and saturated zones, is potentially a significant
transport pathway. For some model endpoints, such as groundwater concentrations that are
compared to groundwater protection levels (GWPLs), it is the only pathway of concern.
Groundwater flow and transport processes include advection-dispersion, diffusion, fluid
migration, waterborne contaminant transport, changes in the flow system, recharge, water table
movements, and brine interactions. Inundation of the site may occur due to changes in lakes or
reservoirs, which is included in lake effects of climate change.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 10
Geochemical
Geochemical effects include chemical sorption and partitioning between phases, aqueous
solubility, precipitation, chemical stability, complexation, changes in water chemistry (redox
potential, pH, Eh), fluid interactions, speciation, interactions with clays and other host materials,
and leaching of radionuclides from the waste form. These processes are addressed in the model.
Other Natural Processes
The broad category of other natural processes considered for the conceptual model include
ecological changes and pedogenesis (soil formation). Ecological changes are associated with
catastrophic events (e.g., inundation), evolution, or climate change. Pedogenesis is expected on
the cap, giving rise to vegetation growth or habitation by wildlife.
Denudation (cap erosion) may be sufficient to expose waste. Erosion of the repository resulting
from pluvial, fluvial or aeolian processes can result from extreme precipitation, changes in
surface water channels, and weathering. Sediment transport is an inherent aspect of erosion.
Sedimentation/deposition onto the repository would also affect disposal at the site.
Note that seismic activity is unlikely to impact the Clive facility. Faults are not present within the
vicinity of Clive, although effects of isostatic rebound are still possible in the Lake Bonneville
area.
Engineered Features
Engineered features are intended to promote containment and inhibit migration of contaminants.
Conditions potentially affecting site performance include failure of general engineered features,
repository design, repository seals, material properties, and subsidence of the repository.
Containerization
Two key components of containerization were identified as FEPs: containment degradation and
corrosion. Canister degradation, including fractures, fissures, and corrosion (pitting, rusting)
could result in containment failure. These processes are evaluated in the conceptual model
(Conceptual Site Model white paper, Section 8.1).
Waste
Attributes of waste that could influence the performance of the Clive facility include the
inventory of radionuclides, physical and chemical waste forms, container performance, matrix
performance, leaching, radon emanation, and other waste release mechanisms.
Source Release
Source release can result from many mechanisms, including containment failure, leaching, radon
emanation, plant uptake, and translocation by burrowing animals. FEPs that fit in the category of
source release include gas generation, radioactive decay and in-growth, and radon emanation.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 11
Contaminant Migration
Contaminant migration for the CSM includes the mechanisms and processes by which
radionuclides may come to be located outside of the containment unit. The following
contaminant migration processes were identified for consideration in the conceptual model:
resuspension, atmospheric dispersion, biotically-induced transport, contaminant transport,
diffusion, dilution, advection-dispersion, dissolution, dust devils, tornados, infiltration, and
preferential pathways.
Animal ingestion is part of the human exposure model, both as ingestion of fodder and feed by
livestock, and ingestion of livestock by humans. Transport by atmospheric dispersion is modeled
and is associated with limited resuspension, dust devils, and tornados. Modeling of biotic (plant-
and animal-mediated) processes leading to contaminant transport, and the evolution of these
processes in response to climate change and other influences, including bioturbation, burrowing,
root development, and contaminant uptake and translocation are considered. Contaminant
transport includes transport media (water, air, soil), transport processes (advection-dispersion,
diffusion, plant uptake, soil translocation), and partitioning between phases. Diffusion occurs in
gas and water phases. Dilution occurs when mixing with less concentrated water. Hydrodynamic
dispersion is associated with water advection. Dissolution in water is limited by aqueous
solubility. Transport in the gas phase includes gas generation in the waste, partitioning between
air and water phases, diffusion in air and water, and radioactive decay and ingrowth. Infiltration
of water through the cap, into wastes, and potentially to the groundwater is another contaminant
migration concern. Preferential pathways for contaminant transport are also addressed.
Human Processes
The FEPs identified as human processes encompass human behaviors and activities, resource
use, and unintentional intrusion into the repository. Human process FEPs identified for
assessment are related to the human exposure model and include anthropogenic climate change,
human behavior, human-induced processes related to engineered features at the site, human-
induced transport, inadvertent human intrusion, institutional control, land use, post-closure
subsurface activities, waste recovery, water resource management, and weapons training such as
that occurring at nearby bombing ranges.
Exposure
Exposure is an integral part of the conceptual model, and may result from reduced site
performance. Exposure-relevant FEPs identified for evaluation include those related to
dosimetry, exposure media, human exposure, ingestion pathways, and inhalation pathways.
Dosimetry as a science is not a FEP per se but physiological dose response is accounted for in
the PA model.
Transport pathways (e.g. food chains) that lead to foodstuff contamination, and human exposures
due to inhalation of gaseous radionuclides and particulates are included. Exposure media include
are foodstuffs, drinking water, and environmental media. Exposure pathways (ingestion,
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 12
inhalation, etc.) and physiological effects from radionuclides and toxic contaminants (e.g.
uranium) are also assessed.
Model Settings
Model settings that were identified during the FEP compilation process include model
parameterization, period of performance, regulatory requirements, and spatial domain. While
these are not FEPs in and of themselves, they are important considerations in the performance
assessment model and are included with the FEPs for completeness.

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 13
7.0 References
Andersson, J., T. Carlsson, T., F. Kautsky, E. Soderman, and S. Wingefors, 1989. The Joint
SKI/SKB Scenario Development Project. SKB-TR89-35, SvenskKarnbranslehantering Ab,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Burkholder, H.C., 1980. “Waste Isolation Performance Assessment—A Status Report”, in
Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Ed. C.J.M. Northrup, Jr., Plenum Press,
New York, NY, Vol. 2, p. 689-702.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61 (10 CFR 61), Licensing Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Government Printing Office, 2007.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 191 (40 CFR 191), Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level
and Transuranic Radioactive Waste, Government Printing Office, 1993.
Guzowski, R.V., 1990. Preliminary Identification of Scenarios That May Affect the Escape and
Transport of Radionuclides From the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New
Mexico, SAND89-7149, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Guzowski, R.V., and G. Newman, 1993, Preliminary Identification of Potentially Disruptive
Scenarios at the Greater Confinement Disposal Facility, Area 5 of the Nevada Test Site,
SAND93-7100, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Hertzler, C.L., and C.L. Atwood, 1989. Preliminary Development and Screening of Release
Scenarios for Greater Confinement Disposal of Transuranic Waste at the Nevada Test Site,
EGG-SARE-8767, EG&G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID.
Hunter, R.L., 1983. Preliminary Scenarios for the Release of Radioactive Waste From a
Hypothetical Repository in Basalt of the Columbia Plateau, SAND83-1342 (NUREG/CR-
3353), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Hunter, R.L., 1989. Events and Processes for Constructing Scenarios for the Release of
Transuranic Waste From the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New Mexico,
SAND89-2546, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Koplik, C.M., M.F. Kaplan, and B. Ross, 1982. “The Safety of Repositories for Highly
Radioactive Wastes,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 54, no. 1, p. 269-310.
Merrett, GJ., and P.A. Gillespie, 1983. Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal: Long-Term Stability
Analysis, AECL-6820, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Pinawa, Manitoba.
NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency), 1992, Systematic Approach to Scenario Development. A report
of the NEA Working Group on the Identification and Selection of Scenarios for
Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste Disposal, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
NEA, 2000. Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive
Waste. An International Database. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 14
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1994. Standard Review Plan for the Review of a
License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, NUREG-1200,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC, 2000. A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facilities, NUREG-1573, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Shipers, L.R., 1989, Background Information for the Development of a Low-Level Waste
Performance Assessment Methodology, Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways,
NUREG/CR-5453, Vol. 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1989.

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 15
Appendix: FEP Listings
This appendix lists the features, events, and processes (FEPs) identified for evaluation in
the Conceptual Site Model and Performance Assessment Scenario development.
Table 1 contains all initial FEP values, listed and numbered by reference
document.

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 16
Table 2 lists those FEPs retained for analysis, and Table 3 includes all those FEPs that were
dismissed from further consideration.
Table 1. List of Initial FEPs by Reference
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
1 meteorite Andersson et al., 1989
2 change in sea level Andersson et al., 1989
3 desert and unsaturation Andersson et al., 1989
4 no ice age Andersson et al., 1989
5 glaciation Andersson et al., 1989
6 permafrost Andersson et al., 1989
7 creeping of copper Andersson et al., 1989
8 common cause canister defects - Quality control Andersson et al., 1989
9 cracking along welds Andersson et al., 1989
10 degradation of hole- and shaft seals Andersson et al., 1989
11 electro-chemical cracking Andersson et al., 1989
12 internal pressure Andersson et al., 1989
13 radiation effects on canister Andersson et al., 1989
14 random canister defects - Quality control Andersson et al., 1989
15 reactions with cement pore water Andersson et al., 1989
16 role of chlorides in copper corrosion Andersson et al., 1989
17 thermal cracking Andersson et al., 1989
18 corrosive agents, sulphides, oxygen etc Andersson et al., 1989
19 pitting Andersson et al., 1989
20 stress corrosion cracking Andersson et al., 1989
21 accumulation in peat Andersson et al., 1989
22 colloid generation and transport Andersson et al., 1989
23 colloid generation - source Andersson et al., 1989
24 colloids, complexing agents Andersson et al., 1989
25 accumulation in sediments Andersson et al., 1989
26 loss of ductility Andersson et al., 1989
27 matrix diffusion Andersson et al., 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 17
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
28 saturation of sorption sites Andersson et al., 1989
29 solubility and precipitation Andersson et al., 1989
30 sorption Andersson et al., 1989
31 extreme channel flow of oxidants and nuclides Andersson et al., 1989
32 radiation effects on bentonite Andersson et al., 1989
33 solubility within fuel matrix Andersson et al., 1989
34 thermal buoyancy Andersson et al., 1989
35 thermochemical changes Andersson et al., 1989
36 diffusion - surface diffusion Andersson et al., 1989
37 dilution Andersson et al., 1989
38 dispersion Andersson et al., 1989
39 dissolution chemistry Andersson et al., 1989
40 dissolution of fracture fillings/precipitations Andersson et al., 1989
41 methane intrusion Andersson et al., 1989
42 accumulation of gases under permafrost Andersson et al., 1989
43 gas transport Andersson et al., 1989
44 gas transport in bentonite Andersson et al., 1989
45 flow through buffer/backfill Andersson et al., 1989
46 preferential pathways in the buffer/backfill Andersson et al., 1989
47 poorly designed repository Andersson et al., 1989
48 backfill effects on copper corrosion Andersson et al., 1989
49 backfill material deficiencies Andersson et al., 1989
50 changed hydrostatic pressure on canister Andersson et al., 1989
51 degradation of the bentonite by chemical reactions Andersson et al., 1989
52 erosion of buffer/backfill Andersson et al., 1989
53 excavation/backfilling effects on nearby rock Andersson et al., 1989
54 external stress Andersson et al., 1989
55 hydraulic conductivity change - excavation/backfilling
effect
Andersson et al., 1989
56 hydrostatic pressure on canister Andersson et al., 1989
57 movement of canister in buffer/backfill Andersson et al., 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 18
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
58 thermal effects on the buffer material Andersson et al., 1989
59 voids in the lead filling Andersson et al., 1989
60 swelling of bentonite into tunnels and cracks Andersson et al., 1989
61 swelling of corrosion products Andersson et al., 1989
62 uneven swelling of bentonite Andersson et al., 1989
63 mechanical effects - excavation/backfilling effects Andersson et al., 1989
64 mechanical failure of buffer/backfill Andersson et al., 1989
65 mechanical failure of repository Andersson et al., 1989
66 sudden energy release Andersson et al., 1989
67 coagulation of bentonite Andersson et al., 1989
68 chemical toxicity of wastes Andersson et al., 1989
69 complexing agents Andersson et al., 1989
70 far field hydrochemistry - acids, oxidants. nitrate Andersson et al., 1989
71 change of ground-water chemistry in nearby rock Andersson et al., 1989
72 chemical effects of rock reinforcement Andersson et al., 1989
73 coupled effects (electrophoresis) Andersson et al., 1989
74 effects of bentonite on ground-water chemistry Andersson et al., 1989
75 isotopic dilution Andersson et al., 1989
76 near field buffer chemistry Andersson et al., 1989
77 oxidizing conditions Andersson et al., 1989
78 Pb-I reactions Andersson et al., 1989
79 pH-deviations Andersson et al., 1989
80 recrystallization Andersson et al., 1989
81 redox front Andersson et al., 1989
82 redox potential Andersson et al., 1989
83 diagenesis Andersson et al., 1989
84 accidents during operation Andersson et al., 1989
85 human-induced climate change Andersson et al., 1989
86 non-sealed repository Andersson et al., 1989
87 unsealed boreholes and/or shafts Andersson et al., 1989
88 explosions Andersson et al., 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 19
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
89 geothermal energy production Andersson et al., 1989
90 enhanced rock fracturing Andersson et al., 1989
91 thermo-hydro-mechanical effects Andersson et al., 1989
92 altered surface water chemistry by humans Andersson et al., 1989
93 city on the site Andersson et al., 1989
94 underground dwellings Andersson et al., 1989
95 loss of records Andersson et al., 1989
96 archeological intrusion Andersson et al., 1989
97 postclosure monitoring Andersson et al., 1989
98 underground test of nuclear devices Andersson et al., 1989
99 unsuccessful attempt of site improvement Andersson et al., 1989
100 poorly constructed repository Andersson et al., 1989
101 future boreholes and undetected past boreholes Andersson et al., 1989
102 other future uses of crystalline rock Andersson et al., 1989
103 reuse of boreholes Andersson et al., 1989
104 chemical sabotage Andersson et al., 1989
105 nuclear war Andersson et al., 1989
106 waste retrieval, mining Andersson et al., 1989
107 human-induced actions on ground-water recharge Andersson et al., 1989
108 human-induced changes in surface hydrology Andersson et al., 1989
109 water producing well Andersson et al., 1989
110 weathering of flow paths Andersson et al., 1989
111 erosion on surface/sediments Andersson et al., 1989
112 geothermally induced flow Andersson et al., 1989
113 sedimentation of bentonite Andersson et al., 1989
114 changes of ground-water flow Andersson et al., 1989
115 enhanced ground-water flow Andersson et al., 1989
116 groundwater recharge/discharge Andersson et al., 1989
117 resaturation Andersson et al., 1989
118 saline or fresh ground-water intrusion Andersson et al., 1989
119 river meandering Andersson et al., 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 20
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
120 microbes Andersson et al., 1989
121 repository induced Pb/Cu electrochemical reactions Andersson et al., 1989
122 Gas generation Andersson et al., 1989
123 gas generation: He production Andersson et al., 1989
124 radiolysis Andersson et al., 1989
125 radiolysis Andersson et al., 1989
126 recoil of alpha-decay Andersson et al., 1989
127 reconcentration Andersson et al., 1989
128 chemical reactions (copper corrosion) Andersson et al., 1989
129 I, Cs-migration to fuel surface Andersson et al., 1989
130 interactions with corrosion products and waste Andersson et al., 1989
131 internal corrosion due to waste Andersson et al., 1989
132 natural telluric electrochemical reactions Andersson et al., 1989
133 perturbed buffer material chemistry Andersson et al., 1989
134 radioactive decay; heat Andersson et al., 1989
135 release of radionuclides from failed canister Andersson et al., 1989
136 role of the eventual channeling within the canister Andersson et al., 1989
137 soret effect Andersson et al., 1989
138 earthquakes Andersson et al., 1989
139 faulting Andersson et al., 1989
140 intruding dikes Andersson et al., 1989
141 changes of the magnetic field Andersson et al., 1989
142 stress changes of conductivity Andersson et al., 1989
143 creeping of rock mass Andersson et al., 1989
144 intrusion into accumulation zone in the biosphere Andersson et al., 1989
145 uplift and subsidence Andersson et al., 1989
146 effect of plate movements Andersson et al., 1989
147 tectonic activity - large scale Andersson et al., 1989
148 undetected discontinuities Andersson et al., 1989
149 undetected fracture zones Andersson et al., 1989
150 volcanism Andersson et al., 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 21
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
151 criticality Andersson et al., 1989
152 H2/02 explosions Andersson et al., 1989
153 co-storage of other waste Andersson et al., 1989
154 damaged or deviating fuel Andersson et al., 1989
155 decontamination materials left Andersson et al., 1989
156 near storage of other waste Andersson et al., 1989
157 stray materials left Andersson et al., 1989
158 Meteorites Burkholder, 1980
159 climate modification Burkholder, 1980
160 Glaciation Burkholder, 1980
161 corrosion Burkholder, 1980
162 Transport Agent Introduction Burkholder, 1980
163 fluid migration Burkholder, 1980
164 dissolutioning Burkholder, 1980
165 biochemical gas generation Burkholder, 1980
166 decay product gas generation Burkholder, 1980
167 differential elastic response Burkholder, 1980
168 dewatering Burkholder, 1980
169 canister movement Burkholder, 1980
170 fluid pressure changes Burkholder, 1980
171 material property changes Burkholder, 1980
172 non-elastic response Burkholder, 1980
173 shaft seal failure Burkholder, 1980
174 geochemical alterations Burkholder, 1980
175 diagenesis Burkholder, 1980
176 gas or brine pockets Burkholder, 1980
177 reservoirs Burkholder, 1980
178 undiscovered boreholes Burkholder, 1980
179 Undetected Past Intrusion Burkholder, 1980
180 Intentional Intrusion Burkholder, 1980
181 archeological exhumation Burkholder, 1980
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 22
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
182 irrigation Burkholder, 1980
183 establishment of new population center Burkholder, 1980
184 improper waste emplacement Burkholder, 1980
185 resource mining (mineral hydrocarbon, geothermal, salt) Burkholder, 1980
186 mine shafts Burkholder, 1980
187 sabotage Burkholder, 1980
188 war Burkholder, 1980
189 waste recovery Burkholder, 1980
190 intentional artificial ground-water recharge or withdrawal Burkholder, 1980
191 weapons testing Burkholder, 1980
192 Denudation and Stream Erosion Burkholder, 1980
193 sedimentation Burkholder, 1980
194 flooding Burkholder, 1980
195 radiolysis Burkholder, 1980
196 waste package - geology interactions Burkholder, 1980
197 breccia pipes Burkholder, 1980
198 diapirism Burkholder, 1980
199 far-field faulting Burkholder, 1980
200 near-field faulting Burkholder, 1980
201 faults, shear zones Burkholder, 1980
202 static fracturing Burkholder, 1980
203 impact fracturing Burkholder, 1980
204 surficial fissuring Burkholder, 1980
205 local fracturing Burkholder, 1980
206 Igneous emplacement Burkholder, 1980
207 intrusive magmatic activity Burkholder, 1980
208 hydraulic fracturing Burkholder, 1980
209 isostasy Burkholder, 1980
210 lava tubes Burkholder, 1980
211 Orogenic Diastrophism Burkholder, 1980
212 Epeirogenic Displacement Burkholder, 1980
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 23
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
213 undetected features Burkholder, 1980
214 extrusive magmatic activity Burkholder, 1980
215 criticality Burkholder, 1980
216 chemical liquid waste disposal Burkholder, 1980
217 storage of hydrocarbons or compressed air Burkholder, 1980
218 non-nuclear waste disposal Burkholder, 1980
219 Celestial bodies Guzowski, 1990
220 meteorite impact Guzowski, 1990
221 sea-level variations Guzowski, 1990
222 pluvial periods Guzowski, 1990
223 glaciation Guzowski, 1990
224 seiches Guzowski, 1990
225 formation of dissolution cavities Guzowski, 1990
226 excavation induced stress/fracturing in host rock Guzowski, 1990
227 subsidence and caving Guzowski, 1990
228 thermally induced stress/fracturing in host rock Guzowski, 1990
229 shaft and borehole seal degradation Guzowski, 1990
230 explosions Guzowski, 1990
231 Inadvertent Future Intrusions Guzowski, 1990
232 injection wells Guzowski, 1990
233 irrigation Guzowski, 1990
234 drilling Guzowski, 1990
235 mining Guzowski, 1990
236 damming of streams or rivers Guzowski, 1990
237 withdrawal wells Guzowski, 1990
238 mass wasting Guzowski, 1990
239 erosion/ sedimentation Guzowski, 1990
240 flooding Guzowski, 1990
241 hydrologic stresses Guzowski, 1990
242 hurricanes Guzowski, 1990
243 tsunamis Guzowski, 1990
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 24
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
244 diapirism Guzowski, 1990
245 faulting Guzowski, 1990
246 formation of interconnected fracture systems Guzowski, 1990
247 regional subsidence or uplift (also applies to subsurface) Guzowski, 1990
248 seismic activity Guzowski, 1990
249 magmatic activity Guzowski, 1990
250 volcanic activity Guzowski, 1990
251 meteorite impact Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
252 climatic change Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
253 sea level change Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
254 dam and reservoir formation from natural causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
255 glacial activity Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
256 radial dispersion Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
257 fluid interactions Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
258 dissolution Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
259 decay product gas generation Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
260 infiltration and evapotranspiration Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
261 thermal changes in burial zone caused by heat generation Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
262 mechanical effects Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
263 shaft/borehole seal failure Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
264 geochemical changes from natural causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
265 diagenesis Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
266 landslide Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
267 local subsidence/caving Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
268 climate control Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
269 fire and explosion Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
270 fire and explosion of waste after burial Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
271 geochemical changes from manmade causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
272 earthquake from man-made causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
273 human surface activities Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
274 hydrology change from man-made causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 25
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
275 unanticipated intrusion Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
276 undetected past intrusion Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
277 undetected features or processes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
278 intentional intrusion Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
279 improper waste emplacement Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
280 mining inadvertent intruder Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
281 dam and reservoir, man-made Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
282 well-drilling inadvertent intruder Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
283 weapons testing Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
284 land erosion Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
285 sedimentation/ aggradation Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
286 lateral ground-water flow in the unsaturated zone Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
287 hydrology change from natural causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
288 hurricane Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
289 tornado Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
290 brush fire Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
291 chemical effects Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
292 diapirism Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
293 earthquake from natural causes Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
294 faulting Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
295 igneous activity Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
296 regional subsidence or uplift Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
297 criticality Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
298 chemical liquid waste disposal Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
299 unanticipated waste composition Hertzler and Atwood, 1989
300 permafrost affects repository Hunter, 1983
301 fluids do not recirculate in response to thermal gradients Hunter, 1983
302 fluids leave along new fault Hunter, 1983
303 fluids recirculate in response to thermal gradients Hunter, 1983
304 fluids recirculate in response to thermal gradients Hunter, 1983
305 normal flow increases Hunter, 1983
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 26
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
306 diffusive mixing occurs Hunter, 1983
307 flux through repository is altered Hunter, 1983
308 head is above outfall Hunter, 1983
309 head is below outfall Hunter, 1983
310 subsidence fractures end above repository Hunter, 1983
311 subsidence fractures reach repository Hunter, 1983
312 fluids carry waste to rivers or tributaries Hunter, 1983
313 fluids carry waste to wells or springs Hunter, 1983
314 ground-water flow paths are shortened Hunter, 1983
315 water from a confined aquifer enters repository Hunter, 1983
316 water from the unconfined aquifer enters repository Hunter, 1983
317 location of river channel changes Hunter, 1983
318 location of river channel changes and flow through
repository is altered
Hunter, 1983
319 flow channels close and reopen later Hunter, 1983
320 meteorite impact Hunter, 1989
321 climatic change Hunter, 1989
322 glaciation Hunter, 1989
323 leaching Hunter, 1989
324 diffusion out of the repository Hunter, 1989
325 dissolution Hunter, 1989
326 dissolution other than leaching Hunter, 1989
327 thermal effects Hunter, 1989
328 seal performance Hunter, 1989
329 subsidence Hunter, 1989
330 exhumation Hunter, 1989
331 drilling into repository Hunter, 1989
332 effects of mining for resources Hunter, 1989
333 sabotage Hunter, 1989
334 warfare Hunter, 1989
335 sedimentation Hunter, 1989
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 27
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
336 ground-water flow Hunter, 1989
337 migration of brine aquifer Hunter, 1989
338 migration of intracrystalline brine inclusions Hunter, 1989
339 effects of brine pocket Hunter, 1989
340 gas generation waste effect Hunter, 1989
341 radiolysis waste effect Hunter, 1989
342 waste/rock interaction Hunter, 1989
343 breccia-pipe formation Hunter, 1989
344 induced diapirism Hunter, 1989
345 faulting Hunter, 1989
346 Igneous intrusion Hunter, 1989
347 nuclear criticality Hunter, 1989
348 meteorite impact IAEA 1983
349 climatic change IAEA 1983
350 sea level change IAEA 1983
351 glacial erosion IAEA 1983
352 geochemical change IAEA 1983
353 corrosion IAEA 1983
354 transport agent introduction IAEA 1983
355 fluid interactions IAEA 1983
356 fluid migration IAEA 1983
357 decay-product gas generation IAEA 1983
358 faulty design IAEA 1983
359 exploration bore-hole seal failure IAEA 1983
360 thermal effects IAEA 1983
361 canister movement IAEA 1983
362 fluid pressure, density, viscosity changes IAEA 1983
363 differential elastic response IAEA 1983
364 material property changes IAEA 1983
365 mechanical effects IAEA 1983
366 non-elastic response IAEA 1983
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 28
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
367 shaft seal failure IAEA 1983
368 geochemical change IAEA 1983
369 diagenesis IAEA 1983
370 gas or brine pockets IAEA 1983
371 climate control IAEA 1983
372 reservoirs IAEA 1983
373 inadvertent future intrusion IAEA 1983
374 undetected past intrusion IAEA 1983
375 undiscovered boreholes IAEA 1983
376 Intentional intrusion IAEA 1983
377 archeological exhumation IAEA 1983
378 irrigation IAEA 1983
379 faulty operation IAEA 1983
380 faulty waste emplacement IAEA 1983
381 resource mining (mineral, water, hydrocarbon,
geothermal, salt, etc)
IAEA 1983
382 exploratory drilling IAEA 1983
383 mine shafts IAEA 1983
384 sabotage IAEA 1983
385 war IAEA 1983
386 waste recovery IAEA 1983
387 intentional artificial ground-water recharge or withdrawal IAEA 1983
388 denudation IAEA 1983
389 stream erosion IAEA 1983
390 sedimentation IAEA 1983
391 flooding IAEA 1983
392 ground-water flow IAEA 1983
393 brine pockets IAEA 1983
394 large-scale alterations of hydrology IAEA 1983
395 hydrology change IAEA 1983
396 gas generation IAEA 1983
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 29
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
397 radiolysis IAEA 1983
398 waste package-rock interactions IAEA 1983
399 breccia pipes IAEA 1983
400 diapirism IAEA 1983
401 faulting/seismicity IAEA 1983
402 faults, shear zones IAEA 1983
403 local fracturing IAEA 1983
404 intrusive IAEA 1983
405 intrusive dikes IAEA 1983
406 Isostatic IAEA 1983
407 lava tubes IAEA 1983
408 orogenic IAEA 1983
409 uplift/subsidence IAEA 1983
410 epeirogenic IAEA 1983
411 magmatic activity IAEA 1983
412 extrusive IAEA 1983
413 nuclear criticality IAEA 1983
414 chemical liquid waste disposal IAEA 1983
415 meteorites Koplik et al., 1982
416 climate modification Koplik et al., 1982
417 climatic fluctuations Koplik et al., 1982
418 glaciation Koplik et al., 1982
419 corrosion Koplik et al., 1982
420 biosphere alteration Koplik et al., 1982
421 local fluid migration Koplik et al., 1982
422 dissolutioning Koplik et al., 1982
423 decay product gas generation Koplik et al., 1982
424 Improper design of operation Koplik et al., 1982
425 Thermal effects Koplik et al., 1982
426 canister movement Koplik et al., 1982
427 change in local state of stress Koplik et al., 1982
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 30
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
428 readjustment of rock along joints Koplik et al., 1982
429 fluid pressure changes Koplik et al., 1982
430 canister migration Koplik et al., 1982
431 convection Koplik et al., 1982
432 differential elastic response Koplik et al., 1982
433 material property changes Koplik et al., 1982
434 Mechanical effects Koplik et al., 1982
435 nonelastic response Koplik et al., 1982
436 stored energy Koplik et al., 1982
437 shaft seal failure Koplik et al., 1982
438 seal - rock interactions Koplik et al., 1982
439 subsidence of canister Koplik et al., 1982
440 geochemical alterations Koplik et al., 1982
441 diagenesis Koplik et al., 1982
442 gas or brine pockets Koplik et al., 1982
443 reservoirs Koplik et al., 1982
444 Inadvertent future intrusion Koplik et al., 1982
445 Undetected past intrusion Koplik et al., 1982
446 undiscovered boreholes Koplik et al., 1982
447 Intentional intrusion Koplik et al., 1982
448 archeological exhumation Koplik et al., 1982
449 irrigation Koplik et al., 1982
450 establishment of population center Koplik et al., 1982
451 improper waste emplacement Koplik et al., 1982
452 resource mining (salt, mineral, hydrocarbon, geothermal) Koplik et al., 1982
453 mine shafts Koplik et al., 1982
454 sabotage Koplik et al., 1982
455 war Koplik et al., 1982
456 waste recovery Koplik et al., 1982
457 Perturbation of ground-water system Koplik et al., 1982
458 intentional artificial ground-water recharge or withdrawal Koplik et al., 1982
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 31
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
459 weapons testing Koplik et al., 1982
460 Denudation and stream erosion Koplik et al., 1982
461 Sedimentation Koplik et al., 1982
462 Flooding Koplik et al., 1982
463 Modification of hydrologic regime Koplik et al., 1982
464 gas generation Koplik et al., 1982
465 Radiation effects Koplik et al., 1982
466 radiolysis Koplik et al., 1982
467 Chemical effects Koplik et al., 1982
468 waste package - geology interactions Koplik et al., 1982
469 breccia pipes Koplik et al., 1982
470 diapirism Koplik et al., 1982
471 far-field faulting Koplik et al., 1982
472 near-field faulting Koplik et al., 1982
473 faults, shear zones Koplik et al., 1982
474 Static fracturing Koplik et al., 1982
475 impact fracturing Koplik et al., 1982
476 surficial fissuring Koplik et al., 1982
477 local fracturing Koplik et al., 1982
478 Igneous emplacement Koplik et al., 1982
479 intrusive magmatic activity Koplik et al., 1982
480 hydraulic fracturing Koplik et al., 1982
481 isostasy Koplik et al., 1982
482 lava tubes Koplik et al., 1982
483 Orogenic diastrophism Koplik et al., 1982
484 Epeirogenic displacement Koplik et al., 1982
485 Magmatic activity Koplik et al., 1982
486 extrusive magmatic activity Koplik et al., 1982
487 criticality Koplik et al., 1982
488 storage of hydrocarbons, compressed air, or hot water Koplik et al., 1982
489 non-nuclear waste disposal Koplik et al., 1982
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 32
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
490 chemical liquid waste disposal Koplik et al., 1982
491 Meteorite impact Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
492 determination of meteorite impact frequencies Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
493 probability of meteorite damage Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
494 Glaciation Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
495 glacial erosion Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
496 fracture mechanics analysis Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
497 vault-related events Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
498 presence of a heat source Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
499 excavation Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
500 use of explosive devices Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
501 drilling and mining Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
502 Denudation and fluvial erosion Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
503 denudation Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
504 fluvial erosion Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
505 alteration of hydrological conditions Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
506 new fault formation Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
507 rapid fault growth Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
508 slow fault growth Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
509 stress analysis Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
510 glacially induced faulting Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
511 subsidence and rebound Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
512 Seismic activity Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
513 jointed rock motion Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
514 Volcanic activity Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
515 hot-spot volcanic activity Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
516 rift system volcanic activity Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
517 Presence of a radioactive source Merrett and Gillespie, 1983
518 Meteorite impact NEA OECD, 2000
519 Climate change, Global NEA OECD, 2000
520 Climate change, regional and local NEA OECD, 2000
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 33
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
521 Ecological response to climate changes NEA OECD, 2000
522 Hydrological/hydrogeological response to climate
changes
NEA OECD, 2000
523 Sea Level change NEA OECD, 2000
524 Warm climate effects (tropical and desert) NEA OECD, 2000
525 Glacial and ice sheet effects, local NEA OECD, 2000
526 Periglacial effects NEA OECD, 2000
527 Container materials and characteristics NEA OECD, 2000
528 Atmospheric transport of contaminants NEA OECD, 2000
529 Vegetation NEA OECD, 2000
530 Animal populations NEA OECD, 2000
531 Biological/biochemical processes and conditions (in
geosphere)
NEA OECD, 2000
532 Biological/biochemical processes and conditions (in waste
and EBS)
NEA OECD, 2000
533 Species evolution NEA OECD, 2000
534 Animal, plant and microbe mediated transport of
contaminants
NEA OECD, 2000
535 Colloids. contaminant interactions and transport with NEA OECD, 2000
536 Contaminant transport path characteristics (in geosphere) NEA OECD, 2000
537 Chemical/complexing agents, effects on contaminant
speciation/transport
NEA OECD, 2000
538 Solid-mediated transport of contaminants NEA OECD, 2000
539 Sorption/desorption processes, contaminant NEA OECD, 2000
540 Speciation and solubility, contaminant NEA OECD, 2000
541 Dissolution, precipitation, and crystallization, contaminant NEA OECD, 2000
542 Noble gases NEA OECD, 2000
543 Volatiles and potential for volatility NEA OECD, 2000
544 Gas-mediated transport of contaminants NEA OECD, 2000
545 Geological resources NEA OECD, 2000
546 Geological units, other NEA OECD, 2000
547 Host rock NEA OECD, 2000
548 Repository assumptions NEA OECD, 2000
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 34
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
549 Thermal processes and conditions (in geosphere) NEA OECD, 2000
550 Excavation disturbed zone, host rock NEA OECD, 2000
551 Buffer/backfill materials and characteristics NEA OECD, 2000
552 Other engineered features materials and characteristics NEA OECD, 2000
553 Thermal processes and conditions (in wastes and EBS) NEA OECD, 2000
554 Emplacement of wastes and backfilling NEA OECD, 2000
555 Repository design NEA OECD, 2000
556 Mechanical processes and conditions (in geosphere) NEA OECD, 2000
557 Mechanical processes and conditions (in wastes and
EBS)
NEA OECD, 2000
558 Seals. cavern/tunnel/shaft NEA OECD, 2000
559 Closure and repository sealing NEA OECD, 2000
560 Dose response assumptions NEA OECD, 2000
561 Dosimetry NEA OECD, 2000
562 Drinking water, foodstuffs and drugs, contaminant
concentrations in
NEA OECD, 2000
563 Environmental media, contaminant concentrations in NEA OECD, 2000
564 Impacts or concern NEA OECD, 2000
565 Human characteristics (physiology, metabolism) NEA OECD, 2000
566 Chemical/organic toxin stability NEA OECD, 2000
567 Exposure modes NEA OECD, 2000
568 Non-food products, contaminant concentrations in NEA OECD, 2000
569 Nonradiological toxicity/effects NEA OECD, 2000
570 Radiological toxicity/effects NEA OECD, 2000
571 Radon and radon daughter exposure NEA OECD, 2000
572 Diet and fluid Intake NEA OECD, 2000
573 Food and water processing and preparation NEA OECD, 2000
574 Food chains, uptake of contaminants in NEA OECD, 2000
575 Chemical/geochemical processes and conditions (in
geosphere)
NEA OECD, 2000
576 Chemical/geochemical processes and conditions (In
wastes and
NEA OECD, 2000
577 Organics and potential for organic forms NEA OECD, 2000
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 35
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
578 Diagenesis NEA OECD, 2000
579 Gas sources and effects (in geosphere) NEA OECD, 2000
580 Human influences on climate NEA OECD, 2000
581 Social and Institutional developments NEA OECD, 2000
582 Excavation/construction NEA OECD, 2000
583 Explosions and crashes NEA OECD, 2000
584 Future human action assumptions NEA OECD, 2000
585 Future human behavior (target group) assumptions NEA OECD, 2000
586 Habits (non-diet related behavior) NEA OECD, 2000
587 Leisure and other uses of environment NEA OECD, 2000
588 Human response to climate changes NEA OECD, 2000
589 Surface environment, human activities NEA OECD, 2000
590 Technological developments NEA OECD, 2000
591 Adults, children, Infants and other variations NEA OECD, 2000
592 Human-action-mediated transport of contaminants NEA OECD, 2000
593 Community characteristics NEA OECD, 2000
594 Dwellings NEA OECD, 2000
595 Motivation and knowledge issues (inadvertent/deliberate
human actions)
NEA OECD, 2000
596 Administrative control , repository site NEA OECD, 2000
597 Records and markers, repository NEA OECD, 2000
598 Unintrusive site investigation NEA OECD, 2000
599 Site Investigation NEA OECD, 2000
600 Rural and agricultural land and water use (incl. fisheries) NEA OECD, 2000
601 Urban and Industrial land and water use NEA OECD, 2000
602 Wild and natural land and water use NEA OECD, 2000
603 Monitoring of repository NEA OECD, 2000
604 Remedial actions NEA OECD, 2000
605 Schedule and planning NEA OECD, 2000
606 Quality control NEA OECD, 2000
607 Retrievability NEA OECD, 2000
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 36
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
608 Drilling activities (human intrusion) NEA OECD, 2000
609 Mining and other underground activities (human intrusion) NEA OECD, 2000
610 Accidents and unplanned events NEA OECD, 2000
611 Water management (wells, reservoirs. dams) NEA OECD, 2000
612 Coastal features NEA OECD, 2000
613 Topography and morphology NEA OECD, 2000
614 Erosion and deposition NEA OECD, 2000
615 Erosion and sedimentation NEA OECD, 2000
616 Hydraulic/hydrogeological processes and conditions (in
geosphere)
NEA OECD, 2000
617 Hydraulic/hydrogeological processes and conditions (in
wastes and EBS)
NEA OECD, 2000
618 Hydrological/hydrogeological response to geological
changes
NEA OECD, 2000
619 Hydrothermal activity NEA OECD, 2000
620 Marine features NEA OECD, 2000
621 Soil and sediment NEA OECD, 2000
622 Aquifers and water-bearing features, near surface NEA OECD, 2000
623 Water-mediated transport of contaminants NEA OECD, 2000
624 Hydrological regime and water balance (near-surface) NEA OECD, 2000
625 Lakes, rivers, streams and springs NEA OECD, 2000
626 Atmosphere NEA OECD, 2000
627 Meteorology NEA OECD, 2000
628 Model and data Issues NEA OECD, 2000
629 Timescale of concern NEA OECD, 2000
630 Regulatory requirements and exclusions NEA OECD, 2000
631 Spatial domain or concern NEA OECD, 2000
632 Ecological/biological microbial systems NEA OECD, 2000
633 Microbial/biological/plant-mediated processes, NEA OECD, 2000
634 Gas sources and effects (in wastes and EBS) NEA OECD, 2000
635 Radioactive decay and in-growth NEA OECD, 2000
636 Radiation effects (In wastes and EBS) NEA OECD, 2000
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 37
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
637 Inorganic solids/solutes NEA OECD, 2000
638 Salt diapirism and dissolution NEA OECD, 2000
639 Discontinuities, large scale (in geosphere) NEA OECD, 2000
640 Metamorphism NEA OECD, 2000
641 Deformation, elastic, plastic or brittle NEA OECD, 2000
642 Seismicity NEA OECD, 2000
643 Undetected features (In geosphere) NEA OECD, 2000
644 Tectonic movements and orogeny NEA OECD, 2000
645 Volcanic and magmatic activity NEA OECD, 2000
646 Nuclear criticality NEA OECD, 2000
647 Inventory, radionuclide and other material NEA OECD, 2000
648 Waste form materials and characteristics NEA OECD, 2000
649 Waste allocation NEA OECD, 2000
650 meteorite impact NEA, 1992
651 no ice age NEA, 1992
652 sea-level rise/fall NEA, 1992
653 ecological response to climatic change NEA, 1992
654 glaciation (erosion/deposition, glacial loading,
hydrogeological change)
NEA, 1992
655 periglacial effects (permafrost, high seasonality) NEA, 1992
656 river flow and lake level changes NEA, 1992
657 fracturing NEA, 1992
658 embrittlement and cracking NEA, 1992
659 metallic corrosion (pitting/uniform, internal and external
agents, gas generation e.g. H2)
NEA, 1992
660 animal uptake NEA, 1992
661 plant uptake NEA, 1992
662 uptake by animal, plant, root NEA, 1992
663 uptake by deep rooting species NEA, 1992
664 soil and sediment bioturbation NEA, 1992
665 plant and animal evolution NEA, 1992
666 colloid formation, dissolution and transport NEA, 1992
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 38
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
667 accumulation in soils and organic debris NEA, 1992
668 advection and dispersion NEA, 1992
669 matrix diffusion NEA, 1992
670 multiphase flow and gas driven flow NEA, 1992
671 solubility limit NEA, 1992
672 sorption (linear/non-linear, reversible/irreversible) NEA, 1992
673 non-radioactive solute plume in geosphere (effect on
redox, ph and sorption)
NEA, 1992
674 diffusion NEA, 1992
675 mass, isotopic and species dilution NEA, 1992
676 dissolution, precipitation, and crystallization NEA, 1992
677 natural gas intrusion NEA, 1992
678 gas flow NEA, 1992
679 gas mediated transport NEA, 1992
680 inadequate backfill or compaction voidage NEA, 1992
681 dewatering of host rock NEA, 1992
682 common cause failures NEA, 1992
683 investigation borehole seal failure and degradation NEA, 1992
684 stress field changes, settling, subsidence or caving NEA, 1992
685 thermal effects (concrete hydration) NEA, 1992
686 Thermal (nuclear and chemical) NEA, 1992
687 canister or container movement NEA, 1992
688 changes in in-situ stress field NEA, 1992
689 subsidence / collapse NEA, 1992
690 differential elastic response NEA, 1992
691 material defects (e.g. early canister failure) NEA, 1992
692 material property changes NEA, 1992
693 Mechanical NEA, 1992
694 non-elastic response NEA, 1992
695 Design and construction NEA, 1992
696 design modification NEA, 1992
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 39
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
697 shaft or access tunnel seal failure and degradation NEA, 1992
698 altered soil or surface water chemistry NEA, 1992
699 chemical transformations NEA, 1992
700 chemical gradients (electrochemical effects and osmosis) NEA, 1992
701 complexing agents NEA, 1992
702 diagenesis NEA, 1992
703 land slide NEA, 1992
704 accidents during operation NEA, 1992
705 agricultural and fisheries practice changes NEA, 1992
706 anthropogenic climate changes (greenhouse effect) NEA, 1992
707 abandonment of unsealed repository NEA, 1992
708 poor closure NEA, 1992
709 tunneling NEA, 1992
710 underground construction NEA, 1992
711 geothermal energy production NEA, 1992
712 repository flooding during operation NEA, 1992
713 co-disposal of reactive wastes (deliberate) NEA, 1992
714 undetected past intrusions (boreholes, mining) NEA, 1992
715 injection of liquid wastes NEA, 1992
716 loss of records NEA, 1992
717 archeological investigation NEA, 1992
718 irrigation NEA, 1992
719 demographic change, urban development NEA, 1992
720 land use changes NEA, 1992
721 post-closure monitoring NEA, 1992
722 underground nuclear testing NEA, 1992
723 effects of phased operation NEA, 1992
724 Operation and closure NEA, 1992
725 poor quality construction NEA, 1992
726 radioactive waste disposal error NEA, 1992
727 Post-closure surface activities NEA, 1992
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 40
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
728 exploitation drilling NEA, 1992
729 exploratory drilling NEA, 1992
730 resource mining NEA, 1992
731 quarrying, near surface extraction NEA, 1992
732 sabotage NEA, 1992
733 malicious intrusion (sabotage, act of war) NEA, 1992
734 recovery of repository materials NEA, 1992
735 recovery of repository materials NEA, 1992
736 ground-water abstraction NEA, 1992
737 dams and reservoirs, built/drained NEA, 1992
738 coastal erosion and estuarine development NEA, 1992
739 denudation (eolian and fluvial) NEA, 1992
740 chemical denudation and weathering NEA, 1992
741 freshwater sediment transport and deposition NEA, 1992
742 fracture mineralization and weathering NEA, 1992
743 rock heterogeneity (permeability, mineralogy), affecting
water and
NEA, 1992
744 river, stream, channel erosion (downcutting) NEA, 1992
745 marine sediment transport and deposition NEA, 1992
746 extremes of precipitation, snow melt and associated
flooding
NEA, 1992
747 effects at saline-freshwater interface NEA, 1992
748 ground-water conditions (saturated/unsaturated) NEA, 1992
749 ground-water discharge (to surface water, springs, soils,
wells, and marine)
NEA, 1992
750 ground-water flow (Darcy, non-Darcy, intergranular
fracture,
NEA, 1992
751 recharge to ground water NEA, 1992
752 saline or freshwater intrusion NEA, 1992
753 natural thermal effects NEA, 1992
754 induced hydrological changes (fluid pressure, density
convection, viscosity)
NEA, 1992
755 site flooding NEA, 1992
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 41
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
756 rivers rechanneled NEA, 1992
757 river meander NEA, 1992
758 frost weathering NEA, 1992
759 solar insolation NEA, 1992
760 coastal surge, storms, and hurricanes NEA, 1992
761 precipitation, temperature, soil, water balance NEA, 1992
762 ecological change (ex. forest fire cycles) NEA, 1992
763 microbial interactions NEA, 1992
764 microbiological (effects on corrosion/degradation,
solubility/complexation, gas generation, ex. CH.C02)
NEA, 1992
765 pedogenesis NEA, 1992
766 gas effects (pressurization, disruption, explosion, fire) NEA, 1992
767 radioactive decay and ingrowth (chain decay) NEA, 1992
768 radiolysis NEA, 1992
769 Radiological NEA, 1992
770 heterogeneity of waste forms (chemical, physical) NEA, 1992
771 cellulosic degradation NEA, 1992
772 interactions of host materials and ground water with
repository material (ex. concrete carbonation, sulphate
attack)
NEA, 1992
773 interactions of waste and repository materials with host
materials (electrochemical corrosive agents)
NEA, 1992
774 introduced complexing agents and cellulosics NEA, 1992
775 induced chemical changes (solubility sorption, species
equilibrium, mineralization)
NEA, 1992
776 diapirism NEA, 1992
777 fault activation NEA, 1992
778 fault generation NEA, 1992
779 host rock fracture aperture changes NEA, 1992
780 metamorphic activity NEA, 1992
781 changes in the earth's magnetic field NEA, 1992
782 uplift and subsidence (orogenic, isostatic) NEA, 1992
783 seismicity NEA, 1992
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 42
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
784 plate movement/tectonic change NEA, 1992
785 undetected features (faults, fracture networks, shear
zones, brecciation, gas pockets)
NEA, 1992
786 magmatic activity (intrusive, extrusive) NEA, 1992
787 nuclear criticality NEA, 1992
788 inadvertent inclusion of undesirable materials NEA, 1992
789 Recurrance of Lake Bonneville Neptune
790 Wave action Neptune
791 Animal burrowing Neptune
792 Dust devils Neptune
793 Barrier stability during inundation Neptune
794 inhalation pathways Neptune
795 human induced hydraulic fracturing Neptune
796 natural hydraulic fracturing (hydrogeological) Neptune
797 Sedimentation Neptune
798 Inundation Neptune
799 radon emanation Neptune
800 natural hydraulic fracturing (tectonic/seismic/volcanic) Neptune
801 Off-Site Residents: impacts on the site by people who
might use the area but don’t live on the site itself.
Neptune
802 On-Site Residents: water well with desalinization;
construction-related activities like basements, footings,
and utilities; enhanced infiltration from septic; altered
plant/animal communities; effect of grading on infiltration;
effect of buildings and pavement on evapotranspiration.
Neptune
803 Agricultural activities Neptune
804 Explosions and Crashes related to plane crashes, bombs Neptune
805 Accidental Intrusion, facility properties intact: mineral, oil
and gas, geothermal or other resource exploration; water
well with desalinization; construction-related activities
Neptune
806 Accidental Intrusion, facility properties altered due to prior
volcanic or seismic event
Neptune
807 FEPs related to post-closure inhabitation of the area Neptune
808 Deliberate Intrusion (purposeful waste retrieval;
archeology; terrorism, etc)
Neptune
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 43
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
809 FEPs related to post-closure intrusion by nonresidents
who come looking for something, or to some kind of major
accident like a plane crash either before or after closure
Neptune
810 meteorite Prij et al. 1991
811 climatic variability Prij et al. 1991
812 minor climatic changes Prij et al. 1991
813 sea-level changes Prij et al. 1991
814 ecological response to climate Prij et al. 1991
815 glaciation Prij et al. 1991
816 periglacial effects Prij et al. 1991
817 canister defects Prij et al. 1991
818 common cause (canister) failures Prij et al. 1991
819 fracturing Prij et al. 1991
820 embrittlement, cracking Prij et al. 1991
821 metallic corrosion Prij et al. 1991
822 bioturbation of soil sediment Prij et al. 1991
823 radiocolloid formation Prij et al. 1991
824 accumulation in soils, organic debris Prij et al. 1991
825 transport of radionuclides Prij et al. 1991
826 advection and dispersion Prij et al. 1991
827 matrix diffusion Prij et al. 1991
828 multiphase flow Prij et al. 1991
829 leaching of nuclides Prij et al. 1991
830 non-radioactive solute in geosphere Prij et al. 1991
831 diffusion Prij et al. 1991
832 dilution of mass Prij et al. 1991
833 dissolution/precipitation reactions Prij et al. 1991
834 natural gas intrusion Prij et al. 1991
835 gas mediated transport Prij et al. 1991
836 inadequate backfill compaction, voidage Prij et al. 1991
837 convergence of openings Prij et al. 1991
838 dewatering of host rock Prij et al. 1991
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 44
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
839 stress field changes Prij et al. 1991
840 thermal effects Prij et al. 1991
841 Thermal Prij et al. 1991
842 degradation of buffer/backfill Prij et al. 1991
843 canister or container movement Prij et al. 1991
844 changes in in-situ stress field Prij et al. 1991
845 readjustment of host rock along joints Prij et al. 1991
846 heat production Prij et al. 1991
847 fracture aperture changes Prij et al. 1991
848 canister migration Prij et al. 1991
849 dehydration of salt minerals Prij et al. 1991
850 differential elastic response Prij et al. 1991
851 material defects Prij et al. 1991
852 swelling of backfill (clay) Prij et al. 1991
853 swelling of corrosion products Prij et al. 1991
854 material property changes Prij et al. 1991
855 Mechanical Prij et al. 1991
856 non-elastic response Prij et al. 1991
857 release of stored energy Prij et al. 1991
858 Design and construction Prij et al. 1991
859 design modification Prij et al. 1991
860 seal failure Prij et al. 1991
861 subsidence, collapse Prij et al. 1991
862 alteration of soil, surface water chemistry Prij et al. 1991
863 Geochemical Prij et al. 1991
864 chemical transformations Prij et al. 1991
865 ionic strength Prij et al. 1991
866 speciation equilibrium reactions Prij et al. 1991
867 texture Prij et al. 1991
868 acidity Prij et al. 1991
869 adsorption and desorption reactions Prij et al. 1991
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 45
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
870 chemical equilibrium reactions Prij et al. 1991
871 counter, competitive, and potential determining ions Prij et al. 1991
872 physico-chemical characteristics influencing chemical
equilibria
Prij et al. 1991
873 redox conditions Prij et al. 1991
874 geochemical alterations Prij et al. 1991
875 diagenesis Prij et al. 1991
876 land slide Prij et al. 1991
877 accidents during operation Prij et al. 1991
878 agricultural developments and changes Prij et al. 1991
879 anthropogenic climate changes (greenhouse effect) Prij et al. 1991
880 abandonment of unsealed repository Prij et al. 1991
881 poor closure Prij et al. 1991
882 tunneling Prij et al. 1991
883 underground construction Prij et al. 1991
884 fisheries developments and changes Prij et al. 1991
885 geothermal energy production Prij et al. 1991
886 co-disposal of reactive wastes (deliberate) Prij et al. 1991
887 Human Induced Phenomena Prij et al. 1991
888 undetected past intrusions Prij et al. 1991
889 injection of fluids Prij et al. 1991
890 loss of records Prij et al. 1991
891 archaeological investigation Prij et al. 1991
892 irrigation Prij et al. 1991
893 changes in land use Prij et al. 1991
894 demographic developments and changes Prij et al. 1991
895 urban developments and changes Prij et al. 1991
896 post-closure monitoring Prij et al. 1991
897 underground nuclear testing Prij et al. 1991
898 Operation and closure Prij et al. 1991
899 phased operation effects Prij et al. 1991
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 46
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
900 attempt of site Improvement Prij et al. 1991
901 poor quality construction Prij et al. 1991
902 improper waste emplacement Prij et al. 1991
903 radioactive waste disposal error Prij et al. 1991
904 Post-closure sub-surface activities Prij et al. 1991
905 Post-closure subsurface activities (intrusion) Prij et al. 1991
906 Post-closure surface activities Prij et al. 1991
907 exploitation drilling Prij et al. 1991
908 exploratory drilling Prij et al. 1991
909 resource mining Prij et al. 1991
910 quarrying, surface mining Prij et al. 1991
911 sabotage Prij et al. 1991
912 malicious intrusion, sabotage/war Prij et al. 1991
913 ground-water abstraction/recharge Prij et al. 1991
914 construction of dams/reservoirs Prij et al. 1991
915 drainage of dams reservoirs Prij et al. 1991
916 coastal erosion development of estuaries Prij et al. 1991
917 denudation, erosion Prij et al. 1991
918 channel erosion Prij et al. 1991
919 chemical denudation Prij et al. 1991
920 channeling and preferential pathways Prij et al. 1991
921 effects on suberosion Prij et al. 1991
922 sediment transport Prij et al. 1991
923 solifluction Prij et al. 1991
924 rock heterogeneity Prij et al. 1991
925 subrosion Prij et al. 1991
926 flooding of repository during operation Prij et al. 1991
927 extreme precipitation Prij et al. 1991
928 flooding of site Prij et al. 1991
929 changes in ground-water system Prij et al. 1991
930 ground-water conditions Prij et al. 1991
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 47
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
931 ground-water discharge Prij et al. 1991
932 ground-water flow Prij et al. 1991
933 ground-water recharge Prij et al. 1991
934 saline-freshwater interface Prij et al. 1991
935 brine migration Prij et al. 1991
936 natural thermal effects Prij et al. 1991
937 induced hydrological changes Prij et al. 1991
938 changes in river regime, lake levels Prij et al. 1991
939 intrusion of saline/fresh water Prij et al. 1991
940 rechanneling of rivers Prij et al. 1991
941 meandering of river Prij et al. 1991
942 water table changes Prij et al. 1991
943 frost weathering Prij et al. 1991
944 solar insolation Prij et al. 1991
945 coastal surge, storms Prij et al. 1991
946 precipitation, temperature, soil, water balance Prij et al. 1991
947 temperature Prij et al. 1991
948 ecological response to sudden change (forest fires) Prij et al. 1991
949 evolution Prij et al. 1991
950 microbial interactions Prij et al. 1991
951 microbiological effects Prij et al. 1991
952 pedogenesis Prij et al. 1991
953 gas generation, explosions Prij et al. 1991
954 gas generation effects Prij et al. 1991
955 radioactive decay/ingrowth Prij et al. 1991
956 Radiological Prij et al. 1991
957 radiolysis Prij et al. 1991
958 heterogeneity of waste forms; chemical or physical Prij et al. 1991
959 cellulosic degradation Prij et al. 1991
960 electrochemical reactions Prij et al. 1991
961 introduced complexing agents, cellulosics Prij et al. 1991
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 48
Table 1 (continued)
FEP ID Initial FEP Reference1
962 material interactions Prij et al. 1991
963 redox potential, pH Prij et al. 1991
964 induced chemical changes Prij et al. 1991
965 diapirism, halokinesis Prij et al. 1991
966 fault activation Prij et al. 1991
967 fault generation Prij et al. 1991
968 fracturing Prij et al. 1991
969 metamorphic activity Prij et al. 1991
970 changes in magnetic field Prij et al. 1991
971 creep of rock Prij et al. 1991
972 uplift and subsidence Prij et al. 1991
973 seismicity Prij et al. 1991
974 undetected geological features Prij et al. 1991
975 plate tectonics Prij et al. 1991
976 undetected features Prij et al. 1991
977 magmatic activity Prij et al. 1991
978 nuclear criticality Prij et al. 1991
979 inadvertent inclusion of undesirable materials Prij et al. 1991
980 radon emanation Neptune
981 resuspension Neptune
1 References for Andersson et al. (1989), Burkholder (1980), Guzowski (1990), Hertzler and Atwood (1989),
Hunter (1983), Hunter, (1989), IAEA (1983), Koplik et al. (1982), Merrett and Gillespie, NEA (1992) and Prij et al.
(1991) were found in Guzowski and Newman (1993).

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 49
Table 2. List of consolidated FEPs evaluated for inclusion in the conceptual site model and
scenarios
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
Climate change climate change Climate change can have a large influence on
site performance. Climate change includes
natural and anthropogenic changes and its
effects on hydrology (including lake effects),
hydrogeology, glaciation, biota, and human
behaviors.
2, 3, 4, 159, 221,
222, 252, 253,
254, 321, 349,
350, 416, 417,
519, 520, 521,
522, 523, 524,
651, 652, 653,
811, 812, 813,
814
lake effects A large lake could have detrimental effects on
the repository. Lake effects include appearance/
disappearance of large lakes and associated
phenomena (sedimentation, wave action,
erosion/inundation, isostasy). This is covered
within climate change scenarios.
Regulations suggest consideration.
656, 789
wave action Wave action, including seiches, could influence
site performance and is included in long-term
scenarios. See lake effects and
erosion/inundation.
224, 790
Containerization containment
degradation
A number of processes can contribute to
degradation of waste containment. These are
accounted for in release of the source term. It is
expected that no credit will be given to
containment.
Regulations suggest consideration.
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 352, 496,
527, 657, 658,
817, 818, 819,
820
corrosion Corrosion is one of the processes that would
contribute to degradation of waste containment.
Regulations suggest consideration.
18, 19, 20, 161,
353, 419, 659,
821
Contaminant
Migration
biotically-
induced
transport
Plant uptake and burrow excavation are
potential contaminant transport (CT) pathways.
Modeling includes biotic (plant- and animal-
mediated) processes leading to contaminant
transport, and the evolution of these processes
in response to climate change and other
influences, including bioturbation, burrowing,
root development, and contaminant uptake and
translocation.
Regulations suggest consideration.
21, 420, 529,
530, 531, 532,
533, 534, 661,
662, 663, 664,
665, 791, 822
colloid transport Colloid formation could be a CT pathway. This
process will be considered in the geochemistry
conceptual model.
22, 23, 24, 535,
666, 823
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 50
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
contaminant
transport
CT is a large class of processes that govern the
migration of contaminants in the environment,
including transport media (water, air, soil)
processes (advection-dispersion, diffusion, plant
uptake, soil translocation) and partitioning
between phases; much overlap with
atmospheric, groundwater, surface water, and
biotically-induced transport.
Regulations suggest consideration.
25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 162,
163, 257, 301,
302, 303, 304,
305, 323, 354,
355, 356, 421,
536, 537, 538,
539, 540, 667,
668, 669, 670,
671, 672, 673,
824, 825, 826,
827, 828, 829,
830
diffusion Diffusion is a basic CT process that could affect
performance. Diffusion occurs in gas and water
phases.
36, 306, 324,
674, 831
dilution Dilution is a basic CT process that could affect
performance. Dilution occurs when mixing with
less concentrated water.
37, 675, 832
dispersion Dispersion is a basic CT process that could
affect performance. Hydrodynamic dispersion is
associated with water advection.
38
dissolution Dissolution will govern leaching of the waste
form into water, limited by aqueous solubility.
39, 40, 164, 225,
258, 325, 326,
422, 541, 676,
833
dust devils Dust devils are common on the flats, and could
disperse contaminants. These are included in
atmospheric dispersion.
792
gas transport Radon produced in the waste is likely to be
transported via gaseous diffusion. Transport in
the gas phase includes gas generation in the
waste, partitioning between air and water
phases, diffusion in air and water, and
radioactive decay and ingrowth.
42, 43, 44, 165,
166, 259, 357,
423, 542, 543,
544, 678, 679,
835
infiltration Infiltration through the cap materials, the waste,
and unsaturated zone could be an important CT
mechanism. This includes infiltration of meteoric
water (precipitation minus abstractions) through
the cap, into wastes, and potentially to the
groundwater.
45, 260, 307
local geology This feature will control some aspects of CT and
is included implicitly in other processes.
Regulations suggest consideration.
545, 546, 547
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 51
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
preferential
pathways
Preferential pathways could contribute to CT.
Their presence is accounted for in the definition
of advective and diffusive processes.
Regulations suggest consideration.
46
Engineered
Features
compaction
error
Inadequate compaction could result in
subsidence. This overlaps with subsidence and
closure failure.
680, 836
engineered
features
Many engineered features are intended to
improve performance. This large collection of
features is intended to promote containment and
inhibit migration of contaminants.
Regulations suggest consideration.
48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59,
167, 168, 169,
170, 226, 227,
228, 261, 308,
309, 327, 359,
360, 361, 362,
363, 425, 426,
427, 428, 429,
430, 431, 432,
497, 498, 548,
549, 550, 551,
552, 553, 554,
555, 681, 682,
683, 684, 685,
686, 687, 688,
689,690
material
properties
Material properties are an essential feature of
any model, and include density, porosity,
hydraulic conductivity, permeability, texture,
tortuosity, etc. of waste, backfill, cap materials,
and naturally occurring materials.
60, 61, 62, 171,
364, 433, 692,
852, 853, 854
repository
design
Respository design clearly influences its
performance. This is accounted for implicitly in
the modeling of the repository.
Regulations suggest consideration.
695, 696, 858,
859
source release Source release is an essential part of the model,
and can result from many mechanisms,
including containment failure, leaching, radon
emanation, plant uptake, and translocation by
burrowing animals.
128, 129, 130,
131, 132, 133,
134, 135, 136,
137, 196, 291,
342, 398, 467,
468, 637, 770,
771, 772, 773,
774, 775, 958,
959, 960, 961,
962, 963, 964
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 52
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
subsidence of
repository
Subsidence can compromise performance,
leading to failure of the cap, and enhanced
infiltration.
Regulations suggest consideration.
310, 311, 329,
439, 861
waste Waste form and inventory are essential parts of
the model. Inventory and source release
includes initial inventory of radionuclides and its
physical and chemical form, container
performance, matrix performance, leaching, and
other release mechanisms.
517, 647, 648,
649
Exposure animal
ingestion
Human ingestion of livestock and game exposed
to contaminants is an exposure pathway, and is
implemented as part of the human exposure
model, as ingestion of fodder and feed by
livestock, and ingestion of livestock by humans,
and similar pathways for game.
Regulations suggest consideration.
660
dosimetry Dosimetry hints at human dose response, which
is an integral part of PA. Physiological dose
response will be estimated in the PA model.
Dosimetry as a science is not a FEP, per se.
Regulations suggest consideration.
560, 561
exposure
media
Exposure media are a fundamental part of
exposure pathways, and include foodstuffs,
drinking water, other environmental media.
These are included in the human exposure
model.
Regulations suggest consideration.
562, 563
human
behavior
Behavior is part of human exposure pathway.
Future human behaviors include activities and
their frequency and duration, distinct from food
and water ingestion.
Regulations suggest consideration.
584, 585, 586,
587, 588
human
exposure
Human exposure, in terms of dose and toxicity,
is considered in the model, and includes
exposure pathways (ingestion, inhalation, etc.)
and physiological effects from radionuclides and
toxic contaminants.
Regulations suggest consideration.
68, 564, 565,
566, 567, 568,
569, 570, 571,
801, 802
ingestion
pathways
Ingestion of food, water, and soils are modeled
human exposure pathways. These include
human exposures due to ingestion of water and
foodstuffs, and transport pathways (e.g. food
chains) that lead to foodstuffs.
Regulations suggest consideration.
572, 573, 574
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 53
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
inhalation
pathways
Inhalation of gases and fine particles are
modeled human exposure pathways.
Regulations suggest consideration.
794
Geochemical geochemical
effects
Geochemical processes control CT in waste
sources, water, and geologic media. These
include chemical sorption and partitioning
between phases, aqueous solubility,
precipitation, chemical stability, complexing,
changes in water chemistry (redox potential,
pH, Eh), fluid interactions, halokinesis,
diagenesis, speciation, cellulosic degradation
effects, interactions with clays and other host
materials, effects of corrosion products, effects
of cementitious materials, and leaching.
69, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76,
77, 78, 79, 80,
81, 82, 174, 264,
368, 440, 575,
576, 577, 698,
699, 700, 701,
862, 863, 864,
865, 866, 867,
868, 869, 870,
871, 872, 873,
874
Human Processes anthropogenic
climate change
This is addressed as part of climate change in
general.
85, 580, 706,
879
community
development
Development of communities and other human
habitation overlaps with land use and habitation,
and is considered in the human exposure
assessment, albeit unlikely. See inhabitation,
land use.
Regulations suggest consideration.
581
excavation Excavation includes construction of basements
and other construction, and is included as part of
the human intrusion scenarios.
330, 499, 582,
709, 710, 882,
883
explosions Human-caused explosions include bombs, plane
crashes, and conventional weapons training.
230, 500, 583,
804
human-induced
processes
Human-induced processes are limited to
repository design, inadvertent human intrusion,
or human-induced climate change. Engineered
features include repository design and new
technological developments. Intentional intrusion
is not considered. Anthropogenic climate change
is considered under climate change.
90, 91, 92, 177,
271, 272, 372,
443, 589, 590,
712, 713, 886
human-induced
transport
Human activities that could contribute to release
are considered. Humans can induce
contaminant transport through a variety of
activities. See inadvertent human intrusion.
273, 274, 591,
592, 795, 887
inadvertent
human
intrusion
Inadvertent human intrusion into the waste is
considered in the development of exposure
pathways.
Regulations suggest consideration.
178, 179, 231,
275, 276, 277,
373, 374, 375,
444, 445, 446,
714, 805, 806,
888
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 54
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
inhabitation Inhabitation on or near the site, including the
establishment of surface or underground
dwellings, communities, or cities, is extremely
unlikely. See community development, land use.
Regulations suggest consideration.
93, 94, 593, 594,
807
institutional
control
Institutional control affects human exposures,
and includes records of site knowledge,
markers, barriers, and security, and the loss
thereof.
Regulations suggest consideration.
95, 595, 596,
597, 716, 890
land use Land use in general could affect exposure
scenarios. Land use changes are related to
demographics, including development of
agricultural, industrial, urban, or wild land uses.
Regulations suggest consideration.
183, 450, 600,
601, 602, 719,
720, 893, 894,
895
post-closure
subsurface
activities
Subsurface human activities are covered to the
extent that they are inadvertent. This could
include intrusion, construction, investigation,
drilling, or mining.
Regulations suggest consideration.
727, 904, 905,
906
Hydrogeological denudation Denudation could expose wastes, and is
combined with erosion and inundation.
Regulations suggest consideration.
192, 388, 460,
502, 503, 739,
917
erosion Erosion of the repository resulting from pluvial,
fluvial, or aeolian processes can result from
extreme precipitation, changes in surface water
channels, and weathering.
Regulations suggest consideration.
110, 238, 284,
389, 504, 613,
740, 918, 919,
920, 921
erosional
transport
Erosional (sediment) transport could be a CT
mechanism. Sediments may move during
erosion; includes solifluction.
Regulations suggest consideration.
111, 239, 614,
615, 741, 742,
922, 923
hydrogeological
effects
Hydrogeological and groundwater hydraulics
changes may occur in response to geological
changes, including hydrothermal activity. This is
generally covered under groundwater transport.
Regulations suggest consideration.
112, 616, 617,
618, 619, 743,
744, 796, 924
sedimentation Sedimentation would occur on a lake bottom,
and could affect performance. This includes
sedimentation/aggradation onto the repository.
113, 193, 285,
335, 390, 461,
621, 797
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 55
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
Hydrology groundwater
transport
Groundwater transport includes waterborne
contaminant transport (CT) in the unsaturated
and saturated zones, and is a principal CT
mechanism. Groundwater flow and transport
mechanisms include advection-dispersion,
diffusion, fluid migration, waterborne
contaminant transport, changes in the flow
system, recharge and discharge, water table
movements, and brine interactions.
114, 115, 116,
117, 118, 286,
312, 313, 314,
315, 316, 336,
337, 338, 339,
392, 393, 622,
623, 747, 748,
749, 750, 751,
752, 929, 930,
931, 932, 933,
934, 935, 942
hydrological
effects
Hydrological processes are considered under
the topics of surface water and groundwater.
Regulations suggest consideration.
463, 505, 624,
753, 754, 936,
937
inundation Inundation by a large lake or reservoir is likely to
affect the site in the long term. (See also: wave
action, and lake effects).
Regulations suggest consideration.
755, 798, 938,
939
Meteorology frost
weathering
Weathering from frost cycles is included in cap
degradation modeling.
758, 943
meteorology Meteorology is considered indirectly;
meteorology as a science is not a FEP, per se,
but contributes to other processes, such as
precipitation and atmospheric dispersion, which
are covered elsewhere.
Regulations suggest consideration.
626, 627, 761,
946, 947
resuspension Resuspension will affect site performance,
allowing particulates from surface soils to be
redistributed by atmospheric dispersion.
981
atmospheric
dispersion
Atmospheric dispersion is a potential CT
pathway and is modeled. See also: dust devils.
Regulations suggest consideration.
256, 528
tornado Tornados are possible in the area. 289
Model Settings model
parameteri-
zation
Parameterization is a fundamental part of
modeling, though is not a FEP, per se.
628
period of
performance
Definition of a period of performance is a
fundamental part of PA modeling, though is not
a FEP, per se.
629
regulatory
requirements
Regulatory requirements drive much of the
modeling in PA, though is not a FEP, per se.
630
spatial domain Definition of a spatial domain is a fundamental
part of modeling, though is not a FEP, per se.
631
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 56
Table 2 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(accepted)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
Other Natural
Processes
ecological
changes
Changes in the types and abundance of plants
and animals could affect performance. Changes
in the ecology can be associated with
catastrophic events (e.g. fire, inundation),
evolution, or climate change.
762, 948, 949
gas generation Uranium wastes are expected to produce radon
which will affect site performance in terms of
doses. See also gas transport.
122, 123, 340,
396, 464, 634,
766, 953, 954
pedogenesis Soils are likely to develop on the cap and may
affect performance.
765, 952
radioactive
decay and in-
growth
Radioactive decay and ingrowth processes are
essential to the model.
635, 767, 799,
955
radon
emanation
Radon emanation directly affects the mass of
radon released into the environment, and hence
site performance.
980
reconcentration Possible reconcentration of radiological
materials during transport is accounted for in the
CT modeling.
127
Tectonic/ Seismic/
Volcanic
geophysical
effects
Geophysical changes to the engineered features
of the site are accounted for in degradation.
Geophysical effects include pressure, stress,
density, viscosity, deformation, magnetics,
creep, and elasticity.

141, 142, 143,
509, 641, 781,
970, 971
1 The Representative FEP IDs correspond to the FEP IDs given in Table 1.

FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 57
Table 3. List of FEPs dismissed from further consideration.
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
Celestial meteorite
impact
The occurrence and consequences of a direct
hit by a meteorite are out of the scope of this
model.
1, 158, 219, 220,
251, 320, 348,
415, 491, 492,
493, 518, 650,
810
Climate change glacial effects Glacial effects include presence of continental
glaciers and resulting isostatic effects, glacial
erosion, and periglacial effects. Glaciers in the
basin are not modeled. Return of a large lake is
expected should a glacial epoch return and is
covered within climate change scenarios.
5, 160, 223, 255,
322, 351, 418,
494, 495, 525,
526, 654, 655,
815, 816
permafrost The effects of permafrost are bounded by those
of cap degradation, which considers more
damaging freeze/thaw cycles. See frost
weathering.
6, 300
Contaminant
Migration
gas intrusion No mechanism for intrusion of naturally-
produced gases into the repository has been
identified.
41, 677, 834
Engineered
Features
convergence of
openings
This FEP applies to mined repositories only. 837
design error Errors in design could compromise performance
but are not included in the modeling. Design
error is distinct from construction or operational
error.
47, 358, 424
material defects Material defects are covered by degradation,
and include material defects in source
containment, closure cap, and other engineered
materials.
691, 851
mechanical
effects
Mechanical effects are covered implicitly by
degradation, and include changes in mechanical
properties and conditions, including failure.
63, 64, 65, 172,
262, 365, 366,
434, 435, 556,
557, 693, 694,
855, 856
release of
stored energy
No significant energy is stored within the wastes. 66, 436, 857
repository seals Regulations suggest consideration, but, the
sealing of the repository shafts, boreholes, and
construction and failure of such is applicable
only to mined repositories.
67, 173, 229,
263, 328, 367,
437, 438, 558,
559, 697, 860
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 58
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
Exposure agriculture Agriculture includes establishment, evolution,
and abandonment of agriculture and aquaculture
at and near the site. Regulations suggest
consideration, however, none of these are
expected to occur because of the high salinity of
soils and groundwater at the site.
705, 803, 878
Geological diagenesis Diagenesis in local lacustrine sediments could
include the formation of interstitial evaporites,
but is not expected to change site performance.
83, 175, 265,
369, 441, 578,
702, 875
gas or brine
pockets
No gas or brine pockets have been identified
below the site.
176, 370, 442,
579
landslide Regulations suggest consideration, but
landslides are not expected to occur in the flat
lacustrine basin. Mass wasting of the site itself is
covered under erosion.
266, 703, 876
local
subsidence
Geological subsidence in the area is unlikely to
seriously affect performance, and is not
expected in the basin of lacustrine sediments.
267
Human
Processes
accidents
during
operations
Regulations suggest consideration, but
operational performance is not within the scope
of the PA model.
84, 704, 877
climate control No climate control at the facility is assumed.
Climate control is a feature of certain mined
repositories.
268, 371
closure failure Regulations suggest consideration; however,
poor closure includes abandonment or other
failure to close the facility as planned, and is not
modeled.
86, 87, 707, 708,
880, 881
fire The waste is not combustible or explosive. Fires
in the waste itself or following explosions are
distinct from wildfire.
269, 270
fisheries Regulations suggest consideration, but
development of fisheries is not credible at the
site.

884
geothermal
energy
production
No geothermal resources are identified at the
site.
89, 711, 885
injection wells Given the regional history, the construction of
injection wells nearby for disposal of liquid
wastes is possible. The effect of drilling such
wells in the vicinity would be negligible,
however.
232, 715, 889
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 59
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
intentional
intrusion
Intentional intruders are not protected and are
not modeled as receptors. Intentional intrusion
includes exhumation of waste, sabotage,
terrorism, or archeological research.
96, 180, 181,
278, 376, 377,
447, 448, 717,
808, 891
investigation Site investigation is considered intentional, and
receptors are not covered.
598, 599, 809
irrigation Regulations suggest consideration, and
irrigation could affect site performance, but will
not occur since there is no suitable water
source.
182, 233, 378,
449, 718, 892
monitoring Monitoring of the site is required, but persons
performing the activity are not protected since it
is intentional and informed. Monitoring activities
will not affect the performance of the site.
97, 603, 721,
896
nuclear testing Regulations suggest consideration; however,
testing of nuclear devices underground, at the
ground surface, or in the atmosphere is
considered intentional disruption of the site and
is not covered.
98, 722, 897
operational
effects
Operations could affect performance, and
include normal site operation, closure, and later
attempts at site improvement. Regulations
suggest consideration; however, operations are
not part of the PA.
99, 604, 605,
723, 724, 898,
899, 900
operational
error
Covered under operational effects. Operational
errors include poor quality site construction,
waste emplacement, and site closure.
Regulations suggest consideration, however,
operations are not part of the PA.
100, 184, 279,
379, 380, 451,
725, 726, 901,
902, 903
quality control Quality control is important to site operations,
but is not a FEP that lends itself to modeling.
606
resource
extraction
Regulations suggest consideration. Resource
extraction is a type of intentional intrusion,
including drilling, mining, or quarrying into the
repository, or in such a way as to affect
performance, in search of resources such as
petroleum, natural gas, salt, rock, or geothermal
resources. See intentional intrusion.
101, 102, 103,
185, 186, 234,
235, 280, 331,
332, 381, 382,
383, 452, 453,
501, 608, 609,
728, 729, 730,
731, 907, 908,
909, 910
sabotage Sabotage is by its nature intentional. See
intentional intrusion.
104, 187, 333,
384, 454, 732,
733, 911, 912
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 60
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
unplanned
events
This category is too vague to be considered
explicitly; unplanned events are generally
subsumed by other FEPs.
610
war Intrusion or disruption as part of an act of war
would be intentional. See intentional intrusion.
105, 188, 334,
385, 455
waste recovery Regulations suggest consideration, but waste
recovery, retrieval, or mining are considered
intentional acts. See intentional intrusion.
106, 189, 386,
456, 607.734,
735
water resource
management
Water resource activities include construction of
dams, reservoirs, and wells, and could affect the
site as water is extracted or retained.
Regulations suggest consideration; however,
this is not specifically modeled, as it is bounded
by the large lake scenario.
107, 108, 109,
190, 236, 237,
281, 282, 387,
457, 458, 611,
736, 737, 913,
914, 915
weapons
testing
Any nuclear and conventional weapons testing
would be done with cognizance of the site, and
is intentional. See also explosions and
intentional intrusion.
191, 283, 459
Hydrogeological subrosion No subsurface erosion has been reported in the
vicinity.
925
Hydrology flooding Regulations suggest consideration; however,
temporary flooding of the site due to extreme
precipitation is not plausible due to site
topography in the midst of the flats. This is
distinct from inundation by the return of a large
lake, which is included.
194, 240, 391,
462, 746, 926,
927, 928
surface water
transport
Surface water transport includes formation and
changes in rivers, lakes, and streams, and
transport of dissolved and suspended solids,
and sediments. Such effects are not anticipated
at the facility. This is distinct from inundation by
the return of a large lake, which is included.
119, 241, 287,
317, 318, 319,
394, 395, 625,
756, 757, 940,
941
Marine coastal
processes
Coastal processes will not apply at the site,
since no sea or ocean is expected in relevant
time frames. However, see wave action.
612, 738, 760,
916, 945
hurricanes No hurricanes occur in the area. 242, 288
insolation Insolation (the amount of sunshine on the site)
has no direct effect on site performance. See
ecological changes.
759, 944
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 61
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
marine effects Marine processes will not apply at the site, since
no sea or ocean is expected in relevant time
frames. Marine processes include sea-level
change. See also coastal processes and
tsunami.
620, 745
tsunami No tsunami will occur at the site. See coastal
processes and marine effects.
243
Natural
Processes
microbial
effects
Microbial action is not expected to affect
performance. Microbial processes include
corrosion, changes in chemistry, and dissolution
of glasses, but biotically-induced transport is
limited to macrobiological processes.
120, 632, 633,
763, 764, 950,
951
radiological
effects
Regulations suggest consideration. Radiological
processes such as radiolysis are a concern for
waste containment in some geological
repositories, but are not modeled here, since
waste containment is not given credit.
124, 125, 126,
195, 341, 397,
465, 466, 636,
768, 769, 956,
957
wildfire Occasional wildfire (brush fire, forest fire, either
local or widespread) is not likely to affect site
performance in the long run, since this is a
natural part of plant community dynamics.
290
Source Release electrochemical
effects
Electrochemical effects are not a relevant
process at the site. Electrochemical reactions
are a concern for the SKB repository.
121
explosions Explosive gases are not present in the
repository.
88
Tectonic/ Seismic/
Volcanic
breccia pipes Regulations suggest consideration, and the
formation of breccia pipes or mud volcanoes
could affect performance, but is considered
highly unlikely.
197, 343, 399,
469
diapirism Salt deposits in the strata below the site will not
result in the formation of diapirs.
198, 244, 292,
344, 400, 470,
638, 776, 965
discontinuities No major geological discontinuities are
envisioned at the site.
639
earthquake Earthquakes, either from natural or man-made
causes, would not change the performance of
this shallow unconsolidated site.
138, 293
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 62
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
faulting Faulting is unlikely to significantly affect
performance of this shallow unconsolidated site
and is not explicitly modeled. Geologic faulting
includes all type of faults, shear zones,
diastrophism, existing and future. See also see
fracturing.
139, 199, 200,
201, 245, 294,
345, 401, 402,
471, 472, 473,
506, 507, 508,
777, 778, 966,
967
fracturing Tectonic fracturing will not affect unconsolidated
site performance.
202, 203, 204,
205, 246, 403,
474, 475, 476,
477, 779, 968
geological
intrusion
Magmatic and intrusive igneous activity has not
been identified in the vicinity of the site.
Geological intrusion includes dikes, intrusive and
magmatic activity, and metamorphism due to
such activity. This is distinct from breccia pipes
(mud volcanoes) and human intrusion.
140, 206, 207,
295, 346, 404,
405, 478, 479,
640, 780, 969
hydraulic
fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing is performed in solid rock,
and has no applicaton at the site. Hydraulic
fracturing ("hydrofracking") is induced by
humans to enhance resource recovery or liquid
waste disposal by injection.
208, 480
intrusion into
accumulation
zone in the
biosphere
No accumulation zone in the biosphere has
been identified at the site.
144
isostatic effects Isostatic changes could influence lake levels,
which are accounted for elsewhere. Isostasy
includes that caused by tectonics, large bodies
of water, and by continental glaciers.
209, 406, 481,
510, 511
lava tubes No lava tubes exist at the site or are expected in
the future.
210, 407, 482
orogeny No significant orogeny is expected in relevant
time frames. Orogeny (mountain-building)
caused by tectonic movements or regional uplift.
211, 247, 296,
408, 483
regional
subsidence
Regional subsidence could influence lake levels,
which are accounted for elsewhere.
145, 409, 782,
972
seismic effects Regulations suggest consideration, but effects of
seismic activity (see also earthquakes) would be
insignificant for shallow land burial.
248, 512, 513,
642, 783, 973
FEP Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 63
Table 3 (continued)
Neptune
Subgroup
Normalized
FEP
(dismissed)
Discussion Representative
FEP IDs1
tectonic effects Tectonic effects could influence lake levels,
which are accounted for elsewhere.
146, 147, 148,
149, 212, 213,
410, 484, 643,
644, 784, 785,
974, 975, 976
volcanism No significant volcanism is expected in relevant
time frames.
150, 214, 249,
250, 411, 412,
485, 486, 514,
515, 516, 645,
786, 800, 977
Waste nuclear
criticality
Nuclear criticality, while a concern for
repositories of used nuclear fuel, is not a
concern at this LLW site.
151, 152, 215,
297, 347, 413,
487, 646, 787,
978
other waste The current analysis is constrained to examine
depleted uranium wastes only, including
associated "contaminant" waste. This rather
vague reference to "other waste" will be
addressed as the scope of wastes under
consideration expands.
153, 154, 155,
156, 157, 216,
217, 218, 298,
299, 414, 488,
489, 490, 788,
979
1 The Representative FEP IDs correspond to the FEP IDs given in Table 1.

 NAC-0018_R4

Conceptual Site Model for
Disposal of Depleted Uranium
at the Clive Facility

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
5 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
2. Filename: Clive DU PA CSM v1.4.docx
3. Description: This document describes the site conditions, chemical and radiological
characteristics of the wastes, contaminant transport pathways, and potential exposure routes at
the Clive facility that are used to structure the quantitative Clive DU PA Model.
Name Date
4. Originator John Tauxe 21 May, 2014
5. Reviewer Dan Levitt, Mike Sully and Bruce Crowe 22 May, 2014
6. Remarks
10/20/2015 MS: Saved as v1.4

21 Oct 2015: Modified figures to be consistent with Clive DU PA Model v1.4, and to clarify use
of the “Federal Cell.” Corrected internal figure references that were out of sequence. – J Tauxe

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
1.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0
 Scope of the Conceptual Site Model ...................................................................................... 1

3.0
 Site Description ...................................................................................................................... 5

3.1
 Land Management ............................................................................................................ 6

3.2
 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.1
 Temperature ................................................................................................................ 8

3.2.2
 Clive facility Precipitation .......................................................................................... 8

3.2.3
 Evaporation ................................................................................................................. 8

3.3
 Geology ............................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.1
 Site Geology ................................................................................................................ 8

3.3.2
 Site Seismotectonics ................................................................................................. 10

3.3.3
 Eolian Deposition ...................................................................................................... 13

3.4
 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.1
 Surface Water ............................................................................................................ 14

3.4.2
 Groundwater .............................................................................................................. 15

3.5
 Ecology ........................................................................................................................... 16

3.5.1
 Local Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 16

3.5.2
 Local Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 17

3.6
 Engineered Features ........................................................................................................ 18

3.6.1
 Federal Cell Disposal Cell Design ............................................................................ 18

3.6.2
 Degradation of Engineered Features ......................................................................... 18

4.0
 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................... 18

4.1
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations ................................................................ 19

4.1.1
 Section 61.55: Waste Classification .......................................................................... 19

4.1.2
 Section 61.41: Protection of the Public ..................................................................... 20

4.1.3
 Section 61.42: ALARA and Collective Dose ........................................................... 21

4.1.4
 Section 61.42: Protection of the Inadvertent Intruder ............................................... 22

4.1.5
 Proposed Rule-Making Regarding 10 CFR 61 ......................................................... 22

4.2
 State of Utah Regulations ............................................................................................... 22

4.2.1
 Section R313-25: Licensing Requirements ............................................................... 23

4.2.2
 Section R313-15-1009: Waste Classification ........................................................... 23

4.2.3
 Groundwater Protection Limits ................................................................................. 24

5.0
 Summary of Features, Events, and Processes ...................................................................... 25

6.0
 Waste Forms ......................................................................................................................... 28

6.1
 Savannah River Site Uranium Trioxide .......................................................................... 29

6.2
 Depleted Uranium Oxide from the Gaseous Diffusion Plants ........................................ 30

6.3
 Depleted Uranium Already Disposed at the Clive Facility ............................................ 31

6.4
 Modeled Radionuclides .................................................................................................. 31

6.5
 Chemical Characteristics of DU Wastes ......................................................................... 31

7.0
 Modeling of the Natural Environment ................................................................................. 32

7.1
 Current Conditions .......................................................................................................... 32

7.1.1
 Groundwater Flow and Transport ............................................................................. 32

7.1.2
 Surface Water ............................................................................................................ 36

7.1.3
 Air and Atmosphere .................................................................................................. 37

7.1.4
 Biota 39

7.1.5
 Native Animals ......................................................................................................... 41

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 v
7.2
 Deep Time Conditions .................................................................................................... 43

7.2.1
 Background on Long-term Controls on Site Conditions .......................................... 44

7.2.2
 Long-Term Scenarios ................................................................................................ 49

8.0
 Modeling of Engineered Features ........................................................................................ 51

8.1
 Waste Form and Containment ........................................................................................ 51

8.2
 Liners .............................................................................................................................. 51

8.3
 Cover ............................................................................................................................... 52

9.0
 Radionuclide Transport ........................................................................................................ 53

9.1
 Modeled Radionuclides .................................................................................................. 54

9.1.1
 Reported Inventory ................................................................................................... 54

9.1.2
 Radioactive Decay and In-growth ............................................................................. 54

9.1.3
 Short-lived Radionuclides ......................................................................................... 54

9.1.4
 Radionuclides with Small Branching Fractions ........................................................ 56

9.2
 Source Release ................................................................................................................ 57

9.2.1
 Containment Degradation ......................................................................................... 57

9.2.2
 Matrix Release .......................................................................................................... 57

9.2.3
 Radon Emanation ...................................................................................................... 57

9.3
 Waterborne Radionuclide Transport ............................................................................... 58

9.4
 Airborne transport ........................................................................................................... 59

9.4.1
 Diffusion Through Porous Media ............................................................................. 59

9.4.2
 Atmospheric Dispersion ............................................................................................ 60

9.5
 Biotically Induced Transport .......................................................................................... 60

9.5.1
 Transport via Plants .................................................................................................. 60

9.5.2
 Burrowing Animals ................................................................................................... 61

10.0
 Modeling Dose and Risk to Humans .................................................................................... 61

10.1
 Period of Performance .................................................................................................... 62

10.2
 Site Characteristics and Assumptions ............................................................................. 63

10.3
 Receptor Scenarios ......................................................................................................... 63

10.3.1
 Ranching Scenario .................................................................................................... 63

10.3.2
 Recreational Scenario ............................................................................................... 64

10.3.3
 Remote Off-Site Receptors ....................................................................................... 65

10.4
 Transport Pathways ......................................................................................................... 65

10.5
 Exposure Pathways ......................................................................................................... 66

10.6
 Risk Assessment Endpoints ............................................................................................ 66

11.0
 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 68

12.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 70

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 vi
FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the performance assessment process. ......................................... 2

Figure 2. Location of the Clive site operated by EnergySolutions. ................................................. 6

Figure 3. Disposal and treatment facilities operated by EnergySolutions, with Federal Cell
identified. ....................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Eolian silt in trench located at Clive Pit 29 overlying Lake Bonneville sedimentary
deposits (Neptune 2015). ............................................................................................. 13

Figure 5. An example of upper soil-modified eolian silt in Pit 29. Basal contact of the silt is
approximately located at the middle of the pick handle. Lake Bonneville marl is at
the bottom of the pick handle. ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 6. Waste classification Tables 1 and 2 from 10 CFR 61.55. .............................................. 20

Figure 7. Waste classification Table I from R313-15-1009. ......................................................... 24

Figure 8. Section and Plan views of the Federal Cell, with top slope shown in blue and side
slope in green. The brown dotted line in the West-East Cross section represents
below-grade (below the line) and above-grade (above the line) regions of the
embankment. ............................................................................................................... 33

Figure 9. Evapotranspiration (ET) cover system. .......................................................................... 35

Figure 10. Hydrostratigraphic profile showing ET cover, waste zone, and hydrostratigraphy
below the Federal Cell. ................................................................................................ 36

Figure 11. Conceptual model for plant induced contaminant transport ........................................ 40

Figure 12. Whittaker Biome Diagram ........................................................................................... 48

Figure 13. Scenarios for the long-term fate of the Clive facility ................................................... 50

Figure 14. Principal decay chains for the four actinide series. Radionuclides in black are
included in the fate and transport model, and those in green are considered only in
the dose model. ............................................................................................................ 55

Figure 15. Detailed decay chains for actinides. Radionuclides in black are included in the fate
and transport model, those in green are considered only in the dose model, and
those in gray are not modeled. ..................................................................................... 56

Figure 16. Conceptual model for transport and exposure pathways at the Clive facility .............. 67

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 vii
TABLES
Table 1. Known lake cycles in the Bonneville Basin .................................................................... 46

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 viii
Acronyms and Abbrev.
Ac actinium
Am americium
amsl above mean sea level
bgs below ground surface
BLM Bureau of Land Management
Bq becquerel (1 disintegration per second)
CAW Class A West (embankment)
CEDE committed effective dose equivalent
CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
Ci curie (37 GBq)
CSF cancer slope factor
CSM conceptual site model
CWF Containerized Waste Facility
DCF dose conversion factor
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DU depleted uranium
DUF6 depleted uranium hexafluoride
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEP features, events, and processes
FR Federal Register
ft foot/feet
g gram
GDP gaseous diffusion plant
GWPL groundwater protection limit(s)
GTCC greater than Class C waste
ha hectare
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection
IHI inadvertent human intruder
ka thousand years ago
Kd soil/water partition coefficient
kg kilogram
KH Henry’s Law constant (air/water partition coefficient)
km kilometer
ky thousand years
L liter
LARW low-activity radioactive waste
LLW low-level radioactive waste
MCL maximum contaminant level(s)
m meter
Ma million years ago
mg milligram
Mg megagram (one metric ton)
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 ix
MLLW mixed [hazardous and] low-level radioactive waste
MOP member of the public
MPa megapascal
mrem millirem
mSv millisievert
My million years
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NNSS Nevada National Security Site
NUREG an NRC publication
OHV off-highway vehicle
Pa protactinium
PA performance assessment
PAWG Performance Assessment Working Group (DOE)
pCi picocurie
Po polonium
ppm part per million
Pu plutonium
QA quality assurance
Ra radium
RfD reference dose
Rn radon
SRS Savannah River Site
Sv Sievert
Tc technetium
TDS total dissolved solids
TEDE total effective dose equivalent
TF Treatment Facility
Th thorium
U uranium
UAC Utah Administrative Code
UNF used nuclear fuel
UWQB Utah Water Quality Board
yr year

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 1
1.0 Introduction
The safe storage and disposal of depleted uranium (DU) waste is essential for mitigating releases
of radioactive materials and reducing exposures to humans and the environment. Currently, a
radioactive waste facility located in Clive, Utah (the Clive facility) operated by EnergySolutions
is proposed to receive and store DU waste that has been declared surplus by the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE). The Clive facility has been tasked with disposing of the DU waste in an
economically feasible manner that protects humans from future radiological releases.
To assess whether the proposed Clive facility location and containment technologies are suitable
for protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land disposal of radioactive
waste set forth in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 (10 CFR 61) Subpart C, and
promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), must be met. In order to support the
required radiological performance assessment (PA), a detailed computer model is developed in
order to evaluate the doses to human receptors that would result from the disposal of DU and its
associated radioactive contaminants (collectively termed “DU waste”), and conversely to
determine how much DU waste can be safely disposed at the Clive facility.
This conceptual site model (CSM) document describes the site conditions, chemical and
radiological characteristics of the wastes, contaminant transport pathways, and potential
exposure routes at the Clive facility that are used to structure the quantitative Clive DU PA
Model. The Model is probabilistic, taking into account uncertainties inherent to model variables
and site-specific conditions. The GoldSim systems analysis software (GTG, 2010) is used to
construct the probabilistic PA model. This PA model is intended to reflect the current state of
knowledge with respect to the proposed DU disposal, and to support environmental decision
making in light of inherent uncertainties.
This CSM report, and the associated features, events and processes (FEPs) report, are regarded
as “living documents.” That is, as further information is gathered during the course of model
development, the CSM might evolve and, consequently, be updated. Changes to the CSM will be
tracked so that the evolution is well documented.
2.0 Scope of the Conceptual Site Model
The overall scope of this analysis is to evaluate the long-term siting and performance integrity of
the Federal Cell (a discrete section of what was formerly known as the Class A South
Embankment, which included other wastes as well; and interchangeably termed the Federal DU
Cell in other documents because of the focus of this model on disposal of DU) at the Clive
facility for the proposed disposal of DU waste. The need for a PA is driven by Federal and State
of Utah regulations, which require an evaluation of the potential human radiation doses and
consequences of disposal of radioactive waste. The regulations contain procedural requirements,
performance objectives, and technical requirements for near-surface disposal, including disposal
in engineered facilities with protective earthen covers, which may be built fully or partially
above-grade, such as the radioactive waste disposal cells at the Clive facility. The overall PA
process is illustrated in Figure 1.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 2
This CSM describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the Clive facility.
The CSM, therefore, encompasses everything from the inventory of disposed wastes, the
migration of radionuclides contained in the waste through the engineered and natural systems,
and the exposure and radiation doses to hypothetical future humans. These site characteristics are
used to define variables for the quantitative Clive DU PA Model that are used to provide insights
and understanding of the future potential human radiation doses from the disposal of DU waste.
The content of the CSM informs the Model with respect to regional and site-specific FEPs, such
as climate, groundwater, and human receptor scenarios. The CSM accounts for and defines
relevant FEPs at the site, materials and their properties, interrelationships, and boundaries. These
constitute the basis of the Clive DU PA Model, on which, or through which, radionuclides are
transported to locations where receptors might be exposed.
The quantitative probabilistic Clive DU PA Model will be used to evaluate the migration of
radionuclides contained in the DU wastes, and the subsequent human doses resulting from
potential exposure to radionuclides, based on projecting current societal conditions up to 10,000
years into the future. However, because the radioactivity from the DU wastes (including
progeny) will increase for more than 2 million years, and will persist for at least a billion years,
further modeling of potential long-term future scenarios will be performed beyond the
10,000-year compliance period. The longer term model will address mechanisms by which
radionuclides might be dispersed in the environment, suggesting concentrations of radionuclides
in various media.
However, the long term future model will not directly address human doses, because it is not
clear what human exposure scenarios might be reasonable given events in the long term future
that might dramatically alter human society and civilization. Therefore, the focus of the longer-
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the performance assessment process.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 3
term modeling will be scenarios developed to represent potential features, events and processes
that affect contaminant fate and transport over these much longer periods.
The quantitative model is used to evaluate potential human radiation doses from exposure to
radionuclides contained in the DU wastes that may result from migration through the engineered
and natural systems to the potentially exposed population. Note that regulations specify
estimation of dose, rather than risk, though there are risks implied in the regulatory dose limits
(see Section 4). Risk-based decision-making is best supported with probabilistic modeling, and
has been used to assess compliance and inform decision making at many challenging radioactive
waste sites under various regulatory requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has published probabilistic risk assessment guidance for human exposure to chemicals
(EPA, 2001) and promotes the use of probabilistic methods for performance assessments of
radioactive disposal facilities in its Environmental Radiation Protection Standards (40 CFR
191). The DOE has implemented probabilistic PAs at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, at the
Yucca Mountain Project, and for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities at the
Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site), Los Alamos National
Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site. The NRC has adopted this approach as well, as
documented in its Performance Assessment Methodology for LLW Disposal Facilities (NRC,
2000). Further, the National Research Council has argued in favor of the risk-based approach in
its recent book, Risk and Decisions (National Research Council, 2005). More generally, various
agencies and professional organizations (e.g., EPA’s Council for Regulatory Environmental
Modeling, Society for Risk Analysis) have consistently moved in the direction of supporting
risk-based decisions with probabilistic analysis so that the potential risks are modeled more
realistically (as opposed to conservatively) and uncertainty is numerically characterized.
Thus, the quantitative PA model is probabilistic, with uncertainties associated with the complex
evolution from waste disposal to human exposure and dose captured through input parameter
probability distributions. Attention is paid to developing model input parameter distributions that
reflect both the uncertain state of knowledge and the appropriate spatio-temporal scaling. The
focus of the uncertainty analysis in the Clive DU PA Model will be parameter uncertainty. The
Model is also developed with the capability of running the model under various FEP scenarios to
allow for an assessment of scenario uncertainty. This is important for the longer-term scenarios
in particular.
As noted above, the probabilistic approach models future conditions by projecting current
conditions as reasonably as possible while including uncertainty in the parameters or
assumptions of the model. This is differentiated from “conservative” (i.e., biased toward safety)
modeling that is sometimes performed, typically using point values for parameters (implying a
great deal of confidence; i.e., no uncertainty). This type of conservative modeling is often termed
“deterministic” modeling, and has often been used to support compliance decisions. However,
supposed conservatism in parameter estimates (or distributions) is often difficult to judge in fully
coupled models in which all transport processes are contained in the same overall PA model.
More importantly perhaps, conservative dose results from PA models do not support the full
capability of a disposal facility. Conservative, deterministic models may have utility at a
“screening” level, but, they do not provide the full range of information that is necessary for
important decisions such as compliance or rule-making (Bogen 1994, Cullen 1994).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 4
Of further concern is the type of modeling environment that is needed to support the types of
decisions that are made on the basis of PA models. The GoldSim modeling environment is
focused on development of “systems-level” models. These models are intended to characterize
the effects and consequences of system level dynamics. In this case, the system consists of the
waste disposal facility and the interaction of the facility with the environment (e.g., weather,
water, biota, etc.) in the 10,000-yr duration for which quantitative modeling will be performed
with human dose as the endpoint of interest, as well as the longer duration for which media
concentrations resulting from potential future scenarios involving, for example, climate change,
re-occurrence of large lakes, will be evaluated. That is, the domain of the model is large both
spatially and temporally. However, decisions need to be made in the face of uncertainty
regarding the applicability of the Clive facility for disposal of DU, and more generally, for the
design of the disposal facility.
Systems-level models are aimed precisely at supporting decision making in this type of context.
More detailed “process-level” models, which might model at a much more refined spatial scale
(and perhaps temporal scale), can provide useful input to the systems-level model, but they do
not as readily support decision-making at the more holistic scale of the systems-level response.
For example, a systems-level model will evaluate the movement of radionuclides from the waste
zone, through the unsaturated zone, to the saturated zone, by considering the average effects
across those system components, as opposed to the effects at a more refined scale such as every
cubic meter, which is more common for process-level modeling. Process-level models are often
geared towards capturing variability at small spatial scales, whereas systems-level models are
aimed at capturing uncertainty in the system as a whole. PA modeling is concerned with the
latter, including demonstration of compliance followed by a decision analysis in the spirit of
achieving ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable; see Section 4.0) releases and doses to
optimize disposal and closure (e.g., engineered barriers, institutional controls).
To capture the temporal domain of the model, time steps in this type of systems-level dynamic
probabilistic model are usually on the order of several to many years. Consequently, the average
effects over long time frames, assuming no catastrophic changes in the system, are far more
important than the effects on the scale of days or seconds. Spatial and temporal scaling of
available data, which are usually collected at points in time and space, is critical for the success
of systems-level models. Scaling in this context is essentially an averaging process both spatially
and temporally. Simple averaging works well if the effect on the response of a variable or
parameter is linear. Otherwise, some care needs to be taken in the spatio-temporal averaging
process. In addition, these types of models are characterized by differential equations and
multiplicative terms. Averaging is a linear construct that does not translate directly in non-linear
systems. Again, care needs to be taken to capture the appropriate systems-level effect when
dealing with differential equations and multiplicative terms.
A further statistical issue of concern is the challenge of capturing dependencies or correlation
structures with this type of dynamic probabilistic system. Inputs for parameters (variables) are
usually provided independently of each other. However, it is very important to capture
correlations between variables in a multiplicative model. Otherwise, system uncertainty is not
adequately constrained. GoldSim provides some limited capability to introduce correlation into a
PA model, but steps will be taken to evaluate the correlation effects of some variables.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 5
Processes that contribute to the fate and transport of these contaminants are also abstracted into
mathematical models. That is, process-level models are sometimes important for providing input
to PA models. Model abstraction is best performed by running process-level models for some
cases or scenarios that correspond to a design over the inputs. The response can be modeled
using a statistical response surface, which can then be carried or abstracted into the PA model.
The systems-level PA model is then fully coupled across processes, meaning that inputs and
outputs from each process affect the prior and posterior processes.
With a probabilistic dynamic PA model, a global sensitivity analysis can be performed to
identify those parameters that are most important for predicting the model results. This type of
sensitivity analysis is performed using statistical methods from data mining allowing all input
parameters to be varied simultaneously. This allows the combined effect of changes in
parameters to be evaluated. The sensitivity analysis tools can then be used to determine whether
more information should be collected to reduce uncertainty.
3.0 Site Description
EnergySolutions operates a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility west of the Cedar
Mountains in Clive, Utah, as shown in Figure 2. Clive is located along Interstate-80,
approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of the highway, in Tooele County. The facility is
approximately 80 km (50 mi) east of Wendover, Utah and approximately 100 km (60 mi) west of
Salt Lake City, Utah. The facility sits at an elevation of approximately 1302 m (4275 ft) above
mean sea level (amsl) and is accessed by both highway and rail transportation. The Clive facility
is adjacent to the above-ground disposal cell used for uranium mill tailings that were removed
from the former Vitro Chemical company site in South Salt Lake City between 1984 and 1988
(Baird et al., 1990).
Currently, the Clive facility receives waste shipped via truck and rail. Pending the findings of the
PA, DU waste will be stored in a permanent above-ground engineered disposal embankment that
is clay-lined with a composite clay and soil cover. The disposal embankment is designed to
perform for a minimum of 500 years based on requirements of 10 CFR 61.7, which provides a
long-term disposal solution with minimal need for active maintenance after site closure. More
detail relating to the properties of the disposal embankment is provided in Section 3.6.1.
The EnergySolutions Clive facility is divided into three main areas (Figure 3 in EnergySolutions,
2008):
• the Bulk Waste Facility, including the Mixed Waste, Low Activity Radioactive Waste
(LARW), 11e.(2), and Class A LLW areas,
• the Containerized Waste Facility (CWF), located within the Class A LLW area, and
• the Treatment Facility (TF), located in the southeast corner of the Mixed Waste area.
The subject of this CSM and associated modeling is DU waste disposed or to be disposed in the
Federal Cell. The terms “cell” and “embankment” are here used interchangeably.

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 6

3.1 Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers much of the land around the Clive facility.
BLM land is public domain (NRC, 1993). The disposal site is located within a 260-ha (640-acre)
section of land that was originally selected for the disposal of the Vitro Chemical Company
uranium tailings (see “Vitro” in Figure 3). This section of land occupies approximately 40 ha
(100 acres), while the remaining 220 ha (540 acres) is owned and operated by EnergySolutions.
The Tooele County Commission zoned the Clive site as a “Hazardous Industrial District,” which
falls within the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area, an area that prohibits future residential
housing in the near vicinity of the Clive site (NRC, 1993).
NRC (1993) and the BLM (BLM staff, personal communication, 2010) indicates that the area
surrounding the Clive facility is used for cattle and sheep grazing purposes and recreation. While
the site is zoned for hazardous waste disposal by Tooele County, the lack of potable water at this
site makes the surrounding area an unlikely location for any residential, commercial, or industrial
developments (Baird et al., 1990).

Figure 2. Location of the Clive site operated by EnergySolutions.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 7

Figure 3. Disposal and treatment facilities operated by EnergySolutions, with Federal Cell
identified.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 8
3.2 Climate
3.2.1 Temperature
Regional climate is regulated by the surrounding mountain ranges, which restrict movement of
weather systems in the vicinity of the Clive facility. The most influential feature affecting
regional climate is the presence of the Great Salt Lake, which can moderate downwind
temperatures since it never freezes (NRC, 1993). The climatic conditions at the Clive facility are
characterized by hot and dry summers, cool springs and falls, and moderately cold winters
(NRC, 1993). Frequent invasions of cold air are restricted by the mountain ranges in the area.
Data from the Clive facility from 1992 to 2009 indicate that monthly temperatures range from
about -2.4°C (27.7°F) in December to 26.4°C (79.5°F) in July (MSI, 2010) where monthly
average temperatures are assumed to be calculated as the monthly average of hourly air
temperatures for that month based on comparison with hourly data collected for 2009 and
reported in MSI (2010).
3.2.2 Clive facility Precipitation
Clive facility Data collected at the Clive facility from 1992 through 2004 indicate that average
annual rainfall is on the order of 22 cm (8.6 in) per year (Whetstone, 2006). Precipitation
generally reaches a maximum in the spring (1992-2004 monthly average of 3.2 cm [1.25 in] in
April), when storms from the Pacific Ocean are strong enough to move over the mountains
(NRC, 1993; Whetstone, 2006). Precipitation is generally lighter during the summer and fall
months (1992-2004 monthly average of 0.8 cm [0.32 in] in August) with snowfall occurring
during the winter months (Whetstone, 2006; NRC, 1993; Baird et al., 1990).
3.2.3 Evaporation
Because of warm temperatures and low relative humidity, the Clive facility is located in an area
of high evaporation rates. NRC (1993) indicates that average annual pond evaporation rate at the
Clive facility is 150 cm/yr (59 in/yr), with the highest evaporation rates between the months of
May and October. Previous modeling studies indicate that the Dugway climatological station
nearby is comparable to the Clive site with respect to evaporation and have reported pan-
evaporation estimates of 183 cm/yr (72 in/yr), which is considerably greater than average annual
rainfall (Adrian Brown, 1997a). While the data range for the site is more limited, annual pan
evaporation measured at the site greatly exceeds annual precipitation (MSI 2010). Average
annual pan evaporation is 132 cm (52 in) (MSI 2010, p. 4-7) while average annual precipitation
is 22 cm (8.5 in) (MSI 2010, p. 4-8).
3.3 Geology
3.3.1 Site Geology
The Clive facility rests on lacustrine deposits from the ancestral Lake Bonneville, which was a
pluvial lake that existed during the late Pleistocene. The geology is characterized by north-south
trending mountain ranges surrounded by sediment filled basins. The site is bounded by the Cedar
Mountains to the east and the Great Salt Lake Desert to the west. Surficial drainage is generally
in a westward direction away from the nearest mountain range.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 9
NRC (1993) indicates that based on subsurface borehole logs, lacustrine deposits extend to at
least 75 m (250 ft) underneath the site, however these estimates are limited to the depths of
boreholes drilled from previous hydrogeologic investigations (e.g., Envirocare [2004]). Oviatt et
al. (1999) examined the upper 110 m (361 ft) of the Burmester core, a sediment core that was
collected to a depth of 307 m (1007 ft) in the 1970s to characterize major pluvial lake cycles in
the Bonneville Basin. Brodeur (2006) also indicates that sediments can be up to a thousand
meters thick in some regions of the basin and greater than 200 m (700 ft) thick in the basin at the
Clive site.
The sediments underlying the Clive site are described as four separate hydrostratigraphic units
based on grain size and sediment characteristics. These units are described in NRC (1993),
Adrian Brown (1997a), and Envirocare (2004) and are introduced from the ground surface down:
• Unit 4 (surface) is composed primarily of silt and clay between 1.8 and 5 m (6 and 16.5
ft) thick, with an average thickness of 3 m (10 ft). Minor amounts of sand within the silt
and clay can be found along with some evaporite mineral content. This layer has a low
permeability and a high capacity to store moisture.
• Unit 3 lies beneath Unit 4 and is composed of a silty sand between 2.1 and 7.6 m (7 and
25 ft thick, with an average thickness of 3 m (10 ft). The water table of a shallow,
unconfined aquifer occurs near the bottom of this Unit on the western side of the site.
This shallow aquifer is saline.
• Unit 2 lies beneath Unit 3 and is composed of clay with occasional lenses or interbeds of
silty sand. This unit is between 0.76 and 7.6 m (2.5 and 25 ft) thick and is saturated with
saline groundwater.
• Unit 1 underlies Unit 2 and is saturated beneath the facility, containing a locally confined
aquifer. Unit 1 extends from approximately 14 m (45 ft) bgs and contains the deep
aquifer. The deeper aquifer is reported to be made up of lacustrine deposits consisting of
deposits of silty sand with some silty clay layers. One or possibly more silty clay layers
overlie the aquifer (Bingham Environmental 1994).
The aquifer system in the vicinity of the Clive facility is described by Bingham Environmental
(1991, 1994) and Envirocare (2000, 2004) as consisting of unconsolidated basin-fill and alluvial
fan aquifers. Characterization of the aquifer system is based on subsurface stratigraphy
observations from borehole logs and from potentiometric measurements. The aquifer system is
described as being composed of two aquifers; a shallow, unconfined aquifer and a deep confined
aquifer. The shallow unconfined aquifer extends from the water table to a depth of
approximately 13 to 14 m (40 to 45 ft) bgs. The water table in the shallow aquifer is reported to
be located in Unit 3 on the west side of the site and in Unit 2 on the east side.
The deep confined aquifer is encountered at approximately 14 m (45 ft) bgs and extends through
the valley fill (Bingham 1994). The boring log from a water supply well drilled in adjoining
Section 29 indicated continuous sediments to a depth of 190 m (620 ft) bgs (DWR 2014, water
right number 16-816 and associated well log 11293). The deepest portion of the basin in the
Clive area is believed to be north of Clive in Ripple Valley where the basin fill was estimated to
be 900 m (3,000 ft) thick (Baer and Benson, as cited in Black et al., 1999).
Deeper saturated zones in Unit 1 below approximately 14 m (45 ft) bgs are reported to show
higher potentiometric levels than the shallow unconfined aquifer. Differences in potentiometric
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 10
levels are attributed to the presence of the Unit 2 clays. These observations are interpreted as
indicating that the shallow unconfined aquifer below the site does not extend into Unit 1 but is
contained within Units 2 and 3 (Bingham Environmental, 1994).
Vertical gradients between shallow and deeper screened intervals in the monitor well clusters
were calculated by Bingham Environmental (1994). An upward vertical gradient was observed
ranging in magnitude from 0.02 to 0.04 based on the distance between the screen centers.
Hydraulic conductivities measured from bailing tests are reported to average 2.6 × 10-3 cm/s
(7.45 ft/day) by Envirocare (2004). Bailing tests in boreholes provide a saturated hydraulic
conductivity more representative of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity than the vertical. Based
on 3 measurements of vertical hydraulic conductivity on silty clay cores made by Bingham
Environmental (1991), Envirocare (2004) and Bingham Environmental (1994), Envirocare
(2004) use a value of 1 × 10-6 cm/s for the vertical hydraulic conductivity. This corresponds to an
anisotropy ratio Kv/Kh of 1:2600. Average linear vertical groundwater velocity ranged from 1.5
to 3.0 cm/yr (0.05 to 0.10 ft/yr) based on these vertical gradients, a porosity of 0.4 and a vertical
hydraulic conductivity of × 10-6 cm/s (Bingham, 1994).
Horizontal groundwater velocities were calculated by Bingham Environmental (1994) for 17
monitoring wells having measurements of hydraulic conductivity and estimated gradients.
Hydraulic conductivities ranged from 2.9 × 10-5 cm/s to 9.5 × 10-4 cm/s and horizontal hydraulic
gradients ranged from 2 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-3. Average linear horizontal groundwater velocity
ranged from less than 0.6 to 64 cm/yr (0.02 to 2.1 ft/yr) based on a porosity of 0.3. The ratio of
linear horizontal velocities to linear vertical velocities ranged from 0.4 to 21.
The influence of downward hydraulic gradients on shallow groundwater flow is discussed in
Envirocare (2004) for two cases. In the first, flow was affected by localized recharge from a
surface water retention pond in the southwest corner of the facility in the spring of 1999 and in
the second, a ground water mound formed between March 1993 and spring 1997 below a borrow
pit excavated near the 11e.(2) cells that occasionally filled with rain water. The mound decreased
and was negligible by the time of the report in 2004.
3.3.2 Site Seismotectonics
The Clive site does not have any known active faults in its vicinity. NRC (1993) indicates that
the nearest faulting is located 29 km (18 miles) to the north, having occurred between 1 million
to 25 million years ago (1 to 25 Ma). Although the site is not located near any active faults,
isostatic rebound is suspected to be the cause of any recent seismic activity in the Lake
Bonneville area.
NRC (1993) cites two seismic investigations that were conducted for the Vitro tailings disposal
facility and a proposed site for a supercollider that was to encompass a 24-km (15-mile) elliptical
ring around the Clive site. Based on these studies, NRC (1993) indicated that nearby structures
and seismogenic areas that could pose a hazard include the fault zones within a 72-km (45-mile)
radius of the site. These include the eastern flank of the Cedar Mountains, western flank of the
Lakeside Mountains, Northwest Puddle Valley, eastern flank of the Newfoundland mountains,
and the western flank of the Stansbury Mountains. However, NRC (1993) concluded that no
active fault zones lie beneath the Clive site, and there is no macroseismic evidence of a capable
fault in the vicinity of the site.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 11
The lack of Quaternary and/or capable faults in the vicinity of the Clive site is not sufficient
evidence to dismiss seismic activity as a potential issue of concern. While the absence of surface
faults in the site is consistent with a low probability of surface-fault rupture, ground shaking
associated with background earthquakes require assessments (i.e. moderate-size earthquakes (M
5.5 – 6.5) that do not cause surface rupture, see Wong et al., 2013).
Seismic hazard assessments have been evaluated previously for the Clive site including
assessments of active or potentially active faults in the region and background earthquakes. The
peak ground accelerations for both seismic sources is 0.24 g. The peak ground accelerations for
the Clive site are within the range of estimated ground accelerations for two DOE regulated and
approved low-level waste disposal sites (Area G, Los Alamos, New Mexico (LANL, 2008), and
Area 5, NNSS, Shott et al. 2008). Performance assessments for these sites conclude that the
impacts of ground shaking on waste disposal systems are minor and are overshadowed by the
longer-term effects of subsidence.
The negligible effects of the peak ground accelerations on the long-term stability of Clive’s
embankments has previously been demonstrated and found acceptable by the Division. No new
information on seismic hazards has been identified that would change or require revisions of the
previous work.
The following sections summarize the results of seismic hazard assessments for the Clive site:
“The seismic hazard assessment is based on an assessment of the peak ground acceleration
(PGA) associated with the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for known active or
potentially active faults in the site region, and the PGA obtained from a probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis (PSHA) to assess the seismic hazard for earthquakes that may occur on
unknown faults in the area surrounding the project site (i.e., background seismicity). For
fault sources, the PGA is calculated at the 84th percentile level and is based on the maximum
rupture length and rupture area for each fault. The return period for ground motions resulting
from a background earthquake is identified as 5000 years (equal to a one percent probability
of exceedance [sic] in 50 years). The approach to select a MCE PGA from the larger of the
values associated with the deterministic MCE for faults or the PSHA result for background
earthquakes at a 5000 year return period is consistent with the discussions among AMEC,
ES, Utah DEQ and their peer reviewer, URS Corporation, and is consistent with the
recommendations of the Utah Seismic Safety Commission (2003) and as required by the
Utah Division of Water Rights (Dam Safety Section) for assessment of dams.
The deterministic assessment follows the approach described in our October 25, 2011 letter,
and is updated in the following paragraphs. Potential fault sources are shown on Figure B-1.1
and are listed in Table B-1.1 of Appendix B, including an assessment of the fault parameters,
source to site distance, and PGA. Specific fault parameters and other information in Table B-
1.1 include fault name, slip type, maximum magnitude, location of site on hanging wall or
footwall, fault dip, rake, maximum rupture length (fault length), downdip rupture width,
distance measures required for ground motion attenuation relationships, and PGA for median
and 84th percentile levels. We use a suite of four Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)
relationships . . . all of which are applicable for the site conditions and types of sources in
Utah and the Intermountain Region. Additional parameters for attenuation relationships
include site shear wave velocity, VS30, taken as 305 m/s as described in the October 25
Letter, and depth to top of bedrock (Z1.0 and Z2.5), taken as default values calculated from
the site VS30 as recommended by the authors of the NGA relationships (also as described in
the October 25 Letter).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 12
The maximum magnitude for each fault is based on rupture of the full length of the fault, and
where available is taken as the maximum value published by the Utah Working Group on
Earthquake Probabilities (WGUEP, 2011), except for the Stansbury fault as noted below. For
faults not assessed in the previous studies, including the Skull Valley fault, the maximum
magnitude was assessed using the same methodology as the WGUEP study, based on
maximum rupture length, rupture width, and the empirical relationships of Wells and
Coppersmith (1994). For short faults where the calculated maximum magnitude is less than
MW 6.5, a maximum magnitude of 6.5 is adopted because this is judged to be a reasonable
minimum value of magnitude for earthquakes that rupture to the ground surface.
For the Stansbury fault, the maximum magnitude is assessed as MW 7.3 based on
consideration of the maximum rupture length, fault width, and maximum fault displacement
identified in previous investigations. . . The value of MW 7.5 listed in the October 25 Letter
and by the WGUEP is judged to be too conservative because it is higher than the maximum
value obtained from empirical relationships, considering all combinations of rupture length,
rupture width, and maximum fault displacement cited in those previous investigations. We
note that it may be reasonable to consider an extreme value with a very low weighting (e.g.,
less than 10 percent) in a probabilistic analysis, but that it is not reasonable practice to adopt
an extreme value for the MCE for a deterministic analysis.
The maximum of the 84th percentile PGA values calculated for the Mmax events on the fault
sources is equal to 0.24 g, as obtained for the Stansbury and the Skull Valley faults (Table
B-1.1). For the PSHA, we used the current version (Ver. 7.62) of commercial program
EZ-FRISK to calculate the PGA for the background earthquake. The program developer,
Risk Engineering, has prepared input fault and background seismicity files for Utah for use
in calculating seismic hazard; these files are based on the same fault source parameters and
independent seismicity catalog used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to prepare the
2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps.
The seismicity catalog is an independent (de-clustered) catalog based on moment magnitude
(MW) that covers the Western United States; the seismicity in the vicinity of the project site
is shown on Figure B-1.1. The recurrence rates for the background seismicity are based on
the same recurrence models and maximum magnitudes used by USGS, which is a spatially
smoothed gridded approach, with a maximum magnitude of 7.0 for Utah (Peterson et al.,
2008). As for the deterministic analysis, we use the same suite of four NGA relationships
and the site VS30 of 305 m/s. The PGA is taken as the weighted average of the mean values
for the four NGA relationships at a return period of 5000 years (equal to 0.24 g, Table
B-1.1).
The largest PGA from the deterministic assessment of fault-specific sources and the
probabilistic assessment of the background earthquake is 0.24 g. The maximum magnitude
varies from 7.0 to 7.3 for the sources that result in the maximum PGA; we identify the
largest value, MW 7.3, as appropriate for use in the seismic stability analyses for this
project.” (EnergySolutions, 2012, pg. 2-3).
In review of this information and its implications on the Class A West Embankment (CAW)
design, the Division concluded, “Based on the information summarized above, the Division
concludes that the Licensee’s proposed design basis conditions and justification for the design
criteria for waste placement and backfill for the CAW Embankment are acceptable.” (DRC,
2012, pg. 33).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 13
3.3.3 Eolian Deposition
Recent field studies (Neptune 2015) provide evidence for a site-specific conceptual model of a
Holocene history of weak development of soil profiles (limited pedogenesis) in a setting
influenced by low rates of deposition of eolian silt. The Site is within a region of significant
eolian activity evidenced by locally thick accumulation of gypsum dunes west and southwest of
the site and a laterally continuous layer of suspension fallout silts preserved beneath the modern
surface throughout the Clive site. Clive quarry exposures examined in a field study (Neptune
2015) showed sections of eolian silts immediately below a modern vegetated surface (Figure 4).
The bottom of the eolian silt formed a gradational but definable contact with the lake muds and
marl below. The upper vegetated surface at the top of the eolian section was distinct and noted as
being partially indurated. In addition, buried soils were found in the eolian and lake sediments
below the Lake Bonneville lacustrine sequence.
The eolian deposits in the upper part of the stratigraphic section shown in Figure 4 represent a
10,000-year-old record of deposition and soil formation (Neptune 2015). Primary soil features
developed over this time interval include an indurated Av-zone, and slight reddening of the silt
profile with local platy structure from formation of clays (Figure 5). These observations are
consistent with slow processes of pedogenesis in a high elevation semi-arid setting and
continuing suppression and burial of developing soils by a relatively low rate of deposition of
eolian silt. There is no evidence of soil structure development extensive enough to influence soil
hydraulic properties.
Figure 4. Eolian silt in trench located at Clive Pit 29 overlying Lake Bonneville
sedimentary deposits (Neptune 2015).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 14
Observations of Holocene eolian silt throughout the Clive site support a conceptual model of
long-term eolian deposition on a stable surface that promotes and preserves concurrent eolian
deposits which are only slightly modified by slow processes of soil formation. The past
Holocene depositional conditions at the Clive site are promoted by a combination of extensive
wet playa sources of eolian source material to the west and southwest of the Clive site and the
extremely low gradient paleo-Lake Bonneville surface surrounding the site with sparse surface
vegetation and limited surface erosion. These conditions will persist at the Clive site as long as
the lake levels remain below the site elevation. Rates of eolian deposition would be expected to
increase as future lakes approach the site with increased formation of dunes (deposition of eolian
sands). Recurring lakes during ice ages (climate cycles) will rework and mix the eolian deposits
with aggrading clastic lake sediments. The expectation is that eolian deposits will drape and
slightly stabilize closure covers until future lakes return to the Clive site.
3.4 Hydrology
3.4.1 Surface Water
The Clive site is located within a hydrologically closed basin west of the Cedar Mountains. As
there is no outlet from the basin, any water that would flow by the site would pond several miles
to the west in a playa (NRC, 1993).
No surface water bodies are present on the Clive site and any stream flows from higher
elevations usually evaporate and/or infiltrate before reaching flatter land (NRC, 1993). Indicators
Figure 5. An example of upper soil-modified eolian silt in Pit 29. Basal contact of the silt is
approximately located at the middle of the pick handle. Lake Bonneville marl is at the
bottom of the pick handle.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 15
of channelized flow are not present on the Clive site (Baird et al., 1990). The nearest stream
channel ends about 3.2 km (2 mi) east of the site, and the nearest water body that is utilized is
approximately 45 km (28 mi) to the east. The only significant water body in the region is Great
Salt Lake. NRC (1993) indicates that no historical (chronic) flooding has occurred in the vicinity
of the site. Given the 1300-m elevation of the Clive facility, it is not subject to flooding from the
Great Salt Lake, which is not expected to exceed 1285 m (4217 ft) amsl (NRC, 1993).
3.4.2 Groundwater
The NRC recognizes “groundwater” to include all subsurface water, in both unsaturated and
saturated zones. This convention is used in the following descriptions.
3.4.2.1 Groundwater Flow Regime
Groundwater at the Clive site is found within a low-permeability saline aquifer starting near the
bottom of the Unit 3 stratigraphic unit, and saturating the Unit 2 stratigraphic unit. The depth to
groundwater is between approximately 6 and 9 m (20 and 30 ft) bgs at an approximate elevation
of 1295 m (4250 ft) amsl (Brodeur, 2006).
The regional (saturated) groundwater system flows primarily to the east-northeast toward the
Great Salt Lake (Envirocare 2004) and the local shallow groundwater follows a slight horizontal
gradient to the north-northeast (Brodeur, 2006).
Recharge to the aquifer in the vicinity of Clive is thought to be composed of three components: a
small amount due to vertical infiltration from the surface, some small amount of lateral flow
from recharge areas to the east of the site, and the majority of recharge believed to be from
upward vertical leakage from the deeper confined aquifer (Bingham Environmental (1994).
Average annual groundwater recharge from the surface in the southern Great Salt Lake Desert in
the precipitation zone typical of Clive was estimated by Gates and Krauer (1981, Table 2). An
estimated 0.37 hm3/yr (300 acre-feet per year) were recharged to lacustrine deposits and other
unconsolidated sediments over an area of 19,000 ha (47,100 acres). This is a recharge rate of
approximately 2 mm/yr (0.08 in/yr). Groundwater recharge from lateral flow occurs due to
infiltration at bedrock and alluvial fan deposits away from the Site which moves laterally through
the unconfined and confined aquifers (Bingham Environmental, 1994). This is evidenced by the
increasing salinity of the groundwater due to dissolution of evaporate minerals as water moves
from the recharge area to the aquifers below the Facility (Bingham Environmental, 1994). The
majority of recharge to the shallow aquifer is believed by Bingham Environmental (1994) to be
due to vertical leakage upward from the deep confined aquifer due to the presence of upward
hydraulic gradients.
Deeper saturated zones in Unit 1 below approximately 14 m (45 ft) bgs are reported to show
higher potentiometric levels than the shallow unconfined aquifer. Differences in potentiometric
levels are attributed to the presence of the Unit 2 clays (Bingham Environmental, 1994). Vertical
gradients between shallow and deeper screened intervals in the monitor well clusters were
calculated by Bingham Environmental (1994). An upward vertical gradient was observed
ranging in magnitude from 0.02 to 0.04 based on the distance between the screen centers. For a
vertical hydraulic conductivity of 1 × 10-6 cm/s (Bingham Environmental 1994) this corresponds
to a recharge range from 6 to 13 mm/yr (0.25 to 0.5 in/yr).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 16
Estimates of vertical recharge from the surface take into account natural processes such as snow
accumulation and melting, concentration of water in topographic depressions, drainages,
fractures, holes, or burrows and increased surface permeability due to frost heave or plant roots.
When features such as topographic depressions, drainages, or fractures result in enhanced
infiltration, the vertical infiltration below the localized recharge points flows laterally at the
water table toward the lower elevations of the water table (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The effect
of animal burrowing on subsurface moisture content was investigated in a field experiment at the
Hanford Site by Landeen (1994). Over the course of five testing periods, three during the
summer and two during the winter soil moisture measurements showed no influence of
burrowing activities on long-term water storage.
Degradation models for changes in cover properties over time leading to increased vertical flow
were discussed in the Benson et al. (2011) report published by the NRC. While this is a useful
report, the topic of cover performance is a complex topic with a wide range of research and
programmatic applications (for example, ongoing work in the NRC, DOE, CERCLA/RCRA and
international communities). Any modifications in data and model assumptions used for cover
properties and cover performance should be based on information from multiple referenced
sources. More importantly, the long-term performance and changes in cover performance over
time are strongly dependent on the type of closure cover (for example, engineered, ET cover)
and the climate setting for the cover application.
3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality
The underlying groundwater in the vicinity of the Clive site is of naturally poor quality because
of its high salinity and its high content of total dissolved solids (TDS), as a consequence, is not
suitable for most human uses (NRC, 1993). Brodeur (2006) reports that groundwater beneath the
Clive site had a TDS content of 40,500 mg/L (40.5‰). The majority of the cations and anions
are sodium and chloride, respectively. This is not potable for humans or livestock, nor is it
suitable for irrigation. For comparison purposes, seawater typically has a salinity of about 35‰,
making the Clive groundwater only slightly higher than average seawater.
3.5 Ecology
NRC (1993) and Envirocare (2000) characterized the Clive facility as a homogeneous, semi-
desert low shrubland, primarily composed of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia). The shrubland is
part of the Northern Great Basin Desert Shrub Biome and has been described as a saltbrush-
greasewood shrub complex. The development of modeling of biotic processes is detailed in the
Biological Modeling white paper.
3.5.1 Local Vegetation
The vegetation communities that occur on and near Clive were documented during 2010 and
2012 field studies (SWCA 2011, 2012). Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (Lowry
2007) is the dominant vegetation cover type on analogs to the Clive site. The target vegetation
community on the ET cover consists of approximately 15% cover of small stature native shrub
species (Atriplex confertifolia, Atriplex canescens, Bassia americana, Picrothamnus desertorum,
and Suaeda torreyana), with additional cover provided by sparse native forbs and grasses (p.35,
SWCA 2013).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 17
Several plant communities identified include shadscale-gray molly (Kochia americana var.
vestita), shadscale-gray molly-black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and black
greasewood-gardner saltbrush (Atriplex nuttallii). Shrubs are widely spaced, totaling between
1.5% and 20% ground cover, depending upon vegetation association. The shadscale-gray molly
community covers most of the South Clive site, with black greasewood becoming prominent
only on the eastern quarter of the site. SWCA (2011) found very little transition between the
shadscale-gray molly and black greasewood vegetation associations, and that shadscale and gray
molly totaled less than 0.5% cover in the greasewood association, suggesting that the shadscale-
gray molly-black greasewood community identified by Envirocare (2000) is perhaps better
classified as a pure greasewood community. Envirocare reported that the black greasewood-
gardner saltbush community only occurs in the far northeast corner of the Clive site. Seepweed
(Suaeda torreyana), perfoliate pepperweed (Lepidium perfoliatum), and halogeton (Halogeton
glomeratus) are the most common understory plants. Sage (Artemisia spp.) and rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus spp.) which are characteristic of much of the Great Basin shrubland, do not
occur on the valley floors around Clive due to their low salt tolerance, but may occur on bajadas
and well-drained slopes. No threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur in the
near vicinity of the Clive site (NRC, 1993).
3.5.2 Local Wildlife
The Clive site consists of two main habitat types, shadscale flats and greasewood.
Comprehensive faunal surveys have not been conducted around the Clive site, but NRC (1993)
indicates that species diversity is low. Species typical of these shrubland habitats include black-
tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Townsend’s ground-squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii),
Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris), and the desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos). Jackrabbits, deer
mice, and grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster) were the only mammals trapped during
surveys conducted for the 1993 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (NRC 1993). Additional
trapping conducted in October 2010 collected only deer mice at the Clive site, and deer mice,
grasshopper mice, Ord’s kangaroo rat, and chisel-toothed kangaroo rat in neighboring areas with
steeper slopes and greater density of grasses (SWCA 2011). Pronghorn antelope can also be
found near the facility, but the area is considered to be poor habitat (NRC, 1993). The bald eagle
and the peregrine falcon are two federally-listed species that could occur in the project area.
However, NRC (1993) indicates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the
conclusion that the project site would not affect either species due to the distance to the nearest
nesting site.
A variety of invertebrates is expected to occur at the Clive site. Invertebrates, particularly ants,
play a key role in maintenance of desert shrub communities. Harvester ants of the genus
Pogonomyrmex create large, easily recognizable nests, and play an important role in the
development of desert soils and the dispersal of plant seeds. Surveys conducted in 2010 found
that the Western harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex occidentalis) was by far the dominant ant species
at the site, independent of vegetative association (SWCA 2011).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 18
3.6 Engineered Features
3.6.1 Federal Cell Disposal Cell Design
Depleted uranium waste is proposed for disposal in the Federal Cell. The waste footprint in the
Federal Cell is about 541 × 402 m (1,775 × 1,318 ft), with an area of approximately 22 ha
(54 acres), and an estimated total waste volume of about 2.1 million m3 (2.7 million yd3). A
drainage ditch surrounds the disposal cell. The cell is constructed on top of a compacted clay
liner covered by a protective cover. Waste will be placed above the liner and will be covered
with a layered engineered cover constructed of natural materials. The top slopes will be finished
at a grade of 2.4% while the side slopes will be no steeper than 5:1 (20% grade).
The design of the Federal Cell cover has been engineered to prevent the effects of erosion,
reduce the effects of infiltration, and to protect workers and the public from radionuclide
exposure. The Cell cover is a layered composite of a clay radon barrier, frost protection material,
an evaporative layer composed of Unit 4 material, and a surface layer composed of Unit 4
material with 15% gravel on the top slopes and 50% gravel on the side slopes. The Surface Layer
of silty clay provides storage for water accumulating from precipitation events, enhances losses
due to evaporation, and provides a rooting zone for plants that will further decrease the water
available for downward movement. The purpose of the Evaporative Zone Layer is to provide
additional storage for precipitation and additional depth for plant rooting zone to maximize ET.
The detailed properties of each cell layer may be found in the Unsaturated Zone Modeling white
paper accompanying the Clive DU PA Model.
3.6.2 Degradation of Engineered Features
Whereas the engineered liner and cover are expected to be constructed as designed, and to
perform well over the coming decades, they will likely degrade with time. Sheet erosion by wind
and water is expected to be minor, and is likely to be counteracted by eolian deposition of loess
(wind-blown sediment) filling the interstices of the gravel. It is possible, however, that the
surface layer may be degraded by processes such as unusual weather events (e.g., tornadoes),
animal and plant activity, or human activities after the loss of institutional control. These events
may result in damage to the cover, though the damage is likely to be localized. Details are
provided in the Erosion Modeling white paper accompanying the Clive DU PA Model.
4.0 Regulatory Context
EnergySolutions is permitted by the State of Utah to receive Class A low-level and mixed
low-level radioactive waste (LLW and MLLW) under Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
R313-25, License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Utah, 2015a). The
wastes that are received must be classified in accordance with the UAC R313-15-1009,
Classification and Characteristics of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (Utah, 2015b). The
classification requirements in UAC R313-15-1009 reflect those outlined in NRC’s 10 CFR 61
Section 55, but include additional references to radium-226 (226Ra). Further, groundwater
protection levels (GWPLs) must be adhered to, as outlined in the site’s Ground Water Quality
Discharge Permit (UWQB, 2010). The regulatory context within the Federal and State
regulations is discussed in the following sections.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 19
4.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations
Title 10 CFR 61 (Code of Federal Regulations, 2007) is the Federal regulation for the disposal of
certain radioactive wastes, including land disposal at privately-operated facilities such as that
managed and operated by EnergySolutions at Clive, Utah. It contains procedural requirements,
performance objectives, and technical requirements for near-surface disposal, including disposal
in engineered facilities with protective earthen covers, which may be built fully or partially
above-grade. Near-surface disposal is defined as disposal in or within the upper 30 meters of the
earth’s surface (10 CFR 61.2).
The promulgation of 10 CFR 61 required a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which
was issued in 1982 (NRC, 1982). The FEIS focused on the waste streams typically disposed by
NRC licensees at the time, and did not take into account facilities that generated high
concentrations and large quantities of DU, which was not then considered to be waste. As a
result, the NRC did not establish a concentration limit for uranium isotopes in the waste
classification tables presented in 10 CFR 61.55.
4.1.1 Section 61.55: Waste Classification
Section 61.55 defines three classes of radioactive waste for near surface disposal—Class A,
Class B, Class C—and discusses the fourth, commonly called “greater than Class C” (GTCC)
waste, which, “in the absence of specific requirements in this part […] must be disposed of in a
geologic repository […] unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed
pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission” (§61.55[2][iv]). The Class A, B, and C
wastes are defined based on concentrations of specific long-lived radionuclides (defined in Table
1 of §61.55), or, in the absence of long-lived ones, on specific short-lived radionuclides (defined
in Table 2 of §61.55). These tables are reproduced in Figure 6 for convenience.
Wastes containing radionuclides listed on both tables are classified using a combination
approach as specified in §61.55(5):
§61.55(5) Classification determined by both long- and short-lived radionuclides. If
radioactive waste contains a mixture of radionuclides, some of which are listed in Table 1,
and some of which are listed in Table 2, classification shall be determined as follows:
(i) If the concentration of a nuclide listed in Table 1 does not exceed 0.1 times the value
listed in Table 1, the class shall be that determined by the concentration of nuclides listed in
Table 2.
(ii) If the concentration of a nuclide listed in Table 1 exceeds 0.1 times the value listed in
Table 1 but does not exceed the value in Table 1, the waste shall be Class C, provided the
concentration of nuclides listed in Table 2 does not exceed the value shown in Column 3 of
Table 2.
The scope of the Clive DU PA Model includes the disposal of DU, which by default falls
into the category of Class A waste:
§61.55(6) Classification of wastes with radionuclides other than those listed in Tables 1 and
2. If radioactive waste does not contain any nuclides listed in either Table 1 or 2, it is Class
A.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 20
Nevertheless, DU presents an interesting case, as the uranium it contains is fundamentally
different from the Class A wastes that NRC had in mind when it devised the classifications.
Uranium does not appear in Table 1 of 10 CFR 61.55 (Figure 6) because, at the time of the
development of the regulation, uranium waste did not, and was not expected to, exist in
significant quantities. The nature of the radiological hazards associated with DU presents
challenges to the estimation of long-term effects from its disposal. As DU evolves toward secular
equilibrium with its progeny, a process that will take over 2 million years, it becomes a greater
radiological hazard due to the in-growth of its decay products. Recognition of this special
behavior of DU has prompted the NRC to revisit the regulation in a rule-making. This is
discussed in Section 4.1.5. Until that rule-making is complete, however, 10 CFR 61 stands as the
controlling regulation.
4.1.2 Section 61.41: Protection of the Public
The key endpoints of a PA are estimated future potential doses to members of the public (MOP)
and the general population. The performance objectives specified in Subpart C of 10 CFR 61 are
in the following section:
§ 61.41 Protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity.
Concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to the general environment in
ground water, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not result in an annual dose
exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems [0.25 mSv] to the whole body, 75 millirems [0.75
mSv] to the thyroid, and 25 millirems [0.25 mSv] to any other organ of any member of the
public. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to
the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable.

Figure 6. Waste classification Tables 1 and 2 from 10 CFR 61.55.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 21
However, the approach to dose assessment suggested by §61.41 is now dated, and NRC
recommends the current International Commission on Radiological Protection 30 (ICRP 1984)
methodology in their Performance Assessment Methodology, NUREG-1573 (NRC 2000):
3.3.7.1.2 Internal Dosimetry
The NRC performance objective set forth in Section 61.41, is based on the ICRP 2 dose 3-79
methodology (ICRP, 1979), but current health physics practices follow the dose
methodology used in Part 20, which is currently based on ICRP 30 methodology
(ICRP,1979). The license application will contain many other assessments of potential
exposures (e.g., worker exposure, accident exposures, and operational releases) that will
need to use ICRP 30 dose methodology. For internal consistency in the application, it is
recommended that the performance assessment be consistent with the methodology approved
by the NRC in Part 20 for comparison with the performance objective. Therefore, PAWG
[the performance assessment working group] believes that calculation of a TEDE [total
effective dose equivalent] for the LLW performance assessment—a summation of the annual
external dose and the CEDE [committed effective dose equivalent]—is acceptable for
comparison with the performance objective. As a matter of policy, the Commission considers
0.25 mSv/year (25 mrem/year) TEDE as the appropriate dose limit to compare with the
range of potential doses represented by the older limits that had whole-body dose limits of
0.25 mSv/year (25 mrem/year) (NRC, 1999, 64 FR 8644; see Footnote 1). Applicants do not
need to consider organ doses individually because the low value of the TEDE should ensure
that no organ dose will exceed 0.50 mSv/year (50 mrem/year).
The estimation of dose to receptors in the Clive DU PA Model therefore uses the ICRP 30 TEDE
approach. There are a number of implicit assumptions in using dose as a performance metric, in
that it is being used as a proxy for risk. Risk involves a biological effect. The biological effect of
greatest interest at the doses evaluated here is cancer. The risk of cancer to an exposed individual
depends upon a large number of assumptions, the most influential being 1) that the major source
of data for radiological risk assessment; i.e., the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors, is
relevant for the doses evaluated, and 2) that risks can be extrapolated from large doses to small
doses in a linear fashion, with no threshold of effect (i.e., no dose is without some risk of
cancer). Both of these assumptions are controversial, yet provide the basis for most radiation
regulation. The implications of these assumptions are discussed in the Dose Assessment white
paper.
4.1.3 Section 61.42: ALARA and Collective Dose
A second potential decision rule pertains to populations. There is no clear decision rule as far as
collective (cumulative population) doses are concerned. However, the regulations state that
"reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general
environment as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA). There are, however, other
competing objectives, and the resource implications are large to achieving ALARA on a
collective level. Additionally, the words "reasonably" and "achievable" are not precise. The two
words perhaps imply some degree of consideration of trade-offs, but no clear definition is
published. Assuming that there are trade-offs, then this implies that an analysis that explicitly
evaluates the trade-offs, and how different disposal options, designs, or sites may differentially
satisfy the objectives and resource constraints (e.g., a decision or economic analysis) should be
performed. Yet, at present, this has yet to be conducted in the context of the PA process, and
there are no current specific regulations. However, the ICRP (1984) provides guidance regarding
potential approaches.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 22
4.1.4 Section 61.42: Protection of the Inadvertent Intruder
In addition to protecting any MOP, 10 CFR 61 requires additional assurance of protecting
individuals from the consequences of inadvertent intrusion. An inadvertent intruder is someone
who is exposed to waste without meaning to, and without realizing it is there (after loss of
institutional control). This is distinct from the intentional intruder, who might be interested in
deliberately disturbing the site, or extracting materials from it, or who might be driven by
curiosity or scientific interest.
§ 61.42 Protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion.
Design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must ensure protection of any
individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying the site or contacting
the waste at any time after active institutional controls over the disposal site are removed.
Because the definition of inadvertent intruders encompasses exposure of individuals who engage
in normal activities without knowing that they are receiving radiation exposure, there is no
practical distinction made here between a MOP and inadvertent intruders with regard to
exposure/dose assessment.
4.1.5 Proposed Rule-Making Regarding 10 CFR 61
In 2005, the NRC proposed to consider whether or not large quantities of DU, such as that
produced from uranium enrichment facilities, warrant an amendment of the waste classification
tables currently defined in 10 CFR 61 (NRC, 2005). In 2008, NRC staff responded to the
October 2005 order that evaluated a generic case to determine if Part 61 standards could be met
for near-surface disposal of DU (NRC, 2008). The results of this evaluation indicated that it may
be possible, given certain conditions, to meet the standards for near-surface disposal of DU.
Furthermore the NRC staff prepared several regulatory options. NRC staff also recommended
that no classification change be made for DU, retaining its status as Class A waste, but that
additional language be included requiring a site-specific PA prior to the acceptance of DU for
disposal. In March 2009, the NRC agreed with the course of action recommended by the NRC
staff in SECY-08-0147 and decided to keep DU classified as a Class A waste (NRC, 2009a).
They also decided to initiate rule- making that would propose enhanced PA requirements for
those facilities that plan to dispose of large quantities of DU (NRC, 2009b).
Most of the proposed changes to 10 CFR 61 involve the concept that no matter what
classification DU is given, any disposal of the material should involve an analysis that will
inform decision makers about the doses associated with such a disposal to individuals who might
be exposed at some time after site closure. This position is substantially in concordance with that
put forth by the National Research Council (2005), and with the approach that will be used in the
Clive DU PA Model.
4.2 State of Utah Regulations
Utah is an NRC agreement state, meaning that it is granted authority to enforce NRC regulation,
or regulations of its own drafting that are compatible with the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 61. The
State of Utah has done so, in two Rules of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC): UAC Rule
R313-25 License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, and Rule R313-15
Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Utah, 2015). Each of these is discussed below.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 23
4.2.1 Section R313-25: Licensing Requirements
Section R313-25-9 Technical Analyses. Parts (4)(a) and (b) of this Section are patterned closely
after 10 CFR 61.41 and 42:
(4) The licensee or applicant shall also include in the specific technical information the
following analyses needed to demonstrate that the performance objectives of Rule R313-25
will be met: (a) Analyses demonstrating that the general population will be protected from
releases of radioactivity shall consider the pathways of air, soil, ground water, surface water,
plant uptake, and exhumation by burrowing animals. The analyses shall clearly identify and
differentiate between the roles performed by the natural disposal site characteristics and
design features in isolating and segregating the wastes. The analyses shall clearly
demonstrate a reasonable assurance that the exposures to humans from the release of
radioactivity will not exceed the limits set forth in Section R313-25-20.
(b) Analyses of the protection of inadvertent intruders shall demonstrate a reasonable
assurance that the waste classification and segregation requirements will be met and that
adequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion will be provided. Analyses of the protection of
inadvertent intruders shall demonstrate a reasonable assurance that the waste classification
and segregation requirements will be met and that adequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion
will be provided.
In addition, a new section for R313-25-9 has recently been adopted, and is reproduced here:
(5)(a) Notwithstanding Subsection R313-25-9(1), any facility that proposes to land dispose
of significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium (more than one metric ton in total
accumulation) after June 1, 2010, shall submit for the Director's review and approval a
performance assessment that demonstrates that the performance standards specified in 10
CFR Part 61 and corresponding provisions of Utah rules will be met for the total quantities
of concentrated depleted uranium and other wastes, including wastes already disposed of and
the quantities of concentrated depleted uranium the facility now proposes to dispose. Any
such performance assessment shall be revised as needed to reflect ongoing guidance and
rulemaking from NRC. For purposes of this performance assessment, the compliance period
shall be a minimum of 10,000 years. Additional simulations shall be performed for the
period where peak dose occurs and the results shall be analyzed qualitatively.
4.2.2 Section R313-15-1009: Waste Classification
Rule R313-15 contains section R313-15-1009 Classification and Characteristics of Low- Level
Radioactive Waste. The definitions in this section are essentially identical to those in 10 CFR
61.55, with one exception: Utah adds 226Ra to the list of long-lived radionuclides in the
regulation’s Table I (see Figure 7), with a concentration limit of 100 nCi/g (Utah, 2010). 226Ra is
a decay product of uranium-238 (238U), the principal component of DU, it is of direct interest to
the disposal of DU waste. The EnergySolutions Clive facility is licensed by the State of Utah for
disposal of Class A waste. The DU wastes under consideration for disposal in the present PA,
however, contain isotopes of uranium, potentially including some radionuclides listed in the
tables shown in Figure 6 in addition to the 226Ra added by Utah (Figure 7). In particular, the DU
from certain sources contains some amount of technetium-99 (99Tc). Therefore, the
determination of classification is driven not by the presence of uranium, but by the presence of
radionuclides in the tables, as discussed in the quotation from §61.55(5) above.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 24

4.2.3 Groundwater Protection Limits
In addition to these radiological criteria, the State of Utah imposes limits on groundwater
contamination, as stated in the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (UWQB, 2010). Part
I.C.1 of the Permit specifies that GWPLs in Table 1A of the Permit shall be used for the Class A
LLW Cell. Table 1A in the Permit specifies general mass and radioactivity concentrations for
several constituents of interest to DU waste disposal. These GWPLs are derived from Ground
Water Quality Standards listed in UAC R317-6-2 Ground Water Quality Standards. Exceptions
to values in that table are provided for specific constituents in specific wells, tabulated in Table
1B of the Permit. This includes values for mass concentration of total uranium, radium, and gross
alpha and beta radioactivity concentrations for specific wells where background values were
found to be in exceedence of the Table 1A limits. Note that according to the Permit, groundwater
at Clive is classified as Class IV, saline ground water, according to UAC R317-6-3 Ground
Water Classes, and is highly unlikely to serve as a future water source. As noted in Section 0, the
underlying groundwater in the vicinity of the Clive site is of naturally poor quality because of its
high salinity and, as a consequence, is not suitable for most human uses, and is not potable for
humans.
The Clive DU PA Model calculates estimates of groundwater concentrations at a virtual well
near the Federal Cell for comparison with these GWPLs.
Figure 7. Waste classification Table I from R313-15-1009.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 25
5.0 Summary of Features, Events, and Processes
A requirement for the PA scenario development process is the preliminary identification of
possible future states of the disposal system as it is subjected to external changes and factors
(e.g., climate, weathering, demographic changes) over time. The identification of features,
events, and processes (FEPs) is a key activity in developing scenarios for the Clive DU PA
Model . The identification, compilation, and screening of FEPs form the basis for scenarios and
quantitative analyses used to evaluate site performance.
The list of FEPs pertaining to the efficacy of disposal and storage of DU waste at the Clive
Facility was compiled from several PA-related FEPs documents published for other radiological
waste disposal facilities (e.g., NEA, 1992; NEA, 2000; Guzowski, 1990; Guzowski and
Newman, 1993). In addition to existing PA literature sources for FEPs, site-specific
understanding of the environmental and engineered attributes of the Clive facility, geographical
region, and population were also addressed in the compilation of FEPs for this assessment.
All FEPs identified in the literature and developed internally were compiled into an exhaustive
initial list. This list was iteratively reviewed to reduce duplication among sources and to more
broadly (or more precisely) group related FEPs for incorporation in the CSM. For each group of
related FEPs, the rationale for its inclusion in or dismissal from the model was documented.
This section of the CSM identifies the FEPs and conditions pertaining to the conceptual model
that are retained for use in developing the Clive DU PA Model. Details related to the
identification and screening processes are discussed in the accompanying FEP Analysis
document. Features, events, and processes were grouped into several categories based on
groupings listed in the original source documents, and include some overlap and redundancy.
Nevertheless, the groupings are not significant with respect to the CSM. What is important is that
the FEPs are considered in the appropriate parts of the model. Only those FEPs retained for
further consideration are discussed here. Once identified, these FEPs are qualitatively evaluated
for inclusion in the CSM based on considerations of their likelihood and consequence.
Meteorology
Frost weathering and other meteorological events (e.g., precipitation, atmospheric dispersion,
resuspension) are included in the CSM. Weathering may occur from frost cycles. Resuspension
of particulates from surface soils allows them to be redistributed by atmospheric dispersion,
which is a meteorological phenomenon. Dust devils are also possible at the site and a tornado
occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999, which was the first tornado in Utah in over 100 years.
Climate change
Features, events, and processes of climate change considered in the conceptual model include
effects on hydrology (including lake effects), hydrogeology, biota, and human behaviors. Lake
effects include appearance/disappearance of large lakes and associated phenomena
(sedimentation, wave action, erosion/inundation). Wave action, including seiches, is included in
the CSM.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 26
Hydrology
Several hydrogeological FEPs were identified for consideration in the conceptual model.
Groundwater transport, in both the unsaturated and saturated zones, is potentially a significant
transport pathway. For some model endpoints, such as groundwater concentrations that are
compared to GWPLs, it is the only pathway of concern.
Groundwater flow and transport processes include advection-dispersion, diffusion, changes in
the flow system, recharge, and brine interactions. Inundation of the site may occur due to
changes in lakes or reservoirs, which is included in lake effects of climate change.
Geochemical
Geochemical effects include chemical sorption and partitioning between phases, aqueous
solubility, precipitation, chemical stability, complexation, changes in water chemistry (redox
potential, pH, Eh), speciation, and leaching of radionuclides from the waste form. These
processes are addressed in the model.
Other Natural Processes
The broad category of other natural processes considered for the conceptual model include
ecological changes and pedogenesis (soil formation). Ecological changes are associated with
catastrophic events (e.g., inundation), evolution, or climate change. Pedogenesis is expected on
the cover, giving rise to vegetation growth or habitation by wildlife.
Denudation (cover erosion) may be sufficient to expose waste. Erosion of the repository resulting
from pluvial, fluvial or eolian processes can result from extreme precipitation, changes in surface
water channels, and weathering. Sediment transport is an inherent aspect of erosion.
Sedimentation/deposition onto the cell may also affect cell performance.
Note that seismic activity is unlikely to impact the Clive facility. Faults are not present within the
vicinity of Clive, although effects of isostatic rebound are still possible in the Lake Bonneville
area.
Engineered Features
Engineered features are intended to promote containment and inhibit migration of contaminants.
Conditions potentially affecting site performance include failure of engineered features, cell
design, material properties, and subsidence of the cell.
Containerization
Two key components of containerization were identified as FEPs: containment degradation and
corrosion. Canister degradation, including fractures, fissures, and corrosion (pitting, rusting)
could result in containment failure. These processes are evaluated in the conceptual model (See
Section 8.1).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 27
Waste
Attributes of waste that could influence the performance of the Clive facility include the
inventory of radionuclides, physical and chemical waste forms, container performance, matrix
performance, leaching, radon emanation, and other waste release mechanisms.
Source Release
Source release can result from many mechanisms, including containment failure, leaching, radon
emanation, plant uptake, and translocation by burrowing animals. FEPs that fit in the category of
source release include gas generation, radioactive decay and in-growth, and radon emanation.
Contaminant Migration
Contaminant migration for the CSM includes the mechanisms and processes by which
radionuclides may come to be located outside of the containment unit. The following
contaminant migration processes were identified for consideration in the CSM: resuspension,
atmospheric dispersion, biotically-induced transport, contaminant transport, diffusion, dilution,
advection-dispersion, dissolution, dust devils, tornadoes, infiltration, and preferential pathways.
Human exposure pathways could include animal ingestion, both as ingestion of fodder and feed
by livestock, and ingestion of livestock by humans. Transport by atmospheric dispersion could
be associated with limited resuspension, dust devils, and tornadoes. Modeling of biotic (plant-
and animal-mediated) processes leading to contaminant transport, and the evolution of these
processes in response to climate change and other influences, including bioturbation, burrowing,
root development, and contaminant uptake and translocation are considered.
Contaminant transport includes transport media (water, air, soil), transport processes (advection-
dispersion, diffusion, plant uptake, soil translocation), and partitioning between phases.
Diffusion occurs in gas and water phases. Dilution occurs when mixing with less concentrated
water. Hydrodynamic dispersion is associated with water advection. Dissolution in water is
limited by aqueous solubility. Transport in the gas phase includes gas generation in the waste,
partitioning between air and water phases, diffusion in air and water, and radioactive decay and
ingrowth. Infiltration of water through the cover, into wastes, and potentially to the groundwater
is another contaminant migration concern. Preferential pathways for contaminant transport are
also addressed.
Human Processes
The FEPs identified as human processes encompass human behaviors and activities, resource
use, and unintentional intrusion into the repository. Human process FEPs identified for
assessment are related to the human exposure model and include anthropogenic climate change,
human behavior, human-induced processes related to engineered features at the site, human-
induced transport, inadvertent human intrusion, institutional control, land use, post-closure
subsurface activities, waste recovery, water resource management, and military activities.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 28
Exposure
Exposure is an integral part of the conceptual model, and may result from reduced site
performance. Exposure-relevant FEPs identified for evaluation include those related to
dosimetry, exposure media, human exposure, ingestion pathways, and inhalation pathways.
Dosimetry as a science is not a FEP per se but physiological dose response is accounted for in
the PA model.
Transport pathways (e.g. food chains) that lead to foodstuff contamination, and human exposures
due to inhalation of gaseous radionuclides and particulates are included. Exposure media include
soil/dust and food. Exposure pathways (ingestion, inhalation, etc.) and physiological effects from
radionuclides and toxic contaminants (e.g. uranium) are also assessed.
6.0 Waste Forms
The scope of this CSM is limited to the disposal of DU wastes of two general waste types: 1)
depleted uranium trioxide (DUO3) waste from the Savannah River Site (SRS) 2) anticipated DU
waste as U3O8 from gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) at Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah,
Kentucky. The quantity and characteristics of DU waste from other sources that has that already
been disposed of at the Clive Facility was not included.
The quantity and characteristics of DU waste will constitute source terms in the Clive DU PA
Model. This section provides background on the uranium cycle and origins and nature of DU
waste in particular.
Depleted uranium consists of three isotopes of uranium (238U, 235U, and 234U) and progeny from
radioactive decay. The wastes proposed for disposal contain these isotopes of uranium, but some
also include other “contaminants” in varying amounts (ORNL 2000, EnergySolutions, 2009b).
These associated radionuclides are the result of introduction of used nuclear fuel (UNF) into the
uranium enrichment process. In order to clarify that these wastes contain more than just DU
(uranium isotopes), they are termed “DU waste.” When this term is used, it refers to wastes, such
as those from SRS that contain DU and a small amount of contamination from actinides and
fission products. If uranium hexafluoride derived from irradiated reactor returns is introduced to
the cascade, some of the associated fission products and actinides end up fixed to the walls of the
DU cylinders containing the 238U. These contamination “heels” will remain in the cylinders
through the process of deconversion, since they are again reused for collecting the U3O8 product.
Depleted Uranium Background
The uranium fuel cycle begins by extracting and milling natural uranium ore to produce “yellow
cake,” a mixture of various uranium oxides. Low-grade natural ores contain about 0.05 to 0.3%
by weight of uranium oxide while high-grade natural ores can contain up to 70% by weight of
uranium oxide (NRC, 2010). Naturally occurring uranium contains the isotopes 238U, 235U, and 234U, and radioactive decay products in secular equilibrium with these primordial parents. Each
uranium isotope has the same chemical properties, but differs in terms of radiological properties.
Naturally occurring uranium has a typical isotopic composition of about 99.283% 238U, 0.711% 235U, and 0.006% 234U by mass, although there are varying assays and estimates.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 29
In order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors and weapons, uranium has to be enriched in the
fissionable 235U isotope. Uranium enrichment began in support of the Manhattan Project during
World War II. Enrichment for civilian and military uses continued after the war under the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, and its successor agencies, including the DOE.
The official definition of DU given by the NRC is uranium in which the percentage fraction by
weight of 235U is less than 0.711%. (its natural abundance) According to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), typical DU percentage concentration by weight of the uranium isotopes
used for military purposes is 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U, and 0.001% 234U. Depleted uranium
isotopic ratio values from gaseous diffusion plants, which processed material for both military
and commercial purposes, are reported to be 99.75% 238U, 0.25% 235U, and 0.0005% 234U (Rich
et al. 1988). Because processing of uranium has only been practiced for roughly 60 years, there
has not been sufficient time for noticeable in-growth of the daughter radionuclides in this by-
product. Depleted refined uranium is therefore considerably less radioactive than natural uranium
because it has less 234U, 235U, and progeny, per unit mass.
6.1 Savannah River Site Uranium Trioxide
The SRS produced DU as a byproduct of the nuclear material production programs, where
irradiated nuclear fuels were reprocessed to separate out the fissionable plutonium-239 (239Pu)
(Fussell and McWhorter, 2002). Uranium billets were produced at the DOE Fernald, Ohio site,
fabricated into targets at SRS, then irradiated in one of the SRS production reactors to produce 239Pu. The irradiated targets were processed in F-Canyon, where in acid solution, the fission
products were separated from the plutonium and uranium, which were then separated from each
other. After additional purification, the DU-bearing waste stream was transferred to the FA-Line
Facility where it was processed into uranium trioxide which is now a focus of this PA. This
DUO3 contains small quantities of waste fission products and transuranic elements
(EnergySolutions, 2009b), which will also be included in the Clive DU PA Model.
The DU waste was produced at the SRS from the 1950s to the late 1980s as a by-product in the
manufacture of nuclear materials, as described above. The DUO3 was produced from DUF6
using a classic chemical separation process to separate and recover plutonium and uranium
product.
The DU was purified through multiple processing steps, and then transferred to a final
production plant for conversion to uranium trioxide. Some of this material was sent off-site for
commercial or military use, and the rest was stored on site, and is now slated for disposal.
The chemical separation process was performed in two separate processing cycles. The more
highly radioactive processing, such as dissolution of irradiated target material from the SRS
reactors, and removal of the vast majority of the highly radioactive fission products and
actinides, was performed in the first processing cycle. The final purification of the uranium
product stream to remove the remaining fission product and actinide “contaminants” was
performed in a second processing cycle. A small fraction of these contaminants was carried
forward with the uranium product. This process ceased operations in the late 1980s.
The SRS produced approximately 36,000 200-L (55-gal) steel drums of DUO3 during the
production campaigns (Fussell and McWhorter, 2002). This DUO3, a solid powder at room
temperature and pressure, is considered to be relatively homogeneous, based on known process
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 30
controls and operations. The drums have an average mass of 680 kg (weight of 1,500 lb) apiece
(Fussell and McWhorter, 2002). The condition of the drums varies from good to poor with a high
percentage of the drums having some degree of outer surface corrosion. A significant number of
drums in two facilities (221-21F and 221-22F) have been placed into overpacks as a mitigating
action for corrosion control and to prevent spills. The estimated mass of DU from SRS proposed
for disposal at Clive is 24,500 Mg (megagrams, or metric tons), assuming disposal of all 36,000
drums.
This material was characterized by SRS for uranium isotopes, fission products, and transuranics,
as well as some metals and organic compounds (pesticides, herbicides, semi-volatile and volatile
organic compounds) as recorded in the Waste Profile Record (EnergySolutions, 2009b). No
organic compounds were detected, though low levels (0 to 2 mg/kg) of lead, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, selenium, silver, zinc and copper were found. These low levels of metal make up less
than 5 parts per million (ppm) mass of the DU waste. Based on the physical properties
description in the Waste Profile Record, the DU is stoichiometrically 83.22% uranium (100%
UO3) with over 99% 238U. Beals et al. (2002) provide additional information on trace
radionuclides in the SRS DU waste.
6.2 Depleted Uranium Oxide from the Gaseous Diffusion Plants
Three large GDPs were constructed to produce enriched uranium. The first diffusion cascades
were built in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at what was the K-25 Site, but is now known as the East
Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). Two others of similar design were constructed in Paducah,
Kentucky (PGDP), and Portsmouth, Ohio (PORTS) (DOE 2004a and 2004b). The cascades at
the K-25 Site ceased operations in 1985, the Portsmouth plant ceased in 2001, the Paducah GDP
continues to operate. The two more recent GDPs are host to a large inventory of stored DUF6,
including the ETTP material that was moved to Portsmouth.
The DOE is currently managing approximately 60,000 cylinders at both PGDP and PORTS
(DOE 2004a, 2004b). For many years, interest has been expressed in converting the DUF6 in
these cylinders to an oxide form to support their long-term disposal. In May, 1995 an
independent DOE oversight board recommended a study to determine a suitable chemical form
for long-term storage of DU. Two Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were prepared as part
of the plan, one for Paducah, DOE/EIS-0359, (DOE 2004a) and one for Portsmouth, EIS-0360,
DOE 2004b). These EISs describe the background and alternatives for DUF6 conversion. With
the completions of the EISs, “deconversion” plants were built at both the PORTS and PGDP
locations. In 2002, DOE awarded a contract to design, construct, and operate two DUF6
deconversion facilities at these locations. As of this writing, both plants have been built and have
begun test processing DUF6 into oxide form.
Of the DUF6 cylinders that will be reused for disposal of the DU oxide, a fraction are
contaminated with fission and activation products from introduction of reactor returns into the
diffusion cascades. The contamination is similar in nature to that found in the SRS DU, and is
modeled as such until more information is gained from the generation of DU oxide at
Portsmouth and Paducah. Since the contaminated cylinders are a low priority for conversion, this
information is unlikely to be available for several years.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 31
6.3 Depleted Uranium Already Disposed at the Clive Facility
The DU PA Model does not account for DU that is already disposed at the Clive site, some of
which is from the same SRS DU population (Fussell and McWhorter, 2002).
6.4 Modeled Radionuclides
A full list of radionuclides has been established for the CSM and the contaminant transport
modeling effort:
fission products: 90Sr-, 99Tc-, 129I-, 137Cs-

progeny of uranium and transuranics: 210Pb, 222Rn, 226,228Ra, 227Ac, 228,229,230,232Th 231Pa

uranium isotopes: 232,233,234,235,236,238U

transuranic radionuclides:
237Np-237, 239,240,241,242Pu, 241Am

This radionuclide species list is based upon process knowledge, radionuclides analyzed for
(though not necessarily detected) in the DU waste material, and decay products with half-lives
over five years. A diagram showing each decay species is shown in the Radionuclide Transport
section (Section 9.0). The decay chains are informative as they provide an understanding of how
each species derived from a parent radionuclide. Many more short-lived progeny are accounted
for in dose assessment calculations. Note that in several instances where the inventory has been
set to zero, these species may be daughters of a known parent with inventory of a potential future
inventory species.
6.5 Chemical Characteristics of DU Wastes
Both forms of uranium oxide have some limited solubility in water, thus hydrologic transport is
expected to occur to some extent. The solubilities of the two waste forms are dependent upon the
geochemistry and their own inherent solubility. Other specific waste forms will be modeled as
information becomes available if needed. This transport will start with release from the
containment (e.g., drums, cylinders), followed by leaching of the radionuclides from the DU
waste which is primarily a function of solubility. The solubility of the radionuclide species,
including uranium, will depend upon two main geochemical processes: dissolution/precipitation
and adsorption/desorption. These processes are largely controlled by the redox condition, pH,
carbonate chemistry, and ionic strength of the local environments. The parameters used to model
the transport of the uranium oxides and associated radionuclides are described in Section 9.0.
Retarded transport will be modeled using a solid/water partition (or distribution) coefficient (Kd)
for each radionuclide species. The values (represented as statistical distributions) used for each
radionuclide will depend upon the expected geochemical conditions within the various wastes
and natural media.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 32
The release of radon-222 (222Rn) from its 226Ra parent in the 238U/234U decay chain is also
described in Section 9.0. The transport of radon in the saturated zone and in the unsaturated zone
from the waste to the ground surface is included in the Clive DU PA Model. Radon transport is
controlled by the emanation factor, diffusion, advection, and partitioning parameters that will be
incorporated into the transport modeling.
7.0 Modeling of the Natural Environment
The natural environment consists of those materials that surround the engineered facility, and
make up its environs. This includes the lacustrine sediments of the Great Salt Lake Desert
underlying the site, the groundwater within those sediments, the air above, and the biota living
on and near the ground surface. Each of these environments is introduced below, along with their
conceptual models for the PA.
7.1 Current Conditions
The basic conceptual model of the present day site is that the facility is located on a desert flat,
with a biotic community established on the ground surface, and with unsaturated and saturated
zones of groundwater below. This scenario is assumed to apply for the 10,000-yr duration of the
quantitative model for this base case.
In general, natural processes in the environs will tend to make the site and its engineered features
more like the natural environment. Wind and water will modify the cover, and biota will
populate it. Throughout this evolving and mixing system, radionuclides that have been disposed
within the facility will tend to migrate out to the natural system. A fundamental function of the
Clive DU PA Model is to estimate the rate and extent of that migration.
7.1.1 Groundwater Flow and Transport
Groundwater is considered in two parts: unsaturated zone (UZ) and the saturated zone (SZ). The
UZ, often called the vadose zone, extends from the ground surface down to the water table, and
is characterized by having both water and air in the porous spaces in the sediment. The SZ lies
below the water table, and extends deep into the earth’s crust. For the purposes of modeling,
however, contaminants are assumed to penetrate only so far into the saturated sediments, which
include natural horizontal barriers confining the vertical flow, as discussed in Section 3.3.1.
7.1.1.1 The Unsaturated Zone
The engineered features of the landfill, including cover, waste, and liner, are all in the UZ, at
least within the 10,000-yr duration of the quantitative model. Engineered barriers are used at the
Clive site to control the flow of water into the waste. A stylized drawing of the Federal Cell and
its relationship to the 11e.(2) cell is shown in Figure 8.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 33
The general aspect of the Federal Cell is that of a hipped cover, with relatively steeper sloping
sides nearer the edges. The upper part of the embankment, known as the top slope, has a
moderate slope, while the side slope is markedly steeper (20% as opposed to 2.4%). These two
distinct areas, shown in different colors in Figure 8, are modeled separately in the Clive DU PA
Model. Each is represented in the Model as a separate one-dimensional column, with a total area
equivalent to the Federal Cell footprint. In the current Clive DU PA Model, there is no waste
Figure 8. Section and Plan views of the Federal Cell, with top slope shown in blue and side
slope in green. The brown dotted line in the West-East Cross section represents
below-grade (below the line) and above-grade (above the line) regions of the
embankment.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 34
located below the side slope portion of the model. The embankment is also constructed such that
a portion of it lies below-grade. A detailed description of embankment dimensions and a
discussion of representation of the Federal Cell in the Model are provided in the Embankment
Modeling white paper accompanying the Clive DU PA Model.
Disposal involves placing waste on a prepared clay liner that is approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) below
the ground surface. For the Federal Cell design, the depth of the waste below the top slope is a
maximum of 14.5 m (47.5 ft). A cover system is constructed above the waste. The objective of
the cover system is to limit contact of water with the waste. The cover is sloped to promote
runoff and designed to limit water flow by increasing evapotranspiration (ET). The arrangement
of the layers used for the ET cover design is shown in Figure 9. Beginning at the top of the cover
the layers above the waste used for the ET cover design are:
• Surface Layer: This layer is composed of native vegetated Unit 4 material with 15
percent gravel mixture on the top slope and 50 percent gravel mixture for the side slope.
This layer is 15.2 cm (6 in) thick. The functions of this layer are to control runoff,
minimize erosion, and maximize water loss from ET. This layer of silty clay provides
storage for water accumulating from precipitation events, enhances losses due to
evaporation, and provides a rooting zone for plants that will further decrease the water
available for downward movement.
• Evaporative Zone Layer: This layer is composed of Unit 4 material. The thickness of this
layer is 30.5 cm (12 in). The purpose of this layer to provide additional storage for
precipitation and additional depth for plant rooting zone to maximize ET.
• Frost Protection Layer: This material ranges in size from 40 cm (16 in) diameter to clay
size particles. This layer is 45.7 cm (18 in) thick. The purpose of this layer is to protect
layers below from freeze/thaw cycles, wetting/drying cycles, and inhibit plant, animal, or
human intrusion.
• Upper Radon Barrier: This layer consists of 30.5 cm (12 in) of compacted clay with a low
hydraulic conductivity. This layer has the lowest conductivity of any layer in the cover
system. This is a barrier layer that reduces the downward movement of water to the waste
and the upward movement of gas out of the disposal cell.
• Lower Radon Barrier: This layer consists of 30.5 cm (12 in) of compacted clay with a
low hydraulic conductivity. This is a barrier layer placed directly above the waste that
reduces the downward movement of water.

The part of the UZ that extends from the bottom of the landfill liner to the water table consists of
naturally-occurring lake sediments from the ancestral Lake Bonneville. The texture class, and
average thickness for the hydrostratigraphic units underlying the Clive site are shown in Figure
10. The characteristics of the units are described in Section 3.3.1.
The natural UZ below the facility will be modeled as a column of discrete elements, called Cell
Pathway elements in the GoldSim modeling framework. Each of these is connected in series to
model the one-dimensional advective flow path to the water table. Diffusion in the water phase
may also play a role in the transport of waterborne contaminants in the UZ, since the advective
flux is expected to be small. The concentration gradients in the UZ are also expected to be
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 35
predominantly vertical, so diffusion will also occur in the vertical direction, oriented with the
column of cells.
Diffusion in the air phase within the UZ below the facility will not be modeled, since the only
diffusive species would be radon, which is of greater concern at the ground surface. Upward
radon diffusion to the ground surface will be dominated by radon parents in the waste zone, and
is modeled within the engineered cover.
7.1.1.2 The Saturated Zone
Contaminant transport in the water phase in the SZ is fed by contaminants entering the water
table beneath the disposal facility as recharge. The rate of recharge is the same as the Darcy flux
Figure 9. Evapotranspiration (ET) cover system.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 36
(the rate of volume flow of water per unit area) through the overlying UZ, and is expected to be
small enough that vertical transport within the SZ would be small. Most SZ waterborne
contaminant transport will be in the horizontal direction, following the local pressure gradients
which are reflected in water table elevations in an unconfined aquifer such as this. A point of
compliance in the groundwater has been established to be 27 m (90 ft) from the toe of the waste
embankment, so transport is modeled to that point.
Saturated zone groundwater transport generally involves the processes of advection-dispersion
and diffusion. Mean pore water velocity in the saturated zone is assumed to be determined by the
Darcy flux and the porosity of the sediment. A range of values will allow the sensitivity analysis
(SA) to determine if this is a sensitive parameter in the determination of concentrations at the
compliance well and resultant potential doses. Modeling of fate and transport for the saturated
zone pathway will include advection, linear sorption, mechanical dispersion, and molecular
diffusion.
The modeling of the SZ is similar to the modeling of the UZ, except that the “column” of
GoldSim Cell Pathway elements is arranged horizontally. This will be modeled as a row of cells
between the region below the disposal unit and the compliance well. These cells are saturated
with water that flows along the row, in order to represent the aquifer.
7.1.2 Surface Water
The Clive facility is sited in an area of extremely low topographic relief, and surface water
features such as stream channels are rare. The ancestral lake bed is quite flat, so there is little in
Figure 10. Hydrostratigraphic profile showing ET cover, waste zone, and
hydrostratigraphy below the Federal Cell.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 37
the way of land surface gradients which might drive surface water flow. Most if not all meteoric
water that lands on the ground is assumed to be returned to the atmosphere by
evapotranspiration, and essentially none is abstracted by runoff.
The embankment cells on the waste disposal site have significant relief, and surface water runoff
should be expected from these structures. The runoff and associated sediment transport will be
local, and is likely to remain in the vicinity of the site. The principal effect of surface water flow
is expected to be contribution to the formation of gullies, as discussed in Section 10.4.
7.1.3 Air and Atmosphere
Contaminant transport in the air phase takes on two distinct forms: diffusion in the interstitial air
in porous media below ground, and dispersion by the atmosphere above. Diffusion in interstitial
air of porous media is a means by which contaminants reach the atmosphere at the ground
surface. Dispersion of contaminants in the atmosphere can occur through direct diffusion of
gaseous contaminants into ambient air, and through resuspension and movement of wind borne
contaminated soil particles.
Airborne transport is a secondary contaminant transport mechanism at the Clive Facility. As
containment features such as the cover become contaminated from the result of natural processes
(e.g. radon diffusion, burrow excavation, plant senescence), radionuclides will migrate to surface
soils, serving as a source for atmospheric transport. As these contaminants accumulate on the
ground surface, either in a gaseous form (e.g. radon) or attached to solid particles, they undergo
resuspension or volatilization into the atmosphere, leading to airborne transport. Airborne
contaminants will be carried into ambient air by the wind and either inhaled directly by receptor
populations or deposited onto exposure media such as vegetation or soils in the vicinity.
7.1.3.1 Diffusion Through Air in Porous Media
Contaminants released from the waste (or generated by decay of parents in any location) may be
transported via the air pathway by migration of gaseous species through soil pore space. Over
time, cracks, fissures, animal burrows, and plant roots can also provide preferential pathways
that reduce the effectiveness of the engineered barrier. These effects are difficult to quantify and
are not modeled for diffusion in air in the Clive DU PA Model. Efforts at quantification could be
included as part of future cover modeling. Factors that influence the diffusion of contaminants
through porous media include the volatility of the chemical species, its molecular weight,
physical properties of the soil matrix (e.g., porosity, grain size distribution, and moisture content,
which determine phasic tortuosity – that is, tortuosity in either the air or water phase), and
temperature gradients. Diffusion in porous media and along preferential pathways is also driven
by concentration gradients and mediated by effective diffusion coefficients through the tortuous
diffusion path.
Diffusion rates are determined from the defined values for effective diffusivities, diffusive areas,
diffusive lengths, and the calculated concentration gradients between adjacent cells, which varies
as time progresses. Diffusion can take place in both air and water. In coordination with diffusion
is radioactive decay and ingrowth, advection of water, partitioning of contaminants between
water and air and between water and soils, and biotic processes. All these differential equations
and transfer functions are solved at each time step by the PA model.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 38
An important consideration related to the disposal of DU is the production of radon. Since 222Rn
is a descendent of 238U and 234U, through 230Th and 226Ra, it will be generated wherever 226Ra
occurs. As the radium, or any parent in the chain, migrates into the cover, either by diffusion in
the water phase or translocation by biotic processes (see Section 7.1.4), it provides a source for 222Rn in more locations beyond the disposed waste. Furthermore, not all of the radon that is
produced enters the environment for transport. Some of it is retained within the solid material
that held its parent, and decays to polonium-218 (218Po) without moving. This phenomenon is
called radon emanation, and is discussed in the radionuclide transport section (Section 9.0).
Radon that does enter the environment partitions between air and water. Soil moisture therefore
retards the migration of radon as it migrates through the soil, making it less available to diffusion
in air under wetter soil conditions.
7.1.3.2 Atmospheric Dispersion
Atmospheric dispersion of airborne gaseous and particulate contaminants found in surface soils
is expected. To the extent that contaminated subsurface soils are exposed or exhumed and plant
litter is deposited on the surface, they become surface soils and as such will also be subject to
atmospheric dispersion.
Atmospheric dispersion of contaminants is regulated by several factors. Contaminant chemistry,
contaminant mobility, soil texture, effects of vegetation on the atmospheric boundary layer,
topography, and meteorological conditions (predominant wind direction and speed, precipitation,
temperature, and humidity) may influence dispersion of airborne contaminants as well as soil
erosion and contaminant resuspension rates.
The Clive facility is sited in an exposed area, with little around it to protect from the winds.
Wind dispersion is a likely mechanism of airborne transport. Contaminants deposited over or
adsorbed onto soil may migrate from this area source as airborne particulates. Depending on the
particle- size distribution and associated settling rates, these particulates may be deposited
downwind or remain suspended, resulting in contamination of surface soils and/or exposure of
regional receptors through inhalation, immersion, or external irradiation pathways.
Ancestral lake sediments prevalent at the Clive facility are fine-grained, and are susceptible to
resuspension and entrainment in the wind, and to subsequent atmospheric dispersion. This
resuspension of naturally-occurring sediments, however, is moderated by local plant growth,
which creates a boundary layer of lower-velocity air at the ground surface, and by the formation
of desert crust, making the cemented particles of sediment in effect much larger.
The embankments on the site have significant relief in relation to the surrounding environment.
Eventually, enough wind-driven (eolian) sediment may be deposited that the disposal site will
approach the surrounding natural lake bed in appearance and behavior. Although these eolian
deposits will consist of uncontaminated material at first, they may become contaminated by the
process of radon diffusion upward from the waste (with radon progeny left behind in the soils)
and through the biotic processes discussed in the following section. Once radon gas and
resuspended particles have entered the atmosphere directly above the cells, they can be dispersed
over a wide area by the wind. Given these possible transport pathways, atmospheric dispersion of
gases (e.g. radon and other volatile constituents) and of fine particles of sediment must be taken
into consideration in the model.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 39
Entrainment of contaminants into the atmosphere will contribute to the air inhalation exposure
pathways for receptors that are present on the site itself. As particulates eroding from the
embankment are deposited on surrounding land, this surrounding area may become a secondary
source of radionuclide exposure. Atmospheric dispersion calculations in the Clive DU PA Model
will support estimation of gas and particulate air concentrations above the embankment, and off-
site particulate deposition rates that can be used to estimate radionuclide soil concentrations in
the area surrounding the embankment.
7.1.4 Biota
Biota of primary importance for movement of buried waste and subsurface soils are burrowing
animals (both vertebrates and invertebrates, which provide constant mixing of the soil column)
and plants, which can move buried wastes through root-uptake and translocation of contaminants
to various parts of the plant.
7.1.4.1 Native Plants
Plants represent an important potential pathway for waste transport by way of rooting and
conditioning of soil aggregates and particulates, nutrient exchange with soil surfaces, transport of
nutrients from soil through plant tissues, deposition of organic materials and non-nutritive waste
products at or near the soil surface, and physical mixing of soils through the addition of organic
materials to soil due to root collapse and surface deposition. In particular, nutrient exchanges
between the subsurface and surface also create the potential for the exchange of non-nutritive
chemicals, such as with anthropogenic wastes.
Plant induced transport of contaminants is assumed to occur primarily through absorption of
contaminants into the roots, after which the contaminants are redistributed throughout all the
tissues of the plant, both aboveground and belowground. Upon senescence, the above-ground
plant parts are incorporated into surface soils, and the roots are incorporated into soils at their
respective depths. This process is illustrated in Figure 11, which shows the conceptual model for
plant uptake, redistribution, and senescence. Note that relatively clean surface soils become more
contaminated over time as subsurface contaminants are translocated to aboveground portions of
the plant, and ultimately to the surface soil as the plant senesces.
The degree to which plants can move contaminants from the subsurface, and the rate at which
that transport can occur are dependent upon a number of factors such as plant rooting depth, total
above ground plant biomass, total below ground plant biomass, relative abundance of plants, and
density of plants roots by depth.
Plant rooting depths are influenced by a number of physical and physiological factors, but the
ultimate limiting factor is the availability of water. Roots of desert plants generally do not exceed
the depth to which water from precipitation infiltrates on a consistent basis. The maximum
rooting depth of any desert plant is physically limited to the maximum depth from which the
plant can obtain water. Of the plants that dominate the Clive site, black greasewood (Sarcobatus
vermiculatus) is likely the most deeply rooted. Black greasewood is phreatophytic, meaning that
it can utilize shallow groundwater, or derive supplementary water from the overlying capillary
fringe and deplete soil water potential to values less than 4.0 megapascals (MPa). However, in
areas where precipitation does not infiltrate to groundwater, black greasewood will not form
taproots and will maintain a more shallowly rooted growth form. Excavations of several
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 40
greasewood plants at the Clive site by SWCA (2011) found roots that did not exceed one meter
in depth. Several investigators have documented the types and metrics of plant species in
bajadas, desert valleys, and saline mounds (Robinson 1958, Meinzer 1927, Groenveld 1990,
Blank et al. 1998, Hansen and Ostler 2003, Rundel and Nobel 1991, and Holmgren and Brewster
1972).
The plant species currently inhabiting the Clive site are generally halophytic, meaning that they
are adapted to saline environments. Dominant plant species in the saline environments around
Clive include the halophytic shrubs black greasewood, shadscale, and the non-native forb
halogeton. Soil chemistry of the alkali flat environment is a limiting factor that regulates the
local plant community assemblages. It could be anticipated that the soil chemistry of constructed
mounds such as the disposal cells may change over time as precipitation leaches salts from the
mound soils, which are elevated above the surrounding terrain and decoupled from the saline
groundwater. This change in soil chemistry could allow for the establishment of less salt-tolerant
species, such as sage (Artemesia spp) and rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus spp.), which are common
in less saline cool desert habitats. Current closure plans include a revegetated surface layer
composed of Unit 4 material with 15% gravel on the top slope and 50% gravel on the side slope.
Figure 11. Conceptual model for plant induced contaminant transport
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 41
This layer is underlain by an evaporative zone layer composed of Unit 4 material. The soils and
plant species in these layers will be similar to surrounding undisturbed areas.
7.1.5 Native Animals
Only limited biotic surveys of the Clive site have been conducted, so site-specific information
about the utilization of the site by specific animal species is likewise limited. However, based on
the limited Clive studies and more comprehensive studies at other sites, burrowing animals,
including invertebrates and mammals, are of importance when evaluating the mixing of soils and
the potential for transporting buried wastes from the subsurface to the surface.
Ants
Ants fill a broad ecological niche as predators, scavengers, trophobionts and granivores, but it is
their role as burrowers that is of main concern for evaluating transport of buried materials from
the subsurface to the surface. Ants burrow for a variety of reasons but mostly for the
procurement of shelter, the rearing of young and the storage of foodstuffs.
In arid areas of the Great Basin and southwestern U.S., harvester ants of the genera
Pogonomyrmex and Messor are widespread, form large colonies, and often construct elaborate
nests. A preliminary survey of the Clive site and surrounding areas in October 2010 found that
the Western harvester ant (Pogonomrymex occidentalis) is by far the most common ant at the
site, with nest densities ranging from two nests per hectare in mixed sage/juniper community, to
33 nests per hectare in areas with abundant grasses (SWCA 2011). Only a single other ant
species (Lasius sp.) was identified at the Clive site during the preliminary surveys, and it
occurred only in the mixed grass vegetative association.
Several investigations have focused on ants as a taxonomic group of importance for the potential
to move buried waste at locations such as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the Hanford
Site in southeastern Washington (Blom 1990, Fitzner et al. 1979, Gano et al., 1985). These
studies indicate that large colonies of Pogonomyrmex spp. may nest to depths of 3 to 4 meters
(10 to 13 ft) and may colonize areas with great densities of nests (over 100 per hectare), thus
potentially excavating large volumes of contaminated soil to the ground surface.
How and where ant nests are constructed plays a role in quantifying the amount and rate of soil
movement and the mixing of the soil column. Factors relating to the physical construction of the
nests including the size, shape, and depth of the nest are necessary in order to quantify
excavation volumes. Factors limiting the abundance and distribution of ant nests such as the
abundance and distribution of plant species, and intra- and inter-species competition also can
affect excavated soil volumes. Therefore, the amount and rate of soil movement is based on a
variety of factors, including nest area, nest depth, rate of new nest additions, colony density and
colony lifespan.
Due to its dominance at the Clive site, the initial model will be parameterized using available
data for Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. The geometry and structure of ant nests appears to be more
of a species-specific trait that does not exhibit significant flexibility in variable environments
(MacKay 1981). The mound’s height, width, distribution of particles, color, and exposure
significantly impact the colony for predatory defense and environmental regulation, but for any
given species, these mound traits are the same from place to place (MacKay 1981). Therefore,
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 42
there is defensibility for using data collected elsewhere for the same species in order to
parameterize the potential for ant-mediated transport in the Clive model. Site specific data
collected by SWCA (2011) on mound surface dimensions will be used to predict overall nest
volume and depth, and habitat-specific information of ant nest density will be used to help
predict the overall rate of soil movement on a per hectare basis for each habitat type. Additional
site specific data may be needed dependent on the outcome of the initial model.
A number of authors contend that it is reasonable to expect that over the 15- to 30-year life of
some Pogonomyrmex colonies, the entire soil column of the nest is turned over at least once
(Mandel and Sorenson 1981). For important and long-lived Pogonomyrmex ants in the desert
southwestern U.S., Lavigne (1969) and MacKay (1981) have investigated nest structure rather
extensively, and conclude that the net effect of soil movement within an ant colony’s lifetime is a
general homogenization of soils throughout the nest profile. In general, it is likely that this
homogenization occurs more rapidly in the top third of the nest, as this is where most of the
colony’s burrowing takes place, but over the life of the nest, burrowing at the greatest depths of
the nest can be extensive (Lavigne 1969, MacKay 1981). It is expected that ants will colonize the
cover, however, ants will not directly transport the larger particles from layers with gravel.
Therefore, mixing of the gravel particles downward will be minimal, though transport of soil and
clay particles from lower layers of the cover upward is expected.
Mammals
Burrowing mammals such as gophers, pocket gophers, moles, voles, squirrels, mice, rats,
kangaroo rats, and their predators have a profound influence on soil mixing. Burrowing
mammals rework the entire near-surface of soil over most of the North American continent on a
persistent basis, but at varying rates (Nevo 1999). Each of these mammalian species contributes
to soil turnover to a varying degree, depending upon their burrowing habits, geographic location,
and prevailing climate and soil conditions (Laundré and Reynolds 1993). Mammalian biotic
transport of soils also includes the deposition of fecal material in soils, the intermixing of
vegetation, and the significant aeration of upper layers. All of these actions dramatically affect
soil fertility, permeability by air and water, and increase soils’ susceptibility to invasion by
microorganisms (e.g., bacteria, fungi, nematodes, microarthropods).
Some mammals such as pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.,
Sciuridae spp., and others), and kangaroo rats are considered obligately fossorial, i.e., they spend
most of their time underground, including foraging underground. Other organisms, however, will
utilize burrows only for shelter (temporary or permanent) and reproduction. These include hares
(Lepus spp.), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), sagebrush voles (Lagurus curtatus), pocket mice
(Perognathus spp.), kangaroo mice (Microdipodops spp.), foxes (Vulpes spp., Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), and coyotes (Canis latrans).
Biotic transport of soils by mammals at waste burial sites includes the potential direct movement
of waste from the subsurface to the surface, as well as secondary transport, such as food chain
transfer, transport by way of fecal deposition, and carcass degradation (Arthur and Markham,
1982; Smallwood et al., 1998). Intrusion into buried wastes and active physical transport occur
when animals penetrate protective barriers and cause vertical or horizontal redistribution of
waste material (Hakonson et al., 1982; Arthur and Markham, 1982). As animals excavate
burrows they either relocate buried material to the surface, or relocate soils from depth into
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 43
below-ground chambers lateral to the point of entry, as is common with pocket gophers or other
obligately fossorial mammals (Smallwood et al., 1998).
Because mammal burrows facilitate natural ventilation and aeration of the soils, burrowing
activity may also enhance the potential for contaminant release in gaseous form by allowing
increased communication between the atmosphere and buried waste. Mammal burrows also may
provide preferential pathways for water infiltration, as some studies have shown that recharge
quantities and depth of recharge were positively correlated with burrow density, and also found
that ground squirrels can increase precipitation infiltration into the soils by as much as 34% as a
consequence of burrowing activity (Laundré, 1993). Other studies, however have shown little
effect of animal burrowing on water balance (Section 3.4.2.1). The effect of animal burrowing on
subsurface moisture content was investigated in a field experiment at the Hanford Site by
Landeen (1994). Over the course of five testing periods, three during the summer and two during
the winter soil moisture measurements showed no influence of burrowing activities on long-term
water storage.
Preliminary investigations of mammals at Clive have focused on surveying the different habitat
associations for mammal burrows, quantification of the amount of soil excavated by burrowing
mammals, and trapping to determine dominant small mammal species in each vegetative
association. Results suggest that burrowing mammals are relatively scarce on the alkali flat
habitats (greasewood, shadscale), becoming more abundant in the less saline soils associated
with mixed grass and juniper-sage habitats. Deer mice were the most abundant mammals trapped
in all habitat types, with lesser numbers of kangaroo rats (two species), and grasshopper mice
also found in the traps.
7.2 Deep Time Conditions
The deep time frame over which the analysis is concerned is defined by the period of time
beyond 10,000 years until radioactivity from the DU parents and its progeny is at its peak. This
occurs when the progeny, identified in Section 9.1.2, are in secular equilibrium with the parent.
For decay of a refined 238U parent (the longest-lived uranium isotope), progeny reach secular
equilibrium at about 2.1 million years (My). With its exceedingly long half-life of over 4 billion
years, the parent 238U decays only by about one half-life before the end of the solar system, and
the peak achieved at 2.1 My wanes only slightly in that time. The analysis devoted to deep time
scenarios is sufficiently representative of this entire duration when considered out to only 2.1 My
in the future, as changes in radioactivity are minor after that time.
The model developed to evaluate the deep time performance of the Clive facility focuses on
concentrations in various media, and does not attempt to translate these concentrations into
human dose metrics. This approach is used because of the overwhelming uncertainty associated
with evaluating human receptor scenarios that far into the future. This uncertainty is associated
both with projecting human behavior and environmental conditions.
A scenario is considered that involves the return of large lakes in the Bonneville Basin over the
next few million years, since secular equilibrium is reached at about 2.1 My. Following that, the
radioactivity of the DU will persist effectively forever.
Understanding the phases associated with the change from current climatic conditions to future
climatic conditions can help construct a qualitative picture of how the Clive facility will respond
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 44
to those changes. The following section provides a brief overview of how major environmental
changes in the past are directly coupled to major shifts in climatic regimes. This section also
provides context with respect to how these past changes may occur in the future and their
implications on the stability of the Clive facility.
7.2.1 Background on Long-term Controls on Site Conditions
7.2.1.1 Climate processes
Large-scale climatic fluctuations over the last 2.58 My (the beginning of the Quaternary Period)
have been studied extensively in order to understand the mechanism underlying those changes
(Hays et al., 1976, Berger, 1988, Paillard, 2001, Berger and Loutre, 2002). These large-scale
fluctuations in climate have resulted in glacial and interglacial cycles which have waxed and
waned throughout the Quaternary Period. The causes of the onset of the Northern Hemisphere
glaciation about 3 million years ago (3 Ma) remain uncertain, but several studies suggest that the
closing of the Isthmus of Panama caused a marked reorganization of ocean circulation patterns
that resulted in continental glaciation (Haug and Tiedemann, 1998, Driscoll and Haug, 1998).
Changes in the periodicity of glacial cycles have been linked to variations in Earth’s orbit around
the Sun. These variations were described by Milankovitch and are based on changes that occur
due to:
• the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit – about every 100,000 years (100 ky),
• the obliquity of Earth’s axis– about 41 ky, and,
• the precession of the equinoxes (or solstices) – about 21 ky.
For the first two million years of the Pleistocene (the first major Epoch of the Quaternary
Period), Northern Hemispheric glacial cycles occurred about every 41 ky, while the last million
years have indicated larger glacial cycles occurring about once every 100 ky, with strong
cyclicity in solar radiation every ~23 ky (Berger and Loutre, 2002; Paillard, 2006). The results of
Hays et al. (1976), who analyzed changes in the isotopic δ18O composition of deep-sea sediment
cores, suggest that major climatic changes have followed both the variations in obliquity and
precession through their impact on planetary insolation. Variations in δ18O reflect changes in
oceanic isotopic composition caused by the waxing and waning of Northern Hemispheric ice
sheets, and are thus used as a proxy for the climatic record. However, the shift from shorter to
longer cycles is one of the greatest uncertainties associated with utilizing the Milankovitch
orbital theory to explain the onset of glacial cycles alone (Paillard, 2006).
Various studies have highlighted the importance of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) variations
in the dynamics of glaciations across the Northern Hemisphere in addition to the insolation due
to orbital forcing (Clark et al., 2009; Paillard, 2006). Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in
the Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores from Antarctica show that atmospheric CO2
concentrations decreased during glacial periods due to greater storage in the deep ocean, thereby
causing cooler temperatures from a reduction of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect (EPICA,
2004). Warmer temperatures resulting from elevated concentrations of CO2 that are released
from the ocean on the other hand contribute to further warming and could support hypotheses of
rapid wasting at the end of glacial events (Hays et al., 1976). Berger and Loutre (2002)
conducted simulations forced with insolation and CO2 variations over the next 100 ky and report
that the current interglacial period could last another 50 ky with the next glacial maximum
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 45
occurring about 100 ky from now. They also report, however, that future increases in
atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic activity along with small insolation variations could result
in a transition between the Quaternary and the next geologic period due to the potential wasting
of the Greenland and west Antarctic Ice Sheets.
There is a strong likelihood that there will be major climatic shifts within the next million years,
and strong evidence that the 100 ky cycle has impacted the Bonneville basin in the form of large
lake recurrence (Oviatt, 1997; Asmerom et al., 2010). Thus, due to the destructive potential of a
lake to the waste embankment, the deep time scenarios of most interest are the return of large
lakes in the Bonneville Basin.
7.2.1.2 Large Lake Cycle Events
The Clive facility is located in the Bonneville Basin where Lake Bonneville, the largest of the
late Pleistocene pluvial lakes, last existed between 30-10 ka. Pluvial lakes are lakes that show
evidence of expansion due to pluvial episodes (wetter climatic phases) as well as contraction due
to what is assumed to reflect interpluvial episodes (warmer, dryer climatic phases). Various FEPs
fall within the lake cycle scenario which include wave action, sedimentation, and site inundation.
At its maximum (between ~15-16 ka BP), Lake Bonneville is estimated to have covered an area
of 51,300 km2 (~19,800 sq mi) and was over 370 m (1200 ft) deep (Lowe and Walker, 1997).
Following the Bonneville flood at ~18 to 18.5 ka (Miller et al 2013), during which the lake level
dropped by ~114 m (~375 ft) as it spilled over and eroded a spill point, the lake level continued
to decline leaving behind modern-day Great Salt Lake. Geomorphological evidence is present
that shows the variability in the levels of the last major lake cycle as indicated by the exposed
shoreline features in areas of the Bonneville basin.
Oviatt et al. (1999) examined sediments from the Burmester core and suggested that a total of
four deep-lake cycles occurred during the past 780 ky. They found that the four lake cycles
correlated with marine oxygen isotope stages 2 (Bonneville lake cycle: ~24-12 ka), 6 (Little
Valley lake cycle: ~186-128 ka), 12 (Pokes Point lake cycle: ~478-423 ka), and 16 (Lava Creek
lake cycle: ~659-620 ka), which suggests that large lake formation in the Bonneville basin
occurred only during the most extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations. In addition to these
large lake cycles, a smaller cycle known as the Cutler Dam cycle occurred between ~80-40 ka
(Link et al., 1999). Each major lake cycle and its corresponding estimated maximum shoreline
elevations are listed in Table 1. As a point of reference, the Clive facility is located at an
elevation of 1302 m (4275 ft) amsl, and the airport at Salt Lake City, SLC, is at 1288 m (4227
ft).
During the large pluvial lake events, large amounts of calcium carbonate were precipitated as
tufas, marls, shells (of mollusks), and ostracodes (Hart et al., 2004). Brimhall and Merritt (1981)
reviewed previous studies that analyzed sediment cores of Utah Lake, a freshwater remnant of
Lake Bonneville that formed ~10 ka. It is suggested that up to 8.5 m (28 ft) of sediment has
accumulated since the beginning of Utah Lake, implying an average sedimentation rate of
~0.00085 m/y (nearly 1 mm/y) over 10 ky. Within the Bonneville basin as a whole it is
suggested that the major lake cycles resulted in substantial accumulations of sediment based on
the depth of the cores analyzed (e.g., 110-meter core that corresponds to the past 780 ky, or four
major lake cycles for an average sedimentation rate of 0.00014 m/yr including non-lake phases;
Oviatt et al., 1999).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 46
Table 1. Known lake cycles in the Bonneville Basin
Lake Cycle Approximate
Age*
Maximum Elevation Lake level control
Great Salt Lake
(current level)
present 1284 m (4212 ft) in 1873 climate; human intervention
Gilbert 11–10 ka 1295 m (4250 ft) climate
Provo 14.5–13.5 ka 1445 m (4740 ft) threshold at Zenda near Red
Rock Pass, Idaho
Bonneville ~28–12 ka
(14C)
1552 m (5090 ft) threshold at Zenda near Red
Rock Pass, Idaho
Stansbury 23–20 ka 1372 m (4500 ft) climate
Cutler Dam ~80–40 ka < 1380 m (< 4525 ft)
Little Valley ~128–186 ka 1490 m (4887 ft)
Pokes Point 417–478 ka 1428 m (4684 ft)
Lava Creek ~620–659 ka 1420 m (4658 ft)
*Approximate ages derived from Currey, et al. (1984) Link et al. (1999) and Oviatt et al. (1999).
Elevations are not corrected for isostatic variations

There is a lack of peer-reviewed literature that considers the direct effects of future climate
change on major lake formation in the Bonneville basin. However, if the current geologic era
continues, the probability of another major lake cycle occurring in the Bonneville basin within
the next 100 ky in conjunction with variation in Earth's orbital characteristics is high, considering
the correspondence between past global temperature fluctuations and past known lake events.
Assuming that past conditions will apply in the future, variations in orbital characteristics are
very likely lead to another major ice age and thus alter long-term climatic patterns in the
Bonneville region making it suitable for lake formation. Each 100 ky glacial cycle is different,
depending on orbital forcing, but it is clear from the historical record that the current period is
inter-glacial, and colder conditions are likely in the future. Unless the current geologic period
ends in response to anthropogenic forcing effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Berger
and Loutre, 2002), it is expected that the Clive facility will be subjected to lake formation in the
future. Return of a large lake is considered unlikely without climatic change.
7.2.1.3 Isostatic Rebound
Isostasy refers to the gravitational equilibrium between Earth’s lithosphere (the rocky outer
crust) and asthenosphere (the semiliquid layer below the crust) such that the lithosphere “floats”
at an elevation that depends on its local thickness and density. When large amounts of sediment,
water, (in the case of Lake Bonneville) or ice occur over a particular region over time, the weight
of the new mass may cause the crust below to sink. Hetzel and Hampel (2005) examined the
effects of the removal of Lake Bonneville on isostatic rebound of the lithosphere. They found
that the removal of Lake Bonneville triggered an increase in fault slip rates in the Wasatch region
resulting in clustering of earthquakes during the early Holocene. Former islands present during
the Lake Bonneville cycle also indicate that isostatic rebound occurred after the regression of the
lake. This is evidenced by the paleo-shorelines on the islands which are located tens of meters
above the paleo-shorelines along the lake periphery (Hetzel and Hampel, 2005).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 47
Although it is difficult to predict potential impacts from future seismic events, it is expected that
if isostatic rebound effects were to occur, the effects of future seismic events would be mitigated
by the site’s burial by lacustrine sediment.
7.2.1.4 Volcanism
The principal effects of volcanism on the Clive site are indirect. Hart et al. (1997) suggest that
lava flows near Grace, Idaho during the Pleistocene diverted the upper Bear River between the
Snake River drainage to the Bonneville Basin through the formation of lava dams. Link et al.
(1999) report that the permanent addition of the Bear River discharge to Lake Bonneville likely
occurred around 50 ka (±10 ka), and in conjunction with cooler and wetter conditions during this
time, it is thought to be responsible for the lake reaching its highest level (i.e., the Bonneville
shoreline). Although the lava dams resulted in the alteration of the path of the Bear River, at
certain times during the Pleistocene the upper Bear River was diverted into the Snake River
which deprived the Bonneville basin of significant discharge. Future changes in the regional
hydrology in response to any future lava flows or regional volcanic activity could result in
similar implications for future pluvial lake events (i.e., increase or decrease in discharge to the
basin).
7.2.1.5 Ecological Changes
Changes in biotic assemblages have been shown to occur in the past (Davis and Moutoux, 1998)
and will likely occur in the future in response to shifts in climatic regimes. Temperature and
precipitation have a profound effect on plant community assemblages, as does soil chemistry.
Areas where salt pans remain in place will remain largely unvegetated regardless of changes in
temperature and precipitation. Valley areas around the margins of salt pans will remain restricted
to halophytic plants until salinity levels drop. Because Clive is somewhat centrally located within
the Great Basin cold desert biome, vegetation assemblage changes associated with climate
change will occur more slowly than in areas closer to biome transition zones. As the climate
changes, vegetation changes will occur on steppes and slopes, but soil chemistry will remain the
constraining factor on the valley floors.
Pollen studies from sediment cores in the Great Salt Lake show that the vegetation of the
Bonneville Basin and surrounding area has been desert for approximately the last 5 My (Davis
and Moutoux, 1998). The pollen studies indicate that Sarcobatus, Artemisia, and various
Chenopodaceae (the family that includes the various saltbush species) have dominated during
interglacial periods, with montane conifers (Picea, Abies, and Pseudotsuga) increasing during
glacial periods. For the purposes of this CSM, it is assumed that climatic shifts could occur
resulting in any one of four different conditions: cooler-wetter, cooler-drier, warmer-wetter,
warmer-drier. The direction of the climatic shift will affect both the vegetative and faunal
assemblages occupying the site. Figure 12 illustrates a general biome diagram based on
temperature and precipitation, as well as the approximate location of the Clive site within this
temperature-precipitation gradient.
Cooler, wetter conditions will likely result in transition first to Artemisia sage communities, then
to Pinyon-Juniper woodland characterized by the presence of Juniperus osteosperma and Pinus
monophylla, and finally to montane spruce/fir woodlands as seen during past glacial periods.
These woodlands are not likely to ever occupy the valley floor unless profound changes in soil
chemistry occur. All of these changes occur over geologic time, and prediction of the occurrence
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 48
of specific species represents a great uncertainty. Cooler, drier conditions will likely maintain
similar plant communities as are currently present, unless temperatures get cold enough to
support taiga/tundra conditions.
Warmer, drier conditions will result in plant assemblages similar to those that occur in the
Mojave desert, where valley floors are dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), white
bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), and pale desert-thorn (Lycium pallidum). Warmer, wetter
conditions could lead to establishment of grasslands, and eventually temperate forest, as existed
more than 10 Ma when the pollen record shows that elm (Ulmus), hickory (Carya), yew (Taxus),
and hemlock (Tsuga) were common in the area (Davis and Moutoux, 1998). Again,
establishment of these vegetative complexes on the valley floor would require a major shift in
soil structure and chemistry.
7.2.1.6 Human Intervention
Various scenarios can be constructed that look at each of these impacts on the Clive facility in
the ultra long-term future. One major difference between the past 3 My and the present is the
existence of well-developed human civilization, technology, and greater ability to adapt to
changing conditions. If in the future another ice age were to occur similar to those that have
occurred during the Pleistocene, disposal cell design could help mitigate the effects of future
events that could jeopardize the stability of the engineered facility at Clive.
Figure 12. Whittaker Biome Diagram
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 49
In the event of another major lake cycle, human intervention is likely to be employed in
surrounding areas (e.g., Salt Lake City) and could result in modifying engineered features like
those that were installed to alleviate the effects of flooding in the early 1980s, when a pumping
system was built to divert flood waters into the west desert (see www.water.utah.gov/
Construction/GSL/GSLpage.htm). In fact, the Utah Division of Water Resources proposed
various options to handle flooding events of Great Salt Lake due to natural variations in
precipitation (see www.water.utah.gov/Construction/GSL/GSLflood.htm). Some of the options
that were proposed included the exportation of flood flows from the Great Salt Lake drainage
basin to the Bear River and Sevier River drainages, consumption of water via evapotranspiration
through the development of new agricultural lands, and creating a dike around the lake to protect
major facilities and resources.
While it is difficult to predict the level of human intervention in response to these events, it
should be taken into consideration for all future scenarios considered for the performance
assessment of Clive facility.
7.2.2 Long-Term Scenarios
The primary scenario of concern in the deep time scenario is the return of a lake to the
Bonneville Basin that reaches the elevation of the Clive facility. There is historical evidence of
large lakes covering the Clive site with more than 100 meters of water, so large lakes will be
modeled as recurring in the future. There is weaker historical record of intermediate-sized lakes,
lakes that are relatively shallow at the Clive elevation. The lack of historical record for
intermediate lakes is not necessarily surprising, since the combined effects of wave erosion and
lake sedimentation during transgressive and regressive lake cycles are likely to bury and or
obscure evidence of intermediate lakes. However, there is evidence of two relatively recent
intermediate lakes – Cutler Dam and Gilbert, as well as stratigraphy in sediment cores that
suggest many lakes rising and falling at the Clive elevation (Oviatt, 1997), which might be
associated with either intermediate lakes or fluctuations in large lake transgression and
regression. The expected consequence of the formation of a lake in the Bonneville Basin is the
destruction of the waste embankment due to wave energy, resulting in physical dispersal of the
site material. Waste entrained in the sediment can partially dissolve into the lake, and
contaminant complexes will precipitate from the lake water back into the sediment. This process
is depicted in the conceptual model shown in Figure 13.
The deep time model is thus constructed to represent the following components:
• Continuation of natural processes in the waste embankment. After 10,000 years, natural
processes such as eolian erosion and/or deposition of silts and sand, groundwater
transport, and biotic uptake will continue to be modeled as long as the embankment is
intact.
• Returns of large and intermediate lakes to the Clive site. Large lakes will be treated as
occurring regularly with the 100,000-year orbital cycle, while intermediate lakes will
occur according to a random process between large lake cycles, with greater probability
of occurrence further in time from the end of the inter-glacial period (i.e., as the
temperature decreases and precipitation increases).
• Site destruction. When the first lake returns at or above the elevation of Clive, the waste
embankment will be treated as destroyed. The result is dispersal of above-grade waste
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 50
into the sediments near the site, along with dissolution into the lake water. Once the
waste embankment is destroyed, the evolution of the waste embankment is no longer
modeled.
• Sedimentation and mixing. The presence of a lake implies sedimentation at the site. As
the waste is dispersed, it will be mixed with the embankment materials and sediment.
Waste material that dissolves into the water column will be assumed to precipitate out of
the water column back into the sediment at the site as the lake recedes. Subsequent lakes
are likely to at least partially bury the waste beneath subsequent sediment. However,
since the deep time model is intended to be qualitative, a conservative choice is made to
model all sediments containing waste as mixing with sediments of subsequent lakes.
• Activity levels. The results tracked in the deep time model are the radioactive
concentrations in lake water and in sediment.
Figure 13. Scenarios for the long-term fate of the Clive facility
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 51
8.0 Modeling of Engineered Features
The engineered features of the disposal facility are the waste form itself (including containment),
and the liner and cover, which surround the wastes. Other than these, the natural environment is
relied upon to moderate the migration of contaminants. These engineered features are expected
to degrade with time, gradually assuming a form more like the natural surroundings. The model
will attempt to capture the performance of the engineered features, including the essential
processes contributing to their degradation, as described in this section.
8.1 Waste Form and Containment
The waste forms are discussed in detail in Section 6.0, but a brief discussion is included here for
completeness as an engineered feature. The waste form, for the purposes of this discussion,
includes the matrix that contains radionuclides, and any drums, boxes, or other materials that
contain that matrix. Generally, wastes are not designed with their long-term resistance to
degradation in mind, but rather for the convenience of the generator and shipper. Also, waste
form and containment on waste profiles or shipping manifests are sufficient for disposal
purposes, but not necessarily for PA purposes.
Low-level radioactive waste matrices are in general quite heterogeneous, including bulk soils,
debris from decontamination and decommissioning activities, protective equipment, tools,
laboratory wastes, chemical residues, resins and filters, and such, but in the case of DU waste,
the form is unusually uniform. Leachability and solubility can be modeled for well-documented
DU oxide waste forms. Details on the chemical characteristics of DU waste are given in Section
6.5.
Steel barrels and boxes, “burrito-wrap” fabrics, cardboard, or even bulk uncontainerized
materials are common in LLW. Most of these offer little in the way of long-term containment,
especially after compaction to reduce void spaces, which often crushes or otherwise
compromises containment. Container integrity is not typically given credit in LLW PA models.
In the case of DU, the containers, which consist of steel 200-L (55-gal) drums or the various
specialized designs of steel UF6 cylinders, are not expected to provide much in the way of long-
term containment. Pitting, rusting, and other forms of corrosion have already been documented
for the cylinders, and a number of steel drums have had to be repackaged. This degradation has
taken place in the last few decades, so it would be unreasonable to assume that containers would
remain intact for any appreciable length of time in the environment of the embankment cell. The
model, therefore, will not take credit for containment (refer to Section 6 of the FEPs Analysis
white paper accompanying the Clive DU PA Model). All wastes are assumed to have the
characteristics of local Unit 3 sandy soil.
8.2 Liners
The Clive facility’s embankment cells are constructed similarly to those designed for landfills
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), using a variety of natural and
engineered materials. Liners are constructed on the floor of the facility, and the waste is placed
on top of them. Caps are constructed over the waste, and are designed to shed water.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 52
Previous PA modeling at the Clive site, which addressed a performance period of hundreds of
years, included modeling of the installed performance of the cover and liner, degradation of the
cover, and bio-intrusion scenarios (Whetstone, 2000). Liner degradation allows for increased
contaminant transport from the waste layers to the UZ below the facility, and subsequently to the
SZ through recharge. The performance of the liner is not expected to degrade significantly. The
principal role of the liner in the contaminant transport model is to regulate flow from the waste to
the underlying UZ, so all that matters, in the end, is the rate at which water may penetrate it, plus
any chemical retardation involved as it flows through.
8.3 Cover
Engineered covers can be subject to degradation processes such as biointrusion, freeze-thaw, and
erosion. These processes are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Current closure plans include a revegetated Surface Layer composed of Unit 4 material with 15%
gravel on the top slope and 50% gravel on the side slope. This layer is underlain by an
Evaporative Zone Layer composed of Unit 4 material. The soils and plant species in these layers
will be similar to surrounding undisturbed areas. The cover will differ from the surrounding
areas in slope. Potential changes in cover performance due to time dependent evolution of the
cover layers after closure are driven by the following processes:
• Site-specific field studies (SWCA, 2013) indicate that although the plants and animals in
the vicinity of the Clive site are found at low densities and are small in size, the local
animals and plants described in Sections 7.1.4 and 7.1.5 are expected to penetrate the
upper soil layers of the ET cover. These studies concluded that the amount of soil
disturbance would be insignificant in comparison with the total soil volume of the cover.
Quantitative estimates of soil displacement are contained in SWCA (2013).

• The frost protection layer consists of bank run materials with sizes ranging from cobbles
to clays. This material contains large- and medium-sized cobble that cannot be moved by
small animals, pore sizes small enough to prevent passage by small animals, and a fine
soil component that fills the pores of the coarse component providing a further deterrent
to burrowing (SWCA, 2013).

• Observations made during a biological survey at the Clive facility (SWCA, 2011)
indicate that plant roots often form on top of clay layers that are a meter or more below
the top surface, such as the upper radon barrier. Some of these roots may penetrate the
radon barriers, based on observations of plant roots in clay layers in boring logs, although
the recent biological survey did not dig through clay layers to confirm this. It is possible
that ants may also penetrate the clay layers by following root holes or possible cracks in
the clay layers. On balance, the biological survey evidence suggests that bioturbation and
homogenization of the radon barriers will probably occur very slowly relative to the
10,000-year time frame for the PA.

• Sheet erosion is a uniform process over the area of the cover, and depends largely on its
slope. In the central area of the embankment, where slopes are gradual, sheet erosion
would be slower than on the steeper side slopes of the cell. As soil moves downslope,
however, it is expected that the volume would be replenished by deposition of clean loess
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 53
from the surrounding environs. In the end, the soil volumes do not change, though there
would be a slow movement of soils downslope, along with the contaminants they could
potentially contain. Sheet erosion is not included in this model since the top slope of the
cover is gradual (about 2%), and since the overall effect of sheet erosion is likely to be
considerably less than the effect of gully erosion. The revegetation plan proposed by
EnergySolutions (SWCA, 2013) includes steps to promote the regrowth of the biological
soil crusts found on undisturbed areas in the vicinity of the site. An established biological
crust will provide long-term reduction of sediment transport by sheet erosion.

• Gully erosion has the potential to move substantial quantities of both cover materials
and waste. Once a “nick” is started somewhere on the surface of the cover, by an
animal burrow or off-highway vehicle (OHV) track, for example, the feedback
processes inherent in gully formation will cause erosion upward to the top of the
slope, and downward to the surrounding grade. SWCA (2013) notes that there is
minimal evidence of soil erosion at the Clive site or in the vicinity. SWCA cites
observations of small berms of soil created by eolian accumulation of soils that show
no evidence of water erosion over long periods of time.

• Freeze/thaw cycles will also tend to degrade performance of the cover. This process is
anticipated in the design, however, which includes a frost protection layer to
accommodate it.

• Subsidence of the wastes could also contribute to decreased performance of the cover
(Smith et al., 1997). Differential subsidence would be expected to cause vertical shearing
of the cover layers, creating enhanced transport pathways, and the formation of
depressions which could capture water, increasing local infiltration. However, it is
expected that any depression would fill in rather quickly by windblown sediments.
Subsidence is not expected to be an important process atIn the Clive facility, since the
waste is aggressively compacted in order to prevent this occurrence (EnergySolutions,
2009c).

At the Clive site these processes are expected to be slowed significantly by the effects of eolian
deposition. As discussed in Section 3.3.3 above, examination of eolian deposits in the upper part
of the stratigraphic section at the Clive site show slow processes of pedogenesis and continuing
suppression and burial of developing soils by a relatively low rate of deposition of eolian silt.
These conditions will persist at the Clive site as long as the lake levels remain below the site
elevation. The expectation is that eolian deposits will drape and slightly stabilize closure covers
until future lakes return to the Clive site.

9.0 Radionuclide Transport
This section describes the aspects of modeling that involve radionuclides. The modeling of the
natural environment, including groundwater flow, atmospheric dispersion, and other processes
that are not specific to radionuclides, is discussed in Section 7.0. Following the determination of
the list of radionuclide species under consideration, this section discusses the mechanisms
governing their fate and transport in the environment.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 54
9.1 Modeled Radionuclides
Unlike general LLW, DU waste contains only a select number of radionuclides. These are mostly
uranium isotopes (by mass), the most common of which is 238U. The non-uranium radionuclides
are either fission products or actinides.
9.1.1 Reported Inventory
Based on laboratory analysis of the contents of DU waste (including all radionuclides in the
containers), the species in the disposed inventory include (Beals, et al. 2002, EnergySolutions
2009b, Johnson 2010):
uranium isotopes 233U, 234U, 235U, 236U, 238U
other actinides (and radium) 226Ra, 241Am, 237Np, 238Pu, 239Pu,
240Pu, 241Pu fission products 90Sr, 99Tc, 129I, 137Cs
9.1.2 Radioactive Decay and In-growth
Radioactive decay and in-growth are fundamental physical processes. There are several types of
radiological transformations, including alpha, beta, gamma, electron capture, spontaneous
fission, etc. While these processes are not specifically detailed in this subsection, they are
accounted for in terms of their dose effects on humans, and their change in elemental (chemical)
nature. As they experience decay and in-growth, the radionuclides in the reported inventory will
change and these progeny must also be included in the modeling.
Simplified decay chains for the actinides are shown in Figure 14. Decay and in-growth continue
until a stable nuclide is reached. In the case of the actinides, the stable nuclide is always bismuth
or lead.
9.1.3 Short-lived Radionuclides
Not all of the members of a decay chain are modeled in the fate and transport calculations. Given
the long duration of the analysis, and the short half-life of many of the radionuclides, it is
impractical to model their transport, as they could not travel any appreciable distance before
decaying to the next nuclide of the decay chain. Attempting to include short-lived radionuclides
in the fate and transport model adds unnecessary complexity to the model. Therefore,
radionuclides with half-lives less than five years are excluded from the fate and transport
analysis, with one exception: 222Rn. Radon is a special case, since as a noble gas it has unique
transport characteristics, even though it has a half-life of under four days. It diffuses in both air
and water, partitioning between the two, and can migrate significant distances.
It must be noted that while the short-lived radionuclides are not included in the fate and transport
calculations, they are included in the dose assessment. It is often short-lived nuclides that
contribute most to dose.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 55
Figure 14. Principal decay chains for the four actinide series. Radionuclides in black are
included in the fate and transport model, and those in green are considered only in
the dose model.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 56
9.1.4 Radionuclides with Small Branching Fractions
Similar to the short-lived radionuclides, there are radionuclides that have exceedingly small
branching fractions, in addition to being short-lived. These are included in neither the fate and
transport calculations, nor the dose calculations, as their omission is invariably inconsequential
and promotes computational efficiency. In addition, most of these small branching fraction
radionuclides have no dose conversion factors available.
The detailed sections of the actinide decay chains that contain these radionuclides, showing all
the short-lived and small-branching-fraction radionuclides, are provided in Figure 15.
List of Radionuclides Species for Fate and Transport
The complete list of radionuclides accounted for in the fate and transport model follows,
Figure 15. Detailed decay chains for actinides. Radionuclides in black are included in the
fate and transport model, those in green are considered only in the dose model, and
those in gray are not modeled.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 57
organized into decay chains:
241Pu → 241Am → 237Np → 233U → 229Th
242Pu → 238U → 234U → 230Th → 226Ra → 222Rn → 210Pb
238Pu → 234U → (joins the above chain)
239Pu → 235U → 231Pa → 227Ac
236U → 232Th → 228Ra → 228Th
232U → 228Th → (joins the above chain)
Several radionuclides are not part of the actinide series:
137Cs → 137mBa
129I
90Sr → 90Y
99Tc
The decay of the last species listed in the chain is also included in the fate and transport
modeling.
9.2 Source Release
The disposed DU waste is assumed to be uncontainerized, since standard operations at the site
include significant compaction of disposed waste.
9.2.1 Containment Degradation
As discussed in Section 8.1, no credit will be given to the ability of steel containers to inhibit
release of wastes.
9.2.2 Matrix Release
In the absence of detailed information regarding the chemical and physical form of the uranium
oxides, release of radionuclides from the waste matrix will be assumed to be instantaneous. That
is, release into infiltrating water that migrates through the waste will be controlled only by the
geochemical constraints of the waste/water partition coefficient (Kd) and solubility (see Section
9.3). If information can be provided for a basis of a measured release from the waste matrix, that
can also be incorporated into the model.
9.2.3 Radon Emanation
A special consideration for DU is the production and release of radon, especially 222Rn. As 222Rn
is produced by alpha decay from 226Ra, the recoil from the ejection of the alpha particle may be
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 58
of sufficient energy to expel the 222Rn atom from the waste matrix. If it is not so energetic, the
radon atom will stay in the matrix, and will in a matter of days decay to 218Po and then to other
progeny, and will not be available for environmental transport as radon.
The fraction of decaying radium atoms that result in a radon atom being expelled into a transport
medium (water or air) is called the radon emanation factor or the escape/production ratio (E/P)
ratio, and has a value between 0 and 1. If the E/P ratio for a given waste form is 0, no radon ever
escapes the matrix; if it is 1, all radon escapes. A dense solid matrix such as metal, crystal, or
glass could have a low E/P ratio, and a fine powder or surface contamination would have a
relatively high value.
9.3 Waterborne Radionuclide Transport
Water enters the modeled system as infiltration from meteoric waters (precipitation) at the
embankment cell surface, and as groundwater below the ground surface. The approach to
modeling different groundwater zones is discussed in Section 7.1.1. This section focuses on the
transport of radionuclides within that water system. For many contaminants waterborne transport
is influenced by geochemical processes.
While the radiogeochemistry of contaminant transport is in reality exceedingly complex, it is
typically simplified for the purposes of PA. A full geochemical model considers the mineralogy
of neighboring geological materials and the full geochemical makeup of water, on a highly
refined scale. It considers the speciation and complexation of ions, which is especially involved
for those cations with multiple valence states, such as uranium and plutonium. It considers the
formation and transport of colloids, and the fine-scale adsorption of chemical species onto
sediment particles and fracture coatings. For the PA modeling, the geochemistry of contaminant
transport in groundwater is approached at the macro scale, and a few key concepts are assumed
to account for all the small-scale variation. A simple equilibrium sorption model using soil/water
partition coefficients or Kds is used to model the partitioning process. While simplified, the Kd
approach is conservatively representative of the solid-water partitioning process and is in
common usage in PA models. The Kd model assumes that a given constituent dissolved in the
water (e.g. uranium) has some propensity to sorb to the solid phase of a porous medium, while
maintaining some presence dissolved in the aqueous phase as well. The definition of the
solid/water distribution coefficient, with units of mL/g (or sometimes m3/kg) is:
𝐾!=𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠  𝑜𝑓  𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡  𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑑  𝑜𝑛  𝑎  𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡  𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠  𝑜𝑓  𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑  (𝑔/𝑔)
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠  𝑜𝑓  𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡  𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛  𝑎  𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡  𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒  𝑜𝑓  𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟  (𝑔/𝑚𝐿) (1)
The sorption is assumed to be instantaneously reversible and independent of concentration. That
is, no dynamics are accounted for, and the ratio is always simply linear—a constituent’s
concentration in water is always the same ratio with respect to its sorbed concentration onto the
solid, and it takes no time for the change between solid or liquid phases to occur. This is the
linear isotherm assumption, and is commonly employed.
Aqueous solubility, however, places limits on the amount of a constituent that can be dissolved
in the water phase. Each chemical species (in this case, each chemical element, including all
isotopes) has a limit as to how much of that chemical can exist in the water phase. Solubility is
expressed in moles per unit volume of water (typically mol/L), where one mole is Avogadro’s
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 59
number of atoms (or molecules). If, then, the solubility of uranium were 1 mol/L, one liter of
water could hold one mole of uranium, which could be a mix of 235U, 236U, 238U, or other
isotopes. Any attempt to add uranium to the water will result in the precipitation of uranium.
The Kd model expressed in Equation 1 is applied only when the solubility limit for a given
constituent is not in effect. This is a particularly important point to keep in mind when modeling
the leaching of a concentrated waste form, such as uranium oxides. At first, the leaching is likely
to be solubility-limited with respect to uranium, and the leachate will migrate away with uranium
at the solubility limit. Eventually, as enough uranium is removed from the source, the leachate
concentration will be limited only by Kd, and will be less and less concentrated until the source is
depleted. This occurs for all other elements as well, though the synergistic effect of various
similar chemicals (e.g. other heavy metals like plutonium and lead) is not modeled.
Note that partitioning and solubility are independent of isotopic variation, as the radiological
aspect of contaminants does not enter into their chemistry. That is, isotopes all behave
identically, chemically speaking. 234U, 235U and 238U are isotopes, and therefore compete together
for sorption sites, or for aqueous solubility. A model that considers 235U and 238U in separate
simulations cannot couple these effects, and may produce inaccurate results, especially in the
presence of solubility limitations. GoldSim recognizes the concept of isotopes, and accounts for
their interrelated chemical behavior.
9.4 Airborne transport
As discussed in the section on modeling the natural environment (Section 7.1.3), the two distinct
types of airborne transport include diffusion in the air-filled pore spaces of porous media, and
dispersion above the ground surface by wind. Radiological aspects of these processes are
discussed below.
9.4.1 Diffusion Through Porous Media
Diffusion within porous media, in either air or water, is driven by concentration gradients.
Diffusion is mediated by diffusion coefficients, and it follows tortuous paths through the specific
medium. Partitioning between air and water phases also occurs, which adds to the number of
simultaneous equations to be solved.
The principal radionuclides of interest in the modeling of DU waste are the isotopes of radon,
since radon, a noble gas, is the only radionuclide to be found in a gaseous form. The parents and
progeny of radon isotopes are of interest as well. Radon has several isotopes that occur in the
various actinide decay series, including 217Rn, -218, -219, -220, and -222 (see Figure 14 and
Figure 15). Radon isotopes with half-lives ranging from milliseconds to just under 1 minute
quickly undergo decay to polonium and therefore can travel no appreciable distance. Radon-222,
however, has a half-life of just under 4 days, and is able to migrate for some distance by
diffusion in interstitial air before it, too, decays to polonium. When regulations such as DOE’s
Radioactive Waste Management Order 435.1 address radon ground surface flux as a
performance objective, 222Rn is the isotope of concern.
Since 222Rn is a direct descendent of 238U and 234U, and hence 230Th and 226Ra, it will be
generated anywhere in the environment that 226Ra occurs. As the radium migrates into the
embankment cell cover, either by diffusion in the water phase or translocation by biotic
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 60
processes (see Section 9.5), it provides a source for 222Rn in more locations than just the disposed
waste. This form of translocation and transport is accounted for in the modeling.
A phenomenon unique to the production and release of radon is the E/P ratio, introduced in
Section 9.2.3 with respect to release from the waste form. If, however, the 226Ra parent is present
in other locations, such as cover materials or surface soils, radon will be in water or adsorbed
onto solids, rather than bound in some crystalline matrix. The E/P ratio in the environment is
assumed to be 1, and thereby all of the decay of 226Ra outside the waste form results in 222Rn that
is available for transport.
Radon partitions between air and water, per its Henry’s Law constant (KH). For this reason, wet
soils are much better at attenuating radon migration than dry soils. To mitigate the diffusion of
radon through the engineered cover, the layering within the cover design includes a substantial
layer of clay. Clay has a low permeability to air and to water, and also can maintain a high
moisture content, which retards the migration of radon as it partitions into soil (Ota et al., 2007).
The effectiveness of this clay radon barrier, however, depends on its resistance to degradation by
erosion and biotic processes. Cracks, fissures, animal burrows, and plant roots can all provide
fast diffusion pathways that reduce the effectiveness of the radon barrier.
Diffusion in the porous medium air phase, as well as the water phase, is implemented in the
Clive DU PA Model through diffusive flux links between all GoldSim Cell Pathway elements in
a column, from the atmosphere to the water table.
9.4.2 Atmospheric Dispersion
The basic modeling of atmospheric dispersion is covered in Section 7.1.3.2. The only effect of
radon and radionuclides attached to particles that is related to radioactive processes is that during
transport, as in other transport pathways, radionuclides undergo radioactive decay and in-growth.
For the purposes of this model, however, the assumption is made that atmospheric transport is
sufficiently fast relative to rates of decay that no decay need be accounted for during the
transport.
9.5 Biotically Induced Transport
Plants and fossorial (burrowing) animals have the potential to move radioactive material in
addition to the more commonly implemented waterborne and airborne transport pathways. The
full conceptual model of biota at the site is discussed in Section 7.1.4, and the relevance to
radionuclide transport is discussed here.
9.5.1 Transport via Plants
Plants obtain many nutrients and minerals from the soil, through root uptake. Some chemical
species are preferred over others, and this preference differs between plant species, as does the
effectiveness of uptake. This selective uptake is coupled with radioactive decay and in-growth.
Plants are conceived to selectively absorb chemical species from the soils, with roots exposed to
different soil layers and thus different suites of chemicals at various depths. The absorbed
radionuclides, then, are distributed evenly within the plant tissues, both above-ground and
below-ground.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 61
When the plant dies, the below-ground parts return radionuclides to whatever soil layer they are
in, and the above-ground plant parts all return their constituents to the top layer of soil.
9.5.2 Burrowing Animals
Burrowing animals include various mammals, reptiles, and insect species. They move bulk soil
from the depths where they construct burrows directly to the ground surface. Bulk soil includes
soil and any interstitial water and air, and all radionuclides contained in the volume that the
animals remove.
After a burrow is abandoned, it eventually collapses, moving bulk soils back down from the
surface, in accordance with the volume excavated. This preserves the mass balance of soil in the
soil column. The overall effect of this burrowing activity is a consistent churning of the soil
layers (bioturbation). This effect may be deep, with ant nests having been observed to penetrate
over 4 meters (~13 ft) below the ground surface at another western radioactive waste disposal
site (see Section 7.1.5).
10.0 Modeling Dose and Risk to Humans
Evaluation of radiation dose (with implied risk) to potential human receptors is a requirement of
the PA. The individual dose assessment addresses potential radiation dose to any member of the
public who may come in contact with radioactivity released from the disposal facility into the
general environment (10 CFR 61.41). Radiation dose limits for protection of the general
population are defined in 10 CFR 61.41. Design, operation, and closure of the land disposal
facility must also ensure protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal
site and occupying the site or contacting the waste at any time after loss of active institutional
control of the site (10 CFR 61.42). Because the definition of inadvertent intruders encompasses
exposure of individuals who engage in normal activities without knowing that they are receiving
radiation exposure (10 CFR 61.2), there is no practical distinction made in the dose assessment
between any MOP and inadvertent intruders with regard to modeling radiation dose for
protection of the general population.
Protection of inadvertent intruders from the consequences of disturbing disposed waste can
involve two principal controls: 1) institutional control over the site after operations by the site
owner to ensure that no such occupation or improper use of the site occurs, or 2) designating
which waste could present an unacceptable risk to an intruder, and disposing of this waste in a
manner that provides some form of intruder barrier that is intended to prevent contact with the
waste (10 CFR 61.7(3)).
The objective of modeling annual radiation dose to an individual in a radiological PA is to
provide estimates of potential doses to humans, in terms of an “average” member of the critical
group, from radioactive releases from a disposal facility after closure, as described in Section
3.3.7 of NUREG-1573, A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facilities (NRC, 2000). As described below, the critical groups in this PA are
defined as Ranchers, Sport OHVers, and Hunters. An “average” member of such a group may be
considered as either a statistical construct, or more subjectively as simply a hypothetical
individual whose behavioral and physiological attributes do not place them on either the lower of
higher extreme of the range of possible individual doses.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 62
NUREG-1573 describes two aspects of dose modeling: First, the mechanisms of radionuclide
transfer through the biosphere, to humans, needs to be identified and modeled. This is termed the
pathway analysis. Second, the dosimetry of the exposed individual must be modeled. This is
termed the individual dose assessment.
Pathway analysis, as defined in NUREG-1573, results in the determination of the total intake of
radionuclides by the average member of the critical group. The critical group is defined as the
group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest dose from radioactive releases
from the disposal facility over time, given the circumstances under which the analysis would be
carried out. Modeling of radionuclide transport by plants and animals, and of human activities, is
captured within the scope of this pathway analysis. The dosimetry component of the dose
modeling refers to estimation of the effective dose equivalent from internal radiation dose
following radionuclide intake, and from external radiation dose.
In order to estimate collective doses for the purpose of determining whether disposal options
satisfy ALARA, a population needs to be assessed. A population is comprised of multiple
individuals, so individual doses need to be added over some period of time to estimate the
collective dose. The ‘answer’, at the end of the performance period (10,000 years post-closure, in
this case) might then be the individual annual doses added up over a period of 10,000 years.
Although there is no collective dose performance metric that currently exists, this analysis may
be useful in the context of comparing how one site or disposal option might perform compared to
another.
10.1 Period of Performance
No specific time frame is defined in 10 CFR 61 for the dose assessment. In the context of
inadvertent human intrusion, Section 61.42 states,
“Design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must ensure
protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site
and occupying the site or contacting the waste at any time after active
institutional controls over the disposal site are removed.” (emphasis added.)

UAC Rule R313-25-9 is more specific, requiring a PA for DU to have a minimum compliance
period of 10,000 years, with additional simulations for a qualitative analysis for the period where
peak hypothetical dose occurs. The estimation of doses at such long time frames is uncertain, but
if total radioactivity is used for a proxy, accounting for decay and ingrowth from the disposed
DU, then a peak value would occur once the progeny of U-238 have reached secular equilibrium
in about 2.1 million years.
The scope of this PA is to model the disposal system performance to the time of peak
hypothetical radiological dose (or peak radioactivity, as a proxy), but to quantify dose only
within the regulatory time frame of 10,000 yr. This approach is consistent with UAC
R313-25-9(5)(a).
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 63
10.2 Site Characteristics and Assumptions
Key land use characteristics and assumptions for the Clive facility that pertain to the
development of receptor scenarios and dose modeling are summarized in the Site Description
(Section 3.0).
As addressed in the FEP Analysis white paper, the distinction between deliberate and inadvertent
intrusion for this PA is based on the motive underlying the activity. Intrusive activities not
related to a deliberate attempt to excavate materials underlying the protective cover will be
considered inadvertent. The performance objectives of 10 CFR 61.43 specifically address
protection of individuals from the consequences of inadvertent intrusion after active institutional
controls are removed. Because deliberate intrusion at the site is omitted from the performance
objectives, whereas inadvertent intrusion is specifically mentioned, modeling of dose resulting
from deliberate intrusion into the disposal site is not included in this PA. Therefore, radiation
doses due to intrusion based on motives such as archeology, sabotage, or waste retrieval for
constructive or malicious reasons, are not evaluated.
10.3 Receptor Scenarios
Potential activities of interest for this model are based on the predominant present day uses of the
general area as identified in the FEP analysis: ranching and recreation. Other scenarios that are
often considered for PAs, including agriculture and homesteading, are not applicable for the
Clive site for reasons described below. There are other populations that might be exposed at
locations remote from the disposal embankment, such as drivers along Interstate-80, a resident
caretaker at the Aragonite rest area off I-80, rail workers and riders, and workers at the Utah Test
and Training Range. Although these receptors are likely exposed for short amounts of time
and/or at lower concentrations compared to ranchers and recreationists, these off-site receptors
will also be evaluated in the PA model.
From a regulatory perspective, two categories of receptors require consideration. These are often
labeled “member of the public” (MOP) and “inadvertent human intruder” (IHI). Both categories
are described in related guidance: the MOP essentially as a receptor who resides at the boundary
of the facility, and the IHI as someone who directly contacts the waste (e.g., by well drilling, or
basement construction). There is no historical evidence of non-transient human activities in the
near vicinity of Clive, however, other than current activities and a temporary maintenance camp
at the nearby railroad over 50 years ago. Furthermore, while the area in which the site is located
is zoned for hazardous waste disposal by Tooele County, the lack of potable water makes the
surrounding area an unlikely location for other residential, commercial, or industrial
developments (Baird et al., 1990). Consequently, an IHI or MOP receptor as described in
regulatory guidance is extremely unlikely. Therefore, consideration will be given to ranching and
recreational scenarios to describe plausible human activities under current conditions. The
potential for these human activities to result in inadvertent human intrusion will also be
considered.
10.3.1 Ranching Scenario
The land surrounding the disposal facility is used for cattle and sheep grazing (NRC, 1993;
BLM, 2010). Leases are administered by the BLM, and are generally up to 6 months in length,
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 64
from autumn to spring. The ranching exposure scenario includes exposure to radionuclides that
have entered the available environment due to natural processes described in the transport model.
Receptors may be directly exposed while working upon or in the vicinity of the disposal unit.
Evaluation of potential radiation dose in this scenario is partially dependent upon assumptions
regarding the nature of plant community succession on the disposal unit over time. Because
ecological succession on the disposal unit over time could potentially result in grazing habitat
upon the disposal unit, a variety of potential future plant community assemblages are evaluated
in the PA model.
Inputs for developing exposure parameter values under the ranching scenario include
information on the characteristic activities of ranch hands and restrictions related to BLM leases
for ranching. Activities are expected to include herding, maintenance of fencing and other
infrastructure, and assistance in calving and weaning. The primary exposure pathways for the
ranching scenario include incidental ingestion of soil, inhalation, external irradiation, and
ingestion of beef from cattle grazing in contaminated areas. Exposure to respirable particulates
may occur from natural wind disturbance of surface soil as well as mechanical disturbance due to
rancher use of OHVs for transportation within the impacted area.
10.3.2 Recreational Scenario
The recreational exposure scenario encompasses receptors such as hunters and recreational OHV
riders on, or in the vicinity of, the disposal unit. Based upon discussions with the BLM and
reasonable judgment regarding anticipated land use, all recreational activities are likely to
involve some OHV use and may encompass sport OHV riding, hunting, target shooting of
inanimate objects, rock-hounding, wild-horse viewing, looking for ghost towns, and limited
camping. The recreational scenario evaluated in the PA model includes two distinct receptor
groups:
1. “Sport OHVers” who use their vehicles primarily for recreation and who may visit
the area as either a day trip or by camping overnight; and,

2. “Hunters” who, in addition to purely recreational visits, also visit the area for the
purpose of hunting game and who may also visit the area as either a day trip or by
camping overnight.

The desirability of recreational activities on or around the Clive facility is, like suitability for
ranching, dependent on assumptions regarding ecological succession at the Clive facility over
time. With the possible exception of OHV use and use of the cover as a vantage point for
hunting, recreational uses of Clive facility in an as-closed state of re-vegetated soil surfaces is
likely to be minimal. As soil develops on the cover and plant succession proceeds, the Clive
facility may become more attractive for activities such as camping and therefore support higher
exposure intensity.
The primary exposure pathways for the Sport OHV scenario modeled in the PA (described in
more detail below) include incidental ingestion of soil, inhalation, and external irradiation. The
Hunter scenario includes these same pathways and adds ingestion of game meat from animals
grazing in contaminated areas. Exposure to respirable particulates is evaluated for both natural
wind disturbance of surface soil as well as mechanical disturbance due to Sport OHV and Hunter
use of OHVs for transportation within the impacted area.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 65
10.3.3 Remote Off-Site Receptors
The ranching and recreation scenarios are characterized by potential exposure related to activities
both on the disposal site and in the adjoining area. Specific off-site points of potential exposure
also exist for other receptors based upon present-day conditions and infrastructure. Unlike
ranching and recreational receptors who may be exposed by a variety of pathways, these off-site
receptors are likely to be exposed solely to wind-dispersed contamination, for which inhalation
exposures are likely to predominate. The remote locations and receptors for which inhalation
exposures are evaluated in the PA model include:
• Travelers on Interstate-80, which passes 4 km to the north of the site;
• Travelers on the main east-west rail line, which passes 2 km to the north of the site;
• Workers at the Utah Test and Training Range (a military facility) to the south of the Clive
facility, who may occasionally drive on an access road immediately to the west of the
Clive facility fenceline;
• The resident caretaker at the east-bound Interstate-80 rest facility (Aragonite [Grassy
Mountain]) approximately 12 km to the northeast of the site, and,
• Recreational OHVers at the Knolls OHV area (BLM land that is specifically managed for
OHV recreation) 12 km to the west of the site.
10.4 Transport Pathways
Various considerations should be taken into account when analyzing the transport of
radionuclides through the biosphere to humans. Pathway identification is discussed in various
literature sources, such as Volume 1 of NUREG/CR-5453 (NRC, 1989) and NUREG-1200
(NRC, 1994), and NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000). Components of the disposal system that can
affect transport include aspects of the source term and engineered barriers. Principal transport
media at many low-level waste disposal sites include groundwater, surface water, and air (NRC,
2000).
Pathways that will be evaluated for the protection of exposed individuals from releases of
radioactivity include those related to air (gas diffusion, air dispersion, and eolian erosion and
deposition of soil), soil (contaminant migration via upward flux from subsurface soil, deposition
of wind-borne material), groundwater (groundwater flow, geochemical effects, radon
emanation), surface water (water erosion leading to gullies, infiltration), plants (uptake of
contaminants in the waste, engineered cover, or soil), and animals (exhumation by burrowing).
Exposure media subsequently affected by transport processes include air, surface soil, plants,
game, and livestock. Figure 16 depicts the conceptual model for contaminant transport at the
Clive facility.
The transport processes figure depicts those processes relating contaminant release mechanisms
to environmental media that are the subject of the dose assessment. Many of these transport
pathways may not be complete or may not contribute sufficiently to exposures to warrant explicit
modeling.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 66
10.5 Exposure Pathways
Exposure pathways describe the activities and exposure routes between the environmental media
described in Section 7.0 and human receptors in the ranching and recreation exposure scenarios.
The primary exposure routes related to radionuclides in environmental media include ingestion,
inhalation, and external irradiation.
The ingestion exposure route may pertain to inadvertent ingestion of contaminated soil at either
on-site or off-site locations for the ranching and recreation scenarios. In addition to incidental
ingestion of soil, ingestion of meat containing radionuclides taken up from contaminated soil by
grazing animals is possible. Ingestion of meat from livestock grazing on or around the Clive
facility is characterized in the Ranching scenario. Ingestion of hunted meat from pronghorn
grazing in the region of the Clive facility is characterized for the Hunter receptor in the
recreational scenario.
The inhalation exposure route consists of the inhalation of either gas-phase radiological
contaminants or of respirable particulates originating from contaminated soil. The inhalation
exposure route is evaluated for both the ranching and recreational scenarios. Concentrations of
respirable particulates in air is assessed as a function of both wind erosion and mechanical
disturbance from the use of OHVs for all potential receptors.
External irradiation refers to the external exposure to a radiological source such as contaminated
surface soil (a two-dimensional source) or air (a three-dimensional source). External irradiation
from contaminated soil may occur when a receptor travels across the ground surface during
either ranching or recreational activities. Atmospheric immersion occurs when a receptor is
exposed to external irradiation via bodily immersion in contaminated air. Atmospheric
immersion is tied to the gaseous diffusion and air dispersion transport pathways, and is a viable
exposure route for both the ranching and recreational scenarios.
10.6 Risk Assessment Endpoints
Title 10 CFR 61.41 specifies assessment endpoints related to radiation dose. The specific metrics
described in §61.41 are organ-specific doses, and restrict the annual dose to an equivalent of 0.25
mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem)
to any other organ of any member of the public. However, as described below, the dose
assessment for the PA will employ a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for comparison with
the 0.25-mSv/yr threshold.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 67

Figure 16. Conceptual model for transport and exposure pathways at the Clive facility
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 68
As discussed in Section 3.3.7.1.2 of NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000), the radiation dosimetry
underlying these dose metrics was based on a methodology published by the International
Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in 1959. More recent dose assessment methodology
has been published as ICRP Publication 30 (ICRP, 1979) and ICRP Publication 56 (ICRP, 1989),
employing the TEDE approach. The TEDE uses weighting factors related to the radiosensitivity
of each target organ to arrive at an effective dose equivalent across all organs. The text of
Section 3.3.7.1.2 of NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000) states
“As a matter of policy, the Commission considers 0.25 mSv/year (25
mrem/year) TEDE as the appropriate dose limit to compare with the range of
potential doses represented by the older limits... Applicants do not need to
consider organ doses individually because the low value of TEDE should
ensure that no organ dose will exceed 0.50 mSv/year (50 mrem/year).”

Radiation dose conversion factors (DCFs) applicable for calculating the TEDE are published by
DOE, EPA, and the ICRP. Section 3.3.7.3 of NUREG-1573 specifies DCFs published by EPA in
Federal Guidance Reports 11 (EPA, 1988) and 12 (EPA, 1993). EPA subsequently made use of
age-specific DCFs published in ICRP Publication 72 (ICRP, 1996) to compute radionuclide
cancer slope factors in Federal Guidance Report 13 (EPA, 1999). DCFs published in Federal
Guidance Report 13 are employed in this PA where possible.
DU waste can also be associated with toxicological risks that are independent of radioactive
properties. Unlike carcinogenic agents, EPA typically views toxicants with non-cancer effects as
having thresholds; i.e., levels below which effects would be unlikely. Reference doses (RfDs)
essentially amount to such thresholds, usually with several layers of ‘safety’ factors added. The
basic modeling process for evaluating uranium toxicity is very similar to that conducted for
radionuclides, except that kidney toxicity (as opposed to radiation dose) of DU is evaluated, and
the toxicity of DU does not change over time (as radioactive decay is not important in this
context).
11.0 Summary
This CSM describes the dynamic systems model that will be implemented for the Clive DU PA.
The CSM describes the regulatory environment that constrains the PA, and the technical
components that transport radionuclides associated with the DU waste to the accessible
environment. Transport starts with characterization of the waste, and continues with release of
radionuclides from the waste, migration through the engineered barriers system that initially
confines the waste, fate and transport through the local environment to the accessible
environment where human receptors might be exposed, including radioactive decay and
ingrowth through time and space. The dynamic systems model will be implemented using the
GoldSim systems modeling platform, which facilitates fully-coupled dynamic systems modeling
and is ideally suited to performing radiological performance assessments. The modeling will be
performed in a probabilistic manner so that uncertainties are fully captured and global sensitivity
analysis can be performed in order to identify the critical parameters. Consideration will be given
to spatio-temporal scaling and correlation in the modeling, so that input probability distributions
are properly specified. For some inputs to the model (e.g., radon diffusion, water content in the
unsaturated zone, erosion of the cover) process-level models may be developed and then
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 69
abstracted into the GoldSim systems-level model so that these model components are fully
integrated into the overall model.
The modeling effort will be split into two overlapping but distinct time frames of primary
interest. The regulatory compliance period for the first time frame is 10,000 years, requiring a
quantitative model that predicts radioactive dose to potential receptors. For this model, current
conditions of society and the environment will be projected into the future. Potential receptors of
interest for this model are based on present day use of the general area, as discussed in Section
10.3, including ranching, hunting, and recreation.
The second modeling time-frame will consider much longer term consequences of disposal of
DU waste at Clive, since peak radioactivity of the DU waste occurs beyond 2 million years into
the future. This model will overlap the short term assessment in that it will share many of the
same modeling components, such as waste inventory, source release, and fate and transport
through the local environment. However, this model will consider changes in the general
environment that might affect major changes in the environmental conditions of Clive. For
example, climate change is inevitable within this time frame, so its consequences will be
considered. Earth is in a glacial epoch, consisting of long glacial periods interspersed with
shorter interglacial periods. For example, the current interglacial period is one in which the
population of the human race has expanded to unprecedented levels. This current interglacial
period may continue for tens of thousands of years or longer because of the effects of
anthropogenic production of CO2 (Tzedakis et al 2012; Masson-Demotte et al. 2013). However,
based on the geological record, return of a glacial period is eventually inevitable driven by the
Milankovitch cycles. Based on geological evidence, the return of a glacial period will probably
result in the re-formation of a large lake covering most of northwestern Utah, so lake recurrence
is included in this model. Human exposure scenarios, however, will not be evaluated that far into
the future, because receptor scenarios cannot be defensibly developed and the consequences of
radioactive dose cannot be reasonably understood that far into the future. Many changes in
climate will have occurred within the next 2.1 My, the period over which it takes DU to reach
secular equilibrium. During such a long time frame there is likely to be massive disruption in
human society and changes in human evolution. Consequently, instead of attempting to model
dose to hypothetical human receptors that far into the future, the spatial distribution and
concentrations of radionuclides that might migrate from the disposal cells to the environment
will be modeled. The processes by which the radionuclides might move around, include the
formation of large lakes and the return to lower lake levels once the lake subsides again.
Consideration will also be given to the potential effects of wave action at the Clive facility as the
lake forms.
This two-tiered approach is consistent with the requirements of the Utah regulations to perform
fully quantitative modeling for 10,000 years, and qualitative modeling until peak activity.
Consequently, these two models will be used together to support the required regulatory analysis
of DU waste disposal at the Clive facility.

Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 70
12.0 References
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61 (10 CFR 61), Licensing Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Government Printing Office, 2007.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 191 (40 CFR 191), Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level
and Transuranic Radioactive Waste, Government Printing Office, 1993.
Adrian Brown (Adrian Brown Consultants), 1997a. Volume I, LARW Infiltration Modeling Input
Parameters and Results, Report 3101B.970515, 15 May 1997.
Arthur, W.J. and O.D. Markham, 1983. “Small Mammal Soil Burrowing as a Radionuclide
Transport Vector at a Radioactive Waste Disposal Area in Southeastern Idaho,” J. Environ.
Qual. 12: 117–122.
Asmerom, Y., Polyak, V. J., and S. J. Burns, 2010. “Variable winter moisture in the
southwestern United States linked to rapid glacial climate shifts,” Nature Geoscience 3:
114-117.
Baird, R. D., Bollenbacher, M. K., Murphy, E. S., Shuman, R., and R. B. Klein, 1990.
Evaluation of the Potential Public Health Impacts Associated with Radioactive Waste
Disposal at a Site Near Clive, Utah. Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation, Salt
Lake City Utah.
Beals, D., S.P. LaMont, J.R. Cadieux, C.R. Shick, Jr., and G. Hall, 2002. Determination of Trace
Radionuclides in SRS Depleted Uranium, WSRC-TR-2002-00536, Westinghouse
Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC, 19 November 2002.
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 & Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment,
NUREG/CR-7028, Office of Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
Berger, A., 1988. “Milankovitch Theory and Climate,” Reviews of Geophysics, 26(4): 624-657.
Berger, A. and M. F. Loutre, 2002. “An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?” Science,
297:1287-1288.
Bingham Environmental. 1991. Hydrogeologic report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South
Clive, Utah. October 9, 1991. Prepared for Envirocare of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.
Bingham Environmental. 1994. Hydrogeologic report Mixed Waste Disposal Area Envirocare
Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah. November 18, 1994. Prepared for Envirocare of
Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 71
Black, B.D., B.J. Solomon, and K.M. Harty, 1999, Geology and geologic hazards of Tooele
Valley and the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area, Tooele Count, Utah, Special Study
96, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Blank, R.R., Young, J.A., Trent, J.D., and D.E. Palmquist, 1998. “Natural History of a Saline
Mound,” Great Basin Naturalist, 58(3): 217-230.
BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). 2010. Rangeland Administration System. U.S.
Blom, P.E., 1990. Potential Impacts of Radioactive Waste Disposal Situations by the Harvester
Ant, Pogonomyrmex salinus Olsen (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). A thesis for degree of
Masters of Science. Regents of the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 198 pp.
Bogen, K.T., "A Note on Compounded Conservatism", Risk Analysis, 14 (4) , pp. 379 – 381,
August 1994
Brimhall W. H. and L. B. Merritt, 1981. “The Geology of Utah Lake – Implications for Resource
management,” Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, 5: 24-42.
Brodeur, J. R., 2006. Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities,
Energy Sciences and Engineering, Kennewick, Washington.
Clark, P. U., Dyke, A. S., Shakun, J. D., Carlson, A. E., Clark, J., Wohlfarth, B., Mitrovica, J. X.,
Hostetler, S. W., and A. M. McCabe, 2009. “The Last Glacial Maximum,” Science, 325:
710-714.
Cullen, A. C., "Measures of Compounding Conservatism in Probabilistic Risk Assessment", Risk
Analysis, 14 (4) , pp. 389 – 393, August 1994
Currey, D.R., G. Atwood, and D.R. Mabey, Map 73 Major Levels of Great Salt Lake and Lake
Bonneville, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City, UT, May 1984
Davis, O.K., and T.E. Moutoux, 1998. “Tertiary and Quaternary Vegetation History of the Great
Salt lake, Utah, USA.” J. Paleolimnology, 19: 417-427.
DOE, 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site,
DOE/EIS-0359, U.S. DOE Environmental Management, June 2004.
DOE, 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site,
DOE/EIS-0360, U.S. DOE Environmental Management, June 2004.
Driscoll, N. W. and G. H. Haug, 1998. “A Short Circuit in Thermohaline Circulation: A Cause
for Northern Hemisphere Glaciation,” Science, 282: 436-438.
EnergySolutions, 2008. Bulk Waste Disposal and Treatment Facilities Waste Acceptance
Criteria, Rev. 7, Clive, Utah.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 72
EnergySolutions, 2009a. Energy Solutions Clive Facility, EnergySolutions License Amendment
Request: Class A South/11e.(2) Embankment, Revision 1, 9 Jun 2009, Clive, Utah.
EnergySolutions, 2009b. Radioactive Waste Profile Record, EC-0230, Rev. 7, plus attachments
(Form 9021-33), Clive, Utah.
EnergySolutions, 2009c, LLRW and 11e.(2) Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Manual, rev 24e, EnergySolutions, Salt Lake City, Utah, 16 September 2009
Envirocare, 2000. Assessment of Vegetative Impacts on LLRW, Salt Lake City, Utah, November
2000.
Envirocare 2004. Revised Hydrogeologic Report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility
Clive, Utah, Version 2.0, Salt Lake City Utah, August 2004.
Envirocare, 2005. Cover Test Cell Data Report Addendum: Justification to Change EZD from
18-inches to 24-inches. Attachment to letter dated October 13, 2005 from Daniel B. Shrum,
Director of Safety and Compliance, Envirocare of Utah, LLC, to Dane L. Finefrock,
Executive Secretary, Division of Radiation Control.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and
Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and
Ingestion, EPA 520/1-88-020, Federal Guidance Report (FGR) 11.
EPA, 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil, EPA 402-R-93-81, FGR
12.
EPA, 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: Updates
and Supplements, EPA 402-R-99-001, FGR 13.
EPA, 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for SuperFund: Volume III, Part A, Process for
Conducting Probabilistic Performance Assessment. EPA 540-R-02-002, December 2001.
EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica). 2004. Eight glacial cycles from and
Antarctic ice core. Nature. 429, 623-628.
Fitzner, R.E., K.A. Gano, W.H. Rickard, and L.E. Rogers, 1979. Characterization of the
Hanford 300 Area Burial Grounds: Task IV - Biological Transport, PNL-2774, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Pp. 24–27.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
604p.
Fussell, G.M, and D. L. McWhorter, 2002. Project Plan for the Disposition of the SRS Depleted,
Natural, and Low-Enriched Uranium Materials. WSRC-RP-2002-00459, Washington
Savannah River Site, November 21, 2002.
Gano, K.A., D.W. Carlile and L.E. Rogers, 1985. A Harvester Ant Bioassay for Assessing
Hazardous Chemical Waste Sites, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial
Institute, Richland, Washington. 19 pp., appendices.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 73
Gates, J.S. and S.A. Kruer, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Southern Great Salt Lake Desert
and summary of the hydrology of West-Central Utah, State of Utah Department of Natural
Resources, Technical Publication No. 71, Salt Lake City, UT.
Groenveld, D.P., 1990. Shrub Rooting and Water Acquisition in Threatened Shallow
Groundwater Habitats in the Owens Valley, California. Symposium on Cheatgrass
Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. pp. 221-
236, in: U.S. Dept. Agr. General Technical Report INT-267. Intermountain Research
Station, Ogden, Utah.
GTG (GoldSim Technology Group), 2010. GoldSim: Monte Carlo Simulation Software for
Decision and Risk Analysis, http://www.goldsim.com
Guzowski, R.V., 1990. Preliminary Identification of Scenarios That May Affect the Escape and
Transport of Radionuclides From the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New
Mexico, SAND89-7149, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Guzowski, R.V., and G. Newman, 1993, Preliminary Identification of Potentially Disruptive
Scenarios at the Greater Confinement Disposal Facility, Area 5 of the Nevada Test Site,
SAND93-7100, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Hakonson, T.E., J.L. Martinez, and G.C. White, 1982. “Disturbance of a Low-level Waste Burial
Site Cover by Pocket Gophers,” Health Physics 42: 868–871.
Hansen, D.J., and W.K. Ostler, 2003. Rooting Characteristics of Vegetation Near Areas 3 and 5
Radioactive Waste Management Sites at the Nevada Test Site, DOE/NV/11718-595, U.S.
Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 125
pp.
Hart, W. S., Quade, J., Madsen, D. B., Kaufmann, D. S., and C. G. Oviatt, 2004. “The 87Sr/86Sr
Ratios of Lacustrine Carbonates and Lake-level History of the Bonneville Paleolake
System,” GSA Bulletin, 116: 1107-1119.
Haug, G. H. and R. Tiedemann, 1998. “Effect of the Formation of the Isthmus of Panama on
Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline Circulation,” Nature, 393: 673-676.
Hays, J. D., Imbire, J., and N. J. Shackleton, 1976. “Varitations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker
of the Ice Ages,” Science, 194: 1121-1132.
Hetzel, R. and A. Hampel, 2005. “Slip rate variations on normal faults during glacial-interglacial
changes in surface loads,” Nature, 435: 81-84.
Holmgren. R.C. and S.F. Brewster, 1972. Distribution of Organic Matter Reserve in a Desert
Shrub Community, Paper INT-130, U.S. Dept. Agr. Forest Serv. Research, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiation Protection), 1979. ICRP Publication 30 Limits for
Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, Ann. ICRP 2(3-4), 1979.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 74
ICRP, 1984. ICRP Publication 30. Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Optimization of Radiation
Protection. Ann ICRP. 1983;10(2-3):1-75.
ICRP, 1989. ICRP Publication 56 Age-Dependent Doses from Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 1,
Ann. ICRP 20(2), 1989.
ICRP, 1996. ICRP Publication 72 Age-Dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of
Radionuclides, Part 5: Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Dose Coefficients, Ann.
ICRP 26(1), 1996. P 072 errata in SG 03 JAICRP 32 (1-2).
Johnson R. 2010. State of Utah, DEQ. Memo – April 6, 2010 Subj. Savannah River Deplete
Uranium Sampling
Landeen, D.S., 1994, The influence of small mammal burrowing activity on water storage at the
Hanford Site, WHC-EP0730 UC-702, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA.
Laundré, J.W., 1993. “Effects of Small Mammal Burrows on Water Infiltration in a Cool Desert
Environment,” Oecologia, 94: 43–48.
Laundré, J.W. and T.D. Reynolds, 1993. “Effects of Soil Structure on Burrowing Characteristics
of Five Small Mammal Species,” Great Basin Naturalist 53(4): 358–366.
Lavigne, R.J. ,1969. “Bionomics and Nest Structure of Pogonomyrmex occidentalis
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae),” Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 62: 1166–1175.
Link, P. K., Kaufman, D. S., and G. D. Thackray, 1999. Field guide to Pleistocene lakes
Thatcher and Bonneville and the Bonneville Flood, southeastern Idaho, in Hughes, S. S.
and G. D. Thackray (eds.), Guidebook to the Geology of Eastern Idaho, Idaho Museum of
Natural History, pp. 251-266.
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), 2008, Performance assessment and composite
analysis for Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area G, Revision 4. LA-UR-08-
06764. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
Lowe, J. J. and M. J. C. Walker, 1997.Reconstructing Quaternary Environments, 2nd Edition.
Prentice Hall, London, 446 pp.
Lowry, J.H, Jr., R.D. Ramsey, K.A. Thomas, D. Schrupp, W. Kepner, T. Sajwaj, J. Kirby, E.
Waller, S. Schrader, S. Falzarano, L. Langs Stoner, G. Manis, C. Wallace, K. Schulz, P.
Comer, K. Pohs, W. Rieth, C. Velasquez, B. Wolk, K.G., Boykin, L. O’Brien, J. Prior-
Magee, D. Bradford, and B. Thompson. 2007. Land cover classification and mapping
(Chapter 2). In Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report, edited by J. S. Prior-
Magee, et al. Moscow, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program.
MacKay, W.P., 1981. “A Comparison of the Nest Phenologies of Three Species of
Pogonomyrmex Harvester Ants (Hymenoptera: Fomicidae),” Psyche 88: 25–74.
Mandel, R.D. and C.J. Sorenson, 1981. “The Role of the Western Harvester Ant (Pogonomyrmex
occidentalis) in Soil Formation,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46: 785–788.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 75
Masson-Delmotte, V., M. Schulz, A. Abe-Ouchi, J. Beer, A. Ganopolski, J.F. Gonzalez Rouco, E.
Jansen, K. Lambeck, J. Luterbacher, T. Naish, T. Osborn, B. Otto-Bliesner, T. Quinn, R..
Ramesh, M. Rojas, X. Shao, and A. Timmermann, 2013, Information from Paleoclimate
Arechive. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Meinzer, O.E., 1927. Plants As Indicators of Groundwater, United States Department of Interior
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 577. Washington, D.C.
Miller, D.M., C.G. Oviatt, and J.P. Mcgeehin, 2013. Stratigraphy and chronology of Provo
shoreline deposits and lake-level implications, Late Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, eastern
Great Basin, U.S.A., Boreas, Vol. 42, pp. 342–361, 2013.
MSI (Meteorological Solutions, Inc.) 2010. January 2009 Through December 2009 and January
1993 Through December 2009 Summary Report of Meteorological Data Collected At
EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility. Report for EnergySolutions by Meteorological
Solutions, Inc. February 2010.
National Research Council, 2005. Risk and Decisions, National Academies Press, Washington,
DC, 2005.
NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency), 1992, Systematic Approach to Scenario Development. A Report
of the NEA Working Group on the Identification and Selection of Scenarios for
Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste Disposal, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
NEA, 2000. Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive
Waste. An International Database. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Neptune, 2015. Neptune Field Studies, December, 2014, Eolian Depositional History Clive
Disposal Site, NAC-0044_R0, Neptune and Company Inc., Los Alamos NM, March
2015.
Nevo, E., 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and
Global Convergence. Oxford University Press, Oxford England. 413 pp.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement on
10 CFR Part 61 Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,
NUREG-0945, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, November 1982.
NRC, 1989a. Methodology, Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways, NUREG/CR-5453,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC, 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate a Facility to
Receive, Store, and Dispose of 11e.(2) Byproduct Material Near Clive, Utah, NUREG-
1476, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 76
NRC, 1994. Standard Review Plan for the review of a license application for a Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, NUREG-1200, Rev. 3, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, April 1994.
NRC, 2000. A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facilities, NUREG-1573, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, October
2000.
NRC, 2005. In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-05-
10, Docket 70-3103-ML, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, October 19,
2005.
NRC, 2008. Response to Commission Order CLI-05-20 Regarding Depleted Uranium, SECY-
08-0147, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC, 2009a. Memorandum, Staff requirements – SECY-08-0147 – Response to commission
order CLI-05-20 regarding depleted uranium, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, March 18, 2009.
NRC, 2009b. NRC News, No. 09-052, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, March
18, 2009.
NRC, 2010. “Stages of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission website,
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/stages-fuel-cycle.html
ORNL. 2000. Strategy for Characterizing Transuranics and Technetium Contamination in
Depleted UF6 Cylinders, ORNL/TM-2000/242, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October
2000.
Ota, M., Iida, T., Yamazawa, H., Nagara, S., Ishimori, Y., Sato, K., and T. Tokizawa, 2007.
“Suppression of Radon Exhalation from Soil by Covering with Clay-mixed Soil,” Journal
of Nuclear Science and Technology, 44(5): 791-800.
Oviatt, C. G., 1997. Lake Bonneville fluctuations and global climate change. Geology, 25(2):
155-158.
Oviatt, C. G., Thompson, R. S., Kaufman, D. S., Bright, J., and R. M. Forester, (1999).
“Reinterpretation of the Burmester Core,” Bonneville Basin, Utah, Quaternary Research,
52, 180-184.
Paillard, D., 2001. Glacial cycles: toward a new paradigm, Reviews of Geophysics, 39(3): 325-
346.
Paillard, D., 2006. “What drives the Ice Age cycle?” Science, 313: 455-456.
Rich, B.L., S.L. Hinnefeld, C.R. Lagerquist, W.G. Mansfield, L.H. Munson, E.R. Wagner, and
E.J. Vallario, 1988. Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Uranium Facilities,
EGG-2530, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, June 1988.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 77
Robinson, T.W., 1958. Phreatophytes. United States Department of Interior Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 577, Washington, D.C.
Rundel, P.W., and P.S. Nobel, 1991. “Structure and Function in Desert Root Systems,” In: D.
Atkinson (Ed.), Plant Root Growth: An Ecological Perspective, Special Publication #10 of
the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Scientific Pub. London, England. Pp. 349-378.
Shott, G., V. Yucel and L. Desotell, 2008, Special Analysis of Transuranic Waste in Trench
T04C at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada Test Site, Nye County,
Nevada, Revision 1.0, DOE/NV/25946–470, National Security Technologies, LLC
Smallwood, K.S., M.L. Morrison, and J. Beyea, 1998. Animal Burrowing Attributes Affecting
Hazardous Waste Management. Environmental Management, 22(6): 831–847.
Smith, E.D., R.J. Luxmoore, and G.W. Suter, II, 1997. Natural Physical and Biological
Processes Compromise the Long-Term Performance of Compacted Soil Caps, Barrier
Technologies for Environmental Management: Summary of a Workshop. National
Academy of Sciences, 1997.
SWCA, 2011, Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah,
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 2011.
SWCA, 2012, Vegetated Cover System for the EnergySolutions Clive Site: Literature Review,
Evaluation,of Existing Data, and Field Studies Summary Report, SWCA Environmental
Consultants, Salt lake City, Utah, August 2012.
SWCA, 2013, EnergySolutions Updated Performance Assessment –SWCA’s Response to First
Round DRC Interrogatories, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah,
September 2013.
Tzedakis, P.C., J.E.T. Channel, D.A. Hodell, H.F. Kleiven, and L.C. Skinner, 2012b),
Determining the natural length of the current interglacial, Nature Geoscience, 5, 138-141.
Utah, State of, 2015, Utah Administrative Code Rule R313-25. License Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste - General Provisions. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-025.htm, accessed 5 Nov 2015).
Utah, State of, 2015, Utah Administrative Code Rule R313-15. Standards for Protection Against
Radiation. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-015.htm, accessed 5 Nov 2015).
UWQB (State of Utah, Division of Water Quality, Utah Water Quality Board), 2010. Ground
Water Quality Discharge Permit No. 450005, 23 Dec 2010.
Whetstone (Whetstone Associates, Inc.), 2000. Revised Envirocare of Utah Western LARW Cell
Infiltration and Transport Modeling, Lakewood, Colorado, 19 July 2000.
Whetstone, 2006. EnergySolutions Class A Combined (CAC) Disposal Cell Infiltration and
Transport Modeling Report, Salt Lake City Utah, May 2006.
Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
5 November 2015 78
Wong, I., W. Arabasz, B. Carey, C. DuRoss, W. Lund, J. Pechmann, and B. Welliver, 2013,
Opinion, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 84, 165-169.

 NAC-0019_R4

Embankment Modeling for the
Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
21 October 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 ii
1. Title: Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Embankment Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper addresses specific details relating to the dimensional
components of the Federal Cell, located at the Clive facility. This paper includes a
description of the parameters and calculations used to estimate the various dimensional
components of the Federal Cell.
Name Date
4. Originator Dan Levitt May 23, 2014
5. Reviewer Mike Sully May 26, 2014
6. Remarks

23 May 2014: DL. Revision to R1 of this white paper is not yet complete. Some references to
“Class A South” remain in this document and cannot be updated until model parameters are
also updated).

2 Jul 2014: R2; Modified Figure 9 in response to Interrogatory 161. – J Tauxe

15 Jul 2015: Amir Mohktari. Updated “Class A South” terminology to “Federal DU.”

15 October 2015: Paul Black, Katie Catlett, final review and finalization of v1.3.

19 October 2015: Final review and finalization of v1.3. – J Tauxe

20 October 2015: Revisions to figures and terminology for v1.4. – J Tauxe

21 October 2015: Additional revisions related to new figures for v1.4. – G. Occhiogrosso;
reviewed v1.4. – K. Catlett

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ vi

1.0
 Summary of Parameter Values .............................................................................................. 1

2.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

3.0
 Physical Dimensions .............................................................................................................. 2

3.1
 Federal Cell Dimensions .................................................................................................. 2

3.1.1
 Federal Cell Interior Waste ........................................................................................ 5

3.1.2
 Federal Cell Cover and Liner Dimensions ................................................................. 9

4.0
 Original Grade Elevation ....................................................................................................... 9

4.1
 Federal Cell Original Grade ........................................................................................... 12

5.0
 Model Implementation using GoldSim ................................................................................ 13

5.1
 Representation of the Federal Cell ................................................................................. 13

5.1.1
 Federal Cell Dimensions .......................................................................................... 13

5.1.2
 Federal Cell Columns ............................................................................................... 13

6.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 16

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. The Clive Facility, with the location of the Federal Cell outlined in green. This
orthophotograph is roughly 1 mile across, and north is up. .......................................... 3

Figure 2. Section and Plan views of the Federal Cell, with top slope shown in blue and side
slope in green. The brown dotted line in the West-East Cross section represents
below-grade (below the line) and above-grade (above the line) regions of the
embankment. ................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3. Dimensions of the Federal Cell that are used in the Clive DU PA Model. Not to
scale. .............................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 4. Federal Cell and 11e.(2) Cell engineering drawing 14004 V1A. (EnergySolutions
2014c) ........................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5. Federal Cell and 11e.(2) Cell engineering drawing 14004 V3A (west-east cross
section) (EnergySolutions 2014d). ................................................................................ 8

Figure 6. Federal Cell engineering drawing 14004 V7: cap dimensions. (EnergySolutions
2014a) ......................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7. Federal Cell and 11e.(2) Cell engineering drawing 14004 L1A (west-east cross
section) (EnergySolutions 2014b). .............................................................................. 11

Figure 8. Section 32 within the Aragonite quadrangle, as it appeared in 1973, before
construction of the Clive Facility. Note elevation contours at 4270 and 4280 ft
amsl. ARAGONITE NW is the next quadrangle to the west. ....................................... 12

Figure 9. Geometrical deconstruction of the Federal Cell waste volumes. .................................. 14

Figure 10. Waste layering definitions within the two columns of the Federal Cell. .................... 15

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of embankment engineering parameters .......................................................... 1

Table 2. Cover layer thicknesses for the Federal Cell .................................................................... 9

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 1
1.0 Summary of Parameter Values
The parameters that define the characteristics of the Federal Cell at the Clive facility are
summarized in Table 1. Of principal interest to the model are the interior dimensions of the
volume occupied by waste, and the thicknesses of the various layers in the engineered cover.

Table 1. Summary of embankment engineering parameters
Parameter Value Units Reference / Comment
average original grade elevation 4272 ft amsl* USGS (1973) see §4.1
height of top of the waste at the ridgeline 47.5 ft amsl EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
height of top of the waste at the break in
slope
35.0 ft amsl EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
average elevation of the bottom of the
waste
4264 ft amsl EnergySolutions (2014d)
see §3.1.1
height of the clay liner 2 ft EnergySolutions (2014a)
see §3.1.2
length overall 1317.8 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
width overall 1775.0 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
length to break 175.0 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
width to break 175.0 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
break to ridge length (west) 521 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
break to ridge length (east) 447 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
break to ridge width 521 ft EnergySolutions (2014c)
see §3.1.1
ET Cover Layer Thicknesses
surface 0.5 ft EnergySolutions (2014a)
Federal Cell Drawing
14004 V7
evaporative zone 1.0 ft ibid.
frost protection 1.5 ft ibid.
upper radon barrier 1.0 ft ibid.
lower radon barrier 1.0 ft ibid.
*above mean sea level
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 2
2.0 Introduction
The safe storage and disposal of depleted uranium (DU) waste is essential for mitigating releases
of radioactive materials and reducing exposures to humans and the environment. Currently, a
radioactive waste facility located in Clive, Utah (the “Clive facility”) operated by the company
EnergySolutions, Inc., is being considered to receive and dispose DU waste that has been
declared surplus from radiological facilities across the nation. The Clive facility has been tasked
with disposing of the DU waste in a manner that protects humans and the environment from
future radiological releases.
To assess whether the proposed Clive facility location and containment technologies are suitable
for protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land disposal of radioactive
waste set forth in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Rule R313-25 License Requirements for
Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste— General Provisions (Utah 2015) must be met—
specifically R313-25-9 Technical Analyses. In order to support the required radiological
performance assessment (PA), a probabilistic computer model has been developed to evaluate the
doses to human receptors and the concentrations in groundwater that would result from the
disposal of radioactive waste, and conversely to determine how much waste can be safely
disposed at the Clive facility. The GoldSim systems analysis software (GTG, 2015) was used to
construct the probabilistic PA model.
The site conditions, chemical and radiological characteristics of the wastes, contaminant transport
pathways, and potential human receptors and exposure routes at the Clive facility that are used to
structure the quantitative PA model are described in the conceptual site model documented in the
white paper titled Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility.
The purpose of this white paper, Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA, is to address
specific details relating to the dimensional components of the Federal Cell, located at the Clive
facility. This paper is organized to give a brief overview of where the Federal Cell section is
located at the Clive facility followed by a description of the parameters and calculations used to
estimate the various dimensional components of the Federal Cell.
This probabilistic PA takes into account uncertainty in many input parameters, but the
dimensions of the Federal Cell are not considered to be uncertain. Given that the disposal cell is
carefully designed and constructed, any uncertainty in its dimensions is considered insignificant.
Stochastic representation of parameters is reserved for those values about which there is
uncertainty.
3.0 Physical Dimensions
The Clive DU PA Model considers only a single embankment. For the purposes of this PA, only
the Federal Cell is considered for disposal (Figure 1).
3.1 Federal Cell Dimensions
The Federal Cell, or embankment, location at the Clive facility is identified in Figure 1. A
stylized drawing of the Federal Cell is shown in Figure 2.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 3
The general aspect of the Federal Cell is that of a hipped cap, with relatively steeper sloping sides
nearer the edges. The upper part, known as the top slope, has a moderate slope, while the side
slope is markedly steeper (20% as opposed to 2.4%). These two distinct areas, shown in different
colors in the Plan View diagram of Figure 2, are modeled separately in the Clive DU PA Model.
Each area is modeled as a separate one-dimensional column, with an area equivalent to the
corresponding embankment footprint. The embankment is also constructed such that a portion of
it lies below-grade (Figure 2).

Figure 1. The Clive Facility, with the location of the Federal Cell outlined in green. This
orthophotograph is roughly 1 mile across, and north is up.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 4

Figure 2. Section and Plan views of the Federal Cell, with top slope shown in blue and side
slope in green. The brown dotted line in the West-East Cross section represents
below-grade (below the line) and above-grade (above the line) regions of the
embankment.

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 5
3.1.1 Federal Cell Interior Waste
The Clive DU PA Model requires information about embankment dimensions to be able to
determine the footprint areas and the volumes of waste within each area. From this, an average
thickness of the waste is determined, since the 1-D column represents a single thickness over its
entire area. All dimensions provided in this white paper are with respect to the waste itself, and
do not include the liner or cover materials, with a few exceptions as noted. The dimensions of
interest that are used in the Clive DU PA Model are shown in Figure 3.
The values of the dimensions shown in Figure 3 are derived from various engineering drawings
as noted below.
As shown in the engineering drawings, the exact dimensions of the Federal Cell are somewhat
irregular, with a gently sloping bottom and ridge line. The shape of the cell has been somewhat
idealized to facilitate calculations, and it is assumed to have a horizontal floor and ridge line.
Height of the top of the waste at the ridge line: Elevations for the top of the waste are shown in
drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4), which has the note “1. All elevations shown are for top of
waste...” At the ridge, the top of the waste is at height of about 47.5 ft.
Height of the top of the waste at the slope break: Also shown in 14004 V1A (Figure 4), the
height of the top of the wastes at the slope break (shoulder) is given as about 35 ft.
Elevation of the bottom of the waste: This is estimated from the values provided in the drawing
14004 V3A (Figure 5). The top of the liner protective cover is at an elevation of 4263 ft at the
west end and 4266 ft at the east end, which includes the area under the neighboring 11e.(2) Cell.
The elevation of the bottom of the waste at the midpoint of the Federal Cell is estimated by linear
interpolation to be at 4264 ft.
Length overall: Defined in Figure 3, the overall length (east to west) of the waste footprint in the
Federal Cell is shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be 1317.8 ft.
Width overall: Defined in Figure 3, the overall width (north to south) of the waste footprint in
the Federal Cell is shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be 1775.0 ft.
Length to break: Defined in Figure 3, the length from edge of the unit to the break in slope is
shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be 175.0 ft. This value is the same on the east and
west sides of the disposal unit.
Width to break: Defined in Figure 3, the width from the edge of the unit to the break in slope is
shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be 175.0 ft. This value is the same on the north and
south sides of the disposal unit.
Break to ridge length (west): Defined in Figure 3, on the west side of the disposal unit, the
length from the break in slope to the ridge is shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be
521 ft.
Break to ridge length (east): Defined in Figure 3, on the east side of the disposal unit, the length
from the break in slope to the ridge is shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be 447 ft.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 6

Figure 3. Dimensions of the Federal Cell that are used in the Clive DU PA Model. Not to
scale.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 7

Figure 4. Federal Cell and 11e.(2) Cell engineering drawing 14004 V1A. (EnergySolutions
2014c)
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 8

Figure 5. Federal Cell and 11e.(2) Cell engineering drawing 14004 V3A (west-east cross
section) (EnergySolutions 2014d).
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 9
Break to ridge width: Defined in Figure 3, the width from the break in slope to the ridge is
shown in drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4) to be 521 ft. This value is the same on north and south
sides of the disposal unit.
Ridge length: Defined in Figure 3, the length along the ridge (north-south) is derived from
drawing 14004 V1A (Figure 4). It is equal to the “overall width” less twice the distance from the
edge of the unit to the ridge in the north-south direction. Based on the quantities above, the ridge
length is calculated in the GoldSim model as: 1775.0 ft – ( 2 × ( 521 ft + 175 ft ) ) = 383 ft.
3.1.2 Federal Cell Cover and Liner Dimensions
The engineered cover designs for the top slope and side slope sections of the Federal Cell are
shown in drawing 14004 V7 (Figure 6). The values chosen from the sections labeled “ET Cover
Top Slopes” and “ET Cover Side Slopes” are summarized in Table 2. The properties of the
various layers within the engineered cover and liner are discussed in detail in the Unsaturated
Zone Modeling white paper.
Table 2. Cover layer thicknesses for the Federal Cell
layer thickness (ft)
top slope side slope
surface 0.5 0.5
evaporative zone 1.0 1.0
frost protection 1.5 1.5
upper radon barrier 1.0 1.0
lower radon barrier 1.0 1.0
The waste layers of the embankment are underlain by a clay liner, as shown in Figure 7. The
thickness of the clay liner is defined in the engineering drawing 14004 L1A (EnergySolutions,
2014b) as 2 ft.
Elevation of the bottom of the clay liner: This is calculated simply as the average elevation of
the bottom of the waste minus the thickness of the liner. The elevation of the bottom of the clay
liner is then 4264 ft – 2 ft = 4262 ft and is calculated as such in the GoldSim model. Note that for
model simplification, the liner protective cover is assumed to be a part of the unsaturated zone, in
essence below the clay liner instead of above it.
Note that this is also the elevation of the top of the unsaturated zone.
4.0 Original Grade Elevation
The original grade is of interest for determining the vertical location of wastes inside the
embankment. Above-ground waste or other material can be considered erodible, and, conversely,
below-ground waste to be inherently not erodible. It is therefore of interest to determine the
disposal volume that lies below grade since placing waste below grade greatly reduces the
potential for erosion during lake cycles. Again, only the Federal Cell is considered at this time.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 10

Figure 6. Federal Cell engineering drawing 14004 V7: cap dimensions. (EnergySolutions
2014a)

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 11

Figure 7. Federal Cell and 11e.(2) Cell engineering drawing 14004 L1A (west-east cross
section) (EnergySolutions 2014b).
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 12
4.1 Federal Cell Original Grade
The elevation of the original grade is interpreted from the elevations indicated on a 1:24,000
scale quadrangle map for Aragonite, UT (USGS, 1973). The relevant section of this map as it
applies to the Federal Cell is shown in Figure 8. This 1-square mile section, Section 32, is the site
of the Clive Facility (Figure 8). The southwest corner of Section 32 is at elevation 4270 ft amsl
(above mean sea level) while the ground surface (original grade) slopes gently and fairly
uniformly up to the northeastern corner, crossing the 4280-ft amsl contour.
The Federal Cell occupies the southwestern corner of Section 32 (refer to Figure 1), and its center
is approximately at an elevation of 4272 ft amsl. This is the value used for original grade of the
Federal Cell.

Figure 8. Section 32 within the Aragonite quadrangle, as it appeared in 1973, before
construction of the Clive Facility. Note elevation contours at 4270 and 4280 ft amsl.
ARAGONITE NW is the next quadrangle to the west.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 13
5.0 Model Implementation using GoldSim
5.1 Representation of the Federal Cell
The representation of the Federal Cell in the Clive DU PA Model is essentially one-dimensional
(1-D), and is therefore necessarily simplified. The top slope and side slope sections of the
embankment are modeled as independent 1-D columns, as discussed below. The volumes of
waste and the layers of engineered cap and liner are preserved. Since the cap and liner are
laterally continuous and do not vary in dimension within a column, the thicknesses in the model
correspond directly to thicknesses in the real world. The waste layers, however, are of a shape
that changes in the horizontal, and must be rearranged to produce a shape that is a rectangular
prism of equal volume to the actual waste volume.
5.1.1 Federal Cell Dimensions
The dimensions developed in Section 3.1 are documented in the Clive DU PA GoldSim model
(GoldSim model) in the container \Disposal\FederalCell\Federal_Cell_Dimensions. The
calculation of the waste volumes within the side slope and within the top slope, as identified in
Figure 2, is performed within the Model by assembling pieces that have volumes that are easily
calculated using basic geometry, as shown in Figure 9. Once the waste volumes for top and side
slope are known, the average waste thicknesses are calculated. These are used as the waste
thicknesses in the columns within the Model, as described in the following section.
5.1.2 Federal Cell Columns
The top slope and side slope columns are modeled in parallel, since they have different waste and
cap layer thicknesses. That is, each column has only vertical flow of water. The vertical flow
feeds into the unsaturated zone and thence to groundwater at the bottom. The top slope column
has a much thicker waste layer than the side slope, and this is reflected in the overall thickness of
the two columns. In order to capture the flexibility available in locating waste during disposal
operations, the user can select which waste types go where in the top slope column, using the
Waste Layering Definition dashboard. No DU wastes are to be disposed in the side slope column
in this model. An example of this selection in the GoldSim model is shown in Figure 10. The
waste configuration in Figure 10 is consistent with the most recent engineering drawings,
locating the waste in the bottom 7 - 7.8 ft of the embankment (EnergySolutions 2014b).

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 14

Figure 9. Geometrical deconstruction of the Federal Cell waste volumes.
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 15

Figure 10. Waste layering definitions within the two columns of the Federal Cell.

Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA
21 October 2015 16
6.0 References
EnergySolutions, 2009. EnergySolutions License Amendment Request: Class A South/11e.(2)
Embankment, Revision 1, 9 June 2009 (file: Class A South-11e.(2) Eng Drawings.pdf).
EnergySolutions, 2014a. Engineering Drawings (file: Federal Cell drawing 14004.pdf). [Note:
Three drawings in this drawing set (14004 V1, 14004 V2, and 14004 L1), are superseded
for v1.4; see the three references below.]
EnergySolutions, 2014b. Engineering Drawing 14004 L1A, “Conceptual DU Disposal Plan”,
dated 11/13/2014 with revision on 12/1/2014. (file: FederalCell DUplan 14004 L1A.pdf).
EnergySolutions, 2014c. Engineering Drawing 14004 V1A, “Cell Layout”, dated 11/06/2014
with revision on 12/1/2014. (file: FederalCell plan 14004 V1A.pdf).
EnergySolutions, 2014d. Engineering Drawing 14004 V3A, “Cell Cross Section – East/West”,
dated 11/06/2014 with revision on 12/1/2014. (file: FederalCell section 14004 V3A.pdf).
GTG (GoldSim Technology Group), 2015. GoldSim: Monte Carlo Simulation Software for
Decision and Risk Analysis, http://www.goldsim.com
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 1973. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle map for
Aragonite, UT, revised 1973 (file: UT_Aragonite_1973_geo.pdf).
Utah, State of, 2015, Utah Administrative Code Rule R313-25. License Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste - General Provisions. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-025.htm, accessed 5 Nov 2015).

 NAC-0023_R4

Radioactive Waste Inventory for
the Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
12 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Waste Inventory v1.4.docx
3. Description: Description of the waste inventory input distributions for the Clive DU PA Model
v1.4
Name Date
4. Originator Paul Black 31 May 2014
5. Reviewer Mike Sully 31 May 2014
6. Remarks

2015 Oct 28. Added information on new waste disposal dimensions and corresponding calculations for
number of GDP cylinders to be disposed of at Clive. Kate Catlett

2015 Oct 29. Added section numbers to Table 1 and text to calculations for GDP cylinders. Gregg
Occhiogrosso

2015 Oct 30. Review & edit. Kate Catlett

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0
 Waste Inventory Parameters Summary .................................................................................. 1

2.0
 Uranium Oxide Inventory ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1
 Depleted Uranium ............................................................................................................. 3

2.2
 Savannah River Site Depleted Uranium ........................................................................... 5

2.2.1
 Mass of SRS Depleted Uranium Proposed for Disposal ............................................. 5

2.2.2
 Composition of SRS Depleted Uranium ..................................................................... 5

2.3
 Depleted Uranium Oxide from the Gaseous Diffusion Plants .......................................... 6

2.3.1
 Mass of GDP Depleted Uranium ................................................................................ 7

2.3.2
 Composition of GDP Depleted Uranium .................................................................... 8

3.0
 Input Parameter Distribution Development ............................................................................ 8

3.1
 Parameters for Depleted Uranium from the Savannah River Site .................................... 8

3.1.1
 Mass of SRS Depleted Uranium ................................................................................. 8

3.1.2
 Composition of SRS Depleted Uranium ..................................................................... 9

3.2
 Analysis of Uranium Composition in SRS Depleted Uranium ...................................... 11

3.2.1
 Exploratory Comparison of Uranium Data ............................................................... 12

3.2.2
 Partitioning 233+234U and 235+236U .............................................................................. 14

3.2.3
 SRS Depleted Uranium Activity Concentration ....................................................... 15

3.3
 Analysis of Technetium Concentrations in SRS DU ...................................................... 18

3.4
 Concentrations of Other Radionuclides in the SRS Depleted Uranium ......................... 22

3.5
 Parameters for Depleted Uranium Oxide from the GDPs .............................................. 22

3.5.1
 Mass of GDP DU ...................................................................................................... 23

3.5.2
 Number of GDP DU cylinders disposed ................................................................... 23

3.5.3
 Composition of GDP DU .......................................................................................... 24

3.5.3.1
 Clean GDP DU ........................................................................................ 24

3.5.3.2
 Contaminated GDP DU .......................................................................... 24

3.5.3.3
 Fraction of Contaminated GDP DU ........................................................ 25

4.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 29

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix References ..................................................................................................................... 38

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Comparison of activity percent for the SRS DU uranium isotopes ............................... 14

Figure 2. Distribution of mean activity concentration values from bootstrap resampling. ........... 17

Figure 3. Tc-99 Activity Concentration. Sample sizes: SRS-2002 = 33; ES-2010 = 11; Utah-
2010 = 173. .................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 4. Distribution of Tc-99 mean values. Red lines indicate mean values of Utah-2010,
ES-2010 and SRS-2002 results. The dashed lines indicate the 5th and 95th
percentiles of the mean values of the resampled data. ................................................ 21

Figure 5. Additional radionuclide data (SRS-2002). Sample size = 33. ....................................... 23

Figure 6. Probability density function for the proportion of contaminated cylinders. .................. 28

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Summary input parameter values and distributions .......................................................... 1

Table 2. Summary of mean and standard deviations for SRS DUO3 concentrations, assuming
a normal distribution ...................................................................................................... 2

Table 3. Radionuclide constituents of contaminated depleted uranium .......................................... 4

Table 4: Summary of available uranium and technetium data for the SRS DU .............................. 9

Table 5: Summary of probability distributions of mean activity concentrations (pCi/g of DU
waste) for uranium and technetium ............................................................................. 10

Table 6: Summary of probability distributions for mean activity concentrations (pCi/g of DU
waste) for other radioisotopes. (Source: SRS-2002.) .................................................. 11

Table 7: Summary statistics for the uranium activity% data ......................................................... 14

Table 8: Partitioning Ratios for Uranium Isotopes ........................................................................ 15

Table 9: Summary statistics for Technetium data (concentration in pCi/g of DU waste) ............. 18

Table 10: Categorization of Paducah Cylinders Using Cylinder History Cards (reproduced
from Table 1 in Henson, 2006) .................................................................................... 27

Table 11: Inputs for the Simulation of the Fraction of Contaminated GDP Cylinders ................. 27

Table 12. Uranium isotopic abundances by mass spectrometry, atomic percent, including
replicates (data summarized in Table 16, Beals, et al. 2002) ...................................... 31

Table 13. Uranium isotopic abundances by alpha spectrometry (as percent of total uranium
activity) (Table 17, Beals, et al. 2002) and Technetium concentrations in the SRS-
2002 data (Beals, et al. 2002) ...................................................................................... 32

Table 14. January 2010 EnergySolutions Data Analyzed by GEL (GEL 2010a and 2010b) ........ 33

Table 15. April 2010 EnergySolutions Data Analyzed by GEL (GEL 2010c) ............................. 34

Table 16. Technetium-99 concentrations collected by State of Utah, (Johnson, 2010) ................ 35

Table 17. Concentration data for other radioisotopes, SRS-2002. (Beals, et al. 2002) ................. 37

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 1
1.0 Waste Inventory Parameters Summary
This section is a brief summary of parameters and distributions employed in the waste inventory
component of the Clive Depleted Uranium (DU) Performance Assessment (PA) Model that is the
subject of this white paper.
For distributions, the following notation is used:
• Beta( µ, σ, min, max ) represents a generalized beta distribution with mean µ, standard
deviation σ, minimum min, and maximum max.
A summary of values and distributions for waste inventory modeling inputs is provided in
Table 1.
Table 1. Summary input parameter values and distributions
parameter value or distribution units comments
Number of SRS DU drums 5,408 — see Section 2.2.1
Mass of a 208-L (55-gal) drum 20 kg see Section 2.2.1
Total mass of SRS DUO3
(including drums) proposed for
disposal at Clive
3,577 Mg see Section 3.1.1
Number of DUF6 cylinders from
Paducah GDP 36,191 — see Section 3.5.1
Number of DUF6 cylinders from
Portsmouth GDP 16,109 — see Section 3.5.1
Number of DUF6 cylinders from
K-25 GDP 4,822 — see Section 3.5.1
Mass of DUF6 from Paducah
GDP 436,400 Mg see Section 3.5.1
Mass of DUF6 from Portsmouth
GDP 195,800 Mg see Section 3.5.1
Mass of DUF6 from K-25 GDP 54,300 Mg see Section 3.5.1
Diameter of cylinders 4 ft see Section 2.3.1
Length of cylinders 12 ft see Section 2.3.1
Fraction of GDP DU that is
contaminated Beta( 0.0392, 0.0025, 0, 1 ) — see Section 3.5.3.3
Number of DUF6 cylinders
disposed of in the Federal Cell 48628 see Section 3.5.2

Mean and standard deviation values for uranium isotopes and other fission products in the DU
trioxide (UO3) from the Savannah River Site (SRS) are developed in Section 3. These
concentrations are summarized in Table 2. Note that the standard deviations are those used in the
GoldSim PA model. They are intended to be estimates of the standard deviation of the mean
concentration, hence addressing the spatio-temporal scale of the input distribution.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 2
Table 2. Summary of mean and standard deviations for SRS DUO3 concentrations,
assuming a normal distribution
SRS DUO3 concentration
radionuclide mean
(pCi/g of DU waste)
standard deviation
(pCi/g of DU waste)
90Sr 4.70E+1 1.28E+1
99Tc 2.38E+4 1.10E+4
129I 1.86E+1 1.59E+0
137Cs 1.21E+1 7.10E-1
210Pb 0 0
222Rn 0 0
226Ra 3.17E+2 1.91E+1
228Ra 0 0
227Ac 0 0
228Th 0 0
229Th 0 0
230Th 0 0
232Th 0 0
231Pa 0 0
232U 0 0
233U 5.29E+3 4.78E+2
234U 3.31E+4 2.17E+3
235U 2.97E+3 7.50E+2
236U 4.91E+3 1.17E+3
238U 2.72E+5 6.64E+3
237Np 5.68E+0 1.17E+0
238Pu 2.10E-1 4.00E-2
239Pu 1.28E+0 2.00E-1
240Pu 3.40E-1 5.00E-2
241Pu 4.04E+0 7.40E-1
242Pu 0 0
241Am 1.42E+1 9.10E-1

The DU inventories from the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) are based upon estimates from the
DOE (DOE 2004a and 2004b) for mass of DUF6 and U3O8 produced. The inventories for the
other actinides and fission products is highly uncertain, but is informed to some extent by studies
performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d), and reports
written by Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC (BJC, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c). However, these studies
and reports do not provide specific information on concentrations that can be used directly to
develop input probability distributions. Until adequate information concerning DU inventory is
received from the GDPs, which may not happen until the DU oxide product has been produced
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 3
and sampled, the actinides and fission products are assumed to be in relative concentrations in
the DUF6 waste equal to those in the SRS DUO3 waste, as shown in Table 2. This is only a rough
approximation and will need to be revised as data from the GDP waste are made available.
Note that the amounts of transuranic materials within these actinides and fission products are
significantly less than the 10 nCi/g limit on transuranic nuclides required by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 10 CFR 61.55 (CFR 2014), and as limited by the Northwest
Interstate Compact on Low-level Radioactive Waste Management
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/nwic/resolution_3.pdf). For example, the mean concentrations of 237Np
and 241Am are 0.0057 and 0.014 nCi/g, respectively (see Table 2). The highest concentration of
any of the Pu isotopes is 0.040 nCi/g for 241Pu (see Table 2).
2.0 Uranium Oxide Inventory
This document describes three categories of depleted uranium waste form at the Clive, Utah
disposal facility:
1. Depleted uranium oxide (UO3) waste from the Savannah River Site (SRS) proposed for
disposal at the Clive facility,
2. DU from the GDPs at Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky, which exists in two
principal populations:
a) DU contaminated with fission and activation products from reactor returns introduced to the
diffusion cascades, and
b) DU consisting of only “clean” uranium, with no such contamination.
The DU oxides that are to be produced at these sites’ “deconversion” plants will be primarily
U3O8. The remainder of this section provides background on the uranium cycle and origins and
nature of DU waste in particular.
2.1 Depleted Uranium
In order to produce suitable fuel for nuclear reactors and/or weapons, uranium has to be enriched
in the fissionable 235U isotope. Uranium enrichment in the US began during the Manhattan
Project in World War II. Enrichment for civilian and military uses continued after the war under
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and its successor agencies, including the DOE.
The uranium fuel cycle begins by extracting and milling natural uranium ore to produce "yellow
cake," a varying mixture of uranium oxides. Low-grade natural ores contain about 0.05 to 0.3%
by weight of uranium oxide while high-grade natural ores can contain up to 70% by weight
uranium oxide (NRC, 2010). Naturally occurring uranium contains three isotopes, 238U, 235U, and
234U. Each isotope has the same chemical properties, but they differ in radiological properties.
Naturally occurring U has an isotopic composition of about 99.2739±.0007% 238U,
0.7204±.0007% 235U, and 0.0057±.0002% 234U (Rich et al., 1988).
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 4
The milled ore is refined to remove the decay products (226Ra, 230Th, etc.) that have built up in
the material naturally to the degree of secular equilibrium, leaving more or less pure uranium
oxide. This uranium, still at natural isotopic abundances, is enriched to obtain the 235U, with vast
quantities of 238U as a by-product. Although a variety of technologies exist for enrichment, the
most prevalent enrichment process at the time was by gaseous diffusion, which requires that the
uranium be converted to a gaseous form: uranium hexafluoride (UF6). This gas is introduced to a
diffusion cascade, which separates the isotopes, generating enriched uranium as a product, and
depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) as a waste stream. Depleted uranium isotopic ratio values
from gaseous diffusion plants are roughly 99.75% 238U, 0.25% 235U, and 0.0005% 234U (Rich, et
al., 1988), but the 235U assay found in the cylinders today varies with fluctuating enrichment
goals, operational conditions, and where in the cascade process the DU was removed. Because
processing of uranium has been practiced for only about 60 years, there has not been sufficient
time for appreciable in-growth of decay products in this by-product. Depleted uranium is
therefore considerably less radioactive than natural uranium because it has less 234U and other
decay products per unit mass. The bulk of this material is still stored in the original cylinders in
which it was first collected at the GDPs.
Uncontaminated (clean) depleted uranium consists principally of three isotopes of uranium (238U, 235U, and 234U) and a small amount of progeny from radioactive decay of these isotopes. Trace
amounts of other uranium isotopes (232U, 233U, and 236U) may also exist. The bulk of the DU at
the GDPs is clean uranium, but a significant amount of contaminated DU also exists, both at the
GDPs and in all the DU waste from the SRS.
The contamination problem arises from the past practice of introducing irradiated nuclear
materials (reactor returns) into the isotopic separations process. Irradiated nuclear fuel underwent
a chemical separation process to remove the plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Uranium,
then thought to be a rare substance, was also separated out, but contained some residual
contamination from activation and fission products. This uranium was again converted to UF6 for
re-enrichment, and was introduced to the gaseous diffusion cascades, contaminating them and
the storage cylinders as well. Based on laboratory analysis of the contents of contaminated DU
waste (including all radionuclides in the containers), the species in the disposed inventory
include those in Table 3 (Beals, et al. 2002, EnergySolutions 2009b, and ORNL 2000c).
Table 3. Radionuclide constituents of contaminated depleted uranium
category radionuclides
uranium isotopes 232U, 233U, 234U, 235U, 236U, 238U
decay products 226Ra
activation products 241Am, 237Np, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu
fission products 90Sr, 99Tc, 129I, 137Cs

In order to clarify that the contaminated DU wastes contain more than just uranium or DU, they
are termed “DU waste”. When this term is used, it refers to wastes that contain DU and a perhaps
small but potentially significant amount of contamination from actinides and fission products.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 5
2.2 Savannah River Site Depleted Uranium
Depleted uranium was generated at the SRS as a byproduct of the nuclear material production
programs (Fussell and McWhorter, 2002). Depleted uranium billets were produced at the DOE
Fernald, Ohio, site, fabricated into targets at SRS, then irradiated in one of the SRS production
reactors. The irradiated targets were transported to F-Canyon where the targets were dissolved.
After dissolution, the fission products were separated from the plutonium and uranium which
were then separated from each other. After additional purification, the uranium stream was
transferred to the FA-Line Facility where it was processed into uranium trioxide (UO3) for
storage in about 36,000 drums (Fussell and McWhorter, 2002). Since the chemical separations
process is imperfect, the DUO3 contains trace quantities of fission products and transuranic
elements (Beals et al, 2002, EnergySolutions, 2009b) as discussed above.
2.2.1 Mass of SRS Depleted Uranium Proposed for Disposal
The SRS DUO3 is a solid powder at room temperature and pressures. This DU oxide is stored in
208-L (55-gal) steel drums, with plastic liners. Steel drums have a tare mass of about 20 kg each.
The drums are approximately 2/3 full with an average mass of about 1500 lbm (750 kg) apiece
(Fussell and McWhorter, 2002). This DUO3 is considered to be relatively homogeneous, based
on known process controls and operations. The condition of the drums varies from good to poor
with a high percentage of the drums having some degree of outer surface corrosion.
In December 2009, SRS made a shipment of drums to the Clive, Utah facility. This shipment
contained 52 rail-cars (referred to as gondolas in the manifests), each holding 104 drums, for a
total of 5,408 drums. This shipment of DU waste is considered in this PA.
2.2.2 Composition of SRS Depleted Uranium
There are three main sources of data for establishing the concentration of uranium isotopes,
fission products, and transuranics in the SRS DU. In 2002 SRS sampled and analyzed their DU
oxide in preparation for shipment to Utah (Beals, et al., 2002). A total of 33 drums were
sampled; this is approximately 1% of 3300 drums that were available for sampling. The samples
were analyzed at the Savannah River Technology Center (SRTC) and by a Utah certified
laboratory (BWXT Services, Inc) for uranium, fission, and transuranic radionuclides. The
analytical results from SRTC are presented in Beals et al, 2002, and in an EnergySolutions
Radioactive Waste Profile Record, referred to here as the 2002 Waste Profile Record
(EnergySolutions, 2009b).
The 2002 Waste Profile Record (EnergySolutions, 2009b) provides activity concentration data
for isotopes of uranium and for potential contaminants such as 99Tc. The latter are used to
characterize the contaminant radionuclides for the PA (see Section 3). The data for uranium
isotopes are in the form of both activity concentration by alpha spectrometry, and atomic percent
by mass spectrometry. 233U was not detected by mass spectrometry. The alpha spectrometry, also
used to characterize the samples, cannot differentiate between 233U and 234U (or 235U and 236U)
thereby requiring the mass spectrometry analysis. Note, the 235U and 236U results are also based
on mass spectrometry analysis.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 6
The 33 samples were characterized for uranium isotopes, fission products, transuranics, and
some metals and organic compounds (pesticides, herbicides, semi-volatile and volatile organic
compounds) as recorded in the Waste Profile Record (EnergySolutions, 2009b). No organic
compounds were detected but low levels (mg/kg) of lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
selenium, silver, zinc and copper were found. These low levels of metal make up less than 5 ppm
of the DU, and are not considered in this PA because they are not radioactive, and they are not in
excess of minimum regulated concentrations for hazardous waste (i.e., the DU waste is not
classified as “mixed waste”).
Data for other characteristics of the DU waste are also available from the 52 Waste Manifests
(EnergySolutions, 2009d). The shipment consisted of 52 gondola railroad cars, each car
containing 104 drums. The 2009 Waste Manifests from that shipment provide the volume (total
1,133.2 m3) and weight (total of 7,886,738 pounds, corresponding to a mass of 3,577 Mg). This
weight was calculated from information provided on the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Manifest – Forms 540 and 541. On these forms, the material description (Form 540, box 11) is
listed as “RQ, UN 3221, Radioactive material, low specific activity (LSA-II), 7, Fissile
Excepted.” In the Radiological Description (Form 541, box 15) uranium component is described
as “U-(dep).”
The mass of the empty drums is assumed to be approximately 108 Mg, so the total waste mass is
3577 Mg of drummed waste - 108 Mg drum mass = 3469 Mg of DU waste which is a mix of
uranium isotopes and contaminants, and where the uranium is assumed to be in the form of
DUO3.
Based on the physical properties description in the Waste Profile Record (EnergySolutions,
2009b), the DU is stoichiometrically 83.22% uranium, indicating that the DU is essentially 100%
UO3. The isotopic mass percent of 238U is over 99%.
Since the arrival in Clive of the 52 gondolas of SRS DU waste, EnergySolutions has performed
two separate sampling and analysis events. In January of 2010, EnergySolutions collected 11
samples that were analyzed for uranium isotopes (Table 14, in the Appendix). In April 2010
EnergySolutions collected 15 samples that were analyzed for uranium isotopes and 99Tc (Table
15, in the Appendix). In August of 2010 the State of Utah analyzed 173 samples that
EnergySolutions collected from the drums (Johnson, 2010). These samples were analyzed for 99Tc only. The data are described in greater detail in Section 3, in which input distributions for
the GoldSim PA model are developed.
2.3 Depleted Uranium Oxide from the Gaseous Diffusion Plants
Three large GDPs were constructed to produce enriched uranium. The first diffusion cascades
were built in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at what was the K-25 Site, but is now known as the East
Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). Two others of similar design were constructed in Paducah,
Kentucky (PGDP), and Portsmouth, Ohio (PORTS) (DOE 2004a and 2004b). The cascades at
the K-25 Site ceased operations in 1985, the Portsmouth plant ceased in 2001, the Paducah GDP
continues to operate. The two more recent GDPs are host to a large inventory of stored DUF6,
including the ETTP material that was moved to Portsmouth.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 7
The DOE is currently managing approximately 60,000 cylinders at both PGDP and PORTS
(DOE 2004a, 2004b). For many years, interest has been expressed in converting the DUF6 in
these cylinders to an oxide form to support their long-term disposal. In May, 1995 an
independent DOE oversight board recommended a study to determine a suitable chemical form
for long-term storage of DU. Also, in 1994 the DOE began work on a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and
Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE 1999a). Later, DOE issued the Final Plan for the
Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 (DOE
1999b). As a result of these efforts the DOE developed a Conversion Plan that describes the
steps that would allow DOE to convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable chemical form. Two
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were prepared as part of the plan, one for Paducah,
DOE/EIS-0359, (DOE 2004a) and one for Portsmouth, EIS-0360 (DOE 2004b). These EISs
describe the background and alternatives for DUF6 conversion. With the completions of the
EISs, “deconversion” plants were built at both the PORTS and PGDP locations. In 2002, DOE
awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Service, LLC (UDS) to design, construct, and operate
two DUF6 deconversion facilities at these locations. As of this writing, both plants have been
built by UDS and have begun test processing DUF6 into oxide form.
The UDS dry conversion is a continuous process in which DUF6 is vaporized and converted to a
mixture of uranium oxides (primarily DU3O8 but with some UO2) by reaction with steam and
hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. The hydrogen is generated using anhydrous
ammonia (NH3). Nitrogen is also used as an inert purging gas and is released to the atmosphere
through the building stack as part of the clean off-gas stream. The DU3O8 powder is collected
and packaged in the former DUF6 cylinders for disposition. The process equipment is arranged in
parallel lines. Each line consists of two autoclaves, two conversion units, a HF recovery system,
and process off-gas scrubbers (DOE 2004a).
2.3.1 Mass of GDP Depleted Uranium
According to the EISs the PGDP facility has been designed to convert approximately 18,000 Mg
(one Mg is one metric tonne, or about 2,200 lbm) of DUF6 per year, which will require
approximately 25 years for full conversion of the PGDP inventory. At Portsmouth, 13,500 Mg of
DUF6 per year (approximately 1,000 cylinders per year) is expected to be converted.
Several different cylinder types are in use. Most cylinders are expected to range from 11 to 12
Mg full. The cylinders with a 12-Mg capacity are 12 ft (3.7 m) long by 4 ft (1.2 m) in diameter;
most have a steel wall that is 5/16 in (0.79 cm) thick. Similar but slightly smaller cylinders with a
capacity of 9 Mg are also in use. Most of the cylinders were manufactured in accordance with an
American National Standards Institute standard (ANSI N14.1, Uranium Hexafluoride Packaging
for Transport) as specified in 49 CFR 173.420, the Federal regulations governing transport of
DUF6.
To develop an estimate for the mass of DU oxide from the two GDPs, the mass of DUF6 was
converted to mass of uranium and thence to mass of U3O8. This simple stoichiometric
conversion, based on moles of uranium, fluorine, and oxygen, is performed within the Clive DU
PA Model. Details are provided in Section 3.5.1.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 8
2.3.2 Composition of GDP Depleted Uranium
The depleted uranium oxides from Portsmouth and Paducah that are proposed for disposal have
yet to be manufactured. Until their production is complete, with associated testing of
composition, estimates of composition must be relied upon to construct distributions and make
decisions. At the most coarse level, there are two distinct populations of GDP DU composition:
1) DU derived from "clean" (a.k.a. "green") uranium, which contains no contamination, and 2)
contaminated DU, which contains varying amounts of fission and activation products, as well as
transuranics, resulting from the introduction of reactor returns into the gaseous diffusion cascade.
The clean DU is characterized by its abundance of uranium isotopes, and includes those
radionuclides as well as their decay products. Isotopic abundance analyses were focused on
determining the amount of U-235 in the DU, since this isotope was the "product" of the entire
enrichment enterprise, and little attention was given to the exact abundance of other uranium
isotopes, all of which were considered waste products.
Little information is available at this time regarding the exact nature and extent of the
contamination within the contaminated DU population. The uranium isotopic abundance
estimates are the same as for the clean DU. Estimates of the contamination by reactor return
radionuclides, however, must rely on the SRS DU as a proxy until better GDP-specific
information becomes available. For the purposes of this PA, then, the contaminated fraction of
the GDP DU is assumed to have the same contaminant composition as the SRS DU.
3.0 Input Parameter Distribution Development
The probabilistic Clive DU PA Model relies on stochastic parameters in order to evaluate
uncertainty and sensitivity. The statistical development of input parameter distributions is
provided here.
3.1 Parameters for Depleted Uranium from the Savannah River Site
Parameters of interest for the PA include the mass of DU waste, and the concentrations of each
radio-isotope contained in the DU waste. The contents of the SRS drums were described in
Section 2.1. The purpose of this section is to describe the characterization of the mass of DU, and
the concentrations of the radioisotopes. The mass of DU is considered fixed for the purpose of
this PA, and is presented without uncertainty. The concentrations are presented in terms of the
best estimate of the mean concentration, and the uncertainty of the mean concentration for each
radio-isotope.
3.1.1 Mass of SRS Depleted Uranium
The single source of information regarding the mass of total depleted uranium shipped from SRS
to Clive are shipping manifests (EnergySolutions, 2009d). Key pieces of information on these
forms include the following
• Total mass in kg and corresponding weight in US tons
• Total volume in cubic meters and in cubic feet
• Net waste volume in cubic meters and in cubic feet
• Net mass in kg and corresponding net weight in US tons
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 9
Reviewing these manifests suggest that each gondola rail car was weighed empty (tared) and
fully loaded, and the tare weight was subtracted to arrive at the “Net Waste Weight” reported on
the manifests. Since this is a measured amount, it will be considered a fixed value and a
distribution will not be assigned. There is no reason to believe that the mass of the drums was
deducted from this net weight. Such drums do not have a standardized tare weight, but for the
purposes of calculation it is assumed that each drum has a mass of 20 kg. This is considered a
representative weight for a 55-gallon drum.
The net weights from the manifests were summarized by W. Johns in a spreadsheet (“100105
9021-33 Iso With Calcs.xls”) sent to Neptune. These values have been summed to create a total
mass data value for total mass of the depleted uranium shipped from SRS to Clive, Utah. Masses
of DU plus drums for the individual 52 rail cars range from 50.37 Mg to 75.56 Mg. The total
amount shipped is 3,577 Mg.
3.1.2 Composition of SRS Depleted Uranium
Three data sources are available for the development of probability distributions for the
concentrations of radio-isotopes in the SRS DU waste: The SRS-2002 dataset consists of activity
concentration data and uranium isotopic abundance as atomic percent from Beals, et al. (2002).
The ES-2010 dataset has uranium activity concentration and total uranium mass concentrations
from two EnergySolutions sampling and analysis events: GEL (2010a and 2010b), and GEL
(2010c). Finally, the Utah-2010 analysis obtained activity concentrations of 99Tc from
EnergySolutions sampling and State of Utah requested analysis (Johnson 2010). These datasets
are briefly described in Table 4 and the individual values are presented in Appendix A.
Note that the 33 samples included in the SRS-2002 data also include concentrations of the other
contaminants presented in Table 3 (decay, activation and fission products), which are used to
developed input probability distributions for the concentrations of these radionuclides.
The spatio-temporal scale of interest for the Clive DU PA Model includes a large volume of DU
waste and fill material in the Class A South embankment, a 10 ky quantitative analysis followed
by a 2.1 My qualitative analysis. This, and the dynamic nature of the PA modeling environment
in which time steps of many years are used, affects the approach to characterizing probability
distributions of the inventory. Conceptually, the PA model incorporates compartments or cells
that are fully mixed at each time step.
The physical samples used in this statistical analysis represent very small volumes of waste, but
the mean concentrations are representative of the entire inventory. This approach is reasonable so
long as there is not a strong non-linear effect due to spatial variation within the waste cell. For
this model the waste is fully mixed within a waste layer. The appropriate spatio-temporal scaling
suggests that characterization of the mean activity concentration of each radionuclide is needed.
This is the basic approach that is taken in each case, however, because the data sources are
different for some of the radionuclides, different approaches are needed for estimation of the
probability distributions (Table 5 and Table 6):

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 10
Table 4: Summary of available uranium and technetium data for the SRS DU
Source Date Number Constituents Units1
SRS-2002: Table 16 of
Beals et al, (2002)2
2002 6 (2 replicates
per sample)
233U, 234U, 235U, 236U, 238U
Isotopic abundances
(atomic % U)
SRS-2002: Table 17 and
Table 4 of Beals et al,
(2002)
2002 33 233+234U, 235+236U,
238U, 99Tc
Activity % U
ES-2010 (GEL, 2010 a,b) January
2010
15 Total U, 233+234U, 235+236U, 238U
µg/g for Total U;
pCi/g for others
ES-2010 (GEL 2010 c) April
2010
11 Total U, 99Tc, 233+234U, 235+236U,
238U
µg/g for Total U;
pCi/g for others
Utah-2010 (Johnson,
2010)3
August
2010
173 (plus 30
duplicates)
99Tc pCi/g
1 Concentration units for the data are expressed in terms of activity per gram of DU waste.
2 Although these data are referenced to Beals et al (2002), the data used actually come from a Waste Profile Record
file that is labeled Waste Profile Record SRS DU 9021-33_r0.pdf. It is an EnergySolutions radioactive waste
profile record that is signed by a DOE representative. The DOE signature is dated November, 2009. It is clear in
this Waste Profile Record that the original 33 samples were used to characterize most radionuclides, and that
basically the same samples were used for the atom% data. However, Beals et al includes 7 samples with no
replicates, whereas the waste profile record includes only 6 of those 7 samples with replicates for 12 samples in all.
It is not clear why Sample #8 is missing from the atom% table (listed as Attachment 2 in the Waste Profile
Record), or why there are replicate results presented for each of the six samples that are included. This discrepancy
does not make a large difference to the input distribution development, but the 12 sample results were selected
instead of the 7 results in Beals et al because 12 results are assumed to provide more information.
3 Note that splits of these samples were also submitted for analysis by EnergySolutions.

Table 5: Summary of probability distributions of mean activity concentrations (pCi/g of
DU waste) for uranium and technetium
Radioisotope Mean Standard Error Source
99Tc 23,800 11,000 SRS-2002, ES-2010 (Jan), Utah-2010
233U* 5,290 478 ES 2010 (Jan/Apr)
234U* 33,100 2,170 ES 2010 (Jan.Apr)
235U* 2,970 750 ES 2010 (Jan.Apr)
236U* 4,910 1,170 ES 2010 (Jan.Apr)
238U 272,000 6,640 ES 2010 (Jan.Apr)
* Isotopes are partitioned using SRS-2002 atomic percentage data.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 11
Table 6: Summary of probability distributions for mean activity concentrations (pCi/g of
DU waste) for other radioisotopes. (Source: SRS-2002.)
Radioisotope N Mean Std. Error
241Am 33 14.2 0.91
137Cs 33 12.1 0.71
129I 33 18.6 1.59
237Np 33 5.68 1.17
238Pu 31* 0.21 0.04
239Pu 31* 1.28 0.20
240Pu 31* 0.34 0.05
241Pu 31* 4.04 0.74
226Ra 33 316.8 19.1
90Sr 33 47.0 12.8
* Note that results for plutonium isotopes were not reported for 2 samples in the SRS-2002 data.
• The probability distribution of mean activity concentration for uranium isotopes is
estimated from the ES-2010 data. Because activity from combinations of isotopes 233+234U and 235+236U is reported in ES-2010, the atomic percent data from SRS-2002 is
used to partition these isotopes.
• There are three sources of 99Tc data: SRS-2002, ES-2010, and Utah-2010. These datasets
are used to estimate mean 99Tc activity concentrations. Note that the duplicate
measurements in Utah-2010 were not used because there are many samples (173) without
the duplicates, and the duplicates were found to be dependent on their original samples
(separating out those dependencies statistically is complicated and unnecessary given the
large number of samples available).
• The SRS-2002 data provide the only data available for the other radionucludes
(americium, cesium, radon, iodine and plutonium). Consequently, these data are used to
estimate distributions of mean activity concentrations for these radionuclides. The
parameter estimates for the probability distributions of the mean activity concentrations
for these radionuclides are presented in Table 5.
Therefore, the approach for distribution development is to establish the uncertainty distribution
of the mean activity concentration for each radionuclide. Each individual data set available is
reasonably well-behaved statistically, not exhibiting large skew or multi-modality. There are also
enough data that the Central Limit Theorem can be applied, implying a normal distribution for
the distribution of the mean. The normal distributions are characterized with the mean
concentration and the standard error (i.e., the standard deviation of the mean).
While available site knowledge and historical information suggest that the SRS waste is from
similar processes and is similar in composition, the sampling events were treated as if they were
sampling different populations. The results from different sampling events for 99Tc and U form
clusters, the lack of information suggesting other reasons for these clusters indicate potentially
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 12
different sampling and analysis methods between sampling events. Consequently, for 99Tc and
uranium isotopes, bootstrap re-sampling of the samples and the sampling events is used to
address possible differences between sampling events. For the remaining radionuclides, the SRS
data are used directly to estimate the parameters. The final distributions are presented in Table 5
and Table 6. Details of the development of these distributions are in the following sections.
3.2 Analysis of Uranium Composition in SRS Depleted Uranium
Direct comparison between uranium concentrations represented in the SRS-2002 data and in the
ES-2010 data is complicated by several factors. The ES-2010 data represent activity
concentrations for uranium, where the SRS-2002 data represent isotopic abundance as activity
percent (%) of uranium, rather than activity concentration. These different expressions of
uranium activity cannot be reconciled without recourse to the total proportion of uranium in each
sample—information that is not available. Further, the pedigree of the SRS-2002 data is not
clear. Information is available in Beals et al. (2002) about the analytical methods performed in
the laboratory, but the actual laboratory reports for the SRS-2002 data are not available. In
contrast, the pedigree of the ES-2010 data is well known, and the laboratory reports are available
to support the reported uranium activity concentrations. Consequently, only the ES-2010 data are
used to generate distributions of the mean uranium activity concentration for each uranium
isotope. However, an exploratory comparison is made between the SRS-2002 and the ES-2010
activity data to understand the differences between the SRS and ES uranium data. Development
of input probability distributions is presented after the exploratory comparison.
For the PA model, separation is also needed for the uranium isotopes in the pairs 233+234U and 235+236U. The ES-2010 laboratory analysis and subsequent uranium data do not distinguish
between these pairs of isotopes, but report 233+234U and 235+236U activity concentrations
combined. However, the SRS-2002 study also includes some uranium isotopic abundance data
presented as atomic percent (%) for all uranium isotopes. These SRS-2002 atomic% data are
used to partition the 233+234U and 235+236U activity concentration data obtained from ES-2010.
3.2.1 Exploratory Comparison of Uranium Data
In SRS-2002, activity% for all uranium isotopes was measured at SRS using alpha spectrometry.
In ES-2010, activity concentrations (pCi/g) were measured for 233+234U, 235+236U, and 238U. As
noted above, only the ES-2010 data will be used to develop input distributions for uranium
concentrations for the PA model. However, a comparison of the ES-2010 and SRS-2002 data is
presented to better understand the limitations of the SRS-2002 data, and to support the
contention that the ES-2010 data are more appropriate for use in developing input distributions
for uranium activity concentrations for the PA model.
A major consideration in the decision to focus on the ES-2010 for development of input
distributions for the PA model is the lack of supporting documentation for the SRS-2002 data
and the difficulty of converting from data presented in activity% to activity concentration. The
ES-2010 and SRS-2002 data are compared by first translating one of the datasets to the units of
the other dataset. The approach taken is to convert the ES-2010 data to activity%. This is a
relatively simple step that facilitates comparison of the SRS-2002 and ES-2010 datasets.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 13
Activity% can be calculated directly from activity concentrations (Equation 1).
100×∑j
iic
c=A (1)
where
Ai = activity% of uranium component i,
ci = activity concentration for uranium component of interest i, and
cj = activity concentration for all enumerated uranium components j, which indexes
233+234U, 235+236U, and 238U.
The results of this conversion are presented graphically in Figure 1. This figure shows pairs of
scatter plots for the different uranium components. These plots show clear difference between
the datasets. For example, there is a cluster of points from the SRS-2002 dataset (circles). As
originally ordered and labeled in Beals et al. (2002), the first 21 samples form the close cluster of
points while the last 12 points form the more dispersed cluster of points. Without any further
information, this is suggestive of either sampling or laboratory differences or biases within the
SRS-2002 data. Sample IDs could be surrogates for sample location, perhaps representing
samples from barrels of similar wastes, which would be an example of a potential sampling bias
if the entire waste stream is not relatively homogeneous. Alternatively, the samples could have
been analyzed in separate batches on different days—with different ambient background
concentrations being subtracted from each batch—which would be an example of laboratory
bias. No information has been found to explain these differences, but this provides further
evidence for why these data are not included in the development of the probability distributions
for uranium isotopic inventory for the Clive DU PA.
Data from the two 2010 ES sampling events form clusters that are different but with some
overlap. The data from the ES-2010-January sampling event have greater standard deviation than
those from the April sampling event. The 235+236U data tend to be slightly greater for the January
sampling event, whereas the 238U data tend to be slightly greater for the April sampling event.
The greatest overall difference is between the first cluster (21 samples) from SRS-2002 and the
rest of the data. This cluster has markedly lower 233+234U activity% values than the remainder of
the data, and, consequently, markedly greater 238U activity% values.
The summary statistics for each dataset in Figure 1 are presented in Table 7. They further
demonstrate the differences between the datasets. The questionable pedigree and difference
between the two clusters in the SRS-2002 data are sufficient to justify not using these data for
distribution development for the PA. The differences, particular in standard deviation, between
the two ES datasets suggest that these two datasets should not be combined when estimating
input probability distributions for the uranium activity concentrations for the PA model.
The next stage in this exploratory analysis of the SRS-2002 and ES-2010 Uranium data is to
convert the SRS-2002 data from activity% to activity concentrations. This is done to see if the
same basic results are obtained, considering different inputs are needed for this conversion.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 14
Table 7: Summary statistics for the uranium activity% data
Radioisotope SRS-2002 (33 samples) ES-2010-January (11) ES-2010-April (15)
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
233+234U 8.0% 1.8% 11.6% 1.1% 12.4% 2.0%
235+236U 2.0% 0.3% 1.7% 0.4% 3.2% 1.2%
238U 90.0% 2.0% 86.7% 1.1% 84.4% 2.3%

Figure 1. Comparison of activity percent for the SRS DU uranium isotopes

3.2.2 Partitioning 233+234U and 235+236U
The Clive DU PA Model requires probability distributions of activity concentration for each
uranium isotope. Because of the methods used to measure radioactivity, most samples collected
in 2002 and in 2010 do not distinguish between 233U and 234U or between 235U and 236U, but
rather report combined quantities. To separate the isotopes, some data on the relative
contributions of each isotope in each pair is needed.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 15
From the SRS-2002 data, 6 samples were analyzed using mass spectrometry. These 6 samples
are from the original 33 samples that were analyzed for activity% of uranium. The mass
spectrometry method identified all uranium isotopic abundances and the results are expressed as
atomic% (see Table 12 in the Appendix). The dataset provides two values for each sample.
These values are treated as duplicates and the values are averaged for use in subsequent analyses.
All abundance values for 233U are reported as 0.0000%, because it was not identified in any
sample. However, to allow for the possibility of a trace quantity of 233U in the SRS DU, for both
SRS-2002 and ES-2010 datasets, 233U atomic percentage values are assumed to be 0.00005%, a
value that was chosen because any value smaller than that would be recorded as 0.0000% to four
decimal places. This essentially treats the values as non-detects, and allows for very small values
that would have been rounded to zero. This is conservative with respect to the possible
abundance of 233U.
To partition activity% and activity concentrations for 235+236U and 233+234U, uranium abundances
expressed as atomic% are multiplied by their respective specific activities, and renormalized to
calculate activity%. Ratios are presented in Table 8. The atomic% data do not sum to exactly
100%, hence the renormalization causes small differences in the 233U activity% values.
Table 8: Partitioning Ratios for Uranium Isotopes
Radionuclide Ratios
Sample 233U 234U 235U 236U 234U/233U 236U/235U
3 1.29% 7.03% 0.73% 1.12% 5.45 1.54
9 1.29% 6.73% 0.73% 1.11% 5.20 1.53
17 1.29% 7.13% 0.73% 1.14% 5.54 1.56
20 1.28% 7.33% 0.74% 1.16% 5.70 1.58
25 1.22% 11.50% 0.83% 1.56% 9.43 1.89
30 1.25% 9.80% 0.78% 1.46% 7.87 1.86

Both sets of ratios show similar patterns, clearly demonstrating that the last two samples are
different than the first four samples. This also matches the differences observed in the activity%
data reported in the 33 samples, for which the first 21 samples are clearly different than the last
12 samples (see Figure 1). However, all six samples are used to separate these isotopes for the
PA model, the effect of which is to increase the variance of the ratios, which introduces more
uncertainty in the PA model. In general, the differences this causes in uranium activity
concentrations are fairly small relative to the likely effect on the PA model results, however, this
will be tested in the model evaluation and sensitivity analysis. If the uranium isotopic
distributions prove to be sensitive in the PA model, then it might be necessary to collect data that
are aimed more specifically at the needs of the PA.
3.2.3 SRS Depleted Uranium Activity Concentration
As illustrated in Figure 1, there are differences between concentrations measured by ES in the
January and April, 2010, data. (Note, as described in Section 3.2.1, the SRS-2002 uranium data
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 16
are not included in the development of input distributions for uranium activity concentrations for
the PA model.) The focus is on the ES-201 datasets. The data from these two ES-2010 dataset
are not considered independent or exchangeable, in which case they cannot be directly
combined. Consequently, in order to estimate the population mean and the standard deviation of
the mean, a bootstrap method is used giving equal weight to both ES-2010 sampling events.
To simulate the two sampling events, all combinations of the ES-2010 January and April
sampling events were used. The samples are bootstrapped within each sampling event, the mean
value is calculated for each study, and the study means are averaged to obtain an overall mean
value. The bootstrap method is applied as follows:
1. The two sampling events are selected with replacement. Since there are only 4 possible
combinations of sampling events (select the January event twice, select the April event
twice, select the January event followed by the April event, and select the April event
followed by the January event – this is analogous to the results that could be obtained by
tossing a coin twice), all combinations are used and weighted equally.
2. For each sampling event selected, the data are sampled with replacement and a mean
calculated. An overall mean is calculated as an average of the two means.
3. This simulation is repeated 10,000 times for each of the 4 sampling event combinations,
to construct a distribution of means. The simulations were selected at random. This large
number of simulations provided adequate convergence of the distribution of the mean.
The effect of this approach is that the effective sample size is related more to the two sampling
events than to the 26 samples. This leads to a comparatively wide distribution. If instead, all 26
samples had been treated as independent, then the standard deviation would be considerably
smaller. The conceptual difference between the two possible approaches is that treating the data
as independent assigns the information content, or uncertainty, to each sample, whereas, the
approach used assigns the information content to the sampling events. That is, the sampling
events themselves are considered more important for characterizing the distribution of the
uranium isotopes than the individual sample results.
10,000 bootstrap samples are used, to create the distributions of mean values for each uranium
component shown in Figure 2. The distributions for the uranium components are presented to
show how the distributions relate to the two ES-2010 datasets. The red lines on the plots show
how the April data exhibit greater activity concentrations for all three uranium components. The
plots also show how the distributions bound the means of the two datasets for all three uranium
components. If an approach had been taken that treated all 26 data points as independent, then
the distributions of the means would probably have fallen between the two means.
The distributions of the uranium components 233+234U and 235+236U are partitioned using a
randomly assigned ratio from one of the 6 ratios presented in Table 8. That is, each of the 10,000
simulated means is partitioned, so that there are 10,000 realizations of the distributions of the
individual uranium isotopes. The resulting distributions of the mean uranium isotope activity
concentrations were fit using a normal distribution. The resulting distributions are presented in
Table 5.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 17
The activity concentrations of uranium are dominated by 238U at an average of 272,000 pCi/g.
This is to be expected, although the mean activity concentration of 234U is also large compared to
the other isotopes. These distributions could be narrowed (i.e., reduced uncertainty) by collecting
new data under an experimental design that is aimed at the needs of the PA. This includes
activity concentrations over a wide range of drums, locations in drums, and laboratory analysis
that provides activity concentrations for every uranium isotope. The ES-2010 datasets provide
reasonable data, but the two datasets present different mean uranium activity concentrations, in
which case there would be benefit from a more complete study of uranium in the SRS DU waste.
If, given these relatively broad distributions, the uranium isotopes are not sensitive to any PA
model endpoint, then the need to refine these distributions will be less.
Mean concentration from each input data set are denoted by vertical red lines. To compare with
original ES data, mean concentrations of 233+234U, 235+236U and 238U components are shown (red
lines) for both the ES-2010 January and April datasets.

Figure 2. Distribution of mean activity concentration values from bootstrap resampling.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 18
3.3 Analysis of Technetium Concentrations in SRS DU
Technetium-99 is the most important of the contaminants contained in the SRS DU waste,
because of its potential for relatively fast transport to groundwater. Other mobile radionuclides
were reported as not detected in the SRS-2002 samples.
Three sources of data exist for 99Tc from the following sampling events: SRS-2002 (33 samples),
ES-2010 (11 samples), and Utah-2010 (173 samples – without duplicates). Figure 3 shows that
the samples from these three sampling events have different mean concentrations and different
standard deviations. The original SRS-2002 data show the greatest concentrations.
EnergySolutions attempted to verify these concentrations in January 2011. However, the ES-
2010 99Tc showed lower concentrations. Given the uncertainty and importance of understanding
the 99Tc concentrations, the State of Utah commissioned a study involving sampling and analysis
of 99Tc for 173 samples (Johnson, 2010). However, these exhibited lower concentrations again.
The boxplots shown in Figures 3 and 5 are standard typical boxplots (Tukey, 1977) used to
illustrate and summarize the distribution of groups of data. The top, middle and bottom lines
indicate the 75th, 50th (median) and 25th percentile of the data. The vertical lines “whiskers”
extend to the largest or smallest point within 1.5 times the interquartile range (75th – 25th
percentiles) of the 25th and 75th percentiles. Results falling outside the whiskers are considered to
be outliers. This indicates that there is a reasonable chance they are from a different distribution.
With several groups of data, boxplots can be used to informally compare the central values
(median), spread or variances (width of the boxes) or distributions (symmetry).
Table 9: Summary statistics for Technetium data (concentration in pCi/g of DU waste)
Data Source
Statistic SRS-2002 ES-2010 (January) Utah-2010
Number of Samples 33 11 173
Mean 49,370 17,800 4,340
Standard Deviation 29,260 5,910 3,550

The pattern of 99Tc concentrations in the SRS-2002 data is similar to the pattern seen in the
uranium data. That is, the concentrations are considerably greater in the last 12 samples
(particularly in the last 9 samples) than in the first 21 samples, by sample ID (see Table 13). This
could be reason to exclude the SRS-2002 99Tc data from the distribution development. The data
do not seem to come from one population, possibly because of sampling or laboratory
differences or biases, and the pedigree of the data is lacking because there are no laboratory
reports available for the data. However, these data have been included because they show greater
concentrations than the two datasets from 2010, which causes the developed distribution of 99Tc
concentrations to extend out to cover the SRS-2002 data. The effect of the inclusion of these data
has been tested during model evaluation and is reported as part of the sensitivity analysis. If, as
might be expected, the 99Tc concentrations are a sensitive part of the model, then it might
warrant reconsideration of the available data.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 19
Figure 3. Tc-99 Activity Concentration. Sample sizes: SRS-2002 = 33; ES-2010 = 11; Utah-
2010 = 173.
Of further concern is the difference between the ES-2010 data and the Utah-2010 data. These
data were collected less than a year apart, and several of the samples from the Utah-2010 data
were from the same drums used for the ES-2010 samples. The only clear difference between the
two datasets is that different analytical laboratories were used in each case. The ES-2010
samples were analyzed by GEL Laboratories. The Utah-2010 samples were analyzed at a
different laboratory. It is possible that the differences are analytical
As a consequence of the differences in 99Tc concentrations between the different sampling
events, the approach taken to development of an input distribution of mean 99Tc concentrations is
similar to the one used for uranium. That is, it is considered more important to model the
information content in the sampling events rather than each individual sample. This approach
reduces the effect of the Utah-2010 data, which would otherwise dominate estimation of the
input distribution.
A simple approach to distribution development is to treat each measurement across all three
sampling events as independent and identically distributed and calculate the mean and standard
error using all the data. However, this approach weights the data based on the number of
samples, giving the Utah-2010 data the most influence. Further, to the extent that the data within
each study are not independent, the standard error would be artificially small. The individual data
points might not be independent because analyses were often performed on samples from the
same drum. To address these issues, a bootstrap method was developed and used to estimate the
distribution of the mean 99Tc value that treats the three datasets as independent, rather than each
data point across sampling events.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 20
Note that the Utah-2010 dataset contains 18 laboratory and 12 field duplicate measurements.
These data were examined and found to be correlated with the associated primary samples. Since
these measurements cannot be considered independent and a relatively large number of samples
(173) were analyzed, the duplicates are not included in this distribution analysis.
The three datasets are treated independently in the bootstrap approach, which leads to a wide
distribution that covers the range of all three datasets combined. The more simple approach of
treating each data point as independent across the three sampling events would result in a very
narrow distribution, because of the large number of data points, and the center of the distribution
would be lower because the Utah-2010 dataset would dominate given the large sample size.
The bootstrap method is applied as follows:
1. The three studies are selected with replacement from the three available sources of 99Tc
data (SRS-2002, ES-2010 and Utah-2010). Since there are only 27 possible combinations
of sampling events, all combinations were used and weighted equally.
2. For each study, the data are sampled with replacement and a study mean calculated. An
overall mean is calculated as an average of the three study means.
3. This simulation is repeated 10,000 times for each of the 27 study combinations, to
construct a distribution of the estimated mean concentrations for 99Tc.
The density plot describes the distribution of the overall mean (Figure 4). Because of smoothing
in the plotting algorithm, the distribution appears to include negative values, however, the
smallest value from the simulations is 3,800 pCi/g.
This distribution is reasonably described by a normal distribution, which is used in the PA model
(see Table 5). The mean of the distribution is 23,800 pCi/g, and the standard deviation is 11,000
pCi/g. In the PA model, the distribution is truncated at zero, so that negative mean concentrations
are not possible. Since this is a distribution of the mean concentration, this distribution indicates
that the mean concentration of 99Tc could be as low as zero, or greater than 60,000 pCi/g (see
Figure 4). This is a large range, and reflects the uncertainty in the three data sources because of
their differences. Different decisions regarding combination of the available data would almost
certainly lead to a narrower distribution of the mean concentration, given the large number of
data points available. For example, if the Utah-2010 data were used alone, then the 173 data
points would lead to a mean of about 4,340 pCi/g and a standard error of about 270 pCi/g, which
is the distribution that would then be used in the PA. That is, most of the distribution of the mean
concentration would fall between 3,800 pCi/g and 4,880 pCi/g. This is very different than the
distribution that is currently proposed for use in the PA.
Note in Figure 4 that the mean concentrations for the three data sources are also presented. These
show clearly that the distribution of the mean 99Tc concentration spans the means of the available
datasets. As noted above, if the mean 99Tc concentrations proves to be sensitive for any given
endpoint of the PA model (dose, groundwater concentrations, or deep time concentrations), then
the development of this input distribution should be revisited, including a re-examination of how
the three data sources have been combined.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 21

Figure 4. Distribution of Tc-99 mean values. Red lines indicate mean values of Utah-2010,
ES-2010 and SRS-2002 results. The dashed lines indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles of the
mean values of the resampled data.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 22
3.4 Concentrations of Other Radionuclides in the SRS Depleted
Uranium
As noted in Section 2.1, there are other potential contaminants in the SRS DU, including decay,
activation and fission products (see Table 3). Given the only source of data for these
radionuclides in SRS-2002, the concentrations are very low, and are unlikely to significantly
contribute to the PA, however, input distributions for the mean concentrations of each of these
radionuclides are developed and included in the PA to confirm that this is the case.
The measurement of other radionuclides is reported only in the SRS-2002 dataset. These include 241Am, 226Ra, 137Cs, 90Sr, 237Np, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu and 129I. Distributions of these values
are shown in Figure 5. With the exception of the plutonium isotopes, all measurements were
below the detection limit. Non-detects were set to their detection limits for this analysis. This is a
conservative approach, which over-estimates the activity concentrations of these radionuclides.
However, the impact of these radionuclides on the PA is expected to be very small, in which case
use of the detection limits probably has insignificant effect on the concentrations and doses
output by the PA model1. The final distributions are presented in Table 6. The distributions are
assumed to be normal, and they are truncated at zero in the PA model.
3.5 Parameters for Depleted Uranium Oxide from the GDPs
The exact nature of the DU oxides that will be generated by the deconversion plants at
Portsmouth and Paducah will not be known until their production, so this PA relies on the best
information available to develop estimates. What is known is that the oxides will be primarily
U3O8, and that they will be shipped and disposed in used DUF6 cylinders, some of which will
contain residual contamination from reactor returns.

1 Note that iodine-129 was not detected in any of the 33 samples from SRS-2002. However, upon further research,
the lower limits of detection (LLDs) are likely to over-estimate the iodine-129 inventory by about five orders of
magnitude. Very small quantities of 129I might be expected given the presence of 99Tc, given that they are both
fission products. Using the ratio of 99Tc to 129I could provide a better path to a more reasonable estimate of 129I
concentrations. EPRI (2005) provides some information on acceptable knowledge, however, the EPRI reference
does not contain sufficient information and acknowledges that there are very few actual 129I measurement included
in the data. However, Cox (2014 – personal communication from Billy Cox, EPRI, to Paul Black, Neptune and
Company, Inc., April 2014) indicated that there is process knowledge that may be brought to bear: The equilibrium
burnup ratio for 99Tc to 129I is about 200:1. That is, in spent fuel, the activity of 99Tc is about 200 times the activity
of 129I. The first step of fuel reprocessing is to dissolve the fuel in nitric acid, in order to facilitate the wet chemistry
extraction of U, Pu, or other desirable constituents. In this process of dissolution in nitric acid, about 99% of the
iodine is volatilized, and none of the technetium is volatilized. This alters the ratio of 99Tc to 129I by another factor of
about 100. Once the acid has been neutralized in preparation for other processes, including whatever processes were
used to bring the contaminated reactor return uranium to its current form as UO3 powder, this ratio of 100×200:1, or
about 20,000:1, is maintained. If we take advantage of this process knowledge, then, the activity concentration of 129I can be estimated as 0.00005 times the activity concentration of 99Tc. There are a number of reports written by
DOE and contractors regarding the fate of reactor return uranium (DOE, 2000a, 200b, BJC, 200a-c) on this issue.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 23

Figure 5. Additional radionuclide data (SRS-2002). Sample size = 33.

3.5.1 Mass of GDP DU
The total mass of anticipated GDP DU oxide is estimated from the reported mass of DUF6
currently residing in the cylinder yards and a mass conversion from DUF6 to DU3O8.
Although the exact number of cylinders at each facility varies from day to day, the Depleted
Uranium Management Information Network reports the numbers as 36,191 at Paducah, 16,109
from the Portsmouth GDP, and 4,822 from the K-25 GDP, now moved to Portsmouth (DOE,
2010). However, there are discrepancies in the available information regarding the numbers of
cylinders. Consequently, these numbers are used only for rough estimates of the volume needed
for disposal.
Estimates of the total mass of DUF6 from each of the GDPs is also provided at the Depleted UF6
Management Information Network web site (DOE, 2010). These estimates are 436,400 Mg for
Paducah, 195,800 Mg for Portsmouth, and 54,300 Mg for the K-25 GDP, now stored at
Portsmouth. These estimates are used in the PA model. No uncertainty is assigned to them. They
are a condition of the PA model until more information is made available. Uncertainty is,
instead, included in the concentration estimates, which serves as a reasonable measure in this PA
model for inventory uncertainty.
3.5.2 Number of GDP DU cylinders disposed
The number of GDP DU cylinders disposed at the Clive facility is constrained by the available
below-grade volume, as all DU wastes will be disposed below grade. The number of GDP DU
cylinders which could be disposed at the Clive site was estimated from engineering
specifications, packing dimensions and SRS DU drum volume.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 24
Based on the dimensions of the waste footprint and depth below-grade, the number of 12-ft long,
4-ft diameter cylinders that could be disposed was estimated to be 48,906 cylinders could be
disposed (EnergySolutions, 2015). A detailed description of embankment dimensions and a
discussion of representation of the Federal Cell in the GoldSim model are provided in the
Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA Model white paper. Given that each 48Yd cylinder
has a volume of about 4041 L (Argonne National Laboratory, n.d.) this translates to a total waste
disposal volume of 197,629 m3.
A portion of this total waste volume is allocated to the SRS DU wastes described in Section 2.2.
The total volume of the 5408 SRS 55-gallon drums is approximately 1,125 m3. Assuming similar
packing efficiency of SRS drums and GDP cylinders (i.e., the ratio of cylinder/drum volume to
total volume), we subtract this volume from the total GDP cylinder volume to give 196,504 m3
available for GDP DU cylinders. This is equivalent to about 48,628 cylinders.
3.5.3 Composition of GDP DU
As of this writing, only a single cylinder of oxide has been produced from the deconversion
plants, and only one sample from that cylinder has been analyzed. The DUF6 processed for this
sample was of low 235U assay, and contained no TRU or fission product contaminants, and is
therefore not representative of the entire populations of GDP DU oxides. The GDP DU is
considered to have two distinct compositions: Clean DU is pure uranium, derived from natural
sources, and Contaminated DU includes at least some TRU and fission products from reactor
returns. Each of these is discussed below, and the fraction of the total that is contaminated is
estimated for use in the PA model.
3.5.3.1 Clean GDP DU
The constituents comprising the clean DU are naturally-occurring isotopes of uranium,
significantly depleted in everything but 238U, and whatever decay products may have developed
in the short time since their purification and separation. No quantitative information is available
about the relative abundance of the uranium isotopes that characterizes the entire waste stream.
Given the lack of definitive information about the relative abundances of the uranium isotopes, it
is assumed that Clean DU from the GDPs shares the same uranium composition as the DU from
SRS. The same isotopic abundances and contaminant concentrations developed for the SRS DU
in Section 3.2.3 are therefore applied to the uranium fraction of GDP DU cylinders.
3.5.3.2 Contaminated GDP DU
No quantitative information is available about the contamination of the GDP DU Cylinders,
other than limited research determining that some are contaminated and some are not. Given the
lack of definitive information about the degree of contamination, it is assumed that contaminated
DU from the GDPs shares the same composition as the DU from SRS. The same isotopic
abundances and contaminant concentrations developed for the SRS DU in Section 3.2.3 are
therefore applied to the contaminated fraction of GDP DU cylinders. There are no other data that
are available at this time. The processes under which the DU waste is generated is similar in both
case, with material being processed in a diffusion cascade. In both cases the cascades were
contaminated, and this is the source of the contaminants in the DU. Without further information
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 25
on the contamination concentration levels, use of the SRS DU contaminant concentrations is the
only information available, even though it is surrogate information.
3.5.3.3 Fraction of Contaminated GDP DU
Assuming that each GDP cylinder is either “clean” or “contaminated”, an estimate is needed for
the number of each type, so that the total amount of contaminant radionuclides in the GDP
inventory can be estimated. At the time of this writing, the best available information about this
comes from a study by Henson (2006): DUF6-G-G-STU-003 (Draft for UDS review). This
document reviews information about the Paducah population of cylinders as recorded on cylinder
history cards, which were used until 1988, and all contaminated cylinders are represented in this
population. Table 1 (reproduced here as Table 10) in Henson (2006) categorizes the cylinders as
follows:
• "Category 1 – 13,240 cylinders: Cleared" cylinders, which are not contaminated,
• "Category 2 – 1,335 cylinders: TRU and/or Tc" cylinders, which are confirmed to have
some degree of contamination,
• "Category 3 – 971 cylinders: >1% U235" cylinders, which do not contain DU and so are
not considered in this PA, and
• “Category 4 – 22,382 cylinders: To Be Determined" cylinders which have unknown
status regarding contamination. 9,407 of these cylinders have history cards and 12,975 do
not.
Note that these values are in numbers of cylinders, rather than mass of DU, so an assumption is
made for the purposes of estimating the fraction of waste that is contaminated that each cylinder
contains the same mass of DU. Note also that the total number of cylinders here is not the same
as the number of cylinders suggested in Section 3.5.1. This reflects both uncertainty in the total
number of cylinders, and the change in number through time as cylinders are reprocessed or
transferred.
The Paducah data can be summarized as follows for the purposes of building a distribution for
the fraction of cylinders that are contaminated:
• 13,240 are known to not be contaminated
• 1,335 are known to be contaminated
• Of the unknowns 9,407 have history cards, and, hence, can be considered part of the
same population of reconciled cylinders. These are assumed to be pre-1988 cylinders.
• Of the unknowns, 12,975 do not have history cards. These are post-1988 cylinders.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 26
The cylinder history card system at Paducah was discontinued May 31, 1988 (Henson, 2006).
Paducah cylinders post-1988 are considered much more likely to be clean of contaminants.
Consequently, unknown cylinders are modeled differently for pre-1988 and post-1988.
The cylinders at Portsmouth also need to be considered. The Depleted Uranium Management
Information Network reports the numbers as 16,109 from the Portsmouth GDP, and 4,822 from
the K-25 GDP, now moved to Portsmouth (DOE, 2010). These cylinders are also considered
unlikely to be contaminated (personal communication, Tammy Stapleton, May 2011).
This completes the summary of the population of cylinders that are considered for disposal at the
Clive facility. The available information is used to construct an estimate of the total fraction of
the cylinders that are contaminated. In effect the proportion contaminated at Paducah for the
cylinders that have known status is used as an estimate of the fraction of all cylinders with
history cards that are contaminated. These are presumed to be all of the pre-1988 cylinders. For
the post-1988 cylinders at Paducah, which have no history cards, and the Portsmouth cylinders, a
much smaller fraction of the cylinders is assumed to be contaminated.
Consequently, the fraction of Pre-1988 cylinders at Paducah that is assumed to be contaminated
is about 9% [1,335 / (1,335 + 13,240)]. The Portsmouth cylinders might also have a small
fraction that are contaminated. Using expert opinion, this is estimated at less than 1%, with a best
guess at no more than 10 cylinders contaminated (personal communication, Tammy Stapleton,
May 2011). These values were interpreted as expert judgment of the 95th and 50th percentiles of
the distribution, respectively. A beta distribution was fit to these values, following the procedures
outlined in the Fitting Probability Distributions white paper.
The total number of contaminated cylinders was then simulated by adding the number of
confirmed contaminated cylinders with simulated numbers for the unknown cylinders. Table 11
shows the inputs that were used for the simulations. A distribution was constructed based on the
simulation output for the overall proportion of cylinders that are contaminated. This
Beta( 0.0392, 0.0025 ) probability density function is shown in Figure 6.
In terms of the number of contaminated cylinders, this distribution has 1st, 50th, and 99th
percentiles of 1,946, 2,266, and 2,619, respectively. This is a fairly narrow distribution given the
lack of information available. It is narrow because nearly 15,000 of the Paducah cylinders have
been characterized, an assumption is made that all other pre-1988 cylinders will be show a
similar ratio, and the remaining cylinders are expected to be clean of contamination. As more
information is gathered when the depleted uranium is prepared for disposal, then input
distributions used to characterize the GDP waste should be revisited. Information that will be
needed will include total amount of DU, chemical speciation of DU, and activity concentrations
of the DU and contaminants.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 27
Table 10: Categorization of Paducah Cylinders Using Cylinder History Cards (reproduced
from Table 1 in Henson, 2006)
Category 1:
Cleared
Category 2:
TRU and/or Tc
Category 3:
>1% 235U
Category 4:
To Be
Determined
Filled once with
natural normal or
depleted material.
(9,728)
Never filled with 1% or
greater assay, but have a
history of containing
recycled feed material.
These cylinders may have
“hidden heels” containing
both transuranics (TRU)
and Tc.
(1,334)
Filled at some time with
material >1% assay, and
also used to contain
recycled material. These
cylinders may have
“hidden heels” containing
both transuranics (TRU)
and Tc.
(584)
No Paducah
history card.
(12,975)
Filled more than
once, but only with
natural normal or
depleted material.
(2,681)
No history of recycled
feed service, but used to
hold Paducah product (at
<1% enrichment). These
cylinders may also have
“hidden heels” which
could contain Tc.
(1)
No history of recycled
feed service, but used to
hold Paducah product (at
>1% enrichment). These
cylinders may also have
“hidden heels” which
could contain Tc.
(387)
History card
does not provide
enough
information.
(9,407)
Washed and
subsequently filled
with only natural
normal or depleted
material.
(832)
Filled at some time with
>1% assay, but have
never contained recycled
uranium or Paducah
product.
(n/a for Phase II)

TOTAL = 13,240 TOTAL = 1,335 TOTAL = 971 TOTAL = 22,382

Table 11: Inputs for the Simulation of the Fraction of Contaminated GDP Cylinders
Cylinder
Type
Paducah
Category 2
Paducah
Category 1
Paducah
Category 4
Pre-1988
Paducah
Category 4
Post-1988
Portsmouth
(not from
Oak Ridge)
Portsmouth
(from Oak
Ridge)
Number 1,335 13,240 9,407 12,975 16,109 4,822
Simulated
Binomial
Proportion
NA
(confirmed
value)
NA
(confirmed
value)
Beta( 0.092,
0.0024) Beta( 0.0020, 0.0042 )
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 28

Figure 6. Probability density function for the proportion of contaminated cylinders.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 29
4.0 References
Argonne National Laboratory. (n.d.) UF6 Cylinder Data Summary. Retrieved from
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/prodhand/sld035.cfm
Beals D.M., LaMont S.P., Cadieux J.R., et al. 2002. Determination of Trace Radionuclides in
SRS Depleted Uranium (DU). WSRC-TR-2002-00536, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC.
BJC (Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC), 2000a, Recycled Uranium Mass Balance Project Oak
Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Report, BJC/OR-584, June 2000.
BJC, 2000b, Recycled Uranium Mass Balance Project Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site
Report, BJC/PGDP-167, 14 Jun 2000.
BJC, 2000c, Recycled Uranium Mass Balance Project Portsmouth, Ohio Site Report,
BJC/PORTS-139/R1, 19 Jun 2000.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), 2014. 10 CFR 61, Licensing Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, United States Code of Federal Regulations, United States
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, January 2014.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999a. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium
Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269).
DOE 1999b. Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by
Public Law 105-204.
DOE, 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site,
DOE/EIS-0359, U.S. DOE Environmental Management, June 2004.
DOE, 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site,
DOE/EIS-0360, U.S. DOE Environmental Management, June 2004.
DOE. 2010. Depleted UF6 Management Information Network. URL:
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/mgmtuses/storage/index.cfm
EnergySolutions. 2009b. Radioactive Waste Profile Record, EC 0230, Rev. 7, plus attachments
(Form 9021 33), EnergySolutions Inc. Clive UT.
EnergySolutions. 2009d. Uniform Low-level Radioactive Waste Manifest Shipping Papers,
(Form 540), EnergySolutions Inc. Clive UT.
EnergySolutions, 2015. Engineering Drawing 14004 SK1, “Conceptual DU Disposal Plan”,
dated 10/23/2015. (file: FederalCell DUplan 14004-SK1.pdf).
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1985. Radionuclide Correlations in Low-Level
Radwaste, EPRI NP-4037, June 5, 1985.
Fussell, G.M, and D. L. McWhorter, 2002. Project Plan for the Disposition of the SRS Depleted,
Natural, and Low-Enriched Uranium Materials. WSRC-RP-2002-00459, Washington
Savannah River Site, November 21, 2002.
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 30
GEL 2010a. GEL Work Order 243721. Laboratory report dated January 12, 2010.
GEL 2010b. GEL Work Order 244495. Laboratory report dated January 19, 2010.
GEL 2010c. GEL Work Order 249710. Laboratory report dated April 8, 2010.
Henson (Henson Technical Projects, LLC), 2006, Contents Categorization of Paducah DUF6
Cylinders Using Cylinder History Cards – Phase II, DUF6-G-G-STU-003, Draft for
UDS Review, Uranium Disposition Services, LLC, Lexington, KY, 30 September 2006
(file: DUF6-G-G-STU-003 Henson 2006.pdf)
Johnson R. 2010. State of Utah, DEQ. Memo – April 6, 2010 Subj. Savannah River Depleted
Uranium Sampling
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Stages of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, URL:
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/stages-fuel-cycle.html
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 2000a. Depleted Uranium Storage and Disposal Trade
Study: Summary Report, ORNL/TM 2000/10, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge TN, February, 2000
ORNL. 2000b. Assessment of Preferred Depleted Uranium Disposal Forms, ORNL/TM
2000/161, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, June 2000
ORNL. 2000c. Strategy for Characterizing Transuranics and Technetium Contamination in
Depleted UF6 Cylinders, ORNL/TM-2000/242, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October
2000.
ORNL. 2000d. Evaluation of the Acceptability of Potential Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride
Conversion Products at the Envirocare Disposal Site, ORNL/TM-2000/355, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, October 2000.
Rich, B.L., S.L. Hinnefeld, C.R. Lagerquist, W.G. Mansfield, L.H. Munson, E.R. Wagner, and
E.J. Vallario, 1988. Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Uranium Facilities,
EGG-2530, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, June 1988.
Stapleton, Tammy, Uranium Disposition Services, LLC, personal communication via telephone
to John Tauxe, Neptune and Company, Inc., 3 May 2011.
Tukey, John (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 31
Appendix
Table 12. Uranium isotopic abundances by mass spectrometry, atomic percent, including
replicates (data summarized in Table 16, Beals, et al. 2002)
Sample Replicate 234U 235U 236U 238U
3 a 0.0004% 0.1270% 0.0065% 99.87%
3 b 0.0004% 0.1260% 0.0065% 99.87%
9 a 0.0004% 0.1260% 0.0064% 99.87%
9 b 0.0004% 0.1250% 0.0064% 99.87%
17 a 0.0004% 0.1260% 0.0066% 99.87%
17 b 0.0004% 0.1260% 0.0066% 99.87%
20 a 0.0005% 0.1270% 0.0068% 99.87%
20 b 0.0004% 0.1290% 0.0067% 99.86%
25 a 0.0008% 0.1510% 0.0096% 99.84%
25 b 0.0007% 0.1510% 0.0095% 99.84%
30 a 0.0006% 0.1410% 0.0088% 99.85%
30 b 0.0006% 0.1400% 0.0086% 99.85%

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 32
Table 13. Uranium isotopic abundances by alpha spectrometry (as percent of total uranium
activity) (Table 17, Beals, et al. 2002) and Technetium concentrations in the
SRS-2002 data (Beals, et al. 2002)
Sample 238U 235+ 236U 234U 99Tc (nCi/g)
1 91.7 1.72 6.57 44.2
2 91.0 1.74 7.28 57.5
3 91.3 2.04 6.63 21.2
4 91.3 1.86 6.82 33.3
5 91.6 1.73 6.67 15.7
6 91.2 1.76 7.07 19.1
7 91.2 1.85 6.91 18.5
8 91.6 1.71 6.67 24.5
9 91.3 1.98 6.72 90.2
10 91.8 1.7 6.55 79.7
11 91.6 1.7 6.75 89.8
12 91.8 2.04 6.18 79.7
13 91.3 1.95 6.74 37.5
14 91.2 1.7 7.09 75.3
15 91.6 1.74 6.63 34.2
16 91.4 1.86 6.7 74.2
17 91.2 2.07 6.7 41.4
18 91.4 1.86 6.71 64.7
19 91.7 1.97 6.32 16.1
20 90.8 2.25 6.92 14.9
21 91.6 1.73 6.69 27.2
22 87.5 2.11 10.42 8.1
23 88.4 2.11 9.46 15.7
24 85.9 2.51 11.55 9
25 86.9 2.41 10.71 93.8
26 86.7 2.36 10.9 92.7
27 87.3 2.27 10.41 32.5
28 88.0 2.26 9.72 55.3
29 87.3 2.84 9.91 53.8
30 88.5 2.27 9.2 88.5
31 85.9 2.77 11.32 93.7
32 88.6 2.8 8.61 54.3
33 88.2 1.83 9.99 73
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 33
Mean 90 2.05 7.99 49.37
Std.Dev 2.03 0.34 1.77 29.26

Table 14. January 2010 EnergySolutions Data Analyzed by GEL (GEL 2010a and 2010b)
Sample ID bulk density
(g/cm3)
99Tc
(pCi/g DU
waste)
total uranium
(µg/g DU
waste)
233+234U
(pCi/g DU
waste)
235+236U
(pCi/g DU
waste)
238 U
(pCi/g DU
waste)
243721001 3.31 2.28E+4 7.93E+5 4.84E+4 1.11E+4 2.65E+5
243721002 3.45 9.78E+3 8.54E+5 4.50E+4 7.21E+3 2.86E+5
243721003 2.84 1.78E+4 8.06E+5 3.83E+4 1.89E+4 2.68E+5
243721004 3.15 9.04E+3 8.27E+5 3.26E+4 4.92E+3* 2.77E+5
243721005 2.50 1.44E+4 8.48E+5 4.25E+4 7.27E+3* 2.85E+5
243721006 3.21 2.08E+4 8.80E+5 3.04E+4 1.28E+4 2.94E+5
243721007 4.00 2.25E+4 9.90E+5 6.44E+4 1.28E+4 3.31E+5
243721008 2.36 1.14E+4 6.50E+5 3.37E+4 1.19E+4 2.17E+5
244495001 3.46 2.60E+4 8.44E+5 3.57E+4 6.72E+3 2.83E+5
244495002 3.66 2.35E+4 8.00E+5 3.65E+4 1.17E+4 2.67E+5
244495003 4.00 1.81E+4 8.76E+5 4.70E+4 9.94E+3 2.93E+5
Mean 3.27 1.78E+4 8.33E+5 4.13E+4 1.15E+4 2.79E+5
Std.Dev 0.54 5.91E+3 8.15E+3 9.73E+3 3.57E+3 2.74E+3
* - reported as non-detects – detection limits used for statistical analysis.

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 34
Table 15. April 2010 EnergySolutions Data Analyzed by GEL (GEL 2010c)
Sample ID bulk density
(g/cm3)
99Tc (pCi/g
DU waste)
total uranium
(µg/g DU
waste)
233+234U
(pCi/g DU
waste)
235+236U
(pCi/g DU
waste)
238 U
(pCi/g DU
waste)
249710001 - - 7.95E+5 3.42E+4 6.34E+3 2.66E+5
249710002 - - 8.31E+5 3.65E+4 6.31E+3 2.78E+5
249710003 - - 8.15E+5 3.35E+4 5.12E+3 2.73E+5
249710004 - - 8.74E+5 3.84E+4 5.17E+3 2.93E+5
249710005 - - 8.28E+5 3.66E+4 4.30E+3 2.78E+5
249710006 - - 8.74E+5 4.17E+4 4.31E+3 2.93E+5
249710007 - - 7.07E+5 2.94E+4 4.86E+3 2.37E+5
249710008 - - 6.46E+5 3.78E+4 4.43E+3 2.17E+5
249710009 - - 7.42E+5 3.66E+4 6.80E+3 2.48E+5
249710010 - - 7.97E+5 3.86E+4 4.95E+3 2.67E+5
249710011 - - 8.29E+5 3.51E+4 4.36E+3 2.78E+5
249710012 - - 7.58E+5 2.98E+4 7.60E+3 2.54E+5
249710013 - - 7.45E+5 3.16E+4 4.89E+3 2.50E+5
249710014 - - 7.71E+5 3.09E+4 4.14E+3 2.58E+5
249710015 - - 8.97E+5 4.02E+4 5.75E+3 3.01E+5
Mean 7.88E+5 3.54E+4 5.34E+3 2.64E+5
Std.Dev. 6.61E+4 3.60E+3 1.07E+3 2.21E+4

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 35
Table 16. Technetium-99 concentrations collected by State of Utah, (Johnson, 2010)
Sample ID pCi/g DU
waste Sample ID pCi/g DU
waste Sample ID pCi/g DU
waste
1337 6.30E+3 3800 1.24E+4 0249 3.28E+3
1348 1.27E+4 3824 5.59E+3 0370 4.77E+3
1423 2.13E+3 3849 4.13E+3 0434 2.80E+3
1428 3.45E+3 3857 2.56E+3 0461 4.09E+3
1429 7.05E+3 3870 1.55E+4 0488 3.09E+3
1467 2.66E+3 3951 1.79E+3 0499 8.22E+2
1584 3.50E+3 4052 2.07E+3 0555 1.12E+3
1622 7.99E+3 4104 2.44E+3 0562 2.08E+3
1697 3.09E+3 4138 4.23E+3 0565 7.19E+3
1712 5.21E+3 4162 3.51E+3 0571 4.11E+3
1739 5.62E+3 4172 6.85E+3 0626 1.78E+3
1794 2.74E+3 4185 2.64E+3 0629 4.41E+3
1808 2.54E+3 4207 2.01E+3 0662 2.74E+2
1834 1.53E+4 4244 1.56E+3 0670 1.95E+3
1835 7.12E+3 4275 1.22E+3 0697 1.63E+3
1853 2.49E+3 4303 8.86E+2 0739 2.37E+3
1876 1.47E+3 4322 1.01E+3 0756 3.56E+3
1918 2.90E+3 4362 3.06E+3 0800 1.57E+3
1946 2.08E+3 4376 6.66E+3 0809 5.73E+2
2061 1.84E+4 4384 2.32E+3 0813 2.22E+3
2077 1.83E+3 4385 9.72E+3 0852 4.45E+3
2098 1.10E+4 4393 3.58E+3 0853 2.31E+3
2102 7.65E+2 4414 3.78E+3 0854 2.83E+3
2140 7.86E+3 4415 8.86E+3 0879 4.52E+3
2250 6.71E+3 4425 5.87E+3 0884 4.76E+3
2256 7.19E+3 4431 1.29E+4 0893 2.02E+3
2343 1.30E+3 4486 5.83E+3 0910 2.24E+2
2424 6.27E+2 4487 2.63E+3 0911 8.23E+2
2449 4.86E+3 4504 8.48E+3 0927 6.38E+2
2481 1.32E+3 4535 5.25E+3 0928 7.42E+2
2497 1.62E+4 4606 1.72E+3 1000 5.85E+3
2517 8.06E+2 4611 3.47E+3 1021 1.24E+3
2528 1.66E+3 4687 1.51E+3 1030 1.63E+3
2550 3.02E+3 4760 3.04E+3 1117 6.56E+3
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 36
Sample ID pCi/g DU
waste Sample ID pCi/g DU
waste Sample ID pCi/g DU
waste
2614 1.49E+3 4790 2.28E+3 1140 1.76E+3
2674 1.89E+3 4817 2.25E+3 1147 1.29E+3
2675 2.92E+3 4822 2.62E+3 1216 1.44E+3
2823 4.89E+3 4851 1.32E+4 1505 2.26E+3
2827 1.61E+4 4866 1.45E+4 1511 3.96E+3
2878 2.86E+3 4940 4.41E+3 1646 6.19E+3
3035 7.59E+3 4955 3.68E+3 1678 1.00E+4
3059 5.01E+3 4962 5.89E+3 2393 4.08E+3
3067 1.77E+3 5023 1.89E+3 2657 5.52E+3
3080 4.36E+3 5054 2.36E+3 2693 1.97E+3
3085 1.53E+3 5061 1.68E+3 3127 3.31E+3
3089 2.37E+3 5084 6.22E+3 3160 6.34E+3
3197 2.28E+3 5191 1.13E+4 3288 7.08E+3
3234 4.62E+3 5224 5.75E+3 3336 5.12E+3
3303 5.61E+3 5277 1.58E+3 3337 5.37E+3
3347 5.53E+3 5322 7.33E+2 3446 3.25E+3
3543 1.67E+3 0023 3.89E+3 3471 2.86E+3
3668 3.12E+3 0057 1.15E+3 3546 4.73E+3
3685 3.03E+3 0157 1.28E+3 4016 1.09E+4
3695 7.46E+3 0162 6.53E+3 4098 8.93E+3
3717 4.56E+3 0168 3.42E+3 4200 1.68E+3
3726 4.94E+3 0180 2.80E+3 4514 3.28E+3
3728 1.28E+4 0210 3.72E+3 4581 1.81E+3
3760 2.38E+3 0214 2.24E+3

Number of samples = 173
Average 99Tc concentration = 4,340 pCi/g
Standard Deviation = 3,550 pCi/g

Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 37
Table 17. Concentration data for other radioisotopes, SRS-2002. (Beals, et al. 2002)
Sample
241Am
*(<)
pCi/g
DU
waste
226Ra
*(<)
pCi/g
DU
waste
137Cs
*(<)
pCi/g
DU
waste
90Sr
*(<)
pCi/g
DU
waste
237Np
pCi/g
DU
waste
238Pu
pCi/g
DU
waste
239Pu
pCi/g
DU
waste
240Pu
pCi/g
DU
waste
241Pu
pCi/g
DU
waste
129I *(<)
pCi/g
DU
waste
1 6 120 6 8.6 0.44 0.114 0.53 0.14 2.80 13
2 24 500 19 5.9 2.34 0.099 0.69 0.15 nd 7
3 21 450 17 3.4 0.33 0.065 0.48 0.12 1.00 7
4 17 330 14 6.7 4.61 0.129 0.84 0.17 nd 4
5 25 600 20 7.2 12.8 0.086 0.95 0.23 2.50 12
6 20 390 15 14 8.89 0.163 0.40 0.10 nd 10
7 16 314 13 8 14.3 0.090 0.34 0.10 1.60 9
8 16 310 12 7.7 3.85 1.420 0.91 0.48 10.00 4
9 10 240 9 50.7 6.52 0.350 3.43 1.14 11.00 8
10 21 470 19 32.7 2.43 0.244 0.48 0.18 3.80 6
11 16 370 14 23.4 13.6 0.240 3.10 0.68 13.00 20
12 11 250 10 29.3 11.9 0.090 1.15 0.29 2.70 14
13 11 260 10 46.6 8.55 0.230 5.09 1.14 17.00 18
14 13 340 12 31.2 1.3 0.123 2.46 0.55 7.50 20
15 17 360 13 40 6.38 0.127 0.36 0.09 0.90 16
16 12 300 11 68.2 33.5 0.099 0.66 nd nd 16
17 11 230 10 28.4 6.08 0.125 1.63 0.50 4.00 17
18 11 230 8 38.3 2.86 0.081 0.75 0.20 nd 19
19 10 210 7 51 10.2 0.043 3.74 0.86 11.00 26
20 6 170 5 45.6 11.3 0.088 1.07 0.27 nd 32
21 14 300 13 27.1 1.92 0.094 0.50 0.12 1.10 33
22 9 250 8 28.6 0.77 0.149 0.81 0.22 3.40 27
23 18 380 15 45.7 1.67 0.186 1.81 0.52 5.30 24
24 16 340 13 26.9 0.69 0.242 1.30 0.36 nd 27
25 13 280 11 45.7 1.18 0.178 0.88 0.24 2.60 26
26 9 250 9 100.5 0.65 0.560 0.79 0.22 2.70 7
27 10 280 10 59.1 0.94 0.181 0.79 0.22 2.80 30
28 25 550 21 28 1.61 0.154 0.74 0.21 3.40 34
29 16 410 14 57.9 11.1 0.420 0.79 0.18 nd 24
30 10 190 10 32.9 0.87 0.123 0.85 0.22 4.00 27
31 16 350 15 78.9 1.04 0.250 1.02 nd nd 26
32 9 190 7 438.2 1.32 0.155 1.09 0.32 2.50 22
33 9 240 9 35.8 1.58 0.153 0.82 0.24 1.70 28
Radioactive Waste Inventory for the Clive DU PA
12 November 2015 38
Appendix References
Beals D.M., LaMont S.P., Cadieux J.R., et al. 2002. Determination of Trace Radionuclides in
SRS Depleted Uranium (DU). WSRC-TR-2002-00536, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC.
GEL 2010a. GEL Work Order 243721. Laboratory report dated January 12, 2010.
GEL 2010b. GEL Work Order 244495. Laboratory report dated January 19, 2010.
GEL 2010c. GEL Work Order 249710. Laboratory report dated April 8, 2010.
Johnson R. 2010. State of Utah, DEQ. Memo – April 6, 2010 Subj. Savannah River Depleted
Uranium Sampling

 NAC-0015_R4

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for
the Clive PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
23 October 2015

Prepared for EnergySolutions by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 iii
1. Title: Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
2. Filename: Unsaturated Zone Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter values
and distributions used for modeling liquid phase transport in the unsaturated zone for the
Clive DU PA Model.
Name Date
4. Originator Michael Sully 5 May 2014
5. Reviewer Dan Levitt 21 May 2014
6. Remarks
5/8/2014: DL. Added new section 14.0 that discusses nine H1D sensitivity runs that evaluate
effects of Rn barrier Ksat and rooting depth on infiltration.
5/9/2014: MS. The element names in GoldSim for α and n were changed. Element names were
revised in white paper.
5/13/2014: MS. Revised distribution for van Genuchten alpha and n from using standard
deviations to standard errors.
5/13/2014: DL. Added text justifying use of 1D model.
5/17/2014: MS: Expanded discussion of 2D vs 1D.
6/8/2014: MS: Added reference to method described in Appendix for estimating water content
for waste, clay liner, and unsaturated zone.
10/6/2015: GO/DL: Updated regression coefficients in Section 12 based on latest results of 50
HYDRUS runs, and made corresponding text updates. Deleted section 14 (from
v1.2) as it refers to a sensitivity analysis for the 20 reps described in v1.2.
10/19/2015: MS/DL: Revised porosity distributions for surface, ET, and frost protection layers.
More edits to parameter names to be more consistent with the GoldSim model v1.4.
10/21/2015: MS/DL: Delete Federal DU cell drawing. Version change to v1.4.
10/23/2015: MS/DL/KC: Edits for consistency with model v1.4.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 iv
CONTENTS
1.0
 Summary of Parameter Values and Distributions .................................................................. 8

2.0
 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 12

3.0
 Disposal Cell Design ............................................................................................................ 12

4.0
 Unsaturated Zone and Shallow Aquifer ............................................................................... 14

5.0
 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 17

6.0
 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 19

7.0
 Properties of Unit 3 and Radon Barriers .............................................................................. 20

7.1
 Laboratory Measurements ........................................................................................... 20

7.2
 Grain Size Distributions for the Cores ........................................................................ 20

7.3
 Soil Material Properties ............................................................................................... 24

7.4
 Soil Moisture Content ................................................................................................. 26

7.4.1
 Unit 3 Brooks-Corey Parameters ..................................................................... 30

7.4.2
 Unit 4 Brooks-Corey Parameters ..................................................................... 30

8.0
 Properties of Upper Cover Layers ........................................................................................ 30

9.0
 Properties of Waste ............................................................................................................... 31

10.0
 Properties of the Clay Liner ................................................................................................. 31

11.0
 Properties of the Unsaturated Zone below the Clay Liner ................................................... 31

12.0
 Modeling of Net Infiltration and Water Content for the Clive DU PA Model .................... 32

12.1
 Description of HYDRUS ............................................................................................ 32

12.2
 Conceptual Model ....................................................................................................... 34

12.3
 Climate and Vegetation Parameters ............................................................................ 34

12.4
 Model Geometry ......................................................................................................... 39

12.5
 Material Properties ...................................................................................................... 39

12.6
 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................... 44

12.7
 Initial Conditions ......................................................................................................... 44

12.8
 Cases Simulated .......................................................................................................... 44

12.9
 Model Results .............................................................................................................. 44

13.0
 Implementation in GoldSim ................................................................................................. 45

14.0
 Contaminant Fate and Transport in Porous Media ............................................................... 46

14.1
 Porous Medium Water Transport ................................................................................ 46

14.1.1
 Advection of Water ......................................................................................... 46

14.1.2
 Diffusion in Water ........................................................................................... 46

14.1.3
 Water Phase Tortuosity ................................................................................... 47

14.2
 Porous Medium Air Transport .................................................................................... 48

14.2.1
 Advection of Air .............................................................................................. 48

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 v
14.2.2
 Diffusion in Air ............................................................................................... 48

14.2.3
 Air-Phase Tortuosity ....................................................................................... 49

15.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 52

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 58

1.
 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 58

2.
 Method .................................................................................................................................... 58

3.
 Darcy Equation Solution by the Runge-Kutta Method .......................................................... 60

4.
 Verification of the Runge-Kutta Method ............................................................................... 61

5.
 Implementation in the DU PA Model .................................................................................... 66

6.
 Numerical Testing of the Top Slope Model in GoldSim ....................................................... 67

8.
 References .............................................................................................................................. 75

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 vi
FIGURES
Figure 1. Evapotranspiration (ET) cover profile showing materials, observation nodes, and
root distribution used in the HYDRUS-1D models. .................................................... 14

Figure 2. Stratigraphic profile showing ET cover, waste zone, and stratigraphy below the
Federal DU Cell. .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3. Monthly mean precipitation for the Clive Site and monthly mean pan evaporation
for the NOAA BYU station at Provo, Utah. ................................................................ 17

Figure 4. Monthly mean temperatures for the Clive Site and the NOAA BYU station at
Provo, Utah. ................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 5. Comparison of water retention data (wetting cycle) for four core samples ................... 23

Figure 6. 100-year daily precipitation record generated from monthly average values of daily
measurements at the site based on 17 years of observations. ...................................... 37

Figure 7. 100-year daily Tmax and Tmin record generated from a 30-year record available
from the Dugway, Utah NOAA station. ...................................................................... 37

Figure 8. 100-year daily potential evaporation generated using the Hargreaves method. ............ 37

Figure 9. Root density with depth at the Clive Site for Shadscale and Black Greasewood
[SWCA 2011]. ............................................................................................................. 38

Figure 10. Water stress response function for root water uptake model. ...................................... 38

Figure 11. Comparison of air-phase tortuosity models by Penman (equation (44)), Millington
and Quirk (MQ1, equation (45)), Millington and Quirk as modified by Jin and
Jury (1996) (MQ2, equation (46)), and Lahvis et al. (1999) (equation (47)). ............. 50

Figure 12. Comparison of effective to bulk diffusivity ratios with air phase porosity for air
phase tortuosity models. .............................................................................................. 51

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 vii
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Parameter Values and Distributions ............................................................. 8

Table 2. Assignment of solid/water partition coefficients Kd values. ........................................... 12

Table 3. Texture class, thickness range, and average thickness for the hydrostratigraphic units
underlying the Clive site. ............................................................................................. 15

Table 4. Grain size distributions for cores from Unit 4, a silty clay. ............................................ 21

Table 5. Grain size distributions for cores from Unit 3, a silty sand. ............................................ 22

Table 6. Theoretical porosities based on particle packing geometry. ........................................... 24

Table 7. Bulk density, porosity, and calculated particle density data from water retention
experiments. ................................................................................................................. 25

Table 8. Hydraulic properties of topslope cover used for HYDRUS modeling. ........................... 41

Table 9. Parameter sets of van Genuchten α and n, and Ks used for HYDRUS modeling. .......... 42

Table 10. Coefficients calculated from multiple linear regression models. .................................. 45

Table 11. Atmosphere volume parameters for creating a surface boundary condition in the
porous medium air diffusion model. ........................................................................... 49

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 8
1.0 Summary of Parameter Values and Distributions
A summary of material properties and parameter values used in the Clive DU PA Model is
provided in Table 1. For distributions, the following notation is used:
• N( µ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a normal distribution with mean µ and standard deviation
σ, and optional truncation at the specified minimum and maximum,
• LN( GM, GSD, [min, max] ) represents a log-normal distribution with geometric mean
GM and geometric standard deviation GSD, and optional min and max,
• U( min, max ) represents a uniform distribution with lower bound min and upper bound
max,
• Beta( µ, σ, min, max ) represents a generalized beta distribution with mean µ, standard
deviation σ, minimum min, and maximum max,
• Gamma( µ, σ ) represents a gamma distribution with mean µ and standard deviation σ,
and
• TRI( min, m, max ) represents a triangular distribution with lower bound min, mode m,
and upper bound max.

Note that a number of these distributions are truncated at a minimum value of 0 or a value of
Small, an arbitrarily small number just greater than 0 defined in the GoldSim model, and a
maximum of Large, an arbitrarily large value defined in the GoldSim model. The truncation at
the low end is a matter of physical limits (e.g. precipitation cannot be negative), and in
GoldSim’s distribution definitions, if truncations are made, they must be made at both ends, so
the very large value is chosen for the upper end.
Table 1. Summary of Parameter Values and Distributions
Parameter Distribution
[Comments]
Units Internal Reference
Infiltration and Water Content
VG_logAlpha N( µ=-1.79, σ=0.121,
(min=-Large, max=0 )
log10(1/cm) Section 12.5
VG_logN N( µ=0.121, σ=0.019,
(min=Small, max=Large );
— Section 12.5
RnBarrierKsat_Natdist LN( 3.37, 3.23); [right
shift of 0.00432]
cm/day Section 12.5
WaterContentResidual — Section 12.5, Table 8
SurfaceSoil
EvapLayer
FrostLayer
UpperRnBarrier
LowerRnBarrier
0.11
0.11
0.065
0.1
0.1
—
—
—
—
—

Section 12.5, Table 8
Section 12.5, Table 8
Section 12.5, Table 8
Section 12.5, Table 8
Section 12.5, Table 8

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 9
Cover Layers Infiltration and Water Content Regression Parameters
Response Variable β0
Infiltration flux (through all layers) -­‐0.32921
 — Section 12.9
Water content in Surface Layer 0.48155
 — Section 12.9
Water content in Evaporative zone layer 0.57947
 — Section 12.9
Water content in Frost Protection layer 0.04282
 — Section 12.9
Water in Upper Radon Barrier 0.14737
 — Section 12.9
Water in Lower Radon Barrier 0.14740
 — Section 12.9
Response Variable β1
Infiltration flux (through all layers) N/A — Section 12.9
Water content in Surface Layer 0.00000 — Section 12.9
Water content in Evaporative zone layer 0.00000 — Section 12.9
Water content in Frost Protection layer 0.00000 — Section 12.9
Water in Upper Radon Barrier -­‐0.00076 — Section 12.9
Water in Lower Radon Barrier -­‐0.00076 — Section 12.9
Response Variable β2
Infiltration flux (through all layers) 5.56826 — Section 12.9
Water content in Surface Layer 0.54920 — Section 12.9
Water content in Evaporative zone layer 0.73997 — Section 12.9
Water content in Frost Protection layer 0.43297 — Section 12.9
Water in Upper Radon Barrier 1.70702 — Section 12.9
Water in Lower Radon Barrier 1.70648 — Section 12.9
Response Variable β3
Infiltration flux (through all layers) 0.19538 — Section 12.9
Water content in Surface Layer -­‐0.20020 — Section 12.9
Water content in Evaporative zone layer -­‐0.24790 — Section 12.9
Water content in Frost Protection layer 0.01617 — Section 12.9
Water in Upper Radon Barrier 0.06353 — Section 12.9
Water in Lower Radon Barrier 0.06351 — Section 12.9

Fate and Transport
Water tortuosity water content exponent N( µ=7/3, σ=0.01) — Section 15.1.3
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 10
Water tortuosity porosity exponent N( µ=2.0, σ=0.01 — Section 15.1.3
Thickness of the atmosphere layer N( µ=2.0, σ=0.5,
min=Small, max=Large )
M Section 15.2.2, Table
12
Wind speed N( µ=3.14, σ=0.5,
min=Small, max=Large )
m/s Section 15.2.2, Table
12
Atmospheric diffusion length N( µ=0.1, σ=0.02,
min=Small, max=Large )
m Section 15.2.2, Table
12
Thickness of the Unsat zone (below the
embankment clay liner)
N(12.9, 0.25, min=Small,
max=Large )
ft Section 11
Unit 3
Porosity_Unit3 N( 0.393, 6.11e-3,
min=Small,
max=1-Small )
— Section 7.3
BulkDensity_Unit3 N( ParticleDensity_Unit3
× ( 1 – Porosity_Unit3 ),
0.1, min=Small,
max=Large )
g/cm3 Section 7.3
ParticleDensity_Unit3 2.65 g/cm3 Section 7.3
D_Unit3 N( 2.73, 5.21e-3, min=0,
max=3 )
— Section 7.4.1
Hb_Unit3 N( 8.85, 0.929,
min=Small, max=Large );
[-0.85 correlation with
D_Unit3]
cm Section 7.4.1
MCres_Unit3 N( 6.78e-3, 2.05e-3,
min=Small, max=Large )
— Section 7.4.1
MCsat_Unit3 equal to Porosity_Unit3 — Section 7.4.1
Ksat_Unit3 N( 5.14e-5, 5.95e-6,
min=Small, max=Large );
[-0.98 correlation with
D_Unit3]
cm/s Section 7.4.1
Unit 4
Porosity_Unit4Compacted N(0.428, 9.08e-3,
min = small, max = 1-
small);
— Section 7.4.2
BulkDensity_Unit4Compacted N( ParticleDensity_Unit4
× (1 – Porosity_Unit4 ),
0.1, min=Small,
max=Large );
g/cm3 Section 7.4
ParticleDensity_Unit4 2.65 g/cm3 Section 7.4
D_Unit4Compacted N( 2.81, 9.93e-5, min=0,
max=3 )
— Section 7.4.2
Hb_Unit4Compacted N( 104., 1.72, min=Small, cm Section 7.4.2
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 11
max=Large ); [correlated
to D_Unit4 as -0.66]
MCres_Unit4Compacted N( 0.108, 8.95e-4,
min=Small, max=Large );
[truncated just above 0]
— Section 7.4.2
MCsat_Unit4Compacted equal to Porosity_Unit4 — Section 7.4.2
Radon Barrier Clay
Porosity_UpperRnBarrierClay assigned value for Unit 4
BulkDensity_UpperRnBarrierClay assigned value for Unit 4
Porosity_LowerRnBarrierClay assigned value for Unit 4
BulkDensity_LowerRnBarrierClay assigned value for Unit 4
UpperRnBarrierKsat_AsBuilt 5.00E-8 cm/s Section 3
LowerRnBarrierKsat_AsBuilt 1.00E-6 cm/s Section 3
Unit 4 ET Layers
Porosity_Unit4_ETLayers N( 0.481, 0.015) — Section 8.0
BulkDensity_Unit4_ETLayers N( ParticleDensity_Unit4
× (1 –
Porosity_Unit4_ETLayers
), 0.1, min=Small,
max=Large )
g/cm3 Section 8.0
Frost Protection Layer
Porosity_SiltSandGravel N(0.41, 0.0026) — Section 8.0
BulkDensity_SiltSandGravel N( ParticleDensity_Unit4
× (1 –
Porosity_SiltSandGravel),
0.1, min=Small,
max=Large )
g/cm3 Section 8.0
Generic, UO3, and U3O8 Waste
Porosity_Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 — Section 7.3
BulkDensity__Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 g/cm3 Section 7.3
D_Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 — Section 7.4.1
Hb_Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 cm Section 7.4.1
MCres_Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 — Section 7.4.1
MCsat_Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 — Section 7.4.1
Ksat_Generic_Waste assigned value for Unit 3 cm/s Section 7.4.1
Liner Clay
Porosity_LinerClay assigned value for Unit 4 — Section 7.4.2
BulkDensity__LinerClay assigned value for Unit 4 g/cm3 Section 7.4
D_LinerClay assigned value for Unit 4 — Section 7.4.2
Hb_LinerClay assigned value for Unit 4 cm Section 7.4.2
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 12
MCres_LinerClay assigned value for Unit 4 — Section 7.4.2
MCsat_LinerClay assigned value for Unit 4 — Section 7.4.2
Ksat_LinerClay LN( 1e-6, 1.2 )

cm/s Section 10.0

Porous medium solid/water partition coefficients for various radionuclides in these materials are
assigned one of three representative and generic collections of Kd values for the materials sand,
silt and clay. These assignments are listed in Table 2. Distributions for the values themselves are
documented in the Geochemical Modeling white paper.

Table 2. Assignment of solid/water partition coefficients Kd values.
material Kd material
Unit 2 (includes saturated zone medium) clay
Unit 3 (includes unsaturated zone medium and all wastes) sand
Unit 4 (includes surface layer, evaporative zone, clay liner, and upper and lower
radon barrier clays)
silt

2.0 Introduction
This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter values and
distributions used for modeling gas and liquid phase transport in the unsaturated zone for the
Clive DU PA Model. Data sources are identified and the rationale applied in developing
distributions is described. The intent of this white paper is to describe the characteristics and
processes in the disposal cell, waste, and the underlying unsaturated zone above the shallow
aquifer. Estimates of net infiltration through the evapotranspiration (ET) cover system layers and
material water content required by the GoldSim model (the DU PA Model) were made using the
HYDRUS-1D software package (Šimůnek et al., 2009) and are described in this white paper.
Saturated zone characteristics and processes are described in the Saturated Zone Modeling white
paper.
3.0 Disposal Cell Design
The general aspect of the Federal Cell (interchangeably termed the Federal DU Cell in this
document because of the focus of this model on disposal of DU) is that of a hipped cap, with
relatively steeper sloping sides nearer the edges. The upper part of the embankment, known as
the top slope, has a moderate slope, while the side slope is markedly steeper (20% as opposed to
2.4%). These two distinct areas, are modeled separately in the Clive DU PA Model. Each is built
in GoldSim to be modeled as a separate one-dimensional column, with an area equivalent to the
Federal DU Cell footprint. In the current Clive DU PA Model, the sideslope portion of the model
is inactive. The embankment is also constructed such that a portion of it lies below-grade. The
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 13
overall length of the embankment is 1317.8 ft and the overall width is 1775.0 ft. A detailed
description of embankment dimensions and a discussion of representation of the Federal DU Cell
in the GoldSim model are provided in the Embankment Modeling for the Clive DU PA Model
white paper.
Disposal involves placing waste on a prepared clay liner that is approximately 8 ft below the
ground surface. For the Federal DU Cell design, the depth of the waste below the top slope is a
maximum of 47.5 ft (14.5 m). A cover system is constructed above the waste. The objective of
the cover system is to limit contact of water with the waste. The cover is sloped to promote
runoff and designed to limit water flow by increasing evapotranspiration (ET). The arrangement
of the layers used for the ET cover design is shown in Figure 1. Beginning at the top of the
cover, the layers above the waste used for the ET cover design are:
• Surface layer: This layer is composed of native vegetated Unit 4 material with 15 percent
gravel mixture on the top slope and 50 percent gravel mixture for the side slope. This
layer is 6 inches thick. The functions of this layer are to control runoff, minimize erosion,
and maximize water loss from ET. This layer of silty clay provides storage for water
accumulating from precipitation events, enhances losses due to evaporation, and provides
a rooting zone for plants that will further decrease the water available for downward
movement.
• Evaporative Zone layer: This layer is composed of Unit 4 material. The thickness of this
layer is 12 inches. The purpose of this layer is to provide additional storage for
precipitation and additional depth for plant rooting zone to maximize ET.
• Frost Protection Layer: This material ranges in size from 16 inches to clay size particles.
This layer is 18 inches thick. The purpose of this layer is to protect layers below from
freeze/thaw cycles, wetting/drying cycles, and to inhibit plant, animal, or human
intrusion.
• Upper Radon Barrier: This layer consists of 12 inches of compacted clay with a low
hydraulic conductivity. This layer has the lowest conductivity of any layer in the cover
system. This is a barrier layer that reduces the downward movement of water to the waste
and the upward movement of gas out of the disposal cell. The as-built saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ksat) of this layer is 5.00E-08 cm/s (Whetstone Associates, Inc.
[Whetstone], 2011, Table 15).
• Lower Radon Barrier: This layer consists of 12 inches of compacted clay with a low
hydraulic conductivity. This is a barrier layer placed directly above the waste that reduces
the downward movement of water. The as-built Ksat of this layer is 1.00E-06 cm/s
(Whetstone 2011, Table 15).

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 14

Figure 1. Evapotranspiration (ET) cover profile showing materials, observation nodes, and
root distribution used in the HYDRUS-1D models.

4.0 Unsaturated Zone and Shallow Aquifer
The following description of the Clive site hydrology is taken from the review prepared by
Envirocare (2004). The site is described as being located on lacustrine (lake bed) deposits
associated with the former Lake Bonneville. The sediments underlying the facility are principally
interbedded silt, sand, and clay. Sediments at the site are described by Bingham Environmental
(1991, 1994) and Envirocare (2000, 2004) as being classified into four hydrostratigraphic units
(HSU). Predominant sediment textural class, layer thickness range, and average layer thickness
for each unit are listed in Table 3. A diagram of the unsaturated zone is shown in Figure 2.
Unit 4: This unit begins at the ground surface and extends to between 6 ft and 16.5 ft below the
ground surface (bgs). The average thickness of this unit is 10 ft. This unit is composed of finer
grained low permeability silty clay and clay silt.
Unit 3: Unit 3 underlies Unit 4 and ranges from 7 ft to 25 ft in thickness. The average thickness
of this unit is 15 ft. Unit 3 is described as consisting of silty sand with occasional lenses of silty
to sandy clay.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 15
Unit 2: Unit 2 underlies Unit 3 and ranges from 2.5 ft to 25 ft in thickness. The average
thickness of this unit is 15 ft. Unit 2 is described as being composed of clay with occasional silty
sand interbeds. A structure map was prepared by Envirocare (2004, Figure 5) with contours
representing the elevations of the top of the unit. This map shows that the top surface of Unit 2
slopes downward gradually from east to west in the vicinity of the Class A South cell.
Unit 1: Unit 1underlies Unit 2 and is saturated beneath the facility, containing a locally confined
aquifer. Unit 1 extends from approximately 45 ft bgs and contains the deep aquifer. The deeper
aquifer is reported to be made up of lacustrine deposits consisting of deposits of silty sand with
some silty clay layers. One or possibly more silty clay layers overlie the aquifer (Bingham
Environmental 1994).
Table 3. Texture class, thickness range, and average thickness for the hydrostratigraphic
units underlying the Clive site.
Unit Sediment Texture Class Thickness
Range (ft)
Average
Thickness (ft)
4 silt and clay 6 – 16.5 10
3 silty sand with interbedded silt and clay layers 7 – 25 15
2 clay with occasional silty sand interbeds 2.5 – 25 15
1 silty sand with interbedded clay and silt layers >620 >620

Figure 2. Stratigraphic profile showing ET cover, waste zone, and stratigraphy below the
Federal DU Cell.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 16
The aquifer system in the vicinity of the Clive Facility is described by Bingham Environmental
(1991, 1994) and Envirocare (2000, 2004) as consisting of unconsolidated basin-fill and alluvial
fan aquifers. Characterization of the aquifer system is based on subsurface stratigraphy
observations from borehole logs and from potentiometric measurements. The aquifer system is
described as being composed of two aquifers: a shallow, unconfined aquifer and a deep confined
aquifer. The shallow unconfined aquifer extends from the water table to a depth of
approximately 40 ft to 45 ft bgs. The water table in the shallow aquifer is reported to be located
in Unit 3 on the west side of the site and in Unit 2 on the east side.
The deep confined aquifer is encountered at approximately 45 ft bgs and extends through the
valley fill (Bingham 1994). The boring log from a water supply well drilled in adjoining Section
29 indicated continuous sediments to a depth of 620 ft bgs (DWR 2014, water right number 16-
816 and associated well log 11293). The deepest portion of the basin in the Clive area is believed
to be north of Clive in Ripple Valley where the basin fill was estimated to be 3,000 ft thick (Baer
and Benson (as cited in Black et al., 1999)).
Deeper saturated zones in Unit 1 below approximately 45 ft bgs are reported to show higher
potentiometric levels than the shallow unconfined aquifer. Differences in potentiometric levels
are attributed to the presence of the Unit 2 clays. These observations are interpreted as indicating
that the shallow unconfined aquifer below the site does not extend into Unit 1 but is contained
within Units 2 and 3 (Bingham Environmental, 1994). The aquifer systems are described in more
detail in the Saturated Zone Modeling white paper.
Recharge to the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of Clive is thought to be composed of three
components: a small amount due to vertical infiltration from the surface; some small amount of
lateral flow from recharge areas to the east of the site; and the majority of recharge believed to be
from upward vertical leakage from the deeper confined aquifer (Bingham Environmental, 1994).
Average annual groundwater recharge from the surface in the southern Great Salt Lake Desert in
the precipitation zone typical of Clive was estimated by Gates and Kruer (1981). An estimated
300 acre-feet per year were recharged to lacustrine deposits and other unconsolidated sediments
over an area of 47,100 acres. This is a recharge rate of approximately 0.08 in/yr.
Groundwater recharge from lateral flow occurs due to infiltration at bedrock and alluvial fan
deposits away from the Site, which moves laterally through the unconfined and confined aquifers
(Bingham Environmental, 1994). This is evidenced by the increasing salinity of the groundwater
due to dissolution of evaporate minerals as water moves from the recharge area to the aquifers
below the Facility (Bingham Environmental, 1994). The majority of recharge to the shallow
aquifer is believed by Bingham Environmental (1994) to be due to vertical leakage upward from
the deep confined aquifer due to the presence of upward hydraulic gradients.
Deeper saturated zones in Unit 1 below approximately 45 ft bgs are reported to show higher
potentiometric levels than the shallow unconfined aquifer. Differences in potentiometric levels
are attributed to the presence of the Unit 2 clays (Bingham Environmental, 1994). Vertical
gradients between shallow and deeper screened intervals in the monitor well clusters were
calculated by Bingham Environmental (1994). An upward vertical gradient was observed
ranging in magnitude from 0.02 to 0.04 based on the distance between the screen centers. For a
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 17
vertical hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-6 cm/s (Bingham Environmental, 1994), this
corresponds to a recharge range from 0.25 in/yr to 0.5 in/yr.
5.0 Climate
Precipitation measurements taken at the site over the 17-year period 1992 to 2009 show a mean
annual value of 8.53 inches (21.7 cm) (Whetstone 2011). The distribution of precipitation
throughout the year is shown in Figure 3. Precipitation exceeds the annual average from January
through June and again in October and is below average for the remaining months. The nearest
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station with a long-term
record is located in Dugway, Utah, approximately 40 miles to the south. The mean annual
precipitation for the same 17-year period measured at the Dugway station is 8.24 inches (20.9
cm). A comparison of the Dugway precipitation data for the 17-year period 1992 to 2009 with
the long-term average for Dugway was made by Whetstone (2011). This comparison indicated
that annual average precipitation during this 17-year period has been greater than the long-term
average at Dugway by 8 percent. Whetstone (2011) concluded that simulations of cover
performance using precipitation data from this 17-year period might be overestimating this
component of the site water balance.

Figure 3. Monthly mean precipitation for the Clive Site and monthly mean pan evaporation
for the NOAA BYU station at Provo, Utah.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 18
The HYDRUS-1D modeling performed is based on the 17-year record for consistency with the
modeling results reported in Whetstone (2011). However, an additional 2 years of monthly
precipitation data are available from Meteorological Solutions (2012). The 19-year average
precipitation is 8.62 inches (21.9 cm). This difference is driven primarily by the 4.28 inches of
rainfall in May 2011. The small change in the overall average suggests that the modeling results
presented for this analysis would not change significantly if the 19-year precipitation record had
been used instead of the 17-year record.
The close correspondence between mean monthly temperatures measured at the Clive site and
the Dugway NOAA station was demonstrated by Whetstone (2011). Average monthly
temperatures measured at the Clive site over the 17-year period 1992–2009 ranged from 27.7 oF
in December to 79.5 oF in July.
Mean monthly values of pan evaporation measured at the BYU NOAA station in Provo, Utah,
over the period 1980 to 2005 are shown in Figure 3. Mean annual pan evaporation over this time
period is 49.94 inches. This station is located 83 miles to the southeast of the Clive facility. Data
from this station are used because pan evaporation data are not available for the Dugway station.
Although the Clive site is warmer than Provo during the summer months as shown in Figure 4,
the data provide insight into the water balance at the site.

Figure 4. Monthly mean temperatures for the Clive Site and the NOAA BYU station at
Provo, Utah.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 19
Assuming pan evaporation is approximately equal to potential evapotranspiration (PET), the
ratio of annual average precipitation to PET is 0.17. Although PET greatly exceeds precipitation
on an annual basis, monthly means in Figure 3 show precipitation exceeds PET from November
through February. This indicates the potential for recharge during these months under natural
conditions at the site. This is only a coarse measure, however, that neglects other factors. Actual
recharge is estimated through modeling of net infiltration.
6.0 Vegetation
Actual transpiration is dependent on the characteristics of the plant communities at the site.
Vegetation cover at the site is less than 20 percent, with soils supporting a range of native and
invasive shrubs. Excavations at the site have shown plant rooting depths extending to
approximately 31 inches (80 cm) below the ground surface, with root density decreasing with
depth (SWCA 2011).
Vegetation surveys of three field plots on or adjacent to the Clive Site were conducted by SWCA
(2011). The three low desert vegetation associations were characterized as: black greasewood,
Plot 3; halogeton-disturbed, Plot 4; and shadscale-gray-molly, Plot 5. The dominant shrub in Plot
3 was black greasewood with a percent cover of 4.5% and the dominant forb was halogeton with
a percent cover of 0.7%. In Plot 4 the dominant shrub was shadscale saltbush with a percent
cover of 2.3% and the dominant forb was halogeton with a percent cover of 3.3%. In Plot 5 the
dominant shrub was shadscale saltbush with a percent cover of 12.5% and the dominant forb was
halogeton with percent cover of 0.9%.
Black greasewood, shadscale saltbush, and halogeton are all classified as facultative halophytes
(Anderson, 2004; Simonin, 2001; and Pavek, 1992). Facultative halophytes are known to benefit
from high salt concentrations in their growth media (Shabala, 2013). Halophytes are able to
adjust to saline environments through various physiological adaptations such as
compartmentalization of ions in cell vacuoles, succulence, and the elimination of salt through
salt-secreting glands and bladders (Shabala, 2013). Optimal growth for halophytes has been
demonstrated by Shabala (2013) to occur in media with a concentration of approximately 50 mM
NaCl for monocots, and between 100 and 200 mM for dicots. For the optimum range for dicots
of 100 to 200 millimoles per liter (mM), the corresponding range of electrical conductivity for a
NaCl solution is 9.7 to 18.3 mmho/cm (CRC, 1985).
Depending on the extent of the area defined on and adjacent to the Clive Site, approximately 80
to 90 percent of the soils are mapped as the Skumpah silt loam on 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS,
2013). This Unit is characterized as having maximum salinity ranging from 8.0 to 16.0
mmhos/cm. The top end of this range of maximum salinity does not exceed the maximum of the
range of salinity considered optimum for halophyte growth of 18.3 mmho/cm. Given the
similarity in ranges of salinity in the surface soils at the Clive Site and for optimum halophyte
growth, the influence of the osmotic head reduction in the root-water uptake water stress
response function is considered negligible and was, consequently, not included in the model.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 20
7.0 Properties of Unit 3 and Radon Barriers
7.1 Laboratory Measurements
As shown in Figure 2 above, Unit 3 underlies the clay liner and extends into the shallow
unconfined aquifer. The upper and lower radon barriers in the cover system are constructed using
Unit 4 material. This section describes the development of material property distributions for
Unit 3 and for the engineered radon barrier layers constructed from Unit 4 material. Although the
properties developed in this section are used for the radon barriers they will be referred to in this
section as Unit 4.
The hydraulic properties for Units 3 and 4 are based on laboratory measurements by the
Colorado State University (CSU) Porous Media Laboratory for the moisture retention and
hydraulic conductivity of core samples from Units 3 and 4 at the Clive Site (Bingham
Environmental, 1991). Measurements of water retention as a function of matric pressure (called
suction head in this report) are available for the drying and wetting cycles. These measurements
were performed on four cores: GW19A B1 and GW17A B2 from Unit 4 (a silty clay), and
GW18 B4 and GW17A B5 from Unit 3 (a silty sand). Measurements of hydraulic conductivity as
a function of moisture content are available for three cores: GW19A B1, GW18 B4, and GW17A
B5. The focus in this work (and in previous work) is on the wetting cycle data because
infiltration after rain, which is a major driver for downward flow and transport, is driven by a
rewetting front that passes through the engineered cover, waste, and clay layers. Appendix A
documents the hydraulic data for Units 3 and 4, based on data reported in Bingham
Environmental (1991, pp. B 19 through B 31).
7.2 Grain Size Distributions for the Cores
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the grain size distributions according to the Unified Soil Classification
System (Bingham Environmental, 1991) for cores from Units 4 and 3, respectively. Table 4 is
sorted by increasing percent of clay plus silt content. Table 5 is sorted by increasing percent of
sand content. The four cores that were tested by CSU have the following properties:
• GW17A B2 has 55.6% clay, the highest measured clay content with a trace of sand in
Table 4 for Unit 4,
• GW19A B1 has 56.2% silt, the highest measured silt content with a trace of sand in Table
4 for Unit 4,
• GW18 B4 has 45.5% sand, the lowest measured sand content in Table 5 for Unit 3, and
• GW17A B5 has 83.3% sand, the highest measured sand content in Table 5 for Unit 3.
The core samples that were selected for testing span the extremes of the clay, silt, and sand
contents for Units 3 and 4. The core samples that were tested are in a bold font in Tables 3 and 4.
The water retention data are consistent with these material distributions, as shown in Figure 5. In
particular, the core that has the greatest clay content retains a greater moisture content than the
cores that are high in silt or sand at a given suction head, and the core that has the greatest sand
content demonstrates the abrupt changes in moisture content that are typical of a sandy material.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 21
Table 4. Grain size distributions for cores from Unit 4, a silty clay.
Well/Sample
No.
Depth
(ft)
Description %
Gravel
%
Sand
%
Silt
%
Clay
%
Clay +
Silt
Reference
I-3-50 (SE) 1.5 Silty Clay 0 39.3 60.7 Bingham 1994,
page 23
I-4-50 (SE) 10.5 Silty Clay 0 19.6 80.4 Bingham 1994,
page 32
I-3-50 (SE) 10.5 Silty Clay 0 16.6 83.4 Bingham 1994,
page 24
I-1-50 (NW) 7.5 Silty Clay 0 11.7 88.3 Bingham 1994,
page 13
GW-16/S-1 3 - 5 Brown Silty Clay
w/Trace Fine Sand
0.1 11.2 50.3 38.4 88.7 Bingham 1991,
page B-13
GW-19A/S-1 5-7 Brown Silty Clay
w/Trace Fine Sand
0 2.8 56.2 41.0 97.2 Bingham 1991,
page B-17
GW-17A/L-2 7-9.5 Brown Silty Clay
w/Trace Fine Sand
0 2.1 42.3 55.6 97.9 Bingham 1991,
page B-15
GW-18/B-1 5-6.5 Brown Silty Clay
w/Trace Fine Sand
0 2.0 49.9 48.1 98.0 Bingham 1991,
page B-16
I-4-50 (SE) 7.5 Silty Clay 0 1.2 98.8 Bingham 1994,
page 31
Cores in bold font were tested by CSU.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 22
Table 5. Grain size distributions for cores from Unit 3, a silty sand.
Well/Sample
No.
Depth
(ft)
Description %
Gravel
%
Sand
%
Silt
%
Clay
%
Clay +
Silt
Reference
GW-18/S-4 20-22 Brown Silty Fine
Sand w/Some Clay
0 45.5 38.7 15.8 54.5 Bingham 1991,
page B-16
I-1-50 (NW) 18.0 Silty Sand 0 48.2 51.8 Bingham 1994,
page 15
DH-48/B-2 17-19 Tan Silty Sand 0 55.5 44.5 Bingham 1994,
page B-11
GW-16/B-4 19.5-
21
Tan Silty Fine Sand 0 59.4 40.6 Bingham 1991,
page B-14
I-3-50 (SE) 19.5 Silty Sand 0 62.3 37.7 Bingham 1994,
page 26
GW-41/B-6 10-12 Tan Silty Sand 0 65.3 34.7 Bingham 1994,
page B-10
GW-41/B-9 16-18 Tan Silty Sand 0 66.3 33.7 Bingham 1994,
page B-10
I-1-50 (NW) 10.5 Silty Sand 0 66.6 33.4 Bingham 1994,
page 14
GW-19B/B-4 17-19 Tan Silty Fine Sand 0 66.7 33.3 Bingham 1991,
page B-18
GW-55/B-8 14-16 Tan Silty Sand 1.1 69.5 29.4 Bingham 1994,
page B-11
DH-33/L-7 16.5 Tan Silty Sand 0.1 72.9 27 Bingham 1994,
page B-9
GW-16/B-3 14.5-
16
Tan Silty Fine Sand 0.2 74.7 25.1 Bingham 1991,
page B-13
I-3-50 (SE) 15 Silty Sand 0 75.8 24.2 Bingham 1994,
page 25
I-4-50 (SE) 21 Silty Sand 0 76.4 23.6 Bingham 1994,
page 33
GW-16/B-2 9.5-11 Tan Silty Fine Sand 1.6 79.8 18.6 Bingham 1991,
page B-13
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 23
Well/Sample
No.
Depth
(ft)
Description %
Gravel
%
Sand
%
Silt
%
Clay
%
Clay +
Silt
Reference
GW-19A/S-3 15-16 Brown Silty Fine
Sand
0 82.0 18 Bingham 1991,
page B-17
GW-17A/L-5 19.5-
22
Brown Silty Fine
Sand w/Trace Clay
0 83.8 8.4 7.8 16.2 Bingham 1991,
page B-15
GW-19B/L-5 22-
24.5
Tan Silty Fine Sand 0 83.8 16.2 Bingham 1991,
page B-18
Cores in bold font were tested by CSU.

Figure 5. Comparison of water retention data (wetting cycle) for four core samples
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 24
7.3 Soil Material Properties
Particle density ρs is defined as the ratio of the mass of the solid to the volume of the solid:
ρs = Msolid / Vsolid.
Particle density depends on the chemical composition and crystalline structure of the mineral
particles. Particle density is not influenced by particle size, packing arrangement, or pore space.
Dry bulk density ρb is defined as the ratio of the mass of dried alluvium to its total volume,
ρb = Msolid / Vtotal.
For a dried sample, Vtotal = Vsolid + Vgas.
Porosity, ϕ, (often also denoted as n) is the relative pore volume of the medium,
(Vliquid + Vgas )/ (Vsolid + Vliquid + Vgas).
For a dry sample, porosity is Vgas / (Vsolid + Vgas). Total porosity can be determined from dry bulk
density and particle density by ϕ = 1 – ρb / ρs. Therefore, relating these equations,
ϕ=1– ρb /ρs= (ρs - ρb )/ρs = [Msolid /Vsolid –Msolid /(Vsolid + Vgas)]/( Msolid/Vsolid =Vgas /( Vsolid+Vgas ).
The structure of coarse dry alluvium is generally single grained. The actual packing arrangement
depends on grain size distribution, grain shape, and the processes under which the alluvium was
deposited. The grain size distribution can consist of a single grain size (monodisperse) or
multiple grain sizes (polydisperse). The packing arrangements of spherical grains of uniform size
can be represented by models for regular packing that allow the calculation of the spacing of
layers, the volume of a unit cell, and thus the bulk density. Although monodisperse systems are
idealizations of natural porous materials such as alluvium, calculated relationships between
particle density and bulk density gives some insight into potential particle density—bulk density
correlation. The unit cell volume, bulk density, and porosity are given in Table 6 below for five
models of regular packing of uniform spheres.
Table 6. Theoretical porosities based on particle packing geometry.
Model Unit Cell Volume
(R is grain radius)
Bulk Density Porosity
simple cubic 8R3 πρs/6 47.64
cubic tetrahedral 4√3 R3 πρs/3√3 39.54
tetragonal sphenoidal 6R3 2 πρs/9 30.19
pyramidal 4√2R3 πρs/3√2 25.95
tetrahedral 4√2R3 πρs/3√2 25.95
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 25
These calculations show that the bulk density of a volume of monodisperse spheres of constant
particle density depends on the packing arrangement. Thus, correlation between particle density
and bulk density would only be expected for a sample characterized by a single packing
arrangement.
Polydisperse systems are more complex with grains of smaller radii filling in the pore spaces
between larger grains. The increase in bulk density due to infilling by smaller particles depends
on the grain size distribution. Natural materials are more likely to be characterized by a range of
particle sizes leading to many diverse packing arrangements. The large range of possible packing
arrangements in coarse alluvium makes a physically based correlation between particle density
and bulk density unlikely.
Given the conclusion that particle density and bulk density are not physically dependent and
given the need to restrict the sampling of material properties and moisture content parameters to
physically meaningful and consistent values, the following approach was taken:
1. Separate up-scaled distributions for Units 3 and 4 for saturated water content and residual
water content are estimated from borehole water retention curve and hydraulic
conductivity data. This estimation approach is detailed in subsequent sections.
2. Porosity is assumed to be equal to the saturated water content.
3. Based on particle density data presented in Table 7 and best professional judgment, a
constant value of 2.65 g/cm3 was chosen for particle density for both Units 3 and 4, and
the frost protection layer.
4. Based on bulk density data presented in Table 7 and best professional judgment, an up-
scaled distribution for bulk density was specified as a normal distribution with a mean of
(1- porosity) times particle density and a standard deviation of 0.1. This was applied to
both Units 3 and 4, and the frost protection layer.
This approach allows the uncertainty in water content and bulk density to be modeled while
maintaining a physically coherent probabilistic unsaturated zone model.
Table 7. Bulk density, porosity, and calculated particle density data from water retention
experiments.
Borehole Unit Bulk Density
(g/cm)
Porosity Calculated Particle Density
(g/cm3)
GW18-B4 3 1.567 0.409 2.65
GW17A-B5 3 1.673 0.32 2.46
GW19A-B1 4 1.397 0.473 2.65
GW17A-B2 4 1.326 0.505 2.68
from CSU Porous Media Laboratory
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 26
7.4 Soil Moisture Content
The flow of water in porous media occurs in response to a gradient in the total potential energy
of water. The total potential can be composed of a number of components but this analysis will
be restricted to gravitational and matric potentials. Water potential components are often
expressed in units of energy per unit weight rather than units of energy per unit mass. When the
quantity of water is expressed as a weight, the units of potential are defined in terms of head. The
gravitational potential refers to the energy of water with respect to reference elevation and is
written here as Z. Although not a formal definition, the matric potential relates to the energy of
the tension imposed on the pore water by the soil matrix. Matric potential is a negative value and
is written here as ψ. The total potential is then H = ψ + Z.
Steady-state fluid flow in an unsaturated medium is defined by the Buckingham-Darcy equation
(Jury and Horton, 2004, p. 95). In the following discussion this equation will be referred to
simply as the Darcy equation. The one-dimensional form of Darcy’s equation for unsaturated
flow is given by Fayer (2000, Eqns. 4.2 and 4.5):
𝑞=−𝐾!(𝜓)∂𝐻
∂𝑧 (1)
where
q is the flux of liquid per unit area,
KL is the unsaturated conductivity as a function of the matric head ψ,
H is the matric plus gravitational potentials [cm], and
z is the depth below ground surface [cm].

It is convenient to define two sign conventions for the total potential (Fayer 2000, page 4.2):
(1) the z-coordinate is zero at the soil surface and positive downward. With this convention, the
gravitational head in the soil, which is defined as the elevation of a point with respect to the soil
surface, is negative and defined as -z; and (2) the suction head, h, is the negative of the matric
potential or matric head, ψ. With this convention, the suction head, h, is always greater than zero
for an unsaturated soil. It follows that
𝐻=𝜓+𝑍=−(ℎ+𝑧) (2)
and the flux is then given by
𝑞=𝐾!ℎ∂ℎ
∂𝑧+1 (3)
The unsaturated conductivity, KL, is formulated based on the Brooks-Corey (1964) representation
for moisture content as a function of suction head
𝛩=ℎ
ℎ!
!!
for                            ℎ>ℎ!
                                   =1              for                                0 ≤ℎ≤ℎ!
(4)
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 27
where
Θ is the effective saturation,
h is the suction head (cm),
hb is the bubbling pressure head (cm) at which moisture first drains from the
material, and
l is a constant that is fit to data.
Alternatively, expressed in terms of the fractal dimension, D
𝛩=ℎ
ℎ!
!!!
for                    ℎ>ℎ!
                                       =1                    for                      0 ≤ℎ≤ℎ!
(5)
The suction head is positive for an unsaturated material and 0 at saturation. Θ, the effective
saturation, is defined as
𝛩=𝜃−𝜃!
𝜃!−𝜃!
(6)
where
θ is the moisture content,
θr is the residual moisture content, and
θs is the saturated moisture content.

Combining Equations
𝜃=𝜃!+𝜃!−𝜃!
ℎ
ℎ!
!!
(7)
This equation can then be fit to core data.
Alternatively, expressing in terms of D and assuming
𝜃=𝜃!+(𝜃!−𝜃!)ℎ
ℎ!
!!!
(8)
Using the Mualem theory for predicting hydraulic conductivity (Mualem 1976), the unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity is defined as
𝐾!=𝐾!𝛩!!!! (9)
Substituting Equation 6 into Equation 9 gives:
𝐾!=𝐾!
𝜃−𝜃!
𝜃!−𝜃!
!!!
! (10)
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 28
Setup (e.g. Unit 3):
1. from 4 measurements estimate mean and standard error for porosity (φ ) and θr, use these
as priors for θs and θr (assumes θs = φ ).
2. for each borehole core there are 2 separate measurements:
1. moisture content, θ ; and suction head, h
2. moisture content, θ ; and hydraulic conductivity KL
3. estimate hb, D, θs, θr , and Ks as described below.
Here is the Brooks-Corey θ ~ f (h) equation:
𝜃=𝜃!+(𝜃!−𝜃!)ℎ
ℎ!
(!!!)
(11)
Here is KL ~ f ( θ )
𝐾!=𝐾!
𝜃−𝜃!
𝜃!−𝜃!
!(!!!/(!!!))
(12)
where the data are
θ the water content,
h is the suction head (cm),
KL is hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec),

and the parameters to be fit are

hb is the air entry pressure head (cm),
D is the soil fractal dimension,
θs is the saturated water content,
θr is the residual water content,
τ is the Mualem empirical parameter = 2,
KS is saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec).

Typically these relationships are fit using non-linear least squares. However for these boreholes
the least squares optimization had trouble converging and the uncertainty in parameter estimates
was difficult to estimate. To allow combining of information across the available borehole
moisture content and hydraulic conductivity datasets and to provide an estimate of the
uncertainty in these parameter estimates, a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
simulation approach was taken that allows the parameters to be constrained via prior
distributions and generates parameter posterior distributions. This also allows the two sets of
information from a borehole to be combined as well as allowing for combining information
across boreholes for a unit (borehole data are presented in Appendix A).
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 29
In a Bayesian approach sources of information on model parameters can be combined through a
prior distribution or through a data likelihood. The priors integrate expert judgment and scientific
knowledge while the likelihood integrates information available in observed data. In effect, the
priors can be used to constrain the results parameter distribution to physically meaningful values.
The priors listed below (Equations 13–19) are all uniform distributions. As such they are
relatively non-informative, which allow the data to determine the distribution and also constrain
the parameter values to a physically meaningful range.
𝑝(𝜃!)=𝑈[0.3,0.55] (13)
𝑝(𝜃!)=𝑈[0.001,0.2] (14)
𝑝(ℎ!)=𝑈[1,500] (15)
𝑝(𝐷)=𝑈[1,2.999] (16)
𝑝(𝜎)=𝑈[0.001,1000] (17)
𝑝(𝐾!)=𝑈[10e −10,10e −3] (18)
𝑝(𝜎!!)=𝑈[1e −9,1e −4] (19)
The likelihood based on the moisture content matrix pressure data:
𝑝(𝜃!,ℎ!,𝐷,𝜎|𝜃!"#$!!"#!,𝜃!"#$!!"#!,ℎ!"#$!!"#!,ℎ!"#$!!"#!)=
𝑁!"#$!!"#!𝜃!+(𝜃!−𝜃!)ℎ!"#$!!"#!
ℎ!
(!!!)
,𝜎
𝑁!"#$!!"#!𝜃!+(𝜃!−𝜃!)ℎ!"#$!!"#!
ℎ!
(!!!)
,𝜎
(20)

The likelihood based on the moisture content hydraulic conductivity data:

𝑝(𝜃!,𝜃!,𝐷,𝐾!,𝜎!!|𝜃!"#$!!"#!,𝜃!"#$!!"#!,𝐾!!"#$!!"!!,𝐾!!"#$!!"#!)=
𝑁!"#$!!"#!𝐾!
(𝜃−𝜃!)
(𝜃!−𝜃!)
!(!!!/(!!!))
,𝜎!!
𝑁!"#$!!"#!𝐾!
(𝜃−𝜃!)
(𝜃!−𝜃!)
!(!!!/(!!!))
,𝜎!!
(21)
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation of the joint distribution defined by equations
13-21 was used to generate samples from the marginal parameter distributions for the moisture
content and hydraulic conductivity models. Results for Units 3 and 4 are presented in the
following sections.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 30
7.4.1 Unit 3 Brooks-Corey Parameters
The MCMC sampling using likelihoods incorporating the two Unit 3 borehole cores resulted in
the following marginal parameter distributions:
𝑝(ℎ!)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=8.85,𝑠𝑑=0.929] (22)
𝑝(𝐷)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=2.73,𝑠𝑑=5.21e −3] (23)
𝑝(𝐾!)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=5.14e −05,𝑠𝑑=5.95e −6] (24)
𝑝(𝜃!)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=0.393,𝑠𝑑=6.11e −03] (25)
𝑝(𝜃!)=𝑁[𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑒=6.78e −3,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒=2.05e −3] (26)
Significant correlations from these simulations were found between D and hb (-0.85) and
between Ks and D (-0.98).
7.4.2 Unit 4 Brooks-Corey Parameters
The MCMC sampling using likelihoods incorporating the two Unit 4 borehole cores resulted in
the following marginal parameter distributions:
𝑝(ℎ!)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=104.,𝑠𝑑=1.72] (27)
𝑝(𝐷)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=2.81,𝑠𝑑=9.93e −5] (28)
𝑝(𝐾!)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=5.16e −05,𝑠𝑑=5.97e −7] (29)
𝑝(𝜃!)=𝑁[𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=0.428,𝑠𝑑=9.08e −3] (30)
𝑝(𝜃!)=𝑁[𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑒=0.108,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒=8.95e −4] (31)
Significant correlations from these simulations were found between D and hb (-0.66) and
between Ks and D (-0.37).
8.0 Properties of Upper Cover Layers
Upper cover layers include the surface, evaporative zone, and frost protection layers. The surface
and evaporative zone layers are constructed from Unit 4 material. These layers will be
revegetated so the objective in construction will be to make their properties similar to that of
undisturbed Unit 4 silty clay. As a result, the porosity of these layers will be greater than the
porosity of the clay liner and radon barriers that will be more highly compacted. Uncertainty in
the porosity and bulk density for surface and evaporative zone layers was estimated using a
distribution (mean and standard error) for the saturated water content taken from the Rosetta
database of hydraulic parameters for the textural class of silty clay (Schaap 2002). This
distribution was normal with a mean of 0.481 and a standard deviation of 0.015.
The frost protection layer is modeled as a combination of sand, silt, and gravel. Uncertainty in
the porosity and bulk density for this layer was estimated using a distribution (mean and standard
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 31
error) for the saturated water content taken from the Carsel and Parrish (1988) database of
hydraulic parameters for the textural class of sandy loam. A sandy loam was chosen because it
represented a coarse-grained material with some silt and clay. This distribution was normal with
a mean of 0.41 and a standard deviation of 0.0026.
9.0 Properties of Waste
Test data are not available for the unsaturated porous media properties of the wastes. However,
the DU waste is expected to be in a powdered form or possibly compressed into small
“briquettes” for safety during transportation to the Clive facility. In this condition, the DU waste
will behave like a mixture of fine sand to fine gravel. Since there is so little information on
which to base material properties for the waste, it is assigned the properties of Unit 3.
Three types of waste materials are considered in the DU PA: Generic LLW, the UO3 waste from
the SRS, and the U3O8 wastes from the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) at Portsmouth, OH, and
Paducah, KY. The generic LLW is used only as an inert filler in the model, with no inventory,
and is assumed to simply have the properties of local silty sandy soil: Unit 3.
The uranium oxide wastes, both UO3 and U3O8, will be disposed in an indeterminate mix of
materials, including containers (55 gallon drums and DU cylinders of various types) and possibly
concrete, grout, bulk LLW, and local soils as backfill. This complex mix of heterogeneous
materials is not modeled at this point, and the assumption is made instead that the overall
material properties are again simply that of local silty sandy soil: Unit 3.
So, in summary, all waste materials in the Clive DU PA Model are assumed to have the same
physical properties as Unit 3 soils.
10.0 Properties of the Clay Liner
The Liner is constructed of compacted local clay, Unit 4 material. Porosity and bulk density
values for the clay liner are assumed to be the same as the Radon Barrier Clays, as these clays
are all compacted, unlike the surface and ET layer Unit 4 material. Brooks-Corey parameters
were assigned to be the same as Unit 4, as described in Section 7.4.2. The distribution for
saturated hydraulic conductivity was developed using the design value from Table 8 of
Whetstone (2007) for the clay liner of 1 × 10-6 cm/s as the geometric mean of a lognormal
distribution. A geometric standard deviation of 1.2 was chosen to provide an approximate order
of magnitude variation above and below the geometric.
11.0 Properties of the Unsaturated Zone below the Clay Liner
The Federal DU Cell is constructed by excavating through Unit 4, and into the top of Unit 3. The
entire unsaturated zone below the embankment, from the bottom of the clay liner to the top of the
saturated zone, is modeled as Unit 3 material, sharing all the properties and characteristics of
Unit 3 as outlined in this white paper. The saturated zone is modeled as Unit 2 (see the Saturated
Zone Modeling white paper). In the GoldSim PA Model, this zone below the embankment is
called the “Unsat zone” and does not include overlying waste and cover materials. It is part of
both the top slope and side slope columns.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 32
The thickness of the Unsat zone below the Federal DU Cell is determined by the difference in
average elevations of the bottom of the clay liner and the water table. The clay liner is uniformly
about 60 cm (2 ft) thick by design, though the bottom of the waste cell has a gentle slope to it as
documented in the Embankment Modeling white paper.
A distribution for the thickness of the unsaturated zone was established based on measurements
for groundwater wells, engineering drawings for the Federal DU Cell (see the Embankment
Modeling white paper), and consideration of the accuracy of the elevation measurements. The
four wells are selected from a map of wells (Figure 7 in Bingham Environmental, 1991): GW
19A, GW 25, GW 27, and GW-60, since the location of these four wells bound the Class A
waste cell. Each groundwater well is in the vicinity of one of the four corners of the Federal DU
Cell, so their measurements are treated as approximations to the water table elevation at the four
corners. These water table elevations are also used to establish the distributions for the thickness
of the saturated zone, and are documented in the Saturated Zone Modeling white paper.
12.0 Modeling of Net Infiltration and Water Content for the
Clive DU PA Model
Steady-state water infiltration rates and water contents for the cover layers required as input for
the Clive DU PA GoldSim model were calculated from a regression model developed from
infiltration modeling using the HYDRUS-1D software package. This section describes the
abstraction of the HYDRUS-1D results into the probabilistic framework employed by GoldSim.
12.1 Description of HYDRUS
HYDRUS-1D was selected for simulating the performance of the ET cover proposed for the DU
waste cell. The HYDRUS-1D platform was selected for this project because of its ability to
simulate processes known to have a significant role in water flow in landfill covers in arid
regions. HYDRUS includes the capabilities to simulate:
• water flow in variably saturated porous media,
• material hydraulic property functions,
• atmospheric surface boundary conditions including precipitation and evapotranspiration,
• root water uptake, and
• free-drainage boundary conditions.

The flow component of unsaturated flow and transport software packages with atmospheric
boundary conditions such as HYDRUS solve modified forms of the Richards equation for
variably saturated water flow. The flow equation incorporates a sink term to account for water
uptake by plant roots. HYDRUS can be applied to one-, two-, and three-dimensional problems.
The HYDRUS software includes grid generators for structured and unstructured finite element
meshes. Programs such as HYDRUS require detailed data to represent the atmospheric boundary
conditions and plant responses that are the dominant influences on flow in the cover in arid and
semi-arid conditions. These programs use the infiltration capacity of the soil at any time as
calculated in the model to partition precipitation into infiltration and overland flow. HYDRUS
has been used for many applications for unsaturated zone modeling and has received numerous
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 33
favorable reviews such as Scanlon’s (2004) review of HYDRUS-1D, Diodato’s (2000) review of
HYDRUS-2D, and McCray’s (2007) review of the most recent program, HYDRUS (2D/3D).
HYDRUS-1D was selected for simulating flow in the Federal DU Cell ET cover since previous
numerical modeling of flow in the similar ET cover design for the Class A West cover
demonstrated that subsurface lateral flow was not significant (EnergySolutions, 2012). To test
the importance of 2-D flow effects in the ET cover design, 2-D transient flow simulations were
conducted for representative sections of the cover. The approach taken was to model a section of
the side slope in two dimensions. Representative hydraulic properties were assigned to the ET
cover layers and the models were run with daily atmospheric boundary conditions for 100 years.
Root water uptake was modeled assuming the roots extended to the bottom of the evaporative
zone layer and that rooting density decreased with depth.
The results of these 2-D simulations demonstrated that water flow in the cover system for both
designs is predominantly vertical with no significant horizontal component. These results
demonstrate that 1-D models can be used to provide a defensible analysis of cover performance
for the ET cover design due to the lack of lateral flow.
HYDRUS-1D models were developed for the evapotranspiration cover designs for the DU waste
cell (Figure 1). Model development requires construction of a computational grid based on the
geometry of the model domain. Hydraulic properties for each layer required for the model are
available from previous studies at the site or can be estimated from site-specific measurements
such as particle size distributions. HYDRUS requires daily values of precipitation, potential
evaporation, and potential transpiration to represent the time-variable boundary conditions on the
upper surface of the cover. Representative boundary conditions were developed from records of
nearby meteorological observations. Parameters for describing root water uptake were available
from the literature.
HYDRUS implements the soil-hydraulic functions of van Genuchten (1980), who used the
statistical pore-size distribution model of Mualem (1976) to obtain a predictive equation for the
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function in terms of soil water retention parameters. The
expressions of van Genuchten (1980) are given by
𝜃ℎ=
𝜃!+𝜃!−𝜃!
1 +𝛼ℎ!!ℎ<0
𝜃!ℎ≥0
(32)
𝐾(ℎ)=𝐾!𝑆!![1 −1 −𝑆!
!!
!
]! (33)
where
𝑚=1 −1/𝑛, 𝑛>1 (34)
The above equations contain five independent parameters: θr, θs, α, n, and Ks. The pore-
connectivity parameter “l” (lower-case L) in the hydraulic conductivity function was estimated
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 34
(Mualem, 1976) to be about 0.5 as an average for many soils. The value for l is commonly taken
to be 0.5, and this value was used for all simulations for all soil types. The effective saturation,
Se, is identical to Θ in Equation 6.
12.2 Conceptual Model
Recharge is an important process in controlling the release of contaminants to the groundwater
pathway. Site characteristics influencing movement of water from precipitation through the
vadose zone to the water table at the Clive Site include climate, soil characteristics, and native
vegetation. Engineered barriers are used at the Clive Site to control the flow of water into the
waste. A hydrologic model of the waste disposal system must realistically represent
precipitation, the source of water to the system, runoff, evaporation, transpiration, and changes in
storage to estimate the flow through the system. Under natural conditions plants remove water
from the upper soil zone through root uptake and transpiration, reducing the water available for
seepage deeper into the profile. The same processes occur in an engineered cover layer that has
been revegetated. Seepage through a cover system can occur when soils become wet enough to
increase their conductivity to water. Cover surface layers with adequate storage capacity can
hold the water in the near surface until it can move back into the atmosphere through
evaporation, reducing the seepage of water to the waste. These processes would be expected to
show temporal variability at the Clive Site on the time scale of minutes to hours in the near
surface and days to years deeper in the disposal cell. Processes that tend to change cover
properties such as plant and animal activity and climate influences (e.g. frost heave, erosion) are
expected to be slowed by the effects of aeolian deposition.
12.3 Climate and Vegetation Parameters
Infiltration of precipitation, surface runoff, and evaporation under time-varying climate
conditions are modeled by HYDRUS. The data required includes daily values of precipitation,
potential evaporation, and potential transpiration to represent the time-variable boundary
conditions on the upper surface of the cover. The location of nearby meteorological stations and
the time period of available records were discussed in Section 5. The long-term evaluation period
for this analysis makes it necessary to generate a representative climate record with a longer term
than the existing data.
The WGEN model (Richardson and Wright 1984) was used to generate a 100-year synthetic
precipitation record for the site. The WGEN model is a component of the HELP model
(Schroeder et al. 1994a, 1994b). A 100-year precipitation record was generated using the
monthly average values from measurements at the site based on 17 years of observations. This
100-year record is shown in Figure 6. The annual mean was 8.42 inches (21.38 cm/yr) with a
maximum daily precipitation of 1.09 inches (2.77 cm).
Daily potential evapotranspiration (PET) was calculated with values of daily maximum (Tmax),
minimum (Tmin), and mean (Tmean) temperatures and extraterrestrial radiation using the
Hargreaves method (Neitsch et al. 2005). This approach is used extensively and is documented in
the HYDRUS manuals (Šimůnek et al. 2009). Using the Hargreaves method, PET is calculated
as
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 35
 λ𝐸!=0.0023 ∗𝐻!∗𝑇!"#−𝑇!"#!/!∗(𝑇!"#$+17.8) (35)
where
λ latent heat of vaporization [MJ kg-1],
E0 potential evapotranspiration [mm d-1],
H0 extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m-2 d-1],
Tmax maximum air temperature for the day [°C],
Tmin minimum air temperature for the day [°C],
Tmean mean temperature for the day [°C].

Monthly mean values for Tmax and Tmin based on a 30-year record are available from the Dugway,
Utah, NOAA station (WRCC 2012). Monthly average temperatures were used from this long-
term record in HELP to provide daily 100-year records for Tmax and Tmin. Tmax ranged from 14.7
to 110.7°F with a mean of 66.4 oF. Tmin ranged from -9.1 to 75.3°F with a mean of 36.5°F. Tmean
ranged from 2.8 to 93°F with a mean of 51.4°F. Daily maximum and minimum air temperatures
for a 100-year record are shown in
Figure 7. Daily PET values for a 100-year record were then calculated from these temperature
data using the Hargreaves method described above. The daily 100-year PET record is shown in
Figure 8.
The HYDRUS atmospheric boundary condition requires that potential soil evaporation and
potential transpiration be specified separately. Potential evaporation (Ep) and potential
transpiration (Tp) can be calculated from PET using the Beer-Lambert law (Varado et al. 2006;
Wang et al. 2009). This calculation requires an estimate of the vegetation leaf area index (LAI).
The leaf area index is the one-sided active leaf area per unit ground surface area. Using the Beer-
Lambert law
𝑇!=PET ∗1 −exp −𝑎!"∗𝐿𝐴𝐼
𝐸!=𝑃𝐸𝑇∗exp −𝑎!"∗𝐿𝐴𝐼 (36)
where the abl coefficient accounts for radiation intercepted by vegetation and is given the default
value of 0.5 (Varado et al. 2006).
A single LAI value of 0.082 was used for all the HYDRUS-1D simulations. This value was
provided by Goodman (1973) for the total yield (all spp.) for a mixed vegetation plot for the
month of April. The Goodman (1973) study was located in the Curlew Valley, UT, portion of the
glacial Lake Bonneville, located approximately 75 miles north of the Clive Site.
Root water uptake depends on the estimation of daily potential transpiration (described above),
the depth of the rooting zone, the variation of root density with depth, and the parameters used to
describe the water stress function. Measurements of rooting depth and root distribution were
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 36
made in two excavations by SWCA (2011). Rooting depths and density for the two most
prevalent species are shown in Figure 9.
Root distribution was modeled as extending into the frost protection layer with a maximum depth
of 31 inches (80 cm). Root density was modeled as decreasing linearly with depth.
The van Genuchten S-shaped model (van Genuchten, 1987) was used to model root water
uptake. In this model the actual root water uptake is given by the potential transpiration
multiplied by a water stress response function. For soil water pressures above the wilting point
the water stress response function is given by
𝛼(ℎ,ℎ!)=1
1 +ℎ+ℎ!ℎ!"
! (37)
where h is the soil pressure head, hφ is the osmotic head, and h50 and p are parameters. Given the
discussion in Section 6 on osmotic potential, the osmotic stress is assumed to be negligible for
these simulations, so hφ is zero. The parameter h50 corresponds to the pressure head at which
water uptake is reduced by 50 percent. A value of -200 cm was used for these simulations. A
HYDRUS default value of 3 was used for the exponent p. The water stress response function
with these parameters is shown in Figure 10.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 37

Figure 6. 100-year daily precipitation record generated from monthly average values of
daily measurements at the site based on 17 years of observations.

Figure 7. 100-year daily Tmax and Tmin record generated from a 30-year record available
from the Dugway, Utah NOAA station.

Figure 8. 100-year daily potential evaporation generated using the Hargreaves method.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 38

Figure 9. Root density with depth at the Clive Site for Shadscale and Black Greasewood
[SWCA 2011].

Figure 10. Water stress response function for root water uptake model.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 39
12.4 Model Geometry
The HYDRUS-1D models were constructed using the maximum number of nodes (1001), with
nodes evenly spaced down a 152-cm deep profile such that each node had a 0.152-cm spacing.
The top slope of the waste cover was simulated, with a slope set to 2.4% (1.4 degrees).
The HYDRUS-1D model geometry for all simulations is shown in Figure 1, which shows the
thickness of each material layer in the ET cover. Observation nodes were placed in the center of
each layer, with an additional node at the bottom boundary.
12.5 Material Properties
The hydraulic properties for each of the layers within the ET cover for the HYDRUS-1D
modeling are summarized in Table 8. The source of each hydraulic property for each layer is
provided in this table. Bingham (1991, p. B-20) is the source of hydraulic properties measured on
core samples collected at the Clive Site. Whetstone (2011, Table 17) is the source of the design
specifications for the Ks of the two radon barriers. For the frost protection layer, hydraulic
properties for a sandy loam were used and taken from the HYDRUS-1D pull-down menu, which
includes properties from the database of Carsel and Parrish (1988). Table 8 also identifies several
properties as “Variable.” These properties were associated with an infiltration and water content
model based on statistical distributions of hydraulic properties developed to provide net
infiltration and volumetric water content to the GoldSim DU PA Model.
The nine cores sampled from Unit 4 at the site and listed in Table 4 are all described as a silty
clay texture. However, hydraulic properties were available for only two of the nine cores (see
Appendix A). To provide a better estimate of the uncertainty of the hydraulic properties of Unit 4
that compose the surface and evaporative zone layers of the ET cover, the α and n values were
taken from the distributions (mean and standard deviation) for each parameter from the Rosetta
database of hydraulic parameters for the textural class of silty clay (Schaap 2002). The standard
deviations were converted to standard errors by dividing by √n where n is the number of
samples, 28 in this case. The distributions for α and n are summarized here:
A: log (base-10) mean = -1.79, log (base-10) standard error = 0.121 (38)
N: log (base-10) mean = 0.121, log (base-10) standard error = 0.019 (39)
where α = 10A and n = 10N. The units of α are 1/cm and n is dimensionless.
Normal distributions of A and N were sampled 50 times, and then transposed from log space by
calculating 10A, and 10N for the 50 sampled values. In addition, N was truncated such that it
could not be less than 0.0 (required in Equation 32).
An expanded assessment of the performance of the radon barriers was made possible by
developing a distribution for the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of the radon barriers to use
for the modeling. The Ks values for the radon barriers were sampled from a distribution
developed from a minimum value of 4.32×10-3 cm/day corresponding to the design specification
for the upper radon barrier (Whetstone 2007, Table 8), and 1st, 50th, and 99th percentile values of
0.65 cm/day, 3.8 cm/day, and 52 cm/day, respectively, which are from a range of in-service
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 40
(“naturalized”) clay barrier Ks values described by Benson et al. (2011, Section 6.4, p. 6-12). A
shifted lognormal distribution was fit to the 1st, 50th, and 99th percentiles, and the minimum value
of 4.32E-3 cm/day was used as a shift. The resulting distribution is:
𝐾𝑠  ~  𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚.𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛:3.37  𝑐𝑚/𝑑𝑎𝑦,𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚.𝑠𝑑:  3.23  𝑐𝑚/𝑑𝑎𝑦, with a right shift of
0.00432 cm/day
For all HYDRUS simulations, the same Ks value was applied to both the upper and lower radon
barriers.
Correlations between α and n were investigated by analyzing the combinations of α and n for the
12 textural classes in Rosetta (Schaap, 2002), and no correlations were evident. There were also
no statistically significant correlations between Ks and α or n.
The developed 50 sets of uncertain parameters for α, n, and Ks were then used as hydraulic
property inputs to 50, 1000-year simulations using HYDRUS-1D.
The 50 HYDRUS-1D simulations were conducted to evaluate the uncertainty in infiltration flux
into the waste zone, and water content within each ET cover layer as a function of hydraulic
property uncertainty. While it is preferable to sample distributions of uncertain hydraulic
parameters for all waste layers, a modified approach was used where van Genuchten (1980) α
and n parameters for the surface and evaporative zone layers, and the Ks of the radon barriers
were randomly sampled from distributions for each, to generate 50 parameter sets of α, n, and Ks.
These 50 parameters sets are shown in Table 9.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 41
Table 8. Hydraulic properties of topslope cover used for HYDRUS modeling.
Layer Parameter Value Units Source Notes
Surface θr 0.111 [-] Rosetta database for
Silty clay

θs 0.4089 [-] Rosetta database for
Silty clay
Adjusted for 15% gravel
α Variable 1/cm Rosetta database See Table 8.
n Variable [-] Rosetta database See Table 8.
Ks 4.46 cm/day Table 1, Unit 4
surface and ET
layers

Evaporative
Zone
θr 0.111 [-] Rosetta database for
Silty clay

θs 0.481 [-] Rosetta database for
Silty clay

α Variable 1/cm Rosetta database See Table 8.
n Variable [-] Rosetta database See Table 8.
Ks 4.46 cm/day Table 1, Unit 4
surface and ET
layers

Frost
Protection
θr 0.065 [-] Carsel and Parrish
(1988)
Šimůnek and Šejna (2011),
Table 7, Sandy Loam
θs 0.41 [-] " "
α 0.075 1/cm " "
n 1.89 [-] " "
Ks 106.1 cm/day " "
Upper Radon
Barrier
θr 0.1 [-] Whetstone (2011)
Table 15, p. 25
Compacted Unit 4 borrow
soils
θs 0.432 [-] " "
α 0.003 1/cm " "
n 1.172 [-] " "
Ks Variable cm/day Whetstone (2011)
Table 15, p. 25;
Benson et al., (2011)
See Table 8.
Lower Radon
Barrier
θr 0.1 [-] Whetstone (2011)
Table 15, p. 25
Compacted Unit 4 borrow
soils
θs 0.432 [-] " "
α 0.003 1/cm " "
n 1.172 [-] " "
Ks Variable cm/day Whetstone (2011)
Table 15, p. 25;
Benson et al., (2011)
See Table 8.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 42
Table 9. Parameter sets of van Genuchten α and n, and Ks used for HYDRUS modeling.
Replicate α (1/cm) n Ks (cm/d)
1 0.013091 1.359766 3.285794
2 0.014317 1.371086 12.497148
3 0.010969 1.357776 3.736272
4 0.018089 1.342287 5.162964
5 0.019954 1.316356 2.325706
6 0.010797 1.279182 4.168751
7 0.016004 1.396199 2.595876
8 0.012816 1.308572 0.838501
9 0.014744 1.372326 2.055096
10 0.014791 1.360367 5.052781
11 0.020639 1.276159 3.234858
12 0.019501 1.327968 2.194697
13 0.015766 1.334194 1.307280
14 0.019048 1.373538 1.719640
15 0.018539 1.338996 1.635838
16 0.017045 1.267606 1.749758
17 0.019983 1.413655 5.126214
18 0.012494 1.326223 10.753272
19 0.019503 1.356646 1.845171
20 0.028186 1.378016 3.643845
21
 0.010929
 1.244500
 6.738214

22
 0.020973
 1.282170
 6.943533

23
 0.017971
 1.372107
 1.099495

24
 0.016549
 1.467656
 3.648668

25
 0.012120
 1.330512
 6.338780

26
 0.011984
 1.382991
 0.792890

27
 0.012782
 1.382761
 7.005276

28
 0.017094
 1.275082
 4.768674

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 43
Replicate α (1/cm) n Ks (cm/d)
29
 0.013032
 1.382671
 9.861743

30
 0.024165
 1.349583
 7.758327

31
 0.016054
 1.386282
 1.478986

32
 0.024889
 1.310637
 2.501489

33
 0.017247
 1.320670
 2.459523

34
 0.014338
 1.265236
 66.503659

35
 0.016633
 1.286526
 31.683457

36
 0.014343
 1.383885
 1.005712

37
 0.022207
 1.236303
 3.733521

38
 0.012511
 1.317326
 4.565641

39
 0.018395
 1.333180
 6.167757

40
 0.013735
 1.294514
 2.206236

41
 0.015243
 1.229113
 4.106400

42
 0.018063
 1.282922
 3.299065

43
 0.017010
 1.326811
 32.484809

44
 0.020072
 1.323515
 31.128008

45
 0.015950
 1.357247
 2.326748

46
 0.018944
 1.252554
 2.976567

47
 0.015677
 1.301147
 1.241111

48
 0.024293
 1.287802
 4.617869

49
 0.018819
 1.264178
 0.737824

50
 0.017781
 1.263628
 2.880623

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 44
12.6 Boundary Conditions
The atmospheric boundary condition in HYDRUS provides the top boundary of the model with
daily values of precipitation, potential evaporation, and potential transpiration at the soil-air
interface. A free drainage boundary condition is applied at the bottom of the model as a unit
gradient boundary condition where the water flux across the boundary is equal to the flux due to
gravity at the water content of the material. HYDRUS calculates and reports surface runoff,
evaporation, and infiltration fluxes for the atmospheric boundary and fluxes for the free drainage
boundary.
12.7 Initial Conditions
An initial pressure head condition of -200 cm was applied to the entire model domain. This
pressure head corresponds to a slightly unsaturated condition for the fine-grained materials. The
model is deliberately run for a long period of time (1,000 years) in order to reach a near-steady
state net infiltration rate that is not influenced by the initial conditions.
12.8 Cases Simulated
As discussed above, 50 HYDRUS-1D simulations were conducted to evaluate the uncertainty in
infiltration flux into the waste zone, and water content within each ET cover layer as a function
of hydraulic property uncertainty. The fifty simulations with varying van Genuchten α and n and
Ks values are shown in Table 9.
Simulations were run for 1,000 years. The mean of the fluxes into the top of the waste layer and
the mean water contents for the surface layer, evaporative zone, frost protection layer, upper and
lower radon barriers over years 900 to 1000 were calculated.
12.9 Model Results
The 50 HYDRUS-1D simulations resulted in a distribution of average annual infiltration into the
waste zone, and average volumetric water contents for each ET cover layer. Infiltration flux into
the waste zone ranged from 0.0067 to 0.18 mm/yr, with an average of 0.024 mm/yr, and a log
mean of 0.018 mm/yr for the 50 replicates.
Multiple linear regression models were fit to the HYDRUS infiltration results, and water
contents for each ET cover layer. The general form of the regression was:
𝑌=β!+β!∗𝐾!+β!∗α +β!∗𝑛 (40)
Net infiltration is in units of mm/yr and volumetric water content is dimensionless. For the net
infiltration flux regressions, Ks was dropped as a predictor due to poor fit of the models. The
regressions were fit using the ‘lm()’ function in the software package R, which uses least squares
optimization for estimating parameters. All values of β coefficients are summarized in Table 10.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 45
Table 10. Coefficients calculated from multiple linear regression models.
Coefficient βo β1 β2 β3

SurfaceWC
 0.48155
 0.00000
 0.54920
 -­‐0.20020

EvapWC
 0.57947
 0.00000
 0.73997
 -­‐0.24790

FrostWC
 0.04282
 0.00000
 0.43297
 0.01617

Rn1WC
 0.14737
 -­‐0.00076
 1.70702
 0.06353

Rn2WC
 0.14740
 -­‐0.00076
 1.70648
 0.06351

Flux
 (mm/yr) -­‐0.32921
 N/A
 5.56826
 0.19538

13.0 Implementation in GoldSim
Average annual infiltration flux into the waste zone, and the volumetric water content of each ET
cover layer was calculated using Equations 41 and 42, developed from HYDRUS-1D simulation
results. GoldSim calculates values using Equations 41 and 42 for each ET cover layer.
The resulting equations for solving infiltration and water content in GoldSim become:
𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙=β!+β!∗α +β!∗𝑛 (41)
𝑊𝐶=𝛽!,!+𝛽!,!∗𝐾!+𝛽!,!∗𝛼+𝛽!,!∗𝑛  (42)
where Infil is net infiltration in mm/yr, WC is average volumetric water content, and β values are
linear regression coefficients with the subscript i corresponding to Surface, Evaporative zone,
Frost protection, Upper radon barrier, and Lower radon barrier layers. The necessary
distributions in GoldSim are VG_logAlpha, VG_logN, and RnBarrierKsat_Natdist.
α and n are calculated from values drawn from distributions using:
𝛼=10VG_logAlpha,𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒  VG_logAlpha  ~  𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛:  −1.79,𝑠𝑒:  0.121 and (43)
𝑛=10VGlogN,𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒  VGlogN~  𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛:  0.121,𝑠𝑒:  0.019 .  (44)
Ks is sampled using:
RnBarrierKsat_Natdist =
𝐾!,~𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚.𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛:3.37  𝑐𝑚/𝑑𝑎𝑦,𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚.𝑠𝑑:  3.23  𝑐𝑚/𝑑𝑎𝑦, with right shift
of 0.00432 cm/day.  
(45)
Volumetric water contents for the waste, clay liner, and native Unit 3 soil below the Federal DU
Cell at the EnergySolutions Clive Facility are calculated using a numerical method. The
development and testing of this method implemented in the GoldSim DU PA Model are
described in the Appendix B.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 46
14.0 Contaminant Fate and Transport in Porous Media
Once all the hydraulic properties and states have been developed, as in the previous sections, we
can turn to transport mechanisms within the various porous media. Contaminant transport takes
place in fluid phases—in the present case, this is limited to air and water. Fluids move through
the pores by advection in response to fluid pressure gradients, carrying dissolved contaminants
with them. Fluids are also a medium for diffusive transport, in which contaminants move simply
in response to concentration gradients, and do not require movement of the fluid. Both these
processes occur simultaneously, along with all the other mechanisms identified in the model for
contaminant transport (radioactive decay and ingrowth, geochemical partitioning, biotically
induced transport, erosion, etc.). This section discusses advective and diffusive contaminant
transport mechanisms in fluids.
14.1 Porous Medium Water Transport
Water is a transport pathway considered at Clive, and the conceptual model includes the
advection of solutes in water moving down from the waste to the shallow aquifer as well as
diffusion of solutes in pore water.
14.1.1 Advection of Water
The flow of water is discussed at length in the previous sections of this document. Contaminant
transport in this flowing water is essentially passive, with solutes moving along with the fluid,
though of course concentrations are affected by other simultaneous processes.
14.1.2 Diffusion in Water
The Clive DU PA Model employs a modified version of GoldSim’s native diffusive flux links to
calculate diffusive fluxes in porous media. The modifications are necessary to account for
unsaturated media, since GoldSim assumes that porous media are saturated in its basic
implementation of diffusive flux calculations. The standard GoldSim diffusive flux mathematics
are covered in Appendix B of the GoldSim User’s Guide (GTG, 2011), and the modifications
that have been developed by Neptune are discussed in detail in the Neptune document entitled
Modeling Diffusion in GoldSim, but are also covered briefly here. The modifications required to
model diffusion in unsaturated media take two phenomena into consideration: 1) The diffusive
area is reduced by the saturation (with respect to air or water, whichever medium is of interest)
and 2) the diffusive length is increased to account for tortuosity in the respective medium.
If a porous medium contains only a single fluid phase, the diffusive area between two cells
containing that medium is simply the total area times the porosity, since the pores are occupied
by the fluid, and the diffusion takes place only in the fluid. In the case of two fluids, such as air
and water in unsaturated media, the diffusive area is further reduced, since the area of the fluid of
interest across the plane of diffusion is less. If we are interested in diffusion in the water phase,
for example, the area of water that intersects the plane is equal to the total area times the water
content, which equals the total area times the porosity times the saturation with respect to water.
If we are interested in diffusion in the air phase, we use the same construct, substituting air for
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 47
water. Because the diffusive area is always less, the diffusion in an unsaturated medium will
always be less than that in a fully saturated medium.
Diffusion in unsaturated media is also attenuated because of increased tortuosity. In any porous
medium, a diffusing solute must travel through pores, following a tortuous path that is always
longer than if it were traveling in a straight line. The ratio of the straight line distance to this
tortuous path is called the tortuosity. If the porous medium is unsaturated, this path becomes
even longer, since the three-dimensional shape of the fluid of interest gets even more tortuous.
This increases the diffusive length, which is used in calculating the concentration gradient. The
gradient in concentration of a solute is what drives diffusion.
14.1.3 Water Phase Tortuosity
Tortuosity is a term used to describe the resistive and retarding influence of pore structure for a
variety of transport processes (Clennell, 1997). Definitions of tortuosity are not consistent in the
literature and depend on the discipline and the particular transport process of interest. The
tortuosity τ for molecular diffusion in porous media can be written as the ratio of effective
diffusivity Deff to bulk diffusivity Dbulk, often seen in two forms:
𝜏!=𝐷!""
𝐷!"#$
(46)
or alternatively, if the measured porosity n is explicit (Clennell, 1997), as
𝜏!=𝐷!""
𝑛  𝐷!"#$
(47)
In this definition, consistent with the assumptions of GoldSim’s internal calculations, the value
of tortuosity varies between 0 and 1, with lower values indicating a longer path for porous
medium solute transport via diffusion.
For unsaturated systems, n is replaced in equation (47) by water content θw for water phase
diffusion, or by the volumetric air content θa for gaseous phase diffusion. The form shown in
equation (46) is found in Freeze and Cherry (1979) and Marsily (1986), while that in equation
(47) is used by Hillel (1980) and Koorevaar et al. (1983).
For consistency with GoldSim the second form is used. The equations for diffusive transport in
GoldSim explicitly specify the effective porosity (or in the case of unsaturated flow, water
content or air filled porosity) as in equation (47). For more information on the diffusive mass
flux equations in GoldSim, see Appendix B of the GoldSim User's Guide (GTG, 2011). In the
following sections, the equations from the literature have been converted where necessary to be
consistent with equation (47) so that they can be directly applied to GoldSim models.
Two options were considered for modeling liquid phase tortuosity in the models. The Millington-
Quirk model is commonly used to estimate tortuosity in non-fractured porous media (Millington
and Quirk, 1961). (See Jury and Horton, 2004, eq. 7.14, modified by division by water content
for consistency with GoldSim.) The water phase tortuosity τw is calculated as
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 48
𝜏!=𝐷!""
𝜃!  𝐷!"#$
=𝜃!!!
𝑛! (48)
Water phase tortuosity will be implemented in the Clive DU PA Model using the form shown in
equation (47). The exponents will be treated as distributions in order to allow the sensitivity
analysis to determine if the model is sensitive to the values of the exponents. The water content
exponent is described by a normal distribution with a mean of 7/3 and a standard deviation of
0.01 and the porosity exponent is described by a normal distribution with a mean of 2 and a
standard deviation of 0.01.
14.2 Porous Medium Air Transport
14.2.1 Advection of Air
Air-phase advection is not included in the Clive DU PA Model. It is assumed that the advective
flux of gases is negligible compared to the diffusive gas flux.
14.2.2 Diffusion in Air
Air-phase diffusion is included in the model, and this is the principal process by which gases are
moved. The “built-in” diffusion calculations in GoldSim are used to estimate diffusion in the air
phase. These gaseous diffusive fluxes are modified to handle the unsaturated porous media
(described above in Section 14.1.2), but also include a calibration to counteract numerical
dispersion for radon (discussed in the Radon Transport white paper), which at this time is the
only radionuclide that is considered to be present in the gaseous phase.
Diffusion in the air phase is modeled throughout the top slope column, bounded at the bottom by
the saturated zone, and at the top by the atmosphere. The bottom boundary condition is one of no
diffusion, since there is no air in the saturated zone to diffuse into, by definition. The boundary
condition at the top is effectively a zero-concentration sink, since the volume of air in the
atmosphere flowing over the embankment is sufficiently large that concentrations are kept much
lower than in the pore air of the cover and wastes below. In order to model this, the air directly
above the embankment is represented by an Atmosphere Cell Pathway element in GoldSim. The
volume of air is defined by a thickness times the area of each respective modeled column, and
this air volume is flushed out by the wind. The diffusive flux from the uppermost cover cell in
the column to the Atmosphere cell is defined by the diffusive area, as discussed above, and the
diffusive length, discussed in the following section. Since the atmosphere is not a porous
medium, a diffusive length unrelated to its thickness is adopted. Since the wind will maintain
low concentrations in the atmosphere, amounting to a zero-concentration boundary condition, the
choice of the parameters defining the Atmosphere is not expected to have much influence on the
diffusive flux from the embankment cover. Uncertainties have been included for these values, as
shown in Table 11, in order to evaluate the model’s sensitivity.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 49
Table 11. Atmosphere volume parameters for creating a surface boundary condition in the
porous medium air diffusion model.
Parameter Distribution Units
Thickness of the atmosphere
layer
N( µ=2.0, σ=0.5, min=Small, max=Large ) m
Wind speed N( µ=3.14, σ=0.5, min=Small, max=Large ) m/s
Atmospheric diffusion length N( µ=0.1, σ=0.02, min=Small, max=Large ) m

14.2.3 Air-Phase Tortuosity
A number of tortuosity models have been proposed for air phase diffusion in porous media.
Using the form for tortuosity shown in (42) above, models reviewed by Jin and Jury (1996)
include the Penman model (Penman, 1940) and two models attributed to Millington and Quirk.
In the Penman model, air phase tortuosity τa is a constant:
𝜏!=0.66. (49)
In the more commonly used Millington-Quirk model (MQ1), which is analogous to equation
(48), tortuosity is expressed as
𝜏!=𝜃!!!
𝑛! (50)
And, in an alternative Millington-Quirk model (MQ2) evaluated by Jin and Jury (1996),
tortuosity is expressed as
𝜏!=𝜃!
𝑛!! (51)
Note that as θa approaches n (e.g. as the porous medium becomes drier), τa approaches n1/3 for
both formulations (50) and (51).
An air-phase tortuosity model was developed by Lahvis et al. (1999) by calibrating a transport
model to steady-state gas concentration data obtained from seven column experiments using silt
and fine sand sediments. In this model, air phase tortuosity is dependent only on the volumetric
water content:
𝜏!=0.765 −2.02𝜃! (52)
Comparison of these models for alluvium with an effective porosity of 0.37 and tortuosity as
defined in equation (47) is shown in Figure 11. Due to the similarity of the Lahvis et al. (1999)
model to the MQ2 model over a wide range of volumetric water content, it will not be considered
further.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 50
The Penman and the two Millington-Quirk models were compared by Jin and Jury (1996) with
measured Deff /Dbulk ratios from six studies that included a total of approximately 50
measurements on predominantly agricultural soils. While this ratio corresponds to the definition
of tortuosity given in equation (47), it is useful in comparing the predictions of the various
models. Over the range of air phase porosity investigated (0.05 to 0.5), the Penman model tended
to overestimate tortuosity, while the MQ1 model in equation (50) underestimated tortuosity. Of
the three models, the MQ2 model given by (51) provided the best fit to the measured tortuosities.
A comparison of the Penman and Millington-Quirk models for a material with an effective
porosity of 0.37 is shown in Figures 11 and 12. Note that in both these figures, the points are
merely points of calculation, and do not represent data. The values produced by the Penman and
Millington-Quirk models converge for dry and wet conditions but diverge at intermediate values
of air porosity. Given its median behavior as seen in Figures 11 and 12, the alternative
Millington-Quirk model (MQ2, equation (51)) is used in the Clive DU PA Model.

Figure 11. Comparison of air-phase tortuosity models by Penman (equation (44)),
Millington and Quirk (MQ1, equation (45)), Millington and Quirk as modified by Jin
and Jury (1996) (MQ2, equation (46)), and Lahvis et al. (1999) (equation (47)).
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 51

Figure 12. Comparison of effective to bulk diffusivity ratios with air phase porosity for air
phase tortuosity models.
Tortuosity is implemented in the GoldSim model as a multiplier to the diffusive length, which is
defined for each Cell Pathway element using the common method of setting it equal to 1/2 the
cell length that is parallel to flow. In this case, that is the vertical dimension.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 52
15.0 References
Anderson, Michelle D. 2004. Sarcobatus vermiculatus. In: Fire Effects Information System,
[Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2013, November 7].
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 & Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment,
NUREG/CR-7028, Office of Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
Bingham Environmental. 1991. Hydrogeologic report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South
Clive, Utah. October 9, 1991. Prepared for Envirocare of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.
Bingham Environmental. 1994. Hydrogeologic report Mixed Waste Disposal Area Envirocare
Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah. November 18, 1994. Prepared for Envirocare
of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.
Black, B.D., B.J. Solomon, and K.M. Harty, 1999. Geology and geologic hazards of Tooele
Valley and the West Desert Hazardous Industry Area, Tooele Count, Utah, Special Study
96, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Brooks, R.J. and A. T. Corey, 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media, Hydrology Paper 3,
Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins.
Carsel, R. F., and R. S. Parrish. 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil water
retention characteristics. Water Resources Research, 24(5):755-770, 1988.
Clennell, M.B. 1997. Tortuosity: a guide through the maze. in Developments in Petrophysics,
Lovell, M.A. and P.K. Harvey (eds). Geological Society Special Publication No. 122, pp.
299-344.
CRC. 1985. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 66th Edition. R.C. Weast, M.J. Astle,
and W.H. Beyer (eds.). Osmotic parameters and electrical conductivities of aqueous
solutions. p. D-269. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton, FL.
Diodato, D.M., 2000. Review: HYDRUS-2D, Ground Water 38:10–11.
EnergySolutions, 2012, Utah Low-Level Radioactive Material License (RML UT2300249)
Updated Site-Specific Performance Assessment, October 8, 2012, EnergySolutions, LLC,
Salt Lake City, UT
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. 2000. Revised hydrogeologic report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal
Facility Clive, Utah. Version 1.0. Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 53
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. 2004. Revised hydrogeologic report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal
Facility Clive, Utah. Version 2.0. Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT.
Fayer, M.J., 2000. UNSAT-H Version 3.0: Unsaturated Soil Water and Heat Flow Model,
Theory, User Manual, and Examples. PNNL-13249. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. June, 2000.
Freeze, R.A and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gates, J.S. and S.A. Kruer, 1981. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Southern Great Salt Lake
Desert and summary of the hydrology of West-Central Utah, State of Utah Department of
Natural Resources, Technical Publication No. 71, Salt Lake City, UT.
GTG (GoldSim Technology Group), 2011. User's Guide: GoldSim Contaminant Transport
Module, GoldSim Technology Group, Issaquah, WA, December 2010.
Goodman, P.J. 1973. Physiological and Ecotypic Adaptations of Plants to Salt Desert Conditions
in Utah. Journal of Ecology, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 473-494.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press Inc. San Francisco, CA.
Jin, Y., and W.A. Jury. 1996. Characterizing the Dependence of Gas Diffusion Coefficient on
Soil Properties, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 60, pp. 66-71.
Jury, W.A. and R. Horton. 2004. Soil Physics. 6th ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New Jersey.
Koorevaar, P., G. Menelik, and C. Dirksen. 1983. Elements of Soil Physics. Elsevier. New York,
NY.
Lahvis, M.A., A.L. Baehr, and R.J. Baker. 1999. Quantification of Aerobic Biodegradation and
Volatilization Rates of Gasoline Hydrocarbons Near the Water Table Under Natural
Attenuation Conditions. Water Resour. Res. v. 27, 753-765.
Marsily, G. de. 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology. Academic Press Inc. San Diego, CA.
McCray, J., 2007. HYDRUS: Software review, Southwest Hydrol. 6(1):41.
Meteorological Solutions, 2012. January 2011 Through December 2011 and January 1993
through December 2011 Summary Report of Meteorological Data Collected at
EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility, Project No. 011110111, February 2012.
Millington, R.J., and J.P. Quirk. 1961. Permeability of porous solids. Trans. Faraday Society
(57) pp. 1200-1207
Mualem, Y. 1976. A New Model for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated
Porous Media. Water Resources Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 513-522. June, 1976.
Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kinry, and J.R. Williams, 2005. Soil and Water Assessment Tool
Theoretical Documentation: Version 2005, Grassland, Soil and Water Research
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 54
Laboratory Agricultural Research Service and Blackland Research Center, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, Temple TX.
http://swatmodel.tamu.edu/media/1292/swat2005theory.pdf Accessed 7/24/2012.
NRCS. 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web
Soil Survey. Available from:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
[Accessed 2013, November 7].
Pavek, Diane S. 1992. Halogeton glomeratus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
Penman, H.L. 1940. Gas and vapor movements in the soil. I. The diffusion of vapors through
porous solids. Journal of Agricultural Science (30) pp. 437-462.
Richardson, C.W. and D.A. Wright, 1984, WGEN: A Model for Generating Daily Weather
Variables. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-8.
Scanlon, B. 2004. Review of Hydrus-1D, Southwest Hydrology, 3(4):37.
Schaap, M. 2002. Rosetta: A computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with
hierarchical pedotransfer functions. Available from:
http://ag.arizona.edu/research/rosetta/download/rosetta.pdf
Schroeder, P.R., N.M. Aziz, C.M. Lloyd, and P.A. Zappi. 1994a. The Hydrological Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: User’s Guide for Version 3. EPA/600/R-94/168a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C.
Schroeder, P.R., T.S. Dozier, P.A. Zappi, B.M. McEnroe, J.W. Sjostrom, and R.L. Peyton.
1994b. The Hydrological Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model:
Engineering Documentation for Version 3. EPA/600/R-94/168b. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
Shabala, S. 2013. Learning from halophytes: physiological basis and strategies to improve
abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Ann. Bot. doi: 10.1093/aob/mct205. Available from:
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/09/30/aob.mct205.full [2013, November
7].
Simonin, Kevin A. 2001. Atriplex confertifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2013, November 7].
Šimůnek, J., M. Šejna, H. Saito, M. Sakai, and M. Th. van Genuchten, 2009, The HYDRUS-1D
Software Package for Simulating the One-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat, and
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 55
Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated Media, Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA.
Šimůnek, J. and M. Šejna. 2011. Software Package for Simulating the Two- and Three-
Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat and Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated
Media: User Manual Version 2, PC-Progress, Prague, Czech Republic.
SWCA. 2011. Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah,
January, 2011, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT.
Utah Division of Water Rights, (DWR), water rights and well log database at
http://waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/query.asp. Accessed March 18, 2014.
van Genuchten, M.Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44 (5): 892–898.
van Genuchten, M. Th. 1987. A numerical model for water and solute movement in and below
the root zone. Research Report No 121, U.S. Salinity laboratory, USDA, ARS, Riverside,
California, 1987.
Varado, N., I Braud, and P.J. Ross, 2005. Development and assessment of an efficient vadose
zone module solving the 1D Richards’ equation including root extraction by plants,
Journal of Hydrology, 323, 258-275.
Wang, T., V. A. Zlotnik, J. Šimunek, and M. G. Schaap, 2009. Using pedotransfer functions in
vadose zone models for estimating groundwater recharge in semiarid regions, Water
Resour. Res., 45, W04412, doi:10.1029/2008WR006903.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2012. Dugway, Utah, 30 year daily temperature and
precipitation summary. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ut2257.
Whetstone Associates, Inc., 2011. EnergySolutions Class A West Disposal Cell Infiltration and
Transport Modeling Report, dated November 28, 2011. Document Number
4104K111128.
Whetstone Associates, Inc., 2007. EnergySolutions Class A South Cell Infiltration and Transport
Modeling. December 7, 2007.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 56
Appendix A
Soil Moisture Data for Units 3 and 4
The data for soil moisture characteristics in Unit 3, a silty sand, and in Unit 4, a silty clay, are
reproduced in the following tables, and are based on testing performed by Colorado State
University (Bingham Environmental 1991, Appendix B, pages B 20 and B 26). Cores GW18 B4
and GW17A B5 are from Unit 3, and cores GW19A B1 and GW17A B2 are from Unit 4. Bulk
density is defined in the units of g/cm3. Conductivity data have units of cm/s.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 57

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 58
Appendix B
Runge-Kutta Method for Calculating Water Content
1. Purpose
This Appendix describes the development and testing of a numerical method implemented in the
GoldSim DU PA model for estimating the volumetric water content of the waste, clay liner and
native Unit 3 soil below the Federal DU cell at the EnergySolutions Clive Facility.
2. Method
The flow of water in porous media occurs in response to a gradient in the total potential energy
of water. The total potential can be composed of a number of components but this analysis will
be restricted to gravitational and matric potentials. Water potential components are often
expressed in units of energy per unit weight rather than units of energy per unit mass. When the
quantity of water is expressed as a weight, the units of potential are defined in terms of head.
The gravitational potential refers to the energy of water with respect to reference elevation and is
written here as Z. Although not a formal definition, the matric potential relates to the energy of
the tension imposed on the pore water by the soil matrix. Matric potential is a negative value
and is written here as ψ. The total potential is then H = ψ + Z.
Steady-state fluid flow in an unsaturated medium is defined by the Buckingham-Darcy equation
(Jury and Horton, 2004, p.95). In the following discussion this equation will be referred to
simply as the Darcy equation. The one dimensional form of Darcy’s equation for unsaturated
flow is given by Fayer (2000, Eqns. 4.2 and 4.5):
𝑞=−𝐾!(𝜓)∂𝐻
∂𝑧 (1)
where
q is the flux of liquid per unit area,
KL is the unsaturated conductivity as a function of the matric potential ψ,
H is the matric plus gravitational potentials [cm], and
z is the depth below ground surface [cm].

It is convenient to define two sign conventions for the total potential (Fayer 2000, page 4.2): (1)
the z-coordinate is zero at the soil surface and positive downward. With this convention, the
gravitational head in the soil, which is defined as the elevation of a point with respect to the soil
surface, and negative and defined as -z; and (2) the suction head, h, is the negative of the matric
potential or matric head, ψ. With this convention, the suction head, h, is always greater than zero
for an unsaturated soil. It follows that:
𝐻=𝜓+𝑍=−(ℎ+𝑧) (2)

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 59
and the flux is then given by
q =K!(h)∂h
∂z +1 (3)
The unsaturated conductivity, KL, is formulated based on the Brooks-Corey representation for
moisture content as a function of suction head
Θ =h
h!
!!
for h >h!,
                   =1              for 0 ≤h ≤h!
(4)
where
Θ is the effective saturation,
h is the suction head (cm),
hb is the bubbling pressure head (cm) at which moisture first drains from the
material, and
l is a constant that is fit to data.

Alternatively, expressed in terms of the fractal dimension, D
Θ =        h!!!
h!
for h >h!,
=1    for 0 ≤h ≤h!
(5)
The suction head is positive for an unsaturated material and 0 at saturation. θs, the effective
saturation, is defined as
Θ =θ −θ!
θ!−θ!
, (6)
where
Ɵ is the moisture content,
Ɵr is the residual moisture content, and
Ɵs is the saturated moisture content.

Combining Equations
θ =θ!+θ!−θ!∗h
h!
!!
(7)
This equation can then be fit to core data. Alternatively, expressing in terms of D and assuming
θ =θ!+(θ!−θ!)h
h!
(!!!)
(8)
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 60
Using the Mualem theory for predicting hydraulic conductivity (Mualem 1976), the unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity is defined as:
K!=K!Θ!!!
!. (9)
Substituting Equation 6 into Equation 9 gives:
K!=K!
θ −θ!
θ!−θ!
!!!
!. (10)
The computational method implemented in the Clive DU PA Model solves Equation 3 for steady
state flow at constant infiltration flux, q. (At steady state, the vertical infiltration flux must be
constant in all layers of the cell below the radon barriers, which includes the waste, the clay liner,
and the unsaturated zone.) No iterations are required with the selected solution technique. The
approach in the Clive DU PA Model differs from the solution technique in the UNSAT-H code,
which solves the transient (unsteady) equation for one-dimensional unsaturated flow and iterates
to a steady state solution with constant infiltration rate.
3. Darcy Equation Solution by the Runge-Kutta Method
Equation 3 is a nonlinear, first order differential equation for the suction head that can be solved
by numerical approximation. The Runge-Kutta method is attractive for this application because
it allows variable spacing (i.e., variable Δz) between nodes, because it is highly stable, and
because it does not require iteration to converge to a solution. Equation 3 can be rewritten as a
first order differential equation in the form h′ = f(h) :
𝜕ℎ
𝜕𝑧=𝑞
𝐾!(ℎ)−1 (11)
A second order Runge-Kutta solution for this first order differential equation is given by
Abramowitz and Stegun (1970, Section 25.5.6):
ℎ!!!=ℎ!+𝑘!+𝑘!
2 +𝑂(ℎ!), (12)
with
𝑘!=𝛥𝑧𝑞
𝐾!(ℎ!)−1 (13)

𝑘!=𝛥𝑧𝑞
𝐾!(ℎ!+𝑘!)−1 (14)
and
𝛥𝑧=𝑧!!!−𝑧!. (15)
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 61
Equations 12 through 15 define a procedure for calculating hn+1 from the known values of hn, Δz,
and the (constant) infiltration flux, q. These equations constitute a predictor-corrector
calculation, where k1 is the predictor and k2 is the corrector. No iteration is involved in this
solution because Equations 13, 14, and 12 can be solved sequentially for each node of the grid,
beginning with the lowest node at the top of the water table with h = 0 (because the suction head
is zero for a saturated soil) and KL = Ks, and integrating upward through the various unsaturated
soil layers. Stable solutions do require a finer discretization than the layers that are defined for
the 1-D columns used in the Clive PA model.
The value of Δz does not have to be constant over the domain of integration, and has been
adjusted to provide reasonable accuracy where the head gradient is greatest. In practice, these
regions occur at the capillary fringe just above the water table and at the interface between the
clay liner and waste. The value of Δz has to be small enough that the predictor step (Equation 13)
does not generate a value of k1 that is so large and negative that (hn + k1) becomes negative.
Suction head is always positive, and KL(hn + k1) in Equation 14 cannot be evaluated for negative
values of (hn + k1). In practice, an initial node spacing of 2 cm provides a stable solution in
Unit 3, directly above the water table, for the infiltration fluxes of interest. However, an initial
node spacing of 0.1 mm was required to provide a stable solution in the waste, directly above the
clay liner, at high infiltration rates. This fine spacing is required because the head gradient at the
interface between the waste and clay liner is quite large. A node spacing of 25 cm provides a
stable solution in the main body of the waste and in Unit 3 where the head gradients are smaller.
A constant node spacing of 15 cm provides adequate resolution in the clay liner and in the upper
and lower radon barrier. Solutions at these variable grid spacings are mapped to the Clive DU PA
Model’s regular grid that is used to represent wastes and other layers, in the top slope and side
slope columns.
4. Verification of the Runge-Kutta Method
The UNSAT-H modeling program (Fayer 2000) has been used to analyze infiltration through the
Federal DU cell at the EnergySolutions facility (Whetstone 2007). A model built with UNSAT-H
predicted moisture content and suction head from the radon barriers in the cover downward
through the waste, clay liner, and Unit 3 silty sand to the top of the aquifer (Whetstone 2007,
Section 4 and Table 17). The results from the UNSAT-H calculation for the top and side slope
models have been used to verify the steady state unsaturated flow solutions with the Runge-Kutta
method outlined in Section 3.
The UNSAT-H calculations are based on a van Genuchten representation for soil moisture
content and for soil hydraulic conductivity. For verification purposes, the Runge-Kutta solution
was programmed into a spreadsheet using the identical van Genuchten models as UNSAT-H.
The Runge-Kutta verification used the same total thicknesses for the radon barriers, waste, clay
liner, and Unit 3 sand as the UNSAT-H model, but the spacing of individual nodes (i.e., the
values of Δz) is different. Table 1 summarizes the thicknesses of the major components.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 62

Table 12. Layer thicknesses and coordinates for top slope validation calculations.
Layer Thickness z-Coordinate
Upper Radon Barrier 1 ft (30.48 cm) 0 to 30.48 cm
Lower Radon Barrier 1 ft (30.45 cm) 30.48 cm to 60.96 cm
Waste 45 ft (1371.6 cm) 60.96 cm to 1432.56 cm
Clay Liner 2 ft (60.96 cm) 1432.56 cm to 1493.52 cm
Unit 3 Silty Sand 10.8 ft (329.2 cm) 1493.52 cm to 1822.7 cm

Figure 1(a) compares the calculated values for moisture content from the UNSAT-H model
(Whetstone 2007, Table 17) and from the Runge-Kutta solution for the top slope model with an
infiltration rate of 0.276 cm/yr. Both solutions encompass the radon barriers, the waste, the clay
liner beneath the waste, and Unit 3 from the bottom of the clay liner to the top of the water table.
The results are essentially identical, providing validation for the Runge-Kutta method. Figure
1(b) provides a more detailed comparison of moisture content near the bottom and top of the clay
liner, again demonstrating the close agreement between the UNSAT-H model and the Runge-
Kutta method.
A similar comparison was also performed for the side slope model with an infiltration rate of
0.595 cm/yr. The side slope model is similar to the top slope model, except the average waste
thickness is 5.64 m (18.5 ft) rather than 13.7 m (45 ft). Figures 2(a) and 2(b) again demonstrate
the close agreement between the UNSAT-H model and the Runge-Kutta method.
The calculated values for suction head from the UNSAT-H model and from the Runge Kutta
method were also compared for the top and side slope models. The suction head profiles in the
radon barriers, waste, clay liner and Unit 3 are shown in Figure 3 for the top and side slope
models. A qualitative comparison between the Runge-Kutta solution and the UNSAT-H results
was performed because the UNSAT-H data for suction head were not tabulated, only presented
graphically (Whetstone 2007, Figures 8 and 9). The comparison of suction heads from both
methods again demonstrates that the Runge-Kutta solution is in excellent agreement with the
results from the UNSAT-H model.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 63

a) Comparison of moisture content in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barriers

b) Comparison of moisture content in and adjacent to the clay liner
Figure 13. Comparison of the Runge-Kutta and UNSAT-H solutions for top slope model.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 64

(a) Comparison of moisture content in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barrier

(b) Comparison of moisture content in and adjacent to the clay liner
Figure 14. Comparison of the Runge-Kutta and UNSAT-H solutions for side slope model.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 65

(a) Top Slope Model

b) Side Slope Model
Figure 15. Suction head profiles in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barriers for the top
slope and side slope models.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 66
The results in Figures 1 and 2 highlight three important features of the response of the Federal
DU cell to infiltration. First, the clay liner has a moisture content of about 0.42 (see Figures 1(b)
and 2(b)) in the top and side slope models. This value is just below θs, which is 0.432 for the van
Genuchten model. The radon barriers have slightly higher moisture contents, approximately
0.425 to 0.43 (see left-hand side of Figures 1(a) and 2(a)), again just below the saturated
moisture content of 0.432. These results confirm that the clay liner and radon barriers remain
very close to saturation for either model (top or side slope) and for two different infiltration rates
(0.276 cm/yr or 0.595 cm/yr) in the Federal DU cell. Second, the waste drains to a relatively low
moisture content, on the order of 0.06 for either slope model and infiltration rate. This behavior
is consistent with the low moisture retention of a sandy material. Finally, suction head shows
greater differences than moisture content for the top and side slope models. The suction head is
more directly dependent on flow rate (see Equation 11) than moisture content, and the factor of
two difference in the flow rates for the top and side slope models is the probable cause of the
differences in Figure 3(a) and 3(b).
5. Implementation in the DU PA Model
The Runge-Kutta method has been incorporated into the Clive PA model for infiltration through
the radon barriers, waste, clay liner and Unit 3 of the Federal DU cell at the EnergySolutions
facility. The PA model of the Federal DU cell has a number of differences with the verification
calculations discussed in the previous section. The major differences are as follows:
1. The moisture retention and hydraulic conductivity of the radon barriers and clay liner are
defined by a Brooks-Corey/Mualem model that is based on the test data from Colorado
State University (Bingham Environmental 1991, Appendix B, pages B-20 and B-26) for
Unit 4 cores GW17A B2 and GW19A B1.
2. The moisture retention and hydraulic conductivity of the Unit 3 silty sand between the
clay liner and water table are defined by a Brooks-Corey/Mualem model that is based on
the test data from Colorado State University (Bingham Environmental 1991, Appendix B,
pages B-20 and B-26) for Unit 3 cores GW18 B4 and GW17A B5.
Integration of the Darcy equation from node n, with a known value of the suction head, hn, and a
known value of Δzn = zi+1 – zn, to node n+1 is based on the following sequential steps:
1. Calculate the moisture content, θn, corresponding to the suction head, hn. The calculation
of θn, is based on Equations 4 and 6.
2. Calculate the conductivity, K(hn), based on the effective saturation, Θn, at θn. Equations 6
and 9 define the formulas.
3. Calculate k1 = Δzn(q/K(hn) – 1) (see Equations 13 and 15).
4. Calculate the trial value of the suction head, hn + k1.
5. Calculate the trial value of the moisture content, θ (hn + k1) using Equations 4 and 6.
6. Calculate the trial value of the conductivity, K(hn + k1), based on the effective saturation
at θ (hn + k1). Equations 6 and 9 in Section 2 define the formulas.
7. Calculate k2 = Δzn(q/K(hn + k1) – 1) (see Equations 14).
8. Calculate hn +1 = hn + (k1 + k2)/2 (see Equation 12).
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 67
Numerical testing demonstrated that the trial value of the suction head, hn + k1, can become
negative, leading to an undefined value for K(hn + k1). Negative values of K(hn + k1)occurred at
the interface between the waste and clay liner when the infiltration rate increased from 0.3 to 0.5
cm/yr for the as-designed cover to approximately 5 cm/yr. The numerical problem appears in the
waste, adjacent to its interface with the clay liner, because the gradient of suction head is greatest
at this location (for example, see Figure 3(a) at a depth of about 1,400 cm).
The verification testing in Section 3 used the following spacing for nodes in the waste, adjacent
to the clay liner: (1) 2 cm node spacing for the first five nodes in the waste, (2) 5 cm node
spacing for the next 4 nodes in the waste, and (3) 25 cm node spacing for all other nodes in the
waste. The GoldSim implementation of this solution uses a geometric spacing between the first
12 nodes in the waste, beginning with an initial spacing of 0.1 mm, which increases by a ratio of
approximately 1.93 for each subsequent node. The spacing between the 11th and 12th nodes is
0.135 m and the total width of the 12 nodes with geometric zoning is 0.281 m. All subsequent
nodes in the waste have a constant spacing of 0.281 m in the GoldSim implementation.
Numerical testing demonstrated that the geometric zoning produces stable solutions for the top
slope and side slope models with the Runge-Kutta method up to flow rates of 5 cm/year.
6. Numerical Testing of the Top Slope Model in GoldSim
Validation of a top slope infiltration model for the Federal DU cell was performed in GoldSim,
using the same Runge-Kutta method and the same descriptions of soil properties, providing a
direct comparison of results and a means of identifying errors in programming. Deterministic
calculations were performed with Brooks-Corey/Mualem models for the individual cores (Unit 4
core GW17A B2 or GW19A B1, and Unit 3 core GW17A B5 or GW18 B4) to compare
unsaturated flow conditions calculated using GoldSim. Stochastic calculations were performed
with GoldSim for 20 realizations using randomly sampled values for the Brooks-Corey/Mualem
input parameters for Units 3 and 4. The GoldSim results for Realization 18 were identical to a
calculation for Realization 18 to 5 or 6 significant digits. This testing also provided useful
insights into the range of conditions in the Federal DU cell during unsaturated flow.
Figures 4 and 5 compare the profiles for moisture content and suction head, respectively, in the
radon barriers, waste, clay liner, and Unit 3 for the four deterministic calculations that use Unit 3
(silty sand) properties for GW18 B4 or GW17A B5 and use Unit 4 (silty clay) properties for
GW17A B2 or GW19A B1. All calculations have an infiltration rate of 0.276 cm/yr (0.109
in/yr). These results confirm previous observations: (1) The moisture contents of the clay liner
and radon barriers remain close to saturation, and (2) the waste retains a low moisture content of
0.06. In addition, the suction heads in the radon barriers are identical because the hydraulic
conductivity is identical for either core (because conductivity was only measured for one of the
two cores).

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 68

Figure 16. Profiles of moisture content in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barriers for
the top slope model with 0.276 cm/yr infiltration.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 69

Figure 17. Profiles of suction head in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barriers for the
top slope model with 0.276 cm/yr infiltration.
Figures 6 and 7 compare the profiles for moisture content and suction head, respectively, in the
radon barriers, waste, clay liner, and Unit 3 for deterministic calculations that use soil properties
for GW17A-B5 (Unit 3) and GW17A-B2 (Unit 4) at three different infiltration rates: 0.168
cm/year, 0.276 cm/yr, and 5.0 cm/yr. In general, Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate that moisture
content is more sensitive to infiltration rate than to the differences between soil properties for the
various cores. The major difference in Figure 6 is the degree of drainage in the waste, with the
high infiltration rate increasing the retained moisture from 0.055 at 0.168 cm/yr to 0.084 at 5.0
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 70
cm/yr infiltration. The moisture content in the waste also shows a small oscillation between
0.082 to 0.086 at the 5.0 cm/yr infiltration rate. This could have be eliminated by having finer
spacing between the nodes in the waste, but the accuracy of the current solution is considered
more than adequate. Similar calculations were also performed for soil properties with GW17A-
B5 for Unit 3 and GW19A-B1 for Unit 4. The results are very similar to those shown in Figures
6 and 7 and are not repeated here.

Figure 18. Profiles of moisture content in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barriers for
the top slope model with different infiltration rates.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 71

Figure 19. Profiles of suction head in Unit 3, clay liner, waste, and radon barriers for the
top slope model with different infiltration rates.

Figures 8 through 12 compare the time dependent moisture content at the mid-points of Unit 3,
of the clay liner, of the waste, of the lower radon barrier, and of the upper radon barrier,
respectively, for a GoldSim calculation with 20 realizations and randomly sampled soil
properties for Units 3 and 4. The duration of each realization is 3,000 years and the lower filter
layer is assumed to become degraded at 2,640 years after closure for test purposes.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 72
The results in Figures 8 through 12 confirm the observations from the previous calculations: (1)
the moisture contents in the clay liner, lower radon barrier, and upper radon barrier remain close
to saturation (note the expanded vertical scale for Figures 11 and 12), and (2) the waste drains to
low moisture content, 0.03 to 0.08, for these 20 realizations, and (3) the moisture content in Unit
3 also has a limited range of 0.13 to 0.20 for the infiltration rates generated by the cover
infiltration model.

Figure 20. Time dependent moisture content from 20 realizations at the mid-height of Unit
3 with sampled soil properties for Units 3 and Unit 4.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 73

Figure 21. Time dependent moisture content from 20 realizations at the mid-height of the
clay liner with sampled soil properties for Units 3 and Unit 4.

Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 74

Figure 22. Time dependent moisture content from 20 realizations at the mid-height of the
waste with sampled soil properties for Units 3 and Unit 4.

Figure 23. Time dependent moisture content from 20 realizations at the mid-height of the
lower radon barrier with sampled soil properties for Units 3 and Unit 4.
Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA
23 October 2015 75

Figure 24. Time dependent moisture content from 20 realizations at the mid-height of the
upper radon barrier with sampled soil properties for Units 3 and Unit 4.
8. References
Abramowitz, Milton, and Irene A. Stegun, 1970. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with
Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. National Bureau of Standards, Applied
Mathematics Series 55, ninth printing. November, 1970.

Bingham Environmental, 1991. Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South
Clive, Utah. Final version October 9, 1991.

Fayer, M.J., 2000. UNSAT-H Version 3.0: Unsaturated Soil Water and Heat Flow Model,
Theory, User Manual, and Examples. PNNL-13249. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. June, 2000.

Jury, W.A. and R. Horton. 2004. Soil Physics. 6th ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New Jersey.

Mualem, Yechezkel, 1976. A New Model for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of
Unsaturated Porous Media. Water Resources Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 513-522.
June, 1976.

Whetstone Associates, Inc., 2007. EnergySolutions Class A South Cell Infiltration and Transport
Modeling. December 7, 2007.
 NAC-0025_R3

Geochemical Modeling for
the Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
5 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Geochemical Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter values
and distributions used for modeling geochemical processes, such as solubility and adsorption,
in the transport of radionuclides for the Clive DU PA Model.

Name Date
4. Originator Katie Catlett 17 April 2014
5. Reviewer Dan Levitt 5 November 2015
6. Remarks

5 Nov 2015: Updated v1.2 to v1.4. – D. Levitt.

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 iii
CONTENTS
FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iv

TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v

1.0
 Summary of Solubility, Partitioning (Kd), and Diffusion Parameters ................................... 1

2.0
 Geochemical Conditions ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1
 Hydrostratigraphic Units ................................................................................................... 6

2.2
 Shallow Unconfined Aquifer ............................................................................................ 7

3.0
 Method for Estimating Distributions for Solubility and Partitioning Parameters .................. 9

4.0
 Solid/Water Partition Coefficients (Kd) ................................................................................ 11

4.1
 Partitioning by Element .................................................................................................. 13

4.1.1
 Actinium .................................................................................................................... 13

4.1.2
 Americium ................................................................................................................ 13

4.1.3
 Cesium ...................................................................................................................... 13

4.1.4
 Iodine ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.1.5
 Lead ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.6
 Neptunium ................................................................................................................. 15

4.1.7
 Plutonium .................................................................................................................. 15

4.1.8
 Protactinium .............................................................................................................. 16

4.1.9
 Radium ...................................................................................................................... 16

4.1.10
 Strontium ................................................................................................................... 16

4.1.11
 Technetium ................................................................................................................ 17

4.1.12
 Thorium ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.1.13
 Uranium .................................................................................................................... 17

5.0
 Element and Species Solubility ............................................................................................ 18

5.1
 Solubility by Element ..................................................................................................... 21

5.1.1
 Actinium .................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.2
 Americium ................................................................................................................ 21

5.1.3
 Cesium ...................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.4
 Iodine ........................................................................................................................ 21

5.1.5
 Lead ......................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.6
 Neptunium ................................................................................................................. 22

5.1.7
 Plutonium .................................................................................................................. 22

5.1.8
 Protactinium .............................................................................................................. 22

5.1.9
 Radium ...................................................................................................................... 22

5.1.10
 Radon ........................................................................................................................ 22

5.1.11
 Strontium ................................................................................................................... 23

5.1.12
 Technetium ................................................................................................................ 23

5.1.13
 Thorium ..................................................................................................................... 23

5.1.14
 Uranium .................................................................................................................... 23

5.1.14.1
 Uranium Forms and Geochemical Model Parameters ............................ 23

5.1.14.2
 Uranium Solubilities based on Schoepite ............................................... 26

5.1.14.3
 Uranium Solubilities based on U3O8 ....................................................... 28

6.0
 Ionic and Molecular Diffusion Coefficients ......................................................................... 29

7.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 31

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 iv
FIGURES
Figure 1: Example of probability distribution function for log-uniform distribution. Value for
Kd of Ac in silt with a range of values from 15.7 to 1,910 mL/g. ............................... 10

Figure 2: Distribution of Kd values for I in sand. Values less than 0 are set equal to zero. ........ 11

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 v
TABLES
Table 1: Distribution Parameters for Partitioning Coefficients (Kd) for materials (mL/g).
Unless noted otherwise, distributions are described by the log uniform
distribution. .................................................................................................................... 1

Table 2: Log Uniform Parameters for Solubilities .......................................................................... 2

Table 3. Ranges of Values Used to Develop Distribution Ranges for Kd Values. .......................... 2

Table 4. Solubility Ranges Used to Develop Solubility Distributions. For most of these
elements a log-uniform distribution was chosen, so the central value was not used. ... 3

Table 5. Distribution Parameters for Ionic and Molecular Diffusion Coefficients ......................... 3

Table 6: Soil and Mineralogy within the Four Hydrostratigraphic Units ....................................... 7

Table 7: Geochemical parameter ranges from Groundwater Wells at Clive, Utah ......................... 8

Table 8: Ion Concentrations from GW Wells Surrounding the Waste Cell. Negative and
positive percent charge balance contributions are given on a molar basis. ................... 8

Table 9: Model Results for High TDS System analogous to the Upper Aquifer. Uranium
solubility limit based on Schoepite. * .......................................................................... 27

Table 10: Total uranium, low TDS (ionic strength 0.127 M). Uranium solubility limit based
on schoepite. ................................................................................................................ 27

Table 11: Major dissolved uranium (VI) species included in geochemical models. ..................... 28

Table 12: Total Uranium, low TDS (ionic strength 0.127 M). Uranium solubility limit based
on the mineral U3O8. * ................................................................................................. 28

Table 13. Diffusion coefficients for selected cations and anions. ................................................. 30

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 1
1.0 Summary of Solubility, Partitioning (Kd), and Diffusion
Parameters
This section is a brief summary of parameters and distributions used for modeling geochemical
processes for the Clive Depleted Uranium (DU) Performance Assessment (PA) Model. For
distributions, the following notation is used:
• N( µ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a normal distribution with mean µ and standard deviation
σ, and optional truncation at the specified minimum and maximum, and
• LN( GM, GSD, [min, max] ) represents a log-normal distribution with geometric mean.

Water partitioning coefficients for the sand, clay and silt fractions used in the GoldSim transport
model are summarized in Table 1 (discussed in Section 4.0). The minimum and maximum
values used in the log uniform distribution of the aqueous solubility ranges used in the GoldSim
transport model are summarized in Table 2 (discussed in Section 5.0). Table 3 details the ranges
used to develop the Kd distributions listed in Table 1. Note that the Kd distributions were chosen
with the assumption of high carbonate concentrations at the site, as evidenced by the low range
of Kd values for U (e.g., 0.34 ml/g to 6.8 ml/g for sand and a maximum of 66 ml/g for clay
versus maximum U Kd values of 630,000 ml/g [EPA 1999b] and 1600 ml/g [Sheppard and
Thibault 1990]). Table 4 illustrates the min, max and central values used to determine solubility
distributions. Minimum and maximum values for a uniform distribution for ionic and molecular
diffusion coefficients are summarized in Table 5 (see Section 6.0).

Table 1: Distribution Parameters for Partitioning Coefficients (Kd) for materials (mL/g).
Unless noted otherwise, distributions are described by the log uniform distribution.
Chemical
Element
Sand Silt Clay
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Ac 1.68E+1 5.35E+2 1.57E+1 1.91E+3 8.36E+1 2.99E+3
Am 4.32E+1 8.11E+2 8.80E+1 1.14E+3 8.80E+1 1.14E+3
Cs 2.70E+0 2.22E+1 4.23E+0 1.18E+2 6.69E+0 2.39E+2
I N(4.28e-1, 6.05e-1) N(4.28e-1, 6.05e-1) N(4.28e-1, 6.05e-1)
Np 3.92E-1 5.10E+1 8.05E-1 6.21E+001 4.32E+0 8.11E+1
Pa 8.32E+0 3.31E+2 1.84E+2 9.78E+2 1.80E+2 1.56E+3
Pb 2.70E+0 2.22E+1 4.23E+0 1.18E+2 6.69E+0 2.39E+2
Pu 6.69E+1 2.39E+3 8.05E+1 6.21E+3 9.14E+2 5.47E+3
Ra 3.87E-1 6.46E+1 7.97E-1 7.53E+1 1.42E+0 1.41E+3
Rn 0.00E+0 0.00E+0 0.00E+0 0.00E+0 0.00E+0 0.00E+0
Sr 2.70E+0 2.22E+1 4.23E+0 1.18E+2 6.69E+0 2.39E+2
Tc N(1.02e-1, 1.45e-1) N(1.02e-1, 1.45e-1) N(1.02e-1, 1.45e-1)
Th 1.92E+1 4.16E+1 3.44E+1 6.97E+2 8.47E+1 2.36E+3
U 3.44E-1 6.77E+0 8.80E-1 1.14E+1 9.05E+0 6.63E+001
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 2
Table 2: Log Uniform Parameters for Solubilities
Chemical Element Min (mol/L) Max (mol/L)
Ac 6.81E-9 1.47E-5
Am 6.81E-10 1.47E-6
Cs 6.81E-3 1.47E+1
I 5.99E-5 1.67E+0
Np 6.81E-6 1.47E-2
Pa 6.81E-9 1.47E-5
Pb 6.81E-9 1.47E-5
Pu 5.27E-11 1.90E-5
Ra 5.99E-10 1.67E-5
Rn 7.74E-4 1.29E-1
Sr 6.81E-7 1.47E-3
Tc 7.74E-5 1.29E-2
Th 7.74E-9 1.29E-6
U* 3.58E-6 2.79E-3
U3O8 1.0E-16 6.5E-10
UO3 3.58E-6 2.79E-3
* See GoldSim model note Section .
Table 3. Ranges of Values Used to Develop Distribution Ranges for Kd Values.

Salt Water
Ranges: (units are L/kg) soil/water partition coefficients (Kds)
Element Sand Silt Clay
Ac 20 to 450 20 to 1500 100 to 2500
Am
50 to 700: 100
central
100 to 1000: 200
central 100 to 1000: 200 central
Cs 3 to 20 5 to 100 8 to 200
I 0 0 0
Np 0.5 to 40 1 to 50 5 to 70
Pa 10-275 200 to 900 200 to 1400
Pb 3 to 20 5 to 100 8 to 200
Pu 80 to 2000 100 to 5000 1000 to 5000
Ra 0.5 to 50 1 to 60 2-1000
Rn 0 0 0
Sr 3 to 20 5 to 100 8 to 200
Tc 0 0 0
Th 20 to 40 40 to 600 100 to 2000
U 0.4 to 6 1 to 10 10 to 60
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 3
Table 4. Solubility Ranges Used to Develop Solubility Distributions. For most of these
elements a log-uniform distribution was chosen, so the central value was not used.
Element Solubility (M)
Range, Min
Solubility (M)
Range, Max
Solubility (M)
Central Value
Ac 1.00E-08 1.00E-05 1.00E-06
Am 1.00E-09 1.00E-06 5.00E-07
Cs 1.00E-02 1.00E+01 1.00E+00
I 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.00E-01
Np 1.00E-05 1.00E-02 1.40E-04
Pa 1.00E-08 1.00E-05 1.00E-07
Pb 1.00E-08 1.00E-05 1.00E-06
Pu 1.00E-10 1.00E-05 5.10E-07
Ra 1.00E-09 1.00E-05 1.00E-06
Rn 1.00E-03 1.00E-01 1.35E-02
Sr 1.00E-06 1.00E-03 1.00E-04
Tc 1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E-03
Th 1.00E-08 1.00E-06 5.00E-07
U 5.00E-06 2.00E-03 5.00E-04

Table 5. Distribution Parameters for Ionic and Molecular Diffusion Coefficients
Parameter Ion/Molecule Units Distribution
Dm All cm2/s U( 3 × 10-6, 2 × 10-5 )

2.0 Geochemical Conditions
The Clive Disposal Facility is located on the eastern side of the Great Salt Lake Desert. The
geochemistry of the Clive, Utah location is dominated by weathering and erosion of the local
basin and mountains and by recharge via meteorological precipitation. The area consists of a
large basin surrounded by mountains formed of Paleozoic limestones, dolomites, shales,
quartzites, and sandstones. Isolated areas of the Great Salt Lake desert region are underlain with
tertiary extrusive igneous basaltic flows and pyroclasts. The valley sediments consist of alluvial
fans, evaporites, and unconsolidated and semi-consolidated valley fill (Bingham Environmental
1991, Schaefer et al., 2003). Within the valley, where the Clive facility is located, the valley fill
is formed by quaternary-age lacustrine lake deposits associated with the former Lake Bonneville.
The surface deposits are mainly low-permeability silty clays with sand and gravel outcrops and
lenses in the subsurface. Bedrock appears to be at least 75 m (250 ft) below ground surface (bgs)
and potentially much lower. The regional groundwater flow is to the east-northeast towards the
Great Salt Lake.
There are four zones within the PA model domain that are included in the radionuclide transport
model, moving downward beginning with the DU waste cell there is a clay liner beneath this
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 4
waste—part of the engineered closure system. Beneath the clay liner is the unsaturated zone
which extends to the upper aquifer in the saturated zone. Each zone has unique properties that
will influence the dissolved transport of the radionuclides modeled. The DU in the waste cell,
like the unsaturated zone below it, is expected to be largely devoid of a significant water phase
during the period of this PA model. The DU waste will be initially contained in cylinders or
drums within the embankment. For the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and associated
geochemical modeling, there is no assumption that the waste cell will have any type of grout or
concrete added. However, it is likely that fill will be placed between the waste containers before
the cell is closed. It is expected that within the 10,000-year time period the containers will fail to
a significant extent such that the DUoxide will be mixed with the degraded steel containers and
surrounding fill material. No credit is given for containment by the steel drums or cylinders, nor
is any credit taken for adsorption of radionuclides onto the steel drums. Water will occur as
inclusions in the waste and fill pores. Transport through this zone, either downward or upward,
via a dissolved phase, is modeled using the solubility conditions and partitioning (Kd) values
described below.
The conceptual model for the transport of radionuclides at the Clive Facility allows sufficient
meteoric water infiltration into the waste zone such that dissolution of uranium and daughters,
fission products and potential transuranic contaminants (along with native soluble minerals) will
occur. Depending upon the amount of water available, these radionuclides will either
re-precipitate, once the thermodynamic conditions for saturation are reached or remain in
solution and be transported to the saturated zone. This water is expected to be oxidizing, with
circumneutral to slightly alkaline pH (similar to the upper unconfined aquifer), and an
atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide. However, the amount of total dissolved solids
(TDS) is expected to be initially lower than the upper aquifer. The composition of this aqueous
phase will change as it reaches the unsaturated zone, with some increase in dissolved solids and
potentially lower dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. This is a fairly simplistic representation
geochemically, yet the use of stochastics for the material properties, element solubilities, and
sorption parameters provides for variability in this model.
The saturated zone for this PA model includes only the shallow, unconfined aquifer. The water
table in the shallow aquifer is reported to be located in Unit 3 on the west side of the site (under
the Federal DU cell) and in Unit 2 on the east side (Bingham 1994). The influence of off-normal
conditions on shallow groundwater flow is discussed in Envirocare (2004) for two cases. In the
first, flow was affected by localized recharge from a surface water retention pond in the
southwest corner of the facility near well GW-19A in the spring of 1999. The potential for pond
overflow and localized groundwater mounding was eliminated by rerouting surface water
drainage to the pond. In the second, a groundwater mound formed between March 1993 and
spring 1997 below a borrow pit excavated near the 11e.(2) cells that occasionally filled with rain
water. The mound decreased and was negligible by the time of the report in 2004. The latter of
these conditions was captured by the hydraulic gradient data set used to develop the distribution
for the Clive DU PA model. The influence of these conditions on the hydraulic gradient appear
to be transient and of small magnitude.
Transport of radionuclides is expected to be restricted to this aquifer and not migrate to the deep
aquifer due to a natural upward gradient at the facility. The Unsaturated Zone Modeling and
Saturated Zone Modeling white papers discuss transport in more detail. The chemical
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 5
composition of the saturated zone was established by using site-specific groundwater quality
measurements. This groundwater is characterized as somewhat alkaline pH likely due to the
presence of carbonates, oxidizing, with high levels of dissolved ions of mainly sodium and
chlorine. The presence of carbonates can have a significant influence on uranium solubility.
The aqueous chemistry for the unsaturated zone is expected to be relatively oxidizing. However,
reducing conditions can exist in some areas of the saturated zone as evidenced by low Eh values
and zero dissolved oxygen in some wells at the Clive Facility.
The radionuclides of interest for this PA model include uranium and its daughter products with
relatively long half-lives, along with fission products and potential contaminant transuranic
elements (ORNL 2000, Beals, et al. 2002). The inventory and speciation of the radionuclides in
the waste layer will determine the source term. The total inventory and uranium oxide waste
forms are described in a separate white paper (Waste Inventory).
The three major types of chemical reactions that affect water composition include dissolution
and precipitation, ion-exchange and sorption, occurring as gas-phase and aqueous reactions.
Precipitation and dissolution are the major reactions between the solid and aqueous phases.
When the dissolved concentration of a radionuclide exceeds the solubility limit for any possible
mineral form, the solid phase will theoretically precipitate and control the maximum
concentration. Precipitation and dissolution are governed by thermodynamic and kinetic
considerations that include water temperature, redox conditions, concentration (activity) of
dissolved constituents, pH, and partial pressure of gases including carbon dioxide. The rate of
dissolution (kinetics) is not considered in the PA model. Due to the ratio of dissolution rate to the
time frame of interest for contaminant transport (10,000 years), it is assumed that any dissolution
is instantaneous within this time frame. Ionic strength is also a critical parameter, especially in
waters with high dissolved solids, as activity is influenced by this parameter. The
thermodynamic activity of a dissolved species is the product of its actual concentration and
activity coefficient. For dilute systems, the activity is close to unity but will deviate substantially
at high ionic concentrations. Under equilibrium conditions, the composition of the aqueous phase
within each zone will react with the surrounding solid phases to establish the chemistry that will
define the radionuclide solubilities discussed in Section 5.0. Sorption at the solid-solution
interface is also important in transport modeling and is discussed in Section 4.0.
By definition, isotopes behave identically from a chemical standpoint. As such, both solubility
and sorption parameters are treated as equal for each isotope of a single element. For example,
uranium-234, -235 and -238, is isotopes, are given equal solubility and sorption constraints,
competing for sorption sites and for aqueous solubility.
Colloid-mediated transport of actinides is possible within nuclear waste; however, this process is
complex and controversially discussed (Geckeis and Rabung 2008). Kim (1991) has reported
that the transport of polyvalent actinides can be enhanced when sorbed to colloids (e.g.,
nanoparticles), whereas experiments at the Girmsel Test Site (GTS) in Switzerland have shown
that clay colloids promote retardation and retention of radionuclides (Möri et al. 2003; Geckeis et
al. 2004). The colloidal transport/retardation process is known to be controlled by variables such
as the radionuclide-colloid interaction mechanism, colloid dissolution, agglomeration, filtration
or colloid attachment to surfaces (Geckeis and Rabung 2008). Colloid-mediated transport of
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 6
radionuclides is considered to be more significant in areas where the rock is fractured and
porous, allowing for access to groundwater pathways (Geckeis and Rabung 2008). This transport
is less significant in rock formations that are nonporous (Voegelin and Kretzschmar, 2002),
retarding migration to water sources. In addition, colloid retention is favored at high ionic
strength, low pH and in impermeable rock (Ryan and Elimelech 1996; Degueldre, et al. 2000;
CRWMS 2000). The high ionic strength conditions in the saturated zone at Clive are not
considered favorable for colloid transport. Thus, colloid-mediated transport has not been
incorporated in the PA model.
Additionally, since the site conditions are not considered favorable for colloid transport, the
effect of colloids on adsorption is that they could provide another surface to which adsorption
occurs. The effect of colloids on Kd distributions is highly uncertain as it depends on the
availability of colloid surfaces in the waste layer and the strength of sorption to colloids as
compared to surrounding minerals. If there were a high concentration of colloids in the waste and
if radionuclide-colloid Kds were greater than radionuclide-mineral Kds, then the Kds derived
from minerals alone would be low, allowing for greater transport of radionuclides in the system
than what would be expected in reality. In the current model Kds are derived from mineral
sorption coefficients. Since the presence and amount of colloids in the Clive DU waste is
unknown and the effects of colloids on Kds speculative, colloids are not considered in the
development of Kd distributions at this time.
2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units
Sediments at the Clive site are divided into four hydrostratigraphic units within the unsaturated
and saturated zones (Table 6). Unit 4 is the uppermost unit, with Unit 1 beginning
approximately 12 to 14 m (40 to 45 feet) bgs (Envirocare 2004).
The Unit 4 soils have cation exchange capacity (CEC) values in the range of 10 to 20 meq/100 g
(USDA, 2009). These values were used qualitatively in the derivation of sorption parameters
described below.
The waste zone will contain two forms of DU oxide: UO3 produced from the Savannah River
Site (SRS) and other DOE facilities, and what is predominantly U3O8 from the gaseous diffusion
plants (GDPs). In both cases the waste will be initially stored in steel cylinders and drums that
are assumed to be backfilled with Unit 3 soils.
Geochemical conditions and water movement have not been extensively studied in the
unsaturated zone at the Clive Facility. As described above, the upper level pore water within the
unsaturated zones is expected to contain lower TDS than is found within the saturated zone,
though these levels could increase with depth in the unsaturated zone. The relative anion and
cation constituents of this pore water are likely very similar to those in the saturated zone. This
is expected as the ions in the saturated zone appear to be largely due to the presence of evaporites
and alluvium from the valley and former Lake Bonneville. Dissolved oxygen and carbon
dioxide are expected to be largely in equilibrium with atmospheric conditions, at least in the
upper profile including the DU waste zone. For derivation of the solubility and sorption
parameters a pH range of 6.5-8.5, pCO2 range of slightly above atmospheric to slightly below
atmospheric, and geochemical make up similar to the saturated zone but lower TDS was used.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 7
Table 6: Soil and Mineralogy within the Four Hydrostratigraphic Units
Unit Number Soil and Mineral Type Unit Description
4 Fine-grained silty clay, clay silt.
Carbonates, quartz, feldspars,
clay minerals (kaolinite, smectite,
and illite/mica) trace gypsum.
From 6 to16.5 ft thick with an average
thickness of 10 ft. Unsaturated.
3 Silty sand, occasional silty to
sandy clay lenses.
10 to 25 ft thick with an average of thickness
of 15 ft. Largely unsaturated, with lower
portion saturated in western part of site. The
unconfined water-bearing zone in Unit 3 and
the upper part of Unit 2 has been
designated as the shallow aquifer.
2 Silty clay. 2.5 to 25 ft thick with an average of
thickness of 15 ft. Unit 2 is saturated below
the Clive Facility.
1 Silty sand with occasional silty
clay. Confined aquifer.
Begins at a depth of approximately 45 ft
bgs. The thickness of Unit 1 is unknown.
2.2 Shallow Unconfined Aquifer
The geochemistry of the shallow, unconfined aquifer consists of very high levels of dissolved
solutes as outlined above. The groundwater table occurs near the bottom of Unit 3, with the
shallow aquifer mainly within Unit 2. For the purposes of the PA model, the water table is
assumed to be coincident with this stratigraphic interface. This unconfined aquifer contains very
high dissolved solids, with TDS values ranging from 20 to 70 parts per thousand and specific
gravity from 1.02 to 1.06 g/mL (Envirocare 2004, and recent site specific groundwater data
acquired by EnergySolutions). The shallow aquifer consists of a brine with sodium and chloride
comprising approximately 90 percent of the ions (see Table 7 and Table 8). This brine is likely a
result of the dissolution from the Lake Bonneville evaporite sediments. Prior geochemical
modeling (Bingham Environmental, 1991) indicates the aquifer is supersaturated with calcite and
dolomite. Geochemical modeling for this PA also indicates these minerals to be at saturated
conditions. The deep confined aquifer, in Unit 1, also has high values of TDS of up to 20 parts
per thousand, but the average is well below the average of the shallow aquifer. The higher
salinity of the shallow aquifer is thought to be due to concentration of salts through
evapotranspiration (ET) and/or localized dissolution of evaporite deposits in the unsaturated
zone.
The Clive Facility has a large number of monitoring wells with completion zones in the shallow
aquifer and monitoring data are currently collected from these wells on at least an annual basis.
Prior to geochemical modeling performed for this PA, geochemical data from seven of these
monitoring wells were summarized and are provided in Table 8 and Table 9 below. These wells
are in close proximity to the DU waste cell. All wells are completed within the upper unconfined
aquifer, and are located surrounding the cell in all four horizontal directions. Data ranges and
averages were taken from quarterly, and in some cases monthly, monitoring reports. At least two
years of data were used, and in most cases data goes back to at least the year 2000.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 8
Table 7: Geochemical parameter ranges from Groundwater Wells at Clive, Utah
Well ID pH TDS
(mg/L)
Eh
(mV)
DO
(mg/L)
Bicarbonate
(mg/L)
Temp
(°C)
GW-16R 6.65 to 7.63 26,000 to 46,400 -21 to 489 0.2 to 3 300 to 350 11.40 to 13.60
GW-25 6.62 to 7.62 40,000 to 55,000 -34 to 500 0 to 6.7 160 to 330 10.90 to 15.50
GW-19A 7.16 to 7.25 69,000 to 75,000 61 to 212 1.6 to 2.51 120 to 140 13.40 to 14.29
GW-57 6.64 to 7.69 35,000 to 52,700 -43.70 to 480 0.19 to 5.37 102 to 140 10.80 to 15.10
GW-100 6.95 to 7.63 31,000 to 42,000 30.8 to 209 0.4 to 4.0 120 to 140 12.13 to 14.00
GW-110 7.24 to 7.57 29,000 to 38,000 -18 to 168 0.14 to 7.52 160 to 204 12.60 to 13.59
GW-125 7.09 to 7.52 28,000 to 40,000 48 to 233 0.76 to 4.58 160 to 180 12.60 to 13.84
Max Range 6.62 to 7.69 26,000 to 75,000 -43.70 to 500 0 to 7.52 102 to 350 10.8 to 15.5

Table 8: Ion Concentrations from GW Wells Surrounding the Waste Cell. Negative and
positive percent charge balance contributions are given on a molar basis.
GW Well
Br–
(mg/L)
F–
(mg/L)
Cl–
(mg/L)
NO3–
(mg/L)
SO42–
(mg/L)
Ca2+
(mg/L)
Mg2+
(mg/L)
K+
(mg/L)
Na+
(mg/L)
GW-16R 22 3.8 22,914 1.4 1,769 354 486 476 14,263
GW-25 23 8.8 25,783 1.1 4,420 527 853 565 16,465
GW-19A 0 0.0 37,800 0.0 0 1,028 1,580 616 23,800
GW-57 18 8.5 23,110 1.9 4,652 707 844 530 14,398
GW-100 26 1.8 20,254 1.1 2,911 496 683 457 12,993
GW-110 17 1.5 17,989 2.1 2,226 322 469 432 11,400
GW-125 16 0.9 20,813 2,494 427 637 488 12,813
Average
(mg/L) 20 4.2 24,094 1.5 3,079 552 793 509 15,162
Average
(mol/L) 2.2E-04 1.9E-04 6.8E-01 1.8E-05 2.7E-02 1.4E-02 3.3E-02 1.3E-02 6.6E-01
percent
of charge
balance 0.03% 0.03% 92 % 0.002% 7.5 % 3.6 % 8.5 % 1.7 % 86 %

The groundwater is considered a brine, with TDS values as high as 72,000 mg/L. The redox
conditions are fairly oxidizing with an average Eh of 125 mV. Sodium and chloride are clearly
the dominant ions with slightly alkaline pH. Excellent charge balance is obtained using these
data, indicating all major ions are being accounted for. Note that the dominance of Na and Cl in
the charge balance (86% and 92%) obscures many of the other ion contributions. Groundwater
temperatures range from 11.5 to 14.5 °C. Using the data from the average of all wells shown in
Table 7, the stoichiometric ionic strength is calculated at 0.73 M (mol/L).
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 9
3.0 Method for Estimating Distributions for Solubility and
Partitioning Parameters
The process for developing probability distributions for the geochemical parameters utilized the
following basic scheme:
1. Perform a literature search for parameter values.
2. Based on site characteristics, screen the literature studies to those that could potentially
apply to the Clive site.
3. Weight the remaining literature values based on expert judgment.
4. Develop a distribution based on the weighting.
In nearly every case, once the site specific data and the general literature were screened to retain
studies relevant to the Clive site. Any value within the range of those studies was deemed to be
"equally viable," given the uncertainty associated with various soil and water characteristics for
the site. “Equally viable” indicates that the probability of one order of magnitude range is
equally likely as any other order of magnitude range within the overall viable range. Therefore,
the default probability distribution is a log-uniform distribution. To establish a range for the log-
uniform distribution, the range of values from the relevant literature was considered. To ensure
that the distribution represented the minimum and maximum literature values, these values were
treated as the 5th (Q0.05) and 95th (Q0.95) percentiles of the distribution, respectively, effectively
extending the support of the distribution a small amount beyond the range of literature values.
That is, the geometric mean of the distribution is set to the geometric mean of the quantiles:
𝐺𝑀=exp ln𝑄!.!"+ln𝑄!.!"
2 (1)
To calculate the range of the distribution in log-space, the range of the log-percentiles is
extended from 90% to 100%:
𝑅!=ln𝑄!.!"−ln𝑄!.!"
0.9 (2)
To get the endpoints of the log-uniform distribution, the half-range is subtracted and added to
the geometric mean:
Min =exp ln𝐺𝑀−𝑅!
2        Max =exp ln𝐺𝑀+𝑅!
2 (3)

For example, the literature values for Kd values of Ac in silt ranged from 20 mL/g to 1500 mL/g.
Treating these values as 5th and 95th percentiles gives a geometric mean of GM=173, and a
log-range of Rl=4.80, leading to a log-uniform distribution from 15.7 mL/g to 1910 mL/g. This
distribution is illustrated in Figure 1.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 10
The exceptions to the log-uniform fit were the Kd values for Tc and I. For these parameters,
values of 0 are possible, yet a log-uniform distribution cannot represent that possibility naturally.
For these parameters, it was decided to fit a distribution that would give an approximate 25%
chance of a 0 value and a median near the Clive-specific data (Adrian Brown Consultants,
Response to UDEQ Kd Interrogatories, 1997). The median values used were 0.11 mL/g for Tc
and 0.46 mL/g for I. For Tc, a maximum literature value of 0.33 was considered as a 95th
percentile. These distributions were fitted using the standard approach of fitting distributions
based on quantiles that is described in the Fitting Probability Distributions white paper. A
normal distribution fit these percentiles well, when values less than 0 were treated as 0. The I
distribution was then scaled to match the shape of the Tc distribution. Figure 2 illustrates how
the distribution for I is represented in GoldSim. Values less than zero are set equal to zero.

Figure 1: Example of probability distribution function for log-uniform distribution. Value
for Kd of Ac in silt with a range of values from 15.7 to 1,910 mL/g.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 11

Figure 2: Distribution of Kd values for I in sand. Values less than 0 are set equal to zero.
4.0 Solid/Water Partition Coefficients (Kd)
The transport of dissolved radionuclides can be limited by sorption onto the solid phase of
associated minerals and soils within each of the zones considered in this PA model. The
transport of uranium is limited by both solubility and the sorption of radionuclides in
groundwater. Sorption consists of several physicochemical processes including ion exchange,
adsorption, and chemisorption.
Sorption is represented in the PA model as a Kd value. While the geochemistry of contaminant
transport is complex, a representative and standard approach was taken for the purposes of the
PA. Distribution parameters for radionuclide solubilities are derived in Section 5 below. The
current section focuses on the description of sorption and the derivation of parameters for Kd
distributions.
Solid/water partition coefficients, or Kds, are based on a simple equilibrium sorption model, and
are a simplification of the wide range of geochemical processes discussed above. Despite the
simplicity of the Kd models, they are commonly used in performance assessments because of
their ease of implementation in transport codes. Site-specific monitoring tests were used in the
process to derive distributions when this information was available. The Kd model assumes that a
given constituent dissolved in the water (e.g., uranium) has some propensity to sorb to the solid
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 12
phase of a porous medium, while maintaining an aqueous phase. The definition of the solid/water
distribution coefficient, with units of mL/g is:
𝐾!=𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑(𝑔/𝑔)
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟(𝑔/𝑚𝐿). (4)
The sorption is assumed to be instantaneously reversible and independent of concentration. That
is, no dynamics are accounted for, and the ratio is always simply linear—a constituent’s
concentration in water is always the same ratio with respect to its sorbed concentration onto the
solid, and sorption is instantaneous. This is the commonly used linear isotherm assumption.
Applying the Kd model outside of the range of concentrations used to obtain the values can lead
to over- or under-estimation of sorption. To account for ranges of geochemical conditions and
the potential deviation from the assumptions underlying the linear sorption model which may
result in variation in Kd values, this PA model includes parameter distributions (stochastics) for
the sorption values. Nominal Kd values were selected using both site-specific monitoring tests
(when available) and the general scientific literature. Data were taken from literature that most
closely matched the geochemical conditions at the site, including TDS range, pH and alkaline
conditions, temperature, and soil properties (CEC, clay types) to the extent possible. Kd values
have been chosen for five individual materials: silt, sand, clay, UO3 waste and U3O8 waste. In all
natrual zones the silt, sand, and clay are mixed to some extent. After including the uranium
oxide material amounts into the GoldSim model, it became apparent that they form such a small
fraction of the profile relative to the other materials that sorption processes within the waste
could be neglected, so these materials are assigned values for Unit 3, represented using the Kds
for sand. It is also recognized that essentially no information on sorption to uranium oxides (as
the waste inventory) is available in the published literature.
The process for selecting Kd values for the elements entailed an extensive literature search to
identify sorption values used in other transport models, and in particular from locations that have
similar solid phase properties and geochemical conditions. The sorption values used by
Whetstone Associates (2009), Bingham Environmental (1995, 1996), Scism (2006), Sheppard
and Thibault (1990), the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project (LANL 1997), DOE
(2003), and Envirocare (2000) were evaluated. In addition, the EPA three volume series
Understanding Variation In Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values (EPA, 1999a, 1999b, 2004) was
referenced extensively in this process. The reader is advised to consult that EPA series as it was
used for the derivation of many Kd values and much of that information is not repeated here.
Work by Serne (2007) was also reviewed during this investigation. Serne focused on surface
agricultural soils and Columbia River bank near-surface sediment associated with the Hanford
site. Some of the scenarios investigated by Serne (2007) are “non-groundwater” scenarios which
do not involve direct ingestion of contaminated well water by humans or animals. Serne
specifically states that the values are not to be used in water-borne scenarios except when the
modeling is used to estimate accumulation of contaminants by future surface soils from irrigation
practices, and that they are not appropriate for unsaturated zone transport to the groundwater.
Nevertheless, the results are important from a semi-quantitative perspective. Of note is that the
Hanford soils are slightly acidic (pH 6.2 to 7.8), with organic content of 0.5 to 1.5% organic
carbon somewhat different from the Clive location with organic carbon contents of
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 13
approximately 0.3% to 1%. Serne (2007) also reviews a number of studies that are also
somewhat applicable to the Clive facility and the range of Kd values provided are useful as a first
comparison. As such, a number of values compiled by Serne are provided below. Serne also
refers to work by Last et al. (2004) and Krupka et al. (2004) for systems that include migration to
groundwater, as envisioned in this PA model. Values described by these authors are discussed
below for individual species.
4.1 Partitioning by Element
This section provides a description of the derivation of the partition coefficient for each element
used in the transport model. Data were derived first from site-specific monitoring studies where
this information was available. Second, the data was taken from literature searches, with values
chosen from locations with similar geochemistry and soil/mineral conditions as the Clive facility
as described in Section 4.0 above.
4.1.1 Actinium
Minimal Kd information was found for this element. Values from Sheppard and Thibault (1990)
are as follows: 450 mL/g (sand), 1,500 mL/g (loam, here used to represent silt), 2,400 mL/g
(clay), 5,400 mL/g (organic). In order to derive values for this PA for each of the three materials
(sand, silt, and clay) a range similar to those from Sheppard and Thibault (1990) was
incorporated with adjustments made for each of the three materials.
4.1.2 Americium
Americium will likely occur predominantly as carbonate complex cation Am (III) in the pH
range at the Clive facility, though some speciation as an anion is also possible. This rare earth
element will have a large sorption coefficient. The largest source of Kd values for this element
was found in Serne (2007) with discussion on a number of studies by other researchers. In the
Hanford system, americium adsorbs fairly strongly to soils and sediments. Serne chose a best
value of 500 mL/g with a recommended range of 60 mL/g to 5,000 mL/g for the
non-groundwater scenarios. This range is consistent with studies by others using a matrix within
a groundwater system, with the exception of those done on <1 mm size particles by Tanaka and
Muraoka found in Serne. Krupka et al. (2004) chose a best value of 300 mL/g. Sanchez (in EPA
2004) found no apparent effect of salinity on Kd values and no additional information was
obtained during this research. For the transport model a range from 43 mL/g to 1,140 mL/g was
chosen as shown in Table 1.
4.1.3 Cesium
Cesium sorption is strong in most soils (EPA 1999b). Sorption commonly occurs as the Cs+
cation via cation exchange. In calcareous soils with mica minerals, cesium was essentially
completely absorbed above pH 4.0. However, high salt solution does decrease sorption. At
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) (Hull, 2008), a release of cesium in 1972 has been found to be
essentially immobile. This effect is thought to largely be a function of cation exchange with
clays in the exchange on both the planar and frayed edge sites of clays. The binding on the
frayed edge is considered stronger, resulting in a high Kd.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 14
Serne (2007) chose a recommended value of 2,000 mL/g for the low ionic strength, circum-
neutral waters in the near surface sediments at Hanford. This was consistent with the value from
Krupka et al. (2004). Serne (2007) recommended a range of 200 to 5,000 mL/g for the non-
water-borne (e.g., unsaturated, agriculture zone) scenarios at that location and a log normal
probability distribution to describe the variation.
Because cesium sorbs by an ion exchange process, sorption can be depressed by high TDS of the
groundwater. Vandergraaf et al. (1993) has performed sorption experiments with Cs examining
the relationship between Cs concentrations and TDS and were able to fit a quadratic equation to
the data. For this PA model, cesium Kd values were selected largely from the look up tables in
EPA (1999c), but were adjusted lower due to the high TDS in the saturated zone. Also note that
the CEC values of 10-20 meq/100 g at the Clive facility are indicative of some but not a
significant presence of clay minerals within the saturated zone. These CEC values apply to the
materials within the saturated zone. The liner especially, and some native materials within the
unsaturated zone do contain clay minerals.
4.1.4 Iodine
Iodine is expected to largely exist as the anion, I– or IO3–, though volatile organic forms are also
possible. Because of the negative charge, sorption will likely not be strong, due to the typical
negative charge of the soils at the Clive site under neutral to alkaline conditions. This is
especially true in the saturated zone where high concentrations of chloride ions will compete for
any available sites to sorb. Sorption appears to increase with increasing organic matter for iodine
(EPA 2004), which may be largely due to microbial processes. Studies of iodine sorption under
oxic conditions on Hanford Site sediments (Kaplan 1998b from EPA 2004) indicated very low
Kd values. Serne (2007) recommended a value of 3 mL/g with a range of 0 to 15 mL/g. Last et
al. (2004) recommended a range of 0 to 2 mL/g. The very low concentrations of organic
compounds found in the sediments at the Clive facility would support the use of a low range for
the Kd. This range is largely derived from Summary of Results, Radionuclide Kd Tests (Bingham
Environmental, Inc. August 3, 1995) where a value of 0.7 mL/g was derived for the Clive facility
using samples from Unit 3 samples. The grain size distributions from these Unit 3 samples
indicated the material was largely sand. Clive site groundwater was used for the sorption
studies. This Kd value was then changed in Adrian Brown Consultants (1997), with a
recommended value of 0.46 mL/g.
4.1.5 Lead
Lead speciation is largely anticipated to be in the form of dissolved PbCO3 at least in the
saturated zone. Lead may be largely in the hydroxide ion form in waters of lower carbonate
concentration, though this is not anticipated to any significant extent. As PbCO3 is expected to
be the dominant form above pH 7, sorption will not be especially significant. Lead has such low
solubility, especially in presence of phosphate and chloride, that solubility often can control
movement. Table 1 in Appendix D of the Bingham Environmental (1991) shows an EPA Arid
Site value of 220 mL/g for lead, with an applicable range of 1 to 10,000 mL/g. Serne (2007)
recommended a value of 400 mL/g for the non-groundwater scenarios at Hanford, within the
range of Sheppard and Thibault (1990). Based on the Pauling ionic radii of Sr2+ and Pb2+ (1.12
and 1.19 Å, respectively), the sorption of lead is expected to be similar to strontium and also to
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 15
be somewhat suppressed by high ionic strength solutions. For this model, the lead Kd values
were chosen in a range from 2 to 200 mL/g with lower values for the sand material. This range
was based upon the expected similarity with strontium and cesium.
4.1.6 Neptunium
Neptunium will most probably exist in the Np(V) form with some as Np(IV), principally as an
uncharged hydroxide, where reducing conditions exist. In the Np(V) form as NpO2+, this species
can sorb to iron oxides and clays but not to a significant extent to common minerals. Np(V) has
a pH dependence, with negligible sorption at values less than pH 5. This ion can also form
carbonate complexes above pH 8.5 or under high carbonate concentration conditions (Serne,
2007).
The transient, mildly reducing conditions that can exist at Clive and the presence of carbonates
may lead to the formation of Np(V) carbonate complexes above pH 7 (EPA 2004). However,
there are a limited number of Kd studies for this element. Heberling et al. (2008) studied Np(V)
adsorption to calcite at four pH values at constant ionic strength. The Kd was found to vary with
both pH and concentration with a value range of 0.0090 ± 0.004 mL/g to 0.0610 ± 0.002 mL/g.
Wooyong et al. (2009) measured Kd values from sediment collected at the Hanford site and
found a range of 0.6 to 4.8 mL/g. The EPA (2004) suggests a minimum Kd of 0.2 mL/g. Serne
(2007) chose a range of 2 to 50 mL/g for the non-groundwater scenario at Hanford with a best
value of 25 mL/g. This range is approximately two times higher than the range recommended by
Last et al. (2004) and Krupka et al. (2004) for groundwater systems.
Vandergraaf et al. (1993) reported values ranging from 0.5 to 68 mL/g. In the presence of Fe(II),
reduction of Np(V) has been observed (Cui and Eriksen 1996, Nakata et al. 2002). Kumata et al.
(1993) observed retention of Np in columns of crushed granite from solutions with low Eh
values finding a relationship between retention and flow rate that suggested that the kinetics of
the redox process were relatively slow. Values from Sheppard and Thibault (1990) are as
follows: sand: 5 mL/g, loam (silt): 25 mL/g, clay: 55 mL/g, and organic: 1200 mL/g. For the
Clive facility, a similar range is recommended, though this range is reduced for the sand matrix.
4.1.7 Plutonium
Plutonium can be found in a number of valence states under the conditions at Clive. The most
likely states are as Pu(V) and Pu(VI) both as cations and complexed with hydroxide and
carbonate, although Pu(IV) may be present in the slightly reducing conditions of the saturated
zone and localized areas of the unsaturated zone due to surface-mediated reduction of Pu(V)
(Keeney-Kennicutt and Norse 1985; Powell et al. 2005; and Sanchez et al. 1985). Plutonium
sorption is known to occur on many common minerals, clays, and oxides. It is noted that
experiments by Linsalata and Cohen (1980) did not find a reduction in Kd with high ionic
strength (salinity increased to 24%). Serne (2007) chose a range of 200 to 5,000 mL/g and a best
value of 600 mL/g for the Hanford non-groundwater scenario. Last et al. (2004) and Krupka et
al. (2004) recommended values of 600 mL/g and 150 mL/g, respectively, with a high range value
of 2000 mL/g. Data by Glover et al. (1976) found in the EPA (EPA 1999b) series may be of
particular relevance to the Clive location since the data demonstrated correlations with carbonate
concentrations and clay content, two factors that are of importance in the Clive DU PA model.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 16
These data, along with Kd values collected on basalt sediments were used to develop the EPA
look up table. For the Clive location, Kd values corresponding to lower clay content especially
within the saturated zone, and medium to highly soluble carbonate throughout are most
applicable. These Kd values range from 80 mL/g to 520 mL/g. These values appear to be
slightly low compared to other studies, such as Serne (2007), Last et al (2004) and Krupka et al.
(2004) discussed above. For the Clive facility, a slightly higher range was chosen, with the
upper limit increased because of the clay matrix.
4.1.8 Protactinium
Little information was identified that provided sorption values for this element. Serne (2007)
discusses the use of neptunium as an analog for protactinium. In sea water environments, where
particles of very high surface area are encountered, Kd values of greater than 10,000 mL/g have
been measured. Serne recommended a most probable Kd value of 400 mL/g for protactinium,
similar the values used for bismuth and polonium. Serne's recommended range is 150 to 10,000
mL/g. Again, this is for a non-groundwater scenario, different from that at the Clive facility.
Sheppard and Thibault (1990) categorize Kd values by sand, clay, loam, and organic with values
ranging from 550 to 2,700, sand-clay respectively. These values from Sheppard and Thibault
(1990) formed the basis for the distribution used for this PA model. These values were reduced
to account for the high TDS in the saturated zone.
4.1.9 Radium
Based on the compilation by Serne (2007), radium is a fairly strongly sorbing species in low
ionic solutions at circumneutral pH. Radium will co-precipitate with calcium sulfate in high
ionic strength waters and may also do so in barite. Sheppard and Thibault (1990) recommended
the following values: sand: 500 mL/g, loam (silt): 36,000 mL/g clay: 9,100 mL/g and organic:
2,400 mL/g. Serne recommended a best value of 200 mL/g and a range of 5 mL/g to 500 mL/g.
This range was lower than Sheppard and Thibault (1990) based on studies that indicated cation
exchange is a dominant sequestration mechanism and the low CEC of the Hanford soils. Krupka
et al. (2004) recommended a Kd of 14 mL/g with a range of 5 mL/g to 200 mL/g. A range based
on all of the above data was chosen for each material class.
4.1.10 Strontium
Strontium has little tendency to form complexes with inorganic ligands (EPA 1999b).
Reversible cation exchange is expected to be the most important mechanism impacting sorption
in the pH conditions at the Clive facility. This behavior is similar to that of cesium though
sorption is generally not as strong. A point worth noting in this context is that natural Sr in the
groundwater will dilute any radioactive Sr isotopically. The high sulfate concentration in the
groundwater at Clive (4,420 mg/L average for GW-25) may lead to precipitation of SrSO4 or co-
precipitation with CaSO4.
A study at the INL (Hull, 2008) indicated strontium sorption was dependent upon other cations,
primarily Ca2+, Mg2+, and Na+ with Kd decreasing with increasing concentrations of these ions.
The Kd value decreased from 85 mL/g to 4.7 mL/g. This effect was considered a cation-
exchange phenomenon, where the divalent strontium cation competes with calcium. This effect
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 17
is similar to that observed by Patterson and Spoel (1981, as referenced in Hull) at the Chalk
River Nuclear Laboratories. The EPA look up table (EPA 1999) was developed using pH and
CEC values. Using this table, along with the known applicable parameter ranges for Clive of
relatively low abundance of clay minerals within the saturated zone but somewhat higher within
the unsaturated zone, a CEC of 10 to 20 meq/100 g, and pH range of 6.6 to 8.5, the listed Kd
values are within a range from 15 mL/g to approximately 200 mL/g. Note, a higher clay content
will act to increase these values. However, under very high TDS conditions as in the saturated
zone, lower sorption is expected and is reflected in the ranges chosen for this transport model.
4.1.11 Technetium
In oxic conditions technetium will exist as the TcO4– metal oxyanion, which is essentially
non-adsorptive (EPA 2004). EPA did not develop a lookup table for technetium but cite data
indicating Kd ranges from slightly negative to generally less than 1 mL/g. Under chemically
reducing conditions, either in the bulk groundwater or locally on the surface of Fe(II) containing
minerals (biotite, magnetite), or in the presence of microbes, reduction of Tc(VII) to Tc(IV) can
occur and the reduced form of Tc will either sorb strongly or will precipitate (Vandergraaf et al.
1984, Cui and Eriksen 1996). This process will fix technetium to geological material. However,
if redox conditions change, there is the possibility that Tc could be resolubilized and transported
through the geosphere as an anion without retardation. Sheppard and Thibault (1990) indicate
very low Kd values for this species ranging from 0.1 to 1. This low propensity for the TcO4– ion
to sorb, has been noted by many researchers. Wooyong et al. (2009) measured Kd values from
sediment collected at the Hanford site and found a range of 0.08 to 0.4 mL/g. For this model, the
technetium sorption distributions were chosen based on the information above and the derivation
that is provided in Adrian Brown Associates (1997). These data are derived from sorption on to
Unit 3 sand and site-specific groundwater under oxidizing conditions.
4.1.12 Thorium
The solubility of thorium is low (circa 10-9 molar), which has made sorption measurements
difficult. This element occurs only in the +4 oxidation state in natural waters. Thorium can form
many different species including carbonate complexes. The Canadian high level waste program
uses a Kd value of 800 mL/g. Values for thorium were chosen largely based upon the information
in the EPA literature (1999b, 1999c, 2004) though the values were reduced to some extent to
account for the high TDS based upon recommendations from Vandergraaf (personal
communication 2010).
4.1.13 Uranium
The Kd for uranium is important in this PA due to the large mass of this element in the inventory
relative to any other radionuclide. The transport of uranium is expected to be mainly a factor of
the solubility within the waste zone (near source), and potentially within the saturated zone with
time. However, retardation of the uranium via sorption will be important in the clay liner
beneath the waste zone and within both the unsaturated and saturated zones.
Uranium (VI) sorption can be controlled by cation exchange and adsorption processes, especially
in low ionic strength systems (EPA 1999b). As the ionic strength increases, other cations will
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 18
displace the uranyl (UO22+) ion (EPA 1999b). Uranium sorption on iron oxide minerals and
smectite clays is extensive except in the presence of carbonate where this is reduced (EPA
1999b). Aqueous pH values also influence uranium sorption, affecting the speciation as
described above as well as influencing the number of exchange sites on variably charged
surfaces. Dissolved carbonate concentrations and pH appear to be the most important factors
influencing adsorption of U(VI). However, under the slightly alkaline and carbonate dominated
conditions expected in the saturated zone, uranium will likely occur in several forms including a
uranyl-carbonate or oxy-carbonate anion or a non-charged uranyl hydoxide. The speciation
results from the solubility modeling are described in Section 5.
In the range of pH 7 to 9, there were 4 to 5 orders of magnitude variation in Kd values noted in
the data collected by the EPA (1999b, 1999c, 2004). For the pH range of 7 to 8, which is most
likely at the Clive site, the EPA listed a minimum Kd of 0.4 mL/g and a maximum of
630,000 mL/g. The minimum value was based on values calculated for quartz with the
maximum value based on data calculated for ferrihydrite and kaolinite. These very high Kd
values are considered potentially biased by one order of magnitude because of precipitation
occurring as well as adsorption (EPA 1999b). Values from Sheppard and Thibault (1990) are as
follows: sand: 35 mL/g, loam (slit): 15 mL/g clay: 1,600 mL/g and organic: 410 mL/g.
Last et al. (2004) and Krupka et al. (2004) recommend ranges for uranium of 0.2 mL/g to 4 mL/g
and 0.1 mL/g to 80 mL/g respectively. Wooyong et al. (2009) measured Kd values from
sediment collected at the Hanford site and found a range of 0.2 mL/g to 1.5 mL/g. In most cases
these authors found that higher Kd values were associated with the less-than-2-mm particle size
fraction as one would expect based purely on surface area. However in some of their sediments
this relationship was reversed. They attributed this to highly reactive surfaces on gravel at their
location.
Site-specific sorption data for uranium are also available from the Adrian Brown and Associates
(1997) report, performed by Barringer Laboratories. Two data points at a single uranium
concentration (at day 7 and 16) were obtained with tests performed at two higher concentrations
resulting in the precipitation of the uranium. The average Kd value in this study was 6.0 mL/g.
The Kd values chosen for this PA were based on both the site-specific data and literature
information. The U(VI) species in the aqueous environment will not have particularly strong
sorption tendencies. The uranyl ion is mobile in the high ionic-strength solutions and this
mobility is also found with waters containing high carbonates. This indicates uranium sorption
is more likely to be found at the lower ranges of those cited by the EPA and Sheppard and
Thibault (1990).
5.0 Element and Species Solubility
Modeling transport of radionuclides of interest at the Clive Disposal Facility area requires an
understanding of the expected concentration of these species in the dissolved phase starting in
the DU oxide waste zone. Once dissolved from the waste, the radionuclides have the potential
for transport vertically down into the unsaturated zone below and then into the shallow aquifer.
Diffusion both upward and downward in the aqueous phase is also possible. At first, leaching is
likely to be solubility-limited with respect to uranium, and the leachate will migrate away from
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 19
the source with uranium concentration at the solubility limit. The other radionuclides are
unlikely to be at a solubility limit but establishing boundaries is necessary for the modeling. The
concentrations of radionuclides limited by sorption will be less in the dissolved phase farther
from the source.
The importance of solubilities of the individual species in this PA model varies. Uranium is
expected to be solubility limited at the source, but most other elements in the inventory likely
will not be so limited. Therefore, the majority of effort for solubility distribution development
was focused on uranium. Solubilities for the other species were drawn from literature reviews of
studies conducted at locations with similar water chemistry.
At the Clive site, four major physical zones or systems are encountered and can influence the
aqueous movement of radionuclides. These zones include the waste cell, the clay liner beneath
the waste zone, the unsaturated zone, and the saturated zone (shallow aquifer). As described in
the Unsaturated Zone Modeling and Saturated Zone Modeling white papers, the waste zone and
unsaturated zone are considered very similar in terms of the expected geochemistry of the
aqueous phase. Due to the small ratio of DU waste to native materials they are also relatively
similar in mineral composition and both are modeled using physical and chemical properties of
Unit 3 (represented chemically as a sand). The clay liner will mainly influence retardation via
sorption, in addition to decreasing water infiltration. The important saturated zone geochemical
conditions, including aqueous and solid state chemistry, are those that influence the precipitation
and dissolution of the species of interest in this PA. Differences between the saturated and
unsaturated zones are mainly associated with ionic strength and redox conditions with pH
expected to be fairly similar in both saturated and unsaturated zones. The interstitial water in the
waste and unsaturated zones is considered to be highly oxidizing, more so than the aquifer, and
with neutral to slightly alkaline pH. However, the differences in ionic strength and oxidizing
conditions between the unsaturated zone and saturated zone did not have a significant effect on
the calculated solubilities. Data from the saturated zone (Table 7and Table 8) indicate it is
susceptible to localized, transient, anoxic conditions with zero to slightly negative Eh values.
These areas will have a large influence on uranium solubilities since U(IV) is much less soluble
(circa 10-8 M) than U(VI). Other species of interest to this PA model will also have reduced
solubilities in anoxic regions.
Microbial influences on the transport of the radionuclides are not expected to be important.
Little or no organic materials (cellulosics, plastic) are expected in the waste. Therefore, no
microbial influence is included in this model, nor are organic materials such as humic and fulvic
acids expected to be present in any significant amounts. However, radiolytic effects could cause
transient changes in redox conditions or generate carboxylic acids as described below.
Anoxic corrosion of the steels and iron-based alloys used to construct the DU cylinders and
drums can affect the release of actinides. Corrosion would be expected to reduce the oxidation
state of some actinides. The most significant effect would be to decrease the mobility of
uranium, technetium, and plutonium. Uranium transport is again strongly influenced by redox
conditions. However, it is highly uncertain whether anoxic corrosion would take place since this
would require consumption of oxygen. A more conservative approach was taken, where largely
oxidizing conditions are assumed to remain to some extent within the unsaturated zone.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 20
In many cases the solubility of radionuclide species used in the transport model was based to
some extent on the data provided in the proposed Yucca Mountain Project (LANL 1997) and the
Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site) (Sandia 2001) modeling.
These data provide a starting basis for the central tendency value used in the solubility
distributions for several of the radionuclide species. The Yucca Mountain, NNSS, and the Clive,
Utah locations have many common geochemical conditions such that the solubility for the minor
constituents (those other than uranium) can be modeled similarly. There are noted differences
between the three sites but these references provide a good basis for selecting solubility since
much of the chemistry is similar with respect to redox, carbonate chemistry, low organic matter
content, and pH.
The Yucca Mountain unsaturated zone water is characterized as oxidizing (Eh estimated at 400
to 600 mV) and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide will be variable with depth resulting in a
pH of 7 to 8. The saturated zone water at Yucca Mountain is characterized as having a pH also
in the range of 7 to 8 and oxidizing to reducing conditions depending upon whether the waters
have access to atmospheric oxygen or to reducing agents (Kerrisk, 1987). With the exception of
the very high ionic strength of the shallow aquifer, this is similar to the conditions at the Clive
site. The waste zone at the Clive facility will likely have redox conditions very similar to those
in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain. The high ionic strength brine found in the shallow
aquifer at Clive can increase or decrease the solubilities of some actinides, as shown at WIPP
(DOE 2009). The WIPP site has a higher ionic strength in the pore water (~6 M) than expected at
Clive (~1 M), and WIPP is expected to be a carbonate-free system, unlike Clive. So while the
information from WIPP is not directly transferrable to Clive, the influence of the brine effect on
solubility was incorporated into the decision making for solubility selection and modeling. For
example, the range of solubility values for a particular element might be extended an order of
magnitude higher for Clive than it was for Yucca Mountain (e.g., Section 5.1.7 below). Clive,
Yucca Mountain, NNSS and WIPP have different mineralogy and soil properties that can
influence the ion-exchange, sorption and solubility constraints in this model and the direct
applicability of using data from the literature for Clive. More information is given in the sections
below as to how the influence of the properties of the reference (e.g., high ionic strength) are
included in deriving the solubility distributions.
At the NNSS, data from Frenchman Flat (Sandia 2001) indicate that elemental composition of
minerals and total oxide concentrations of the sediments remain fairly constant with depth. The
alluvium has a composition of approximately 65% SiO2 and 13% Al2O3. Very little clay is
present. Some accumulation of calcium carbonate, in certain horizons are found as coatings on
clasts and with pendants of pebbles and sand beneath, indicating repeated periods of surface
stability in the Quaternary. Water does not move downward under current climate conditions in
the unsaturated zone and this is expected to continue within the next 10,000 years. The
unsaturated zone moisture content is low, roughly 5 to 10% to 40 meters with a pH range of 7 to
9 and a high Eh. The alluvium is dominated by quartz, feldspar, cristobalite, with calcite,
gypsum, and minor amounts of clays and zeolites.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 21
5.1 Solubility by Element
5.1.1 Actinium
The only stable oxidation form of actinium is the +3 ion (Morss et al., 1977). Actinium forms
hydrolysis complexes with the Ac(OH)3 species and the solubility is reported at 0.74 mg/L (2.6
x 10-6 M).
At Yucca Mountain the actinium solubility used in the Total System Performance Assessment
(TSPA) model ranges from 10-10 M to 10-6 M (LANL 1997). For this PA model, a similar range
was used, though the lower end was raised by a factor of 100.
5.1.2 Americium
Americium exists in the +3 oxidation state in natural waters and forms carbonate complexes at
pH values above 7 (EPA 2004, Serne 2007). The americium solids that would likely control the
solubility include Am (OH)3, AmOHCO3, and Am2(CO3)3. At Yucca Mountain the americium
solubility used in the TSPA model ranged from 10-10 M to 10-6 M (LANL 1997). A similar range
is used in this PA model.
5.1.3 Cesium
Cesium exists in the +1 oxidation state (EPA 1999b) with little tendency to form aqueous
complexes. The dominant form at the site would be as the Cs+ ion. Cesium has a high solubility,
with little tendency to precipitate, therefore a conservatively high solubility was used for this PA
model, with a fairly narrow range.
5.1.4 Iodine
Iodine can form a number of oxidation states, but within the Eh and pH conditions expected at
the Clive facility, iodine is expected to exist in the -1 oxidation form. This is consistent with the
modeling provided by EPA (1999c). In addition to dissolving and sorbing reactions, iodine can
also volatilize to the gas phase either as I2 (molecular iodine) or hydrogen iodide and organic
(e.g. methyl) iodides. Iodine is not likely to form minerals due to the very low concentrations
that would be encountered. Nevertheless, solubility could be controlled via iodine minerals. The
distribution used for iodine in this PA model reflects the high solubility.
5.1.5 Lead
Under the environmental conditions at the site lead will exist in the +2 oxidation state (EPA
1999b). However, lead has very low solubility with values of 10-8 M in natural waters, with the
dissolved species PbCO3 the dominant form above pH 7. Lead species include hydrolysis and
carbonate complexes, with the later more prevalent above pH 7. Lead carbonate (e.g cerussite,
hydrocerussite), sulfate (anglesite) and phosphates (chlorophyromorphite) minerals control lead
solubility under oxidizing conditions (EPA 1999b). At Yucca Mountain the lead solubility used
in the TSPA model ranged from 10-8 M to 10-5 M, with an expected value of 10-6.5 M. (LANL
1997). This same general range is used in all three zones for this PA model.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 22
5.1.6 Neptunium
Neptunium can exist in several oxidation states, but only +4 and +5 are reasonable for the Clive
site. Np(V) is relatively mobile due to the high solubilities of associated minerals and low
sorption. Np (V) is expected to be present as NpO2 + (EPA 2004). Np (IV) however, forms
solids of low solubility though these are restricted to reducing conditions. Neptunium can form
carbonate complexes but this is generally limited to pH conditions above 8. In carbonate rich
systems with high sodium and potassium, as found at the Clive facility, several sodium (e.g.
2NaNpO2CO3•7H2O) and potassium based mineral forms of Np can control the solubility. Due
to the high solubilities of these minerals Np can be found at levels in the 10-4 M or greater
concentration. At Yucca Mountain the neptunium solubility used in the TSPA model ranged
from 10-8 M to 10-2 M, with an expected value of 10-4 M (LANL 1997).
5.1.7 Plutonium
Plutonium can exist in four different oxidation states: +3, +4, +5, and +6 with Pu(IV), Pu(V),
and Pu(VI) expected under oxidizing conditions, such as those found at the site (EPA 1999b).
Plutonium forms strong hydroxy-carbonate complexes with the tetravalent complex
[Pu(OH)2(CO3)22-] a likely dominant form at the Clive site. Pu(VI) can also form complexes
with chloride ion under oxidizing conditions in high ionic strength solutions (Clark and Tait,
1996). Dissolved plutonium in the natural environmental is typically very low, in the 10-15 M
range (EPA 1999b), though higher levels are possible where a solid phase is present. At Yucca
Mountain the plutonium solubility used in the TSPA model ranged from 10-10 M to 10-6 M, with
an expected value of 10-8 M. (LANL 1997). A similar range is used for this PA model.
5.1.8 Protactinium
Protactinium can exist in two oxidation states in natural waters, +4 and +5. Both forms have a
propensity to form hydrolysis complexes (Morss, et al. 1977). Protactinium will also form
complexes with halides (F–, Cl–, Br–, I–) and sulfate. Very little information is available on the
protactinium species in circumneutral pH range. At Yucca Mountain the protactinium solubility
used in the TSPA model ranged from 10-10 M to 10-5 M (LANL 1997). A similar range is used
for this model.
5.1.9 Radium
Radium only exists in the +2 oxidation state in nature and is generally found uncomplexed as
Ra2+ (EPA 2004). Radium has similar chemical behavior as barium and forms a co-precipitate as
a sulfate [(Ba,Ra) SO4]. This co-precipitate would likely control the solubility at the Clive site if
radium reaches levels for saturation. At Yucca Mountain, the radium solubility used in the
TSPA model ranged from 10-9 M to 10-5 M, with an expected value of 10-7 M. (LANL 1997). For
this PA, a similar range was used with a central tendency value higher by a factor of 10.
5.1.10 Radon
Radon, in the form of 222Rn, is the longest-lived of all radon isotopes with a half-life of 3.8 days
and is considered the most environmentally important isotope. Radon exists as an essentially
inert gas and does not precipitate or sorb to any significant extent, but will partition between
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 23
aqueous and gas phases, according to its Henry’s Law constant, as discussed in the Unsaturated
Zone Modeling white paper. In the unsaturated zone radon will mainly exist in the gas phase, but
is soluble and within all zones the solubility is temperature sensitive. A fairly narrow solubility
range based on values from Langmuir (1997) was used in this PA model since temperature is
likely the largest factor impacting this species solubility.
5.1.11 Strontium
Strontium is expected to exist in the Sr2+ form in the aqueous environments at the Clive site.
Strontium has minimal tendency to form inorganic complexes (EPA 1999b), has a similar ionic
radius to that of calcium, and forms similar minerals including celestite (SrSO4) and strontianite
(SrCO3). In alkaline conditions with sufficient concentration, strontianite, or co-precipitation
with calcite and anhydrite, is expected to control the Sr2+ concentration. At Yucca Mountain the
strontium solubility used in the TSPA model ranged from 10-6 M to 10-3 M. (LANL 1997). A
similar range was used for this PA model.
5.1.12 Technetium
Technetium can exist in multiple oxidation states, but +7 is dominant under oxidizing conditions
(EPA 2004, Langmuir 1997, Wildung et al. 2004). In oxidizing conditions the species is the
oxyanion TcO4– which is highly soluble and is not known to form complexes. Under slightly
reducing conditions technetium exists as an uncharged hydroxide. Under stronger reducing
conditions technetium can form a very insoluble form. For this PA model, a solubility centered
around 10 -3 M was used.
5.1.13 Thorium
Thorium is expected to exist in the 4+ form at the Clive site. Thorium forms hydroxyl
complexes as well as carbonate and inorganic anion complexes. Thorium has very low solubility
(EPA 1999b). Hydrous thorium oxide can be used to develop a maximum solubility. At Yucca
Mountain the thorium solubility used in the TSPA model ranged from 10-10 M to 10-7 M. (LANL
1997). This value is consistent with values in EPA (1999c), which described a range of 10-8.5 M
to 10-9 M for a pH range of 5 to 9. The solubility of hydrous thorium oxide increases 2 to 3
orders of magnitude with increasing ionic strength (EPA 1999b). This behavior is significant for
the shallow aquifer zone of this model resulting in a solubility range that was chosen near the
upper end of that used in the Yucca Mountain repository study.
5.1.14 Uranium
5.1.14.1 Uranium Forms and Geochemical Model Parameters
The DU waste proposed for disposal at the Clive facility is in two main uranium oxide forms:
UO3 and U3O8. Uranium trioxide, UO3, is the waste form received from SRS. The uranium
oxides expected to be produced at the deconversion plants in Portsmouth, OH, and Paducah KY
(the GDP DU) are anticipated to be predominantly U3O8, with small amounts of UO2. The U.S.
DOE has characterized U3O8 as insoluble (ANL 2010, DOE 2001). The exact solid phase that
will control uranium solubility for the Clive Facility is not known and would require extensive
laboratory testing to determine. Based upon the results outlined by the several research groups
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 24
described above, schoepite likely is the major contributor, and this solid was selected to develop
the solubility distribution in this PA for the UO3 form. This is a conservative assumption in that
schoepite is more soluble than uranyl carbonate and much more soluble than U3O8. The
solubility of U3O8 is also incorporated into the GoldSim model as an option for the model user.
The Clive DU PA Model v1.4 defaults to U for solubility for the 10,000-year model. For the
Deep Time model, the solubility of U3O8 is used.
Due to the importance of uranium solubility to this PA, the input distribution was derived from
geochemical modeling. The model Visual MINTEQ (Gustafsson 2011) was utilized. This
geochemical code is based on the EPA MINTEQA2 program, and was used with its default
database. MINTEQ allows for a large number of uranium mineral forms to be examined. The
following were considered the most important for this PA: schoepite, U3O8 (crystalline), U4O9
(crystalline), UO2 (amorphous), B_UO2(OH)2, rutherfordine, and uraninite.
Under oxidizing subsurface conditions U(VI) as the UO22+ uranyl complex, is the predominant
oxidation state and is not easily reduced geochemically. Experiments by Reed et al. (1996)
indicate the uranyl complex can persist for over two years, even under high ionic strength anoxic
conditions. However, with strongly reducing conditions the U(IV) species can form. Based on
the pH and redox conditions at Clive, aqueous uranium is expected to be predominantly in the +6
form [U(VI)] in all three zones (Langmuir 1997, EPA 1999b). However, some of the
groundwater measurements do indicate areas of negative Eh (reducing conditions) where
uranium could exist in either the U(V) or U(IV) form if bioreduction or reduced iron exists.
Under low carbonate levels uranium exists as a polynuclear hydrolysis species. However, the
carbonate chemistry associated with the groundwater and the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure
will promote the formation of carbonate complexes with uranium. These complexes can increase
the overall uranium solubility. The carbonate complex UO2(CO3)34– is accepted as a major
complex at high carbonate concentrations (Clark et al., 1995, Langmuir 1997). The solid, uranyl
carbonate, UO2CO3, can also potentially limit the uranium solubility (DOE 2009). Studies where
this was the dominant species indicates that solubilities decreases with increasing ionic strength.
Divalent metal uranium carbonate complexation [e.g., Ca2UO2(CO3)3(aq)] is also possible
(Bernhard, et al. 2001, Wan et al. 2008).
The scenario within the waste and unsaturated zones is expected to be somewhat analogous to
the experimental system described by Wronkiewics et al. (1992) and also modeled by De Windt
et al. (2003). In the work by Wronkiewics et al. the Unsaturated Test Method was used to study
the dissolution and precipitation of UO2 at 90 degrees Celsius. Note that UO2 is uncommon in
the Clive inventory, but may make up a small amount of the GDP DU. The UO2 was freshly
prepared containing natural uranium isotope abundances and leached with water from well J-13
near Yucca Mountain, Nevada that had been equilibrated with local tuff. During the course of
the test, this leachate was periodically injected into the top of the system, water samples were
collected, and the UO2 was visually inspected. They found an initially low concentration of
uranium in the outflow followed by a slug of uranium that leveled off over the circa 238-week
(4.5-yr) period. Formic and oxalic acids were detected in the leachate but not found in the
starting material. This was attributed this to a potential radiolytic effect. Of particular
importance was the change in uranium oxide phases with time. A number of secondary uranium
oxides were formed as the uranium first dissolved, then later precipitated as a different oxide.
Schoepite (UO3•xH2O), dehydrated schoepite (UO3), uranophane and a number of other uranium
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 25
hydroxide minerals including uranium alkali silicates were formed. In all cases these indicated
uranium was present only in the U(VI) redox state. The solubility limit, based upon the steady-
state uranium release after two years of leaching, was attributed to precipitation of uranyl
silicates on the surface, limiting additional dissolution. De Windt et al. (2003) modeled UO2
oxidative dissolution in a saturated zone under oxidizing conditions. They found that uranium
mobility was controlled by schoepite, the dominant mineral formed. The total uranium
concentration decreased for the first 100 years from a maximum of approximately 400 µM to a
constant 10-5 M after consumption of all of the UO2. This mineral paragenesis is similar to that
observed for oxidized zones in natural uraninite. Modeling by Langmuir (1997) indicates that
uranium solubility based on schoepite ranges from 10-6 M to 10-4 M, depending upon pCO2
levels. This is consistent with the values in the Wronkiewics et al. (1992) study and modeled by
De Windt (2003). Though analogous to what can happen at the Clive facility, it is critical to
realize Wronkiewics et al. and De Windt started with a very soluble form of uranium, UO2, as
compared with the much more stable UO3 and especially U3O8 DU waste at Clive. U3O8 is
considered one of the most thermodynamically and kinetically stable forms of uranium. Also of
note above was the potential for dissolution to be reduced by the formation of less soluble uranyl
silicates on the surface of the starting material.
At the Clive Facility, should formic and oxalic acid be formed radiolytically, they also could
increase the overall uranium solubility (Langmuir, 1997). However, the generation of these
acids is not expected to be significant nor should it have a significant effect on pH. This is
especially true for any water that leaches from the waste zone into the shallow aquifer due to the
buffering capacity of this aquifer. As such, this effect would be transitory at best.
To derive uranium solubility distributions and speciation, the geochemical modeling program
was run in individual batches, where for a given run the parameters pH, temperature (13°C), pe
(Eh), and water density were fixed. Multiple runs were performed by adjusting a single
parameter. The effect of temperature on solubility, with a range of approximately 10°C to 25°C,
is insignificant relative to the uncertainty of measurements and modeling. A single temperature
value of 13°C was used in the geochemical modeling. To account for the thermodynamic
activity in this high TDS saturated zone system, the Bronsted-Guggenheim-Scatchard specific
ion interaction theory (SIT) (Nordstrom and Munoz, 1994) model is utilized. The SIT model is
applicable to high ionic strength solutions up to approximately 4 molal. When lower TDS
parameters were utilized the Davies equation was employed. Most of the thermodynamic
parameters used in Visual MINTEQ for the uranium species are derived from the Nuclear
Energy Agency database (2003) available in the Visual MINTEQ program.
The level of ions other than uranium used in the geochemical modeling was set for two different
conditions. The first condition was set based on the ions found as the average of the data from
well GW-25 at the Clive facility. The groundwater chemistry of this well and several others is
shown in Table 7 and Table 8, representing the conditions in the very high TDS shallow aquifer.
Modeling indicated that pH and bicarbonate/pCO2 had the largest influence on total uranium
concentrations within the Eh range of 800 to -200 mV. When the redox conditions were reduced
to -500 mV, U3O8 precipitated at very low uranium concentrations. These low redox conditions
are not anticipated at Clive except under transient conditions.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 26
A second set of geochemical modeling runs was performed under much lower TDS conditions.
In this set lower sodium and chlorine levels were chosen to more closely represent the water
phase in the unsaturated zones, at least in the upper waste prior to significant salt dissolution.
The mineral form of uranium anticipated from the two main sites SRS (as schoepite, a form of
UO3,) and the GDPs (as U3O8) were included as infinite solids in separate geochemical models.
Basing solubility limits solely on a solid phase is not without uncertainty (OECD 1997, Chapter
IV). Consequently, solubility distributions are incorporated into the PA to account for this
uncertainty. The pH, Eh, and carbonate conditions were varied and the resulting total uranium
concentration was calculated. Uranium solubility limits were based on the concentration at
which each mineral reached saturation. Differences between the high ionic strength modeling
runs and those with lower sodium and chloride were not significant enough, relative to the
uncertainty of the modeling, to justify separate solubility distributions. Complete reports from
each of the model runs are available.
5.1.14.2 Uranium Solubilities based on Schoepite
The solubility of uranium for the UO3 waste form was derived using the mineral schoepite in the
geochemical code Visual MINTEQ as described above. The parameters were adjusted so that
they would mimic the range of conditions at the site, with schoepite provided as an infinite solid
source. TDS values were elevated, similar to the shallow aquifer. The total uranium solubility
outputs from these geochemical models are shown in Table 10. As shown from these model
results, uranium solubilities range from 10 mg/L to 100 mg/L. Using schoepite [U(VI)] as the
controlling mineral indicates uranium levels could reach as high as 100 mg/L (4.2 × 10-4 M)
under several scenarios. These values are similar to those found experimentally by Wronkiewics
et al. (1992).
Choppin (2000) performed batch solubility studies using a synthetic water and mixed uranium
oxides under both anoxic and oxidizing conditions. In the absence of humic compounds, the
solubility of uranium was 114±2 mg/L and 94±2 mg/L under oxic (Eh of 220 mV) and anoxic
(Eh 138 mV) conditions respectively. The pH of the solution ranged from 8 to 8.2. A 1 ppm
humic acids level had little effect on solubility. The data by Choppin (2000) are also similar to
estimates from this geochemical modeling for schoepite. Tomasko (2001) modeled uranium
transport using UF4 as the disposed form. This is a very soluble form of uranium, much more so
than the uranium oxides that are expected in the Clive facility inventory. The study by Tomasko
considered uranium tetrafluoride disposed in 30- or 50-gallon drums. After exposure to water
the uranium underwent hydrolysis to form schoepite or U3O8. No solubility experiments were
performed by Tomasko though he cited work by others to develop the solubility limits. Under
oxidizing conditions Tomasko envisioned the schoepite being formed from the U3O8. Tomasko
used a range of uranium solubilities from 24 mg/L, the solubility he cited for schoepite, to a
much higher value of to 23,000 mg/L. This higher value was based on the potential formation of
ammonium carbonate uranium complexes. These complexes are not considered significant
species at the Clive location due to the low nitrogen availability of the system.

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 27
Table 9: Model Results for High TDS System analogous to the Upper Aquifer. Uranium
solubility limit based on Schoepite. *
pH Bicarbonate
(mg/L)
Eh
(mV)
Total Uranium
(mg/L)
Total Uranium
(mol/L)
6.5 190 200 28.1 1.18E-4
7.2 10 200 2.3 9.72E-6
7 190 200 75.4 3.17E-4
7.3 190 811 58.5 2.46E-4
7.2 300 200 241 1.01E-3
7.5 500 200 421 1.77E-3
8 300 200 428 1.80E-3
*Data in this table include the following constant parameters: specific gravity of water 1.03, stoichiometric
ionic strength 0.88, and anions and cations levels as shown in Table 5 and 6 above for GW-25.
The geochemical model runs listed in Table 9 were also repeated at a reduced TDS condition as
shown in Table 10. The results were sufficiently similar that the model is considered to be
applicable to both the saturated and unsaturated regions. When the model is adjusted so that
levels of sodium and chloride are reduced significantly (Na = 6,465 mg/L, Cl = 10,783 mg/L) at
pH 7.25, the uranium solubilities with schoepite are not significantly different, as shown in
Table 10. As such, the GoldSim model did not utilize different solubilities for the different
levels of TDS and instead the higher maximum values for the distributions were chosen as a
conservative approach. Though this approach is a bit conservative, as indicated above the range
of TDS that is expected throughout the unsaturated and saturated zones does not have a large
impact on uranium solubility.
Table 10: Total uranium, low TDS (ionic strength 0.127 M). Uranium solubility limit based
on schoepite.
pH Bicarbonate
(mg/L)
Eh
(mV)
Total Uranium
(mg/L)
Total Uranium
(mol/L)
6.5 190 200 152.8 6.42E-4
7.2 10 200 2.28 9.58E-6
7 190 200 162.32 6.82E-4
7.3 190 811 172.55 7.25E-4
7.2 300 200 278.46 1.17E-3
7.5 500 200 485.52 2.04E-3
8 300 200 307.02 1.29E-3

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 28
The major dissolved uranium species considered in the geochemical model simulations included
those shown in Table 11. A mixture of primarily anions, but also uncharged and cations are
included. The uncharged and anionic species make up the major species under the conditions
modeled for schoepite as shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Major dissolved uranium (VI) species included in geochemical models.
Uranium Species
UO2(CO3)3-4
UO2(CO3)2-2
Ca2 UO2(CO3)3 (aq)
CaUO2(CO3)3-2
(UO2)3(CO3 )6-6
UO2(OH)2 (aq)
UO2(OH)3-
(UO2)4(OH)7+
(UO2)3(OH)5+

5.1.14.3 Uranium Solubilities based on U3O8
The solubility of uranium for the U3O8 waste form was derived by directly setting this solid form
as an infinite source in the geochemical code Visual MINTEQ as described above. Results are
provided in Table 12. The differences in solubility between schoepite and U3O8 are pronounced.
U3O8 has significantly lower solubility within the geochemical conditions expected at the Clive
Facility. Only at very anoxic conditions does U3O8 show a solubility approaching that of UO3.
The amount of current experimental data on the solubility of this mineral is limited. As stated
above, the DOE considers U3O8 insoluble.
Table 12: Total Uranium, low TDS (ionic strength 0.127 M). Uranium solubility limit
based on the mineral U3O8. *
pH Bicarbonate
(mg/L)
Eh
(mV)
Total Uranium
(mg/L)
Total Uranium
(mol/L)
6.5 190 200 1.87E-10 7.85E-16
7 190 200 7.14E-11 3.00E-16
8 300 200 2.38E-11 1.00E-16
7.3 190 -10 1.19E-6 4.98E-12
7.3 190 -40 6.00E-6 2.52E-11
7.3 190 -100 1.54E-4 6.45E-10
7.3 190 -300 7.57E+0 3.18E-5
*Data in this table include the following constant parameters: specific gravity of water 1.03, stoichiometric
ionic strength 0.88, and anion and cation levels as shown in Table 7 and Table 8 above for GW-25.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 29
GoldSim Model Note: The GoldSim model cannot run with solubilities for both UO3 and U3O8
simultaneously within a single 10,000-year simulation because only one solubility is used for
each element. To account for the differences in solubility between the two uranium oxide wastes
in the inventory, the Control Panel for the model provides the ability to use either the default
solubility based on UO3 or to select the solubility based on U3O8. One may also select either or
both waste inventories. Based upon evaluation of the Clive DU PA Model, the UO3 solubility is
governing the uranium concentrations into the groundwater for about 50,000 yr. This indicates
that the inability to have two separate solubilities in the model for the two waste forms of DU is
not affecting the simulation results. For the Deep Time model, the solubility of U3O8 is used for
uranium solubility.
6.0 Ionic and Molecular Diffusion Coefficients
The diffusion coefficient (Dm) is required for calculating the movement of solutes due to
differences in concentration gradient. Movement by diffusion can occur without advective flow
of water. Ionic and molecular diffusion coefficients are derived in theory from the
Stokes-Einstein equation:
𝑫𝒎=𝑹𝑻/𝟔𝝅𝜼𝑩𝒓𝑨 (5)
where
R = universal gas constant,
T = temperature,
ηB = absolute viscosity of the solvent (water), and
rA = radius of the assumed spherical solute.
A variety of empirical equations have been derived based on the Stokes-Einstein equation for
different scenarios. For a dilute solution of a single salt the diffusion coefficient can be derived
from the Nernst-Haskell equation (Reid et al., 1987). This equation includes the valence of the
cation and anions as well as ionic conductances. Specific ionic conductances are required for
each cation and anion species. When two or more chemical species are present at different
concentrations, interdiffusion (counterdiffusion) must be included to satisfy electroneutrality
(Lerman 1979). For a geochemical system as large as that found in radioactive waste disposal
facilities this quickly becomes too complex to model, even if ionic conductivities are available
for each species.
An additional difficulty in deriving ion-specific diffusion coefficients lies in the large number of
potential ions. The number of radioactive waste elements typically modeled may be 30 to 40,
and for each element in this list one can expect multiple forms. For example, U has 4 redox
states, and many soluble species for each of these. Assuming oxic conditions U will be primarily
found as UO2(CO3)34–, UO2(CO3)22–, and UO2CO3, but there are at least 8 additional forms of
U(+6) that may be found. Thus the potential number of ions that would need to be included in
the model would easily be in the hundreds. Obtaining the parameters for each species that would
be required to model the ionic diffusion would be difficult.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 30
Given these issues with developing ion-specific values of Dm , the approach used in modeling
diffusion in the PA model is to use a range of Dm values. This range can be derived from Table
3.1 in Lerman (1979). For conditions near 25°C, the range of Dm for the elements of interest is
4 × 10–6 to 2 × 10–5 cm2/s. For cooler temperatures, which would be expected in the deeper
subsurface, the values are somewhat lower. The values for 25°C are reproduced in Table 13.
Based on these values, the diffusion coefficient is represented in the Clive DU PA Model as a
uniform distribution with a minimum of 3 × 10–6 cm2/s and a maximum of 2 × 10–5 cm2/s, and is
the same for all elements.

Table 13. Diffusion coefficients for selected cations and anions.
Cation Dm
(10–6 cm2/s)
Anion Dm
(10–6 cm2/s)
K+ 19.6 Cl– 20.3
Cs+ 20.7 I– 20
Sr2+ 7.94 IO3– 10.6
Ba2+ 8.48
Ra2+ 8.89
Co2+ 6.99
Ni2+ 6.79
Cd2+ 7.17
Pb2+ 9.45
UO22+ 4.26
Al3+ 5.59
SOURCE: Table 3.1 Lerman (1979)

Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 31
7.0 References
Adrian Brown Consultants, Response to UDEQ Kd Interrogatories, Dated April 22, 1997 Report
3101B.970422.
ANL Characteristics of Uranium. Web site accessed 2010.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ucompound/propertiesu/octaoxide.cfm
ANL 2000. Colloid-Associated Radionuclide Concentration Limits: ANL. ANL-ES5-MO-
0000.20 REV 00 leN 01
Beals, D. M., S. P. LaMont, J. R. Cadieux, C. R. Shick, and G. Hall. Determination of Trace
Radionuclides in SRS Depleted Uranium (DU). November 19, 2002. WSRC-TR-2002-
00536 Westinghouse Savannah River Company, SRS, Aiken, SC 29808.
Bernhard G, G Geipel, T Riech, V Brendler, S Amayri, and H Nitsche. 2001. Uranyl (VI)
Carbonate Complex Formation: Validation of the Ca2UO2(CO3)3 (aq) Species.
Radiochimica Acta 89:511-518.
Bingham Environmental, 1991. Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal FacilitySouth
Clive, Utah. Final version October 9, 1991.
Bingham Environmental. 1994. Hydrogeologic report Mixed Waste Disposal Area Envirocare
Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah. November 18, 1994. Prepared for Envirocare of
Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.Bingham Environmental, Project Memorandum. Summary of
Results, Radionuclide Kd Tests, Envirocare Disposal Landfills, Clive, Utah. August 3,
1995.
Bingham Environmental, Project Memorandum. Summary of Results, Radionuclide Kd Tests,
Envirocare Disposal Landfills, Clive, Utah. January 25, 1996.
Choppin, G. R. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Publication.
INEEL/EXT-01-00762 Rev. 0. November 2000. Actinide Solubility Experiments in
INEEL Perched Simulant Solution.
Clark, D. L. and Tait, C. D. 1996. Monthly Reports Under SNL Contract AP2274, Sandia WIPP
Central File A:WBS 1.1.10.1.1. These data are qualified under LANL QAPjP CST-OSD-
QAP1-001/0. WPO 31106.
Clark, D. L., D. E. Hobart, and M. P. Neu. Actinide Carbonate Complexes and Their Importance
in Actinide Environmental Chemistry. Chemical Reviews, Vol 95: 25. 1995
CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System). 2000. Colloid-Associated
Radionuclide Concentration Limits. ANL-EBS-MD-000020 REV 00 ICN 01.
Cui, D. and Eriksen, T. 1996. Reduction of Tc(VII) and Np(V) in solution by ferrous iron. SKP
TR 96-03.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 32
De Windt L., Burnol A., Montaranl P., van der Lee J. 2003. Intercomparison of reactive transport
models applied to UO2 oxidative dissolution and uranium migration. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 61, 303-312, 2003.
Degueldre, C., I. Triay, J. Kim, P, Vilks, M. Laaksoharju, N. Mieleley. 2000. “Groundwater
colloid properties: a global approach.” Applied Geochemistry, vol.15, p. 1043 – 1052.
DOE 2001. http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/pdf/UraniumCharacteristicsFS.pdf
DOE. 2003. Publication 45185. Evaluation of Surface Complexation Models for Radionuclide
Transport at the Nevada Test Site: Data Availability and Parameter Evaluation. D. Decker
and C. Papelis. May, 2003.
DOE. 2009. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), SOTERM-2009. Title 40 CFR Part 191
Subparts B and C Compliance Recertification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant. Appendix SOTERM-2009 Actinide Chemistry Source Term.
Envirocare of Utah. Revised Hydrogeological Report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal
Facility, Clive, Utah. Version 2.0, 2004.
Envirocare of Utah. Metals Distribution Coefficient Values Relevant to the Envirocare Site.
Memorandum and Report to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2000.
EPA. 1999a. Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values. Volume I. 402-R-99-
004A. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1999b. Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values. Volume II (1999).
402-R-99-004C. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2004. Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values. Volume III. 402-R-04-
002C. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Geckeis, H. and T. Rabung. Actinide Geochemistry: From the Molecular Level to the Real
System. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 102, 187-195, 2008.
Geckeis, H., Schäfer, Th., Hauser, W., Rabung, Th., Missana, T., Degueldre, C., Möri, A.,
Eikenberg, J., Fierz, Th., Alexander, W.R., 2004. Results of the colloid and radionuclide
retention experiment (CRR) at the Grimsel Test Site (GTS), Switzerland — impact of
reaction kinetics and speciation on radionuclide migration. Radiochim. Acta 92, 765–774.
Glover, P. A., F. J. Miner and W. O. Polzer. 1976. “Plutonium and Americium Behavior in the
Soil/Water Environment. I. Sorption of Plutonium and Americium by Soils.” In
Proceedings of Actinide-Sediment Reactions Working Meeting, Seattle, Washington, pp.
225-254, BNWL-2117, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
Gustafsson, J.P., 2011. Visual MINTEQ ver 3.0. Based on the USEPA MINTEQA2 software,
(http://www2.lwr.kth.se/English/OurSoftware/vminteq/)
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 33
Heberling, F., B. Brendebach, and D. Bosbach. Neptunium(V) Adsorption to Calcite. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 102, 246-252, 2008.
Hull, L. C, and A. L. Schaefer. 2008. Accelerated transport of 90Sr following a release of a
high ionic strength solution in vadose zone sediments. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
97, 135-157.
Johnson, G.L., and L.M. Toth. 1978. Plutonium(IV) and Thorium(IV) Hydrous Polymer
Chemistry. ORNL/TM-6365. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Chemistry
Division.
Keeney-Kennicutt, W.L., J.W. Morse. 1985. The redox chemistry of Pu(V)O2+ interaction with
common mineral surfaces in dilute solutions and seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, Vol. 49, pp. 2577–2588.
Kerrisk, J.F. Ground-Water Chemistry at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and Vicinity. LA-10929-MS
February 1987.
Kim, J.I., 1991. Actinide colloid generation in groundwater. Radiochim. Acta 52/53, 71–81.
Krupka K.M., R.J. Serne, and D.I. Kaplan. 2004. Geochemical Data Package for the 2005
Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment. PNNL-13037, Rev 2,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Kumata, M., Vandergraaf, T.T. And Jujnke, D. G. 1993. The migration behavior of neptunium
under deep geological conditions. Migration '93 Abstracts, p 73.
LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), LA-13262-MS. 1997. Summary and Synthesis
Report on Radionuclide Retardation for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project.
Last G.V., E.J. Freeman, K.J. Cantrell, M.J. Fayer, G.W. Gee, W.E. Nichols, B.N. Bjornstad, and
D.G. Horton. 2004. Vadose Zone Hydrogeology Data Package for the 2004 Composite
Analysis. PNNL-14702 Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
Lerman, A. 1979. Geochemical Processes in Water and Sediment Environments. Wiley-
Interscience. QES71.L45
Langmuir, D. Aqueous Environmental Chemistry. Prentice Hall 1997.
Linsalata, P. and N. Cohen. Determination of the Distribution Coefficient of Plutonium in
WATER-Secimetn Systems. Health Physics 39:1040-1041. 1980.
Möri, A., A., W.R., Geckeis, H., Hauser, W., Schäfer, Th., Eikenberg, J., Fierz, Th., Degueldre,
C., Missana, T., 2003. The colloid and radionuclide retardation experiment at the Grimsel
Test Site: influence of bentonite colloids on radionuclide migration in a fractured rock.
Coll. Surf. 217, 33.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 34
Morss, L., N.M Edelstein, J. Fuger, and J.Katz. The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide
Elements. Third Edition, Volume 1. 1977 Springer.
Nakata, K., Nagasaki, S., Tanaka, S., Sakamoto, Y., Tanaka, T. and Ogawa, H. 2002. Sorption
and reduction of neptunium (V) on surface or iorn oxides. Radiochim. Acta 90 pp 665-669.
Nordstrom, D. K, and J. L. Munoz. 1994. Geochemical thermodynamics. 2nd edition.
Cambridge, MA; Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc.
OECD Publication 1997. Modelling in Aquatic Chemistry. Chapter IV, Raulf Grauer. Scientific
Editors Ingmar Grenthe and Ignasi Puigdomenech
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 2000. J. R. Hightower, et al. Strategy for
Characterizing Transuranics and Technetium Contamination in Depleted UF6 Cylinders.
ORNL/TM-2000-242 Chemical Technology Division, ORNL. 2000.
Patterson, R.J., Spoel, T., 1981. Laboratory measurements of strontium distribution coefficeint
Kd -Sr for sediments from a shallow sand aquifer. Water Resources Research 17 (3), 513-
520.
Powell, B.A., R.A. Fjeld, D.I. Kaplan, J.T. Coates, and S.M. Serkiz. 2005. Pu(V)O2+ adsorption
and reduction by synthetic hematite and goethite, Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 39,
pp. 2107–2114.
Reed, D.T., D. R. Wygmans, and M. K. Richman. Actinide Stability/Solubility in Simulated
WIPP Brines. Argonne National Laboratory, Actinide Speciation and Chemistry Group,
Chemical Technology Group. Interim Report 1996.
Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., and Poling B.E., 1987. The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 4th
Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. TP242.R4.
Ryan, J.N., Elimelech, M., 1996. Colloid mobilization and transport in groundwater. Colloids
and Surfaces. 107, 1–56.
Sanchez, A.L., J.W. Murray, and T.H. Sibley. 1985. The adsorption of plutonium-IV and
plutonium-V on goethite, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 49, p. 2297, 1985.
Sandia (Sandia National Laboratories) 2001. Compliance Assessment Document for the
Transuranic Wastes in the Greater Confinement Disposal Boreholes at the Nevada Test
Sites. Volume 2: Performance Assessment. Version 2.0.
Schaefer, D. H., S. A. Thiros, and M. R. Rosen. Ground-Water Quality in the Carbonate-Rock
Aquifer of the Great Basin, Nevada and Utah, 2003. U.S. Geological Survey, National
Water-Quality Assessment Program. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5232.
Scism, C. D. 2006. The Sorption/Desorption Behavior of Uranium in Transport Studies using
Yucca Mountain Alluvium. Los Alamos National Laboratory LA-14271-T. 2006.
Geochemical Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 35
Serne, R. J. 2007. Kd Values for Agricultural and Surface Soils for Use in Hanford Site Farm,
Residential, and River Shore Scenarios. Technical Report for Ground-Water Protection
Project. PNNL-16531. August 2007.
Sheppard, M. and D. H. Thibault. 1990. Default Soil Solid/Liquid Partition Coefficients, KdS,
for Four Major Soil Types: A Compendium. Health Physics Vol 59, No 4, pp 471-482.
October 1990.
Tomasko, D., 2001, Groundwater Calculations for Depleted Uranium Disposed of as Uranium
Tetrafluoride (UF4). ANL/EAD/TM-111, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.
USDA. Nat Resources Conservation Service, Tooele Area Soil Survey Utah, Version 5, Sept 2,
2009.
Vandergraaf, T. T., Ticknor, K.V., and George, I. M. 1984. Reactions between Technetium in
Solution and Iron-Containing Minerals Under Oxic and Anoxic Conditions. ACS
Symposium Series, 246, pp.25-43, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-7957.
Vandergraaf, T. T., Ticknor, K.V., and Melnyk, T. W. 1993. The selection of a sorption data
base for the geosphere model in the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 13, 327-345.
Voegelin, A., Kretzschmar, R., 2002. Stability and Mobility of Colloids in Opalinus Clay,
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, ETH Zürich, NTB 02-14, December 2002, 33 pages.
Wan, J., T.K. Tokunaga, Y. Kim, Z. Wang, A. Lanzirotti, E. Saiz, and R.J. Serne, Effect of saline
waste solution infiltration rates on uranium retention and spatial distribution in Hanford
sediments, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 1973-1978, 2008.
Whetstone Associates. Technical Memorandum to Energy Solutions from Whetstone
Associates, Oct 30, 2009.
Wildung, R. E., Li S. W., Murray, C. J., Krupka, K. M., Xie, Y., Hess, H. J., and Rogen, E.E.
Technetium reduction in sediments of a shallow aquifer exhibiting dissimilatory iron
reduction potential. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 49, 151-162, 2004.
Wooyong Um, R. J. Serne, G. V. Last, R. E. Clayton, and E. T. Glossbrenner. The Effect of
Gravel Size Fractions on the Distribution Coefficients of Selected Radionuclides. Journal
of Contaminant Hydrology 107, 82-90, 2009.
Wronkiewicz, D. J, Bates, J. K., Gerding, T. J., Veleckis, E., and Tani B. S. Journal of Nuclear
Materials 190. 107-127. 1992.

NAC-0016_R4

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 ii
1. Title: Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Saturated Zone Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter
values and distributions used for modeling liquid phase transport in the saturated zone for the
Clive DU PA Model v1.4.
Name Date
4. Originator Michael Sully 5 May 2014
5. Reviewer Dan Levitt 20 May 2014
6. Remarks

20 Oct 2015: Revised figure to bring up to date for v1.4. – J Tauxe

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES .........................................................................................................................................v
TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ vi
1.0 Summary of Parameters and Distributions .............................................................................1
2.0 Clive Site Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................2
3.0 Groundwater Flow Parameter Distributions ...........................................................................3
3.1 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .....................................................................................3
3.2 Bulk Density and Porosity ................................................................................................4
3.3 Hydraulic Gradient ............................................................................................................4
4.0 Groundwater Transport Parameter Distributions ....................................................................5
4.1 Saturated Zone Dimensions ..............................................................................................6
4.2 Dispersion .......................................................................................................................11
5.0 References .............................................................................................................................14

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Location and extent of the saturated zone modeling domain including location of
the DU waste, the point of compliance monitoring well, the buffer zone of the DU
cell, and outer boundaries of property owned and controlled by EnergySolutions. ......6
Figure 2: Schematic representation of unsaturated zone and shallow aquifer transport using
cell pathways; section parallel to groundwater flow direction. .....................................7
Figure 3. Cross-section D-D' modified from Envirocare (2004) showing estimated elevation
of the bottom of the shallow aquifer. ...........................................................................10

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of saturated zone parameter distributions ..........................................................1
Table 2. Texture class, thickness range, and average thickness for the hydrostratigraphic units
underlying the Clive site. ...............................................................................................3
Table 3. Construction details for selected wells used for estimating the elevation of the
bottom of the shallow aquifer. .......................................................................................8
Table 4. Construction details for selected wells used for water table elevations. ...........................9
Table 5. Water table elevations, aquifer bottom elevations and estimated saturated thickness
of the shallow aquifer.....................................................................................................9

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 1
1.0 Summary of Parameters and Distributions
This section is a brief summary of parameters and distributions used for modeling saturated zone
processes for the Clive Depleted Uranium (DU) Performance Assessment (PA) Model. For
distributions, the following notation is used:
• N( μ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a normal distribution with mean μ and standard deviation
σ, and optional truncation at the specified minimum and maximum,
• LN( GM, GSD, [min, max] ) represents a log-normal distribution with geometric mean
GM and geometric standard deviation GSD, and optional min and max,
• U( min, max ) represents a uniform distribution with lower bound min and upper bound
max,
• Beta( μ, σ, min, max ) represents a generalized beta distribution with mean μ, standard
deviation σ, minimum min, and maximum max,
• Gamma( μ, σ ) represents a gamma distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ,
and
• TRI( min, m, max ) represents a triangular distribution with lower bound min, mode m,
and upper bound max.

Note that some distributions are truncated at a minimum value of 0 or a value of Small, an
arbitrarily small number just greater than 0 defined in the GoldSim model, and a maximum of
Large, an arbitrarily large value defined in the GoldSim model, or sometimes 1 – Small,
depending on physical limits. These truncations are often a matter of physical limits (e.g.
precipitation cannot be negative), and in GoldSim’s distribution definitions, if truncations are
made, they must be made at both ends, so the very large value is chosen for the upper end.
Table 1. Summary of saturated zone parameter distributions
Parameter Distribution Units Comment
Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity
N( 9.6e-4, 9.67e-5, min=Small,
max=Large )
cm/s See Section
Bulk Density N( 1.57, 0.05, min=Small, max=Large )
[standard deviation is a placeholder]
g/cm3 See Section
Porosity N( 0.29, 0.05, min=Small, max=1-Small )
[standard deviation is a placeholder]
— See Section
Hydraulic Gradient N (6.94 x 10-4, 1.27 x 10 -4 , min=0 ,
max=Large )
— See Section
Aquifer Thickness N ( 16.2, 0.25, min=0, max=Large ) ft See Section

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 2
2.0 Clive Site Hydrogeology
The site hydrogeology for the EnergySolutions' Clive facility has been described by Bingham
Environmental (1991, 1994) and Envirocare (2000, 2004). The most recently revised
hydrogeologic report prepared by Envirocare (2004) noted that the interpretations of structure
and stratigraphy presented in their report were consistent with previous presentations described
in Bingham Environmental (1991, 1994) and Envirocare (2000).
The following description of the Clive site hydrology is taken from the review prepared by
Envirocare (2004). The site is described as being located on lacustrine (lake bed) deposits
associated with the former Lake Bonneville. The sediments underlying the facility are principally
interbedded silt, sand, and clay. While the depth of the sediments below the site is not known,
the sediments extend to a depth of at least 620 feet (ft) (DWR 2014, water right number 16-816
and associated well log 11293). This minimum depth is based on a borehole log for a nearby well
that did not encounter bedrock at its total depth of 620 ft.
Sediments at the site are described by Bingham Environmental (1991, 1994) and Envirocare
(2000, 2004) as being classified into four hydrostratigraphic units (HSU). Predominant sediment
textural class, layer thickness range, and average layer thickness for each unit are listed in Table
2.
Unit 4: This unit begins at the ground surface and extends to between 6 ft and 16.5 ft below the
ground surface (bgs). The average thickness of this unit is 10 ft. This unit is composed of
finer grained low permeability silty clay and clay silt.
Unit 3: Unit 3 underlies Unit 4 and ranges from 7 ft to 25 ft in thickness. The average thickness
of this unit is 15 ft. Unit 3 is described as consisting of silty sand with occasional lenses
of silty to sandy clay.
Unit 2: Unit 2 underlies Unit 3 and ranges from 2.5 ft to 25 ft in thickness. The average
thickness of this unit is 15 ft. Unit 2 is described as being composed of clay with
occasional silty sand interbeds. A structure map was prepared by Envirocare (2004,
Figure 5) with contours representing the elevations of the top of the unit. This map
shows that the top surface of Unit 2 slopes downward gradually from east to west in the
vicinity of the Federal Cell (interchangeably termed the Federal DU Cell in this
document because of the focus of this model on disposal of DU).
Unit 1: Unit 1 is the bottom layer of this sequence. This unit is described as silty sand
interbedded with clay and silt layers. The thickness of this layer in the vicinity of the
Clive facility is known to be in excess of 620 ft. (DWR 2014, water right number 16-816
and associated well log 11293).
The aquifer system in the vicinity of the Clive Facility is described by Bingham Environmental
(1991, 1994) and Envirocare (2000, 2004) as consisting of unconsolidated basin-fill and
alluvial-fan aquifers. Characterization of the aquifer system is based on subsurface stratigraphy
observations from borehole logs and from potentiometric measurements.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 3
The aquifer system is described as being composed of two aquifers; a shallow, unconfined
aquifer and a deep confined aquifer. The shallow unconfined aquifer extends from the water
table to a depth of approximately 40 ft to 45 ft bgs. The deep confined aquifer is encountered at
approximately 45 ft bgs and extends through the valley fill (Bingham 1994). The water table in
the shallow aquifer is reported to be located in Unit 3 on the west side of the site and in Unit 2 on
the east side.
Table 2. Texture class, thickness range, and average thickness for the hydrostratigraphic
units underlying the Clive site.
Unit Sediment Texture Class Thickness
Range (ft)
Average
Thickness (ft)
4 silt and clay 6 – 16.5 10
3 silty sand with interbedded silt and clay layers 7 - 25 15
2 clay with occasional silty sand interbeds 2.5 - 25 15
1 silty sand with interbedded clay and silt layers > 620 > 620

Deeper saturated zones in Unit 1 below approximately 45 ft bgs are reported to show higher
potentiometric levels than the shallow unconfined aquifer. Differences in potentiometric levels
are attributed to the presence of the Unit 2 clays. These observations are interpreted as indicating
that the shallow unconfined aquifer below the site does not extend into Unit 1 but is contained
within Units 2 and 3. Unit 1 extends from approximately 45 ft bgs and contains the deep aquifer.
3.0 Groundwater Flow Parameter Distributions
The parameters used to calculate the groundwater flux are the saturated hydraulic conductivity
and the hydraulic gradient. The porosity is needed to calculate the mean groundwater velocity
from the flux.
3.1 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
To develop a distribution for saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks), 253 measurements were
obtained for 122 locations in the vicinity of the cells and ponds. These measurements were
provided to N&C by EnergySolutions in an Excel workbook named “Hydraulic Cond.xls”
prepared by R. Sobocinski.
There are multiple measurements per location. Thus, in order to not over-represent those
locations, a random effects analysis of variance model was fitted, treating location as a random
effect, to produce estimates of the mean Ks and its associated standard error.
The average Ks across locations ranges from 2.23 × 10-6 cm/s to 5.95 × 10-3 cm/s. There is some
right-skew to the average Ks values, which results in a slight overestimate of the standard error in
the random-effects model. However, with 122 locations, the distribution of the mean will be
well-approximated with a normal distribution. The random effects model produces a mean Ks of
9.6 × 10-4 cm/s and standard error of 9.67 × 10-5 cm/s.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 4
3.2 Bulk Density and Porosity
Although no data have been provided, Whetstone (2000) provides some values for material
properties of the shallow aquifer. In Section 7.1.2 of that report, a deterministic value for bulk
density of 1.566 g/cm3 is listed as an input for the Whetstone (2000) model. That value was
adopted as a mean of a normal distribution, and was assigned a placeholder standard deviation of
0.05 g/cm3.
Similarly, section 7.1.3 of Whetstone (2000) offers a porosity for the shallow aquifer of 0.29.
That value was used as the mean of a normal distribution, and a placeholder standard deviation
of 0.05 was assigned.
3.3 Hydraulic Gradient
The statistical distribution for hydraulic gradient developed for the Clive DU PA Model is
specific to horizontal gradients in the shallow aquifer. Vertical gradients were not considered in
the model.

Monthly averages of the site-wide hydraulic gradient from 1999 through 2010 were calculated
by EnergySolutions from water level measurements. These data were used to establish a
distribution for the mean site-wide gradient. The influence of any off-normal conditions
occurring during the time period of the water level measurement data would be included in these
data. The uncertainty related to the mean is typically well-modeled by a normal distribution, due
to the effect of averaging. A difficulty with the gradient data is in establishing an appropriate
standard error for the mean, since there is considerable time correlation in the data. That is, the
values change less from month to month than they do over longer time periods. To account for
this behavior several auto-regressive, moving-average (ARMA) models (Brockwell and Davis
1996) were fit to determine a model that adequately captured the time with an adequate fit for the
time correlation. Amongst these models, a best model was chosen based on the Akaike
information criterion (AIC), and a standard error for the mean was established based on this
model's fit.

A performance assessment is based on estimates of the expected performance of the site. To
achieve a realistic estimate of expected performance, spatio-temporal scaling (upscaling) is
needed for defining parameter distributions in probabilistic models. These upscaled distributions
represent a large area/volume and time frame instead of only points in time and space. Spatio-
temporal scaling is critical for model definition and understanding the impact on uncertainty for
estimating 95th percentiles (for example) of model output distributions. Without proper scaling,
models outputs are compromised.

The influence of off-normal conditions on shallow groundwater flow is discussed in Envirocare
(2004) for two cases: In the first, flow was affected by localized recharge from a surface water
retention pond in the southwest corner of the facility in the spring of 1999 and in the second, a
ground water mound formed between March 1993 and spring 1997 below a borrow pit excavated
near the 11e.(2) Cells (neighboring the Federal Cell) that occasionally filled with rain water. The
mound decreased and was negligible by the time of the report in 2004. The latter of these
conditions was captured by the hydraulic gradient data set used to develop the distribution for the
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 5
model. The influence of these conditions on the hydraulic gradient appear to be transient and of
small magnitude. The development of the distribution for hydraulic gradient did not consider
climate change.

The hydraulic gradient (i) is modeled as normal distribution with a mean of 6.9 × 10-4 and a
standard deviation of 1.27 × 10-4. The influence of the range of the gradient given by the
distribution can be evaluated by calculating a range of groundwater velocity derived from the
gradient using Darcy’s law. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is modeled as a normal
distribution with a mean of 9.6 × 10-4 cm/s and a standard error of 9.67 × 10-5 cm/s. Porosity (ϕ)
is modeled as a normal distribution with a mean of 0.29 and a standard deviation of 0.05. From
Darcy’s law the groundwater flux (J) is:
𝐽= 𝐾𝑠 𝑖
and the groundwater velocity (v) is:
𝑣=𝐽/𝜙
where ϕ is the porosity.
The range of groundwater velocity is estimated by choosing values from each distribution
corresponding to the mean ± 3 times the standard error and calculating values of v from the
equations above. Maximum and minimum values for groundwater velocity derived from the
hydraulic gradient distribution range from 4.2 times the mean to 1/5th of the mean.
The significance of uncertainty in the value of the hydraulic gradient was evaluated for the Clive
DU PA model through a sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis identifies which variables
have distributions that exert the greatest influence on the response. The response evaluated in the
sensitivity analysis for the PA model was dose. The results showed that hydraulic gradient was
quantitatively determined to not be a sensitive parameter.
4.0 Groundwater Transport Parameter Distributions
Calculations in the PA Model that are needed for estimating transport in the shallow saturated
zone include the cross-sectional area normal to the flow direction (thickness times width),
definitions of the material SatZone_Medium (hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and bulk density
of Unit 2), the Darcy velocity (a function of gradient and hydraulic conductivity) and
radioelement-specific solid/water partition coefficients (Kds). The distributions for bulk density
and porosity have been described previously in Section 3.2 and the hydraulic gradient in Section
3.3. Aquifer dimensions are described in Section 4.1. Since the flow through the saturated zone
is modeled as a horizontal column of discrete GoldSim Cell pathway elements, dispersivity is not
explicitly defined as it would be for an analytical solution such as a plume. This is discussed in
Section 4.2. The distributions for Kds are described in the Geochemical Modeling white paper
accompanying the Clive DU PA Model.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 6
4.1 Saturated Zone Dimensions
The location and extent of the saturated zone modeling domain including the location of the DU
waste, the point of compliance monitoring well, the buffer zone of the DU cell, and outer
boundaries of property owned and controlled by EnergySolutions are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location and extent of the saturated zone modeling domain including location of
the DU waste, the point of compliance monitoring well, the buffer zone of the DU
cell, and outer boundaries of property owned and controlled by
EnergySolutions.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 7
Both the unsaturated (vadose) and saturated zones are represented in the Clive DU PA Model as
GoldSim Cell pathway elements. A Cell pathway is mathematically equivalent to a continuously-
stirred tank reactor (CSTR), in which the contents are instantaneously and uniformly mixed
throughout the volume. The representation of the saturated zone in the Model consists of a series
of linked cells. The mass and rate of water flowing through the column of cells depends on the
Darcy velocity and the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the flow direction. This area is
simply the (stochastic) thickness of the aquifer times its width, which is dependent on the
geometry of the embankment. The transport of contaminants in water through the vadose zone
and into the saturated zone is modeled as advective mass flux links from the unsaturated zone
vertical column into the various cells underlying the embankment. This contaminated recharge is
distributed along the saturated zone flow pathway, with a fraction entering each saturated zone
cell. The cell pathways and their interconnections are represented schematically in Figure 2.
Note that there are no wastes located under the side slopes in the Clive DU PA Model.
The advective mass flux in a cell pathway is calculated as the concentration of the contaminant
in water multiplied by the rate at which the water is flowing:

Figure 2: Schematic representation of unsaturated zone and shallow aquifer transport
using cell pathways; section parallel to groundwater flow direction.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 8
An assumption of the mixing cell approach is that all contaminant mass that enters the cell is
completely mixed and equilibrated among all media in the cell, consistent with the mathematical
representation of a CSTR. To provide contaminant mass balance, GoldSim requires information
specifying the volume of the cells. For the Clive DU PA Model, the extent of the saturated zone
below the Federal Cell and the distance from the toe of the waste in the Federal Cell to the
compliance point are represented as a horizontal network of linked GoldSim cell pathway
elements (Figure 2). GoldSim requires the specification of the length of each cell in the direction
of flow and the cross-sectional area of the cell. The length of each cell is the transport distance
divided by the number of cells. The choice of the number of cells used is based on standard
modeling practice, with more discussion provided in Section 4.2. The cross sectional area is the
product of the cell width and height. For the Clive DU PA Model, the cell width is set to the
width of the Federal Cell perpendicular to the direction of flow (“length overall” in Figure 3 of
the Embankment Modeling white paper accompanying the Model). The height of the cell
corresponds to the aquifer thickness.
Aquifer thickness in the subsurface below the Federal Cell was estimated considering water table
elevations, mapped stratigraphy, and interpretations described in Envirocare (2000, 2004). Water
table maps provided in Envirocare (2000, 2004) indicate that the flow in the shallow aquifer in
the vicinity of the Federal Cell is generally to the north. This northerly flow direction is
representative of the current conditions reflecting the effects of mounding due to surface water
infiltration. The natural gradient is approximately to the northeast. Given the predominant flow
direction, wells GW-19B, GW-27D, GW-25, and GW-1 were selected as locations providing the
best available borehole logs for estimating the elevation of the bottom of the aquifer. Well
construction details are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Construction details for selected wells used for estimating the elevation of the
bottom of the shallow aquifer.
Well Number
State Plane Coordinates
(NAD 83) Surface
Elevation
(ft)
Well
Depth
(ft bgs)
Date
Drilled Easting (ft) Northing (ft)
GW-19B 1189865 7420999 4269 102 02/06/91
GW-27D 1190080 7423071 4270 100 12/28/98
GW-25 1191693 7423029 4274 34 12/19/91
GW-1 1191843 7420942 4273 42 03/03/88

Since the shallow aquifer is described as unconfined, the elevation of the top of the aquifer is
determined by the water table elevation. At three of the locations, nearby wells with shallow
screened intervals were used to obtain representative values for the shallow water table elevation.
Well construction details for the wells used for measurement of water level elevations are
provided in Table 4. Well GW-19A is located 8 ft from well GW-19B, well GW-27 is located
45.6 ft from well GW-27D, and well GW-60 is located 37.6 ft from well GW-1. Given the
average hydraulic gradient of 6.94 × 10-4, the maximum error in water table elevation due to
distance between the wells will be 0.03 ft. This error was considered small enough to be
neglected in the estimate of aquifer thickness.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 9
Table 4. Construction details for selected wells used for water table elevations.
Well
Number
State Plane
Coordinates (NAD 83) Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
Well Depth
(ft bgs) Date Drilled
Easting (ft) Northing (ft)
GW-19A 1189866 7421007 18 – 27.5 31.5 02/07/91
GW-27 1190121 7423091 20 – 29.5 32 12/11/91
GW-25 1191693 7423029 24 – 33.5 34 12/19/91
GW-60 1191832 7420906 22.5 - 27 28 02/02/93

A map of the shallow aquifer showing fresh water equivalent head surface elevation contours
was prepared by Envirocare (2004) using groundwater elevation measurements from February,
2004. These elevations are used for this analysis to provide continuity with past work describing
the shallow aquifer. The fresh water elevations for the four wells were taken from Table 4 of
Envirocare (2004) and are listed below in Table 5.

Table 5. Water table elevations, aquifer bottom elevations and estimated saturated
thickness of the shallow aquifer.
Well Number Water Table
Elevation (ft)*
Bottom Elevation of
Shallow Aquifer (ft)
Saturated
Thickness (ft)
GW-19B 4251 4229 22
GW-27D 4250 4238 12
GW-25 4250 4240 10
GW-1 4251 4231 20
*GW-19B, GW-27D, and GW-1 water table elevations estimated from the elevation in nearby shallow aquifer wells.

The bottom elevations of the shallow aquifer at wells GW-19B and GW-27D were estimated
from hydrologic cross-sections described in Envirocare (2000, 2004). A south to north cross-
section on the west side of the Federal Cell is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. At
well GW-19B the elevation of the bottom of the aquifer is estimated to be where the silty sand
interval grades into a clay interval. The borehole log for this well indicates that this transition
occurs at an elevation of 4,229 ft.
The lower boundary is extended to the top of an extensive clay layer mapped in well GW-27D
shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The borehole log for this well indicates that the
top of the clay layer occurs at an elevation of 4,238 ft.

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 10

Figure 3. Cross-section D-D' modified from Envirocare (2004) showing estimated elevation
of the bottom of the shallow aquifer.

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 11
Well GW-25 is 40 ft deep and screened in the bottom 10 ft of the well in a unit described as silty
clay. The elevation of the bottom of the well is 4,240 ft amsl. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity measured in this well is reported by Envirocare (2004) as 1.05 × 10-3 cm/s.
Comparing this result with a site-wide mean value of saturated hydraulic conductivity of
9.6 × 10-4 cm/s indicates that this well is completed within the shallow aquifer. The elevation of
the bottom of the aquifer at this well may be deeper than the bottom of the well but is
conservatively taken as 4,240 ft, the elevation of the bottom of the well.
Well GW-1 is 41.5 ft deep and is screened from 20 ft bgs to 40 ft bgs. The driller's log describes
the sediments as a silty sand from 14 ft to 29 ft depth and sandy clay from 29 ft to the bottom of
the borehole at 41.5 ft. Well GW-60 located 37.6 ft from well GW-1 is completed to a depth of
28 ft in sediments described as a silty clay. The interval from 22.5 ft bgs to 27 ft bgs within the
silty clay is screened. Saturated hydraulic conductivity in well GW-60 was determined to be
3.4 × 10-3 cm/s or three times the site-wide average. This relatively high value of saturated
hydraulic conductivity measured in a silty clay indicates the shallow aquifer extends at least as
deep as the bottom of well GW-1. Given this interpretation, the elevation of the bottom of the
aquifer at this borehole is estimated to be 4,231 ft. The estimated elevations of the bottom of the
shallow aquifer and the resulting saturated thicknesses are listed in Table 5.
A distribution for the thickness of the saturated zone was established based on four location
measurements (GW-19B, GW-27D, GW-25, and GW-1), and professional judgment regarding
the accuracy of the measurements. An aquifer thickness for each of the four locations was
calculated as the difference between the recorded elevation of the water table and the elevation
of the bottom of the shallow aquifer. Since the four locations do not quite form a square,
triangulation was used to calculate an average thickness across the region. Only two possible
triangulations exist for these four points, so both were computed, and the average of the two was
used as the mean of the distribution for saturated zone thickness. Professional judgment was that
the measurements are accurate to within 1 foot. Thus, 1 foot was interpreted as a two standard
deviation range, giving a measurement standard deviation of 0.5 ft. Since four measurements are
being averaged (with nearly equal weights), the resulting standard error for the mean is then
0.5 ft divided by the square root of 4. The resulting distribution for the mean thickness of the
saturated zone was thus chosen as a normal distribution with mean equal to 16.2 ft with a
standard deviation of 0.25 ft.
4.2 Dispersion
The process of spreading of a contaminant in groundwater that occurs in addition to movement
by advective flow is represented in mathematical models by the dispersion coefficient. The
dispersion coefficient represents both the mechanical (hydrodynamic) and chemical components
of mixing and is written as:
𝐷𝑙= 𝛼𝑙 𝑣̅ + 𝐷𝑚 (4)
where
Dl = longitudinal dispersion coefficient,
αl = longitudinal dispersivity,
𝑣̅ = mean pore water velocity, and
Dm = molecular diffusion coefficient.
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 12
Only longitudinal dispersion is considered for this discussion because of the geometry of the
transport pathway. The width of the disposed waste is the dimension perpendicular to the
groundwater flow direction. This distance is 1,317.8 ft (“length overall” in Figure 3 of the
Embankment Modeling white paper). The distance from the edge of the waste to the compliance
point is 90 ft as required by the groundwater discharge permit. The entire horizontal length of the
saturated zone cells is this 90 ft plus the footprint of the embankment parallel to the direction of
water flow (1775.0 ft, the “width overall” in Figure 3 of the Embankment Modeling white paper),
making a total length of 1865 ft. With this geometry, the width of the source is more than 5 times
the distance from the edge of the source to the point of compliance, making transverse dispersion
insignificant.
In a numerical model such as the Clive DU PA Model, the discretization of the flow path into
cells results in an effective (numerical) longitudinal dispersion (parallel to the flow direction)
due to the full mixing of a CSTR even with no additional dispersivity defined. Because of this
inherent numerical dispersion, no additional dispersion coefficient is included in the saturated
zone transport calculations in the Clive DU PA Model.
Dispersion is discussed in the User’s Guide for the GoldSim Contaminant Transport Module
(GoldSim 2010) in the context of the GoldSim Aquifer pathway element. The Aquifer element is
a collection of linked cell pathway elements, and the saturated zone in the Clive DU PA Model is
also represented as a collection (column) of cell elements, which is somewhat more flexible than
the predefined GoldSim Aquifer element. Longitudinal dispersivity is commonly approximated
as 0.1 times the length of the transport path (GoldSim 2010). For the Clive DU PA Model the
point of compliance is a fixed location 232 ft from the edge of the DU waste, since the length
travelled under the side slope of the embankment, which contains no DU waste (142 ft), is added
to the standard 90 ft. The estimated value of the dispersivity would then be 232 ft /10 = 23 ft. In
order to reduce unwanted numerical dispersion, GoldSim (2010) recommends that the number of
cell elements used in the column be greater than the transport path distance divided by twice the
dispersivity. For the Clive DU PA Model geometry, the number of cells should therefore be
greater than 232 ft / (2×23 ft) = 5. The horizontal column of Cell elements that represents the
saturated zone to the well in the Clive DU PA Model contains 20 cells and there are 2 cells under
the side slope. The number of cells making up the transport path exceeds the minimum
recommended.
The mass balance of water flow is not in question, since it is up to the GoldSim programmer (the
model author) to assure that all flows are properly accounted for. GoldSim performs no solutions
whatsoever to the hydraulics of the model. In the case of the saturated zone, the water flow
through the horizontal column is defined as a constant value all the way through the column.
Since there are no numerical calculations in GoldSim with respect to water flow calculations,
mass balance of water has no mass balance error.
The mass balance of contaminants (radionuclides) is determined internally by the GoldSim
software as part of its proprietary solution algorithms. The internal solver accounts for advective
flows, diffusion in air and water (where applicable), partitioning between air, water, and solid
phases, as well as radioactive decay and ingrowth. The modeler and the user are not privy to the
internal mass balance calculations, but a good indication of how well the model is performing
can be had by experimenting with the settings for solution precision, which are accessible to the
Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 13
user. Using the GoldSim interface, go to Model | Options dialog, and select the Contaminant
Transport tab. Under the first set of options, General Options, there is a drop-down box where
the user can set the solution precision, in qualitative terms: low, medium, and high. If choosing a
higher solution precision does not result in substantially different results, then the user has an
indication that the mass balance is acceptable, since refining the precision does not improve the
calculation.

Saturated Zone Modeling for the Clive DU PA
31 October 2015 14
5.0 References
Bingham Environmental. 1991. Hydrogeologic report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South
Clive, Utah. October 9, 1991. Prepared for Envirocare of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.
Bingham Environmental. 1994. Hydrogeologic report Mixed Waste Disposal Area Envirocare
Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah. November 18, 1994. Prepared for Envirocare of
Utah. Salt Lake City, UT.
Brockwell, P. J. and Davis, R. A. 1996. Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting. Springer,
New York.
Domenico, P.A. and F.W. Schwartz. 1990. Physical and chemical hydrology. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. 2000. Revised hydrogeologic report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal
Facility Clive, Utah. Version 1.0. Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT.
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. 2004. Revised hydrogeologic report for the Envirocare Waste Disposal
Facility Clive, Utah. Version 2.0. Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT.
Utah Division of Water Rights, (DWR), water rights and well log database at
http://waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/query.asp. Accessed March 18, 2014.
Whetstone Associates. 2000, Revised Envirocare of Utah Western LARW Cell Infiltration and
Transport Modeling. July 19, 2000.
Whetstone Associates. 2007. EnergySolutions Class A South Cell Infiltration and Transport
Modeling. December 7, 2007.

 NAC-0021_R2

Atmospheric Transport Modeling
for the Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
5 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Atmospheric Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter values and distributions
used for atmospheric modeling for the Clive DU PA Model.

Name Date
4. Originator Dan Levitt 5 November 2015
5. Reviewer Paul Black 5 November 2015
6. Remarks

Nov 5, 2015: D.Levitt: Updated from v1.2 to v1.4. Updated R313 information.

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0
 Summary of PA Model Inputs ................................................................................................ 1

2.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

3.0
 Overview and Framework ...................................................................................................... 2

4.0
 Model Descriptions ................................................................................................................ 4

4.1
 Cowherd Particle Resuspension Model ............................................................................ 4

4.2
 AERMOD ......................................................................................................................... 6

4.3
 CAP-88 ............................................................................................................................. 6

5.0
 Meteorological and Terrain Elevation Data ........................................................................... 7

6.0
 Implementation of Resuspension and Dispersion Models ..................................................... 7

6.1
 Spatial Attributes of Air Dispersion Modeling ................................................................. 9

6.2
 AERMOD Results for Air Concentrations and Off-Site Deposition ................................ 9

6.2.1
 AERMOD Simulated Air Concentrations and Chi/Q Values ................................... 10

6.2.2
 AERMOD Off-Site Particulate Deposition ............................................................... 15

6.3
 Confirmation of AERMOD Results with CAP-88 ......................................................... 16

6.4
 Implementation of Cowherd Unlimited-Reservoir Resuspension Model ....................... 18

7.0
 Electronic Reference ............................................................................................................ 19

8.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 19

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Wind Rose for Clive, Utah (courtesy of Meteorological Solutions, Inc.) ....................... 8

Figure 2. Off-site air dispersion locations (Note: red line is the rail; green line is UTTR
access road). ................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 3. Off-site air dispersion area (approximate dimensions of largest receptor exposure
area shown as dashed green line). ............................................................................... 13

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Summary input parameter values and distributions .......................................................... 1

Table 2. Allocation of particle mass in particle size fraction bins for PM10 emissions. .............. 11

Table 3. Air concentration estimates (ug/m3 of PM10) by location and particle diameter
fraction; 0.25 g/s emission rate. ................................................................................... 12

Table 4. Receptor-specific χ/Q ratios for PM10 particulates. ....................................................... 12

Table 5. Radon air concentrations (0.25 g/s emissions) and χ/Q ratios for each receptor
location. ....................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6. Total deposition of PM10 particulate matter on the disposal embankment. ................... 16

Table 7. Comparison of CAP-88 and AERMOD particle deposition results (g/m2-yr). .............. 17

Table 8. Range of input parameter values for particle resuspension modeling. ............................ 18

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 1
1.0 Summary of PA Model Inputs
A summary of parameter values and distributions employed in the atmospheric modeling
component of the Clive Performance Assessment (PA) model is provided here. Additional
information on the derivation and basis for these inputs is provided in subsequent sections of this
report. With the exception of particulate resuspension flux, the PA model inputs related to
atmospheric modeling are derived from AERMOD air dispersion modeling results. The term
Chi/Q refers to the ratio of breathing-zone air concentration (Chi) to the emission rate (Q) used
in the AERMOD simulations. The term PM10 refers to particulates with a mean aerodynamic
diameter of 10 µm and less, the size fraction employed in regulatory air modeling to represent
respirable particles.
Table 1. Summary input parameter values and distributions
PA Model Parameter Units Value Notes
Chi / Q ratios for PM10 µg/m3 per g/s See Table 4 Based on AERMOD
modeling; see Section 10.
Chi / Q ratios for gases µg/m3 per g/s See
Table 5
Based on AERMOD
modeling; see Section 10.
Embankment PM10
redeposition
g/m2-yr per g/yr See Table 6 Based on AERMOD
modeling; see Section 15.
Resuspension flux of PM10 kg/m2-yr LogUniform (
2.5e-7, 0.3 )
Implementation of Cowherd
et al (1985); see Section 17.
Fraction PM10 deposition
in off-site exposure area
— See Table 6 Based on AERMOD
modeling; see Section 15.
2.0 Introduction
The safe storage and disposal of depleted uranium (DU) waste is essential for mitigating releases
of radioactive materials and reducing exposures to humans and the environment. Currently, a
radioactive waste facility located in Clive, Utah (the “Clive facility”) operated by the company
EnergySolutions Inc. is being considered to receive and store DU waste that has been declared
surplus from radiological facilities across the nation. The Clive facility has been tasked with
disposing of the DU waste in a manner that protects humans from future radiological releases.
To assess whether the proposed Clive facility location and containment technologies are suitable
for protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land disposal of radioactive
waste set forth in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Rule R313-25 License Requirements for
Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste - General Provisions must be met—specifically R313-25-9
Technical Analyses (Utah 2015). In order to support the required radiological performance
assessment (PA), a probabilistic computer model has been developed to evaluate the doses to
human receptors that would result from the disposal of radioactive waste, and conversely to
determine how much waste can be safely disposed at the Clive facility. The GoldSim systems
analysis software (GTG 2011) was used to construct the probabilistic PA model.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 2
The site conditions, chemical and radiological characteristics of the wastes, contaminant
transport pathways, and potential human receptors and exposure routes at the Clive facility that
are used to structure the quantitative PA model are described in the conceptual site model
documented in Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
(Clive DU PA CSM.pdf). Based on current and reasonably anticipated future land uses, the two
future use exposure scenarios described in the CSM for evaluation in the PA are ranching and
recreation.
The Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) white paper Dose Assessment for the Clive PA (Dose
Assessment.pdf) details the assumptions and computational methods for estimating radiation
doses to future human receptors associated with DU and its decay products. This present white
paper focuses on one aspect of the exposure and radiation dose calculations; atmospheric
modeling to support the calculation of breathing zone air concentrations of radionuclides for
future human receptors. Specifically, this paper addresses the modeling of:
1. Rates of particle resuspension by aeolian (wind derived) processes;
2. Air concentrations of radionuclides above the disposal embankment and at specific
locations of potential off-site exposure; and,
3. Deposition flux of resuspended embankment particles at locations beyond the
embankment.
Particle resuspension related to mechanical disturbances from off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is
also addressed in the PA model and is discussed in the white paper Dose Assessment for the Clive
PA.
3.0 Overview and Framework
Atmospheric dispersion modeling was conducted using computer software outside of the
GoldSim modeling environment, as the GoldSim PA model is a system-level model. An
atmospheric dispersion model is a mathematical model that employs meteorological and terrain
elevation data, in conjunction with information on the release of contamination from a source, to
calculate breathing-zone air concentrations at locations above or downwind of the release. Some
models may also be used to calculate surface deposition rates of contamination at locations
downwind of the release.
Air dispersion models, including the AERMOD (EPA, 2011a) and CAP-88 (EPA, 2011b) models
used in this exercise, commonly assume a Gaussian distribution for estimating vertical and
horizontal dispersion of contamination away from the source. Factors affecting the amount of
dispersion include atmospheric turbulence, the height of the release (e.g., a virtual stack versus
ground level), the buoyancy of the plume, and terrain features. Although they employ different
mathematical models for assessing horizontal and vertical dispersion, both AERMOD and
CAP-88 ultimately calculate annual-average contaminant breathing zone air concentrations at
various distances and in various directions from a source release.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 3
The Clive facility waste disposal embankment will be a large-area emissions source with a gently
sloping surface that will be raised approximately 15 m above the surrounding terrain. There are
two types of future radioactive emissions associated with the embankment:
1. Particulate emissions of contaminated surface soil due to aeolian erosion; and,
2. Emissions of gas-phase radionuclides diffusing across the surface of the embankment
into the atmosphere.
With respect to potential human receptors exposed upon the embankment itself (ranchers and
recreationalists, including hunters, and OHV sport riders—see the Dose Assessment white
paper), the surface of the embankment represents a ground-level (0-m height) emissions source.
For estimating the annual dose to these individuals, the air modeling endpoint of interest is the
annual-average breathing-zone concentration of respirable particles or gaseous radionuclides
above the embankment. For individuals exposed at locations other than the embankment, the
embankment represents a 15-m elevation emissions source, as transport by wind will be
necessary for exposure at these locations. A second air modeling endpoint of interest for these
“off-site” receptors is the same as for the “on-site” receptors; i.e., the annual-average breathing-
zone concentration of respirable particles or gaseous radionuclides released from the
embankment at some specific off-site location.
A third endpoint of interest is the off-site deposition rate of embankment particulates. As
particulates eroding from the embankment are deposited on surrounding land, this surrounding
area may become a secondary source of radionuclide exposure for ranchers and recreationists.
The relative importance of exposure on-site and off-site depends in part on the fraction of total
exposure time a rancher or recreationist spends in each area. However, the importance of on-site
vs. off-site exposure also depends on the rate of aeolian particle erosion from the embankment
and the rate at which contamination from the disposed waste is transported to the the surface of
the embankment by processes such as biotic transport (see Biological Modeling white paper) and
radon diffusion. If transport rates of radioactivity are much higher than the rate at which aeolian
particle erosion removes radioactivity, then embankment surface soil radionuclide concentrations
will steadily increase over time relative to off-site levels. However, if aeolian particle erosion
rates are greater than the transport/accumulation rate of radioactivity in surface soil, then
embankment soil radioactivity will be minimal throughout the modeling period. Because only a
portion of wind-eroded particles remain within the overall receptor exposure area, and because
receptor exposure intensity varies between the embankment and the off-site exposure area, this
can have significant consequences for dose assessment results.
In summary, there are three air modeling endpoints:
1. Annual-average breathing-zone concentration of respirable particles and gaseous
radionuclides above the embankment;
2. Annual-average breathing-zone concentration of respirable particles and gaseous
radionuclides at specific off-site locations; and,
3. Off-site aeolian deposition rate of embankment particulates.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 4
For gas-phase radionuclides, the contaminant transport component of the GoldSim PA model
(see Unsaturated Zone Modeling white paper) provides the diffusive flux (activity per area per
time, as in Bq/m2·s) at the surface of the disposal embankment. A particulate resuspension
model, described below, is employed to calculate the particle flux from the surface of the
disposal embankment. The gas-phase radionuclide and particle fluxes are the site-specific inputs
to the air dispersion model. The third endpoint, the off-site deposition rate of embankment
particulates, is used as an input for modeling radionuclide soil concentrations over time in the
off-site exposure area for ranchers and recreationists.
AERMOD, a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended regulatory
air modeling system that incorporates state-of-the-art modeling approaches (EPA, 2011a), is used
for the air dispersion modeling to address the three endpoints. As a quality assurance measure, a
second EPA regulatory air dispersion model (CAP-88; EPA, 2011b) is employed to confirm the
AERMOD results (see Section 16).
4.0 Model Descriptions
The following subsections provide a summary of the particle resuspension and air dispersion
models used to support the modeling endpoints described above.
4.1 Cowherd Particle Resuspension Model
Air dispersion models for estimating radionuclide concentrations above, or at some distance
from, a release source require a radionuclide emission rate as an input. In the case of aeolian soil
particulates in ambient air (e.g., dust), an area-averaged particulate resuspension rate is needed.
For screening of potential inhalation risks at contaminated soil sites, EPA recommends a
particulate emission factor (PEF) model to estimate annual average concentrations of respirable
particulates (approximately 10 µm and less; i.e., PM10) in ambient air above contaminated soil
(EPA, 1996; EPA, 2002).
The PEF incorporates PM10 emission models (Cowherd et al, 1985) related to wind erosion
under one of two conditions. The particulate emission model for PM10 used in EPA (1996; 2002)
pertains to a surface with unlimited erosion potential. Cowherd et al (1985) also provide a model
for estimating PM10 particle emissions from surfaces with a limited reservoir of erodible
particles. The decision criterion in choosing between these model types is provided in Figure 3-2
of Cowherd et al. (1985) as, “Is threshold friction velocity > 75 cm/s?” For surfaces not covered
by continuous vegetation, including assumed future states of the disposal embankment (see
Biological Modeling white paper), surfaces with a threshold friction velocity larger than 75 cm/s
tend to be composed of elements too large to be eroded, or of erosion-resistant crusts. An
erosion-resistant crust might be of cryptogamic nature (particles bound by a biological
community consisting of one or more types of cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, and fungi), or
simply by aggregation of very fine silty-clay particles.
Methods for characterizing threshold friction velocity in Cowherd et al. (1985) rely on site
inspection, which is problematic for this modeling because the future surface characteristics of
the embankment are uncertain. The foreseeable future state of the cap surface likely includes a
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 5
range of particle sizes due to contributions from windblown loess, from decaying plant material,
and from degrading rip rap. A practical constraint on the use of the limited-reservoir model of
soil erosion is that this model is dependent upon the frequency of disturbance of the surface.
When a surface has limited erosion potential, disturbances to expose fresh surface material are
considered necessary to restore erodibility. For the Clive PA model, a range of input parameter
values are used with the unlimited-reservoir model to estimate possible PM10 emission rates
based on the presumption of dynamic steady-state conditions, where PM10 emissions are
presumed to be balanced by deposition of particles from upwind locations.
The equation for particle emissions from a surface with unlimited erosion potential, originally
published as Equation 4-4 in Cowherd et al. (1985), has the form:
E10 = 0.036 × (1 - V) × ([u] / ut-7)3 × F(x) (1)
where:
E10 is the annual-average PM10 emission rate per unit area of contaminated soil
(g/m2·hr);
V is the fraction of vegetative cover (-);
[u] is the mean annual wind speed (m/s);
ut-7 is the threshold value of wind speed at 7 m (m/s); and,
F(x) is a function dependent on the ratio u / ut (-).
and, from Equation 4-3 in Cowherd et al. (1985):
ut-7 = (ut × Fadj / 0.4) × ln(700 cm / z0) (2)
where:
ut is the unadjusted threshold friction velocity (m/s);
Fadj is the threshold friction velocity adjustment factor; and,
z0 is the surface roughness height (cm).
Values of F(x) are estimated based on the function shown graphically in Figure 4-3 of Cowherd
et al. (1985). The value of x is calculated as defined in Equation 4-4 of Cowherd et al. (1985):
x = 0.886 × (ut-7 / [u]) (3)
and the function F(x) is approximated using the following equations:
when x < 1, F(x) = (6 – x3)/π
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 6
when x ≥ 1 and < 2, F(x) = (-1.3 × x) + 2.89
when x ≥ 2, F(x) = [(8 × x3) + (12 × x)] × e-(x^2).
With the exception of the case where x ≥ 2, these equations were fit by Neptune and Company
based on visual approximation to the graphic in Figure 4-3 of Cowherd et al. (1985). For the case
x ≥2, the equation is taken from Appendix B of Cowherd et al (1985).
4.2 AERMOD
AERMOD is EPA's recommended regulatory air modeling system for steady-state emissions. It
is defined by EPA (2011a) as
“A steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary
layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and
elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain.”
AERMOD supports source characterization as an area of user-defined dimensions and elevation
and is thus suitable for modeling the disposal embankment. AERMOD employs two pre-
processors related to handling of meteorological data and terrain data. The AERMET pre-
processor is used to estimate boundary layer parameter values such as mixing height and friction
velocity needed for the air dispersion modeling. AERMET inputs include albedo (a measure of
the reflectivity of the ground surface), surface roughness, and Bowen ratio (a measure of heat
flux to the atmosphere), plus meteorological measurements such as wind speed and direction,
temperature, and cloud cover. The AERMAP pre-processor uses gridded terrain elevation data to
generate receptor grids for the air dispersion modeling.
In the stable boundary layer nearest the earth's surface, AERMOD assumes a Gaussian
concentration distribution on the vertical and horizontal axes. In the convective boundary layer
above, the horizontal distribution is also assumed to be Gaussian, but the vertical distribution is
described using a linear combination of two separate Gaussian functions. In this manner
AERMOD addresses heterogeneity in the planetary boundary layer where wind and associated
mixing is influenced by friction with the earth's surface.
4.3 CAP-88
The Clean Air Assessment Package – 1988 (CAP-88) modeling program (EPA, 2011b) is
recommended for demonstrating regulatory compliance with the requirements of Subpart H of 40
CFR Part 61 (NESHAPS; National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other
Than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities). As described in 10 CFR 40 Part 61.93, 12-
15-1989:
“To determine compliance with the standard, radionuclide emissions shall be
determined and effective dose equivalent values to members of the public
calculated using EPA approved sampling procedures, computer models CAP–88
or AIRDOS-PC, or other procedures for which EPA has granted prior approval.”
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 7
CAP-88 employs a modified Gaussian plume dispersion model to compute ground-level
radionuclide air concentrations for a circular grid around an emission source. Meteorological
data must be processed into STability ARray (STAR) files for CAP-88, which include
assignments of atmospheric turbulence into one of six stability classes labeled A through F.
5.0 Meteorological and Terrain Elevation Data
Raw meteorological data from the the EnergySolutions monitoring station at Clive, Utah were
collected (MSI, 2010). The monitoring station is at 1,306 m above sea level, and is equipped to
measure horizontal wind speed, wind direction, 2-and 10-meter temperature, delta-temperature
for the derivation of atmospheric stability class, solar radiation, precipitation, and evaporation
(MSI, 2010).
Meteorological Solutions Inc. (MSI), processed the raw meteorological data to create AERMET
files (for AERMOD air dispersion modeling) and STAR files (for CAP-88 air dispersion
modeling). STAR files were created by MSI using two different methods. The sigma-theta
method (STAR-ST) assigns an atmospheric stability class based on the standard deviation of the
horizontal wind direction. A second method (STAR-SR) assigns an atmospheric stability class
based on solar radiation and delta-temperature measurements. The processed meteorological
data were then employed by Neptune for the air dispersion modeling. AERMET, STAR-ST, and
STAR-SR input files for the years 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2009 were made available to
Neptune by MSI. Composite STAR-SR and STAR-ST files integrating meteorological data for
all five years were also created by MSI and provided to Neptune.
A Clive, Utah wind rose from MSI (2010), showing wind speed and direction for the period
January 2009 through December 2009, is duplicated here as Figure 1. As shown in Figure 4.1 of
MSI (2010), the wind rose integrating data for the period 1993 through 2009 is very similar to
that for 2009 shown here. For example, average annual wind speed for both time periods is 7.2
mph and stability class variability for 1993-2009 and just 2009 is less than 5% (MSI, 2010).
Terrain elevation information for each grid cell was derived from the AERMAP interface within
the AERMOD ViewTM (Version 6.7.1) software package (Lakes Environmental, 2010).
AERMAP accesses digital elevation model (DEM) data from webGIS (http://www.webgis.com),
which is then processed for input into AERMOD. For this project, DEM data from the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) for Tooele County, Utah are employed. These data have a
nominal resolution of 90 m and were interpolated to the uniform Cartesian grid (i.e., the
modeling area) using the inverse distance weighting setting, which is the recommended setting in
AERMAP. The nature of the AERMOD ViewTM interface, and the basis of the spatial receptor
grid, are described in Section 8.
6.0 Implementation of Resuspension and Dispersion Models
Neptune implemented AERMOD within the graphical user interface AERMOD ViewTM (Lakes
Environmental, 2010). This software package provides an interface for using base maps to
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 8
define sources and receptors, importing digital elevation data from USGS, and producing
graphical displays of results.

Figure 1. Wind Rose for Clive, Utah (courtesy of Meteorological Solutions, Inc.)

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 9
6.1 Spatial Attributes of Air Dispersion Modeling
As described in Section 1, the intent of the air dispersion modeling was to estimate air
concentrations of radionuclides above the disposal embankment, and for receptors at specific
locations of potential off-site exposure. These receptors and off-site locations, described in the
Dose Assessment white paper, include:
• Travelers on Interstate-80 which passes 4 km to the north of the site;
• Travelers on the main east-west rail line which passes 2 km to the north of the site;
• The resident caretaker present at the east-bound Grassy Mountain (Aragonite) Interstate-
80 rest area 12 km to the northeast of the site;
• Recreational users of the Knolls OHV area (BLM land that is specifically managed for
OHV recreation) 12 km to the west of the site; and,
• Workers at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR, a military facility) to the south of
the Clive facility, who may occasionally drive on an access road immediately to the west
of the EnergySolutions fenceline.
These five locations are shown in Figure 2. A uniform Cartesian grid using 1-km2 resolution grid
cells was employed in the AERMOD air dispersion modeling to support calculation of air
concentrations at the first four locations. This grid was constructed of 299 grid cells (23 grid
cells longitudinally by 14 grid cells latitudinally).
To support the estimation of air concentrations above the disposal embankment and particle
deposition onto the embankment, AERMOD was also run with a smaller 0.3-km2 grid size,
which corresponds to the area of the disposal embankment. In this AERMOD simulation, one
grid cell was centered directly above the 0.3-km2 area emissions source representing the
embankment. The results for this grid cell were also applied to the UTTR access road, which is
in close proximity to the disposal embankment.
6.2 AERMOD Results for Air Concentrations and Off-Site Deposition
Two sets of simulations were conducted using AERMOD; one to estimate air concentrations and
total deposition of particulates, and a second to estimate gas concentrations at the specified
receptor locations in Section 8. The air concentration outputs (particulate and gas) from
AERMOD were then used to calculate χ/Q ratios, which are the ratio of breathing-zone air
concentration (χ) to the emission rate (Q) used in the AERMOD simulations (Section 10). These
χ/Q ratios are then employed in the GoldSim model for each receptor location by multiplying
χ/Q by the gas or particle emission rate generated in the model. Particle deposition rates from
AERMOD were used to calculate the fraction of particulates that are redeposited on the
embankment (Section 15). This off-site deposition fraction was used in conjunction with the
particle emission rate generated in the model to calculate the mass of embankment particles
deposited onto the off-site air dispersion area over time.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 10

Figure 2. Off-site air dispersion locations (Note: red line is the rail; green line is UTTR ac-
cess road).

6.2.1 AERMOD Simulated Air Concentrations and Chi/Q Values
As described in Section 8, AERMOD was run using either a 0.3-km2 or a 1.0-km2 resolution
grid, depending on whether the air concentrations above the embankment or at distant off-site
locations were simulated. A consideration in the air dispersion modeling is the elevation of the
area source. For modeling air concentrations in the breathing zone above an area source, it is
necessary to define a zero meter-elevation release height in AERMOD. For modeling air
concentrations at the locations of distant off-site receptors, however, the disposal embankment is
more accurately represented as an area source with a 15-m release height (where 15 m is the
approximate height of the gently sloping top of the embankment).
An assumed PM10 emission rate of 0.25 g/sec was used for all AERMOD simulations. This value
corresponds to an area flux of approximately 0.025 kg/m2-yr, which is near the upper end of
PM10 emission rates derived using Cowherd et al (1985) (see Section 17). The AERMOD results
are used to develop χ/Q ratios, which in principle are independent of the specific emission rate
used in the simulations. The emission rate input to AERMOD was varied over several orders-of-
magnitude, and it was confirmed that the ratio χ/Q is independent of emission rate.

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 11
The relative mass associated with two particle size fractions within the PM10 category can be
distinguished in AERMOD: 0 to 2.5 micron particle diameter, and 2.5 to 10 micron particle
diameter. The actual particle size distribution of future PM10 emissions from the embankment is
unknown. To explore the influence of particle size fraction on on-site and off-site PM10 air
concentrations, the mass of particles in the two categories for a series of eight simulations was
varied as presented in Table 2:
Table 2. Allocation of particle mass in particle size fraction bins for PM10 emissions.
Simulation 0 to 2.5 microns 2.5 to 10 microns
1 0% 100%
2 5% 95%
3 10% 90%
4 20% 80%
5 40% 60%
6 60% 40%
7 80% 20%
8 100% 0%
Note that these fractions represent fine particle fractions only, and assume that less than 10% of the
particle emissions is composed of dust greater than or equal to 10 microns in diameter.

The AERMOD particulate simulations in Table 2 were conducted using meteorological input
data for year 2009, as previously discussed. Additional simulations were conducted using
meteorological data from 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007. The differences in modeled air
concentrations among the five data sets was minimal. Uncertainty related to meteorological
conditions is overwhelmingly due to extrapolating current conditions (as represented by any of
these five years) to the 10,000-year performance period, which is not possible to quantify at this
time. Therefore, uncertainty related to the slight differences in AERMOD results based upon the
five data sets has not been propagated in the GoldSim PA model.
As described above, two sets of simulations were conducted at different spatial resolutions (0.3-
km2 and 1.0-km2) for the particle size fractions outlined in Table 2. The outputs from these
simulations are summarized in Table 3.
The AERMOD input emission rate and the air concentration outputs from AERMOD were then
used to construct χ/Q ratios for each receptor, as shown in Table 4. The Q term for this ratio is
0.25 g/sec, as described above. The χ term (µg/m3) is from Table 3. These χ/Q ratios were then
directly imported into the GoldSim PA model. For each model realization, one of the eight
simulations is selected and the associated χ/Q ratios are used in the dose calculations.
Differences among the eight sets of χ/Q ratios represent uncertainty in the particle size
distribution of future PM10 emissions from the embankment.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 12
Table 3. Air concentration estimates (ug/m3 of PM10) by location and particle diameter
fraction; 0.25 g/s emission rate.
Simulation
Knolls
OHV
Area
Grassy Mt.
(Aragonite)
Rest Area
I-80 Railroad Embankment UTTR
Access Road
1 0.011 0.0017 0.065 0.11 56 56
2 0.011 0.0017 0.066 0.11 56 56
3 0.011 0.0017 0.066 0.11 56 56
4 0.011 0.0017 0.067 0.11 56 56
5 0.012 0.0018 0.068 0.11 57 57
6 0.013 0.0018 0.069 0.11 58 58
7 0.014 0.0018 0.070 0.11 59 59
8 0.015 0.0019 0.071 0.11 59 59
Concentration estimates for the Embankment and UTTR Access Road receptors are based on simulations
conducted at 0.3-km2 resolution. All other concentrations correspond to simulations conducted at 1.0-km2
resolution. Values for I-80 and Railroad are the largest values for any grid cell containing these features (i.e. at
points close to the Clive facility). Note that the simulation numbers in this table correspond to the particle diameter
fractions in Table 2.

Table 4. Receptor-specific χ/Q ratios for PM10 particulates.
Simulation
Knolls
OHV
Area
Grassy Mt.
(Aragonite)
Rest Area
I-80 Railroad Embankment UTTR
Access Road
1 0.043 0.0069 0.26 0.43 222 222
2 0.044 0.0069 0.26 0.43 223 223
3 0.044 0.0069 0.26 0.43 224 224
4 0.046 0.0070 0.27 0.43 225 225
5 0.049 0.0071 0.27 0.43 228 228
6 0.052 0.0072 0.28 0.44 231 231
7 0.055 0.0073 0.28 0.44 234 234
8 0.058 0.0074 0.28 0.44 238 238
χ/Q ratios for the Embankment and UTTR Access Road receptors are based on simulations conducted at 0.3-km2
resolution. All other off-site receptors correspond to simulations conducted at 1.0-km2 resolution. Values for I-80
and Railroad are the largest values for any grid cell containing these features. Note that the simulation numbers in
this table correspond to the particle diameter fractions in Table 2.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 13
As described in Section 2, air concentrations of gases in the off-site air dispersion area are based
on air dispersion of gas emissions from the cap. The size and basis of the off-site air dispersion
area (see

Figure 3) is discussed in the Dose Assessment white paper, and is that area surrounding the
embankment in which ranchers and recreationists may be exposed to contaminants originating
from the embankment.
Radon-222 is the only gas-phase radionuclide evaluated in the Clive PA model. Breathing zone
concentrations of radon-222 in the off-site air dispersion area are based on releases from the cap,
rather than evolution from any radium-226 deposited with particulates in dispersion area surface
soil, because the former will be by far the more significant source. Radon transport in the
embankment is discussed in the Unsaturated Zone Modeling for the Clive PA white paper.
Radon-222 air concentrations in the off-site air dispersion area have been calculated based on the
smallest potential size of this area (16,000 acres, or approximately 65 km2). The gas
concentration in air for this area was calculated as the arithmetic average of the gas
concentrations in the 65 AERMOD 1-km grid areas with the highest concentrations.
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 14

Figure 3. Off-site air dispersion area (approximate dimensions of largest receptor exposure
area shown as dashed green line).

Radon-222 air concentrations were estimated using the gas deposition module in AERMOD for
the embankment and the 5 other receptor locations described in Section 8. Similar to estimating
air concentrations for PM10 dust, these simulations were conducted with a 0-m elevation source
for a 0.3-km2 grid size (over the embankment and for the adjacent UTTR access road) and a 15-
m elevation source with a 1.0-km2 grid size (all other receptor locations). However, only one
simulation each was conducted for radon gas dispersion because uncertainty related to particle
size fraction is inapplicable to gases.
The input parameters required by AERMOD include diffusivity of the modeled gas in air and
water, cuticular resistance, and Henry's Law constant. For radon diffusivity in air, a value of
0.11 cm2/sec was assumed (Rogers and Nielson, 1991; Nielson and Sandquist, 2011). For radon
diffusivity in water, a value of 100,000 cm2/sec was assumed (Volkovitsky, 2004), while Henry's
Law constant was assumed to be 0.0093 mol/kg-bar (NIST, 2011). The landcover properties were
assigned the default values from AERMOD corresponding to category 8, or “barren land, mostly
desert”. Cuticular resistance, a measure of gas uptake by plants, was set to an arbitrarily low
value of 0.1 sec/cm because this parameter was expected to have little influence for AERMOD
simulations in a desert environment. The low influence of the value of cuticular resistance on
modeled gas concentrations was confirmed by setting the value to 100 sec/cm and observing no
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 15
change in radon air concentrations. As with particulates, radon air concentrations were
simulated using meteorological data for year 2009.
Table 5 presents the output air concentrations for radon for each receptor location and their
associated χ/Q ratios that are input into the GoldSim model.
Table 5. Radon air concentrations (0.25 g/s emissions) and χ/Q ratios for each receptor lo-
cation.
Receptor Location Air Concentration (µg/m3) χ/Q ratio (µg/m3 per g/s)
Embankment (OnSite) 59 234
Knolls OHV Area 0.013 0.053
Grassy Mt. (Aragonite) Rest
Area 0.0022 0.0088
I-80 0.070 0.28
Railroad 0.11 0.44
UTTR Access Road 59 234
Off-Site Exposure Area 0.096 0.38
χ/Q ratios for the Embankment and UTTR Access Road receptors are based on simulations conducted at 0.3-km2
resolution. All other off-site receptors correspond to simulations conducted at 1.0-km2 resolution. Values for I-80
and Railroad are the largest values for any grid cell containing these features.

6.2.2 AERMOD Off-Site Particulate Deposition
In addition to calculating air concentrations of gases and particulates, AERMOD was used to
calculate the fraction of annual mass deposition (g/yr) of resuspended embankment particles
outside the perimeter of the embankment. The total mass of deposited particulates within
AERMOD is a function of the size of the grid area, and is therefore only approximated with a
finite grid area. However, suspended particle re-deposition on the embankment is available as an
output of AERMOD using the 0.3-km2 grid size described in Section 8. The fraction of total
particulate mass deposited outside the embankment area can be calculated by mass balance as:
Depoff-site = 1 – (Depsite / Esite ) (4)
where:
Depoff-site is the fraction of annual PM10 emissions deposited beyond the embankment;
Esite is the annual-average PM10 emission rate per unit area of contaminated soil
(g/m2·yr); and,
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 16
Depsite is the annual deposition rate of resuspended site PM10 within the site perimeter per
unit area of contaminated soil (g/m2·yr).
The majority of PM10 particulates deposited outside the embankment are carried by atmospheric
transport to regions far beyond the vicinity of the embankment. The fraction of all PM10
emissions that is deposited within the combined area of the embankment and the largest potential
size of the off-site dispersion area (64,000 acres, or 260 km2; see the Dose Assessment white
paper) varies depending on PM10 particle size fraction (see Table 2) between approximately 4%
and 11%.
The remaining PM10 mass (89% to 96%) can be expected to be deposited over some very large
region outside the receptor grid at rates no greater than the low values that were calculated with
AERMOD near the receptor grid boundaries. The exact size of this region is influenced by
regional atmospheric conditions and terrain features. At distances beyond approximately 20 to 50
km, AERMOD is unsuitable for air dispersion modeling and a long-range regional model would
be required for quantifying concentrations and deposition rates. The fraction of total particulate
mass deposited within the off-site exposure area is calculated as:
Depoff-site dispersion area = flocal × Depoff-site (5)
where:
flocal is the fraction of annual PM10 deposition occurring within the off-site dispersion
area (see Table 6, Column 4); and ,
Depoff-site is the fraction of annual PM10 emissions deposited beyond the embankment
from Equation 4.
To estimate the total amount of particulate matter deposited on the disposal embankment (Depsite)
for Equation 4, AERMOD simulations were performed using the 0.3-km2 resolution grid for each
of the eight particle size fraction combinations given in Table 2. Table 6 presents the AERMOD
output for total deposition over the disposal embankment. To estimate the amount of redeposited
material, the total mass emitted on an annual basis was calculated based on the AERMOD input
emission rate of 0.25 g/sec. The total annual mass of particulates emitted each year from the
source area is therefore 7,884,000 g. The total mass of particulate matter deposited per square
meter over the embankment (Table 6, Column 2) was then divided by the annual mass emitted to
give an estimate of on-site redeposition of particulate matter (Table 6, Column 3) for each of the
eight simulations. These results were integrated into the GoldSim PA model in a manner
analogous to that described for particle air concentrations in Section 10.
Table 6. Total deposition of PM10 particulate matter on the disposal embankment.
Simulation Total Deposition
(g/m2-yr)
On-site redeposition
(g/m2-yr per g/yr)
Fraction off-site deposition
occurring in off-site exposure area
1 3.3 4.2E-07 0.11
2 3.2 4.1E-07 0.11
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 17
3 3.2 4.0E-07 0.11
4 3.0 3.8E-07 0.099
5 2.6 3.3E-07 0.086
6 2.2 2.8E-07 0.072
7 1.8 2.3E-07 0.057
8 1.4 1.8E-07 0.041

6.3 Confirmation of AERMOD Results with CAP-88
Version 3 of the CAP-88 air dispersion model was used to confirm the results of the AERMOD
simulations. The purpose of this comparison was to perform a quality assurance check on
AERMOD data preparation. As described in Section 7, two types of STAR files for input of
meteorological data to CAP-88 were prepared by MSI. The variability in CAP-88 results using
STAR-ST vs STAR-SR files was about 10-20%, and a number of user input variables (such as
the height of the tropospheric “lid” on mixing) were set at default values. On the AERMOD
side, air concentrations and particle depositions varied by up to a factor of two depending on the
particle size fractions assumed for emissions (see Table 3). Particle size fraction for the emission
rate is not a variable input in the CAP-88 model. These sources of variance are in addition to the
underlying differences in the model frameworks. AERMOD does not employ atmospheric
stability class categories and troposhere "lid" inputs but instead implements planetary boundary
layer methods of estimating atmospheric mixing. Therefore, comparison of AERMOD results
with CAP-88 results is considered on an order-of-magnitude scale, where results within a factor
of 10 or less of each other may be considered nominally equivalent.
Both AERMOD and CAP-88 output air concentrations and ground deposition rates, although
with AERMOD these results are integrated over a receptor grid cell while in CAP-88 they are
associated with specific x,y coordinates. Particle deposition rates were selected as the output for
this comparison. CAP-88 results were obtained for distances of 1 km, 5 km, and 10 km from the
embankment at each of 16 orientations (N, NNW, NW, WNW, etc). Particle deposition results
from AERMOD grid cells overlapping these coordinates were identified. A comparison of these
results for the four cardinal directions is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Comparison of CAP-88 and AERMOD particle deposition results (g/m2-yr).
Direction Distance (km) CAP-88 deposition AERMOD
deposition
Ratio CAP-88 /
AERMOD
N 1 0.14 0.11 1.2
N 5 0.015 0.016 0.92
N 10 0.0054 0.0047 1.2
W 1 0.13 0.097 1.3
W 5 0.013 0.0037 3.5
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 18
W 10 0.0045 0.00084 5.3
S 1 0.082 0.099 0.83
S 5 0.0081 0.0096 0.85
S 10 0.0029 0.0033 0.89
E 1 0.042 0.21 0.20
E 5 0.0042 0.0045 0.93
E 10 0.0015 0.00056 2.7
Of the 12 comparisons shown in Table 7, CAP-88 and AERMOD particle deposition results were
within a factor of two for all but four results. The largest discrepancies were approximately a
factor of five, for the 10-km distance to the west and the 1-km distance to the east. This
comparison indicates that that there is relatively low variability between the CAP-88 and
AERMOD results considering the differences between these models, and suggests that the
AERMOD results are reliable.

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 19
6.4 Implementation of Cowherd Unlimited-Reservoir Resuspension
Model
A range of input parameter values for the unlimited-reservoir particle resuspension model were
employed to evaluate the possible particle emission rates. Input parameters include fraction of
vegetative cover (V), average annual wind speed (u), surface roughness height (z0), the
unadjusted threshold friction velocity (ut), and the friction velocity adjustment factor. The range
of potential adjustment factors is shown in Figure 3-5 of Cowherd et al (1985). High-end,
middle, and low-end estimates (based on impact to the calculated emission rate (E10) are shown
in Table 8 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 8. Range of input parameter values for particle resuspension modeling.
Parameter units High E10 Middle E10 Low E10
vegetative cover (V) – 0.058 0.172 0.318
average annual wind speed (u) m/s 3.20 3.14 3.10
surface roughness height (z0) cm 5 3.5 2
unadjusted threshold friction velocity (ut) m/s 0.1 0.25 0.7
Friction velocity adjustment factor – 3 4 5
Values for the range of V are based on means for each of the five plant communities evaluated in
test plots near the disposal facility site. The range of u is based on review of five years of Clive
meteorological data. High-end and low-end values are approximate. Values of z0 are based on
Figure 3-6 of Cowherd et al (1985). The value for High E10 is a slightly larger z0 than that of a
wheat field and comparable to "suburban dwellings". This is possibly analogous to widely
spaced shrubs. The z0 of 2 is the lower part of the range for "grassland".
Estimates for ut are the most critical for calculating particle erosion. The range of other
parameters can be estimated, whereas the outcome of soil development on the cap after many
millenia (with respect to particle size distribution, formation of soil crust, amount of projecting
rip rap, etc) is essentially unknown. However, based upon professional judgment, the values
used here are based on examination of Figure 3-4 of Cowherd et al (1985). The value of High
E10 is a factor of 10 below the lowest value for aggregate size distribution (100 µm) shown on the
scale, or 10 µm. This corresponds, by extending the linear function in Figure 3-4, to a ut value of
0.1 m/s. The value of Low E10 corresponds to an aggregate erodible particle size distribution
mode of ~1 mm (1,000 µm). The middle value equates to a 100 µm size. The High E10 value
equates to an aggregate particle diameter smaller than that of silt-size particles (0.05 mm), below
which one may presume a more crusted surface that is not associated with an unlimited-reservoir
erosion model. For the Low E10 value, an aggregate diameter of 1 mm suggests a relatively large
contribution from weathering of rip rap and particle aggregation.

Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 20
The ut adjustment factor estimates were developed based on correlation of expected cap
conditions with photographs in Appendix A of Cowherd et al (1985). Figure A-3, was selected as
the best representation of the likely future cap surface. The associated value of 5 for Figure A-3,
however, is approximately equal to the upper end of the range of adjustment factors shown in
Figure 3-5 of Cowherd et al (1985). Therefore, to capture some range of possible values, factors
of 3, 4, and 5 were used for High E10, Mid E10, and Low E10 calculations, respectively.
Adjustment factors shown in Figure 3-5 span a range between 1 and 7, with the function
steepening rapidly between values of 2 and 7.
The average-annual PM10 emission rates (E10) calculated using Equation 1 are as follows:
• High E10: 0.30 kg/m2-yr;
• Mid E10: 2.5E-07 kg/m2-yr; and,
• Low E10: 1.4E-94 kg/m2-yr.
Because the middle value is effectively zero, these results were represented in the GoldSim PA
model using a log-uniform distribution with boundaries of 2.5E-07 and 0.30 kg/m2-yr.
7.0 Electronic Reference
Atmospheric Modeling Appendix.pdf
This file contains graphical output of air concentrations and particulate deposition related to the
AERMOD simulations described in this white paper.
8.0 References
Cowherd, C., G. E. Muleski, P. J. Englehart, and D. A. Gillette, 1985, Rapid Assessment of
Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites, prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, EPA/600/8-85/002, February, 1985.
EPA, 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, EPA/540/R-95/128,
OSWER Directive 9355.4-17A, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1996.
EPA, 2002, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites,
OSWER Directive 9355.4-24, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., December 2002.
EPA, 2011a. AERMOD modeling system, model and documentation available on-line at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod
EPA, 2011b. CAP-88 radiation risk assessment software, model and documentation available on-
line at: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/assessment/CAP88/index.html
Atmospheric Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 21
GTG (GoldSim Technology Group), 2011. GoldSim: Monte Carlo Simulation Software for
Decision and Risk Analysis, http://www.goldsim.com
Lakes Environmental, 2010. AERMOD ViewTM, air dispersion modeling package, available on-
line at: http://www.weblakes.com/products/aermod/.
MSI, 2010, January 2009 Through December 2009 and January 1993 Through December 2009
Summary Report of Meteorological Data Collected at EnergySolutions' Clive, Utah
Facility, prepared for EnergySolutions, LLC by Meteorological Solutions Inc, February,
2010.
NESHAPS, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon
from Department of Energy Facilities, 10 CFR 40 Part 61.93, available on-line at:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=3ae5812c554c6c41807e0fd4dc157bac&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:8
.0.1.1.1&idno=40
Nielson, K.K., and G.M. Sandquist. 2011. Radon Emanation from Disposal of Depleted Uranium
at Clive, Utah. Report for EnergySolutions by Applied Science Professionals, LLC.
February 2011.
NIST, 2011, NIST Chemistry WebBook, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
available on-line at:
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C10043922&Mask=10#Solubility
Rogers, V. C., and K. K. Nielson, 1991. Correlations for predicting air permeabilities and 222Rn
diffusion coefficients of soils, Health Physics 61(2): 225-230.
Utah 2015. License Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Utah Administrative
Code Rule R313-25. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
Volkovitsky, P., 2004. Radon diffusion and the emanation fraction for NIST polyethylene
capsules containing radium solution. National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Ionizing Radiation Division, available on-line at:
http://www.aarst.org/proceedings/2004/2004_11_Radon_Diffusion_Emanation_Fraction_f
or_NIST_Poly.pdf

 NAC-0022_R2

Biologically Induced Transport
Modeling for the Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
5 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015
1. Title: Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Biological Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This documents the methods used in the biologically induced contaminant
transport modeling of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4.

Name Date
4. Originator Dan Levitt 5 November 2015
5. Reviewer Paul Black 5 November 2015
6. Remarks

30 May 2014: Minor edits, including in response to EnergySolutions review. – J Tauxe

5 Nov 2015: Updated from v1.2 to v1.4. – D.Levitt

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0
 Summary of Parameters ......................................................................................................... 1

2.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.0
 Plant Specifications and Parameters ....................................................................................... 5

3.1
 Plant Conceptual Model .................................................................................................... 5

3.2
 Identification of Plant Functional Groups ........................................................................ 7

3.3
 Estimation of Net Annual Primary Production ................................................................. 8

3.4
 Root/Shoot Ratios ............................................................................................................. 9

3.5
 Maximum Root Depths and Biomass ............................................................................. 11

3.6
 Estimation of Plant Uptake ............................................................................................. 14

4.0
 Ant Specifications and Parameters ....................................................................................... 17

4.1
 Ant Conceptual Model .................................................................................................... 17

4.2
 Clive Field Surveys ......................................................................................................... 17

4.3
 Ant Nest Volume ............................................................................................................ 18

4.4
 Maximum Nest Depth ..................................................................................................... 19

4.5
 Colony Lifespan .............................................................................................................. 19

4.6
 Burrow Density as a Function of Depth ......................................................................... 20

4.7
 Colony Density ............................................................................................................... 20

5.0
 Mammal Specifications and Parameters .............................................................................. 23

5.1
 Mammal Conceptual Model ........................................................................................... 23

5.2
 Clive Site Surveys ........................................................................................................... 24

5.3
 Mound Volume ............................................................................................................... 25

5.4
 Maximum Burrow Depth ................................................................................................ 25

5.5
 Burrow Density as a Function of Depth ......................................................................... 25

6.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 29

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015
FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual model of contaminant uptake and redistribution by plants ........................... 6

Figure 2. Linear regression model to predict ant nest volume based on nest surface area ............ 19

Figure 3 Distribution of ant colony counts for each plot area. ...................................................... 21

Figure 4. Comparison of bootstrapped and a normal distribution for Pogonomyrmex spp. nest
density with depth b parameter .................................................................................... 22

Figure 5. Conceptual diagram of soil movement by burrowing animals ...................................... 24

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Biotic Transport Parameters ......................................................................... 2

Table 2. Vegetative associations surveyed for embankment cover modeling ................................. 8

Table 3. Species identified at Clive included within each plant group ........................................... 8

Table 4. Measured percent cover of plant groups within each vegetation type (From Tables 1
through 5 in SWCA, 2011) .......................................................................................... 10

Table 5. Great Basin net annual primary productivity .................................................................. 10

Table 6. Root/shoot ratios for plant groups at Clive Site .............................................................. 11

Table 7. Maximum root depths for plant groups at the Clive Site ................................................ 13

Table 8. Proportion root biomass by depth from Clive excavations conducted by SWCA
Environmental Consultants (extrapolated by multiplying average number of roots
per cm in each layer by the total rooting width in each layer, with all layers
summing to 1) .............................................................................................................. 13

Table 9. Fitting parameter b describing root biomass above a given depth for each plant type ... 13

Table 10. Plant/soil concentration ratios ....................................................................................... 15

Table 11. Summary of ant nests in each vegetative association .................................................... 18

Table 12. Summary of Pogonomyrmex nest longevity reported in literature (Adapted from
Neptune 2006, Table 6, p. 32) ..................................................................................... 20

Table 13. Summary of Clive small mammal burrow surveys ....................................................... 25

Table 14. Results of Clive small mammal trapping ...................................................................... 26

Table 15. Soil volume (m3) of excavated mammal burrows ......................................................... 27

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 1
1.0 Summary of Parameters
Following is a brief summary of input parameters used in the biotic transport component of the
Clive Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment Model (Clive DU PA Model) that is the
subject of this white paper.
Table 1 lists the biological transport model parameter distributions for the Clive DU PA Model
that are summarized in this document. For a number of biotic parameters, site specific data were
not available for the Clive site, so the Model makes use of biotic parameters for the same or
similar species developed for the performance assessment of disposal cells at the Nevada
National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site), with the assumption that these
species-specific parameters do not vary greatly across North American desert types. The
derivation of these NNSS parameters is detailed in the relevant NNSS documents (Neptune
2005a, 2005b, 2006).
For distributions, the following notation is used:
• N( µ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a normal distribution with mean µ and standard deviation
σ, and optional truncation at the specified minimum and maximum,
• LN( GM, GSD, [min, max] ) represents a lognormal distribution with geometric mean
GM and geometric standard deviation GSD, and optional min and max,
• U( min, max ) represents a uniform distribution with lower bound min and upper bound
max,
• Beta( µ, σ, min, max ) represents a generalized beta distribution with mean µ, standard
deviation σ, minimum min, and maximum max,
• Gamma( µ, σ ) represents a gamma distribution with mean µ and standard deviation σ,
and
• TRI( min, m, max ) represents a triangular distribution with lower bound min, mode m,
and upper bound max.

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 2
Table 1. Summary of Biotic Transport Parameters
Parameter Value Units Reference / Comment
Ant Transport Parameters
Volume of Each Nest
N( µ=0.161,
σ=0.024,
min=0,
max=Large )
m3 SWCA, 2011 (Sec 2.3, Appendix A1)
and Neptune, 2006. See Section 4.3
Lifespan of Each Colony
N( µ=20.2,
σ=3.6, min=0,
max=Large )
yr Neptune, 2006 (Section 6.8, p. 16)
ColonyDensity - area
density of colonies on the
ground
___ ___ SWCA, 2011 (Table 20, p. 23). See
Section 4.7
ColonyDensity_Plot1
Gamma( 33,1,
min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha Ibid.
ColonyDensity_Plot2
Gamma( 2, 1,
min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha Ibid.
ColonyDensity_Plot3
Gamma( 7, 1,
min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha Ibid.
ColonyDensity_Plot4
Gamma( 17, 1,
min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha
SWCA, 2011 (Based on provided
data. Information for this plot in Table
20, p. 23 in the SWCA report is
incorrect.)
ColonyDensity_Plot5
Gamma( 6, 1,
min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha Ibid
MaxDepth - maximum
depth for any colony 212 cm SWCA, 2011 and Neptune, 2006.
See Section 4.4.
b - fitting parameter for
nest shape
N( µ=10,
σ=0.71, min=1,
max=Large )
— Neptune, 2006 (Section 7.3, p. 21)
Mammal Transport Parameters
MoundDensity - area
density of mounds on the
ground
see below for
each plot --- SWCA, 2011 (Section 2.2.2, p. 18 –
22)
_Plot1
Gamma( 235,
1, min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha
_Plot2
Gamma( 239,
1, min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha
_Plot3
Gamma( 1.33,
1, min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 3
_Plot4
Gamma( 1.33,
1, min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha
_Plot5
Gamma ( 1.33,
1, min=0,
max=Large )
1/ha
ExcavationRate -
volumetric rate of a single
burrow excavation
N( µ=0.0006,
σ=0.00015,
min=Small,
max=Large )
m3/yr
Mean of excavated volumes at each
sample location from SWCA, 2011
(Tables 13, 15, 17, 19), corrected for
the number of burrows reported at
each sample location (See Table 14
of this white paper)
MaxDepth - maximum
depth for any burrow 200 cm Neptune 2005b (Table 2)
b - fitting parameter for
burrow shape
N( µ=4.5,
σ=0.84, min=1,
max=Large )
— Fitting parameter for rodent burrows
from Neptune 2005b (Fig. 10, p. 22)
Plant Transport Parameters
BiomassProductionRate U(300,1500) kg/ha yr Approximate Range for Great Basin
from Smith, et al. 1997(Fig 7, p. 37)
PctCover_Plot*_[plant]
Tabulated in
Clive PA Model
Parameters.xls
workbook
— Simulations based on SWCA (2011)
percent cover data. See Section 3.3
Percent cover random
selector
randomly
select between
values 1 to
1000, inclusive
— Modeling construct
Vegetation Association
Picker
Discrete ( 1, 2,
3, 4, 5 ) — Modeling construct
Greasewood Parameters
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.30, 1.24 ) — Assumed similar to creosote,
Neptune, 2005a (Table 16, p. 38)
MaxDepth 570 cm Robertson, 1983 (p. 311)
b - fitting parameter for
root shape
N( µ=14.6,
σ=0.0807,
min=1,
max=Large )
— Assumed similar to creosote,
Neptune, 2005a (Fig. 9, p. 51)
Grass Parameters
RootShoot_Ratio T( 1, 1.2, 2 ) —
Mode based on Bethlenfalvay and
Dakessian, 1984 (Table 2, p. 314);
bounds based on Neptune, 2005a
MaxDepth 150 cm Based on H. comata from Zlatnik,
1999a (p. 7)
b - fitting parameter for
root shape
N( µ=2.19
σ=0.036,
min=1,
max=Large )
— For perennial grasses, from Neptune
2005a (Fig. 12, p. 55)
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 4
Forb Parameters
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.40, 1.80 ) — Distribution of “Other Shrubs” used
for conservatism, see Section 3.4
MaxDepth 51 cm Based on Halogeton, from Pavek,
1992 (p. 5)
b – fitting parameter for
root shape
N( µ=23.9 σ
=0.313, min=1,
max=Large )
— Distribution same as “Other Shrubs”,
see Section 3.5
Tree Parameters
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.55, 0.76 ) — For Juniperus occidentalis from Miller
et al., 2005 (p. 16)
MaxDepth 450 cm For J. occidentalis from Zlatnik,
1999b (p. 6)
b – fitting parameter for
root shape
N( µ=14.6
σ=0.0807,
min=1,
max=Large )
— Distribution for creosote used due to
similar taproot depth, see Section 3.5
Other Shrub Parameters
RootShoot_Ratio U(0.4, 1.8) —
Based on range for Artemisia sp.
from Neptune, 2005a (Table 16, p.
38),
MaxDepth 110 cm Branson et al. 1976 (Fig. 19, p.
1120)
b - fitting parameter for
nest shape
N (µ= 23.9,
σ=0.313,
min=1,
max=Large)
—
Based on fitting parameter for
Atriplex canascens at NNSS, from
Neptune 2005a (Fig 10, p. 52)
Plant/Soil Concentration Ratios
PlantCRs by chemical
element
tabulated in
Clive PA Model
Parameters.xls
workbook
— See Table 10
Plant CR GM for Rn Small — See Table 10
Plant CR GSD for Rn 1 — See Table 10
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 5
2.0 Introduction
Biotic fate and transport models have been developed for the depleted uranium (DU) waste cell
at the Clive repository to evaluate the redistribution of soils, and contaminants within the soil, by
native flora and fauna. The biotic models are part of the larger Clive DU PA Model that has been
built to evaluate the consequences of contaminant migration over time from the DU waste cell.
The purpose of the Model is to provide a decision management system that will support future
disposal, closure and long term monitoring decisions, as well as supporting all regulatory
requirements of PAs and other environmental assessments for these waste disposal systems. The
Clive facility is located in the eastern side of the Great Salt Lake Desert, with flora and fauna
characteristic of Great Basin alkali flat and Great Basin desert shrub communities.
3.0 Plant Specifications and Parameters
The purpose of this chapter is to explain the component of the Clive DU PA Model that
addresses calculation of plant-mediated contaminant mass distributions by depth, and the rate of
contaminant transport from subsurface strata to the ground surface.
3.1 Plant Conceptual Model
Plant-induced transport of contaminants is assumed to proceed by absorption of contaminants
into the plant’s roots, followed by redistribution throughout all the tissues of the plant, both
aboveground and belowground. Upon senescence, the aboveground plant parts are incorporated
into surface soils, and the roots are incorporated into soils at their respective depths (Figure 1).
The calculations of contaminant transport due to plant uptake and redistribution take place in a
series of steps:
1. Calculate the fraction of plant roots in each layer for each plant type.
2. Calculate uptake of contaminants into plant roots in each layer.
3. Sum the contaminant uptake to determine the total uptake by the roots for each
contaminant.
4. Determine the average concentration in the roots, assuming complete redistribution
within the root mass.
5. Assuming that the plant returns all fixed contaminants to adjacent soils upon senescence,
determine how much of each contaminant is returned to each layer. The aboveground
plant parts are mixed in the uppermost layer.
6. Calculate uptake of contaminants into aboveground parts of the plant ("shoots"), based on
the fractions of roots fixing contaminants within each layer and sending it up to the
shoots.
7. Calculate the net flux of contaminants into (or out of) each layer due to steps 1 through 6.
This value is used to adjust contaminant inventories in each layer (each layer is a
GoldSim cell).
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 6

Figure 1. Conceptual model of contaminant uptake and redistribution by plants
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 7
This section describes the functional factors that contribute to the parameterization of the plant
section of the biotic transport model. Such factors include identifying dominant plant species,
grouping plant species into categories that are significantly similar in form and function with
respect to the transport processes, estimating net annual primary productivity (NAPP, a measure
of combined aboveground and belowground biomass generation), determining relative
abundance of plants or plant groups, evaluating root/shoot mass ratios, and representing the
density of plant roots as a function of depth below the ground surface. The data used for each of
the seven steps of the algorithm are presented, outstanding issues with the available data are
identified, and the issues that deserve attention for the next model iteration are described.
In the Clive DU PA Model, the vertical soil horizon is discretized into horizontal layers based on
various functional attributes of the soil-based biotic communities (plants and animals),
requirements related to gas and liquid transport, and the configuration of the disposal cell cover.
The Model is ultimately used to simulate radionuclide transport throughout the soil layers.
Utilizing the information provided in 1 through 6 above, distributions of aboveground and
belowground NAPP for grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees are developed. Radionuclide activity
associated with aboveground biomass is assigned to the uppermost soil/cover layer in the Model.
Radionuclide activity associated with belowground NAPP is apportioned by depth interval
according to root mass distribution. In order to reflect the redistribution of radionuclides, these
calculations require the use of plant uptake factors (plant/soil concentration ratios) to model the
relative uptake of contaminants from soil by plants.
3.2 Identification of Plant Functional Groups
Field surveys of the Clive site and surrounding areas were conducted by SWCA Environmental
Consultants in September and December 2010 to identify plant species present in different
vegetative associations around the Clive Site (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2011). Five
different vegetative associations were surveyed, with three associations representing the alkali
flat/desert flat type soils found in the vicinity of Clive, and two associations representing the
desert scrub/shrub-steppe habitat characteristic of slopes and slightly higher elevations with less-
saline soil chemistry. A one hectare (100 m × 100 m) plot was established in each vegetative
association, and each plot was surveyed for dominant plant species present, and the percent cover
and density of each species. In addition, a small number of black greasewood, shadscale,
halogeton, and Mojave seablite plants were excavated to obtain root profile measurements and
aboveground plant dimensions. The vegetative associations for each plot are shown in Table 2.
Plots 3 through 5 represent current vegetation at the Clive site, while Plots 1 and 2 are
representative of less-saline soils that may develop on top of the waste cell cover.
A total of 41 plant species were identified on the five survey plots. Eighteen species each
comprised at least 1% of the total cover on at least one plot. These 18 species were considered
the most important for purposes of modeling plant-mediated transport of chemical contaminants
at Clive. Species were grouped into five functional plant groups, as shown in Table 3. The five
functional groups are: grasses, forbs, greasewood, other shrubs, and trees. Greasewood is
separated from other shrubs due to its status as a phreatophyte that can extend taproots in excess
of five meters to reach groundwater. Annual and perennial grasses were grouped due to similar
maximum rooting depths.

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 8
Table 2. Vegetative associations surveyed for embankment cover modeling
Plot Number Plot Name
1 Mixed Grassland
2 Juniper sagebrush
3 Black Greasewood
4 Halogeton-disturbed
5 Shadscale-Gray Molly

Table 3. Species identified at Clive included within each plant group
Plant Group Common Name Species Name
Forbs Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus
Forbs Mojave seablite Suaeda torreyana
Forbs Curveseed butterwort Ranunculus testiculatus
Grasses Needle and thread Hesperostipa comata
Grasses Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium
Grasses Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda
Grasses Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum
Grasses Muttongrass Poa fendleriana
Grasses Tall wheatgrass Thinopyrum ponticum
Grasses Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus
Grasses Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii
Grasses Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum
Greasewood Black greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus
Shrubs Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata
Shrubs Shadscale saltbush Atriplex confertifolia
Shrubs Gray molly Bassia americana
Shrubs Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae
Trees Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma
3.3 Estimation of Net Annual Primary Production
Net annual primary productivity has not been measured at the Clive site or in the adjacent
vegetative associations. NAPP can vary widely on an annual basis and is strongly correlated with
mean annual water availability; in desert ecosystems, it correlates moderately well with annual
precipitation (Smith et al., 1997). Smith et al. (1997, Figure 7, p. 37) show Great Basin NAPP
ranging from approximately 300 to 1500 kg/ha/yr, and report mean NAPP for Great Basin
terrestrial systems of 920 kg/ha/yr. Given the lack of site-specific NAPP data, the variability of
NAPP, and the dependence of NAPP on annual water availability, it is reasonable to assume for
the initial modeling effort that NAPP in the area of Clive has a uniform distribution of 300 to
1500 kg/ha/yr. A total biomass production for the selected plot is drawn from this distribution.
Since these data are not on a per-plant or per-species basis, percent cover of each plant group
will be used to apportion NAPP by vegetation type. This biomass is then apportioned based on
the percent of vegetation from each plant type. Percent cover of each plant species was measured
in 100 separate 1-m2 quadrats located along ten transects in each Plot. Mean percent cover for
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 9
each species was reported by SWCA (2011, Tables 1 through 5) for plant species recorded in
each vegetation association; this information is summarized by plant group in Table 4.
A distribution for percent plant cover was developed using a bootstrap resampling approach to
estimate the sampling distribution of the mean percent plant cover (Efron 1998). The percent
plant cover is to be applied for the full 10 ka performance period, and thus it is the distribution of
the mean percent plant cover that is being modeled, to account for the time averaging. The
bootstrap resampling simulation needs to reflect the same sort of sampling structure as the field
sampling, in order to capture the underlying structure of the data. To simulate this structure, five
transects from two subplots were selected at random from each plot, then 10 quadrats within
those five transects were selected at random. This means that quadrat data originally within a
transect were resampled together, and transect data from within a subplot were resampled
together. Subplot data within a plot were resampled together, and data between plots were not
mixed. As in standard bootstrap resampling, each random selection was done with replacement.
A mean value was then calculated for percent cover of each plant type from the two subplots. To
calculate total percent coverage, percent coverage for each plant type in each simulation was
aggregated. The percent coverage for each plot, for each plant type, and for each simulation was
saved in a table, with the entire process being repeated 1,000 times. Since data was collected on
only two of the four subplots within a plot, there are only four ways in which the two subplots
can be selected. Therefore, in this phase of the bootstrap resampling, all four possibilities are
calculated and assigned equal weight. No standard statistical distribution provided an adequate
fit to the resulting mean percent cover values. Thus, the simulated values were recorded in a
table, and each simulated value is drawn with equal likelihood in the Clive DU PA Model. All
percent cover simulation results are shown in the Clive PA Model Parameters Workbook.
To calculate total biomass by plant type, these percent cover simulations are used with the Total
Biomass distribution to apportion biomass by plant type. For example, if a plot with 20% shrubs,
30% grasses, and 50% bare ground is assumed to produce 1000 kg of biomass, 400 kg is
assumed to be produced by shrubs and 600 kg is assumed to be produced by grasses (Table 5),
since bare ground, which for purposes of this model includes litter and biological crust, is
assumed to produce no biomass.
3.4 Root/Shoot Ratios
Distributions of aboveground and belowground biomass production for plant groups are
developed from the total NAPP based on root/shoot ratio for each plant group. The root/shoot
ratio is the ratio of belowground (root) mass to aboveground (shoot) mass. Estimates of
belowground NAPP are determined by multiplying total NAPP by the root/shoot ratio of the
species of concern. Aboveground NAPP is equivalent to the remaining portion of total NAPP.
Root/shoot ratios for each plant group are shown in Table 6. A triangular distribution was
developed for the grasses root/shoot ratio. Data from Bethlenfalvay and Dakessian (1984, Table
2, p. 314) for Hesperostipa comata suggesting a root/shoot ratio of 1.2 in ungrazed systems was
used for the mode of the distribution. Furthermore, since root/shoot ratios for grasses generally
range from 1:1 to 2:1 (Neptune, 2005a) the endpoints of the distribution were set at a minimum
of one and a maximum of two. For greasewood, the root/shoot ratio is based on information in
Neptune (2005a) for creosote (Larrea tridentata), a warm desert shrub with a similar growth
form to greasewood. The root/shoot ratio for the “Other Shrubs” category is based on the range
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 10
of root/shoot ratios reported for sage (Artemisia spp.) by Neptune (2005a, Table 16, p. 38). Utah
juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) is the only tree found in any of the five survey plots. The
root/shoot ratio for trees is based on western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis), a closely related
species, as reported by Miller et al. (2005, p. 16). No root/shoot information was available for the
primary forbs occupying the site (halogeton and curveseed butterwort). This lack of information
represents a data gap, though biointrusion modeling at NNSS showed that forbs, due to their
more shallow rooting system and smaller contribution to NAPP, contributed very minimally to
the biotic transport of buried wastes. To parameterize this model input, the root/shoot ratio for
other shrubs was used, because this ratio represents a uniform distribution with a wide range and
relatively large upper bound. For modeling of contaminant uptake, this means that the
distribution tends to be conservative, since a large proportion of the plant mass can be
determined to be underground, which results in increased absorption and upward movement of
any contaminants in a given layer where roots occur.

Table 4. Measured percent cover of plant groups within each vegetation type (From Tables
1 through 5 in SWCA, 2011)

Plot 1:
Mixed
Grassland
Plot 2:
Juniper -
Sagebrush
Plot 3:
Greasewood
Plot 4:
Halogeton -
Disturbed
Plot 5:
Shadscale -
Gray Molly
% Tree 0 6.2 0 0 0
%
Greasewood 0 0 4.5 0.2 0.2
% Other
Shrub 2.0 18.9 0.6 5.0 13.1
% Forb 2.2 1.4 0.8 3.9 1
% Grass 26.4 9.8 0 0 0.1
% Bare
Ground 69.4 63.7 94.1 90.9 85.6

Table 5. Great Basin net annual primary productivity
Group Value or Distribution Units References
Total Biomass
(Primary productivity)
U(300, 1500) kg/ha/yr Range for Great Basin from Smith,
et al. 1997. Mean of 920 kg/ha/yr
reported by Le Houerou 1984. Net
primary productivity dependent upon
total moisture availability
Biomass
Greasewood
Apportioned from
above by % cover of
each vegetation type

Biomass Shrubs
Biomass Grasses
Biomass Forbs
Biomass Trees

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 11
Table 6. Root/shoot ratios for plant groups at Clive Site
ES Plant
Type
Value or
Distribution
Units References
Forbs U(0.40, 1.80) — Distribution of “Other Shrubs” used
for conservatism, see text
Grasses Tri(1, 1.2, 2) — Based on H. comata (ungrazed),
Bethlenfalvay and Dakessian, 1984
Greasewood U(0.30, 1.24) — Assumed similar to creosote, from
NTS (Neptune, 2005a)
Other Shrubs U(0.4, 1.8) — Based on range for Artemisia spp.
from Barbour, 1973
Trees U(0.55, 0.76) — For Western Juniper, Miller et al.,
2005

3.5 Maximum Root Depths and Biomass
Maximum root depths for each of the plant groups are based on literature values as shown in
Table 7. Forbs are the most shallowly rooted plant group at Clive, with halogeton roots
extending half a meter or less based on excavations conducted by SWCA (2011, Table 6).
Though roots of some perennial grasses have been shown to extend up to two and a half meters
(Zlatnik, 1999c), maximum rooting depths for the two most abundant grasses identified in the
2011 SWCA surveys of the Clive plots [needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata) and
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)] extend about 1.5 meters (Zlatnik, 1999a, and Zouhar, 2003).
Greasewood has been reported to extend taproots up to 19 meters to reach groundwater (SWCA
Environmental Consultants, 2000, p. 2), though this extreme situation will only occur when
precipitation can infiltrate to groundwater, as greasewood roots cannot penetrate the very dry soil
that occurs below the zone of infiltration. The vegetative survey of the Clive site found that the
majority of greasewood plants are less than one meter tall, and studies have found that
greasewood of that size tend not to produce taproots (Robertson, 1983). Still, larger plants do
occupy parts of the Clive site, especially where precipitation runoff is concentrated, and these
plants may extend taproots to exploit deeper water. A maximum root depth of 5.7 meters
(Robertson, 1983, p. 311) is used in this model. Maximum root depth for the “Other Shrub”
category is based on rooting depths for shadscale as reported in Branson et al. (1976, Fig. 19, p.
1120). The maximum rooting depth of three shadscale excavated at the Clive site (Table 6 in
SWCA, 2011) was approximately 75 cm.
The proportion of root biomass as a function of depth was determined for greasewood, shadscale
(i.e. other shrubs), and halogeton and mojave seablite (i.e. forbs) based on root profile
excavations conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants (2011) and is presented in Table 8.
Maximum rooting depth for the only tree species found on any of the five survey plots (Utah
juniper, Juniperus osteosperma) was based on rooting depths of the similar Western juniper
(Juniperus occidentalis), which has been found to extend taproots as deep as 4.5 meters (Zlatnik,
1999b, p. 6). Understanding root biomass by depth is necessary to apportion belowground
biomass production to depth layers or “cells” within the cover component of the Clive DU PA
Model. The first step entails modeling the depth distribution of plant mass for each shrub and
grass species. Once this is accomplished, a model is applied to the aggregate within each layer.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 12
The Clive DU PA Model uses the work done by Neptune
(2005a) at NNSS to fit mathematical functions describing
the root mass by depth for each of the plant groups. Fitting
parameters (b) describing the root biomass as a function of
depth for each of the Clive plant groups are presented in
Table 9. All plant types use the same generic mathematical
function to represent the density of roots with depth, from
which is derived the value for N
if , the fraction of root in
each layer N. Each plant type, however, is assigned specific
distributions of parameter values max
iz and bi to change the
shape of the function in order to fit available root density
data.
The function fi used to represent root densities actually
defines the fraction of all roots above any given depth. At
depth z = 0, the value is obviously 0, and at the maximum
root depth max
izz=the value is 1, meaning that all roots are above that depth (the definition of
maximum root depth). The fraction of roots for plant i above any depth z is
,11
ib
max
i
z
i z
zf ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛−−= (1)
where
z
if = fraction of roots for plant i above any depth z,
max
iz = maximum root depth for plant i, and
bi = fitting parameter for the root density equation, for plant i.

A value of b = 1 indicates a uniform cylindrical “can-shape” distribution of roots from the
surface to maximum rooting depth. Increasing b values result in a narrowing of overall rooting
width with depth, with b = 3 resulting in a “cone-shaped” distribution of roots, and b values
greater than 4 indicating increasingly “funnel-shaped” distributions with depth, as might be
found in plants producing taproots. Neptune’s work at the NNSS did not develop b parameters
for forbs and trees. However, as shown in Table 8, excavations of halogeton, the dominant forb
at the Clive site, show that all root mass is in the top 50 cm of soil. Tilley et al. (2008) report that
halogeton does form a taproot that can extend to approximately 50 cm below the surface.
Therefore, the selected b for forbs at Clive was based on the b for “other shrubs” at the NNSS,
which had deeper maximum rooting depths but similar “shape” of root apportionment with
depth. As discussed previously, the NNSS biointrusion modeling excluded evaluation of forbs
due to their minimal contribution to the biotic transport of buried wastes. Additional excavations
of halogeton to better define distribution of root mass with depth could be performed in the
future if this uncertainty influences modeling results. Neptune’s work at the NNSS also did not
derive b parameters for trees. Therefore, the fitting parameter for juniper roots is based on the b
derived for creosote, which also forms a taproot and has a fairly deep maximum rooting depth
[315 cm (Neptune, 2005a)] as that used here for juniper [450 cm (Zlatnik, 1999b)].
b > 1
b =
1
10
ma
x
i
m
u
m

de
p
t
h
de
p
t
h
fraction above depth
0
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 13
Table 7. Maximum root depths for plant groups at the Clive Site
ES Plant Type Value or
Distribution
Units References
Forbs 51 cm For Halogeton from Pavek, 1992
Grasses 150

cm Based on H. comata (Zlatnik, 1999a)
and B. tectorum (Zouhar, 2003), the two
most abundant grasses at Clive
Greasewood 570 cm Robertson, 1983
Other Shrubs 110 cm Based on shadscale from Branson et
al., 1976
Trees 450 cm Value for Western Juniper from Zlatnik,
1999b
Table 8. Proportion root biomass by depth from Clive excavations conducted by SWCA
Environmental Consultants
Depth
Interval
(cm)
Proportion Rootmass in Layer
Black Greasewood Other Shrubs Forbs
Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.
0–10 0.029 0.025 0.096 0.023 0.217 0.109
10–20 0.405 0.315 0.344 0.227 0.434 0.219
20–30 0.292 0.18 0.306 0.059 0.268 0.213
30–40 0.15 0.065 0.197 0.124 0.07 0.099
40–50 0.078 0.029 0.042 0.019 0.012 0.016
50–60 0.03 0.041 0.003 0.006 0 0
60–70 0.015 0.014 0.002 0.003 0 0
70–80 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.006 0 0
80–90 0 0 0.003 0.006 0 0
90–100 0 0 0.005 0.009 0 0

Table 9. Fitting parameter b describing root biomass above a given depth for each plant
type
ES Plant
Type Value or Distribution References
Forbs N( µ=23.9 σ =0.313, min=1,
max=Large )
Fitting parameter based on “other shrubs” at
NNSS (Neptune, 2005a). See Section 3.5
Grasses N(2.19, 0.036, min=1,
max=Large)
Fitting parameter for perennial grasses
(Neptune, 2005a)
Greasewood N( µ=14.6, σ=0.0807, min=1,
max=Large)
Based on fitting parameter for creosote at
NNSS (Neptune, 2005a)
Other
Shrubs
N(23.9, 0.313, min = 1,
max=Large)
Based on fitting parameter for four-winged
saltbush at NNSS (Neptune, 2005a)
Trees N( µ=14.6 σ=0.0807, min=1,
max=Large )
Based on fitting parameter for creosote at
NNSS (Neptune 2005a). See Section 3.5
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 14
3.6 Estimation of Plant Uptake
Radionuclide concentrations in plant tissues are calculated based on root uptake using plant/soil
concentration ratios (Kp-s), expressed as activity per dry weight plant tissue divided by activity
per dry weight of bulk soil (Bq/g per Bq/g). Element-specific Kp-s values were preferentially
obtained from a recent publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2010). A
report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Staven et al., 2003) was used as a secondary
reference when element-specific values were not available in IAEA (2010).
Element-specific values of Kp-s were available in IAEA (2010) for all Clive DU PA radionuclides
of concern with the exception of actinium, iodine, protactinium, and radon. For actinium and
protactinium, americium values were employed as a surrogate as suggested in Staven et al.
(2003). A Kp-s value for iodine was obtained from Stave et al. (2003). A summary of Kp-s values
used in the Clive DU PA is provided in Table 10.
Distributional form for the values of geometric mean and geometric standard deviation reported
in IAEA (2010) was not discussed in this reference. In order to provide a common set of inputs,
values obtained from IAEA (2010) and Staven et al. (2003) were processed to conform to an
assumed lognormal distribution. The value for iodine originally reported as an arithmetic mean
was transformed to a geometric mean equivalent. Kp-s data were reported in IAEA (2010) as a
geometric mean, geometric standard deviation, minimum, and maximum. The geometric
standard deviations are greater than 2 in nearly every case, suggesting high right-skewness in the
data, and the minimum and maximum were consistent with samples from a lognormal
distribution. In order to establish a distribution for the mean, a parametric bootstrap approach
was taken (Efron 1998), simulating bootstrap samples from the lognormal distribution using the
maximum likelihood estimates of the lognormal parameters. A lognormal distribution was then
fit to the resulting bootstrap simulations of the mean, since some right-skewness was still present
in the sampling distribution.
Plant/soil concentration ratios reflect an assumption that there is a linear and unchanging
relationship between soil and plant tissue concentrations. In reality, Kp-s values are liable to
overestimate plant tissue concentrations as soil concentrations increase to levels higher than
those employed in the studies from which the values are derived. This concern may apply in the
Clive DU PA Model to conditions where plant roots are in contact with relatively high uranium
concentrations, such as in disposed DU waste. The Model assumes that plant roots are in contact
with soils in various layers belowground, each of which has its own concentration of
contaminants (“Species” in GoldSim parlance). The roots present in each layer absorb each
Species proportionally to the concentration of that Species in the soil in that layer. These
absorbed Species are distributed uniformly throughout all the plant’s tissues, aboveground and
belowground. The plant is then assumed to die off, and all the Species contained within it are
returned to soils in each layer according to the fraction of roots present in that layer.
Aboveground plant parts are returned to the topmost soil layer. All of these processes take place
in a single time step.

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 15
Table 10. Plant/soil concentration ratios
Element Sample
Size
Geometric
Mean
Geometric
Std. Dev. Notes
Actinium 27 0.0037 1.50 Americium used as a surrogate, based
on Staven et al. (2003)
Americium 27 0.0037 1.50
Cesium 401 0.67 1.13
Iodine 1 0.066 3.87 Geo mean based on Staven et al.
(2003). Geo SD from Sheppard and
Evenden (1997).
Neptunium 16 0.095 1.35
Protactinium 27 0.0037 1.50 Americium used as a surrogate, based
on Staven et al. (2003).
Lead 34 0.29 1.54
Plutonium 22 0.0010 1.35
Radium 42 0.44 1.82
Radon NA arbitrarily
small number
1 Radon gas is inert and has effectively
no potential to establish equilibrium in
plant tissue.
Strontium 172 1.8 1.07
Technetium 18 131 1.39
Thorium 64 0.39 1.47
Uranium 53 0.17 1.49

The concentration of Species j in the plant i with roots in layer N is simply
,,
N
sj
N
ji CCRC⋅= (2)
where
N
jiC, = concentration of Species j in plant i roots in layer N,
CRj = concentration ratio for all plants and Species j (Table 10), and
N
sC = concentration in soil on layer N.
The total mass of Species j extracted by roots of plant i from soils (or wastes) in layer N is
shoot
N
ii
N
jiroot
N
ii
N
ji
N
ji ffMPCffMPCM⋅⋅⋅+⋅⋅⋅=,,,, (3)
where
root
if = mass fraction of plant i that is in the roots (belowground fraction),
N
if = mass fraction of root of plant i that is in layer N (so that the fraction of the
entire plant in layer N is root
if × N
if ),
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 16
shoot
if = mass fraction of plant i that is in the shoots (aboveground fraction),
N
jiM, = mass of Species j extracted by the roots of plant i in layer N, and
MPi = mass of all individuals of plant i over the site (M).

The model assumes that all absorbed Species are distributed uniformly throughout all the plant
tissues, both aboveground parts and roots. The total mass of Species j in plant i is the total mass
extracted by the roots of the plant summed across all N layers:
,,,∑=
N
N
ji
T
ji MM (4)
where
T
jiM, = total mass of Species j extracted by the roots of plant i and redistributed
throughout the plant tissues, and
N
jiM, = mass of Species j extracted by the roots of plant i in layer N.

This total amount of Species mass is divided up into the parts of the plant that occupy each layer,
as well as the aboveground parts, so that we may calculate the mass of contamination N
jiM,
+ that
the plant returns to the various soil layers upon senescence. The total amount of contamination
returned to the soils must equal the amount that was absorbed (not accounting for decay of the
Species) in order to conserve mass of the Species. This total absorbed Species mass is returned to
the soil in proportion to the amount of plant in each layer, with the topmost soil layer also
receiving the aboveground plant parts:

N
iroot
T
ji
N
ji
iroot
T
jiji
shoot
T
jiiroot
T
jiji
ffMM
ffMM
fMffMM
⋅⋅=
⋅⋅=
⋅+⋅⋅=
+
+
+
,,
2
,
2
,
,
1
,
1
,
! (5)

The net mass added to each layer is the redistributed mass from Eq. (5) minus the absorbed mass
from Eq. (3). For plant i, this net mass added is simply
.,,
N
ji
N
ji MM−+ (6)

The Clive DU PA Model contains various plant types. For the sake of simplicity in defining
changes to each cell’s inventory, the Species redistribution for all plants can be combined to
result in a net addition (or subtraction) of mass effected by all plants. To do so, we sum Eq. (6)
over all the plant types:
.and ,,∑∑==++
i
N
ji
N
j
i
N
ji
N
j MMMM (7)

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 17
4.0 Ant Specifications and Parameters
4.1 Ant Conceptual Model
Ants fill a broad ecological niche in arid ecosystems as predators, scavengers, trophobionts and
granivores. However, it is their role as burrowers that is of main concern for the purposes of this
model. Ants burrow for a variety of reasons but mostly for the procurement of shelter, the rearing
of young and the storage of foodstuffs. How and where ant nests are constructed plays a role in
quantifying the amount and rate of subsurface soil transport to the ground surface at the Clive
site.
Factors relating to the physical construction of the nests, including the size, shape, and depth of
the nest, are key to quantifying excavation volumes. Factors limiting the abundance and
distribution of ant nests such as the abundance and distribution of plant species, and intra-
specific or inter-specific competitors, also can affect excavated soil volumes. Parameters related
to ant burrowing activities include nest area, nest depth, rate of new nest additions, excavation
volume, excavation rates, colony density, and colony lifespan. These attributes are described in
this section, along with other considerations involving the impact of ant species and their
inclusion in the Clive DU PA Model.
The calculations of contaminant transport due to ant burrowing involve three steps:
1. Identify which of the ant species overwhelmingly contribute to the rearrangement of soils
near the surface at Clive.
2. Calculate soil and contaminant excavated volume using maximum depth, nest area, nest
volume, colony density, colony life span, and turnover rate for predominant ant species.
3. Calculate burrow density as a function of depth to determine the distribution of
contaminants within the vertical soil profile for each predominant ant species.
4.2 Clive Field Surveys
Surveys for ants at Clive were limited to surface surveys of ant colonies, including identification
of ant species, measurements (length, width, and height) of ant mounds, and determination of ant
nest densities in each vegetative association (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2011). No
excavations of ant nests were performed at Clive to support the initial Clive DU PA Model,
though excavations could be conducted to support future model iterations if ant nest depth and
volume are found to be sensitive parameters. Only two species of ants were identified during the
surveys, with the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis, accounting for 62 of the 64
nests identified. The second ant species, a member of the genus Lasius, was only encountered
twice, both times in the mixed grassland plot. A summary of ant nests in each vegetative
association is shown in Table 11.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 18
Table 11. Summary of ant nests in each vegetative association
Vegetative Association Number of
Mounds/Hectare
Average Mound Surface Area
(sq dm)
Plot 1: Mixed Grassland 33 95.03
Plot 2: Juniper-Sagebrush 2 39.77
Plot 3: Greasewood 7 120.18
Plot 4: Halogeton-disturbed 17 84.43
Plot 5: Shadscale-Gray Molly 6 137.73

4.3 Ant Nest Volume
Ant nests were not excavated at the Clive site, so only nest surface area, not nest volume or depth
data, were available. Generally, the surface areas of the Clive sites were smaller than the surface
areas at the sites studied at the NNSS. To obtain estimates of nest volumes, a regression was
made using Pogonomyrmex nest volume surface area data collected at the NNSS (Neptune,
2006) with nest surface area data described in Table 11. The NNSS data and associated
regressions are shown in Figure 2. To be consistent with the data available from NNSS, the areas
calculated are the two-dimensional areas of the mound, not the conical surface area.
To predict nest volume as a function of surface area, the following steps were taken:
1. Using data from NNSS, a linear model was fit to log transformed surface area and
volume data to predict nest volume. Figure 2 shows the fitted model along with the
predicted values based on measured surface area values from the Clive study.
2. To estimate the uncertainty in the predicted volume values, a model-based resampling
method was used. With the statistical model created with the NNSS data, data from Clive
were resampled with replacement. New values were estimated by drawing from a normal
distribution whose mean was the predicted value and whose standard deviation is a
function of both the fitting error and the residual error. This was repeated 10,000 times.
3. The distribution of the mean volume is summarized by the mean and standard deviation
of the resampled values.
Modeling all sample plots together resulted in a volume distribution of N( 0.161 m3, 0.024 m3 ).
Predicted nest volumes were smaller than those observed at NNSS, where the volume
distribution was N( 0.64 m3, 0.091 m3 ).
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 19

Figure 2. Linear regression model to predict ant nest volume based on nest surface area

4.4 Maximum Nest Depth
Again, since ant nests were not excavated, maximum nest depth had to be determined by other
means. As shown in Figure 2, NNSS data support the assumption that larger mound surface area
features correlate with larger nest volumes and deeper maximum depths; therefore, the mound
dimension data collected by SWCA (2011, Table 20, p. 23) was used to predict nest depths. The
upper 95% prediction interval of SWCA-measured surface area was used with the NNSS linear
model predicting depth as a function of surface area. The upper 95% prediction interval was used
in lieu of a maximum value because taking the maximum of simulated values from an
unbounded normal distribution could result in an unrealistically large value. Using this approach,
the predicted maximum nest depth at Clive is 212 cm.
4.5 Colony Lifespan
A critical component in modeling excavation volume is the turnover rate, or the fraction of the
volume of the ant nest that is excavated in any given year. The turnover rate itself is inversely
related to the life span of the colony. Table 12 shows four literature studies that report colony
lifespan for P. occidentalis or Pogonomyrmex spp. These Pogonomyrmex spp. entries are
included because the P. occidentalis study simply suggests colony lifespan is greater than 7
years, indicating that the study did not continue until colony failure. The non-specific studies
include one entry that suggests a range of 15–20 years, one that suggests a range for the Queen
of 17–30 but only 2–17 for the nest, and an entry of 20.2 ± 8.1 (standard deviation) based on 5
observations. The NNSS cover modeling (Neptune, 2006) used the latter entry, including the
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
0.1 0.5 2.0 10.0
0.
0
5

0
.
1
0

0
.
2
0

0
.
5
0

1
.
0
0
Surface Area m2
Vo
l
u
m
e

m
3
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
NTS Measurements
ES Predicted Vol
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
0 5 10 15 20
0.
0

0
.
2

0
.
4

0
.
6

0
.
8

1
.
0

1
.
2
Surface Area m2
Vo
l
u
m
e

m
3
●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●
●●
●●●●●●●
●●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●●
●
●●●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
NTS Measurements
ES Predicted Vol
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 20
information that there were 5 data points. Since the standard deviation was based on 5
observations, the standard deviation of 8.1 was divided by the square of 5 to arrive at a normal
distribution with a mean of 20.2 years and standard deviation of 3.6 years. This same distribution
was used here. To ensure non-negative values as well as allow division by colony life, the
distribution is truncated at 1e-20.
Table 12. Summary of Pogonomyrmex nest longevity reported in literature (Adapted from
Neptune 2006, Table 6, p. 32)
Genera and species
Max nest (n) or
queen (q) longevity
(years)
Number of
observations Authors
Pogonomyrmex 17–30 (q) Hölldobler and Wilson 1990
2–17 (n) Hölldobler and Wilson 1990
20.2 ± 8.1 5 Porter and Jorgensen 1988
Pogonomyrmex
occidentalis (Cresson) >7 (n) Hölldobler and Wilson 1990

4.6 Burrow Density as a Function of Depth
Excavation volume gives an overall picture of how much soil is being transported to the soil
surface. However, it is also important to determine the density of burrowing activities as a
function of depth within the vertical soil profile. The shape of the nest under the surface
expression of the nest gives insight into the quantity of contaminated soils at various depths
being excavated to the surface. The burrow density as a function of depth is described by the
fitting parameter b. Lacking site-specific nest excavations at Clive, the fitting parameter
developed in the NNSS study (Neptune, 2006) for all Pogonomyrmex species is used in the
model. Based on bootstrapping, a normal distribution with a mean of 10 and standard deviation
of 0.71, truncated at 1, was estimated for β (Figure 4) for Pogonomyrmex nests at NNSS
(Neptune, 2006).
4.7 Colony Density
Colony densities in the five Clive plots ranged from two colonies per hectare in the Juniper-Sage
habitat to 33 colonies per hectare in the mixed grassland (SWCA 2011, Table 20, p. 23). For the
initial model, the colony density will use the non-informative prior distribution and the Bayesian
posterior, meaning that for an observed count of X, the posterior distribution for the rate would
be Gamma( X, 1 ) (where the 1 is in the units of data collection, i.e. 1/ha). Expressed another
way, Bayesian statistics combines knowledge about a process generating data (in this case
colony counts) with assumptions about the process. It is reasonable to assume that the colony
counts are non-negative, making the gamma distribution more appropriate than a normal
distribution. A non-informative prior indicates that, other than the fact that counts cannot be
negative, there is no data which might suggest how the colony counts are distributed for each
location. In other circumstances, other data might be used to reduce uncertainty. In this case, the
distributions are conservative and reflect this lack of prior knowledge. Figure 3 illustrates the
shape of the distributions used to describe colony counts for each plot area.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 21
Modeling soil and contaminant transport by ant species within the Clive DU PA Model assumes
that ants move materials from lower cells to those cells above while excavating chambers and
tunnels within a nest. These chambers and tunnels are assumed to collapse over time and return
soil from upper cells back to lower cells. Through this process the balance of materials is
preserved over time. Soil and contaminant movement from one cell to another is calculated as
follows. Within each layer, the fraction of excavated ant nest volume and the fraction of
contaminants contained within that layer are determined. The fraction of contaminants within the
excavated volume is based on the ratio of the excavated volume to total volume of each layer and
is assumed to be distributed homogeneously within the layer. Secondly, the sum of contaminants
from each layer associated with the ant nest is calculated with the assumption that all excavations
from layers below are deposited in the uppermost layer. Finally, downward movement of
contaminants associated with chamber and tunnel collapse from each layer to the layer below is
calculated and the net movement of contaminants into each layer is determined. The amount of
contaminants in each layer is then used to adjust contaminant inventory in each layer for the next
time step.

Figure 3 Distribution of ant colony counts for each plot area.

0 10 20 30 40 50
0.
0

0
.
1

0
.
2

0
.
3
Colony Count (1/ha)
De
n
s
i
t
y

Plot # (mean value)
Plot 1, (33)
Plot 2, (2)
Plot 3, (7)
Plot 4, (17)
Plot 5, (6)
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 22

Figure 4. Comparison of bootstrapped and a normal distribution for Pogonomyrmex spp.
nest density with depth b parameter

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 23
5.0 Mammal Specifications and Parameters
5.1 Mammal Conceptual Model
Burrowing mammals can have a profound impact on the distribution of soil and its contents near
the soil surface. The degree to which mammals influence soil structure is dependent on the
behavioral habits of individual species. While some species account for a large volume of soil
displacement, others are less influential. This section presents the functional factors used to
parameterize the Clive DU PA Model. Factors such as burrowing depth, burrow depth
distributions, percent burrow by depth, tunnel cross-section dimension, tunnel lengths, soil
displacement by weight, soil displacement by volume and animal density per hectare play a
critical role in determining the final soil constituent mass by depth within the soil.
Modeling soil and contaminant transport by mammal species within the Clive DU PA Model
assumes animals move materials from lower cells to those cells above while excavating burrows.
Furthermore, burrows are assumed to collapse over time and return soil from upper cells back to
lower cells (Figure 5). Thus, the balance of materials is preserved through time. Calculating soil
and contaminant movement from one cell to another is straightforward. Within each layer, the
fraction of burrow volume and the fraction of contaminants contained within the burrowed
volume are determined. The fraction of contaminants within the burrowed volume is based on
the ratio of burrow volume to total volume of each layer and is assumed to be distributed
homogeneously within the layer. Secondly, the sum of contaminants from each layer associated
with burrow excavation by all animal types is calculated with the assumption that all excavations
from layers below are deposited in the uppermost layer. Finally, downward movement of
contaminants associated with burrow collapse from each layer to the layer below is calculated
and the net movement of contaminants into each layer is determined. The amount of
contaminants in each layer is then used to adjust contaminant inventory in each layer for the next
time step.
The calculations of contaminant transport due to mammal burrowing involve four steps:
1. Identify which of the mammal species overwhelmingly contribute to the rearrangement
of soils near the surface.
2. Assign these mammal species to categories and determine the excavated volumes.
3. Calculate burrow density as a function of depth for mammal categories.
4. Determine the distribution of the burrow depth fitting parameter b for mammal
categories.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 24

Figure 5. Conceptual diagram of soil movement by burrowing animals

5.2 Clive Site Surveys
Each Clive plot was surveyed for small mammal burrows during September and October 2010
(SWCA 2011). Burrows were identified by animal category, as shown in Table 13. Within the
survey area four categories of mammal burrows were identified: ground squirrels, kangaroo rats,
mice/rats/voles, and one badger. Due to the small number of badger and ground squirrel burrows,
the decision was made to treat all burrowing mammals as a single unit for modeling purposes.
Small mammal trapping was conducted on the five Clive plots during the new moon in October
2010 to identify the principal small mammal fauna present in each vegetative association. Each
1.0-ha plot was subdivided into 25 20–m × 20–m subplots. At the center of each subplot, two
Sherman® live traps were placed, for a total of 50 traps per plot. Results of the small mammal
trapping are presented in Table 14.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 25
Table 13. Summary of Clive small mammal burrow surveys
Badger Ground
Squirrel
Kangaroo
Rat
Mouse/Vole/
Rat
Total
Plot 1: Mixed Grassland 0 2 102 131 235
Plot 2: Juniper-Sage 1 0 222 16 239
Plot 3: Greasewood 0 1 1 1 3
Plot 4: Halogeton-disturbed 0 0 0 0 0
Plot 5: Shadscale-Gray Molly 0 0 0 1 1
Deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) were the most abundant small mammal captured during
trapping, and were the only mammal captured in the plots located on the Clive facility (Plots 3,
4, and 5). Plots 3, 4, and 5 were characterized by very low mammal densities, as evidenced by
both the trapping results and the burrow surveys. Consequently, a decision was made to average
these plots. Similar to how the ant mound density data was used to develop distributions for the
model, the resulting mammal burrow population counts were used to develop Gamma
distributions for mound density. For the Clive DU PA Model mound density is defined as
Gamma(X, 1) where X is the number of mammal mound counts for each plot.
5.3 Mound Volume
After burrow surveys were completed, soil volumes were collected in a randomly selected ¼-plot
(0.25 ha) within each plot. The obviously mounded or disturbed soil around a burrow entrance
was collected and its volume measured. This provides an estimate of the volume of soil
excavated from each burrow, with the assumption that the mounded soil represents excavations
for a single year. Results of the mound volume measurements are shown in Table 15. Based on
analysis of the data presented in Table 15, the per-mound volume is defined as a normal
distribution with a mean of 0.0006 m3/yr, and a standard deviation of 0.00015 m3/yr. Total
annual excavated volume is equal to the per mound volume multiplied by the mound density.
5.4 Maximum Burrow Depth
Maximum burrow depth was set at 200 cm based on best professional judgment. This depth is
consistent with that used at NNSS by Neptune (2005b), and represents the likely average vertical
extent of multiple badger excavations (Kennedy et al., 1985).
5.5 Burrow Density as a Function of Depth
The b parameter describes the burrow density as a function of depth, and alters the form and
volume of the excavated burrow. As the value of b increases, the fraction of burrow excavated at
each depth moves from being evenly distributed to a highly skewed distribution with most of the
excavation occurring near the soil surface. Since no belowground measurements were obtained
on mammal burrows at Clive, this version of the Clive DU PA Model uses the b parameter
derived by Neptune (2005b) for rodents at NNSS. The b parameter, defined based on analysis of
NNSS data, resulted in a parameter estimate of 4.5 and a standard error of 0.84. Badger data
were not used in the derivation of the b parameter due to the overall scarcity of badgers in the
survey area, where only one badger burrow was recorded in the five hectares surveyed across all
vegetation types.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 26
Table 14. Results of Clive small mammal trapping
Plot Date Species Count -
Species
Sum - #
Recaptured
Sum - #
Deceased
1 24 7 3

10/5/2010 4 0 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 4 0 0

10/6/2010 4 0 1

Peromyscus maniculatus 4 0 1

10/7/2010 8 3 1

Peromyscus maniculatus 6 3 1

Dipodomys microps 1 0 0

Onychomys leucogaster 1 0 0

10/8/2010 8 4 1

Peromyscus maniculatus 8 4 1
2 43 5 0

10/5/2010 7 0 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 7 0 0

10/6/2010 8 2 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 8 2 0

10/7/2010 14 0 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 10 0 0

Dipodomys microps 3 0 0

Dipodomys ordii 1 0 0

10/8/2010 14 3 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 11 3 0

Dipodomys microps 3 0 0
3 2 1 0

10/6/2010 1 0 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 1 0 0

10/7/2010 1 1 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 1 1 0
4 1 0 0

10/8/2010 1 0 0

Peromyscus maniculatus 1 0 0
5 4 1 0
10/6/2010 1 0 0
Peromyscus maniculatus 1 0 0
10/7/2010 1 0 0
Peromyscus maniculatus 1 0 0
10/8/2010 2 1 0
Peromyscus maniculatus 2 1 0
Total 74 14 3
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 27
Table 15. Soil volume (m3) of excavated mammal burrows

Plot
Burrow
ID
Number of
Burrows
Kangaroo
Rat
Mouse/Vole/Rat Badger Grand
Total
1

0.01203 0.00059

0.01262

1SW104 2 0.0035

0.0035

1SW105 1

0.00001

0.00001

1SW106 2

0.0002

0.0002

1SW107 1

0.00001

0.00001

1SW108 1 0.00005

0.00005

1SW110 1 0.00125

0.00125

1SW111 2 0.0003

0.0003

1SW112 4 0.00056

0.0006

1SW113 1

0.00003

0.00003

1SW114 1

0.00001

0.00001

1SW115 1 0.00025

0.00025

1SW116 1 0.00005

0.00005

1SW117 3 0.0025

0.0025

1SW118 4

0.00008

0.00008

1SW119 1 0.00003

0.00003

1SW120 1 0.00003

0.00003

1SW121 3 0.00009

0.00009

1SW122 2 0.00003

0.00003

1SW123 1 0.00003

0.00003

1SW124 1 0.0002

0.0002

1SW125 1 0.00015

0.00015

1SW126 1 0.0001

0.0001

1SW127 1

0.00001

0.00001

1SW128 4 0.00286

0.00286

1SW129 1 0.00005

0.00005

1SW130 1

0.00004

0.00004

1SW131 2

0.00005

0.00005

1SW132 2

0.00003

0.00003

1SW133 1

0.0001

0.0001

1SW134 1

0.00002

0.00002
2

0.037845 0.00019 0.006 0.044035

2NE002 1 0.00005

0.00005

2NE006 1

0.00001

0.00001

2NE007 1 0.00001

0.00001

2NE009 6 0.00015

0.00015

2NE010 1

0.06000

0.00006

2NE012 1 0.000225

0.000225

2NE015 1

0.006 0.006

2NE019 2 0.00135

0.00135
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 28

Plot
Burrow
ID
Number of
Burrows
Kangaroo
Rat
Mouse/Vole/Rat Badger Grand
Total

2NE020 11 0.00683

0.00683

2NE021 14 0.002975

0.002975

2NE025 1 0.00006

0.00006

2NE026 3 0.000185

0.000185

2NE027 1

0.0001

0.0001

2NE028 1 0.00005

0.00005

2NE029 1 0.0002

0.0002

2NE037 1

0.00001

0.00001

2NE040 1 0.00001

0.00001

2NE041 4 0.00004

0.00004

2NE044 1

0.00001

0.00001

2NE046 3 0.0003

0.0003

2NE048 2 0.0001

0.0001

2NE051 10 0.01501

0.01501

2NE052 3 0.0095

0.0095

2NE104 2 0.0008

0.0008
3

0.001

0.001

3NE003 1

0.001

0.001
5

0.01375

0.01375

5SW001 1

0.01375

0.01375
Grand
Total

124 0.049875 0.01553 0.006 0.071405

Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 29
6.0 References
Bethlenfalvay, G.J., and S. Dakessian. 1985. Grazing effects on mycorrhizal colonization and
floristic composition of the vegetation on a semiarid range in Northern Nevada. J. Range
Management. 37(4): 312–316.
Branson, F.A., Miller, R.F., and I.S. McQueen. 1976. Moisture relationships in twelve northern
desert shrub communities near Grand Junction, Colorado. Ecology. 57: 1104–1124.
Efron B., and Tibshirani R.J. 1998. Introduction to the Bootstrap, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Hölldobler B. and E.O. Wilson. 1990. The Ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 732 pp.
IAEA, 2010. Handbook of Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and
Freshwater Environments, Technical Report Series No. 472, International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, 2010.
Kennedy, W.F., L.L. Cadwell, and D.H. McKenzie. 1985. Biotic transport of radionuclide wastes
from a low-level radioactive waste site. Health Physics 49(1): 11–24.
Neptune. 2005a. Plant Parameter Specifications for the Area 5 and Area 3 RWMS Models.
Neptune and Company, Inc.
Neptune. 2005b. Mammal Parameter Specifications for the Area 5 and Area 3 RWMS Models.
Neptune and Company, Inc.
Neptune. 2006. Ant Parameter Specifications for the Area 5 and Area 3 RWMS Models.
Neptune and Company, Inc.
Pavek, Diane S. 1992. Halogeton glomeratus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011,
February 22].
Robertson, J.H., 1983. Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr.). Phytologia. 54(5):
309–324.
Sheppard, S.C. and W.G. Evenden. 1997. Variation in Transfer Factors for Stochastic Models:
Soil-to-Plant Transfer, Health Physics, 72: 727–33.
Smith, S.D., Monson, R.K., and J.E. Anderson. 1997. Physiological Ecology of North American
Desert Plants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 286 pages.
Staven L.H., Napier B.A., Rhoads K., Strenge DL. 2003. A Compendium of Transfer Factors for
Agricultural and Animal Products, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland
WA.
Biologically Induced Transport Modeling for the Clive DU PA
5 November 2015 30
SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2000. Assessment of Vegetative Impacts on LLRW. Prepared
for Envirocare of Utah, Inc. Salt Lake City, UT. 12 pages.
SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2011. Field Sampling of Biotic Turbation of Soils at the
Clive Site, Tooele County, Utah. Prepared for Energy Solutions, Salt Lake City, UT. 31 pp.
Tilley, D., Ogle, D., and L. St. John. 2008. Halogeton, Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.) C.
Meyer. USDA NRCS Plant Guide. United States Department of Agriculture. Available:
http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_hagl.pdf [2011, May 11].
Zlatnik, Elena. 1999a. Hesperostipa comata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011,
February 22].
Zlatnik, Elena. 1999b. Juniperus osteosperma. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011,
February 22].
Zlatnik, Elena. 1999c. Agropyron cristatum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011,
February 22].
Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011,
February 22].

 NAC-0017_R4

Erosion Modeling for the
Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
29 October 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 ii
1. Title: Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Erosion Modeling v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter values
and distributions used for modeling erosion for the Clive DU PA Model v1.2.

Name Date
4. Originator Mike Sully 29 October 2015
5. Reviewer Dan Levitt, Kate Catlett 29 October 2015
6. Remarks

17 May 2014: Added documentation of new erosion modeling approach from the SIBERIA
modeling of the borrow pit. – M. Sully
21 May 2014: Major reorganization and accepted track change edits. – Dan Levitt
27 May 2014: Minor edits, clean up for formatting and style, redrafting of many equations. –
John Tauxe
4 July 2014: Revisions for Round 3. – M. Sully
29 Oct 2015: Removed gully screening model per PM direction. Created v1.4 – M. Sully

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0
 Erosion Model Input Distribution Summary .......................................................................... 1

2.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.1
 Sheet Erosion .................................................................................................................... 1

2.2
 Gully Erosion .................................................................................................................... 2

3.0
 Evapotranspiration Cover Design ........................................................................................... 2

4.0
 Borrow Pit Model Analog ...................................................................................................... 3

4.1
 Simulation of Sheet and Channel Erosion ........................................................................ 3

4.2
 Implementation in the Clive DU PA Model ..................................................................... 5

5.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 11

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Percentile depth of the area with time and fitted functions. ............................................. 6

Figure 2. The 1,000 realizations of fraction of cover area for each elevation change (depth)
interval. .......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Method for estimating gully volume from SIBERIA elevation change results. .............. 9

Figure 4. Visualization of SIBERIA model simulation of elevation change for bare soil case
for the borrow pit at 1,000 years. ................................................................................ 10

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of distributions for erosion modeling ................................................................ 1

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 1
1.0 Erosion Model Input Distribution Summary
A summary of parameter values and distributions used in the erosion modeling component of the
Clive Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment Model (the Clive DU PA Model) is provided
in Table 1. Additional information on the derivation and basis for these inputs is provided in
subsequent sections of this report.
For distributions, the following notation is used:
• Discrete represents a discrete distribution of a finite number of pre-defined values.
Table 1. Summary of distributions for erosion modeling
GoldSim Model
Parameter
Units Distribution or Value Notes
FractionGully — discrete See Section 4.1
2.0 Introduction
The purpose of this white paper is to address specific details of the erosional processes that may
affect cover performance. This paper is organized to give a brief overview of erosional processes
and present the overall modeling approach, assumptions, and implementation in the Clive DU
PA Model.
Above-ground covers of waste repositories are subject to erosion by the forces of wind and
water. The proposed waste disposal cell for DU at the Clive facility, which has an engineered
above-ground cover, is subject to these erosional processes. Both wind and water erosion are
represented in the Clive DU PA Model. Details of wind erosion modeling and the effects on dose
to potential receptors are addressed in detail in the Atmospheric Transport Modeling white paper,
(Atmospheric Modeling.pdf) and are not addressed further in this white paper. Water erosion via
the return of Lake Bonneville or a small lake is not discussed in this document, but is addressed
in the Deep Time Assessment (Deep Time Assessment.pdf). Other water erosional processes are
described below.
There are two types of water erosion described in the CSM: sheet erosion and gully erosion
(channel formation). The approach used in the Clive DU PA Model to evaluate the influence of
erosion on embankment performance uses results from a landscape evolution model of a borrow
pit area at the Clive site as an analog for embankment cover erosion.
2.1 Sheet Erosion
Sheet erosion is erosion of soil particles by water flowing overland as a “sheet” in a downslope
direction. During rainfall events when rain falls faster than water can infiltrate, runoff can occur,
acting as a mechanism for eroding cover materials. Sheet erosion is a uniform process over the
area of the cover and depends largely on the steepness and shape of the slope, soil texture, and
cover characteristics, as well as rainfall intensity. This is different from erosion that flows in
defined channels (i.e., gully erosion), which is discussed in Section 2.2.
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 2
In the top slope of the embankment, where slopes are gradual (about 2% slope), sheet erosion
will be slower than on the steeper side slopes of the cell (about 20% slope) (Embankment
Modeling white paper). As soil moves down slope by sheet erosion, it is likely that this material
would be replenished by deposition of clean eolian silt from the surrounding environs (i.e., a net
balance of zero change). In the end, the total soil volume on the embankment would not change,
though there would be a slow movement of soils down slope, along with the contaminants they
could potentially contain.
2.2 Gully Erosion
Gully erosion is a process that occurs when water flows in narrow channels, particularly during
heavy rainfall events. Gully erosion typically results in a gully that has an approximate “V” cross
section that widens (lateral growth) and deepens (vertical growth) through time until the gully
stabilizes. The formation of gullies is a concern on uranium mill tailings sites and other long-
term above-ground radioactive waste sites (NRC 2010). Gully erosion has the potential to move
substantial quantities of both cover materials and waste, should the waste material be buried
close to the surface. It occurs when surface water runoff becomes channeled and repeatedly
removes soil along drainage lines, creating a depositional fan of the removed materials.

The engineered cover at the Clive facility may be subject to gully erosion via a disturbance
attributed to an animal burrow, large animal tracks, the root of a fallen tree or shrub (tree throw),
or off-highway vehicle (OHV) track. It is assumed that a notch or nick will be created from these
activities at some location on the surface of the cover and the feedback processes inherent in
gully formation will cause erosion downward to the surrounding grade and erosion upward
toward the top slope of the embankment. As water flows across the inner walls of the notch,
erodible solid materials will be transported with it, creating a larger notch (both vertically and
laterally) and thus a greater capacity to remove solid material.
3.0 Evapotranspiration Cover Design
The composition of the embankment cover is an important factor in determining its erodibility.
At the Clive facility, the cover for the portion of the Federal DU Cell is an evapotranspiration
(ET) cover composed of a 6-in. thick Surface Layer of native vegetated Unit 4 material with 15
percent gravel mixture on the top slope and 50 percent gravel mixture for the side slope. The
functions of this layer are to control runoff, minimize erosion, and maximize water loss from ET.
This layer of silty clay provides storage for water accumulating from precipitation events,
enhances losses due to evaporation, and provides a rooting zone for plants that will further
decrease the water available for downward movement. Underlying the surface layer is the
Evaporative Zone Layer. This layer is also composed of Unit 4 material and is 12 in. thick. The
purpose of this layer to provide additional storage for precipitation and additional depth for plant
rooting zone to maximize ET. The Frost Protection Layer is below the Evaporative Zone Layer,
and is 18 in. thick. The purpose of this layer is to protect layers below from freeze/thaw cycles,
wetting/drying cycles, and inhibit plant, animal, or human intrusion.
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 3
4.0 Borrow Pit Model Analog
A borrow pit model has been used in the Clive DU PA Model as an analog to evaluate the
influence of erosion on embankment performance. Results from landscape evolution modeling at
the Clive Site are used to project embankment cover erosion at 10,000 years. The following
sections describe the borrow pit model and the implementation of the results into the Clive DU
PA Model.
4.1 Simulation of Sheet and Channel Erosion
Landscape evolution models were developed and applied for a face of a borrow pit at the Clive
Site in order to predict the response of the pit face and upslope land surface to water erosion
processes during runoff events. The models provide a quantitative description of the evolution of
slopes and channels (also called gullies in this white paper) over time. The objective of the
models was to provide a realistic estimate of the rate of progression of hillslope erosion loss and
channel development towards the existing embankments that encase waste. Landscape evolution
models are based on the concept that, while the runoff response of a landform to rainfall depends
on the shape of the landform, the landform shape also adjusts through erosion processes acting
during the runoff event. This concept is applied by considering the interaction of hillslope
erosion processes (sheetflow) with channel growth (gully formation) process in the model
(Willgoose et al. 1991a, 1991b).
The landscape evolution model SIBERIA (Willgoose, 2005) was selected for this analysis.
Landscape evolution models such as SIBERIA capture the interaction between the runoff
response and the elevation changes of the landform surface over long time periods. This
capability makes models such as SIBERIA particularly well-suited for waste site modeling. The
model domain for the borrow pit included the borrow pit floor, a 3-m (10-ft) high pit face at a 1:1
slope and several hundred meters of ground surface upslope from the pit face at a slope of 0.3
percent. The soil was characterized with properties consistent with the Unit 4 silty clay, and had
no vegetation or rock cover.
While composed of similar soil the surface layer of the top slope of the ET cover proposed for
the Federal DU Cell has a slope of 2 percent, a gravel composition of 15 percent, and will be re-
vegetated with a mix of native and non-native species. While the cover top slope has a larger
slope of 2 percent as compared with the slope of 0.3 percent for the undisturbed area upslope
from the borrow pit face, the top slope characteristics include vegetation and gravel admix that
would act to slow erosion and channel formation. Changes in elevation at each node were
obtained at 100 y, 500 y, and 1000 y.
Assumptions for this approach include:
• The geometry of the borrow pit wall and upslope area are sufficiently similar to that of
the embankment top slope and side slope that the borrow pit serves as an analog.
• The borrow pit materials (Unit 4) are sufficiently similar to the layers of the embankment
(Unit 4 with gravel, Unit 4, and radon barrier clays).
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 4
• Surface elevation changes at 10,000 y can be extrapolated from SIBERIA model results
from 100 y, 500 y and 1000 y.
• The results at 10,000 y approximate steady state of gullies. This steady state assumption
is implemented from time zero in this model.
• The area of waste that is deposited on the fan is the same as the area of waste exposed in
the gullies, using projections onto the horizontal plane.
• The excavation of ET Cover cells was not considered in the calculations below for
contaminants in the excavated mass from the gully because it was assumed that
significantly more contaminant mass was in the waste than in the cover and that the
material extracted from the waste layers would be on top of the fan.
A subset of the borrow pit model domain was selected to represent the cover. The area extended
from 50 m downslope from the edge of the embankment to 10 m upslope from the borrow pit
face. The model domain was represented by a grid with nodes at equal 0.75-m spacing. Changes
in elevation at each node were obtained at 100 y, 500 y, and 1000 y. Simulations were done for
two rainfall intensities. Since only small differences in elevation change were seen between the
two rainfall intensities, results for both intensities were combined to provide two estimates of
elevation change at each of the three times. The 0.1th, 10th, 20th, and 90th percentiles of the
simulated data were calculated at each of the three times. These percentile plots in most cases
showed a non-linear relationship between the percentile depth of the area and time.
A square-root function was fit to the 0.1th, 10th, 20th, and 90th percentiles using the general form:
𝑓𝑡=  𝐴× 𝑡+error
where
f(t) = percentile depth of the area,
A = amplitude parameter, and
t = time.

The error term was assumed to follow a normal distribution. The nls() function in the ‘stats’
package of the software program R was used to estimate the A parameter and the error term. The
four percentile plots used for the fit are shown in Figure 1.
After the percentile curves were fit using the square root function, parameters were randomly
drawn from the A distributions for three of the curves, and values of the function at 10,000 y
were calculated. For each of the 1,000 iterations, a lognormal distribution was estimated from the
resulting percentiles. The proportion of the lognormal distribution that fell within each specified
depth profile was calculated through simulation. An example iteration is included below for
demonstration purposes:
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 5
1. Simulate “A” values for the 10th, 20th, and 90th percentile regression fits. The fits for the
0.1th percentile were not used for stability reasons. These values might be 1.59, 0.670,
and -0.228, respectively.

2. Project the depth value for each of the curves at 10,000 years. For the “A” parameters
above, these would be 159 mm, 67.0 mm, and -22.8 mm, respectively.

3. Fit a lognormal distribution to these projected depth fits. This step involves finding the
best geometric mean, geometric standard deviation, and shift parameter (lower bound) for
the percentiles above. Because the 10th percentile of the data is really the 90th percentile
of “depth,” the percentiles used for fitting are subtracted from 1. So for fitting purposes,
the 10th percentile of the data is the 90th percentile of the fitted distribution (and so on).

4. The parameters of the lognormal distribution with the best fit are: µ = 3.22, σ = 1.56,
θ = -26.2. One thousand values from this lognormal distribution are simulated, and the
proportion that fall within each depth range are calculated and saved to a matrix. As a
point of reference, the theoretical 10th/80th/90th percentiles of this distribution are -22.77,
67.03, and 158.8, respectively. So the lognormal distribution fits very well to these three
percentiles (see Step 2).

5. The matrix of the 1,000 iterations is output to a .csv file and converted to an MS Excel
file.

The 1,000 realizations of fraction of cover area for each elevation change (depth) interval are
shown in Figure 2. The original output file included 0.5-m depth increments from the beginning
of the waste (1.5 m) up to 10 m. It was clear that there are virtually no gullies greater than 3.5 m,
so the depth ranges were cut off there, the proportions were re-normalized, and the 3.5-m to
10-m depth ranges were deleted.
4.2 Implementation in the Clive DU PA Model
In the Clive DU PA Model, the area of the waste exposed by the gullies and the volume of the
waste removed by the gullies are used in the dose calculations. The area of waste exposed by
gullies and the resulting fan of waste from gully excavation of the disposal cell is the exposure
area for gullies. The volume of the waste removed by gullies is used to calculate a concentration
of radionuclides in the waste that was removed. This concentration of waste is assumed to be
spread out over the exposure area of the gullies and fan and is used for dose calculations.

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 6

Figure 1. Percentile depth of the area with time and fitted functions.
●
●
●●
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10

0
90th Percentile Plot
Years
De
p
t
h

(
m
m
)
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 7

Figure 2. The 1,000 realizations of fraction of cover area for each elevation change (depth)
interval.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fr
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
o
v
e
r

A
r
e
a
Gully
 Depth
 (mm)
Realizations
 1-­‐250
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fr
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
o
v
e
r

A
r
e
a
Gully
 Depth
 (mm)
Realizations
 251-­‐500
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fr
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
o
v
e
r

A
r
e
a
Gully
 Depth
 (mm)
Realizations
 501-­‐750
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fr
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
o
v
e
r

A
r
e
a
Gully
 Depth
 (mm)
Realizations
 751-­‐1000
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 8
The results of the 1,000 realizations described in the Section above (MS Excel file
SimulatedErosionDepthProportions.xlsx) provide the proportion of the area of
the cover or waste layer that has a gully “end” at the defined cell depths, where a gully “end” is
defined as a cell for which the gully enters in the top of that SIBERIA cell but does not exit out
the bottom of the cell. The gully could exit on the side of the cell, but it would still be considered
to be an “end” of a gully in that cell as can be seen in the example illustrations in Figure 3 below.
The 1,000 realizations of the fraction of cover area as a function of depth for 15 depth increments
are stored in the GoldSim model as a lookup table. Each realization has an assigned index value
ranging from 1 to 1,000.
At the start of each GoldSim simulation, a value is drawn randomly from a discrete distribution
of integers ranging from 1 to 1,000. This number corresponds to the realization number in the
lookup table that will be used for the gully area–depth distribution for that GoldSim simulation.
Since the borrow pit analog showed gullies impacting only the upper 4 layers of waste, the
fraction of gully area from the lookup table for the lower 4 gully depth increments are collected
in a data element in the GoldSim model.
The area of waste exposed by gullies for each waste cell layer is calculated by multiplying the
fraction of gully area by the entire waste area for the topslope. This calculation assumes that the
fraction of borrow pit model grid cells that contain the end of a gully is the same as the fraction
of the topslope area exposed by the gully. This assumption is valid since grid spacing for the
borrow pit model is uniform.
The exposure area of the fan is assumed to be the same as the exposure area of the gullies. This
assumption is supported by output figures from the SIBERIA model such as Figure 4 (from the
file 5YR_Rainfall_1000YR_Bare.png). The fan appears to be similar in size to the area
exposed by the gully. The total exposed waste area is calculated by summing the area of the
gullies and the area of the fan. These areas are used for exposure assessment in the GoldSim
Model.
Next the volume of waste removed by gullies is calculated for each layer. The volume of waste
removed by the gully is estimated as the sum of the volume above every gully bottom or “end”
as shown in Figure 3. The volume of waste removed by the gully in each layer of the waste is the
waste removed by the cell of the gully bottom plus the sum of all of the waste removed above
that bottom cell. It is assumed that the gully is a vertical excavation straight up from the bottom
of the gully to the top. This assumption is conservative but makes the best estimate available
given the level of spatial discretization of the borrow pit modeling.
First the volume of waste removed by the gully from the lowest GoldSim cell representing the
gully is calculated by multiplying the waste cell volume by the fraction of gully area for each
layer. Then a multiplier matrix is created consisting of zeros and ones. This multiplier is used to
account for waste in layers above the layer representing the bottom of the gully. For example, the
multiplier for a gully ending in the first layer would be [1,0,0,0]. The multiplier for a gully
ending in the second layer would be [1,1,0,0], etc. Multiplying the matrix by the volume of waste
removed by the gully from the lowest GoldSim cell described above gives the total amount of
waste by layer removed by gullies.
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 9

Figure 3. Method for estimating gully volume from SIBERIA elevation change results.
To clarify the fractions given in the elements FractionWasteCellsGullyEnds and FractionCapCellsGullyEnds, the illustrations
are provided below. The fraction of the cap or waste cells in which a gully "ends" was extracted from the SIBERIA output.
These fractions denote the proportion of the area in a Cap Cell or Waste Cell for which a SIBERIA modeling cell had a gully
enter (from the top) but not exit (from the bottom). The dark gray cells below are the cells that would be counted as having a
gully end. The light gray cells are removed in addition to the dark gray cells for volume of gully calculations. Note that because
we are counting discrete cells, the area and volume estimates are conservative.
Fraction of gully illustration
cell layer 1: 0/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
1/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
cell layer 2: 0/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
1/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
cell layer 3: 1/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
1/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
Example 1.
Example 2.
Gully cross-section with grids denoting cells and cell layers in Siberia. The gullies are roughly drawn in as "V"s. The fraction of
cells in which the gully "ends", is represented by the dark gray cells. The area of waste exposed by the gullies is that fraction
times the surface area of that layer. The volume of waste removed by the gully is the sum of all the cells for which the gully ends
(dark gray cells), plus the sum of the cells directly above, represented by light gray cells.
cell layer 1: 2/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
3/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
cell layer 2: 0/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
1/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
cell layer 3: 1/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
1/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
The gully now has "ends" in the first layer since the gully in those cells does not go through to the layer beneath. Thus the fraction of
cells in which the gully ends is greater than in Example 1. The volume of the waste removed by the gully similarly increases.
This wider gully now has "ends" in the second layer since the gully in those cells does not go through to the layer beneath. Thus the
fraction of cells in which the gully ends is greater than in Example 1 or 2. The volume of the waste removed by the gully increases.
Example 3
cell layer 1: 0/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
3/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
cell layer 2: 2/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
3/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
cell layer 3: 1/3 of the cells are counted for the fraction of gully ends;
1/3 of the cells are removed by gullies for gully volume calculations.
Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 10

Figure 4. Visualization of SIBERIA model simulation of elevation change for bare soil case
for the borrow pit at 1,000 years.
Vertical exaggeration is 18× making the pit face appear nearly vertical.

The volume removed by the gully from each waste layer is multiplied by the concentration of
each radionuclide in that waste layer to get the mass of radionuclides removed by the gully over
time. The activity mass of radionuclides per mass of soil removed is used in the dose calculations
related to gully formation. Note that gully formation in the Clive DU PA Model does not change
over time. The gully areas and volumes are fixed for a realization.

Erosion Modeling for the Clive DU PA
29 October 2015 11
5.0 References
NRC, 2010. Workshop on Engineered Barrier Performance Related to Low-Level Radioactive
Waste, Decommissioning, and Uranium Mill Tailings Facilities. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. August 3 – 5.
Willgoose, G., et al., 1991a. A Coupled Channel Network Growth and Hillslope Evolution
Model, 1. Theory, Water Resources Research 27 (7) 1671–1684
Willgoose, G., et al., 1991b. A Coupled Channel Network Growth and Hillslope Evolution
Model, 2. Nondimensionalization and Applications, Water Resources Research 27 (7)
1685–1696
Willgoose, G. 2005. User Manual for SIBERIA (Version 8.30). Telluric Research.
http://www.telluricresearch.com/siberia_8.30_manual.pdf

 NAC-0027_R2

Dose Assessment for the
Clive DU PA

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
6 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Dose Assessment v1.4.docx
3. Description: Documentation of the human exposure and dose assessment for the Clive DU PA
Model v1.4

Name Date
4. Originator M. Sully 29 October 2015
5. Reviewer D. Levitt, K. Catlett 6 November 2015
6. Remarks

6 Nov 2015: Updated v1.2 to v1.4. – D. Levitt.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0
 Summary of Input Parameter Values ..................................................................................... 1

2.0
 Purpose and Context ............................................................................................................... 9

3.0
 Exposure-Dose Model Implementation ................................................................................ 10

3.1
 Summary of Exposure-Dose Model Scope ..................................................................... 10

3.2
 Exposure Scenarios ......................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1
 Ranching ................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2
 Recreation ................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.3
 Other Potential Receptors ......................................................................................... 13

3.3
 Assessment Endpoints .................................................................................................... 14

3.3.1
 Individual Dose ......................................................................................................... 14

3.3.2
 As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) ........................................................ 16

3.3.3
 Collective Dose ......................................................................................................... 17

3.4
 Modeling Doses .............................................................................................................. 19

3.4.1
 Individual Doses ....................................................................................................... 19

3.4.2
 Collective Dose ......................................................................................................... 21

3.4.3
 Dose Conversion Factors .......................................................................................... 22

3.4.4
 Additional Sources of Uncertainty ............................................................................ 27

3.4.5
 Non-Cancer Toxicity Endpoints ............................................................................... 28

4.0
 Equations and Parameters of the Exposure-Dose Container ................................................ 29

4.1
 Organization .................................................................................................................... 29

4.2
 Environmental Concentrations ....................................................................................... 30

4.3
 Exposure Parameters ....................................................................................................... 31

4.4
 DCFs ............................................................................................................................... 33

4.5
 PDCFs ............................................................................................................................. 34

4.5.1
 Inhalation PDCF Equations ...................................................................................... 34

4.5.2
 External PDCF Equations ......................................................................................... 35

4.5.3
 Ingestion PDCF Equations ........................................................................................ 35

4.6
 TEDE .............................................................................................................................. 37

4.6.1
 Inhalation TEDE Equations ...................................................................................... 37

4.6.2
 External Radiation TEDE Equations ........................................................................ 39

4.6.3
 Ingestion TEDE Equations ........................................................................................ 40

5.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 44

Appendix I: Discussion of Derivations of Selected Parameter Distributions .............................. 49

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Geometric mean of body weight as a function of age. ................................................... 50

Figure 2. Examples of distributions for body weight. ................................................................... 50

Figure 3. Geometric means for ventilation rate, as a function of age and gender. ........................ 51

Figure 4. Examples of ventilation rate distributions for different activities (20-year-old male). .. 52

Figure 5. Distributions for soil ingestion, representing different tracers. ..................................... 53

Figure 6. Distributions for home-produced meat ingestion rates. ................................................. 54

Figure 7. Example distributions for sedentary plus sleeping time/day and sleeping time/day
(30-year-old female). ................................................................................................... 55

Figure 8. Distributions for light, medium, and heavy activity time/day (30-year-old female). .... 56

Figure 9. Distribution for the total number of individuals at the site during a given year. ........... 57

Figure 10. Distribution for the average day-trip time. ................................................................... 58

Figure 11. Distribution for dust loading (overlaid on a histogram of simulated values). ............. 59

Figure 12. Distribution for Rancher exposure frequency. ............................................................. 60

Figure 13. Distribution for Sport OHVer exposure frequency. ..................................................... 61

Figure 14. Distribution for Hunter exposure frequency. ............................................................... 62

Figure 15. Distribution for rest area caretaker exposure frequency. ............................................. 63

Figure 16. Distributions for meat loss (preparation and post-cooking). ........................................ 64

Figure 17. Distribution for the average cattle range acreage. ........................................................ 65

Figure 18. Distribution for alpha particle REF. ............................................................................. 66

Figure 19. Distribution for electron and photon REFs. ................................................................. 67

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Exposure dose input parameters summary ........................................................................ 1

Table 2. Exposure pathways summary .......................................................................................... 12

Table 3. Beef transfer factors (Bq/kg per Bq/d) ............................................................................ 43

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 1
1.0 Summary of Input Parameter Values
Following is a brief summary of input values used parameters employed in the “exposure-dose”
(ED) component of the Clive Depleted Uranium (DU) Performance Assessment (PA) model that
is the subject of this white paper. See Appendix I in this document, the companion spreadsheet
Dose Assessment Appendix II, and the Model Parameters white paper (Appendix 16) for further
justifications of selected values, and the text for further explanation.
For distributions, the following notation is used:
• N( µ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a normal distribution with mean µ and standard deviation
σ, and optional truncation at the specified minimum and maximum,
• LN( GM, GSD, [min, max] ) represents a log-normal distribution with geometric mean
GM and geometric standard deviation GSD, and optional min and max,
• U( min, max ) represents a uniform distribution with lower bound min and upper bound
max,
• Beta( µ, σ, min, max ) represents a generalized beta distribution with mean µ, standard
deviation σ, minimum min, and maximum max,
• Gamma( µ, σ ) represents a gamma distribution with mean µ and standard deviation σ,
and
• TRI( min, m, max ) represents a triangular distribution with lower bound min, mode m,
and upper bound max.
Table 1. Exposure dose input parameters summary
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
“Inner Loop” human exposure and dose factors; sampled multiple times within a realization
Dose conversion
factors (DCFs)
Sv/Bq;
Sv-m3 / Bq-s
Distributions for some DCFs
are derived based upon
Kocher et al, 2005 REFs (see
below). See also Dose
Assessment Appendix II.xls
EPA, 1999; and
others

Radiation
effectiveness factors
(REFs)
Unitless Alpha:
LN( 1.81e+01, 2.37+00)

Photon < 30 keV:
LN( 2.45, 1.55 )

Photon 30-250 keV:
LN( 1.96, 1.48)

Electron:
LN( 2.41, 1.44)
Kocher et al.,
2005
14, 15; p.
26
Particle- and energy-
specific values.
Based upon
lognormal fits to
percentiles presented
in Kocher et al., 2005
Uranium oral
reference dose
mg/kg-day Discrete(
0.5, 0.0006;
0.5, 0.003)
EPA, 2011;
EPA, 2000
Equal probability
assigned to Office of
Water and Superfund
criteria.
Age yr N( 25.7, 20.3 ), truncated at
16 and 60
USFS, 2005 2, p. 8
Gender Male: 60.8%
Female: 39.2%
USFS, 2005 2, p. 8
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 2
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
Body weight kg Male:
LN( exp( 4.08+1.64e-2*Age-
1.69e-4*Age2 ), 1.24 )

Female:
LN( exp( 3.94+1.51e-2*Age-
1.51e-4*Age2 ), 1.28 )
Age, Gender EPA, 2009a 8-4, p. 8-
12;, 8-5, p.
8-13

Ventilation rate:
sleeping
m3/min-kg Male, age 16-20:
LN( 6.91e-5, 1.24 )

Male, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -9.91+4.93e-3*Age
), 1.26 )

Female, age 16-20:
LN( 6.71e-5, 1.29 )

Female, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -9.93+3.57e-3*Age
), 1.30 )
Age, Gender,
units in terms of
Body Weight
EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-13, p. 6-
33;, 6-14,
p. 6-35

Ventilation rate:
sedentary activity
m3/min-kg Male, age 16-20:
LN( 7.58e-5, 1.20 )

Male, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -9.82+5.14e-3*Age
), 1.19 )

Female, age 16-20:
LN( 7.37e-5, 1.23 )

Female, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -9.86+3.89e-3*Age
), 1.24 )
Age, Gender,
units in terms of
Body Weight
EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-13, p. 6-
33;, 6-14,
p. 6-35

Ventilation rate: light
activity
m3/min-kg Male, age 16-20:
LN( 1.77e-4, 1.18 )

Male, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -8.82+2.01e-3*Age
), 1.17 )

Female, age 16-20:
LN( 1.72e-4, 1.18 )

Female, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -8.88+2.55e-3*Age
), 1.20 )
Age, Gender,
units in terms of
Body Weight
EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-13, p. 6-
33;, 6-14,
p. 6-35

Ventilation rate:
moderate activity
m3/min-kg Male, age 16-20:
LN( 3.80e-4, 1.21 )

Male, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -8.02+1.93e-3*Age
), 1.25 )

Female, age 16-20:
LN( 3.56e-4, 1.21 )

Female, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -8.10+1.40e-3*Age
), 1.25 )
Age, Gender,
units in terms of
Body Weight
EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-13, p. 6-
34; 6-14, p.
6-36

Ventilation rate: high
activity
m3/min-kg Male, age 16-20:
LN( 6.92e-4, 1.25 )

Male, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -7.38+5.56e-4*Age
Age, Gender,
units in terms of
Body Weight
EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-13, p. 6-
34; 6-14, p.
6-36

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 3
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
), 1.27 )

Female, age 16-20:
LN( 6.76e-4, 1.27 )

Female, age 21-60:
LN( exp( -7.37-4.88e-4*Age
), 1.30 )
Adult incidental soil
ingestion rate
mg/d Silicon:
LN( 12.2, 3.29 ),
truncated at 0 and 197

Aluminum:
LN( 32.7, 3.81 ),
truncated 0 and 814

Titanium:
LN( 296, 2.76 ),
truncated at 0 and 2900
Selection of
tracer element
performed
outside of the
“inner loop”
EPA, 2009a;
Davis et al,
2006.
5-11, p. 5-
37
Only study with
applicable adult data.
Truncation maxima
based upon maxima
reported in Davis et
al, 2006, as
pathological soil
ingestion is not of
interest here.
Ingestion rate: “home-
produced” beef
g/kg-d Age 16-39:
Gamma( 2.12, 1.77 )

Age 40-60:
Gamma( 1.89, 1.39 )
Age, units in
terms of Body
Weight
EPA, 2009a 13-33, p.
13-40

Ingestion rate: “home-
produced” game
g/kg-d Age 16-39:
Gamma( 0.84, 0.68 )

Age 40-60:
Gamma( 0.99, 0.83 )
Age, units in
terms of Body
Weight
EPA, 2009a 13-41, p.
13-48

Daily exposure time;
sedentary+sleeping
hr/day Males:
LN( exp( 2.79-1.55e-
2*Age+2.09e-4*Age2 ), 1.09
)

Females:
LN( exp( 2.84-1.71e-
2*Age+2.10e-4*Age2 ), 1.08
)
Truncated at 24 hr/day
Age, Gender EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-15, p. 6-
37
Sedentary duration
alone constructed by
subtracting sleeping
time.
Daily exposure time;
sleeping
hr/day Males:
LN( exp( 2.31-1.01e-
2*Age+1.05e-4*Age2 ), 1.06
)

Females:
LN( exp( 2.35-9.94e-
3*Age+9.94e-5*Age2 ), 1.06
)
Truncated at
Sedentary+Sleeping time
Age, Gender,
Sedentary+Sleepi
ng time
EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-15, p. 6-
37
Sleep duration is
excluded for daily-
use receptors.
Daily exposure time;
light activity
hr/day (un-
normalized)
Males:
LN( exp( 2.38-3.44e-
2*Age+4.05e-4*Age2 ), 1.49
)

Females:
LN( exp( 2.09-1.37e-
2*Age+1.69e-4*Age2 ), 1.34
)
Age, Gender EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-15, p. 6-
37
Light, moderate, and
high activities are
normalized to equal:
24 hr/day –
(sedentary + sleeping
time).
Daily exposure time;
moderate activity
hr/day (un-
normalized)
Males:
LN( exp( 1.86e-1+6.74e-
2*Age-8.16e-4*Age2 ), 1.88
)
Age, Gender EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-15, p. 6-
38
Light, moderate, and
high activities are
normalized to equal:
24 hr/day –
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 4
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes

Females:
LN( exp( 2.21e-1+6.49e-
2*Age-7.85e-4*Age2 ), 1.65
)
(sedentary + seeping
time).
Daily exposure time;
high activity
hr/day (un-
normalized)
Males:
LN( exp( -1.12-2.19e-
2*Age+3.14e-4*Age2 ), 3.04
)

Females:
LN( exp( -1.97+4.04e-
3*Age+6.27e-5*Age2 ), 2.84
)
Age, Gender EPA, 2009a,
EPA, 2009b
6-15, p. 6-
38
Light, moderate, and
high activities are
normalized to equal:
24 hr/day –
(sedentary + sleeping
time).
Total number of
individuals in vicinity
of site
# TRI(100, 350, 500) BLM, personal
communication
, 2010
Assumes area up to
approximately 100 sq
mi around site. This
value, minus the
number of ranchers
(see text), defines the
number of Sport
OHVers and Hunters
Number of Ranchers
in vicinity of site
# U(1, 20) BLM, personal
communication
, 2010

Number of Hunters in
vicinity of site
# Binomial( N, 0.25 ), where N
is the number of non-rancher
individuals in vicinity of site

Total number of
individuals,
number of
ranchers
USFS, 2005 22, p. 32 "Big game" hunters,
all OHV users.
Rounded to two
significant figures.
Number of Sport
OHVers in vicinity of
site
# Number(Recreationalists) -
Number(Hunter)
Total number of
individuals,
number of
ranchers and
hunters
Number of
Recreationists
defined as all
individuals minus
Ranchers.
Ranchers; day trip
time in exposure area
hr/d U(4, 12) Professional
judgment.
Sport OHVers; day
trip time in exposure
area
hr/d Beta(6.3, 2.11, 1, 20) Burr et al, 2008 21, p. 18 Utah data. Minimum
, maximum, and
standard deviation
based upon
professional
judgment. Rounded
to two significant
figures.
Hunter/Rancher;
fraction of day trip
time spent OHVing
fraction U(0.1, 0.75) Professional
judgment. OHV use
related to higher dust
concentrations in air.
All receptors; camp
trip time spent
OHVing
hr/d U(2.0, 8.0) Professional
judgment. All
overnight users
assumed to have
similar OHV use.
OHV use related to
higher dust
concentrations in air.
Exposure time;
overnight trip
hr/d 24 Professional
judgment; overnight
trip assigned a 24 hr
duration.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 5
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
All receptors; fraction
of camp trip exposure
time on disposal cell
fraction U(0.25, 0.75) Professional
judgment.
Corresponds to 6 to
18 hr/day. Campers
are assumed to set up
camp on the disposal
cell.
Hunter; fraction of
hunting day trip
exposure time on
disposal cell
fraction U(0.02, 0.17)

Professional
judgment.
Corresponds to 0.5 to
4 hr/day.
Rancher and Sport
OHVer; fraction of
day trip exposure time
on disposal cell
fraction Disposal cell area / Exposure
area
Assumes that
Ranchers and Sport
OHVers visiting the
area for a day trip
cover the exposure
area randomly over
the course of a year.
Rancher; exposure
frequency
d/yr Beta( 135, 34.9, 0, 180 ) BLM, personal
communication
, 2010; BLM,
2010
All leases are 6 mo.,
from November 1 to
April 30, but can be
reduced depending
upon grazing
conditions. It is
assumed that
Ranchers only work
5 days per week (i.e.
130 days per year).
distribution based
upon professional
judgment.
Sport OHVer;
exposure frequency
d/yr LN(11.3, 3.45, 1, 200) USFS, 2005 19, p. 27 Western region, "all
groups". Minimum
and and maximum
based upon
professional
judgment.
Hunter; exposure
frequency
d/yr LN(4.66, 3.45, 1, 100) USFWS, 2006 pg. 10 Utah data.
Recreationists who
are not Hunters are
defined as Sport
OHVers: # Sport
OHVers = #
Recreationists in
total - # Hunters.
Mean calculated
based upon number
of hunters and days
of hunting.
Minimum,
maximum, and
standard deviation
based upon
professional
judgment.
Ranchers; fraction of
exposure frequency
related to overnight
trips
fraction U(0.5, 0.67) BLM, personal
communication
, 2010
Corresponds to 15 –
20 day/month
overnight.
Remaining days in
ranching EF assumed
to be day trips.
Hunters; fraction of
exposure frequency
fraction U(0, 1.0) Professional
judgment.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 6
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
related to overnight
trips
Sport OHVers;
fraction of exposure
frequency related to
overnight trips
fraction U(0, 1.0) Professional
judgment.
Off-Site Receptor Distributions (“Inner Loop”)
Exposure frequency
rest area caretaker
d/yr TRI(327,350,365) Professional
judgment. Minimum
represents 28 days of
vacation, 10
holidays, mode is
EPA default (EPA,
1989), high is
maximum.
Exposure time rest
area caretaker
hrs/day 24 Professional
judgment (residential
receptor).
Exposure frequency I-
80 and west-side
access road traveller
d/yr U(250, 365) Professional
judgment (minimum
reflects average
number of work days
per year).
Exposure time
travelers on I-80 and
train
min/d U(2.3, 7.2) Professional
judgment. Minimum
represents 80 mph/3
miles 1-way;
maximum 50 mph/3
miles 2-way. 3 miles
represents 'densest'
part of off-site
dispersion plume.
Exposure time cars on
west-side access road
(Utah Test and
Training Range
access)
min/d U(2.4,4.0) Professional
judgment. Minimum
represents 50 mph/1
mile 2-way upper 30
mph/1 mile 2-way. 1
mile represents size
of ES property.
Knolls area Sport
OHVer; exposure
frequency
d/yr LN(11.3, 3.45, 1, 200) USFS, 2005 19, p. 27 Western region, "all
groups". Minimum
and maximum based
upon professional
judgment.
Knolls area Sport
OHVers; exposure
time
hr/d Beta(6.3, 2.11, 1, 20) Burr et al, 2008 21, p.18 Utah data. Minimum,
maximum, and
standard deviation
based upon
professional
judgment. Rounded
to two significant
figures.
“Outer Loop” human exposure factors; sampled once each model realization
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 7
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
Receptor area
(exposure area)
acres U(16000,64000) BLM, personal
communication
, 2010; BLM,
2010
Professional
judgment. High-end
reflects area between
I-80 and UTTR,
bounded by salt flats
and Cedar Mt
foothills. Low-end
reflects Aragonite
and E. Grassy range
leases. This defines
the exposure area for
ranching and
recreational
receptors.
Meat preparation loss fraction N(0.27,0.07, 0.01, 1) EPA, 1997b 13-5 Converted from
fractions. Fraction of
meat (which is based
upon beef, uncooked
weight) lost in
preparation.
Minimum and
maximum based
upon professional
judgment.
Meat post-cooking
loss
fraction N(0.24, 0.09, 0.01, 1) EPA, 1997b 13-5 Converted from
fractions. Fraction of
meat (which is based
upon beef, uncooked
weight) lost in
preparation.
Minimum and
maximum based
upon professional
judgment.
OHV dust loading multiplier for
ambient dust
concentration
LN(98.1, 1.65) EPA, 2008 2 Activity based; i.e.
OHVs generate
increased dust.
Exposure frequency;
food
d/yr 365 EPA, 1997b Food intake rates are
annual averages.
Soil ingestion tracer
element
Discrete(0.333) Professional
judgment; equal
probability assigned
to distributions based
upon aluminum,
silicon, and titanium.
Cattle and game radionuclide uptake exposure factors (“Outer Loop”)
Cattle range area, per
operation
acres See 'outer loop'
parameter definition
for Receptor area
(exposure area).
Pronghorn range area acres U(995, 9192) Huffman, 2004 Foraging distances
for summer and
winter were equally
weighted and
assigned as diameters
of a circular home
range, from 0.1-0.8
km in the spring and
summer to 3.2-9.7
km in the fall and
winter.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 8
Parameter Units Value Dependencies Source Table Notes
Cattle beef transfer
factor
Bq/kg per
Bq/d
(element-specific; see Table
3)
IAEA, 2010;
and others
Also applied to
pronghorn.
Cattle water ingestion
rate
kg/day U(33, 53) MSUE, 2011 Range of average
daily water intake for
“finishing cattle” of
weights 600 – 1200
lb is 8.6 to 14
gallons.
Cattle forage
ingestion rate
kg/day U(8.85, 14.75) EPA 2005 B-3-10, p.
B-138
Recommended value
is 11.8 kg/day; range
of +/- 25% is
professional
judgment. Value is
dry weight.
Cattle soil ingestion
rate
kg/day U(0.05, 0.95) EPA 2005 B-3-10, p.
B-139
Recommended value
is 0.5 kg/day; range
of +/- 100% is
professional
judgment.
Cattle time fraction in
exposure area
fraction Discrete(1.0) Professional
judgment. Time
grazing around the
site is presumed to be
sufficient to reach
the equilibrium
represented by
transfer factors.
Pronghorn water
ingestion rate
kg/day U(0.1, 1) UDWR, 2009 p. 4 Professional
judgment. Pronghorn
may drink no water
at all when fresh
browse is available
and up to 0.79
gal/day (3.0 L)
during dry periods.
Maximum set at 1
L/day.
Pronghorn body
weight
kg U(38, 41) Huffman, 2004
Pronghorn forage
ingestion rate
kg/day 0.577 x Body Weight
Factor0.727 x 0.001
EPA, 1993b Equation
3-9, p. 3-6
Allometric scaling
based upon body
weight for
mammalian
herbivore. Units
converted to kg/d.
Pronghorn soil
ingestion rate
kg/day U(0.005, 0.095) Professional
judgment. Set equal
to 10% of soil
ingestion distribution
for cattle based upon
body mass.
Plant ingestion screening calculations exposure factors (“Outer Loop”)
Dry-wet plant weight
conversion factor
fraction U (0.05, 0.30) EPA, 2009a 9-33, p. 9-
59
Professional
judgment. Based
upon approximate
range of moisture
contents for edible
parts of fruits and
vegetables.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 9
2.0 Purpose and Context
A radioactive waste disposal facility located in Clive, Utah (the “Clive facility”) and operated by
EnergySolutions is proposed to receive and store DU and associated contaminants (called "DU
waste" here). To assess whether the proposed Clive facility location and containment
technologies are suitable for protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land
disposal of radioactive waste set forth in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Rule R313-25-9
(Utah, 2015) must be met. In order to support the required radiological PA, a detailed computer
model has been developed to evaluate the potential future radiation doses to human receptors that
may result from the disposal of DU waste, and conversely to determine how much DU waste can
be safely disposed at the Clive facility.
The site conditions, chemical and radiological characteristics of the wastes, contaminant
transport pathways, and potential human receptors and exposure routes at the Clive facility that
are used to structure the quantitative PA model are described in the conceptual site model (CSM)
documented in the Conceptual Site Model for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
white paper (Appendix 2). The PA model has been developed as a probabilistic model taking
into account site-specific conditions and uncertainties inherent to model variables (termed
“parameters” here). The GoldSim systems analysis software (GTG, 2010) was used to construct
the probabilistic PA model. This software supports probabilistic analysis of the release and
transport of radionuclides from disposal systems. The PA model is intended to reflect the current
state of knowledge with respect to the proposed DU disposal, and to support environmental
decision making in light of inherent uncertainties.
The dynamic aspects of the PA model may be grouped into two domains. The contaminant
transport (CT) component of the PA model encompasses the release of contaminants from
disposed wastes and subsequent migration through the environment. The output of the CT
component (documented in other white papers) is a time series of contaminant concentrations in
different environmental media. These concentrations serve as inputs to the exposure-dose (ED)
component of the PA model that is the subject of this white paper. Because the ED component of
the PA model is organized within a single “container” in GoldSim, the terms ED model and ED
container are used interchangeably.
Assumptions and mathematical equations describing contaminant intake, including external
exposure to ionizing radiation, for each exposure scenario are provided here. Equations for
estimating radionuclide dose, and non-carcinogenic toxicity associated with uranium, are also
provided. The implementation of methods for evaluating uncertainty in the ED calculations are
also described. The bases of the deterministic values and/or statistical distributions for each of
the ED parameters are discussed in the text below, the attached Appendix I, the spreadsheet Dose
Assessment Appendix II, and the Model Parameters white paper (Appendix 16).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 10
3.0 Exposure-Dose Model Implementation
3.1 Summary of Exposure-Dose Model Scope
The ED container addresses potential radiation exposure, dose and non-carcinogenic toxicity to
human receptors who may come in contact with contaminants released from the disposal facility
into the environment subsequent to facility closure. Radiation dose limits for protection of the
general population are defined in UAC Rule R313-25-9 (Utah, 2015), and in 10 CFR 61.41
(CFR, 2007). These dose limits implicitly assume a level of health risk (discussed further below).
The regulations specify that design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility must also
ensure protection of individuals inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying the
site or contacting the waste at any time after loss of active institutional control (e.g., fences,
guards, etc.) of the site. Because the definition of inadvertent human intruders (IHI) encompasses
exposure of individuals who engage in normal activities without knowing that they are receiving
radiation exposure, there is no practical distinction made between a member of the public (MOP)
and IHI with regard to receptors and dose calculations.
The UAC Rule R313-25-9 (Utah, 2015) requires a PA for DU to have a minimum compliance
period of 10,000 years, with additional simulations for a “qualitative analysis” (i.e., one in which
only contaminant migration, and not doses, are modeled) for the period where peak hypothetical
dose occurs. The estimation of doses in such long time horizons would be speculative at best, but
if total radioactivity is used for a proxy (accounting for radiological decay and ingrowth from the
disposed DU), then a peak value would occur once the progeny of U-238 have reached secular
equilibrium in about 2.5 million years. With respect to radiation dose and non-carcinogenic
uranium toxicity, the ED container quantifies dose only within the regulatory time frame of
10,000 yr. This approach is consistent with the requirements of UAC R313-25-9 (Utah, 2015).
No specific time frame is defined in 10 CFR 61 (CFR, 2007) for the exposure/dose assessment.
Key land use characteristics of the Clive facility that pertain to the development of receptor
scenarios and dose modeling are summarized in the CSM (Appendix 2) and in the Features,
Events, and Processes (FEPs) Analysis for Disposal of Depleted Uranium at the Clive Facility
white paper (Appendix 1). Current human use of the area surrounding the Clive facility is very
limited. Note that a residential scenario is not evaluated here, as there is no evidence that humans
have permanently resided at the immediate Clive facility environs in recent history (see CSM).
The closest current dwelling is approximately 12 km to the northeast of the site (a caretaker at
the Aragonite/Grassy Mountain rest stop on east-bound Interstate-80).
Rancher and recreationist scenarios for the area surrounding the Clive facility are conditioned
only on a continuation of present-day land use, whereas the conditions related to other scenarios
would be much more speculative. It is not possible to project changes in human biology, society,
technology, or behavior over a 10,000 year time frame; thus, current land use characteristics are
projected throughout this period of performance, as recommended in NRC (2000). Uncertainty
associated with this assumption is not quantified at this time. However, general justifications for
this assumption in addition to NRC guidance can be made. The Clive facility environs are
currently not amenable to permanent habitation due to the lack of potable groundwater and other
factors. Dramatic changes in climate, such as large increases in average annual temperature or
decreases in precipitation, would make the site even less hospitable. Changes in the opposite
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 11
direction; i.e., large decreases in average annual temperature or increases in precipitation, have
historically only been associated with ice ages and thus again would result in the site becoming
less hospitable than it is today (see the CSM). Therefore, the assumption that future land use and
receptors will be similar to today's is likely conservative (i.e., protective).
It is possible that the Clive facility disposal cap could become more amenable to plant cover and
perhaps increased human use than the surrounding areas post-closure due to the presence of the
rip rap cover (e.g., in terms of accumulation of aeolian or wind-borne soil and dust and lower
evaporation rates from soil below the rip rap). Nearby areas hosting vegetation (e.g., the alluvial
fan of the Cedar Mountains east of the Clive facility, rocky outcrops west of the site) thus
potentially offer analogous sites that will be considered for characterizing potential future plant
communities on the disposal cap.
3.2 Exposure Scenarios
Based upon current and reasonably anticipated future land uses as summarized above, and as
described in the FEP analysis (Appendix 1), two future use exposure scenarios were identified
for inclusion in the ED model: ranching and recreation. After institutional controls are no longer
maintained, exposures to contamination in the ranching and recreation scenarios could occur
both on the Clive facility site as well as nearby off-site locations.
Modeling of ranching and recreation scenarios is discussed here. Exposure scenarios are defined
according to various human activities, which may result in a complete exposure pathway existing
between the contaminant source and receptors. Exposure pathways describe the media, activities
and exposure routes by which contamination becomes available to human receptors in the
exposure scenarios. Every complete exposure pathway contains the following elements (EPA,
1989):
• Known or potential sources and/or releases of contamination;
• Contaminant transport pathways;
• Potential exposure media;
• A point of potential receptor contact with the impacted medium; and,
• An exposure route (such as ingestion or inhalation).
The primary exposure routes for the ranching and recreation scenarios include ingestion,
inhalation, and external irradiation. A summary of potentially complete exposure pathways for
each scenario is provided in Table 2. Figure 10 in the CSM (Appendix 2) depicts the transport
mechanisms by which contaminants in the disposed waste may reach the exposure media
discussed in this section.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 12
Table 2. Exposure pathways summary
Exposure Pathway Ranching Recreation
Inhalation (wind derived dust) × ×
Inhalation (mechanically-generated dust) × ×
Inhalation (gas phase radionuclides) × ×
Ingestion of surface soils (inadvertent) × ×
Ingestion of game meat ×
Ingestion of beef ×
Ingestion of wild plant material ×* ×*
Ingestion of seasonal surface water ×* ×*
External irradiation – soil × ×
External irradiation – immersion in air × ×
*Not included in the ranching or recreation scenarios; see text.
Note that a single individual could potentially engage in both ranching and recreation in the same
area, but these scenarios are modeled separately because they are expected to be distinct.
Groundwater ingestion is not directly evaluated in the ED model, although groundwater concen-
trations are compared to State of Utah Ground Water Protection Levels (GWPLs). As described
in the CSM (Appendix 2), the aquifers underlying the area are more saline than seawater, and
would not be potable without extensive desalinization. This situation is unlikely to change under
any foreseeable conditions that would allow human habitation in the vicinity of the facility.
It is possible that humans may be exposed by ingestion of native plants. Several plants identified
in Clive area vegetation plots were historically used as traditional food or medicine. These
include shadscale saltbrush (Atriplex confertifolia), black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus),
and rockcress (Arabis sp.), among others. However, present-day use of these plants by potential
receptors in the area is unknown. In the absence of such information for plant uses and quantities
thereof, a screening-level calculation will be performed to determine what quantity of plant
material from the disposal cap would need to be consumed to exceed the radiation dose
performance objective.
A second possible exposure pathway not directly assessed in the ranching and recreation
scenarios is human ingestion of intermittent (seasonal) surface water from puddles that may form
in the air dispersion area. This surface water is likely to be salty, due to the saline nature of soils
adjacent to the Clive facility, and direct human exposure is considered to be unlikely. Although
present-day use of surface water by potential receptors in the area is unknown, a screening-level
calculation will be performed to determine what volume of water would need to be consumed to
exceed the radiation dose performance objective.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 13
3.2.1 Ranching
The land surrounding the Clive facility is currently utilized for cattle and sheep grazing (BLM,
2010). Livestock apparently utilize the area more during winter periods when snow is present
and when puddles exist during wet periods (NRC, 1993). The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) currently issues leases for 6 months of the year (November 1 to April 30; BLM, 2010,
personal communication: Salt Lake Field Office). The personnel who spend time with the herds
in the field are called "Ranchers" here (although this may include a variety of job classifications).
Activities are expected to include herding, maintenance of fencing and other infrastructure, and
assistance in calving and weaning. Ranchers may be exposed to contamination via the routes
outlined in Table 1. It is assumed that any future ranching-related structures that might be
constructed will be rough-built, with sufficient air flow that indoor radon accumulation is not an
issue.
Ranchers typically use off-highway vehicles (OHVs; including four-wheel drive trucks) for
transport. Beef consumption (from cattle exposed to contamination released from the site), is
evaluated for the Ranchers, assuming that they may consume some of their own product. Beef,
rather than lamb or mutton, is used as a food in the ED ranching scenario because regulatory
bodies such as EPA (2005) and others have published information related to modeling of tissue
concentrations for cattle.
3.2.2 Recreation
The recreational exposure scenario could potentially encompass a variety of activities.
Information is limited regarding current use, as the BLM, the manager of much of the
surrounding land, does not specifically track recreational usage in the area. However, based upon
discussions with the BLM and reasonable judgment regarding anticipated land use, recreation
may involve OHV use, hunting, target shooting of inanimate objects, rock-hounding, wild-horse
viewing, and limited camping.
The desirability of recreational activities on or around the disposal units, similar to suitability for
ranching, is partially dependent upon assumptions regarding ecological succession on the
disposal unit over time. With the possible exceptions of OHV use and as a vantage for hunting
(e.g., for pronghorn), recreational use of the disposal unit in an as-closed state is likely to be
minimal. As plant succession proceeds the disposal unit may become more attractive for
different types of recreational activities. However, for the purpose of exposure assessment, it is
assumed that sport OHV riders ("Sport OHVers; i.e., OHV users who use their vehicles for
recreation alone) and hunters using OHVs ("Hunters"), both of whom may also camp at the site,
would represent the most highly-exposed receptors (due to exposure to mechanically-generated
dust, game meat ingestion, etc.), and other types of recreationists would have lower exposures.
3.2.3 Other Potential Receptors
The ranching and recreation scenarios are characterized by potential exposure related to activities
both on the disposal site and in the adjoining area. Specific off-site points of potential exposure
also exist for other receptors based upon present-day conditions and infrastructure. These
locations and receptors include:
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 14
• Travelers on Interstate-80, which passes 4 km to the north of the site;
• Travelers on the main east-west rail line, which passes 2 km to the north of the site;
• Workers at the Utah Test and Training Range (a military facility) to the south of the
Clive facility, who may occasionally drive on a gravel road immediately to the west
of the Clive facility fenceline;
• The resident caretaker at the east-bound Interstate-80 rest facility (the Grassy
Mountain Rest Area at Aragonite) approximately 12 km northeast of the site, and,
• Sport OHV enthusiasts at the Knolls OHV area (BLM land that is specifically
managed for OHV recreation) 12 km to the west of the site.
Exposure to individuals at these off-site locations is expected to be minimal due to either the
large distance from the site (Interstate-80 rest area and Knolls OHV area) or because the
exposure time for any individual will be very brief (travelers on road, rail, and highway). Unlike
ranching and recreational receptors who may be exposed by a variety of pathways on or adjacent
to the site, these off-site receptors would likely only be exposed to wind-dispersed
contamination, for which inhalation exposures are likely to predominate. These receptors will be
evaluated to determine whether exposures at these off-site locations may be important.
3.3 Assessment Endpoints
The biological effect of greatest interest to regulatory agencies for environmental exposure to
radionuclides is cancer. Ionizing radiation is a clear cause of cancer and other health effects at
high doses. However, the risk of cancer to an individual exposed to radiation at environmental
levels is highly uncertain and depends upon a large number of assumptions, the most influential
being: 1) That the major source of data for radiological risk assessment; i.e., the high doses
experienced by the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bomb victims in World War II, is relevant for the
much lower doses in the range of regulatory dose limits; and, 2) that risks can be extrapolated
from large doses to small doses in a linear fashion, with no threshold of effect (i.e., the
hypothesis that no dose is without some risk of cancer) (Brenner et al., 2003). Both of these
assumptions are controversial (Scott, 2008), but they provide substantive bases for NRC and
DOE radiation regulation and guidance at this time. Uncertainty associated with these
assumptions is not evaluated in the PA model at this time.
3.3.1 Individual Dose
There are two performance goals that may be applicable in the PA. The first is the individual
dose limit. Title 10 CFR 61.41 (CFR, 2007) specifies assessment endpoints for a radiological PA
that are related to annual radiation dose. The specific metrics described in §61.41 are organ-
specific doses, and restrict the annual dose to an equivalent of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole
body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other organ. As
described below, the ED model will employ a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for
comparison with the 0.25 mSv/yr threshold. This dose level will be considered as a deterministic
performance goal, with no uncertainty.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 15
As discussed in Section 3.3.7.1.2 of NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000), the radiation dosimetry
underlying the §61.41 dose metrics was based upon a methodology published by the
International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in 1959. Subsequent to Title
10 CFR 61.41, more recent dose assessment methodology has been published by the ICRP
(ICRP, 1979; 1991; 1995) that employs the TEDE approach. The TEDE uses weighting factors
related to the radiosensitivity of each target organ to arrive at an effective dose equivalent across
all organs. The text of Section 3.3.7.1.2 of NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000) states:
As a matter of policy, the Commission considers 0.25 mSv/year (25 mrem/year) TEDE as
the appropriate dose limit to compare with the range of potential doses represented by
the older limits... Applicants do not need to consider organ doses individually because
the low value of TEDE should ensure that no organ dose will exceed 0.50 mSv/year (50
mrem/year).
The regulations state that this dose limit is applicable to any member of the public, yet NRC PA
guidance (NRC, 2000) suggests a practical approach of applying the dose limit to an average
member of a "critical group" (i.e., a group of public receptors who might be reasonably expected
to live near or experience exposure to the facility site). The ED model has been developed to
support estimates of both average individual dose and various percentiles of the distribution of
the mean individual dose for Ranchers, Sport OHVers, and Hunters at any model year of a
simulation.
Thus, in terms of PA performance objectives, the modeling question relates to estimating the
probability that the total radiation dose attributable to future releases from the site to any or an
average member of a critical group (defined here as a Rancher, Sport OHVer, or Hunter) will
exceed 25 mrem TEDE in any particular year, during the performance period of the site. As
institutional controls in place while the site is operating are designed to prevent public access,
there will be no public exposure during this time period. The period of time of interest, therefore,
in the ED portion of the PA model is from the time of loss of institutional control to 10,000 years
post-closure, although physical transport processes are evaluated beginning at model year zero.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that 15 mrem/year is equivalent
to a 3-in-10,000 excess risk of cancer (EPA, 1997a), and has defined that level as:
...consistent with levels generally considered protective in other governmental
actions, particularly regulations and guidance developed by EPA in other
radiation control programs.
A 1- in-1-million excess risk level is typically viewed as a de minimus level; i.e. one that is
below a level of concern (CFR, 1994). If the estimated EPA risk equivalence for 15 mrem/year is
extrapolated to 1- in-1-million, this results in a 0.05 mrem/year de minimus dose. This is
potentially important both when evaluating the dose to any receptor and when collective dose is
assessed (discussed below).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 16
3.3.2 As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
A second decision rule pertains to the ALARA concept. Ionizing radiation protection limits have
been utilized since the 1920s (Hendee and Edwards, 1987). These limits have changed over time
as more information regarding the negative biological effects of radiation has become available
(especially after World War II). Concurrently, therapeutic and diagnostic (i.e., beneficial) uses of
radiation have increased dramatically. Radiation in high doses kills cells, which can be harmful
or beneficial to the receptor of the doses (e.g., in the latter case, targeted radiation is used to kill
cancer cells). The effects of low doses of radiation are more uncertain. There is ample evidence
that ionizing radiation can damage DNA and enhance cell proliferation in doses below those that
kill cells, and thus can potentially cause cancer. However, it is uncertain at dose this becomes a
concern.
For many years, there has been a presumption in radiation protection, based upon statistical
analysis of animal and human data, that ionizing radiation has a linear dose-response curve at
low doses and that there is no threshold of effect; i.e. any dose of radiation can result in an
increased probability of cancer (this is termed the linear no-threshold, or LNT, hypothesis). This
is not supported by all experimental and clinical observation (Scott, 2008) and multiple highly-
efficient molecular and cellular defense and repair mechanisms for radiation damage exist.
Regardless, this LNT hypothesis is the basis for most regulatory standards today, and indeed for
the ALARA concept.
ALARA (or the older but similar concept "as low as practicable"; ALAP) essentially assumes no
carcinogenic threshold of radiation carcinogenesis. If this assumption is taken at face value,
ALARA seems to be a reasonable objective. If not, then a threshold of effect would be a more
tractable and achievable objective. ALARA could perhaps be applied even in the case of a
threshold or 'target' concentration; the threshold would simply be a limit on the amount of risk
reduction that should be achieved by a particular management alternative. Proper evaluation of
uncertainty associated with the LNT hypothesis would be a large task in itself, but the influence
of a LNT assumption can still in principle be evaluated using sensitivity analysis.
A different sort of threshold exists with regard to natural background levels of radiation. The
doses that the public receives from all environmental sources (e.g., local geology, extraterrestrial,
etc.) can be quite variable. For example, population X who live at high altitude in a location with
geologically high levels of uranium may have a much higher level of annual exposure than
population Y who live at sea level with low levels of uranium in soil (e.g., see
http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html). If population sizes were equivalent, one could then
consider that a larger incremental dose might be acceptable for population Y compared to
population X.
Uranium and many other metals are also associated with non-radiological toxicity; e.g. kidney or
liver damage. In such cases, toxicology has developed concepts such as the reference dose and
benchmark dose, to account for the clear thresholds of effect that are associated with non-
carcinogenic toxicity (Filipsson, 2003). Similar to the discussion above, in these cases the
threshold can be viewed as a target, below which risks are not of substantial concern.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 17
The modern ALARA concept, as germane to radiation protection on both individual and
population levels, was described by the ICRP in 1977 (ICRP, 1977):
Most decisions about human activities are based on an implicit form of balancing of
costs and benefits leading to the conclusion that the conduct of a chosen practice is
'worthwhile.' Less generally, it is also recognized that the conduct of the chosen practice
should be adjusted to maximize the benefit to the individual or to society. In radiation
protection, it is becoming possible to formalize these broad decision-making procedures.
The ICRP (1977) basically recommended a system of radiation protection that included the
following principles:
• No practice shall be adopted unless its introduction produces a positive net benefit;
• All exposures shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social
factors being taken into account; and,
• The dose equivalent to individuals shall not exceed the limits recommended for the
appropriate circumstances by the Commission.
• These three components are identified by the ICRP by the abbreviated terms:
• The justification of the practice;
• The optimization of radiation protection; and,
• The limits of individual dose equivalent.
For present purposes, as regulatory agencies have adopted and applied clear dose limits for
individuals, evaluation of ALARA here will be restricted to population doses, termed collective
dose. This is appropriate in the context of design and siting of radioactive waste facilities; as it is
likely, if any substantial future risks occur, that health concerns will be at a population level.
Further, we assume that facility workers will be protected under existing health and safety
regulations and guidance, and will not be evaluated here.
ICRP 101b (2006) describes updates to previous ICRP publications addressing ALARA. Section
3.3.3 discusses calculation of collective dose in the context of this publication.
3.3.3 Collective Dose
In order to estimate collective dose, a population needs to be assessed. If cumulative doses are to
be estimated over some period of time, then the doses are added over that time period. The
collective dose at the end of the performance period (10,000 years post-closure, in this case) is
then the individual annual doses added up over a period of 10,000 years (minus the period of
time when institutional controls are in place).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 18
For a hypothetical example, say a total population of 50 people is potentially exposed to the site
for every year during the performance period (note that all radioactive waste repositories that
have been recently evaluated in the US are in fairly remote areas, so a large urban population
would be inappropriate). Say institutional controls are in place for 100 years. Then, the
cumulative population dose will be the sum of 50 individual doses in mrem/year, multiplied by
9,900 years. Say that every person in the population is exposed just below the individual dose
limit (say, 24 mrem/year TEDE). Thus, the cumulative population dose will be
50×24×9900=11,880,000 mrem, or 11,880 person-rem. This number has no meaning by itself, as
there is no standard or basis for declaring this is 'unacceptable' or not, or whether it is
"reasonable" or "achievable" (according to ALARA). It is only useful in the context of
comparing how one site or disposal option might perform compared to another. This is best
determined in the context of a decision or economic analysis, which is discussed in the Decision
Analysis (ALARA) white paper (Appendix 12).
In lieu of guidance that defines what an 'acceptable' population dose might be, a means must be
applied so that all populations (e.g., the entire United States) are not assessed, as this would be
burdensome and meaningless. For instance, it is known that a large population will indeed be
exposed to the site if current conditions continue; i.e., the population of drivers on Interstate-80.
However, as previously mentioned, each of these drivers would be exposed for very short
periods of time. Furthermore, the exposure levels would be a small fraction of those experienced
by the Ranching and Recreation receptors described in Section 3.2.
In order to gauge the importance of quantifying dose for this population, and indeed any remote
population that might be exposed for brief periods and/or to very low concentrations, a de
minimus risk approach will be considered. As explained previously, according to the EPA a 0.05
mrem/year dose corresponds to approximately a 1-in-1-million excess cancer risk. Individual
doses for receptors other than Ranchers, Sport OHVers, or Hunters will be evaluated relative to
this individual dose threshold to determine whether doses to remote receptors should be
considered when computing collective dose. Cumulative population dose will not include
contributions from remote receptors if individual doses for these receptors are far below 0.05
mrem/year.
Note that NRC was required under Section 10 of the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act
of 1985 to “establish standards for determining when radionuclides in waste streams were in
sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory concern, thereby
potentially exempting them from NRC Low-Level Waste regulation” (NRC, 2007; NUREG-
1853, Section 3.5). The de minimus risk level discussed above is in no way related to
establishing concentrations or quantities “below regulatory concern” in disposed waste. Rather,
this level is employed to support a methodology for meaningful evaluation of collective radiation
dose in relation to the ALARA assessment endpoint of the Performance Assessment.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 19
3.4 Modeling Doses
3.4.1 Individual Doses
Studies of the health of existing populations (i.e., epidemiological studies) have struggled with
how to infer individual risk from population statistics. For example, a study of cigarette smokers
and lung cancer may show a clear statistical relationship between the exposure and disease, with
a high degree of confidence; yet, for instance, it does not tell me what my additional risk of
cancer will be if I smoke one cigarette. It is indeed impossible to directly estimate health risk for
individuals for the majority of exogenous exposures (there are exceptions in the case of some
genetic abnormalities; if the abnormality is known to exist in an individual, then the risk of
disease in that individual associated with that abnormality is known with almost perfect
confidence). Risk for individuals must generally be inferred from populations. In addition to
various designs of epidemiological studies, insurance companies, for example, use life tables
stratified on gender, age, disease history, etc. to estimate premiums.
In the present case, the issue is estimation of individual radiation doses. As mentioned above,
risk is implicit in radiation dose, with many inherent assumptions. Additionally, the PA is
projecting into the future, to individuals who do not exist yet. As information as to how humans
may or may not change biologically in the space of a 10,000-year performance period does not
exist, it is only reasonable to assume that humans will remain essentially the same.
One approach to estimating individual risk, based upon how the EPA has historically conducted
exposure assessment (EPA, 1989), is to define a 'simulated' individual based upon their exposure
characteristics. The simulated individual is therefore the product of a number of physiological
and behavioral parameters. Historically, this has been done deterministically; i.e., single values
are used for the exposure and physiological parameters, and a single simulated individual results.
With more recent applications of probabilistic methods, this process has been expanded to
address variance in the exposure parameter values.
For the Clive facility, following are some major sources of variance related to radiation dose that
are directly germane to the ED model at any particular point during the assessment time horizon:
1. The number of receptors, if any, in the vicinity of the disposal site at any point in time;
2. The physiological characteristics of the receptors;
3. The nature and intensity of exposure by various potential exposure routes (ingestion,
inhalation, external radiation) based upon behavioral characteristics of the receptors;
4. The concentrations of radionuclides in potential exposure media; and,
5. The annual radiation dose associated with the exposure.
Within some of these five categories there may be multiple exposure parameters employed in the
modeling and hence numerous sources of variance. In particular, radionuclide concentrations in
exposure media include all the variance from the contaminant transport modeling conducted in
the PA that are propagated to the ED assessment.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 20
As discussed above, the PA guidance (NRC, 2000) suggests that the annual dose to an "average
member of a critical group" should be estimated. Specifically:
The average member of the critical group is that individual who is assumed to represent
the most likely exposure situation, based on cautious but reasonable exposure
assumptions and parameter values. It is generally not practicable, when analyzing future
potential doses, to calculate individual doses for each member of a critical group and
then re-calculate the average dose to these same members. In general, it is more
meaningful to designate a single hypothetical individual, representative of that critical
group, who has habits and characteristics equal to the mean value of the various
parameter ranges that define the critical group. In this fashion, the dose to the "average
member" of the critical group approximates the average dose obtained if each member of
the critical group were separately modeled and the results averaged.
Thus, the guidance appears to request definition of:
• A critical group;
• An average member of the critical group; and,
• The annual dose to this member.
The critical groups, in the case of the present PA, are defined as Ranchers, Sport OHVers, and
Hunters. An "average member" of these groups is a theoretical or statistical construct, as such a
person does not and never will exist. Thus, we can interpret the guidance as referring to the
statistical average dose (i.e., arithmetic mean) of a population of individuals' doses. In order to
estimate the average simulated individual's dose at a particular time step, doses to a population of
simulated individuals need to be estimated (note that hardware and software capabilities have
increased dramatically since the NRC's guidance, so it is indeed now possible to calculate doses
at an individual level).
In the context of human health risk assessment, variance in parameter values is traditionally split
into the categories of variability and uncertainty (EPA, 2001). The term variability refers to
natural, irreducible variance in the range of values a parameter may take (say, body weights in a
population), and uncertainty refers to incomplete, imprecise and/or inaccurate knowledge
associated with parameter values (Bogen et al., 2009). These particular definitions are not
universally accepted however, and in practice may have more or less utility as a basis for the
methodology used to assess overall variance in model output.
Returning to the issue of doses to a population of simulated individuals, and to the five major
sources of variance for these dose estimates, the first 3 sources of variance apply to population
variability. In particular, in any year the physiological and behavioral characteristics of the
exposed individuals govern the degree of variance related to sources #2 and #3. The variance
related to parameters contributing to exposure concentrations and to radiation dose coefficients
do not vary over time and do not vary for different hypothetical individuals. For example,
models of carcinogenesis for low-dose radiation are highly uncertain, but this uncertainty does
not appreciably differ among individuals nor does it vary from one model year to another.
Similarly, we assume essentially static environmental conditions over the 10,000-year
performance period for any given model realization; a soil-water distribution coefficient that
applies at model year 2,000 also applies at model year 3,000.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 21
There are multiple methods that may be employed to model two different types of variance, but a
typical method is termed 2-dimensional (2D) or nested-loop Monte Carlo simulation (Bogen et
al., 2009). In the ED model, the exposure parameters are grouped into long-term model
uncertainty and population variability categories. The physiological and behavioral parameters
related to sources #2 and #3, as well as the number of individuals exposed in any year (source
#1), are evaluated annually in the “inner loop” of the 2D Monte Carlo simulation. The remainder
of the model parameters, including all aspects of the Contaminant Transport modeling and the
radiation dose conversion factors (DCFs) are defined in the “outer loop” of the 2D Monte Carlo
simulation. This categorization is further discussed below.
3.4.2 Collective Dose
As described above, an issue of ALARA interest is the collective dose over the performance
period. To reiterate, this estimate is of little value in itself as there are no performance objectives
for this endpoint; rather, it should ideally be viewed in the context of decision analysis.
Estimating population dose is simple. It is the sum of individual annual doses over the period of
time from loss of institutional control to the 10,000 year mark. Contributions from off-site
receptors who are anticipated to have very low annual dose rates will only be included in the
collective dose sum if individual doses are approaching a 0.05 mrem/yr threshold (equivalent to
approximately a 1-in-1-million excess cancer risk).
The calculation of collective dose is consistent with recommendations of the ICRP (2006). For
example, the PA’s methodology specifically addresses the following characteristics of the popu-
lation (ICRP, 2006; Table 3.1):
• Gender
• Age
• Habits
• Characteristics of the exposure
• Distribution of exposures in time and space
• Number of individuals
• Minimum individual dose
• Maximum individual dose
• Mean individual dose
• Statistical deviations
• Collective dose associated with ranges of individual doses.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 22
3.4.3 Dose Conversion Factors
For both individual doses and population doses, exposures or intakes are converted to TEDEs via
DCFs, or dose equivalents per unit intake. DCFs have been published by EPA and ICRP. Section
3.3.7.3 of NUREG-1573 specifies DCFs published by EPA in Federal Guidance Reports (FGR)
11 (EPA, 1988) and 12 (EPA, 1993a). EPA subsequently made use of age-specific DCFs
published in ICRP Publication 72 (ICRP, 1995) to estimate radionuclide cancer risk coefficients
in FGR 13 (EPA, 1999). The DCFs published in EPA (1999) are used in the dose assessment and
are available online (http://ordose.ornl.gov/downloads.html). The radionuclide-specific DCFs
used in the dose assessment are also provided in the spreadsheet Dose Assessment Appendix II.
DCFs are derived using models and data that represent the physics and biology of the interaction
of the human body with radiation or radioactive material. Briefly, internal DCFs (typically in
units of Sv/Bq) are used to convert from an exposure or intake to an internal dose delivered to
target organs. DCFs are radionuclide, receptor-age, and exposure-route dependent (external,
inhalation, or ingestion). In addition, separate inhalation dose coefficients are published for
different lung absorption rate classes. For external exposure the dose coefficient depends upon
whether the receptor is immersed in a plume of radioactive contaminants (such as air) or is
standing on the surface of contaminated ground (surface water sources are not evaluated here).
A number of groups have investigated uncertainty in radiation dose that is delivered to internal
target organs (i.e., effective dose, via use of DCFs). For example, the US National Committee on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has published a general methodological guide
for uncertainty analysis in dose and risk assessments (NCRP 1996), a guide for evaluating the
reliability of the biokinetic and dosimetric models used to assess individual doses (NCRP 1998),
and assessments of uncertainties associated with internal (NCRP 2009) and external (NCRP
2007) dosimetry. Additionally, the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency’s (HPA’s)
Centre for Radiation has conducted uncertainty analyses of internal and external dosimetry
(Puncher and Harrison 2012, 2013).
Major sources of uncertainty associated with effective dose estimation include the following
(Puncher and Harrison 2012):
• Biokinetic models and their parameter values that are used to predict the dynamic
distribution of radioactivity within the body
• The geometric relationship of source and target tissues, their dimensions and masses.
These influence the amount of energy deposited in tissues
• The relative effectiveness of different radiation types in causing cancer and
differences between tissues in their sensitivity to radiation induced cancer
Estimation of disease dose-response and risk (i.e., risk assessment) and associated uncertainties
involves ‘translating’ effective dose into estimation of additional disease (typically cancer)
probability. The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report (National Research
Council 2006) contains extensive information on the state of knowledge regarding radiation
dose-response, including a limited uncertainty analysis. Both NCRP (2012) and EPA (EPA
2007) have investigated some sources of uncertainty in risk assessment.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 23
With regard to evaluating radiation risk, major sources of uncertainty include the following
(NCRP 2012):
• Issues associated with epidemiological and animal study design and application,
including low statistical power and precision
• Inadequate or simplistic modeling of radiation risk (especially at low doses), or
assumption of one generic model (typically the the linear no-threshold hypothesis, or
LNT, model)
• Extrapolation or generalization of risk estimates to different populations
As an example, EPA (2007) estimated uncertainties for radionuclides that have published risk
coefficients in EPA’s Federal Guidance Report (FGR) No. 13 (EPA 1999). They addressed the
following sources of uncertainty:
• Biokinetic models describing the biological behavior of ingested or inhaled
radionuclides
• Specific energies that relate emissions from source organs to energy deposition in
target organs
• Risk model coefficients representing the risk of cancer per unit absorbed dose to
sensitive tissues from radiation at high dose and high dose rates
• Tissue-specific dose and dose rate effectiveness factors (DDREF); and tissue-specific
high-dose relative biological effectiveness (RBE)
Uncertainties associated with alternative dose-response statistical models (i.e., aside from the
LNT model) were not addressed by EPA (2007). EPA (2007) employed a combination of
modeling and expert opinion in the analysis, and concluded that “the assessed uncertainty in the
radiation risk [as opposed to dose] model was found to be the main determinant of the
uncertainty category for most risk coefficients, but conclusions concerning the relative
contributions of risk and dose models to the total uncertainty in a risk coefficient may depend
strongly on the method of assessing uncertainties in the risk model”.
All groups that have attempted to analyze uncertainties associated with radiation effective dose
and risk have acknowledged that this is a difficult undertaking, and there is no generic “one-size-
fits-all” solution. Each type of radiation and target organ dose-response has unique
characteristics. Therefore, the most straightforward way to evaluate uncertainties in dose and risk
may be to employ the FGR 13 central values and ‘uncertainty categories’ published by EPA
(1999, 2007). These are represented as a ratio of the 95th to the 5th quantiles. As an example, if
an uncertainty factor is 100, then a risk coefficient could vary from the published FGR 13 value
by a factor as great as 10 (the square root of 100). Most radionuclides fall within categories A or
B.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 24
Unlike any other sources reviewed, ratios are available for a large (>800) number of
radionuclides. The exact ratio values (as opposed to the letter categories) are available for all
radionuclides with risk coefficients in FGR 13 (EPA 1999). Assuming a distributional shape
such as lognormal, distributions can then be developed.
If uncertainties associated with effective dose only are evaluated (which is the approach taken at
this time in the DU PA), the scope of existing and published work is much more limited. In order
to be useful for probabilistic modeling, the uncertainties associated with DCFs must be
represented as statistical distributions. A search of the published literature indicates that
uncertainty distributions for DCFs per se have only been developed in a few instances; largely
focused on a few radionuclides (e.g., I-131, tritium) that have been to focus of worker protection
assessments, legal cases, and related dose reconstruction scenarios (e.g., Hamby, 1999; Harvey et
al., 2006). Puncher and Harrison (2012, 2013) evaluated uncertainties for 9 radionuclides via
ingestion and inhalation. For the purpose of the PA, uncertainty distributions for a large number
of DCFs would ideally be available. No such 'global' source was identified in the literature.
However, there has been published work that has focused on components of DCFs that are
generalizable to different classes of radionuclides. The most relevant work that was identified is
the work of Kocher et al. (2005), in the context of "probability of causation" in cases of worker
exposure to radiation. This work has been incorporated into the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health's "Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program" (IREP;
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasirep.html), which is employed to determine the probability
that a cancer was caused by workers' exposure to radiation during nuclear weapons production.
Similar work has been applied in the context of probabilistic dose reconstruction (Linkov et al.,
2001.)
Kocher et al. (2005) estimate:
…so-called radiation effectiveness factors (REFs) [note: not to be confused with 'radon
emanation factors'] that are intended to represent the biological effectiveness of different
types of ionizing radiation for the purpose of estimating cancer risks and probability of
causation of radiogenic cancers in identified individuals. An REF is a dimensionless
factor used to modify an estimate of average absorbed dose from a given radiation type
in an organ or tissue of concern in an identified individual to obtain a biologically
significant dose on which the risk of induction of cancer in that organ or tissue is
assumed to depend.
Kocher et al. (2005) specify that they are ultimately interested in risks, not doses; but, the
estimates of uncertainty associated with REFs are relevant to the current application. They state
that their REFs are essentially analogous to radiation weighting factors (wR). The wR is is an
additive function of a dimensionless “quality factor” Q, that is dependent upon radiation type;
and a dimensionless N, which is dependent upon the tissues irradiated, the time and volume
relevant to irradiation, and biological characteristics of the receptor. Consistent and thorough
documentation of these terms appear to be lacking in published reports. Regardless, in most
cases, these terms have been superseded by another term; Relative Biological Effectiveness
(RBE). The radiation dose unit employed in this PA, the sievert (Sv), can vary considerably
based upon the RBE.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 25
Kocher et al. (2005) state that their
…new term “radiation effectiveness factor” (REF) is used in this work to distinguish a
quantity that represents biological effectiveness for purposes of estimating cancer risks
and probability of causation in identified individuals from similar quantities, including
relative biological effectiveness (RBE), which strictly applies only to results of specific
radiobiological studies under controlled conditions.
For the purpose of establishing initial uncertainty distributions for DCFs for incorporation into
the PA, these philosophical and semantic issues will take a subservient position. We will
therefore assume that for the carcinogenic effects of radiation, that the REF is equivalent to the
RBE, which is in turn equivalent to wR. This is not strictly the case, but the intent here is to
estimate uncertainty in biologically-relevant radiation dose, not exact numerical quantities. REFs
account for the fact that some types of radioactive decay result in more biological damage than
others. The "reference" type of radiation is typically Co-60 high-dose/dose-rate gamma decay,
as this is the type of radiation germane to the atomic-bomb survivor data and similar sources of
epidemiological data on cancer resulting from radiation exposure. The REF (or wR) for such
radiation is set at 1.0. However, larger particles such as alpha particles and neutrons can cause
more biological damage, thus the REFs for these types of ionizing radiation are larger, and
function as multipliers to the DCFs.
In this PA model, radiation-type specific REFs per Kocher et al. (2005) will be used as
modifying distributions to the DCF point estimates presented in FGR 13 (note that DCFs are not
presented in the written report of FGR 13, but are available via an online database:
http://ordose.ornl.gov/downloads.html). Kocher et al. (2005) developed probability distributions
for REFs, based upon a combination of exhaustive literature review, statistical analysis,
modeling, and subjective judgment. Tables 14 and 15 in that reference provide summaries.
These REF distributions can be essentially viewed as modifiers to published DCFs, in lieu of the
published deterministic wR's used in radiation protection (ICRP, 1991). For example, the
published deterministic wR for alpha particles is 20. The Kocher et al. (2005) REF for alpha
particles can be represented by a lognormal distribution with a median of 18, and a 95%
confidence interval from 3.4 to 100. Thus, for an alpha-emitting radionuclide, the published DCF
would be divided by 20, then multiplied by the distribution provided. As the REFs are radiation-
type specific, they are generally applicable to the predominant radiation characteristics of the
particular radionuclide of concern.
In the present model, there are no species that decay by neutron emission. The REFs employed
represent alpha, beta (electron), and photon (gamma, X-ray) decay. For each radionuclide, the
dominant radiation type and its energy are defined based upon information from ICRP (using the
program RadSum32, available from http://ordose.ornl.gov/downloads.html). For some
radionuclides, the energy of electron or photon emissions is essentially equivalent to the
reference radiation (high-energy gamma), resulting in an REF of 1.0 with no uncertainty. For
others, an REF distribution is defined based upon the information in Kocher et al. (2005) and this
REF is used as a multiplier to the DCF. Please note that radon is evaluated differently from other
radionuclides (see Section 4.4); thus the REF distribution development process outlined below
does not apply.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 26
Following is a summary of the specific process by which REF distributions are generated and
applied in the PA model, along with assumptions (please see Kocher et al. (2005) for
assumptions made in that work). Radionuclide-specific deterministic DCFs, and the inputs
necessary to calculate stochastic DCFs, are provided in the spreadsheet Dose Assessment
Appendix II.
1. The 27 radionuclide Species in the PA model were expanded to 63 radionuclides to
account for short-lived progeny (Species radionuclides have a half-life of approximately 2 years
or longer). The decay chains for identifying progeny were taken from the Nuclear Wallet Cards
(Tuli, 2005).
2. DCFs were taken from the the EPA FGR 13 database (available from
http://ordose.ornl.gov/downloads.html). DCFs are available for particulate and vapor-phase
inhalation, ingestion, and external exposure (including "submersion", "ground plane", and "soil
volume" values). In all cases, DCFs for adults are selected (as the receptors of interest are
adults), and “effective dose” DCFs (a weighted composite of all organs) are employed.
Inhalation DCFs related to the default inhalation absorption class from Table 2.1 of FGR 13 were
used. If no default class was specified, the “medium” (Class M) inhalation DCF was usually
selected because it is commonly between the DCF values for slow and fast absorption classes,
and is therefore considered to be the least biased point estimate. For external exposure to
contaminated soils, the “soil volume” external DCFs are used in this PA consistent with the
physical models of contaminant transport over time.
3. A dominant form of radiological decay was assigned for internal DCFs and external DCFs
for each of the 63 radionuclides using information from the RadSum32 code. For internal DCFs,
the dominant decay mode was identified as the highest contributor to total emitted energy of any
radiation type (gamma + x-ray; electron (the maximum of beta, internal conversion electrons, or
auger electrons); and, alpha). In all cases, this protocol resulted in alpha emissions being selected
as the dominant decay mode when alpha decay occurs. For external DCFs, the dominant decay
mode was identified as the energy of gamma + x-ray. If there are no photon emissions for a
radionuclide, dominant decay for external irradiation was identified as the highest energy among
beta, internal conversion electrons, and auger electrons. Because alpha particles cannot penetrate
the stratum corneum to the biologically active lower strata of the skin, alpha particles are not
evaluated for the purpose of assigning REF distributions to external DCFs.
4. For radionuclides where the dominant decay mode is electron or photon, the average
particle energy of that decay mode (in million electron volts, or MeV) is identified from the
RadSum32 code.
5. REF distributions are defined for four categories of decay mode and energy, based upon
percentiles in Tables 14 and 15 in Kocher et al. (2005). For radionuclides where the dominant
decay mode is photon or electron emission with a mean energy higher than the particular
threshold, an REF of 1.0 is assigned, as the REF for these emissions are essentially equivalent to
the reference radiation (Co-60 gamma). The REF distribution categories include:

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 27
• alpha (any energy)
• electron (<0.015 MeV)
• photon (>0.03 and <=0.25 MeV)
• photon (<=0.03 MeV)
6. With regard to the alpha REF, please note that Kocher et al. (2005) assumed that 100
represented the 97.5th percentile of the distribution. This is likely conservative, as the highest
value ever estimated from experimental studies is 100, and this only applies to particular forms
of inhaled plutonium (Kocher et al., 2005).
7. The DCFs for each of the 63 radionuclides are divided by the ICRP weighting factor (wR)
in order to apply the REF distributions. For alpha emitters, the wR value is 20, and for electrons
and photons it is 1.0. Stochastic DCFs are then calculated as the product of the DCF and the
appropriate REF.
8. DCFs for the 27 radionuclide Species defined in the PA model are assembled using the
decay chains and branching fractions from the Nuclear Wallet Cards (Tuli, 2005). These are
equivalent to the “plus daughters” (+D) DCFs for primary radionuclides provided in radiological
dose software such as the RESRAD computer code (http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/).
9. The stochastic +D DCFs may then be employed in the PA model for radiation dose
calculations. Alternatively, a model user may select the option of using the deterministic FGR 13
DCFs in a simulation. This is permitted even when the PA model is run in stochastic mode for all
other model parameters.
As previously discussed, this method only addresses one component of uncertainty associated
with DCFs, and thus must be viewed as a pilot effort. DCF distributions are available for some
radionuclides, and could be incorporated into future modeling. Use of EPA (2007) risk coeffi-
cients in addition to or in lieu of dose estimations would be a logical next step in expanding the
scope of the uncertainty analysis for the health effects of radionuclides.
3.4.4 Additional Sources of Uncertainty
In addition to variance in the definition of model parameter values, there are other important
sources of uncertainty and/or bias to potentially consider. For example, if radiation dose-
response model uncertainty (particularly at low doses) were to be considered, it is possible that
the uncertainties associated with radiation risk would swamp those associated with the remainder
of the PA model, as it is by no means clear that ionizing radiation has no threshold of
carcinogenic effect.
here is uncertainty associated with the mathematical models defining contaminant transport in
the environment over time. These models are designed to represent the system as best they can
(although sometimes with known protective biases) but they like all models are simply
approximations of reality. Other aspects of the PA model have similar issues associated with
model uncertainty.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 28
Most importantly, the overall uncertainty associated with what the natural world and human
society will be like in 1,000 or 10,000 years from today is likely much greater than the
uncertainty associated with the model form, yet this 'future world' uncertainty is not quantifiable
or readily bounded. Such sources of uncertainty must be discussed qualitatively rather than being
quantitatively modeled.
3.4.5 Non-Cancer Toxicity Endpoints
DU waste (and potentially other compounds) associated with the Clive facility can be associated
with toxicological risks that are independent of radioactive properties. EPA has evaluated
available dose response information for many chemicals and has published this information in
the form of toxicity values and accompanying information. Potential health effects related to
intake of chemicals is assessed by means of slope factors for suspected carcinogens, and
reference doses (RfDs) for noncarcinogenic effects of chemicals. Unlike carcinogenic agents,
EPA typically views toxicants with non-cancer effects as having thresholds; i.e., levels below
which effects would be unlikely. RfDs essentially amount to such thresholds, usually with
several layers of 'safety' factors added.
A limited evaluation of the effect of science policy uncertainty in the value of the uranium oral
RfD on chemical hazard results is included in this assessment. The modeling process is very
similar to that conducted for radionuclides, other than kidney toxicity (as opposed to radiation
dose) of DU will be evaluated, and the toxicity of DU will not change over time (as radioactive
decay is not important in this context).
Oral toxicity criteria for uranium are published by EPA in relation to the Superfund program
(EPA, 2011) and by EPA's Office of Water in relation to drinking water standards (EPA, 2000).
There is a five-fold difference between these criteria, and both will be employed in the
assessment of uranium toxicity to determine the sensitivity of uranium health effect results to
differences in these recommended toxicity criteria for uranium.
A discrete distribution is used to represent the uranium oral RfD based on current EPA science
policy associated with EPA’s Superfund Program and Office of Water. A uranium oral RfD of
0.0006 mg/kg-day is associated with the derivation of the final uranium drinking water
maximum contaminant level (MCL) as defined on page 76713 of Federal Register, Volume 65,
No. 236, December 7, 2000 (Section I.D.2d). A uranium oral RfD of 0.003 mg/kg-day for
soluble salts of uranium is published in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
supporting the Superfund Program. A 50/50 probability is assigned to these oral RfDs to
determine in the Sensitivity Analysis whether selecting one or the other of these published values
is a significant contributor to uncertainty in the uranium Hazard Index in any exposure scenario.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 29
4.0 Equations and Parameters of the Exposure-Dose Con-
tainer
4.1 Organization
The implementation of the exposure and dose calculations, and associated results, are organized
within different subcontainers in the ED container. A description of the main subcontainers and
their contents are described below:
• Environmental Concentrations: Concentrations of species in various environmental
media developed in the Contaminant Transport (CT) component of the PA model are
tracked here. These elements are the link between the CT and ED components of the
PA model, and take the form of GoldSim vectors defined by the array Species.
Environmental concentrations are subsequently defined as two-dimensional matrices
with the addition of arrays for different receptor groups in order to track doses for
multiple individuals to tally a population dose.
• Behavioral Parameters: Input parameter values related to human activities and
behaviors for the Rancher, Sport OHVer, and Hunter exposure scenarios. With few
exceptions, these parameters are defined within an 'inner-loop' container that has a
separate internal timestep so that they can be sampled on an annual basis regardless
of the timestep length of the CT model.
• DCFs: Dose conversion factors for radionuclides are grouped in a subcontainer
outside the inner-loop container..
• Dose Calculations: A series of subcontainers are defined within the inner-loop
container for calculation of TEDE related to inhalation, ingestion, and external
radiation exposures for the Rancher, Sport OHVer, and Hunter exposure scenarios. A
container for off-site receptor doses is also provided. Screening-level dose
calculations for ingestion of edible plant materials gathered on the waste disposal
cell, and ingestion of standing surface water, are grouped in a subcontainer outside
the inner-loop container.
• Uranium Hazard: A subcontainer within the inner-loop container holding calculations
for systemic toxicity (hazard) related to the nonradiological effects of uranium.
In terms of parameter definitions, GoldSim uses a variety of methods, including deterministic
values, scalars, time series data, and “stochastics”, which are user-defined statistical
distributions. Parameter distributions employed in the PA model reflect a mixture of site- and
receptor-specific data, information modeled in 'upstream' portions of the PA model, literature
information, and subjective judgment; as appropriate.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 30
4.2 Environmental Concentrations
The principal link between the CT component and the ED component of the PA model are
concentrations of contaminants in different environmental media. Major environmental media
evaluated in the ED container include:
• Soil. There are several soil concentration terms that are used in the ED container. The
contaminant transport portion of the PA model employs a homogenized waste source
term and simulates transport over time to produce estimates of soil concentrations for
the embankment top slope and the embankment side slopes. The principal soil term in
the ED container is the area-weighted average concentration in the top layer of both
the top slope and side slope of the disposal cap. This is the disposal cap soil
concentration. Contaminant concentrations in these soils, plus possible contribution
from lower soil layers and even the disposed waste itself, are used to calculate soil
exposure concentrations for the embankment. Embankment soil concentrations are
defined as the area-averaged soil concentrations of the disposal cap and of one or
more gullies and fans that may develop in the future. Finally, particle resuspension
and deposition models are used to calculate area-averaged soil concentrations off-site
air dispersion area based upon the embankment soil concentrations.
Area-averaged soil concentrations for the embankment and the off-site air dispersion
area are employed because there is no basis for specifying greater or lesser individual
exposure intensity as a function of location within these regions. Individuals are
presumed to be exposed at random in these areas, and an area-averaged exposure
concentration reflects this presumed behavior.
The human exposure area surrounding the Clive site is where the Ranchers, Sport
OHVers, and Hunters identified as likely receptor populations conduct their activities.
The maximum size of this area is the approximate area between I-80 and the Utah
Test and Training Range (UTTR) in an east-west orientation, and the Cedar Mountain
foothills and salt/mud flats in a north-south orientation. The minimum size of this
area is the approximate minimum size of the four current grazing leases in the vicinity
of the Clive facility. Because the maximum area is roughly equivalent to the largest
of the four current grazing leases, the human exposure area and the size of the area
over which cattle may graze are equivalent.
• Air. Air concentrations of gaseous and particulate contaminants in the atmosphere are
calculated using the AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model for breathing-zone air
above the embankment and above the off-site dispersion area. Off-site air
concentrations are also calculated at the specific exposure locations described in
Section 3.2.3. These calculations are documented in the Atmospheric Transport
Modeling white paper (Appendix 8). To evaluate the impacts of dust generated during
off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, an adjustment factor for particulate air
concentrations is used based upon dust generation data collected by EPA Region 9
for OHV users wearing personal air monitors in a recreational area in California
(EPA, 2008).
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 31
• Game. Contaminant concentrations in the meat of game animals that incorporate the
embankment and nearby areas as part of their home range. Based upon
communications with BLM, pronghorn are modeled as the most likely game species
of interest to future Hunters. Contaminant concentrations in game tissue are modeled
as a function of ingestion of browse plants, standing surface water, and soil
inadvertently ingested while browsing.
• Beef. Contaminant concentrations in beef from cattle that incorporate the
embankment and nearby areas as part of their range. Similar to game tissue
concentrations, beef concentrations are related to plants, surface water, and soil. The
number of cattle grazing in impacted areas is assumed to be sufficient to provide
ranchers with beef commensurate with the specified intake rates.
• Plants. Wet weight contaminant concentrations in plant tissues. These concentrations
are used as an interim step in the calculation of tissue concentrations in cattle and
game and are calculated assuming equilibrium with soil defined by element-specific
plant-soil concentration ratios. They are also used for screening-level calculations to
determine if potential direct human exposures by plant ingestion may be of concern.
• Surface Water. Contaminant concentrations in standing surface water in the air
dispersion area. Water concentrations are calculated assuming equilibrium with soil,
as defined by element-specific soil-water partition coefficients. These water
concentrations are used as an interim step in the calculation of tissue concentrations
in cattle and game. They are also used for screening-level calculations to determine if
potential direct human exposures by surface water ingestion may be of concern.
Groundwater is not an exposure medium per se, because the aquifer below the Clive facility is
too saline to be used as a drinking water source, and so is classified by the State of Utah as Class
IV (nonpotable) in the ground water quality discharge permit for the Clive facility. However, the
permit also states that concentrations of contaminants in groundwater will nevertheless be
compared to State of Utah GWPLs.
4.3 Exposure Parameters
The basis of the deterministic values and/or statistical distributions for each of the ED equation
parameters is discussed in the Model Parameters white paper (Appendix 16), the attached
Appendix I, and the spreadsheet Dose Assessment Appendix II. A major source of exposure
parameter values is the 2009 update to the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 2009a).
Although this reference exists as an external review draft, it is much more current and extensive
than the 1997 version, and much more distributional information is included. For physiological
variables in particular, the primary studies that EPA employed as the basis of recommendations
in EPA (2009a) were also reviewed.
Three non-residential human receptor scenarios (Rancher, Sport OHV recreationist, and Hunter
recreationist) are defined, each with its own set of exposure parameter values but with similar
computational exposure models. Exposure parameters that pertain to inter-individual population
variability have been assigned to the “inner loop” of the 2D Monte Carlo simulation. These
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 32
parameters pertain to physiological characteristics, the fraction of time an individual spends on
or near the site, and the number of receptors present at the site. These categorizations of inner or
outer loop are noted in Section 1 and discussed in Section 3.4.1.
Exposure parameters related to inter-individually varying population characteristics, and to the
number of receptors within the exposure area, are defined within an “inner-loop” sub-container
in the ED model. This sub-container has an annual time step so that the stochastic parameters
relating to the number of individuals appearing in the exposure area, and the inter-individual
characteristics of these individuals, are sampled annually. This sub-container is the "inner loop"
of the 2-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation.
The remainder of the exposure parameters, which include the exposure concentrations in
environmental media, the DCFs, and a few other parameters, are defined by uncertainty
distributions that apply to each individual in the population over the entire 10,000-yr
performance period. These parameters, and all components of the contaminant transport model
that produce estimates of exposure concentrations over time, are in the "outer loop" of the 2-
dimensional Monte Carlo simulation. The uncertainty distributions for stochastic parameters in
the outer loop outside this sub-container are sampled only once at the beginning of each model
realization.
In the 2-dimensional model, it is assumed that uncertainties are independent for each member of
the ranching and recreational scenario populations. The fraction of time that each individual
spends on the disposal cell or in the adjacent off-site area is variable. Because the processes that
lead to concentration terms in these two areas are different, they have different uncertainty
characteristics. This results in independence in the uncertainties of the individual annual dose
results.
The inhalation rate distributions activities are specified according to exertion level as heavy,
moderate, light, sedentary, and sleeping. For each exertion level, EPA (2009a) provides
information for breathing (ventilation) rate and associated fraction of daily time spent at that
level. In the absence of scenario-specific information, the fraction of daily time spent at each
exertion level for the general population described in EPA (2009a) has been applied to ranching
and recreation receptors. Stochastic distributions for the inhalation rates, and also for meat
ingestion rates, are tied to the age and (for inhalation rate) gender of an individual receptor, and
are specified as a linear function of their body weight as described in EPA (2009a; 2009b). An
adult between the ages of 16 and 60 is defined for the ranching and recreation receptor groups.
The behavioral exposure parameters defined in the inner-loop sub-container relate primarily to
the fraction of daily and yearly time spent by receptors in the exposure area generally, and within
the exposure area the fractional time spent on the embankment versus other locations. Based
upon discussion with BLM, Ranchers are assumed to work within a ranching lease during the
day and may also camp overnight. Both Sport OHVers riders and Hunters may visit the area for
either a day trip or an overnight trip.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 33
4.4 DCFs
The TEDE is not an effect per se, but rather a measure of radiation dose absorbed by a tissue.
The DCFs used in the ED model account for the biological effectiveness of the radiation (e.g.,
alpha particles, photons) in causing cellular damage in different tissues, as well as the sensitivity
of different tissues to the effects of ionizing radiation. For external dose, this “effective dose” is
calculated. For internal dose, the committed effective dose is calculated, which accounts for
continued dose over time from radionuclides retained in the body. Distribution development for
one source of uncertainties inherent in DCFs (i.e., associated with REFs) is described in Section
3.4.3.
Section 3.3.7 of NUREG-1573 (NRC, 2000) discusses modeling of radiation dose, including
internal and external dosimetry. NRC (2000) notes that the performance objectives set forth in
Section 61.41 of Title 10 CFR 61.41 (CFR, 2007) are based upon ICRP 2 dose assessment
methods, which pre-date the development of TEDE methodology. NRC recommends the use of
current ICRP dosimetry employing TEDE methods in lieu of calculation of individual organ
doses.
The internal and external DCFs used in the ED model were obtained from the electronic database
accompanying FGR 13 (EPA, 1999), available online at http://ordose.ornl.gov/downloads.html
and also provided in the spreadsheet Dose Assessment Appendix II. The DCFs for all species, as
well as the individual short-lived progeny of these parent nuclides, were developed using
appropriate decay chains and branching fractions as described in the CSM and documented in the
electronic attachment.
The DCF for radon-222 and progeny was derived from recommendations provided in an ICRP
draft report for consultation (ICRP, 2009). A range of 3 - 6 mSv-m3/mJ-hr is given for the radon-
222 DCF, calculated using ICRP's Human Respiratory Tract Model. The main sources of
uncertainty related to this range are the activity size distribution of aerosols for radon progeny,
and the breathing rates (ICRP 2009; Appendix B, paragraph B 6).
In paragraph B 11 of Appendix B to ICRP (2009), the inhalation rate for a "standard worker"
associated with the upper-end DCF estimate of 6 mSv-m3/mJ-hr is given as 1.2 m3/hr. ICRP
states,
For typical aerosol conditions in home and mines the effective dose is about 3.7 mSv-
m3/mJ-hr. . . However, assuming the same aerosol conditions as for a home but with a
breathing rate for a standard worker (1.2 m3/hr) the effective dose increases from 3.7 to 6
mSv-m3/mJ-hr.
This indicates that approximately 75% of the range of 3 - 6 mSv-m3/mJ-hr given for the Rn-222
DCF may be related to inhalation rate. Based upon this observation, a breathing rate normalized
radon-222 DCF was calculated for use in the ED model. The units for alpha energy (mJ) were
converted to an equivalent activity (Bq) for radon-222 according to units definitions in the
glossary of ICRP (2009).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 34
A radon-222 DCF of 2.8 × 10-8 Sv/Bq was calculated as:
Radon-222 DCF = (0.006 Sv-m3/mJ-hr × 5.56 × 10-6 mJ/Bq) / 1.2 m3/hr
Note that the REFs discussed earlier are not applicable to radon, as the DCF was estimated in a
different fashion than the other species.
4.5 PDCFs
A PDCF is an equation that combines Exposure Parameter values and DCFs, as described in
Section 3.3.7.2 of NRC (2000). PDCFs are combined with estimates of radionuclide
concentrations in exposure media to calculate a TEDE. PDCF equations for each exposure route
are described in subsections below.
4.5.1 Inhalation PDCF Equations
PDCF for inhalation of particulates and gases
PDCF_Inh (Sv·m3/Bq·yr) = DCF_Inh × InhalationRate × EF × ET (1)
where
DCF_Inh is the inhalation DCF (Sv/Bq)
InhalationRate is the activity-weighted inhalation rate (m3/hr)
EF is the yearly exposure frequency (d/yr), and
ET is the total daily exposure time (hr/d).
and
InhalationRate (m3/hr) = ∑i (Inhal_acti × ET_fraci ) (2)
where
Inhal_acti is the inhalation rate for activity level i (m3/hr), and
ET_fraci is the fraction of daily exposure time for activity level i (-)
Activity levels (i) for which population-average breathing rates and daily exposure times are
defined include sleeping, sedentary activity, light activity, medium activity, and heavy activity.
Breathing rates are body weight adjusted. Population distributions of both breathing rates and
daily exposure times at different activity levels are defined as functions of age and gender, as
described in EPA (2009a).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 35
4.5.2 External PDCF Equations
PDCF for external radiation from soil
PDCF_Ext_Soil (Sv·g/Bq·yr) = DCF_Ext × EF × ET × ρb × CF1 (3)
where
DCF_Ext is the external DCF for a 3-dimensional soil source (Sv·m3/Bq·s)
EF is the yearly exposure frequency (d/yr)
ET is the total daily exposure time (hr/d)
ρb is the bulk soil density (g/m3), and
CF1 is a unit conversion factor (3600 s/hr)
PDCF for external radiation from immersion in air
PDCF_Imm (Sv·m3/Bq·yr) = DCF_Imm × EF × ET × CF1 (4)
where
DCF_Imm is the external DCF for air immersion (Sv·m3/Bq·s)
EF is the yearly exposure frequency (d/yr)
ET is the total daily exposure time (hr/d), and
CF1 is a unit conversion factor (3600 s/hr)
4.5.3 Ingestion PDCF Equations
PDCF for inadvertent ingestion of soil
PDCF_Ing_Soil (Sv·g/Bq·yr) = DCF_Ing × SoilIngRate × EF × CF2 (5)
where
DCF_Ing is the ingestion DCF (Sv/Bq)
SoilIngRate is the daily soil ingestion rate (mg/day)
EF is the yearly exposure frequency (d/yr), and
CF2 is a unit conversion factor (0.001 g/mg).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 36
PDCF for ingestion of game meat or beef
PDCF_Ing_Meat (Sv·g/Bq·yr) = DCF_Ing × MeatConsumpRate × (1 - Prep_loss) × (1 –
PostCook_loss) × EF_food (6)
where
DCF_Ing is the ingestion DCF (Sv/Bq)
MeatConsumpRate is the daily consumption rate of beef or game meat (g/kg body
weight/d)
Prep_loss is the fractional preparation and cooking loss of consumed meat related to
dripping and volatile losses during cooking (-)
PostCook_loss is the fractional post-cooking loss of consumed meat related to trimming,
bones, scraps, etc (-)
EF_food is the intrinsic exposure frequency assumed in the time-averaged ingestion rate
data (d/yr)
PDCF for plant ingestion (screening calculation)
PDCF_Ing_Plant (Sv·g/Bq·yr) = DCF_Ing × PlantIngRate (7)
where
DCF_Ing is the ingestion DCF (Sv/Bq, and
PlantConsumpRate is the yearly consumption rate of wild plants (g/yr)
PDCF for water ingestion (screening calculation)
PDCF_Ing_Water (Sv·g/Bq·yr) = DCF_Ing × WaterIngRate × WatDens (8)
where
DCF_Ing is the ingestion DCF (Sv/Bq,
WaterConsumpRate is the yearly consumption rate of standing water (L/yr), and
WatDens is the density of water (g/L)

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 37
4.6 TEDE
The calculation of dose, represented here by TEDE, is the product of a PDCF and the exposure
concentration. Separate soil concentrations are developed in the contaminant transport model for
the disposal cap and the off-site area impacted by deposition of wind-dispersed particles.
Particulate air concentrations, which are related to resuspension of soil, and concentrations of
gas-phase radionuclides in air, are also calculated separately for these three exposure areas.
Other exposure concentrations used in the dose model include radionuclide concentrations in
animal tissue, as well as plant tissue and standing surface water in screening calculations.
All TEDE calculations reference the PA model element describing the time after site closure
when institutional controls fail and a receptor can gain access to the site. If this time has not been
reached in the model realization, ranching and recreation doses are assigned a zero value.
Note that potential embankment gullies are modeled in a preliminary manner in the PA model to
evaluate possible consequences given the current waste disposal configuration. Gully formation
can be 'switched' on or off by the model user.
4.6.1 Inhalation TEDE Equations
Gas and particulate inhalation TEDE results (mSv/yr) are vectors dimensioned by Species in the
PA model related to the inhalation PDCFs. Concentrations of respirable particles and gas-phase
radionuclides in air are calculated by methods described in the Atmospheric Transport Modeling
white paper (Appendix 8). The inhalation TEDE equation for particulate inhalation is:
TEDE_Inh (mSv/yr) = PDCF_Inh × Cair (9)
where
PDCF_Inh is the inhalation PDCF (Sv·m3/Bq·yr), and
Cair is the spatially-averaged air concentration (Bq/m3)
Exposure concentrations on the embankment are calculated in an area-weighted manner. This
calculation presumes that exposures across the embankment occur in a random manner. Air
concentrations above the embankment are calculated as:
Cembnk (Bq/m3) = {([Ccap × Acap + Cgullies × Agullies] / [Acap + Agullies]) (10)
where
Cembnk is the air concentration above the embankment (Bq/m3)
Ccap is the air concentration above the disposal cap (Bq/m3)
Acap is the area of the embankment cap (m2)
Cgullies is the air concentration above the gullies and associated fans (Bq/m3)
Agullies is the surface area of the gullies and associated fans (m2)
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 38
The terms Cgullies and Agullies are calculated using a model for possible erosive effects of
precipitation subsequent to gully initiation due to OHV activity, grazing animals, or other
processes.
With respect to ranching and recreation exposure, there are two concentrations terms to address:
a concentration term for the embankment (per Equation 10) and a concentration term for the off-
site air dispersion area. A weighted exposure concentration for particulates in ambient air is
calculated for these two concentration terms as follows:
Cair-dust (Bq/m3) = { OHV_timefrac × OHV_dust × (Cembnk × ET_fracembnk) + (Ca-disp × [1
– ET_fracembnk] } + { [ 1 - OHV_timefrac] × (Cembnk × ET_fracembnk) + (Ca-disp × [1 –
ET_fracembnk] }
(11)
where
OHV_timefrac is the fraction of exposure time spent OHVing (-)
OHV_dust is the off-highway vehicle dust factor, used to account for the contribution of
mechanical dust creation (-)
Cembnk is the air concentration above the embankment (Bq/m3)
ET_fracembnk is the fraction of total daily exposure time spent on the embankment (-)
Ca-disp is the air concentration above the air dispersion area (Bq/m3)
For particulates, Cembnk and Ca-disp are calculated using a particle erosion model, which calculates
the amount of dust released from the ground surface, and the AERMOD air dispersion model
(see the Atmospheric Transport Modeling white paper, Appendix 8). Particle erosion is assessed
as a function of both wind and mechanical disturbance from the use of OHVs, but the
mechanical dust creation factor is applied as a multiplier to the baseline (wind-derived) dust
concentration. The AERMOD air dispersion model is used to estimate particulate deposition in
the offsite air dispersion area as well as breathing zone concentrations of respirable particles
above contaminated soil.
For radon and other gas-phase radionuclides, Cembnk and Ca-disp are calculated using AERMOD
(see the Atmospheric Transport Modeling white paper, Appendix 8) based upon the embankment
surface flux computed in the PA model. The air dispersion area is not a definite region with
respect to particle definition, because it's size is defined by the size of the receptor exposure area,
which varies as described in Section 4.2. Based upon AERMOD calculations, a protective
estimate of respirable particle deposition beyond the embankment is assigned to this area. Radon
air concentrations in the off-site air dispersion area are calculated as the average across the entire
area.
Because mechanical dust generation by OHVs is not an issue for calculating air concentrations of
radon and other gas-phase radionuclides, Equation 11 reduces to:
Cair-gas (Bq/m3) = (Cembnk × ET_fracembnk) + (Ca-disp × [1 – ET_fracembnk]) (12)
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 39
The current version of the PA model does not fully integrate gully formation into the physical
model of the embankment. Therefore, Radon air concentrations in the gully are modeled from
estimated radium-226 surface soil concentrations on the gully ‘floor’. The contribution of radon
from disposed waste below this surface soil layer is presently accounted for. Also, the influence
of gully walls on radon air concentrations within the gully has not been modeled. For these
reasons, gully radon exposures may be underestimated.
4.6.2 External Radiation TEDE Equations
Soil and air immersion external dose results (mSv/yr) are vectors dimensioned by Species in the
PA model related to the external PDCFs.
The air immersion external dose equation is:
TEDE_Imm (mSv/yr) = PDCF_Imm × Cair (13)
where
PDCF_Imm is the immersion PDCF (Sv·m3/Bq·yr), and
Cair is the spatially-averaged air concentration (Bq/m3)
The derivation of Cair for air immersion is identical to that described in Equations 10, 11 and 12.
The soil external dose equation is:
TEDE_Ext_Soil (mSv/yr) = PDCF_Ext_Soil × Csoil (14)
where
PDCF_Ext_Soil is the soil ingestion PDCF (Sv·g/Bq·yr), and
Csoil is the spatially-averaged soil concentration (Bq/g)
Similar to Equation 8, soil concentrations on the embankment are calculated as:
Cembnk (Bq/g) = {([Ccap × Acap + Cgullies × Agullies] / [Acap + Agullies]) (15)
where
Cembnk is the embankment soil concentration (Bq/g)
Ccap is the disposal cap soil concentration (Bq/g)
Acap is the area of the disposal cap (m2)
Cgullies is the soil concentration of the gullies and associated fans (Bq/g)
Agullies is the surface area of the gullies and associated fans (m2)
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 40
Analogous to Equation 12, a weighted exposure concentration for embankment and air
dispersion area soil is calculated as follows:
Csoil (Bq/g) = (Cembnk × ET_fracembnk) + (Ca-disp × [1 – ET_fracembnk])

(16)
where
ET_fracembnk is the fraction of total daily exposure time spent on the embankment (-)
Ca-disp is the soil concentration for the air dispersion area (Bq/g)
4.6.3 Ingestion TEDE Equations
Inadvertent soil ingestion (i.e., via soil on hands, food, etc.) and meat ingestion dose results
(mSv/yr) are vectors dimensioned by Species in the PA model related to the ingestion PDCFs.
The soil inadvertent ingestion dose equation is:
TEDE_Ing_Soil (mSv/yr) = PDCF_Ing_Soil × Csoil (17)
where
PDCF_Ext_Soil is the soil ingestion PDCF (Sv·g/Bq·yr), and
Csoil is the spatially-averaged soil concentration (Bq/g)
(Csoil is calculated according to Equation 16.)
The meat ingestion dose equation is:
TEDE_Ing_Meat (mSv/yr) = PDCF_Ing_Meat × Cmeat (18)
where
PDCF_Ext_Soil is the soil ingestion PDCF (Sv·g/Bq·yr), and
Cmeat is the concentration in beef or game meat (Bq/g)
The calculation of Cmeat is based upon grazing models for beef cattle and pronghorn and uses as
inputs the soil concentrations Cembnk and Ca-disp. Both beef cattle and pronghorn may be exposed
to soil contamination by direct soil ingestion while grazing, by ingestion of browse plants
growing in contaminated soil, and by ingestion of standing water on contaminated soil.
Radionuclide concentrations in beef and game tissue are calculated based upon three animal
exposure pathways: direct ingestion of soil while browsing, ingestion of plants growing in
contaminated soils, and drinking standing surface water. Cattle and pronghorn are assumed to
graze randomly across the entire range area. Hence, exposure to radionuclides in the
embankment and air dispersion areas is based upon the relative size of these areas.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 41
For soil, exposure concentrations for cattle are calculated as:
Csoil-cattle (Bq/g) = ([Cembnk × Aembnk] + [Ca-disp × Aa-disp]) / Arange-cattle (19)
where
Cembnk is the embankment soil concentration (Bq/g)
Aembnk is the area of the embankment (m2)
Ca-disp is the soil concentration for the air dispersion area (Bq/g)
Aa-disp is the surface area of the air dispersion area (m2), and
Arange-cattle is the size of the cattle range area (m2)
Soil radionuclide exposure concentrations for pronghorn are calculated in an identical manner,
substituting the size of the pronghorn grazing area.
Equation 19 is also used to calculate exposure concentrations in browse plants for cattle and
pronghorn. However, plant concentrations on the disposal cap are based upon uptake of
contamination across the entire root depth profile of the plants. Different types of plants
(differentiated by root depth distributions, biomass, and leaf litter production) are employed in
the Contaminant Transport component of the PA model to evaluate transport of radionuclides on
the disposal cap. Plant concentrations on the disposal cap are calculated in the contaminant
transport portion of the PA model as the weighted average (based upon leaf litter production) of
all plants. Soil concentrations in the air dispersion area, and in the gullies and fans, are only
calculated for a single surface soil layer. 100% of plant roots are assumed to be situated in this
layer.
For standing surface water, exposure concentrations for cattle and pronghorn are calculated for
puddles in the air dispersion area. Puddle water concentrations are based upon bulk soil
concentrations using element-specific soil water partition coefficients.
Using the exposure concentrations described above, radionuclide concentrations in beef are
calculated as:
Cbeef (Bq/g) = TF_beef × (Cplant-cattle × cattle_forage) + (Csoil-cattle × cattle_soil) + (Cwater-
cattle × cattle_water) (20)
where
TF_beef is the amount of an element taken up into muscle tissue as a function of the
daily intake rate of that element by the animal. (Bq/g per Bq/d)
Cplant-cattle is the area-weighted plant concentration on the cap, gullies and fans, and air-
dispersion area (Bq/g dry wt)
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 42
cattle_forage is the dry-weight forage intake rate for browsing cattle (g/day dry wt)
Csoil-cattle is the weighted soil concentration on the embankment and air-dispersion areas
(Bq/g)
cattle_soil is the soil ingestion rate for browsing cattle (g/day)
Cwater-cattle is the water concentration for the puddles in the air-dispersion areas (Bq/g)
cattle_water is the water ingestion rate for browsing cattle (g/day)
Concentrations in pronghorn tissue (Cgame) are calculated in a manner analogous to Equation 20,
substituting weighted exposure concentrations and intake rates for pronghorn.
Transfer factors (TFs) determine the amount of an element taken up into muscle tissue as a
function of the daily intake rate of that element by the animal. The units are expressed as Bq/kg
per Bq/d (d/kg). Element-specific beef transfer factors were preferentially obtained from a recent
publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2010). A report by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (Staven et al., 2003) was used as a secondary reference. For
many elements, these values are reported as a geometric mean and geometric standard deviation.
For a subset of elements with only a single reference, an arithmetic mean is provided with no
measure of variance. In these cases (actinium, americium, neptunium, protactinium, radium, and
technetium), an estimate of variance was produced by taking the average geometric standard
deviation for the all other elements excepting plutonium, which was considered an outlier. A
summary of the beef TFs with accompanying notes is provided in Table 3.
Distributional form for the values of geometric mean and geometric standard deviation reported
in IAEA (2010) was not discussed in this reference. Also, for sample sizes of less than 3, IAEA
(2010) values were originally reported as the arithmetic mean and standard deviation. In order to
provide a common set of inputs, values obtained from IAEA (2010) and Staven et al. (2003)
were processed to conform to an assumed lognormal distribution. Values originally reported as
arithmetic mean and standard deviation were transformed to geometric equivalents.
Beef TF data were reported in IAEA (2010) as a geometric mean, geometric standard deviation,
minimum, and maximum. The geometric standard deviations are greater than 2 in nearly every
case, suggested high right-skewness in the data, and the minimum and maximum were consistent
with samples from a lognormal distribution. In order to establish a distribution for the mean, a
parametric bootstrap approach was taken [Efron 1998], simulating bootstrap samples from the
lognormal distribution using the maximum likelihood estimates of the lognormal parameters. A
lognormal distribution was then fit to the resulting bootstrap simulations of the mean, since some
right-skewness was still present in the sampling distribution.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 43
Table 3. Beef transfer factors (Bq/kg per Bq/d)
Element Sample
size
Geometric
Mean
Geometric
Std. Dev. Notes
Actinium 1 0.0004 generic*
Mean based upon Staven et al. (2003; table 2-6, p.
2.7); no value in IAEA (2010). Geometric
standard deviation based upon 6 surrogate
elements.
Americium 1 0.0005 generic* Geometric standard deviation based upon 6
surrogate elements. (IAEA, 2010; table 30, p. 93)
Cesium 58 0.032 1.15 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93)).
Iodine 5 0.0107 1.85 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93).
Neptunium 1 0.001 generic*
Mean based upon Staven et al. (2003; table 2.6, p.
2.7); no value in IAEA 2010. Geometric standard
deviation based upon surrogate elements.
Protactinium 1 0.0005 generic*
Americium (IAEA 2010 value) used as a
surrogate based upon Staven et al. (2003; table
2.6, p. 2.7).
Lead 5 0.000952 1.59 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93).
Plutonium 5 0.0000128 7.42 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93).
Radium 1 0.0017 generic* Geometric standard deviation based upon
surrogate elements. (IAEA 2010; table 30, p. 93)
Radon -- arbitrarily
small value 1 Radon gas is inert and has effectively no potential
to establish an equilibrium in animal tissue.
Strontium 35 0.00223 1.26 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93).
Technetium 1 0.0001 generic*
Mean based upon Staven et al. (2003; table 2.6, p.
2.7); no value in IAEA 2010. Geometric standard
deviation based upon surrogate elements.
Thorium 6 0.000355 1.68 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93).
Uranium 3 0.000421 1.32 Based upon values provided in IAEA (2010; table
30, p. 93).
* A generic GSD for these elements is 1.475

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 44
5.0 References
BLM (United States Bureau of Land Management) 2010. Rangeland Administration System.
United States Bureau of Land Management, www.blm.gov/ras.
Bogen K.T., Cullen A.C., Frey H.C., Price P. 2009. Probabilistic exposure analysis for chemical
risk characterization. Toxicological Sciences 109(1): 4-17.
Brenner D.J., Doll R., Goodhead D.T., et al. 2003. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of
ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. Proc. Natl Acad Sci 100(24): 13761-
6.
Burr S.W., Smith J.W., Reiter D., et al. 2008. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public
Lands in Utah. Utah State University, Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,
Logan UT.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 300, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
CFR. 2007. Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Code of Federal
Regulations Title 10, Part 61 (10 CFR 61), US Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
Davis S., Mirick D.K. 2006. Soil ingestion in children and adults in the same family. Journal of
Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 16: 63-75.
Efron B.,Tibshirani R.J. 1998. Introduction to the Bootstrap, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide
Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion,
and Ingestion, EPA 520/1-88-020, Federal Guidance Report (FGR) 11, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. Federal
Guidance Report No. 13, United States Environmental Protection Agency and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, EPA 402-R-99-001, Oak Ridge TN.
EPA 2007 (Pawel et al.) Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure
to Radionuclides: An Uncertainty Analysis for Risk Coefficients Reported in Federal
Guidance Report No. 13, United States Environmental Protection Agency and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2006/583, Oak Ridge TN.
EPA, 2011a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Office of Research and Development
and National Center for Environmental Assessment, Electronic Database. Available
online at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/.
EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 45
EPA. 1993a. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil, EPA 402-R-93-81,
Federal Guidance Report (FGR) 12, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
EPA. 1993b. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Vol. I. EPA/600/R-93/187, Office of
Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1997a, Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive
Contamination, Memorandum from Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, and Larry Weinstock, Acting Director, Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, to addressees, OSWER No. 9200.4 18, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
EPA. 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: Updates
and Supplements, EPA 402-R-99-001, FGR 13, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
EPA. 2000. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule, Federal
Register: December 7, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 236)
EPA. 2001, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume III: Process for
Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Part A), EPA 540-R-02-002, OSWER
9285.7-45, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2005, Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities, Final, EPA/530-R-05-006, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2008, Clear Creek Management Area Asbestos Exposure and Human Health Risk
Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA.
EPA. 2009a. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2009 Update. External Review Draft, July 2009.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2009b. Metabolically Derived Human Ventilation Rates. May 2009. Office of Research
and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Filipsson A.F., Sand S., Nilsson J., et al. 2003. The benchmark dose method- review of available
models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol
33:505-542.
GTG (GoldSim Technology Group), 2010. GoldSim: Monte Carlo Simulation Software for
Decision and Risk Analysis, http://www.goldsim.com
Hamby D.M. 1999. Uncertainty of the tritium dose conversion factor. Health Phys 77(3): 291-7.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 46
Harvey R.P., Hamby D.M., Palmer T.S., 2006. Uncertainty of the thyroid dose conversion factor
for inhalation intakes of I-131 and its parametric uncertainty. Radiat Prot Dosimetry
118(3):296-306.
Hendee W.R., Edwards F.M. 1986. ALARA and an integrated approach to radiation protection.
Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 16:142-150.
Huffman B. 2004. Antilocapra americana. Pronghorn. Ungulate Fact Sheet.
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Antilocapra_americana.html.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 2010. Handbook of Values for the Prediction of
Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments, International Atomic
Energy Agency Technical Report Series No. 472, Vienna.
ICRP, 1977. Radiation Protection. International Commission of Radiological Protection
Publication No. 26. Permagon, NY.
ICRP. 1979. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, International Commission on
Radiological Protection Publication No. 30, Ann. ICRP 2(3-4).
ICRP. 1983. Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Optimization of Radiation Protection. International
Commission of Radiological Protection Publication No. 37. Permagon, NY.
ICRP. 1989. Age-Dependent Doses from Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 1, International
Commission on Radiological Protection Publication No. 56, Ann. ICRP 20(2).
ICRP. 1991. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection I;
International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication No. 60. Ann. ICRP 21
(1–3)
ICRP. 1995. Age-Dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides, Part
5: Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Dose Coefficients, International Commission
on Radiological Protection Publication No. 72, Ann. ICRP 26(1). P 072 errata in SG 03
JAICRP 32 (1-2).
ICRP, 2006. The Optimisation of Radiological Protection – Broadening the Process,
International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 101b, Ann. ICRP 36
(3)6.
ICRP. 2009. ICRP Statement on Radon and Lung Cancer Risk from Radon and Progeny, Draft
Report for Consultation,
http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP_Statement_on_Radon_AND_Lung_cancer_risk_from_ra
don_and_progeny%28for_consultation%29.pdf.
Kocher D.C., Apostoaei A.I., Hoffman F.O. 2005. Radiation effectiveness factors for use in
calculating probability of causation of radiogenic cancers. Health Phys 89(1): 3-32.
Linkov I., Burmistrov D. 2001. Reconstruction of doses from radionuclide inhalation for nuclear
power plant worker using air concentration measurements and associated uncertainties.
Health Phys 81(1): 70-75.
MSUE (Michigan State University Extension). 2011. Agricultural Water Use Reporting.
Michigan State University Extension. Available at
web1.msue.msu.edu/waterqual/WQWEB/Beef.doc.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 47
National Research Council 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radia-
tion, BEIR VII Phase II, National Academies Press, Washington DC.
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 1996. A Guide for
Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and Risk Assessments Related to Environmental
Contamination. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
Commentary No. 14, Bethesda, MD.
NCRP 1996, A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and Risk Assessments Related to Envi-
ronmental Contamination, NCRP Commentary No. 14, National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements, Bethesda MD.
NCRP 1998, Evaluating the Reliability of Biokinetic and Dosimetric Models and Parameters
used to Assess Individual Doses for Risk Assessment Purposes, NCRP Commentary
No. 15, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda MD.
NCRP 2007, Uncertainties in the Measurement and Dosimetry of External Radiation, NCRP
Report No. 158, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda
MD.
NCRP 2009, Uncertainties in Internal Radiation Dose Assessment, NCRP Report No. 164, Na-
tional Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda MD.
NCRP 2012, Uncertainties in the Estimation of Radiation Risks and Probability of Disease Cau-
sation, NCRP Report No. 171, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments, Bethesda MD.
NRC (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1993. Final Environmental Impact
Statement to Construct and Operate a Facility to Receive, Store, and Dispose of 11e.(2)
Byproduct Material Near Clive, Utah, NUREG 1476, US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2000. A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facilities, NUREG 1573, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Puncher, M. and J.D. Harrison 2012, Assessing the Reliability of Dose Coefficients for Ingestion
and Inhalation of Radionuclides by Members of the Public, Health Protection Agency,
Center for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot, Oxford-
shire OX11 0RQ, HPA-CRCE-048, ISBN 978-0-85951-741-6.
Puncher, M. and J.D. Harrison 2013, Assessing the Reliability of Dose Coefficients for Inhaled
and Ingested Radionuclides. Journal of Radiological Protection 32:223-241.
Scott B.R. 2008. It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm- one that
acknowledges hormesis. Dose-Response 6:333-351.
Staven L.H., Napier B.A., Rhoads K., Strenge DL. 2003. A Compendium of Transfer Factors for
Agricultural and Animal Products, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland
WA.
Tuli J. K., 2005. Nuclear Wallet Cards, 7th Edition, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
NY.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 48
UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources) 2009. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management
Plan., Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City UT.
USFS (United States Forest Service), 2005. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United
States, Regions, and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation
and the Environment. June, 2005. US Forest Service, University of Georgia; Athens GA.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) 2006. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: Utah. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US
Department of Commerce, and US Census Bureau; Washington, DC.
Utah, State of, 2015. Utah Administrative Code Rule R313-25. License Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste - General Provisions. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-025.htm, accessed 5 Nov 2015).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 49
Appendix I: Discussion of Derivations of
Selected Parameter Distributions
Distribution development utilized data where available, and exercised professional judgment
where it was not available. For the parameter distributions discussed below, unless specified
otherwise, the approach followed the Probability Distribution Development white paper
(Appendix 14).
Age: Based upon the observed age quantile breakdown reported in USFS (2005) for recreational
receptors, ignoring the age groups outside of the defined adult age range 16-60. For simplicity,
and because age data specific to ranchers in the vicinity of Clive were unavailable, the same age
distribution was also used for rancher receptors. The age range corresponds to bins used to
aggregate ventilation rate data by EPA (2009b).
Gender: Based upon the observed percentage in USFS (2005).
Body Weight: EPA (2009a) reports body weights as quantiles, broken down by various age and
gender categories. Mean body weight changes gradually with age, and is significantly different
between genders. A lognormal distribution was fit for each gender separately, with the log of the
geometric mean was fit as a constant, a linear function of age, and a quadratic function of age,
using the quantile likelihood fitting described in the Probability Distribution Development white
paper (Appendix 14). The quadratic model produced the best fit, capturing the mean decrease in
the population for the oldest age group:
𝜇=𝛽!+𝛽!Age +𝛽!Age! (21)
where 𝑒!is the geometric mean.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 50

Figure 1. Geometric mean of body weight as a function of age.

Figure 2. Examples of distributions for body weight.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 51
Ventilation Rate: EPA (2009a) reports inhalation rates as quantiles, broken down by various
activity, age, and gender categories. The data are reported as both weight-adjusted and non-
weight-adjusted inhalation rates. In order to incorporate correlation in inhalation rates between
activity categories, the weight-adjusted data are utilized. That is, a weight-adjusted inhalation
rate will be simulated for each activity level, and then the single simulated body weight for the
individual is multiplied by the weight-adjusted inhalation rates to obtain the inhalation rates:
𝑉!,!=𝑉!,!
(!")⋅𝐵𝑊 (22)
where 𝑉!,!is inhalation rate for activity level i in m3/min, 𝑉!,!"is body-weight adjusted
inhalation rate for activity level i in m3/kg-min, and 𝐵𝑊is body weight in kg. This approach to
constructing inhalation rate is similar to the approach taken in EPA (2009b). Inhalation rate is
significantly different between genders, and mean ventilation rate changes gradually with age. A
lognormal distribution was fit for each gender separately. The log of the geometric mean was fit
as a constant, a linear function of age, and a quadratic function of age; using the quantile
likelihood fitting described in the Probability Distribution Development for the Clive PA white
paper (Appendix 14). None of these models adequately characterized the data, as the 16-20 age
group is significantly different from the 21-30 age group. As such, the 16-20 age group was fit
separately from the remaining data, and a linear fit was adequate for the remaining age ranges.

Figure 3. Geometric means for ventilation rate, as a function of age and gender.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 52

Figure 4. Examples of ventilation rate distributions for different activities (20-year-old
male).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 53
Soil Ingestion Rate: EPA (2009a) reports soil ingestion for adults only as a mean, median, and
standard deviation. The distribution derived here is based upon the only careful study of adult
ingestion that has been conducted to date (Davis and Mirick 2006), identified as a key study in
EPA (2009a). Three tracer elements (aluminum, silicon, and titanium) used in Davis and Mirick
(2006) provide different bases for quantifying soil ingestion rate. The data distribution is
significantly different for the three tracer elements. Thus, rather than combine data across the
three tracers, a separate distribution of soil ingestion is established for each tracer. Because there
was no significant difference between genders, males and females were combined. Given the
significant skew in the data (means much larger than the medians), a lognormal model was fit to
the combined data based using maximum likelihood estimates.

Figure 5. Distributions for soil ingestion, representing different tracers.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 54
Ingestion Rates, Home-produced Meat (beef): EPA (2009a) reports quantiles of the body-weight-
adjusted average intake per day of home-produced meat, broken down by age and type of meat.
The age groups given do not correspond perfectly to the range of ages considered in this PA
model. Thus, the 20-39 age group was used to represent the 16-39 age group, and the 40-69 age
group was used to represent the 40-60 age group. The distributions were significantly different
for the two age groups, so they were fit separately. The lognormal distribution provided a good
fit to the center of the data, but had poor tail behavior in each case. Thus, a gamma distribution
was chosen instead, which provided a better overall fit.

Figure 6. Distributions for home-produced meat ingestion rates.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 55
Activity-Based Exposure Time: EPA (2009a) document reports average time per day spent at
different levels of activity as quantiles for adults, broken down by age and gender. The quantiles
are reported independently for each activity level, and thus no information regarding the
correlation between the times is available. Correlation must exist, as an individual's daily
averages must exist on the simplex that sums to 24 hours. Dirichlet distributions are the only
standard statistical model that provides a distribution on a simplex. However, Dirichlet
distributions could not achieve the long tails observed in the distributions for the more active
levels. In order to achieve the tail behavior, the following approach was used. A lognormal
model was fitted for combined sleeping and sedentary time (constrained to be no more than 24
hours). Sleeping time alone was also fitted as a lognormal model and constrained to be smaller
than combined sleeping and sedentary time. Remaining average time per day was then
partitioned into light, medium, and heavy activities. A lognormal distribution was fit to each, but
for simulation purposes, the three values are simulated and then normalized to sum to time per
day remaining. The resulting distribution induces moderate negative correlation amongst the
time spent in each activity level; the greatest negative correlation existing between light and
medium activity durations. The tail behavior of medium and heavy activity durations is reduced
from that observed in the data (i.e., the upper percentiles are slightly lower than observed).
However, without the detailed correlation structure of the data, a simple model is unlikely to
both meet the constraints of the simplex and match the tail behavior.

Figure 7. Example distributions for sedentary plus sleeping time/day and sleeping time/day
(30-year-old female).
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 56

Figure 8. Distributions for light, medium, and heavy activity time/day (30-year-old female).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 57
Numbers of Individuals in Vicinity of Site – Personal communication with BLM staff (Salt Lake
Field Office) provided 100 and 500 as bounds and 350 as a best guess. These might be
interpreted as 5th and 95th percentiles, along with a mean or median. However, due to the
informal nature of the conversation and a programming need to have a fixed upper bound on this
distribution, these will be treated as bounds, making a triangular distribution a reasonable
representation of the information.

Figure 9. Distribution for the total number of individuals at the site during a given year.

Receptor Type – The individuals in the vicinity of the site are partitioned into Ranchers, Hunters,
and Sport OHVers. The distribution for the number of Ranchers was based upon professional
judgment and the size of leases, and is independent of the total number of individuals within
vicinity of the site. The remaining individuals are then partitioned into Hunters and Sport
OHVers by utilizing a binomial distribution with the proportion of hunters equal to 0.25, the
value reported from the large survey in USFS (2005).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 58
Sport OHVer Day-Trip Time in Area – The only reported value from the Sport OHVer survey
was a mean of 6.3 hr/day. The standard deviation is not reported, so professional judgment was
used to choose a standard deviation.

Figure 10. Distribution for the average day-trip time.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 59
OHV Dust Loading – Summary data from EPA (2008) are available both for ambient conditions
(CCMA) and near ATV riders. Means are given, and standard errors for the mean can be
approximated from the upper confidence limit (UCL) values, by assuming a t-UCL. The standard
errors are high relative to the mean, so each of these distributions was treated as lognormal.
These two distributions were then simulated and a ratio taken, to obtain a distribution on the
ratio. The resulting distribution is also approximately lognormal. Figure 11 shows the simulated
values, along with the fitted distribution.

Figure 11. Distribution for dust loading (overlaid on a histogram of simulated values).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 60
Rancher Exposure Frequency – Grazing leases are granted for 180 days each year, giving a natural upper
bound for the distribution. There is little other information available to develop a distribution, so
professional judgment was used, and a distribution was chosen that has most Ranchers spending a high
proportion of the allotted 180 days on site, but allows for Ranchers that spend weekends off-site, do not
utilize their full lease, etc.

Figure 12. Distribution for Rancher exposure frequency.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 61
Sport OHVer Exposure Frequency – The USFS (2005) document reports a confidence interval for the
mean exposure frequency, which can be used to calculate the standard deviation of the exposure
frequency. Because the standard deviation is larger than the mean, a lognormal model was used to match
the observed mean and standard deviation from the survey data.

Figure 13. Distribution for Sport OHVer exposure frequency.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 62
Hunter Exposure Frequency – The USFWS (2006) provides a mean estimate of 10 d/yr, but does not
provide any other summary information. It may be reasonable to assume that this distribution has a
similar shape as the exposure frequency for Sport OHVers; i.e., a right-skewed distribution that has most
of the population spending a relatively small amount of time, with a few individuals who dedicate a great
deal of time to the activity. Thus, a lognormal distribution was chosen with a mean of 10 d/yr, and a
geometric standard deviation that matches the Sport OHVer geometric standard deviation.

Figure 14. Distribution for Hunter exposure frequency.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 63
Rest Area Caretaker Exposure Frequency – The distribution for this parameter was based on professional
judgment. The maximum was conservatively set to the maximum possible exposure of 365 days per year.
The mode is set to the EPA default exposure value of 350 days per year, and the minimum allows for 28
days of vacation plus 10 holidays for which the caretaker would be off-site.

Figure 15. Distribution for rest area caretaker exposure frequency.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 64
Meat Loss – EPA (1997b) provides information on the amount of meat lost in preparation and in post-
cooking. An average and a standard deviation are reported for the mean loss. As the distribution of
interest represents uncertainty about the mean, the average and standard deviation were used for a normal
distribution.

Figure 16. Distributions for meat loss (preparation and post-cooking).

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 65
Cattle Range Acreage – There are only four data points available (the four leases in the Clive
area), but because the distribution of the mean acreage is desired, the mean and standard error of
the mean are used to define a normal distribution.

Figure 17. Distribution for the average cattle range acreage.

Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 66
Miscellaneous Uniform Distributions – For many of the parameters, little information is available that is
specific to the Clive facility site. A default distribution in such a case was a uniform distribution over a
range of theoretical values, or from the minimum and maximum values found in literature. The uniform
distribution is generally a poor representation of uncertainty but has the advantage of spreading its mass
across a range of possible values. These uniform distributions are used as defaults until a sensitivity
analysis can be performed to demonstrate whether further data collection is needed to construct a better
representation of uncertainty.
REF Distributions - Kocher (2005) utilized lognormal distributions to represent the uncertainty in REF
parameters. Thus, lognormal distributions were fit to the reported 2.5th, 50th, and 97.5th percentiles of
these distributions.

Figure 18. Distribution for alpha particle REF.
Dose Assessment for the Clive DU PA
6 November 2015 67

Figure 19. Distribution for electron and photon REFs.

Uranium oral reference dose – EPA has two published values for this value: EPA (2011) and EPA
(2000). These two sources are considered equally viable, so each is selected with 50% probability.

NAC-0028_R2

Decision Analysis Methodology
for Assessing ALARA Collective
Radiation Doses and Risks

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
6 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation
Doses and Risks
2. Filename: Decision Analysis v1.4.docx
3. Description: This White Paper describes the details of the Clive DU PA model ALARA
analysis, which is based on population dose.

Name Date
4. Originator Robert Lee 31 October 2015
5. Reviewer Paul Black 6 November 2015
6. Remarks
Original v1.0 in May 2010

Subsequent v1.2 in May 2014

Revisions made for v1.4 included changing the dollar cost per person rem per updated NRC
guidance.

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 iii
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 ALARA .................................................................................................................................. 3
3.0 Development of Current ALARA Cost per Person-Rem Estimates ...................................... 4
3.1 History .............................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Estimating Value of a Statistical Life ............................................................................... 7
3.3 Risk Coefficient Estimates ............................................................................................... 8
3.4 Current NRC Recommendations .................................................................................... 10
3.5 Approach for the Clive ALARA Analysis ..................................................................... 11
4.0 Decision Analysis ................................................................................................................. 11
5.0 Scope of ALARA Decision Analysis for the Clive Depleted Uranium Performance
Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 15

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 iv

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 1
1.0 Introduction
The safe storage and disposal of depleted uranium (DU) waste is essential for mitigating releases
of radioactive materials and reducing exposures to humans and the environment. Currently, a
radioactive waste facility located in Clive, Utah (the “Clive facility”) operated by the company
EnergySolutions Inc. is being considered to receive and store DU waste that has been declared
surplus from radiological facilities across the nation. The Clive facility has been tasked with
disposing of the DU waste in a manner that protects humans from future radiological releases.
To assess whether the proposed Clive facility location and containment technologies are suitable
for protection of human health, specific performance objectives for land disposal of radioactive
waste set forth in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Rule R313-25-9 and Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 (10 CFR 61) Subpart C, promulgated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), must be met. In order to support the required radiological
performance assessment (PA), a detailed computer model has been developed to evaluate the
doses to human receptors that would result from the disposal of DU and associated radioactive
compounds (collectively termed “DU waste”), and conversely to determine how much DU waste
can be safely disposed at the Clive facility.
The Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) white paper Dose Assessment (Appendix 11) details
the methods for estimating radiation doses to future human receptors associated with DU waste
and its decay products. Both the NRC and UAC Rule R313-25-9 specify clear performance goals
of 25 mrem/yr for individual members of the public (MOP) and 500 mrem/yr for inadvertent
human intruders (IHI) within a 10,000-year compliance period. These goals are the result of a
complex balance of risk and feasibility, and are not specifically addressed here because they are
(at present and in a practical sense) inflexible and non-negotiable.
However, the CFR (Section 61.42) and UAC Rule R313-25-9 also define a second decision rule
that pertains to populations as well as individuals. The CFR regulation states "reasonable effort
should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as
low as is reasonably achievable" (or ALARA). Ionizing radiation protection limits have been
utilized since the 1920s, but the concept of keeping radiation doses as low as practicable or
achievable was an outgrowth of worker safety in the nuclear weapons development industry
(Hendee and Edwards, 1987).
The ALARA process is described in DOE regulations and associated guidance documents such
as 10 CFR Part 834 and DOE 5400.5 ALARA (10 CFR 834; DOE 1993, 1997), in NRC
regulations (10 CFR 20.1003, 10 CFR 61.42), and in other NRC documents (NRC, 1995, 2000a,
2015). The definitions in each case are very similar; indicating that exposures should be
controlled so that releases of radioactive material to the environment are as low as is reasonable
taking into account social, technical, economic, practical, and public policy considerations. It is
also noted that ALARA is not a dose limit, but rather a process, which has the objective of
attaining doses as far below the applicable limit of this part as is reasonably achievable.
The ALARA concept was first described in publication in ICRP (1973), following similar
concepts that date back to ICRP publications at least as early as 1959 (ICRP, 1959). Updates
have been provided by the ICRP in 1977 (ICRP, 1977), and more recently in 2006 (ICRP, 2006).
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 2
In this latest report, the ICRP focuses more on expanding the optimization process. This includes
evaluating different relatively homogeneous population groups, stakeholder involvement in
addressing receptor scenarios, site-specific evaluation of exposure, intergenerational equity, and
many other aspects. The ICRP report provides a comprehensive list of factors that should be
considered for optimization. However, the ICRP stops short of describing a methodology for
implementation, even suggesting that full quantification of all relevant factors is not possible.
However, with modern decision analysis methods this need not be the case (e.g., Keeney, 1992;
Gregory et al., 2012). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 1992) also provides a road
map for applying a decision analysis approach to policy analysis that could be adapted to PA.
Another obstacle that is recognized in ICRP (2006), is that lack of regulatory support for such an
approach. However, the ALARA principle exists in both DOE and NRC regulations and
guidance, decision analysis methods exist to implement the intended optimization, and there
appears to be some traction now with both DOE and NRC regarding decision analysis methods
for optimization, or ALARA.
In terms of the ALARA analysis performed for the Clive DU PA, it does not achieve all that the
ICRP calls for. This is primarily because the regulatory support for doing so does not clearly
exist. However, as ICRP has made clear, this is an approach that will help focus decision-making
on finding optimal solutions. To implement this approach to ALARA a paradigm shift is needed
in the industry, starting with the regulators, so that the focus is on optimal use of the US’s limited
disposal resources as opposed to somewhat arbitrary compliance decisions. ICRP (2006)
recognizes this same need. For the current PA the approach has included evaluation of specific
relatively homogeneous receptor groups, and has included a metric for evaluating potential costs
for the simulated doses. It has not engaged many of the other recommendations of the ICRP.
The words "reasonably" and "achievable" in ALARA are not precise. The two words imply some
degree of consideration of tradeoffs, but no clear definition is published. Assuming that there are
trade-offs, then this implies that an analysis should be performed that explicitly evaluates the
trade-offs and how different disposal options, designs, or sites may differentially satisfy the
objectives and resource constraints (e.g., a decision or economic analysis). Yet, at present, there
is limited specific guidance on how to apply ALARA principles to the PA process.
The ALARA concept can be thought of as a cost-benefit trade-off that requires an evaluation of
human health risk and the costs of achieving those risks. In the context of the Clive DU PA,
calculations that would be needed to support a more complete ALARA analysis are performed
for collective doses germane to the receptor populations described in Dose Assessment (Appendix
11). That is the costs of the population doses are calculated based on the modeled doses and the
cost per person rem specified in the relevant NRC and DOE guidance.
The remainder of this discussion will focus upon the concepts of population dose/risk and
ALARA, and how these can be integrated into a Bayesian decision analysis (DA) for application
to the Clive facility.

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 3
2.0 ALARA
The ALARA concept, as germane to radiation protection for both individual and population
(collective) levels, was described as follows by the ICRP in 1977 (ICRP, 1977):
"Most decisions about human activities are based on an implicit form of balancing of
costs and benefits leading to the conclusion that the conduct of a chosen practice is
'worthwhile.' Less generally, it is also recognized that the conduct of the chosen practice
should be adjusted to maximize the benefit to the individual or to society. In radiation
protection, it is becoming possible to formalize these broad decision-making procedures."
The ICRP (1977) basically recommended a system of radiation protection that included the
following principles:
 No practice shall be adopted unless its introduction produces a positive net benefit –
justification of the practice.
 All exposures shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors
being taken into account – optimization of radiation protection.
 The dose equivalent to individuals shall not exceed the limits recommended for the
appropriate circumstances by the Commission – the limits of individual dose assessment.
In other words, ICRP defined radiation protection in the context of decision analysis, at least in
terms of the first two principles, considering health, economic, and social objectives; and invoked
the concept of net benefit. The third principle can, instead, be interpreted as a compliance
objective, so that the decision analysis can only be performed for decision options that first
comply with regulatory performance objectives.
The ALARA process is also described in DOE regulations and associated guidance documents
such as 10 CFR Part 834 and DOE 5400.5 ALARA (10 CFR 834; DOE 1993, 1997), and in
various NRC documents such as NRC, 1995, 2000a, and 2015. The definitions in each case are
very similar; indicating that exposures should be controlled so that releases of radioactive
material to the environment are as low as is reasonable taking into account social, technical,
economic, practical, and public policy considerations. 10 CFR 834 further describes the ALARA
process as a “logical procedure for evaluating alternative operations, processes, and other
measures, for reducing exposures to radiation and emissions of radioactive material into the
environment, taking into account societal, environmental, technological, economic, practical and
public policy considerations to make a judgment concerning the optimum level of public health
protection”. Although 10 CFR 834 is not aimed specifically at disposal of radioactive waste, the
basic goals are protection of the public from DOE activities, of which radioactive waste disposal
is one such activity.
NRC also provides guidance on application of the principle of ALARA. For example, although
the context is different, 10 CFR Part 20 provides guidance that suggests – “Reasonably
achievable” is judged by considering the state of technology and the economics of improvements
in relation to all the benefits from these improvements (NRC, 2008). NRC also notes that “...a
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 4
comprehensive consideration of risks and benefits will include risks from non-radiological
hazards”.
The overall implication of the various Agency regulations and guidance documents regarding
ALARA is that many factors should be taken into account when considering the potential
benefits of different options for disposal of radioactive waste. In order to implement ALARA in a
logical system, and so that economic factors are taken into consideration, a decision analysis is
implied. Decision analysis is the appropriate mechanism for evaluating and optimizing disposal,
closure and long term monitoring and maintenance of a radioactive waste disposal system.
Decision options for disposal at Clive might include engineering options and waste placement.
More generally, if decision analysis is applied, then a much wider range of options can be
factored into the decision model, such as transportation of waste, risk to workers, and effect on
the environment. However, for the Clive DU PA, the focus is on understanding the dose-based
costs associated with different options for waste disposal within the current proposed
configuration of the Federal DU Cell.
3.0 Development of Current ALARA Cost per Person-Rem
Estimates
3.1 History
The decision analysis context for radioactive waste disposal is essentially a benefit-cost analysis,
within which the dose costs associated with different options for the placement of waste are
ideally evaluated. In practice, for each option the PA model predicts doses to the array of
receptors, and the consequences of those doses are assessed as part of an overall cost model,
which also includes the costs of disposal of waste for each option. The goal is to find the best
option, which is the option that provides the greatest overall benefit.
The concept of assigning a monetary value to radiation dose in regulatory decision-making arose
in 1974 during a hearing for a rulemaking addressing routine effluent releases from nuclear
power reactors. The subsequent rule was Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” Appendix I, “Numerical
Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation To Meet the Criterion ‘As
Low As Is Reasonably Achievable’ for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear
Power Reactor Effluents.” In adopting design criteria for limiting routine effluent releases from
power plants, NRC promoted the use of a cost-benefit test (NRC, 1975a):
“Such a cost-benefit analysis requires that both the costs and the benefits from the
reduction in dose levels to the population be expressed in commensurate units, and it
seems sound that these units be units of money. Accordingly, to accomplish the cost-
benefit balancing, it is necessary that the worth of a decrease of a person-rem be assigned
monetary values.”
NRC stated that “the record, in our view, does not provide an adequate basis to choose a specific
dollar value for the worth of decreasing the population dose by a man-rem.” Published studies
that were reviewed provided values ranging from $10 to $980 per person-rem. NRC concluded
that “there is no consensus in this record or otherwise regarding the proper value for the worth of
a man-rem,” and “we also recognize that selection of such values is difficult since it involves, in
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 5
addition to actuarial considerations that are commonly reduced to financial terms, aesthetic,
moral, and human values that are difficult to quantify” (NRC, 1975a). The final outcome was a
decision to adopt the value of $1,000 per person-rem as an interim measure (NRC, 1975a).
Two executive orders (EO) issued in 1977 (EO 11821 and EO 11949) encouraged Federal
agencies to perform value-impact (now called cost-benefit or benefit-cost) evaluations of
proposed regulatory requirements to demonstrate adequate justification for new requirements.
The NRC adopted this type of evaluation and issued their “Value-Impact Analysis Guidelines”
(NRC, 1977). This document referred to the techniques and detailed consequence analyses used
in the “Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear
Power Plants (WASH-1400),” and recommended that the person-rem avoided as a result of
proposed changes should be multiplied by $1,000 per person-rem in order to place the benefit in
the same units as the costs (NRC, 1975b). Also in 1977, Congress added Section 210 to the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, directing the NRC to develop a plan for the identification
and analysis of unresolved safety issues relating to nuclear reactors. In response, the NRC
developed a program for the prioritization and resolution of unresolved safety issues and generic
issues. In 1982, the NRC issued guidance relating to the assignment of priorities with the
publication of “A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues,” NUREG-0933 (NRC, 1982). NUREG-
0933 used $1,000 per person-rem value in setting the priority of unresolved safety issues and
more generic issues. Issues identified as high priority were then subject to resolution employing a
more detailed cost-benefit analysis that also applied the $1,000 per person-rem value.
In February 1981, EO 12291 was issued, which directed executive agencies to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis for all major rules and stated that regulatory actions should be based
on adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of any proposed actions. EO
12291 directed that actions were not to be undertaken unless they resulted in a net positive
benefit to society. As an independent agency, the NRC was not required to comply with EO
12291. NRC, however, noted that its established regulatory review procedures included an
evaluation of proposed and existing rules in a manner consistent with the regulatory impact
analysis provisions of EO 12291. NRC determined that clarifying and formalizing the existing
NRC cost-benefit procedures for the analysis of regulatory actions would advance the purposes of
regulatory decision-making.
In January 1983, the NRC published NUREG/BR-0058, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission”, followed in December 1983 by publication of
NUREG/CR-3568, “A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment” (NRC, 1983a and 1983b,
respectively). These documents were issued to formalize NRC’s policies and procedures for
analyzing the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory actions. The $1,000 per person-rem figure
was not mentioned in the first revision of the Guidelines issued in May 1984, however,
NUREG/CR-3568 recommended that a range of values should be used, one of which should be
the $1,000 per person-rem value. As NUREG/CR-3568 provides implementation guidance for
performing regulatory analyses, it became standard practice of the NRC staff to apply this
guidance whenever a quantitative regulatory analysis or cost-benefit analysis was performed.
In 1983, NRC issued an interim Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear
Power Plants for use during a two-year trial period (NRC, 1983c). In this statement, NRC
adopted qualitative and quantitative design goals for limiting individual and societal risks from
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 6
severe accidents. Also in this policy statement, NRC stated the benefit of an incremental
reduction of societal mortality risks should be compared with the associated costs on the basis of
$1,000 per person-rem averted as one consideration in decisions on safety improvements. The
value proposed was in 1983 dollars and was to be modified to reflect general inflation in the
future. As a result of comments on this interim policy statement, the $1,000 per person-rem value
was deleted in the Final Policy Statement on Safety Goals when published in August 1986 (NRC,
1986).
In 1985, the NRC staff revisited the $1,000 per person-rem valuation and its use in regulatory
analyses of nuclear power plant improvements designed to enhance safety. Although the
monetary value of averted person-rem of radiation exposure up to that time referred only to
averted health effects (such as averted latent cancer fatalities), the use of $1,000 per person-rem
was evaluated and defined at that time as a surrogate for all averted offsite losses, such as health
and property. The basis for this determination is documented in a memorandum from the NRC
Executive Director for Operations dated October 23, 1985 (NRC, 1985).
In 1995, the NRC revisited the $1,000 per person-rem value again and issued “Reassessment of
NRC’s Dollar per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy,” NUREG-1530 (NRC, 1995a). This
report updated the dollar per person-rem conversion factor to $2,000 per person-rem. The $2,000
per person-rem conversion factor served only as a dollar proxy for the health effects associated
with a person-rem of dose. Offsite property damage costs were no longer included within the
$2,000 per person-rem value. Separate estimates of the offsite costs were now necessary to
account for impacts beyond human health impacts. The dollar per person-rem estimate was
derived from a value of a statistical life (VSL; see below) of $3 million in 1995 dollars,
multiplied by a risk coefficient for stochastic health effects (see below) of 7.3 x 10-4 per person-
rem rounded to the nearest thousand. The VSL amount was derived using a willingness-to-pay
(WTP) method that reflected median values estimated in numerous studies. This process was
similar to the approaches used by other Federal agencies responsible for public health and safety
(NRC, 1995a). The risk coefficient for stochastic health effects as a result of radiation exposure
was taken from the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication No. 60
(ICRP, 1991). This risk coefficient includes both mortality (e.g., fatal cancers) and morbidity
(e.g., nonfatal cancers and hereditary effects).
In July 2000, the NRC issued revision 3 to the “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (NRC, 2000b), and in September 2004, the NRC issued
revision 4 (NRC, 2004). This revision reflects economic evaluation guidance provided in Office
of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-4, published in September 2003 (OMB, 2003).
In 2010, as discussed in “Consideration of Economic Consequences within the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s Regulatory Framework,” NRC staff recommended updating numerous
guidance documents, including NUREG-1530 (NRC, 2012). This was approved in 2013. NRC
has routinely used the $2,000 per person-rem value from the original revision of NUREG-1530
and, on a case-by-case basis, used other dollar per person-rem values to understand the sensitivity
of this parameter on the resulting cost and benefit estimates.
Application of discount rates, which assume that present individuals and populations assign less
“worth” to future benefits, risks, and costs, has been inconsistent and controversial in radioactive
waste regulation. Typically, economists apply discount rates for short-term decisions, as there is
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 7
ample experimental evidence to support this. However, discounting for the extreme time horizons
associated with radioactive waste disposal has not been fully evaluated. If even small (e.g., 3%,
which is a typical lower bound currently employed by OMB in their economic analyses) discount
rates are applied to the problem of radioactive waste disposal, the “value” of future lives reduces
to essentially zero in a few hundred years. It is unclear, without conducting extensive surveys and
research, whether stakeholders truly believe that peoples’ lives a few hundred years from now are
essentially worthless. NRC, in its latest (2015) guidance, does not mention discount rates, likely
because application of such would be highly controversial. The assumption made for the Clive
DU PA model is that the discount rate is zero, thus assigning as much worth to future populations
as to the present population. This is likely a highly conservative assumption.
3.2 Estimating Value of a Statistical Life
The dollar per person-rem conversion factor for health effects is calculated as the product of the
value of a statistical life (VSL) and the risk coefficient for stochastic radiation effects.
The VSL (and therefore the associated dollar per person-rem conversion factor) corresponds to
society’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for small reductions in a particular mortality risk. VSL is not
a measurement or valuation of a human life. OMB Circular A-4 states (OMB, 2003):
“Some describe the monetized value of small changes in fatality risk as the “value of
statistical life” (VSL) or, less precisely, the “value of a life.” The latter phrase can be misleading because it suggests erroneously that the monetization exercise tries to place a
“value” on individual lives. You should make clear that these terms refer to the
measurement of willingness to pay for reductions in only small risks of premature death.
They have no application to an identifiable individual or to very large reductions in
individual risks. They do not suggest that any individual’s life can be expressed in monetary terms. Their sole purpose is to help describe better the likely benefits of a regulatory action.
Confusion about the term “statistical life” is also widespread. This term refers to the sum of
risk reductions expected in a population. For example, if the annual risk of death is reduced
by one in a million for each of two million people, that is said to represent two “statistical
lives” extended per year (2 million people x 1/1,000,000 = 2). If the annual risk of death is reduced by one in 10 million for each of 20 million people, that also represents two
statistical lives extended.”
VSL is estimated using revealed- or stated-preference methods, or meta-analysis. These methods
can include statistical analysis of markets, wage statistics, surveys, and the like. NRC (2015)
provides further explanation. NRC chose to align its current VSL recommendations with those of
other Federal agencies. NRC’s current best estimate of $9.0 million is derived from the average
of the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) estimate of $9.3 million and the US
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) estimate of $8.7 million (in 2014 dollars). For the
purpose of sensitivity analysis, NRC adopted low and high median VSLs from other agencies
that have published ranges, per below:
Agency Low High
DOT $5.3 million $13.2 million
DHS $6.8 million $10.8 million
OMB $1.3 million $13.3 million
Median $5.3 million $13.2 million

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 8
3.3 Risk Coefficient Estimates
For the purposes of the Clive DU PA model, although regulatory agencies have adopted and
applied clear dose limits for individuals, evaluation of ALARA is restricted to collective doses
and risks. This is appropriate in the context of design and siting of radioactive waste facilities; as
it is likely, if any substantial future risks occur, that health concerns will be at a population level.
Further, it is assumed that facility workers will be protected under existing health and safety
regulations and guidance, and not evaluated as part of ALARA. In a complete decision analysis,
however, many other factors could be considered, including health and safety of workers,
transportation, etc.
Applying formal decision analysis to ALARA implies evaluation of the trade-off between risk
reduction and the costs associated with the actions that can be taken to reduce risk and the
benefits of the risk reduction. Risk in a PA is assessed through radiation dose.
Ionizing radiation protection limits have changed over time as more information regarding the
negative biological effects of radiation has become available (especially after World War II).
Concurrently, therapeutic and diagnostic (i.e., beneficial) uses of radiation have increased
dramatically, and nuclear fission is an important source of power in most of the developed world.
Thus, a tradeoff is immediately apparent; radiation can be both harmful and helpful, with the
balance depending upon the dose and the context.
An additional consideration are the biological endpoints of concern. Radiation in high doses kills
cells (so-called 'deterministic' effects), which can be harmful or beneficial to the receptor of the
doses (e.g., in the latter case, radiation is used to kill cancer cells). The effects of low doses of
radiation are more uncertain. There is ample evidence that ionizing radiation can damage DNA
and enhance cell proliferation in doses below those that kill cells, and thus can potentially cause
cancer (so-called 'stochastic' effects).
However, it is uncertain at what low doses carcinogenicity becomes a concern (also, note that
different tissues have different susceptibility to the effects of ionizing radiation). For many years,
there has been a presumption in radiation protection, based upon statistical analysis of animal and
human data, that ionizing radiation has a linear dose-response curve at low doses and that there
essentially is no threshold of effect; i.e. any dose of radiation can result in an increased
probability of cancer (this is termed the linear no-threshold, or LNT, hypothesis). This is not
borne out by experimental and clinical observation. Additionally, the fact that radiation is
associated with a large number of natural sources, ranging from sunlight to radon, and the fact
that multiple highly-efficient molecular and cellular defense and repair mechanisms exist, must
be considered (Scott 2008). Regardless, this LNT hypothesis is the basis for most regulatory
standards today. Consequently, if a PA uses the LNT approach to develop dose estimates, then
the ALARA analysis essentially assumes no carcinogenic threshold of radiation carcinogenesis.
A threshold of dose effect model is, arguably, more realistic than the LNT model, and could be
used to estimate dose and in the ensuing ALARA analysis. If ALARA is applied in the case of a
threshold or “target” concentration, then the threshold would be treated as a limit on the amount
of risk reduction that can be achieved by a particular management alternative. Proper evaluation
of uncertainty associated with the LNT hypothesis would be a large task in itself, but the
influence of a LNT assumption could still be evaluated within the decision analysis framework.
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 9
A different sort of threshold exists with regard to natural background levels of radiation. The
doses that the public receives from all environmental sources (e.g., local geology, extraterrestrial,
etc.) can be quite variable. For example, people who live at a location in the US with high levels
of uranium compounds in the local soil and rocks may have a much higher level of annual
exposure (due to radon) than people who live at sea level with little uranium compound content
of the soil and rocks (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html). Similarly, individuals who
reside at higher elevations are exposed to higher levels of cosmic radiation that individuals
residing at sea level. From an ALARA perspective, it might be reasonable to consider that the
incremental population dose is of interest as well as the magnitude of the incremental dose
relative to dose from natural background radiation.
Uranium and many other metals are also associated with non-radiological toxicity; e.g. kidney or
liver damage. In such cases, toxicology has developed concepts such as the reference dose and
benchmark dose to account for the clear thresholds of effect that are associated with non-
carcinogenic toxicity (Filipsson et al., 2003). In these cases the threshold can be viewed as a
target, below which health effects are not of substantial concern.
For the purposes of ALARA, it is assumed that the LNT hypothesis is valid, despite the likely
conservatism of doing so. For NRC’s radiation risk coefficient, NRC’s previous dollar per
person-rem conversion factor was based upon the recommendations in the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60, published in 1991 (ICRP, 1991).
For doses to a population, the ICRP recommendation is a risk coefficient value of 7.3 x 10-4 per
rem. This coefficient accounts for the probability of occurrence of a harmful health effect plus a
judgment of the severity of the effect. The coefficient includes allowances for fatal and nonfatal
cancers and for severe hereditary effects. The nonfatal cancers and hereditary effects are
translated into loss-of-life measures based upon an assumed relationship between quality of life
and loss of life. Thus, the VSL is theoretically applicable across all contributors to the total health
risk coefficient.
In the subsequent ICRP Publication Number 103, (ICRP, 2007), the ICRP total risk coefficient
decreased by about 20 percent, from 7.3 x 10-4 per rem to 5.7 x 10-4 per rem. ICRP states that this
change was due primarily to improved methods in the calculation of heritable risks, as well as
advances in understanding of the mutational process. Also, the ICRP calculated its values
differently in ICRP 103 compared to ICRP 60. ICRP 103 states:
“It is important to note that the detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficient for cancer
estimated here has been computed in a different manner from that of Publication 60. The
present estimate is based upon lethality/life-impairment-weighted data on cancer incidence
with adjustment for relative life lost, whereas in publication 60 detriment was based upon
fatal cancer risk weighted for non-fatal cancer, relative life lost for fatal cancers and life
impairment for non-fatal cancer. In this respect it is also notable that the detriment-
unadjusted nominal risk coefficient for fatal cancer in the whole population that may be
projected from the cancer incidence-based data of Table A.4.1a is around 4% per Sv [per
100 rem] as compared with the Publication 60 value of 5% per Sv [per 100 rem]. The
corresponding value using cancer mortality-based models is essentially unchanged at
around 5% per Sv [per 100 rem].”
As discussed above, WTP approaches are meant for application to small reductions in only
mortality risk. ICRP Publication No. 60 and ICRP Publication No. 103 combine both morbidity
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 10
and mortality into their risk coefficient numbers (ICRP, 1991, 2007). In contrast, EPA uses a
mortality-only risk coefficient with a value of 5.8 x 10-4 per rem (EPA, 2011). Using EPA’s value
would align the cancer risk coefficient with the underlying definition of WTP, and the value is
slightly greater than the ICRP risk coefficient. The US National Academies of Sciences estimated
the total risk for all classes of genetic diseases to be about 3,000-4,700 cases per million first-
generation progeny per gray of low dose rate low-LET radiation (NAS, 2006). This numerical
estimate (0.4 x 10-4 per rem) is defined relative to the “genetically significant dose” (i.e., the
combined dose received by both parents prior to conception). Thus, the EPA value may be
adjusted to account for heritable effects (i.e., adding 5.8 x 10-4 per rem and 0.4 x 10-4 per rem, to
result in 6.2 x 10-4 per rem). However, changing the risk coefficient from total detriment to a
mortality/heritable effects coefficient may still not adequately consider the full range of
consequences associated with public radiation exposure. This EPA adjusted factor (6.2 x 10-4 per
rem) may thus underestimate an appropriate risk coefficient because it is not weighted to include
cancer incidence data weighted for lethality and life impairment. Thus, by not accounting for
cancer morbidity, the benefits of a proposed action (e.g., medical costs averted, value of lost
production, etc.) may be underestimated by as much as another 20 percent.
NRC (2015) regardless chose to use the ICRP 103 value of 5.7 x 10-4 per rem for use in dollar per
person-rem estimates with the understanding this coefficient may underestimate US population
risk. The reason provided was consistency with their other regulatory programs. The final dollar
per person-rem estimate calculated using either the EPA or ICRP values is not substantially
different, due to the relatively large value of the VSL multiplier. Thus, as a practical matter in
estimation of dollars per person-rem, the ICRP and EPA values are similar.
3.4 Current NRC Recommendations
Per above, draft NRC (2015) guidance currently recommends use of a VSL of $9.0 million, and
the ICRP 103 risk coefficient of 5.7 x 10-4 per rem. The dollar conversion factor as a result of
multiplying these values is therefore equal to a rounded $5,100 in per person-rem in 2014 dollars.
NRC also recommends a low value of $3,000 per person-rem and $7,500 for a high value, based
upon variation in VSL estimates across agencies (NRC chose to use one risk coefficient for
unclear reasons, but perhaps because the risk coefficients would have to vary considerably in
order to make a difference in final estimates). NRC states that this value is to be used for “routine
effluent releases, accidental releases, 10 CFR Part 20 “as low as is reasonably achievable”
(ALARA) programs, regulatory analyses, backfit analyses, and environmental analyses”. NRC
suggests using the recommended best estimate of $5,100 per person-rem, and use of the low and
high estimates in sensitivity analysis.
NRC (2015) notes that the dollar per person-rem conversion factor is for stochastic effects only,
and is not to be applied to deterministic effects (e.g., organ failure as a result of high radiation
doses). It should also not be applied to any individual dose that could result in an early fatality.
These omissions are consistent with NRC's view that the monetizing of mortality effects as it
relates to the value of any single individual's life is not appropriate. Rather, the use of dollars per
person-rem is as an estimate of the value of small reductions in the probability of total detriment
for a given population.
DOE guidance (DOE, 1997) suggests that:
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 11
“In general, if the maximum individual dose is less than 1 mrem in a year and
collective dose is less than 100 person-rem in a year, only a qualitative or semi-
quantitative ALARA assessment can be justified. However, if individual doses are
significant, say 10s of mrem in a year, or collective dose exceeds 100 person-rem
in a year, quantitative ALARA analyses are recommended”.
As estimated collective doses from the Clive DU PA are much less than 100 person-rem per year.
Consequently, the semi-quantitative approach using the NRC (2015) value of $5,100 per person-
rem is applied here.
3.5 Approach for the Clive ALARA Analysis
For the Clive DU PA model Version 1.2, the individual doses and the population doses are small,
justifying a semi-quantitative analysis. Consequently, current the NRC value of $5,100 per
person rem per year is used in the ALARA analysis, assuming a zero discount rate. This is a
highly conservative approach when applied to a 10,000-year time frame, considering the potential
exponential effects of discounting. However, it is considered sufficient considering the low
individual and population doses, and hence low dose-based costs, which are estimated by the
Clive DU PA model.
Version 1.4 of the Clive DU PA model evaluates doses to several site-specific receptor groups for
the disposal option that all the DU waste is disposed below grade. Although comparisons are
made with the results from Version 1.0 of the Clive DU PA model, the cap design and erosion
model for Version 1.4 are very different than for the Version 1.0 model. Direct comparison of
waste disposal options is, hence, confounded by the different engineered systems. Consequently,
the focus of the ALARA analysis for the Version 1.4 model is simply to evaluate the dose costs
associated with disposal of DU waste below grade, including the evapo-transpiration cover and a
revised erosion model. The dose-based costs are projected to support at ALARA analysis for the
disposal of DU at the Clive site. Prior to describing the specific application, a more generic
discussion of decision analysis is provided.
4.0 Decision Analysis
A generic process for decision analysis has been described in many references, and includes the
following basic steps (cf., Berry, 1995, Clemen, 1996):
1. State a problem
2. Identify objectives (and measures of those objectives – i.e., attributes or criteria)
3. Identify decision alternatives or options
4. Gather relevant information, decompose and model the problem (structure, uncertainty,
preferences)
5. Choose the ‘best’ alternative (the option that maximizes the overall benefit)
6. Conduct uncertainty analysis, sensitivity analysis and value of information analysis to
determine if the decision should be made, or if more data/information should be collected
to reduce uncertainty and, hence, increase confidence in the decision
7. Go back if more data/information are collected

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 12
This framework is iterative and flexible; e.g., sensitivity analysis can also be performed before
choosing alternatives. Value-of-information analysis can be performed to help determine where
further data collection will be most informative. In the case of ALARA as described in Section 2,
the only disposal and design options that can be considered are those that first demonstrate
compliance. If no options are identified that comply after the first pass through the decision
analysis, then it might be necessary to redefine the options, or the problem. In this sense, the
decision analysis process is constrained.
Generally, in a decision analysis, there are many considerations for successful applications
including identifying the decision makers and stakeholders, the objectives of interest for all
parties involved in the decision making process, their preference structures (which attributes of
the decision problem do they prefer), characterization of uncertainty in the model, and measures
of the probable consequences of the different decision options. The spatial and temporal
constraints on the decision are also important.
There are many technical approaches that have been used to provide some form of numerical
decision support for a wide variety of decision problems (cf., Kiker et al, 2005, Linkov et al,
2009), however, only one is commonly recognized as rational and logical: Bayesian statistical
decision theory, although other names have been used. The main components of Bayesian
decision analysis include probability distributions that are used to capture what is known and
uncertain about the underlying process, and specification of cost and value functions to capture
the costs of each decision option that is being considered.
For an ALARA analysis of a PA, implementation of a Bayesian decision analysis requires
development of a PA model for different options (e.g., different disposal options, closure
options). This includes specification of probability distributions for each input parameter in the
PA model so that both the best estimate and its uncertainty is accounted for, subsequent
estimation of population doses from the model, and characterization of the costs of implementing
each option. The cost-benefit trade-off is performed by comparing options for the risks to human
health (as measured through dose), and the costs of each option considered. For Version 1.4 of
the Clive DU PA model only one set of conditions is evaluated, hence the comparison is between
the consequences of disposing of the DU waste versus not disposing of the waste.
In general, Bayesian decision analysis is a powerful means of facilitating decisions under
uncertainty. Decision analysis models, developed properly, are transparent and easy to use, even
for complex decisions. Decision analysis is also amenable to sensitivity and value-of-information
analyses, which can be used to inform decision makers regarding uncertainty in the decision.
That is, if the uncertainty is low enough, then confidence is high enough, and a decision can be
made. However, if greater confidence is needed, then further data collection is indicated, and this
is informed by the sensitivity analysis and a value of information analysis (i.e., which variables
are most uncertain and have the most influence on ranking of decision alternatives). The idea is to
reduce uncertainty cost-effectively. At some point the cost of collecting more data outweighs the
benefit from the reduction in uncertainty. Then the best decision option should be selected.
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 13
5.0 Scope of ALARA Decision Analysis for the Clive
Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment
Decision analysis in the context of ALARA has been simplified for application to the Clive DU
PA. There is one primary objective, which is to maximize human health in the context of disposal
of the DU waste. The attribute of interest is radiation dose to the receptors, which is measured in
terms of millirem in a year. Note that groundwater concentrations are also of concern, but a
simplification similar to the dose costs per person rem are not available for groundwater, hence,
an ALARA assessment for the groundwater pathway is not evaluated for the current Clive DU
PA model. However, it is noted that groundwater at Clive is not considered potable because it is
more saline than seawater. The cost consequences to human health are, consequently, negligible
or non-existent.
The Clive DU PA model evaluates dose for the three types of receptors evaluated – ranchers,
hunters and OHV enthusiasts. For the current, Version 1.4, model the DU waste is buried below
grade, and the cover is an evapo-transpiration design. The ALARA analysis evaluates the per
person rem costs of disposal of the DU waste. The results can be compared to those provided in
Version 1.0 of the model, but Version 1.0 includes DU waste disposal above grade, a rip-rap
cover, and other changes to the conceptual and probabilistic model. Given the changes, a direct
comparison of the Version 1.0 and Version 1.4 models is not appropriate. The ALARA analysis
for Version 1.4 of the model involves a cost analysis for the population risks (doses) associated
with the disposal of the DU waste.
The goal is to estimate the dose-related costs for Version 1.4 of the Clive DU PA model; that is,
assuming all DU waste is disposed below grade. As noted above, a discount rate could be applied
to the analysis. However, DU has a characteristic that is different than most forms of radioactive
waste; i.e., its decay dynamics result in higher radioactivity (and therefore dose) of the waste over
time, as opposed to lower radioactivity associated with many other types of radionuclide decay.
This perhaps has implications for whether to include a discounting factor for future benefits,
risks, and costs. Intergenerational issues are also considered in the decision to not use a discount
factor in the approach to ALARA estimation. A further consideration is the low population dose
estimates.
As noted in the introduction, specific performance objectives for land disposal of radioactive
waste are set forth in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Rule R313-25-9 and Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 (10 CFR 61) Subpart C, promulgated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). These require a quantitative individual dose assessment over the
next 10,000 years. In effect, a decision is intended for all possible receptors over the course of the
next 10,000 years, and dose-based decisions are not made beyond that point. From the
perspective of an economic analysis this corresponds to a zero discount rate for the next 10,000
years followed by a zero value thereafter, at least from the perspective of dose. This also means
that decisions are made for possible receptors 10,000 years from now, apparently obviating the
need for any further decision making. An alternative is to couple a decision analysis approach
that perhaps includes discounting coupled with a financial plan to address continued evaluation
of the disposal system. There are other arguments for considering shorter compliance periods,
such as the reasonableness of evaluating dose far into the future, and the uncertainty that should
increase with time. However, for the current ALARA analysis a simple approach was taken: A
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 14
per person rem cost of $5,100 was assigned, and zero discounting was assumed for the next
10,000 years.
The overall decision scenario can be stated as in terms of the ‘best’ decision alternative with
regard to long-term disposal of DU. The decision evaluated for Version 1.4 of the Clive DU PA
model essentially is whether to dispose of the DU waste below grade, or to not dispose of the
waste. The decision analysis was confined to the disposal site itself, and did not address other
potentially important life-cycle issues such as interim storage, transportation, etc. However, note
that the decision analysis framework could be easily expanded to address these other issues. For
this decision analysis the 'best' decision was defined in terms of overall benefit-cost in the context
of the costs involved in reducing risk, the cost consequences of the risk, and the uncertainty
associated with choosing the best option. That is, the decision problem was framed as a benefit-
cost problem, but constrained by the requirement that each decision option considered must
comply with the performance objectives.

Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 15
6.0 References
Berry, D.A., 1995. Statistics: A Bayesian Perspective. Wadsworth Press.
Clemen RT. 1996. Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury, Pacific Grove.
DOE 1993. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, DOE Order 5400.5 (January
1993).
DOE 1997. Applying the ALARA Process for Radiation Protection of the Public and
Environmental Compliance with 10 CFR 834 and DOE 5400.5 ALARA Program
Requirements, draft DOE standard (April 1997).
EPA. 2011. EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population. April,
2011. Accessed at http://epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/bluebook/bbfinalversion.pdf.
Filipsson AF, Sand S, Nilsson J, et al. 2003. The benchmark dose method - review of available
models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol
33:505-542.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., and Ohlson, D. 2012. Structured
Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Hendee WR, Edwards FM. 1986. ALARA and an integrated approach to radiation protection.
Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 16:142-150.
ICRP. 1959. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
International Commission of Radiological Protection Publication No. 1. Permagon, NY.
ICRP. 1973. Implications of Commission Recommendations that Doses be Kept as Low as
Readily Achievable. International Commission of Radiological Protection Publication No.
22. Permagon, NY.
ICRP. 1977. Radiation Protection. International Commission of Radiological Protection
Publication No. 26. Permagon, NY.
ICRP. 1983. Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Optimization of Radiation Protection. International
Commission of Radiological Protection Publication No. 37. Permagon, NY.
ICRP. 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. ICRP Publication No. 60, Pergamon, NY.
ICRP. 2006. The Optimisation of Radiological Protection - Broadening the Process. ICRP
Publication No. 101b. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
ICRP. 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication No. 103, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Keeney, R.L., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-making. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA 1992
Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager PT, Linkov I. 2005. Application of multicriteria
decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment
and Management 1:95-108.
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 16
Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T. 2009. Weight-of-evidence evaluation
in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Science of
the Total Environment 407:5199-5205.
NAS. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2.
Washington, D.C. National Academy Press
NRC. 1975a. 40 FR 19439, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50: Numerical Guides for Design
Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to meet the Criterion “As Low as is
Reasonably Achievable” for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power
Reactor Effluents. Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C.
NRC. 1975b. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1400). NUREG-75/014, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML072350618
NRC. 1977. SECY-77-388A, Value-Impact Analysis Guidelines, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12234B122.
NRC. 1982. Resolution of Generic Safety Issues (formerly entitled A Prioritization of Generic
Safety Issues): Main Report with Supplements. NUREG-0933. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1983a. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG/BR-0058, revision 0, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML15027A412.
NRC. 1983b. A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment. NUREG/CR-3568, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML062830096.
NRC. 1983c. Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plant Operation. NUREG-0880, revision 1. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C ADAMS Accession No.
ML071770230.
NRC. 1985. Memorandum, W.J. Dirks to Commission, Basis for Quantifying Off-Site Property
Losses, dated October 23, 1985. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML15050A141.
NRC 1986. 51 FR 28044 (August 4, 1986), as revised by FR 30028 (August 21, 1986). Safety
Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy Statement. Federal Register,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1995. Reassessment of NRC's Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy. NUREG-
1530. December 1995. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC. 2000a. ALARA Analyses. NUREG-1727, Appendix D. September 2000. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC. 2000b. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG/BR-0058, revision 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML023290519.
Decision Analysis Methodology for Assessing ALARA Collective Radiation Doses and Risks
6 November 2015 17
NRC. 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG/BR-0058, revision 4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML042820192
NRC. 2008. Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Ensuring that Occupational Radiation
Exposures are as Low as is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), Revision 3. NEI 07-08.
November 2008. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC. 2012. SECY-12-0110, Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s Regulatory Framework, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12173A478.
NRC. 2015. Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy. Draft
report for comment. NUREG-1530, Rev. 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
OMB. 1992. Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.
Circular No. A-94 Revised. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.
OMB. 2003. Regulatory Analysis, Circular No. A-4. September 17, 2003. Accessed at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/. U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, D.C.
Scott BR. 2008. It's time for a new low-dose radiation risk assessment paradigm. Dose-Response
6:333-351.

- NAC-0032_R4

Deep Time Assessment for the
Clive DU PA

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
Model v1.4
22 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
2. Filename: Deep Time Assessment v1.4.docx
3. Description: This report describes details of the “deep time” component of the Clive DU PA Model. The “deep
time” model addresses long term effects (beyond 10,000 years post-closure) of disposal of DU at the Clive
facility.
Name Date
4. Originator Bruce Crowe, Robert Lee 3 Sep 2015
5. Reviewer Kate Catlett, Paul Black, Dan Levitt 22 Nov 2015
6. Remarks

3 Jul 2014; R2: Accepted track changes from R1 and added “a” and “b” to identify two Oviatt et al. (1994)
references – D. Levitt

30 Jul 2014: Updates and corrections for v1.2. White Paper now at rev 3. — R. Lee and J. Tauxe

27 Aug 2015: Merged “Deep Time Supplemental Analysis. . .” white paper with the Deep Time white paper – R.
Lee

03 Sep 2015: Edits- B. Crowe and R. Lee.

09 Sep 2015: Edits – B. Crowe and J. Oviatt

15 Oct 2015: Thorough edits and revisions to add latest GoldSim modeling and model simplification justification. –
K. Catlett

1 Nov 2015: Added to Table 1 dose parameters. Revised and added text relevant to latest model (v1.4)
consolidation and further CSM clarification.

4 Nov 2015: Added information to section 7, especially regarding dose calcs. K.Catlett and R. Perona

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ vi
1.0 Deep Time Model Distribution Summary ..............................................................................1
2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................3
3.0 Deep Time Model Overview ..................................................................................................3
4.0 Background on Pluvial Lake Formation in the Bonneville Basin ..........................................7
4.1 Long-term Climate ............................................................................................................7
4.2 Prehistorical Deep Lake Cycles ......................................................................................10
4.3 Shallow and Intermediate Lake Cycles ...........................................................................14
4.4 Sedimentation ..................................................................................................................17
4.5 Eolian Deposition ............................................................................................................18
5.0 Conceptual Overview of Modeling Future Lake Cycles ......................................................18
5.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................18
5.2 Future Scenarios ..............................................................................................................19
6.0 A Heuristic Model for Relating Deep Lakes to Climate Cycles from Ice Core
Temperature ..........................................................................................................................21
6.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................21
6.2 Glaciation ........................................................................................................................21
6.3 Precipitation ....................................................................................................................24
6.4 Evaporation .....................................................................................................................24
6.5 Simulations ......................................................................................................................26
7.0 Deep Time Modeling Approach ...........................................................................................28
7.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................28
7.2 Deep Lake Characteristics ...............................................................................................28
7.3 Intermediate Lake Characteristics ...................................................................................30
7.4 Sedimentation Rates ........................................................................................................30
7.5 Eolian Depositional Parameters ......................................................................................35
7.5.1 Field Studies ..............................................................................................................35
7.5.2 Probability Distributions for the Depth and Age of Eolian Deposition ....................36
7.6 Destruction of the Federal DU Cell.................................................................................39
7.7 Radionuclide Concentration in DU Waste ......................................................................43
7.8 Radionuclide Concentration in Sediment ........................................................................43
7.9 Radioactivity in Lake Water ...........................................................................................44
7.10 Modeling of 222Rn Flux ...................................................................................................46
7.10.1 Waste and Sediment Water Content ..........................................................................47
7.11 Human Health Exposure and Dose Assessment .............................................................48
8.0 References .............................................................................................................................49
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................54
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................56

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 v
FIGURES

Figure 1. Comparison of delta deuterium (black line) from the European Project for Ice
Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) Dome C ice core and benthic (marine) oxygen-18
record (blue line) for the past 900 ky [from Jouzel et al. (2007)] ..................................5
Figure 2. Benthic oxygen isotope record for 700 ka (from Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005) ...............13
Figure 3. Temperature deviations for the last 810 k (from Jouzel et al., 2007) .............................22
Figure 4. Glacial change as a function of temperature for the coarse conceptual model ..............25
Figure 5. Two example simulated lake elevations as a function of time, with Clive facility
elevation represented by green line ..............................................................................27
Figure 6. Probability density functions for the start and end times for a deep lake, in yr prior
to the 100-ky mark and yr after the 100-ky mark, respectively. ..................................29
Figure 7. Probability density function for sedimentation rate for the deep-water phase of a
deep lake ......................................................................................................................32
Figure 8. Historical elevations of the Great Salt Lake ...................................................................33
Figure 9. Simulated transgressions of a deep lake including short-term variations in lake
elevations .....................................................................................................................34
Figure 10. Probability density function for the total sediment thickness associated with an
intermediate lake (or the transgressive of regressive phase of a deep lake) ................35
Figure 11. Eolian deposition rate results for 1,000 realizations (m/yr). ........................................40
Figure 12. Probability density function for the area over which the waste embankment is
dispersed upon destruction ...........................................................................................42

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of distributions for the Deep Time Model container .........................................1
Table 2. Lake cycles in the Bonneville basin during the last 700 ky1 ...........................................12
Table 3. Lake cycles and sediment thickness from Clive pit wall interpretation (C. G. Oviatt,
personal communication) 1 ..........................................................................................17
Table 4. Thickness measurements from field studies of eolian silt near Clive..............................37
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 1
1.0 Deep Time Model Distribution Summary
A summary of parameter values used in the Deep Time Model component of the Clive DU PA
Model is provided in Table 1. For the purpose of this white paper, deep time refers to the period
between 10 thousand yr to 2.1 million yr; approximately when the progeny of 238U reach secular
equilibrium with 238U and peak activity.
For distributions, the following notation is used:
• N( μ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a normal distribution with mean μ and standard deviation
σ, and optional min and max if truncation is needed,
• LN( GM, GSD, [min, max] ) represents a log-normal distribution with geometric mean
GM and geometric standard deviation GSD, and optional min and max if truncation is
needed,
• U( [min, max] ) represents a uniform distribution with minimum min, and maximum max,
• Beta( μ, σ, [min, max] ) represents a generalized beta distribution with mean μ, standard
deviation σ, minimum min, and maximum max, and
• Gamma( μ, σ ) represents a gamma distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ.

Table 1. Summary of distributions for the Deep Time Model container
Model Parameter Value or Distribution Units Reference
DepthEolianDeposition
long-term eolian deposition
depths
N(μ=72.7, σ=5 min=Small,
max=Porosity_Unit4)
cm Section 7.5
AgeEolianDeposition
long-term eolian deposition
ages
Beta(μ=13614,
σ=263.3,min=13000,max=15000)
yr Section 7.5
EolianCorrelationFactor
correlation between eolian
deposition depth and Eolian
deposition age
U(0.5,1.0) — Section 7.5
LakeDelayTime
time at which the
intermediate lake calculations
are allowed to occur
50,000 yr Section 4.1

IntermediateLakeDuration
length of time that Clive is
covered by an intermediate
lake
LN(GM=500, GSD=1.5,min=0,
max=2500)
yr Section 7.3
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 2
Model Parameter Value or Distribution Units Reference
IntermediateLakeSedimentA
mount
total depth of sediment laid
down by an intermediate lake
LN(GM=2.82, GSD=1.71) m Section 7.4
DeepLakeStart
time before the end of the
100,000-year climate cycle
LN(GM=14000, GSD=1.2,min=0,
max=50000 )
yr Section 7.2
DeepLakeEnd
time after the most recent
cold peak within the 100,000-
year climate cycle
LN(GM=6000, GSD=1.2,min=0,
max=50000)
yr Section 7.2
DeepLakeSedimentationRate
rate of the sedimentation
during the open water phase
of a deep lake
LN(GM=1.2E-4, GSD=1.2) m/yr Section 7.4
SiteDispersalArea
the area across which the
destroyed site is spread
Gamma(mean=24.2332,
stdev=11.43731)
Km2 Section 7.6

IntermediateLakeDepth
depth of an intermediate lake
at Clive
Beta(μ=30, σ=18,min=0, max=100) m Section 7.9
DeepLakeDepth
depth of a deep lake at Clive
Beta(μ=150, σ=20,min=100,
max=200)
m Section 7.9
TotalEmbankmentVolume
original total volume of the
embankment
3,231,556 m3 Section 7.8
DiffusionLength
Diffusion length for the deep
time sediments
N(μ=0.5, σ=0.16 min=0.0,
max=Large)
m Section 7.9
external_DCF_modifiers See table in ES external DCF
modifiers.xlsx Excel file
— Section 7.11
DCFs and parameters within
the DCFs container
See Dose Assessment white paper
for parameter values and reference
— See Dose
Assessment
white paper
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 3
Model Parameter Value or Distribution Units Reference
Rn_flux_ratio
ratio of Rn-222 flux at
different sediment thickness
to flux with no overlaying
cover
Thickness
0.001
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.5
Rn-222 flux
1.00000
4.392E-1
1.972E-1
8.750E-2
4.000E-2
8.140E-3
1.656E-3
3.371E-4
6.881E-5
1.00E-30
— Section 7.10
* “Large” is a very large number, and “Small” is a very small number, as defined by GoldSim.
2.0 Introduction
This white paper provides documentation of the development of parameter values and
distributions used for modeling scenarios of the fate of Federal DU Cell waste for the Clive DU
PA model in deep time. Data sources are identified and the rationale applied for developing
distributions is described. The intent of this white paper is to describe the characteristics and
potential processes of deep time and the subsequent effects on waste disposed at the Clive site.
3.0 Deep Time Model Overview
There are two major components of the Clive DU PA Model. The first component addresses
quantitative contaminant fate and transport and subsequent dose assessment for 10,000 yr
(10 ky). That modeling is based upon projections of current societal conditions into the future
and assumes no substantial change in climatic conditions. The second component addresses
“deep time” scenario calculations from 10 ky until the time of peak radioactivity. For this PA,
peak radioactivity associated with the ingrowth of progeny from 238U occurs at about
2.1 million yr in the future (2.1 My).
The initial Deep Time Models for this site, the Deep Time container of the Clive DU PA v1.0 and
v1.2 Models and the Deep Time Supplemental Analysis (DTSA) Model (Clive DU PA Model
vDTSA.gsm), addressed DU waste stored above and below the surrounding grade in an
embankment. The DTSA model is a standalone model, not directly linked to the PA model. The
models assume destruction of the embankment via wave action from a possible return of a lake
to the Clive area under future glacial period conditions, and subsequent dispersal of waste. With
a review of this modeling, a decision was made by the State of Utah to require EnergySolutions
to dispose of all DU waste below the surrounding grade, and thus no waste per se would be
exposed or dispersed upon return of a lake (SC&A, 2015). The only possible mechanisms for
dissolution and dispersal of radionuclides would then be associated with radon emanation into
the embankment materials and diffusion of dissolved radionuclides upwards. The current PA
model (v1.4) retains this assumption, and the 10 ky model and the revised Deep Time Model are
now integrated. Additional factors such as eolian (i.e., wind-borne) deposition are also now
included. Below is a brief summary of the current conceptual site model (CSM) for the Deep
Time Model. These terms and details are explained and discussed further in this report.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 4
 Time scale of interest: 10 ky to 2.1 My post-closure.
 Waste placement: All DU waste is buried below grade in five waste cells, with a cover
embankment.
 Pluvial (i.e., caused by increased precipitation) lake occurrence: This is driven largely by
glacial cycles of cooler and wetter climate conditions. “Deep” lakes occur no more than
once per 100-ky cycle. “Intermediate” lakes can occur independent of a deep lake, or as
transitory events during the transgressive (rising lake) or regressive (falling lake) phases
of a deep lake. An intermediate lake will not occur at the elevation of the Clive site
without a return to pluvial conditions.
 Destruction of embankment: The embankment will be eroded to the level of the former
Lake Bonneville surface (current grade at the time of the first lake return) by wave action
and sediment churning during the first return of a deep or intermediate lake.
Radionuclides present in the above-grade part of the embankment (as a result of transport
processes) will be dispersed and mixed with sediments during active lake erosion across
the area of the lake. The waste itself will not be exposed.
 Release of radionuclides: Radionuclides in the dispersed sediments will be released to
lake water upon destruction of the embankment via diffusion. Radon is allowed to diffuse
upward through the sediment when a lake is not present.
 Fate of radionuclides: Radionuclides will partition between water and sediments
according to their solubility and sorption properties. Insoluble DU will be buried by lake
sediments. Radionuclides settle out in sediments after lakes recede.
 Sedimentation: Eolian deposition occurs while lake levels are below the Clive site and
are incorporated with lake sedimentation rates after the first lake returns. Clastic
sedimentation will dominate during formation of intermediate lakes with transitions to
carbonate precipitation when there are deep lakes.
The basic Deep Time Model scenario involves projecting the future environment based upon the
Pleistocene and Holocene record of climate variations and lake formation in the Bonneville
Basin. The conceptual model of the past environment is based upon scientific records (sediment
borehole logs, ice cores, deep ocean cores) of the past eight glacial/climate cycles that have
lasted approximately 100 ky each. The model considers cycles from the beginning of an
interglacial period onwards. In the past 100-ky cycles, after an interglacial period, the average
temperature drops and average precipitation increases throughout the glacial cycle, until the
relatively cold period (typically an ”ice age”) ends and the next interglacial period begins (Figure
1). The Earth is currently in an interglacial period. The first 10 ky of the Clive DU PA Model is
projected under interglacial conditions, and the Deep Time Model calculations include an
evaluation of the effect on the Federal DU Cell of future 100-ky glacial cycles for the next
2.1 My. The critical aspect of a glacial period is the potential return of a pluvial lake to the
elevation of the Clive site with accompanying lakeshore wave activity that would destroy the
Federal DU embankment. Thus, the objective of the Deep Time Model is to assess the potential
impact of glacial period pluvial lake events upon and associated with radionuclide
release/dispersal from the Federal DU Cell from 10 ky through 2.1 My post-closure.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 5
Figure 1. Comparison of delta deuterium (black line) from the European Project for Ice
Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) Dome C ice core and benthic (marine) oxygen-18
record (blue line) for the past 900 ky [from Jouzel et al. (2007)]
The approximate historical 100-ky glacial cycles are depicted in Figure 1. The current
interglacial period is shown on the left edge of the figure. The last ice age finished between
12,000 and 20,000 yr ago (12 ka and 20 ka, indicated as “ky B.P.” in the figure). In the last
glacial maximum (represented as a trough on the far-left side of Figure 1), the major Western
United States water body Lake Bonneville, which covered much of Utah, reached its maximum
extent. Antarctic ice core data as well as benthic marine isotope data (described below) show
similar patterns for the past 800 ky. These 100-ky cycles are used as the basis for modeling the
return and recurrence of lake events in the Clive area.
The Deep Time Model should be regarded as conceptual and stylized and is not intended as a
prediction of expected future conditions at the Clive site. The intent is to estimate potential future
radionuclide releases from the remains of the Federal DU Cell, rather than to provide a
quantitative, temporally-specific prediction of future conditions, or an assessment of exposure or
doses to possible humans. Doses to potential human receptors and the presence and
characteristics of human populations in the Clive area during this time period are entirely
speculative. When a lake inundates the waste site, there will be no receptors at that location.
Additionally, calculation of radiological dose to human at times beyond 10 ky is not required by
Utah state regulations (Utah 2015). Instead, these regulations specify a “qualitative” assessment
with radionuclide release simulations for this period. Organizations such as the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 2012) have indicated that calculating doses beyond a few hundred
yr is not defensible; thus, quantitative dose assessment, particularly subsequent to lake events
related to the interglacial cycle, is insupportable from scientific and technical perspectives.
However, if the Deep Time Model results such as radon flux are considered in the context of
gauging system performance, such results may provide limited insight into the behavior of the
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 6
disposal system in deep time. Based on potential future radon fluxes, a rancher dose was
calculated in the Deep Time Model to provide a context for the radon flux results.
A “deep” lake is defined here as a large glacial-period lake on the scale of the prehistoric Lake
Bonneville (present in the area from about 32 ka to 14 ka). Such lakes have occurred in several
of the past 100-ky climate cycles. An “intermediate” lake is defined as a lake that reaches the
elevation of Clive (described further below). These lakes are assumed to occur in the
transgressive and regressive phases of a deep lake, but evidence of such lakes is difficult to
identify and interpret because lake deposits are reworked during their transgressive and
regressive lake phases. It is assumed that the first deep or intermediate lake that reaches the
elevation of Clive will destroy and disperse the Federal DU Cell embankment via wave action.
This dispersal mixes radionuclides with lake sediments. The characteristics of these mixed
sediments are dependent upon the duration and intensity of the lakeshore processes (e.g., wave
sediment churning, and formation of spits and bars from longshore drift).
Wave action associated with transgressing and regressing intermediate lakes will rework the
lake-sediment interface to a depth that is controlled by the dynamics of the wave action.
Evidence of wave action and sedimentary processes for past levels of Lake Bonneville is
preserved in the area’s sedimentary and geomorphic features. This evidence includes
paleoshorelines, fan and river deltas, wave-cut cliffs, bayhead barriers and spits (Sack, 1999;
Schofield et al., 2004; Nelson, 2012). The most relevant lake features from the geologic record
are paleoshorelines. Schofield et al. (2004) divide Lake Bonneville shorelines into erosion-
dominated and deposition-dominated. The elevation difference between shoreline bench deposits
and shoreline fronts from these studies provides a time-integrated analog for the dynamics of
wave action during shoreline transgressions and regressions (see Figure 3 in Schofield et al.
2004). These elevation differences are about 90 cm for erosion-dominated shorelines and 40 to
65 cm for deposition-dominated shorelines. Thus, the process of wave action is assumed to
remove approximately the same thickness of sediment (0.5 to 1 m) as the residual embankment
thickness (<1 m).
Any periods in which a lake does not exist are assumed to experience eolian (i.e., wind-borne)
deposition. Although some removal of embankment materials and sediment via wave action is
expected, this is not modeled explicitly. Instead, these effects are assumed to be relatively small
compared to eolian and lake deposition effects, and are assumed to have roughly a net zero effect
on overall sedimentation before and after the return of an intermediate or deep lake (remaining
embankment thickness is about 0.5 m and removal depth is about 0.5 m). The current model thus
explicitly considers eolian and lake deposition only as contributors to sedimentation thickness.
Other major geologic or climatic events could also occur in the next 2.1 My. Events such as
major meteorite impacts, and volcanic activity such as eruptions associated with the Yellowstone
Caldera could also be considered. Such future catastrophic events are often screened from
consideration in PAs on the basis of a low probability of occurrence and/or limited
consequences. In this case, a major meteorite impact and a future volcanic eruption at
Yellowstone were not screened. Instead, the impacts of these events are considered to be so
catastrophic on a global scale that their effects would far outweigh any potential radionuclide
releases from the Federal DU Cell. The same applies to major climate changes outside of those
associated with glacial cycles, although impacts of anthropogenic climate change on future lake
events are partially considered here.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 7
4.0 Background on Pluvial Lake Formation in the Bonneville
Basin
4.1 Long-term Climate
Large-scale climatic fluctuations over the last 2.6 My (the Quaternary Period, the current and
most recent of the three periods of the Cenozoic as defined in the geologic time scale;
http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/) have been studied extensively in order to
understand the mechanisms underlying those changes (Hays et al., 1976, Berger, 1988, Paillard,
2001, Berger and Loutre, 2002). These climatic signals have been observed in marine sediments
(Lisiekcki and Raymo, 2005), land records (Oviatt et al., 1999), and ice cores (Jouzel et al.,
2007). These large-scale fluctuations in climate have resulted in glacial and interglacial cycles,
which have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period. The causes of the onset of the
last major northern hemisphere glacial cycles 2.6 million yr ago (Ma) remain uncertain, but
several studies suggest that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama caused a marked reorganization
of ocean circulation patterns that resulted in continental glaciation (Haug and Tiedemann, 1998,
Driscoll and Haug, 1998). Future glacial events are likely to be caused by a combination of the
Earth’s orbital parameters as well as increases in freshwater inputs to the world’s oceans
resulting in a disruption to oceanic thermohaline circulation (Driscoll and Haug, 1998).
Changes in the periodicity of glacial cycles have been linked to variations in Earth’s orbit around
the Sun. These variations were described by the Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch in the
early 1900s, and are based upon changes that occur due to the eccentricity (i.e., orbital shape) of
Earth’s orbit every 100-ky, the obliquity (i.e., axial tilt) of Earth’s axis every 41 ky, and the
precession of the equinoxes (or solstices) (i.e., wobbling of the Earth on its axis) every 21 ky
(Berger, 1988). For the first 2 My of the Pleistocene (the first major Epoch of the Quaternary
Period), Northern Hemispheric glacial cycles occurred every 41 ky, while the last million yr have
indicated glacial cycles occurring every 100-ky, with strong cyclicity in solar radiation every 23
ky (Berger and Loutre, 2002; Paillard, 2006). The shift from shorter to longer cycles is one of the
greatest uncertainties associated with utilizing the Milankovitch orbital theory alone to explain
the onset of glacial cycles (Paillard, 2006).
Hays et al. (1976), who analyzed changes in the isotopic oxygen (δ18O) composition of deep-sea
sediment cores, suggest that major climatic changes have followed both the variations in
obliquity and precession through their impact on planetary insolation (i.e., the measure of solar
radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time). In its most common form,
oxygen is composed of eight protons and eight neutrons (giving it an atomic weight of 16). This
is known as ”light” oxygen because a small fraction of oxygen atoms have two extra neutrons
and a resulting atomic weight of 18 (18O), which is then known as ”heavy” oxygen. 18O is a rare
form and is found in only about 1 in 500 atoms of oxygen. The ratio of these two oxygen
isotopes has changed over the ages and these changes are a proxy to changing climate that have
been used in both ice cores from glaciers and ice caps, and cores of deep sea sediments. Thus,
variations in δ18O reflect changes in oceanic isotopic composition caused by the waxing and
waning of Northern Hemispheric ice sheets, and are thus used as a proxy for previous changes in
climate (cf. Figure 1).
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 8
Slightly different external forcing and internal feedback mechanisms can lead to a wide range of
responses in terms of the causes of glacial-interglacial cycles. The collection of longer ice core
records, such as the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) Dome C core located
in Antarctica, has highlighted the clear distinctions between different interglacial-glacial cycles
(Jouzel et al., 2007). Variation in climatic conditions appears to be sufficient that large
differences have occurred in each of the past several 100-ky cycles. At the present time, the
EPICA Dome C core is the longest (in duration) Antarctic ice core record available, covering the
last 800 ky (Jouzel et al., 2007).
There is considerable uncertainty associated with the number, timing, and recurrence interval of
glacially-influenced pluvial lakes in the Bonneville Basin. The 100-ky glacial cycle is roughly
correlated with the occurrence of deep lakes (Balch et al. 2005, Davis 1998), and there appear to
be smaller, millennial scale (“Dansgaard-Oeschger”) cycles within this larger cycle that are not
necessarily uniform (Madsen, 2000). For example, the Little Valley lake cycle peaked in
elevation at about 135 ka, the Cutler Dam lake cycle peaked about 65 ka, and the Bonneville lake
cycle peaked about 18 ka (Machette et al., 1992).
Many studies highlight the importance of past atmospheric composition in the dynamics of
glaciations across the Northern Hemisphere, in addition to orbital influences (Masson-Delmotte
et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2009; Paillard, 2006). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a well-known influence
on the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” (i.e. warming due to trapping of solar heat), and is a
globally well-mixed gas in the atmosphere due to its long lifetime. Therefore, measurements of
this gas in Antarctic ice are globally representative and provide long-term data important for
understanding past climatic changes. Direct measurement of CO2 trapped in the EPICA Dome C
core indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations decreased during glacial periods due to
greater storage in the deep ocean, thereby causing cooler temperatures from a reduction of the
atmosphere’s greenhouse effect (EPICA, 2004). Warmer temperatures resulting from elevated
concentrations of CO2 released from the ocean contribute to further warming and could support
hypotheses of rapid wasting at the end of glacial events (Hays et al., 1976). Earlier interglacial
events (prior to 420 ka), however, are thought to have been cooler than the most recent
interglacial events (since 420 ka) (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2010).
The predicted effect of anthropogenic CO2 on glacial cycles has evolved over time. For example,
Berger and Loutre (2002) conducted simulations including orbital forcing (i.e., cycles largely
driven by orbital variables) coupled with insolation and CO2 variations over the next 100-ky.
Their results indicated that the current interglacial period could last another 50 ky with the next
glacial maximum occurring about 100 ky from now. The scientific record (cf. Figure 1) supports
this pattern of variability across the 100-ky glacial cycles. Berger and Loutre (2002) effectively
indicate that the current 100-ky cycle will not be as glacially intense as some of the previous
cycles. They also quote J. Murray Mitchell (Kukla et al, 1972, p. 436) who predicts that “the net
impact of human activities on climate of the future decades and centuries is quite likely to be one
of warming and therefore favorable to the perpetuation of the present interglacial.” Archer and
Ganopolski (2005) conducted simulations suggesting that the combination of relatively weak
orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon release from fossil fuel and methane
hydrate deposits could prevent glaciation for the next 500 ky over two glacial cycle eccentricity
minima. Cochelin et al. (2006) used a paleoclimate model to simulate the next glacial inception
under orbital and atmospheric CO2 forcings. Three scenarios were modeled: an impending
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 9
glacial inception under low CO2 levels; a glacial inception in 50 ky for CO2 levels of 280 to
290 ppm; and no glacial inception for the next 100-ky for CO2 levels of 300 ppm or higher.
Tzedakis et al. (2012a) defined interglacial periods as episodes where global climate is
incompatible with the wide global extent of glaciers, and examined differences in such
interglacial durations over the last 800 ky. They noted that the onset of interglacials occurs within
2 ky of the boreal summer insolation maximum consistent with Milankovitch forcing, whereas
the end of interglacials does not occur consistently on a similar part of the insolation curve.
Reduction in summer insolation is identified as a primary trigger for glacial inception, but
multiple other feedbacks including atmospheric CO2 concentrations combine to modify the
timing of glacial inception. They further recognized two main groups for mean duration of
interglacials: 13±3 ky and 28±2 ky. In a related paper, Tzedakis et al. (2012b) suggest that the
end of the current interglacial could occur within the next 1,500 yr if atmospheric CO2
concentrations were reduced to about 240 ppm, but no glacial inception is projected to occur at
current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm, consistent with the conclusions of Archer
and Granopolski (2005).
Jansen et al. (2007) in Chapter 6 of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “it is very unlikely that the Earth would naturally
enter another ice age for at least 30 ky.” These conclusions were updated and strengthened in
Chapter 5 of the fifth IPCC assessment report (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2013).
“Since orbital forcing can be accurately calculated for the future…, efforts can be
made to predict the onset of the next glacial period. However, the glaciation
threshold depends not only on insolation but also on the atmospheric CO2
concentration… Models of different complexity have been used to investigate the
response to orbital forcing in the future for a range of atmospheric CO2 levels.
These results consistently show that a glacial inception is not expected to happen
within the next approximate 50 ky if either atmospheric CO2 concentration
remains above 300 ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000 PgC
[petagrams of carbon—one petagram is 1015 g]. Only if atmospheric CO2 content
was [sic] below the pre-industrial level would a glaciation be possible under
present orbital configuration… Simulations with climate–carbon cycle models
show multi-millennial lifetime of the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere…
Even for the lowest [emissions] scenario, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will
exceed 300 ppm until the year 3000. It is therefore virtually certain [i.e., a
greater-than 99% probability] that orbital forcing will not trigger a glacial
inception before the end of the next millennium.”
Current CO2 levels are approximately 400 ppm (http://co2now.org/images/stories/data/co2-mlo-
monthly-noaa-esrl.pdf), and have been steadily rising over the past 150 yr due to anthropogenic
sources. Preindustrial levels of CO2 were about 280 ppm, and CO2 levels associated with glacial
periods tend to be about 240 ppm (Tzedakis et al., 2012b). It would require major reductions in
CO2 emissions worldwide in order to return to preindustrial levels, and/or engineering solutions
(e.g., “scrubbing” on a massive scale) to remove CO2 from the atmosphere so that pre-industrial
levels are attained. However, the Clive DU PA Model projects current knowledge as a
fundamental assumption, therefore it is assumed here that no major anthropogenic CO2-reduction
interventions will occur, and that CO2 levels will continue to rise, or at least will not attain
preindustrial levels within the next 50 ky or longer.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 10
The Bonneville basin watershed is large and integrates runoff from the eastern Great Basin and
transition region of the Colorado plateau. Long-term changes in evaporation and precipitation
over a large region are required to sustain rising of a lake to the Clive elevation. These conditions
may be expected to occur only with a return to glacial conditions given climate model forecasts
of increased aridity for the southwest United States. Climate change risks to municipal water
supplies in Utah have been modeled using watershed hydrology models that explore temporal
changes in average conditions (temperature, precipitation, runoff), and severe drought and water
supply scenarios (e.g., the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, Bardsley et al., 2013).
These types of studies are both prudent and timely, but future projections of decade scale data
are highly uncertain. Indeed, projection of the global climate change model results to regional
models has been a developing topic in the succession of IPCC reports. Warming temperatures
associated with anthropogenic climate effects will likely have appreciable impacts on the
Southwestern United States, but current drought projections do not exceed paleoclimate records
of droughts over the last two millennia (Woodhouse et al., 2010; Morgan and Pomerleau, 2012).
Multi-model ensemble studies of future climate projections from 16 global climate models show
both decreases and increases in streamflow projections for the upper Colorado River Basin
(Harding et al., 2012). Cook et al. (2010) suggest caution in projecting climate model projections
for the arid Southwest.
Regardless, the weight of evidence reviewed and summarized in the sequence of IPCC reports is
considered to be substantive and persuasive, and this information supports the current modeling.
It is assumed that CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, or will not decrease
below pre-industrial levels. It is also assumed that the IPCC and associated climate projection
studies are valid, with a high degree of confidence, including their conclusion that the inception
of the next glacial period will probably not occur for at least 50 ky.
The following sub-sections present an overall background on past events in the Bonneville basin
that are driven by major shifts in climate, and that are presumed to occur in the distant future as
well.
4.2 Prehistorical Deep Lake Cycles
The Bonneville basin is the largest drainage basin in the Great Basin of the Western United
States. It is a hydrologically closed basin of over 134,000 km2, and has previously been occupied
by deep pluvial lakes. Pluvial lakes typically form when warm air from arid regions meets
chilled air from glaciers, creating cloudy, cool, rainy weather beyond the terminus of the glacier.
The increase in rainfall and moisture can fill the drainage basin, forming a lake. This kind of
climate was evident during the last glacial period in North America, and resulted in more
precipitation than evaporation, hence the rise of Lake Bonneville.
Numerous studies have investigated previous lake cycles in the Bonneville Basin. These include
studies of Lake Bonneville shoreline geomorphology (Currey et al., 1984), palynological (i.e.,
pollen) studies of deep boreholes (Davis, 1998), and studies of the geochemistry of deep-water
lacustrine depositional sequences (Eardley et al., 1973; Oviatt et al., 1999, Balch et al., 2005).
Analysis of these sediment cores can be used to help understand previous lake levels and
characteristics as well as establish the approximate age of previous lake cycles (e.g., Oviatt et al.,
1999).
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 11
Oviatt et al. (1999) analyzed hydrolysate amino acid enantiomers for aspartic acid, which is
abundant in ostracode protein. Ostracodes are small crustaceans that are useful indicators of
paleo-environments because of their widespread occurrence and because they are easily
preserved. Ostracodes are highly sensitive to water salinity and other limnologic changes.
Therefore, portions of sediment cores that contain ostracodes indicate fresher, and hence
probably deeper, lake conditions than the modern Great Salt Lake (Oviatt et al., 1999). An
important exception to the deep lake interpretation inferred from the presence of ostracodes is
wetland/spring discharge areas. While wetland sites contain abundant ostracodes, the sites can
generally be discriminated from deep lake carbonates by their lithology and stratigraphic position
of the former within transgressive and regressive lake cycles. To establish the approximate
timing of previous lake cycles, Oviatt et al. (1999) examined sediments from the Burmester
sediment core originally collected in the early 1970s near Burmester, Utah (Eardley et al., 1973).
Burmester is approximately 65 km east of Clive on the southern edge of the Great Salt Lake, at
an elevation of 1286 m above mean sea level (amsl). The Clive area has an elevation of
1307 m amsl. Oviatt has also collected sediment data from Knolls (to the west of Clive) and at
Clive itself (described further below). These data are largely consistent with the more recent
layers from Burmester, indicating similar sedimentation processes at work at least during these
time periods.
Data from the 307-m Burmester core suggest that a total of four deep-lake cycles occurred
during the past 780 ky (Table 2. ). Oviatt et al. (1999) found that the four lake cycles correlated
with marine δ18O stages 2 (Bonneville lake cycle: ~24 to 12 ky), 6 (Little Valley lake cycle:
~186 to 128 ky), 12 (Pokes Point lake cycle: ~478 to 423 ky), and 16 (Lava Creek lake cycle:
~659 to 620 ky).
Oxygen isotope stages are alternating warm and cool periods in the Earth’s paleoclimate which
are deduced from oxygen isotope data (Figure 2). These stages suggest that deep pluvial lake
formation in the Bonneville basin occurred in the past only during the most extensive Northern
Hemisphere glaciations. There are many interacting mechanisms that could control or ‘force’
glaciation and deglaciation. For example, Oviatt (1997) and Asmerom et al. (2010) suggested
that these extensive glaciations were controlled by the mean position of storm tracks throughout
the Pleistocene, which were in turn controlled by the size and shape of the ice sheets. Other
glaciation forcing mechanisms have been suggested. The review by Ruddiman (2006) suggests
that insolation changes due to orbital tilt and precession, greenhouse gas concentrations, changes
in Pacific Ocean circulation, and possibly other interacting mechanisms could contribute to
glaciation and deglaciation cycles in North America, and thus pluvial lake existence and size.
Lyle et al. (2012) suggests that lake levels in the Pleistocene western US were influenced by
stronger spring/summer precipitation fed by tropical Pacific air masses, rather than higher
numbers of westerly winter storms.
Balch et al (2005) conducted a more recent detailed study on ostracode fossils in Great Salt Lake
sediment (i.e., under the lake). Other fossil invertebrates were also used as paleoecological
indicators in this study. Both brine shrimp and brine fly fossils are indicators of hypersaline
environments because they have a much higher salinity tolerance than most other invertebrates.
This study’s findings were consistent with Oviatt et al.’s (1999) later cycles, but as the core was
not as deep the findings are not as useful for the present purpose as the Burmester data. The
Burmester core data are more germane to the present modeling effort because they represent a
relatively long time period in which to establish the occurrence of pluvial lakes in the region.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 12
Table 2. Lake cycles in the Bonneville basin during the last 700 ky1
Lake Cycle Approximate
Age2
Maximum
Elevation
Lake Level Influences
Great Salt
Lake (current
level)
present 1284 m (4212 ft) in
1873
Interglacial climate; human intervention
Bonneville
(Gilbert
Episode)
11.6 ka 1295 m (4250 ft) Beginning of interglacial climate;
Bonneville
(Provo
Shoreline)
17.4 to 15.0 ka 1445 m (4740 ft) Glacial climate; new threshold at Red Rock
Pass, Idaho (natural dam collapse)
Bonneville
(Bonneville
Shoreline)
18.0 ka 1552 m (5090 ft) Glacial climate; threshold at Zenda near Red
Rock Pass, Idaho
Bonneville
Transgression
~30 to 18.0 ka Glacial climate
Bonneville
(Stansbury
Shoreline)
26 to 24 ka 1372 m (4500 ft) Glacial climate; transgressive phase of Lake
Bonneville
Cutler Dam ~80 to 40 ka <1380 m (<4525 ft) Glacial climate
Little Valley ~128 to 186 ka 1490 m (4887 ft) Glacial climate
Pokes Point 417 to 478 ka 1428 m (4684 ft) Glacial climate
Lava Creek ~620 to 659 ka 1420 m (4658 ft) Glacial climate
Elevations are not corrected for isostatic variations.
1 Note the various levels of the last major lake cycle, Lake Bonneville. 2 Approximate ages derived from Currey, et al. (1984) Link et al. (1999) and Oviatt et al. (1999). Bonneville cycle
approximate age presented as calibrated yr.
However, note that there is considerable uncertainty associated with the number, timing, and
recurrence interval of lakes in the Bonneville Basin. The 100-ky glacial cycle is roughly
correlated with the occurrence of deep lakes (Balch et al., 2005; Davis, 1998), and there appear
to be smaller, millennial-scale cycles within this larger cycle that are not necessarily uniform
(Machette et al., 1992; Madsen, 2000). It is likely that intermediate lakes have also occurred in
each glacial period, but the shorelines have been destroyed by later lakes. Sediment mixing that
occurs during lake formation can also mask the existence of previous intermediate lakes. Thus, it
is impossible to have complete confidence in historical lake formation characteristics and
formation.
Lake Bonneville is the last major deep lake cycle that took place in the Bonneville basin and is
widely described in the literature (Hart et al., 2004; Oviatt and Nash, 1989; Oviatt et al., 1994a,
1999). Lake Bonneville was a pluvial lake that began forming approximately 28 to 30 ka,
forming various shorelines throughout its existence and covering over 51,000 km2 at its highest
level (Matsubara and Howard, 2009).
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 13
Figure 2. Benthic oxygen isotope record for 700 ka (from Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005)1
Most studies indicate that the high-stand (i.e., the highest level reached) of the lake at the Zenda
threshold (1,552 m amsl), located north of Red Rock Pass, occurred approximately 18.0 ka. The
high-stand of the lake was followed by an abrupt drop in lake level due to the catastrophic failure
(landslide) of a natural dam composed of unconsolidated material at approximately 17.4 ka. As a
result of this flood, the lake dropped to a level of 1,430 m amsl, called the Provo level (Miller et
al. 2013). The Provo level is the maximum level that any future deep lake is likely to reach
without major regional tectonic changes (Currey et al., 1984; Oviatt et al., 1999).
A more recent study (Miller et al., 2013), using radiocarbon dating for Provo shoreline gastropod
deposits, estimates that the dam collapse and Bonneville flood event occurred between 18.0 and
18.5 ka, and therefore the high-stand may have occurred earlier. However, Miller et al. (2013)
indicate that “uncertainties in [gastropod] shell ages may be as large as thousands of yr, and the
major shorelines of Lake Bonneville and the Bonneville flood require more work to establish a
reliable chronology.” The lake regressed rapidly during the last deglaciation, then increased
again to form the Gilbert episode ~ 11.6 ka, which remained below the elevation of Clive
(Oviatt, 2014). The lake then receded to levels of the current Great Salt Lake at approximately
10 ka for the remainder of the Holocene Epoch.

1Red (warm periods) and blue (cool periods) values correspond to marine isotope stages based upon Lisiecki and
Raymo (2005). Lake stages identified by Oviatt et al. (1999) are also included in blue text.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 14
Glacial cycles can be discerned in Figure 2 by considering each cycle from the beginning of the
interglacial period and ending each cycle at the peaks that correspond to deep lake occurrence.
Using this approach, the current glacial cycle started around 12 ka, Lake Bonneville occurred at
the end of the last complete cycle, and Cutler Dam occurred in the middle of the last 100-ky
cycle. The previous 100-ky cycle resulted in the Little Valley lake. The Pokes Point lake
occurred five cycles ago, and The Lava Creek lake seven cycles ago. These deep lakes have been
identified in sediment cores and in shorelines around the Bonneville Basin. However, it is likely
that many more shallow lakes have also occurred in each glacial period, but the shorelines have
been destroyed by subsequent deeper lakes.
The types of sediment resulting from the formation and long-term presence of lakes in the
Bonneville basin are diverse and can be divided into three components (Schnurrenberger et al.,
2003): 1) chemical sediment (inorganic materials formed within the lake), 2) biogenic sediment
(fossil remains of former living organisms), and 3) terrigenous or clastic sediments (grains and
clasts that are mechanically and chemically fragmented from existing material, transported and
deposited by sedimentary processes). A fourth type of associated sediment, not formed by lakes,
includes eolian deposits consisting of windblown grains of sand, silt or dust (i.e., loess). These
deposits can locally be interbedded with lake sediments and may be affected by soil-forming
processes (i.e., pedogenesis) during prolonged periods of subaerial exposure. All four types of
sediments can be intermixed by lake-wave action or bioturbation, and deposited as clastic
sediments during transgressive and regressive lake cycles.
There is considerable uncertainty in the number of lakes, particularly lakes of intermediate size
that might have existed in the Bonneville basin. However, the main focus of the Deep Time
Model is to evaluate the presence of lakes that inundate Clive in future glacial cycles, and to
approximately match the net sedimentation of the past glacial cycles. In order to inform the
potential for radionuclide releases, the high-level, conceptual modeling of lake cycles that was
conducted here did not assume any particular mechanism of glaciation and deglaciation. For
example, the modeling simply assumed a 100-ky cycle, regardless of the mechanism. The model
addresses deep lakes by allowing them to return in some glacial cycles, and by allowing
intermediate lakes to occur as part of the transgressive and regressive phases of deep lake
development.
4.3 Shallow and Intermediate Lake Cycles
The current Great Salt Lake is an example of a shallow lake, as is the reinterpreted Gilbert
episode lake that has been shown to have not reached the elevation of the Clive site (Oviatt,
2014, contrasted with the map of Currey et al., 1984). The specific depths of lakes are not
important in the Deep Time Model, aside from calculations with regard to lake chemistry and
dominant processes of sedimentation. Under current climate conditions, only shallow lakes will
occur. Under future climate conditions, some glacial cycles will produce deep lakes in the
Bonneville basin, and intermediate lakes will occur during the transgressive and regressive
phases of deep lakes, or during glacial cycles that do not produce deep lakes. The approximate
timing of the return of the first intermediate lake is important in the Deep Time Model, because it
is assumed that the Federal DU Cell embankment is destroyed upon the occurrence of the first
intermediate lake.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 15
A key assumption of the Deep Time Model, based upon core sediment studies, is that the net
depositional rate of deep lakes is lower than the sediment depositional rate for intermediate
lakes. The conceptual basis for this assumption is that sedimentation rates are dependent on basin
location, presence or absence of fluvial deposition, wave dynamics, availability of local sediment
sources, slope, water chemistry and biological activity. Biogenic carbonate deposition is likely to
occur under a wide range of lake conditions, but the ratio of carbonate deposition to clastic
sedimentation will increase as the lake deepens because of the reduction in sedimentary influx
with increased distance from shoreline processes and decreased wave activity.
There are recognized trends in carbonate mineralogy that can be correlated with lake volume and
indirectly lake depth (cf., Oviatt, 2002; Oviatt et al., 1994b; Benson et al., 2011). The transitions
from low-magnesium calcite to high-magnesium calcite to aragonite generally reflect increasing
lake salinity and increasing magnesium concentration, which occurs with decreasing lake
volume. Similarly, for a hydrologically closed pluvial lake system, the relative concentration of
total inorganic carbon should typically decrease as lake size increases. The δ18O of deposited
carbonate can be correlated with rising lake levels because of the interplay between the δ18O
value of river discharge entering a lake and the δ18O value of water vapor exiting the system via
evaporation (Benson, et al., 2011). The mineralogy and isotopic composition of carbonate
composition can be obtained from sediment cores. Interpretation of the data is complicated by
multiple processes, including: local groundwater discharge; introduction of glacial rock flour;
and, reworking of lake sediments during transgressive and regressive lake cycles.
Intermediate lake events are known to have occurred in the Clive area. These are documented in
Table 3 (C.G. Oviatt, Professor of Geology, Kansas State University, personal communication
December 2010, January 2011, and various email communication referred to as “C.G. Oviatt,
personal communication.”). These events are evident from a pit wall interpretation at the Clive
site (Appendix A; C.G. Oviatt, unpublished data) as well as at the ostracode and snail record
present in the Knolls sediment core (12 km west of Clive near the Bonneville Salt Flats;
Appendix B; C.G. Oviatt, unpublished data). In 1985 Lake Bonneville sediments were described
and measured in a pit wall during early development of the Clive disposal facility (Oviatt, 1985).
Lake sediments of intermediate and deep lakes were briefly studied during field studies at Clive
in the winter of 2014 (Neptune, 2015a). These studies confirmed:
1. The pit walls described by C.G. Oviatt in 1985 have been removed during quarrying
and/or disposal operations at the Clive site.
2. Soil-modified eolian silt (mean thickness 73 cm) was observed in the upper part of quarry
walls throughout the Clive site.
3. The stratigraphy of sediments of Lake Bonneville in modern quarry-wall exposures are
consistent with the 1985 pit wall interpretations (Appendix A).
4. Quarry-wall deposits of gravel and sand at the Clive site contain distinctive volcanic
clasts of black andesite derived from the Grayback Hills north of Clive. These deposits
are part of the transgressive Lake Bonneville sedimentary sequence.
5. Pre-Lake Bonneville lake sediments with interbedded-soils and eolian sands were
observed in one deep quarry wall at the north end of the Clive site. These sediments are
consistent with the 1985 pit-wall interpretations but the new exposures were
insufficiently studied to established sediment correlations and the deposition chronology.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 16
Stratigraphic correlations between 1985 studies and the new field studies (Neptune, 2015a) are
shown in Appendix A.
From the Clive pit wall interpretation, it is presumed that at least three intermediate lake cycles
occurred prior to the Bonneville cycle, although there is uncertainty associated with this
estimate. For example, these intermediate cycles could be part of the transgressive phase (i.e.,
rising lake level) of the Lake Bonneville cycle (C.G. Oviatt, personal communication). By
analyzing the Knolls Core interpretation, the Little Valley cycle is present at approximately
16.8 m from the top of the core. Given that the pit wall at Clive was 6.1 m high and does not
capture the Little Valley cycle, it is possible that other smaller lake cycles occurred in the Clive
region in addition to the three intermediate lake events noted in Table 3 (labeled as Pre-
Bonneville Lacustrine Cycles).
There are few data to support the specific number of lakes that might have reached Clive or the
rate of sedimentation. There is also uncertainty associated with the particular times that these
cycles occur, as age dating (e.g., via radiocarbon dating) has not been performed in the Great Salt
Lake area. Most studies examine the degree of lake salinity using fossil records, and are
associated with cores that are in or near the Great Salt Lake. For example, Balch et al. (2005;
Fig. 6) estimated that there were six “saline/hypersaline” (i.e., shallow to intermediate) lake
cycles that occurred between the Lake Bonneville and Little Valley cycles, and approximately
that same number between the Little Valley cycle and the maximum age evaluated (300 ky).
However, this work does not inform the question of whether these lakes may have reached the
elevation of Clive, nor does similar work such as Davis (1998).
It is also possible that intermediate lakes could reach the elevation of Clive under unusual
conditions not necessarily associated with a return to a glacial cycle. The areal extent of lakes is
not only determined by elevation, but also by local topography, precipitation, temperature,
characteristics of inflow and outflow sources, and other factors. For instance, the Great Salt Lake
‘spilled’ over a 1285-m (4217-ft) amsl topographic barrier to the west of the present lake into the
area of the present Great Salt Desert as recently as the 1700s (Currey et al., 1984). This expanded
lake was about 15 m lower than the Clive site, and slightly higher than the current surface
elevation of the Great Salt Lake.
Precise dating of shorelines for the Great Salt Lake and variants is unfortunately lacking.
Radiocarbon dating for the Pyramid Lake area in Nevada indicates that this lake’s levels have
lowered approximately 35 m from the late Holocene Epoch (3.5 to 2.0 ky) to today (Briggs et al.,
2005). Radiocarbon and tree-ring dating to determine lake levels in the Carson Sink area in
Nevada indicates that lake elevations have risen approximately 20 m twice in the last 2000 yr
(Adams, 2003). It is not possible at this time to interpolate from these studies to the Great Salt
Lake area. However, given the lack of empirical evidence that under present climate conditions
(as opposed to cooler, wetter conditions) an intermediate lake would reach the Clive site, this
condition is not addressed in the Deep Time Model.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 17
Table 3. Lake cycles and sediment thickness from Clive pit wall interpretation (C. G.
Oviatt, personal communication) 1
Lake Cycle Thickness of
Sediment Layer (m)
Depth Below
Ground Surface (m)
Soil-modified eolian silt1 1.05 1.05
Lake Bonneville Regressive Phase (reworked marl) 0.43 1.48
Lake Bonneville Open Water (white marl) 1.29 2.77
Lake Bonneville Transgressive (littoral facies) 0.76 3.53
Pre-Bonneville Lacustrine Cycle 3 (possible shallow lake) 0.71 4.24
Pre-Bonneville Lacustrine Cycle 2 (possible shallow lake) 0.62 4.86
Pre-Bonneville Lacustrine Cycle 1 (possible shallow lake) 1.14 6.00
1 The upper sedimentary sequence is no longer interpreted as a Gilbert lake phase (Oviatt, 2014). It is surficial
eolian deposits and soils based on recent field studies (Neptune, 2015a). The pit wall described in the 1985 studies
has been removed during quarrying and/or disposal operations.
4.4 Sedimentation
During all pluvial lake cycles, evaporites are deposited, as well as carbonates in the form of
tufas, marls, and mudstones. These sediments may contain varying components of shells (e.g. of
mollusks), and ostracodes (Hart et al., 2004). Terrigenous sedimentation however, accounts for
the major thickness of sediment observed throughout the Clive area sediment core record (C.G.
Oviatt, personal communication). The geomorphological evidence in the form of depositional
and erosional landforms produced at lake shorelines are carved into the landscape in the
Bonneville basin and provide examples of the erosional capacity of lake systems over long time
periods. Given the difficulty in separating chemical, biogenic, and terrigenous sediment deposits
in cores and natural exposures, the estimates reported below are assumed to be representative of
cumulative sedimentation from all causes during a lake event.
Brimhall and Merritt (1981) reviewed previous studies that analyzed sediment cores of Utah
Lake, a freshwater remnant of Lake Bonneville that formed at approximately 10 ka. They
suggest that up to 8.5 m of sediment has accumulated since the genesis of Utah Lake, implying
an average sedimentation rate of 0.85 mm/y or 850 mm/ky. Within the Bonneville basin as a
whole the major lake cycles resulted in substantial accumulations of sediment based upon the
depth of the cores analyzed (e.g., a 110 m core that corresponds to the past 780 ky, or four deep
lake cycles [Oviatt et al., 1999]). This accumulation averages about 140 mm/ky. Einsele and
Hinderer (1997) indicate that sediment accumulation in the Bonneville basin occurred at a rate of
120 mm/ky during the past 800 ky. The Knolls Core suggests that there has been 16.8 m of
sediment formed in the last glacial cycle, or nearly 170 mm/ky.
Interpretations of the Clive pit wall (C.G. Oviatt, unpublished data) indicate that the
sedimentation rate at the Clive site for the Lake Bonneville cycle is on the order of 2.75 m over a
17 to 19 ky time period (140 to 160 mm/ky). By contrast, shallow lacustrine cycles that occurred
prior to Lake Bonneville (but after the Little Valley cycle) indicate that the amount of sediment
deposited during each cycle is approximately 1/3 that of the Bonneville sediment deposited. The
timing of these shallow lake cycles is uncertain, however it can be approximated when
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 18
comparing the Clive pit wall interpretation to the Knolls Core (C.G. Oviatt, personal
communication). The Little Valley lake cycle is exhibited in the Knolls Core at a depth of
approximately 17 m, which is roughly 14 m deeper than the beginning of the transgressive phase
of the Bonneville lake cycle event noted on the Clive pit wall interpretation. Given the Little
Valley event occurred 150 ka, a sedimentation rate can be approximated for the depth between
this event and the transgressive phase of the Bonneville cycle of 110 mm/ky.
4.5 Eolian Deposition
Post-Lake Bonneville eolian deposition has occurred and will continue to occur at the Clive site
under current conditions. The expected primary mode of eolian deposition at the Clive site is
deposition of fine-grained silt from suspension fallout during episodic wind storms.
Exceptionally strong surface winds could potentially transport sand-sized material by saltation.
Evidence supporting these conclusions include (Neptune, 2015a):
 The presence of soil-modified eolian silt in the upper part of quarry-wall exposures at
multiple locations in the Clive site. The presence of these deposits requires continuing
eolian activity in the region and long-term maintenance of stable surfaces that promotes
preservation of the eolian deposits (suspension fallout) and soil-forming processes.
 Holocene dune deposits of eolian sand and silt in road cut exposures within 0.5 km of the
Clive site.
 Active gypsum sand dunes located approximately 13.5 km west of the Clive site.
 Active dune fields in the Lake Bonneville basin west and southwest of the Clive site
(Jewell and Nicoll, 2011).
Replicate measurements of the thickness of eolian deposits located in quarry wall exposures in
the Clive site are presented in Neptune (2015), and are used below to develop input probability
distributions for the Deep Time Model. These deposits are relevant to expected future eolian
sedimentation before the first return of an intermediate or deep lake; with the rise of a future lake
to the elevation of the Clive site, wave activity will rework the eolian sediments and intermix
them with clastic lakeshore sediments.
5.0 Conceptual Overview of Modeling Future Lake Cycles
5.1 Introduction
There is a lack of data and peer-reviewed literature that would allow accurate and precise
prediction of the direct effects of future climate change on intermediate and deep lake formation
in the Bonneville basin. However, assuming no major changes from prehistorical climate cycles,
there is a possibility of another major lake cycle occurring in the Bonneville basin within the
next few million yr. Variations in the Earth’s orbital parameters in combination with increases in
inputs of freshwater into the oceans could lead to another major ice age and could alter long-term
climatic patterns in the Bonneville basin, resulting in deep lake formation. The Clive site might
be subjected to deep lake formation in the future, unless anthropogenic effects on atmospheric
CO2 concentrations cause major long-term changes in glacial cycles and climatic patterns.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 19
An overview of the Deep-Time CSM was presented at the beginning of this report. The basic
intent of the Deep Time Model is to allow a lake to exist that is sufficiently large that the above-
ground embankment of the Federal DU Cell will be destroyed. It assumes that the sedimentation
rates for each glacial cycle are similar. The exact timing of the recurring lakes is not important,
the current 100-ky cycle excepted. The Deep Time Model allows the possibility of a deep lake to
return in each 100-ky cycle. It also allows intermediate lakes to recur at a frequency that allows
the assumed 100-ky sedimentation rate to be satisfied. The current 100-ky cycle is not modeled
explicitly. It is possible that the current interglacial period will last for at least another 50 ky due
to anthropogenic influences, which is unusually long compared to the interglacial period for
recent 100-ky ice age cycles.
5.2 Future Scenarios
Representative lake occurrence scenarios for deep time are described below. Note that there are
two components of the models used to represent these scenarios. The first is modeling lake
formation and dynamics, based upon the scientific record, literature, and expert opinion. The
second is modeling the fate of the Federal DU Cell.
The Great Salt Lake represents the current condition of a shallow lake in the Bonneville Basin.
Lakes such as this are likely to exist in all future climatic cycles, but will not reach the elevation
of the DU waste embankment at Clive and thus will not affect the waste embankment. For the PA
model, it is assumed that destruction of the waste embankment will result from the effects of
wave action from an intermediate or deep lake. This assumption separates intermediate and
shallow lakes. In this destruction scenario, the embankment material above grade is assumed to
disperse through a combination of wave action/churning and dissolution into the water column
above the waste dispersal area. Radionuclides present in the embankment dissolve into the lake
and eventually return to the lakebed via precipitation or evaporation as the lake regresses.
Some radionuclides in the water column will bind with carbonate ions and precipitate as
chemical and biogenic sediment, while radionculides bound to embankment materials will
remain within the clastic sediment as the lake eventually recedes. Wave action during the lake
recession is expected to rework and mix the chemical, biogenic and clastic lake deposits. The
combined complexity of processes affecting the compositional and sedimentary features of
lacustrine deposits (Fritz, 1996) and the mixing of lake sediments during regressive and
transgressive lake cycles makes it difficult to develop quantitative models of chemical and
physical processes affecting the distribution of waste radionuclides in lake waters and sediments.
In reality, waste radionuclides dissolved in lake waters will mix and be diluted by lake
circulation driven by prevailing winds and geostrophic balances (Jewel, 2010). Waste-sediment
mixes will be dispersed by wave action and longshore drift. Sediment concentrations will
decrease over time because the amount of waste does not change other than through decay and
ingrowth, whereas more sediment is added over time. The model makes two simplifying
assumptions. First, sediments are thoroughly mixed throughout the total sediment depth. In the
Deep Time Model the sediment layers are considered to be a single mixing cell. Second,
diffusion can occur into the lake through this mixing cell, throughout the total sediment depth.
The mixing cell allows for radionuclides to diffuse through a short diffusion length, relative to
the depth of the mixing cell (sediment depth). Although sediment concentrations will decrease
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 20
over time and lake concentrations would be expected to do so concurrently, lake concentrations
do not necessarily decrease over time in the Deep Time Model because of the single mixing cell.
The Deep Time Model assumes that changes in climate will continue to cycle in a similar fashion
to the climate cycles that have occurred since the onset of the Pleistocene Epoch. These changes
follow those observed in the marine oxygen isotope record (Figure 2). The record captures major
climate regime shifts on a global scale and is used in this scenario in conjunction with expert
opinion (C.G. Oviatt, personal communication) plus site-specific sediment core and Clive pit
wall information to determine the approximate periodicity of lake events. However, uncertainties
exist due to the limitations related to the quality of the sediment core data.
It is assumed that during the 100-ky climatic cycles intermediate or deep lakes will reach the
elevation of Clive. Although a definitive distinction is not made, lakes that reach the elevation of
Clive but do not develop into a deep lake are considered intermediate lakes. These intermediate
lakes are also assumed to be large enough that their wave action will destroy the embankment.
Intermediate lakes might occur during the transgression and regression of a deep lake, or might
occur during a glacial cycle that does not produce a deep lake, perhaps in conjunction with
glacial cycles that are shorter and less severe than the 100-ky glacial cycles previously discussed.
In general, variation in lake elevation is assumed to be associated with all types of lakes. The
variation is due to local temporal changes in temperature, evaporation and precipitation. For
example, the Great Salt Lake has seen elevation changes of several meters in the past 30 to 40 yr.
The Great Salt Lake has also seen greater elevation changes in the past 10 ky, but in no cases
since the Younger Dryas has the Great Salt Lake reached the elevation of Clive (Oviatt, 2015).
Sedimentation is assumed to occur during these intermediate lake events at higher annual rates
than is assumed to occur for the open-water phase of deep lakes. This is based upon the pre-
Bonneville lacustrine cycles that are documented in Table 3 (Clive pit wall interpretation, see
Appendix A). The lake is assumed to recede after some period of time, at which point a shallow
lake (e.g., similar to the Great Salt Lake) will occupy Bonneville basin until the next
intermediate or deep lake cycle.
In the deep lake scenario, a deep lake forms throughout the Lake Bonneville basin in response to
major glaciation in North America and the Northern Hemisphere, following the ongoing 100-ky
glacial cycle. Increases in precipitation and decreases in evaporation over the long term, and
subsequent increases in discharge to the Bonneville basin via rivers that drain high mountains
along the eastern side of the basin have resulted in lakes that are more than 30 m deep and cover
an area similar to that of the most recent deep lake episode (e.g., Lake Bonneville, Provo
Shoreline). A similar extent of lake formation (geographic area, lake depth) is assumed to occur
in the future. Under such a scenario, the depth of a lake at the location of the Clive facility could
be many tens of meters. Resulting lake sedimentation at the Clive site will be high rates of
deposition of clastic sediments during intermediate lake events and much slower rates of
carbonate deposition during deep lake events. A key difference between the deep lake scenario
and the intermediate lake scenario is that both the transgressive and regressive phases of lake
formation are considered with the intermediate lake. Transgressive and regressive phases of lake
formation can lead to brief periods of rising and falling water levels in both phases. These phases
of transgression and regression are also assumed to have higher sedimentation rates than the
open-water phase. Upon the complete regression of a deep lake, it is assumed that only
intermediate lakes will form until the deep lake associated with the next climate cycle occurs.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 21
6.0 A Heuristic Model for Relating Deep Lakes to Climate
Cycles from Ice Core Temperature
6.1 Introduction
In this section, a model is presented for estimating lake elevation that uses surface temperature
deviations from the EPICA Dome C ice core data (Jouzel et al., 2007), which is used to support
the modeling of future intermediate and deep lakes in the Deep Time Model. The model of lake
elevation is not intended to be highly accurate, but rather is aimed at capturing the major lake-
cycle features as shown in the studies conducted by Oviatt et al. (1999), Link et al. (1999), and
the sediment core and pit wall interpretations (C.G. Oviatt, personal communication). This model
is not used as a predictive model but rather to form a basis for the character and dynamics of lake
events in the Deep Time Model.
The deep-sea benthic δ18O record is in excellent agreement with the EPICA Dome C deuterium
measurements for the last ~810 ky (Jouzel et al., 2007). Temperature anomaly data for the past
810 ky were obtained from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration/National Climate Data Center. These data are made available based
on calculations described in Jouzel et al. (2007), and are plotted in Figure 3. From the 810 ky of
data, the temperature deviations range from Tmin = –10ºC to Tmax = +5ºC. This range is used to
bound extreme events.
Water balance in the Bonneville basin is affected by many complex processes, so modeling water
balance simply as a function of temperature alone is not expected to produce precise results, but
instead provides a coarse representation. The conceptual model is based upon a water balance
reservoir model of precipitation versus evaporation. If precipitation outpaces evaporation, the
lake elevation increases. If evaporation outpaces precipitation, then the lake elevation decreases.
Precipitation and evaporation are affected directly by temperature, but long-term patterns of
precipitation are affected more greatly by the presence or absence of continental glaciation in
North America. Thus, glaciation is modeled first using a simple reservoir model depending on
temperature.
6.2 Glaciation
The water balance model begins by constructing a “continental glacier”; an artificial construct
that represents a glacier large enough to affect precipitation levels in the Bonneville Basin. The
extent of glaciation in proximity to the Bonneville basin is assumed to be zero initially, which is
a reasonable approximation for the start time of 785 ka, a start time chosen because it
corresponds to a warmer climate phase (data from Jouzel, et al., 2007; see Figure 3). For each
time step of 500 yr, an increase in glacial magnitude is dependent on temperature deviation (ΔT)
as scaled in Jouzel (see Figure 3):
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 22

Figure 3. Temperature deviations for the last 810 k (from Jouzel et al., 2007)

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 23
𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(Δ𝑇)={
0 if Δ𝑇≥Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑎𝑥1
𝑁𝐺𝐴
((𝑒𝑅𝐺𝐴⋅(Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑎𝑥–Δ𝑇)–1))if Δ𝑇<Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑎𝑥
(1)
where
NGA is a normalizing constant:
𝑁𝐺𝐴=𝑒𝑅𝐺𝐴⋅(Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑎𝑥−Δ𝑇min )(2)
RGA is a rate parameter (yr-1), and
TGMax is a threshold temperature (degrees Celsius).
As glaciation here is an artificial construct for modeling purposes, the units and scale of the
glacial “magnitude” are arbitrary. The parameters of the precipitation model described below
must be calibrated appropriately to the scale of the glaciation model.
For each time step, the decrease in glacial magnitude is also modeled as a function of
temperature:
𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(Δ𝑇)={
0 if Δ𝑇≤Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑆𝐺𝑆
𝑁𝐺𝑆
(𝑒𝑅𝐺𝑆⋅(Δ𝑇−Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑖𝑛)–1)if Δ𝑇>Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑖𝑛(3)
where
NGS is a normalizing constant:
𝑁𝐺𝑆=𝑒𝑅𝐺𝑆⋅(Δ𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥−Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑎𝑥) (4)
RGS is a rate parameter (yr-1), and
TGMin is a threshold temperature (degrees Celsius).
The change in glacial magnitude for a time step is thus:
𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑡=𝑚𝑎𝑥[0,𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑡−1 +𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(Δ𝑇𝑡)−𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(Δ𝑇𝑡)](5)
where the t subscript is a time step index. The time step used for the model is 500 yr.
The parameters of the model were calibrated heuristically to compute parameters that produced a
glacial cycle that appeared reasonable for this coarse model. The set of parameters computed
was:
Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑎𝑥=−6
𝑅𝐺𝐴=0.25
Δ𝑇𝐺𝑀𝑖𝑛=−6.0
𝑅𝐺𝑆=0.2
𝑆𝐺𝑆=5.0
(6)
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 24
The change in the glacial magnitude for a particular time step as a function of temperature is
shown in Figure 4. These values lead to slow growth during the very cold phases (Jouzel
temperature deviations of less than –6°C) of the glacial cycle, and rapid recession during warm
phases (temperature deviations of greater than –6°C).
6.3 Precipitation
A coarse model for precipitation in the Bonneville basin was developed dependent on global
temperature (as precipitation generally increases with global temperature), lake surface area
(which affects recharged evaporation), and an additional effect that depends of the magnitude of
the continental glacier. The precipitation in meters of annual rainfall is modeled as:
𝑃𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡,𝐿𝑡−1,𝐺𝑡−1)=𝐵𝑃+𝑅𝑃𝑇⋅Δ𝑇+𝑅𝑃𝐿𝑆𝐴⋅𝑆𝐴(𝐿𝑡−1)+𝑆𝑃𝐺⋅𝑒𝑅𝑃𝐺⋅𝐺𝑡−1 (7)
where
BP is a baseline precipitation,
RPT is a coefficient of linear effect of global temperature,
RPLSA is a coefficient of linear effect of the surface area of the lake, and
SA(L) is the surface area in km2 associated with lake elevation L.
The effect of temperature and lake surface area are modeled as linear, while the glacial effect is
exponential with respect to glacier size. The set of parameters calibrated to the glacial magnitude
model are:
𝐵𝑃=0.30
𝑅𝑃𝑇=0.005
𝑅𝑃𝐿𝑆𝐴=2 × 10−6
𝑆𝑃𝐺=0.06
𝑅𝑃𝐺=0.03
(8)
The precipitation is then converted to a volume by multiplying by the area of Bonneville basin
(approximately 47,500 km2).
6.4 Evaporation
Evaporation rate in the region is modeled as a function of temperature:
𝐸𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)=𝐵𝐸+𝑆𝐸
𝑁𝐸
⋅𝑒𝑅𝐸⋅(Δ𝑇−Δ𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛)(9)
where 𝑁𝐸is a normalizing constant:
𝑁𝐸=𝑒𝑅𝐸⋅(Δ𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥−Δ𝑇min )(10)
The evaporation is then converted to a volume by multiplying by the area of the basin.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 25
The calibrated parameters are:
𝐵𝐸=0.32;
𝑆𝐸=0.3
𝑅𝐸=0.05
Δ𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛=−10
Δ𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥=5
(11)
If the precipitation volume exceeds the evaporation volume, then the difference is added to the
lake volume, and the lake elevation is calculated from the total lake volume.

Figure 4. Glacial change as a function of temperature for the coarse conceptual model

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 26
If the evaporation volume is greater than the precipitation volume, then the total evaporation is
adjusted downward to adjust for the actual surface area exposed (rather than the full surface area
of the basin as used in the initial calculation). The difference between the adjusted evaporation
and the precipitation is then subtracted from the lake volume, and the lake surface elevation is
calculated from the total lake volume.
Δ𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡={
[𝑃𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)−𝐸𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)]⋅𝑆𝐴𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛if 𝐸𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)<𝑃𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)
[𝑃𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)−𝐸𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)]⋅𝑆𝐴(𝐿𝑡−1)
𝑆𝐴𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛
if 𝐸𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)≥𝑃𝑡(Δ𝑇𝑡)(12)
6.5 Simulations
For simplicity, lake volume and glacial magnitude are assumed to be zero at the first time step
(785 ka), as that time step corresponds to a warm climate phase. The values for the parameters
given above are calibrated graphically to produce reasonable precipitation versus evaporation
values. Several lake elevation histories were simulated by simulating the parameter values of the
model probabilistically. The distributions for the parameters were lognormal with medians equal
to the parameter values listed in Equations (6), (8), and (11). The simulations provide a variety of
behaviors depending on the combination of parameters simulated.
A few common features are apparent in the simulated results. The largest lakes tend to occur at
the times of Lake Bonneville, Little Valley, and Lava Creek, and the smallest 100-ky cycle lake
occurs in δO18 cycle 14 (~533 ka), which matches the scientific record. When the simulated
glaciation effects are small (RGA and RGS), precipitation change in the model is due primarily to
temperature change. In this case, deep lakes form with few intermediate lakes, as the lake
elevation history in the top graph in Figure 5 shows. When glaciation effects are larger, then deep
lakes tend to last longer, and intermediate lakes form, as the lake elevation history in the lower
graph of Figure 5 shows.
The simulation models were then calibrated further by combining the simulated lake histories
with sedimentation rates seen in sediment cores. Based upon the results of this coarse model
calibration, some assumptions are carried forward to the Deep Time Model.
1. The 100-ky cycle in global temperature is a strong indicator of the return of a deep lake.
While not all simulations showed a lake returning to the Clive elevation in every 100-ky cycle
(particularly δO18 cycle 14), the results were consistent enough to treat as systematic behavior for
a heuristic model.
2. Intermediate lakes should be a part of the Deep Time Model, because sedimentation rates
did not calibrate well with simulations that produce only deep lakes.
3. Intermediate lakes are more likely to occur in the later stages of the 100-ky cycle than in
the early stages, primarily in conjunction with the slowly decreasing temperatures across the
cycle (as opposed to the relatively rapid warming period that occurs at the end of a 100-ky
cycle).
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 27

Figure 5. Two example simulated lake elevations as a function of time, with Clive facility
elevation represented by green line
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 28
7.0 Deep Time Modeling Approach
7.1 Introduction
The GoldSim systems analysis software (GTG, 2011) is used to construct the Clive DU PA
Model v1.4. The same Species list of contaminants, material properties, and site geometry are
retained from the Clive DU PA Model v1.2. The standalone DTSA Model is combined with the
deep time container of the Clive DU PA Model v1.2 in the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 deep time
container.
The DU waste inventory for the start of deep time is taken from the Clive DU PA Model v1.4
Federal DU Cell Disposal container at the time the first lake returns, which changes for each
realization. The DU waste is disposed below current grade. Contaminant fate and transport are
captured in the Federal DU Cell until the first lake returns. Radionuclides above grade when the
first lake returns are dispersed across the lake area and assumed to be available to diffuse into
any lake that appears. “Above ground” radionuclides are assumed to be at least 2 m above the
original ground surface, where eolian processes deposit at least 2 m of material in the 50,000
years or more before a lake returns. Remaining radioactivity in the lowest six waste layers (about
the lowest 2.5 m of the embankment) at the time the first lake appears is used as the Rn flux
inventory for the Deep Time Model.
The Deep Time Model is largely a heuristic representation of deep time. The underlying concepts
are that a lake will return to the elevation of Clive at some point in the future, and new lake
sediments will be sufficiently thick after the first lake recedes that radon flux will meet
regulatory guidelines. Contaminant fate and transport after the first lake returns are not evaluated
in the Deep Time Model, excepting radioactive decay and the ingrowth of progeny.
As previously discussed, the depth of lake and eolian sediments removed at the Clive location
due to wave action and the residual material from the destroyed embankment are expected to be
approximately equal, and their effects essentially cancel. Therefore, the thickness of residual
embankment material and sediment overlying the disposed DU waste at the time when the first
intermediate lake recedes will be effectively equivalent to the thickness of eolian sediments
deposited up until that point in time, represented by the rising elevation of the surrounding grade.
The Deep Time Model calculates radon ground surface flux from radionuclides in the disposed
DU waste buried beneath this layer. Dose to a rancher from this radon flux is calculation to
provide a reference point to interpret the significance of the radon flux.
7.2 Deep Lake Characteristics
The 100-ky climate cycle is treated as a sufficiently robust effect to create a hypothetical lake
that will reach and exceed the elevation of the Clive site during each glacial cycle. The exact
time of occurrence is not a crucial parameter, due to the slowly-changing concentrations during
deep time. Thus, the lake is set to be present during each 100-ky interval, with time beginning at
10 ky (the end of the performance period for the quantitative dose assessment component of the
PA).

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 29
There is limited information from the Quaternary geologic record for the duration of time that the
Clive location has been under water. Lake Bonneville has been estimated to have been present at
the elevation of Clive for an interval of approximately 16 ky (Oviatt et al., 1999). Durations of
pre-Lake Bonneville deep lakes are uncertain. Thus, a conservative choice was made to allow
deep lakes to remain an average of about 20 ky (conservative in the sense that more
radionuclides will migrate into the water column). The occurrence time for each deep lake is set
by choosing a start time some number of yr prior to the 100-ky mark. The start time is
represented by a lognormal distribution with geometric mean of 14 ky prior to the 100-ky mark,
and a geometric standard deviation of 1.2. The end time is represented by a lognormal
distribution with geometric mean of 6 ky after the 100-ky mark, and a geometric standard
deviation of 1.2. These distributions are depicted in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Probability density functions for the start and end times for a deep lake, in yr
prior to the 100-ky mark and yr after the 100-ky mark, respectively.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 30
7.3 Intermediate Lake Characteristics
Intermediate lakes are modeled as potentially occurring during the transgressive and regressive
phases of deep lakes and at any time between deep lake events. In order to reflect the slow
decrease in temperature over the 100-ky cycle, the occurrence time for intermediate lakes is
modeled as a Poisson process with a rate that increases linearly over the cycle time, from a rate
of 0 to 7.5 lakes per 100 ky. This process produces an average of about 3 intermediate lakes per
100 ky. There is little recorded basis for this number, but it matches reasonably with the heuristic
model and was chosen so that long-term sedimentation rates matched the average clastic
sediment thickness observed in studies of lake cores from previous lake cycles.
There is virtually no information for the duration of intermediate lakes, due to the high mixing
rate of lake sediments, which prohibits establishing the chronology of individual stratigraphic
layers from studies of cores of intermediate lake sediments. Thus, a distribution was chosen to
roughly calibrate with the heuristic model: lognormal with geometric mean of 500 y and
geometric standard deviation of 1.5.
7.4 Sedimentation Rates
As previously mentioned, the Deep Time Model makes a distinction between deep and
intermediate lakes with regard to sedimentation.
 The sedimentation patterns of deep lakes are assumed to be similar to observed intervals
of carbonate marl from Lake Bonneville or Lake Provo, and are assumed to occur no
more than once per 100-ky glacial cycle. The depth of deep lakes is significantly greater
than the depth of wave action and slow precipitation of carbonate is assumed to be the
dominant sedimentation process.
 Intermediate lakes are defined as lakes that reach and exceed the altitude of the Clive site
but are not large (or deep) enough that carbonate sedimentation is the dominant mode of
lake sedimentation. The transgressive and regressive phases of the Bonneville and Provo
shoreline lakes represent intermediate lakes formed during transient lake cycles where
the lake levels exceeded the elevation of Clive and lake sedimentation was dominated by
clastic deposits associated with wave activity and reworking of pre-existing lake and
eolian sediments (see Table 2 for the chronology of the lake cycles).
 Shallow lakes, similar to the modern Great Salt Lake, are assumed to exist at all other
times, but these are irrelevant to the geomorphology of the Clive site and thus are not
explicitly modeled.
Deposition of eolian and lake sediments in the area of the Clive facility is a continuous process
that occurs during shallow, intermediate and deep lake periods. During shallow lake periods, as
observed in present-day conditions, eolian deposition of sand, and silt/loess is the primary
sedimentary mechanism. However, eolian deposits are rarely observed in sediment cores,
presumably because of reworking of the depositions during lake transgressions and mixing with
lake-derived sediments. Note however that the upper part of the Clive quarry exposure is now
known to be of eolian origin (Neptune, 2015a) and paleosoils and eolian deposits have been
observed in the pre-Lake Bonneville sedimentary deposits at Clive and described in the
Burmester core indicating prolonged periods of subaerial exposure. Intermediate lake sediments
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 31
include chemical, biogenic, and terrigenous sediments, with their proportions dependent on the
size and duration of the lake and the interplay between deep lake deposition and near-shore
sedimentary processes. Schofield et al. (2004) note that the large fetch of Lake Bonneville
(distance of wave forming winds over the water) produced a variety of wave-dominated
erosional and depositional sedimentary and geomorphic features. They identified cross-sections
of erosion-dominated and deposition-dominated shorelines and the composite sedimentation
rates of shoreline profiles will be dependent on local process of wind/wave erosion and
deposition and supply of sediments from alluvial fans flanking pluvial lakes (Schofield et al.,
2004). Moreover, eolian depositional layers are not commonly observed in the sediment cores, so
the model effectively combines eolian deposits with lake sediments. The mixing probably occurs
during intermediate lake cycles, which are likely to be the first lakes after interglacial periods.
These assumptions require that there is a mixing depth associated with each lake recurrence.
However, the mixing process itself makes it difficult to assign mixing depths for the different
layers in the sediment cores. Mixing depths are probably determined by the dynamics of wave
activity and resulting erosion/deposition during lake transgressions and regressions.
Deep lakes, in contrast, have similar sediment deposition rates to intermediate lakes in their
transgressive and regressive phases, but have slower rates of sedimentation when the lake is deep
enough that the dominant process is predominantly precipitation of chemical and biogenic
material from the lake waters. Studies of the sediment cores are able to distinguish between
layers associated with intermediate lakes with predominant sediment mixing, and sedimentary
layers associated with a deep lake that are dominated by carbonate layers (marl).
For deep lakes, a sedimentation rate is modeled as a lognormal distribution with geometric mean
of 120 mm/ky and geometric standard deviation of 1.2, a distribution that covers the range of
observed values for deep lakes. This distribution is represented in Figure 7. The sedimentation
rate is applied for the simulated duration of the deep lake. In addition, sedimentation is added at
the beginning of the lake cycle as well as the end that represents the shallow phase of the
transgressive and regressive lakes. This additional sediment mimics the behavior of an
intermediate lake.
For intermediate lakes (and shallow phases of deep lakes), there is high likelihood of multiple
short-term transgressions and regressions with respect to the elevation of Clive. For example, the
Clive pit wall (Appendix A) shows three distinct lakes after the deep-water phase of Lake
Bonneville and three distinct lakes prior to the deep-water phase of Lake Bonneville. Without
further systematic study of sediment cores and trench sections in and around the Clive site,
including chronology studies, it is impossible to determine if these distinct lakes were separated
by a few years or a few hundred years; i.e., whether they are distinct lake events or simply part of
the transgression and regression of Lake Bonneville. However, based upon current behavior of
the lake, some year-to-year variation in the lake elevation occurs, in addition to the longer-term
trends in lake elevation.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 32

Figure 7. Probability density function for sedimentation rate for the deep-water phase of a
deep lake
Another heuristic model was constructed to evaluate the effect of the short-term variation. The
lake elevation for the years 1848 through 2009 is available from the Saltair Boat Harbor
monitoring site (USGS, 2001), as shown in Figure 8. The year-to-year variation can be modeled
as a second-order autoregressive process AR(2) (Brockwell and Davis, 1991), a model that
accounts for year-to-year temporal correlations in the variation. An AR(2) process was simulated
and added to a transgressive or regressive curve based upon the simplified model previously
presented. Examples of these simulations are given in Figure 9. As can be seen in the figure, the
short-term variation can result in lakes covering the Clive elevation for a short time, receding for
a short time, then rising again, often multiple times in a single transgression cycle. A similar
simulation was performed for simulated intermediate duration lakes as well. The transgressive
and regressive phases of a deep lake are assumed to behave similarly to the intermediate lakes in
that they averaged about four total occurrences of “mini-lakes;” i.e., occurrences of a rise above
the elevation of Clive followed by a drop below for at least one year.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 33

Figure 8. Historical elevations of the Great Salt Lake
The distribution for sediment thickness for intermediate lakes was thus based upon simulating
this multiple mini-lake behavior. First, the number of mini-lakes associated with an intermediate
lake was simulated as 1 plus a Poisson random variable with rate 3 (the “plus 1” being necessary
to ensure at least one event in order to match the definition of a lake event). The sedimentation
for each mini-lake was simulated using a distribution based upon the sedimentary deposits of
mini-lakes exposed in the Clive pit wall, using the six distinct “mini-lakes” in Table 3 (all layers
except the one that corresponds to the deep-water phase of Lake Bonneville). These data are
represented in a lognormal distribution of sediment thickness with geometric mean 0.75 m and
geometric standard deviation 1.4.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 34

Figure 9. Simulated transgressions of a deep lake including short-term variations in lake
elevations
The total sedimentation for all mini-lakes associated with a simulated intermediate lake cycle
was then added together to produce a total sedimentation for the intermediate lake. A distribution
was then based upon all simulated intermediate lake sedimentations, a lognormal distribution
with geometric mean 2.82 m and geometric standard deviation 1.71, as presented in Figure 10.
Note that the sedimentation pattern for intermediate lakes is represented as a distribution of
composite sediment thickness and contrasts with a distribution of sedimentation rates assumed
for deep lakes. The net effect is that the sedimentation rates are on the order of 15 to 20 m per
glacial cycle (100-ky). For the duration of the model (2.1 My), this implies sedimentation of
more than 300 m. The Basin and Range system accommodates this rate of sedimentation because
it is an extensional system; i.e., sedimentation continues as the basins expand and subside,
maintaining similar elevation in each cycle.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 35

Figure 10. Probability density function for the total sediment thickness associated with an
intermediate lake (or the transgressive of regressive phase of a deep lake)
7.5 Eolian Depositional Parameters
Studies of eolian deposits in multiple quarry exposures at the Clive site and in surface exposures
west and southwest of the site show that deposition of eolian sand and silt is now occurring and
will continue to occur in the future as long as the at grade site elevation is exposed at the surface
(above the elevation of lake levels; Neptune, 2015a).
7.5.1 Field Studies
Field studies of the eolian depositional history at the Clive Disposal Site were conducted in
December 2014 to provide information for characterizing eolian deposits and establishing eolian
depositional rates for the original DTSA Model (Neptune, 2015a). The primary goals of the field

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 36
studies were to evaluate the modern geological and depositional setting of the Clive site, and to
assess the stratigraphy of the Holocene and Pleistocene lake sedimentation of Lake Bonneville
and post-lake depositional processes within the Clive site including the following:
1. Re-evaluating the stratigraphic section previously described by Oviatt (1985, cited in
Neptune, 2015b).
2. Describing the eolian sediments and processes affecting the sediments.
3. Measuring variations in thickness of the deposits across the site.
4. Providing sufficient replicate measurement at multiple sites to estimate eolian sediment
thicknesses and the variation in eolian sediment thicknesses at the Clive site.
The field studies achieved these primary goals, and the replicate measurements of the thickness
of eolian deposits located in the upper part of the stratigraphic section were made at multiple
locations on and in the vicinity of the Clive Disposal Site. The data are presented in Neptune
(2015) and are used below to develop input probability distributions for the Deep Time Model.
7.5.2 Probability Distributions for the Depth and Age of Eolian Deposition
The Deep Time Model requires specification of input probability distributions for the depth of
eolian deposition and the age of the eolian deposits. Together, these two variables provide the
information needed to estimate the rate of eolian deposition. The distribution for the depth of
eolian deposition is based on the field data described above (Neptune, 2015a), whereas the
distribution for the age of the eolian deposits are derived from a summary paper by Oviatt
(2015).
An assumption is made that the described eolian deposits at the Clive site represent an integrated
time interval of eolian sediment accumulation, modification by processes of soil formation and
minor modifications by processes of surface erosion. These deposits approximate a steady-state
representation of eolian processes since the regression of Lake Bonneville and these processes
should continue into the future until conditions at the site change considerably (e.g., natural
climate change). The distributions are based on the depth of eolian deposition since Lake
Bonneville regressed below the elevation of Clive and estimations of the age at which regression
below the Clive elevation occurred (Neptune, 2015a) These distributions are used to model
future eolian deposition until the return of a lake at the elevation of Clive.
The data presented in Table 4 from Neptune (2015a) are the measured thicknesses of eolian silt
in quarry walls and excavated surfaces for the Clive Disposal Site. The mean of the deposits is
72.7 cm, and the standard deviation is 16.6 cm. There are 11 data points, and the data are
reasonably symmetric about the mean. Consequently, a normal distribution is specified for the
Deep Time Model with a mean of 72.7 cm and a standard error of 5.0 cm. A reasonable
simulation range considering ± 3 standard errors would be 57.5 to 87.5 cm. The minimum of the
normal distribution was set to a very small number and the maximum was set to a very large
number so that the distribution was not unnecessarily restricted.
This distribution represents spatio-temporal scaling, so that the distribution is of the average
depth of eolian deposition at the Clive site since Lake Bonneville regressed below the site. This
provides the best representation of the future eolian depositional rates over the long timeframes
and spatial scales of the Deep Time Model.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 37
Table 4. Thickness measurements from field studies of eolian silt near Clive
Neptune Field Studies December 2014
Site GPS Coord GPS Coord Silt Thick Date
UTM E UTM N (cm) (mm/dd/yy)
Clive 29-1 321354 4508262 90.0 12/16/14
Clive 29-2 321390 4508256 80.0 12/16/14
Clive 29-3 321423 4508248 80.0 12/16/14
Clive 29-4 321502 4508236 60.0 12/16/14
Clive 29-5 321239 4508283 110.0 12/16/14
Clive 5-1 320813 4504729 55.0 12/16/14
Clive 5-2 320869 4504730 70.0 12/16/14
Clive 5-3 320914 4504731 60.0 12/16/14
Clive 5-4 321041 4504732 70.0 12/16/14
Clive Hand-Dug-1 322093 4507482 70.0 12/17/14
Clilve hand-Dug-2 320445 4507035 55.0 12/17/14

Mean 72.7

Std Error 5.0

Note that several replicate measurements were taken at each location (usually three or four), and
the results represent the average thickness at each location. These data are also supported by
previous data collected from shallow core studies at Clive, which also are presented in Neptune
(2015a). The documentation and uncertainty in the measurements of the eolian sediment
thickness from the core studies data is not as precise as those made in the Neptune field study;
however, the data are supportive of the results of the field study, indicating very similar patterns
of eolian thickness data. These data provide another 21 data points that have an average of 71 cm
depth of eolian deposits, with a standard error of 4 cm. Because of the uncertain pedigree and
lesser precision of the data from the core studies, they were not used in the distribution
development. Their use would have resulted in a much tighter distribution because of the scaling
effects of spatio-temporal averaging.
Ages of the deposits were determined from radiocarbon dating. The summary paper by Oviatt
(2015) provides the most recent compilation and interpretation of radiocarbon ages for the
chronology of Lake Bonneville. Based on information summarized in Figure 2 of Oviatt (2015)
and supported by the supplemental radiocarbon data referenced in the paper, the preferred
estimate for the age of the final regression of Lake Bonneville below the altitude of the Clive site
is about 13.5 ka. (Clive elevation 1304 m). A reasonable lower bound on the youngest or
minimum age for this event is 13.3 ka based on radiocarbon ages determined from organic
material collected in post-Bonneville wetland deposits (Oviatt, 2015). The reasonable oldest or
maximum age of lake regression at the Clive site is constrained by the age of the Provo shoreline
and reliable radiocarbon ages for sites above the altitude of the Clive site and below the Provo
shoreline. This reasonable maximum age is estimated to be about 14.5 ka. A distribution was
developed based on these values from Oviatt (2015) and on expert elicitation of Oviatt. Oviatt
suggested that values around 13.5 ka were more likely. Based on this information a beta
distribution was fit to approximate elicited quantiles. The following quantile inputs were used:
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 38
 Absolute minimum possible age – 13,000 yr
 Reasonable minimum age – 13,300 yr
 Most likely age – 13,500 yr
 Reasonable maximum age – 14,500 yr
 Absolute maximum possible age – 15,000 yr
After considering possible quantiles for the middle three terms, a beta distribution fit was agreed
upon with the following parameters:
 Minimum – 13,000 yr
 Maximum – 15,000 yr
 α (shape 1 parameter) – 3.318
 β (shape 2 parameter) – 7.498
This beta distribution has a mean of approximately 13,600 yr and a standard deviation of
approximately 270 yr. The mean is reasonably close to the specified most likely age of 13,500
yr. Quantiles of this beta distribution are provided below:
 2.5% – 13,174 yr
 10% – 13,284 yr
 20% – 13,378 yr
 50% –13,592 yr
 80% – 13,846 yr
 90% – 13,988 yr
 97.5% – 14,207 yr
The distribution is slightly positively skewed, hence the median is slightly less than the mean,
and the difference between the maximum and the median is greater than the difference between
the minimum and the median. Note that averaging is not employed for this distribution. The
distribution simply reflects the age over which eolian deposition has occurred. The rate of eolian
deposition is averaged for spatio-temporal scaling by dividing the depth of deposition by the age
over which deposition has occurred as described in the next section.
In principle, the rate of eolian deposition is the deposition thickness divided by the age over
which deposition occurs. However, an assumption is made that greater ages imply greater depths,
in which case there is a correlation between depth and age of eolian deposition. There are no data
to inform a correlation between these two variables. Although elicitation could be performed to
develop a correlation, the approach taken is to specify the correlation as uncertain across a range
of 0.5 to 1. In a sense, this distribution is chosen to indicate that the “data are more likely to be
correlated than not-correlated.” A uniform distribution is used across this range, but this input
will be tracked specifically in sensitivity analysis to determine if it is an important predictor of
the Deep Time Model output.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 39
Using the input distributions and the correlation described above, the resulting distribution of
rate of eolian deposition in the model has a mean of approximately 5.3 × 10-5 m/yr, (roughly 53
cm every 10 ky) with a standard deviation of approximately 3.0 × 10-6 m/yr. A histogram of the
eolian deposition rate for 1,000 realizations is depicted in Figure 11. Quantiles from these
simulated data include:
 5% – 4.84E-05 m/yr
 10% – 4.96E-05 m/yr
 20% – 5.10E-05 m/yr
 50% – 5.34E-05 m/yr
 80% – 5.58E-05 m/yr
 90% – 5.71E-05 m/yr
 95% – 5.81E-05 m/yr
The distribution is symmetric, as evidenced by the normal distribution fit that is laid over the
histogram. The normal distribution has the mean and standard deviation as specified above, and
the quantiles, which show similar differences between the 95% quantile and the median and the
5th quantile and the median.
Overall, this intermediate product of the Deep Time Model suggests eolian deposition rates of
slightly more than 0.5 m every 10,000 yr.
7.6 Destruction of the Federal DU Cell
Destruction of the Federal DU Cell embankment was modeled assuming future lakes have
sufficient wave energy to destroy the above-ground portions of the cell. The precise lake
elevation needed for this to happen is not considered for the model, but the intermediate lakes
that occur in the model are intended to match this definition.
The first lake in the time period assessed is more likely to be an intermediate lake but can be
either an intermediate or a deep lake. The destructive energy is equivalent in either case, as the
conceptual model treats the transgressive phase of a deep lake as behaving similarly to an
intermediate lake.
The mass of material that is within the embankment above the grade of the surrounding land is
assumed to be eroded to grade and dispersed by wave action. This volume of above grade
material in the embankment, including fill material and cap material, is assumed to be mixed
with the sediment associated with the intermediate lake, and subsequently spread across a
dispersal area determined by the dynamics of wave activity.
The dispersal area parameter used in the original Deep Time model was estimated for a projected
area where the above grade embankment material could be spread by wave action using different
assumptions for the final dispersal thickness of the volume of embankment material. The
dispersal area was designed to be conservative (small sediment dispersal areas) giving higher
waste concentrations in sediment allowing increased dissolution of waste in lake water.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 40

Figure 11. Eolian deposition rate results for 1,000 realizations (m/yr).
With below grade disposal of DU, the approach to estimating the dispersal area is revised and
based on a conceptual model for processes affecting the Clive disposal site with the return of a
lake. The following assumptions are used for the revised lake return scenario:
1. The Clive site will be affected by the return of a lake at some time in the future. The
lake event will be either an intermediate lake or the transgressive phase of a deep lake
with the lake processes the same for either event (degradation of the site by near-
shoreline wave action).
Histogram with Normal Curve
Eolian Deposition Rate
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
4.5e-05 5.0e-05 5.5e-05 6.0e-05 6.5e-05
0
2
0

4
0

6
0

8
0

1
0
0

1
2
0
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 41
2. Eolian deposition will occur during the interval after waste emplacement and before the
first return of a lake to the elevation of the Clive site.
3. Wave action associated with the lake return is assumed to completely remove the
above-grade embankment material above the DU waste.
4. Wave action will churn (rework) the eolian deposits and lake sediments. The maximum
depth of reworking of the eolian deposits is assumed to be about 1 meter based on the
geometry of shoreline deposits for Lake Bonneville.
5. Radionuclides within the above grade embankment will be dispersed by wave action
and mixed with eolian deposits and lake sediments.
6. The alternative models used for estimating sediment dispersal areas include:
a. Analogue sites of modern sedimentary processes dispersing sediments at
shorelines of the Great Salt Lake;
b. Field assessments of sediment dispersal during the transgressive phase of Lake
Bonneville at and around the Clive Disposal Area (Neptune, 2015a);
c. Assessment of wind directions from dune forms west and southwest of Clive
(Jewell and Nicoll, 2011)
Google Earth© imagery was used to identify and determine the areas of active shoreline
sedimentation for the Great Salt Lake assuming these patterns provide analogues for wave action
and sediment dispersal for the lake return scenario at Clive. Dispersal area estimations assumed
no longshore drift (minimum areas) and one dominant direction of longshore drift (maximum
areas). The Great Salt Lake analogue may be somewhat conservative (underestimate sediment
dispersal) for two reasons. First, the fetch length for a lake return at the Clive elevation would be
longer than the fetch length for the Great Salt Lake. Second, the observed sedimentation patterns
of the Great Salt Lake represent relatively short term dynamics of lakeshore processes – the
dispersal area of sediments for the return of a lake at the Clive site and erosion of the
embankment would likely develop over a timescale of multiple decades.
Google Earth© imagery was used to estimate alternative sediment dispersal areas using
constraints from field observations of the distribution of conglomerate and sand deposits of the
transgressive phase of Lake Bonneville. These estimations combined data from surface
landforms and quarry-wall exposures of lake sediments at Clive.
Finally, alternative sediment dispersal patterns were estimated using Google Earth© imagery for
Clive by centering the sediment dispersal at the Clive embankment and adjusting the dispersal
patterns for the topographic features of the Clive area.
The following percentiles were assigned to the composite data to establish a distribution for the
sediment dispersal parameter:
 1%: 4 km2 from smallest measured dispersal area
 5%: 10 km2 assuming only west-east wind directions
 15%: 15 km2 averaging dispersal areas for no longshore drift
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 42
 30%: 16 km2 averaging dispersal areas for N-S and SW-NE longshore drift
 50% 24 km2 assuming multidirectional winds and longshore drift
 75% 36 km2 averaging all single direction longshore drift dispersal areas
95% 55 km2 from maximum measured dispersal area
A gamma distribution was used to fit the percentages above, with mean of 24.2332 and standard
deviation of 11.43731. A typical probability density function of this distribution is shown in
Figure 12.

Figure 12. Probability density function for the area over which the waste embankment is
dispersed upon destruction
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 43
7.7 Radionuclide Concentration in DU Waste
After a lake recedes, radionuclides in the original DU waste disposal volume are not likely to
move to the surface in any significant amounts via diffusion or other processes. This section
discusses processes that are likely to occur in deep time relating to the original DU waste source.
Infiltration rates will increase over time, moving material downward via advection, counteracting
potential upward diffusion of radionuclides. The climate will become cooler and wetter, entering
a glacial period, resulting in the lake return. Estimates of future net infiltration at Clive are
supported by work for the Yucca Mountain Project. Faybishenko (2006) developed models
predicting infiltration rates for future climate states based on factors including predicted
precipitation, evapotranspiration, and temperature. The meteorological stations at Simpson and
Spokane in Faybishenko (2006, Table 3) provide a reasonable range of infiltration rates for Clive
of 40 mm/yr to 73 mm/yr, for a glacial phase.
An external, finely-discretized GoldSim model was used to test diffusion behavior at Clive,
along with higher infiltration rates. The model results showed that if infiltration increased even
to 10 mm/yr, downward advection would dominate upward diffusion in the model. Infiltration of
40 mm/yr to 73 mm/yr would move radionuclides that had diffused above the original grade
back below grade.
Dry periods during the inner-glacial timeframes would be expected to behave like current
conditions. Because of the uncertain nature of the deep time future conditions and timing and
because it is important to keep the Deep Time Model simple, it was assumed that until the first
lake returns, radionuclides migrate upwards via the processes of diffusion and plant and animal
transport and that the associated material and radionuclides above grade is spread across the site
dispersal area and is available to diffuse into an intermediate or deep lake. These simplifying
assumptions ignore increases in infiltration during wetter periods in the climate cycle, which is a
conservative approach.
7.8 Radionuclide Concentration in Sediment
The radioactivity per unit volume of sediment following the dispersal of the waste is estimated
using Equation 13 below.
The model calculates radioactivity by volume in the sediment layers, after the embankment has
been destroyed. The current implementation always mixes sediment with the full amount of
waste, and does not consider a mixing depth; i.e., the waste is always fully mixed and not
covered by sediment. Thus, radioactivity concentration in sediment is initially calculated under
the assumption that all of the waste in the waste embankment is mixed evenly with the sediment
that forms as a result of the lake destroying the embankment.
Concentration in sediment is initially calculated under the assumption that all of the waste that
was above grade in the waste embankment is mixed evenly with the sediment that forms with the
lake that destroys the embankment.
𝐶sediment =𝑅embankment
𝑉material above grade+𝑉sediment
.(13)

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 44
where
Rembankment is all remaining radioactivity in the embankment,
Vmaterial above grade is the volume of material in the above grade portion of the embankment
(estimated as 3,231,556 m3), and
Vsediment is calculated as the depth of sediment due to lake processes multiplied by
the area over which the waste is dispersed.
This calculation assumes that there is no loss of waste from the initial dispersal region. While
this calculation is counter to the modeling of dissolution into the water column of the lake, a
simplifying assumption is that all waste that dissolves into the lake precipitates back into the
sediment upon recession of the lake.
The concentrations in sediment are modeled as constant, except for decay and ingrowth, until a
new lake occurs. When a new lake occurs, the sedimentation associated with that lake is likely to
mix with some portion of the top layer of existing sediment and leave the lower layers of the
sediment buried beneath. However, for simplicity, a conservative approach is to mix all sediment
that contains waste, effectively keeping some portion of the waste near-surface. The
concentration is again the total radioactivity divided by the volume containing waste, but the
volume that contains waste now has the additional volume of sediment associated with the
current lake.
7.9 Radioactivity in Lake Water
When lake water is present, radionuclides will partition between the water phase and the solid
phase depending on element-specific solubility and sorption properties. Radionuclides remaining
in the pore water will then diffuse into the lake. The waste is likely to mix over a wide area of the
lake, and many forms of the waste are likely to bind with carbonate ions in the water, ultimately
precipitating into carbonate sediments. As a conservative assumption, upon recession of the lake,
all waste is assumed to precipitate back into the local sediments, meaning that all radionuclides
in the sediments are returned to the sediments when the lake regresses.
When a lake returns, the sediments are assumed to be fully saturated, and radionuclides are
partitioned from the sediment to the pore water within the sediment using the same partitioning
coefficients (Kd) used for other sedimentary soils in the model. An important difference between
the assumptions for this model and the model for transport from the embankment in the 10-ky
model is that the lake water is assigned a different solubility for uranium for the Deep Time
Model. While solubilities for all other radionuclides remain the same, the solubility for uranium
is reduced to that of U3O8 which is appreciably lower than other forms of uranium originally
present in the waste. This change in solubility for uranium is adopted because it is expected that
by the time the first lake returns, soluble uranium forms (UO3) either will have been leached
from the embankment into the shallow aquifer or will have been converted into U(IV), which is
also very insoluble.
As radionuclides associated with the sediments dissolve into the pore water, they diffuse into the
lake water using a constant flux model based upon Fick’s first law, with the following
assumptions:
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 45
 The concentration in sediment remains constant over the deep time period. The sediment
concentration should in fact diminish over time if enough mass is migrated into the water,
but for simplicity, the sediment concentrations are kept constant across time steps.
 The diffusion length from the radionuclides in the sediment diffusing into the lake is
about 0.5 m. This diffusive length value assumes the mixing depths of the sediment
correspond to diffusive processes from the sediment into the lake.
 Mixing depths are expected to be between 0 and 1 m, with 0.5 m being most likely. The
distribution was set up as a normal distribution with mean of 0.5 m and standard
deviation of 0.16 m so that 99% of the distribution will be between 0 and 1 m. The
distribution is truncated at 0 m so that no negative diffusion lengths are chosen.
Fick’s law for this case estimates the mass diffusing from a given volume of sediment into the
lake with time. The mass (or activity) per area per time is the flux. Fick’s law states that this flux
is given by the difference in mass concentration over a distance (the concentration gradient)
multiplied by a free-water diffusion coefficient, across a diffusive area. The calculation assumes
that there is a stagnant interface boundary layer of water between the sediment and the open
water that is the thickness of the diffusion length (~0.5 m). The assumption is also made that the
mass concentration is zero in the open water. The difference in concentration across the stagnant
layer is then the concentration in the sediment Cv minus the concentration in the open water or
Cv – 0 g/mL. Fick’s law applied to diffusion is used to define the mass (or activity) flux J:
𝐽= 𝑅
∆𝑡 𝐴= 𝐷𝑚 𝐶𝑣
𝑏𝑏𝑑𝑦.(14)
where
R is the mass (M) activity (T-1),
ΔT is the length of the time period (T),
A is the area of the sediment that contains the waste (L2),
Dm is the diffusion coefficient for the radionuclide in water (L2/T), and
bbdy is the thickness of the boundary layer.

Multiplying both sides of the equation by ΔT·A gives
𝑅=Δ𝑇⋅𝐷𝑚⋅𝐶𝑉
0.1 m ⋅𝐴.(15)
Concentration in lake water is calculated based upon the conservative assumption that the
radioactive material does not dilute in a large basin of the lake but rather remains in the water
column immediately above the dispersed area. The activity concentration in the lake water is
then calculated by dividing the total activity, R, by the volume of lake water. The volume of lake
water is the product of the lake depth and the dispersal area:
𝐶𝑣=𝑅
𝐷⋅𝐴(16)
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 46
where
Cv is concentration (M/L3 or T-1/ L3),
R is the mass (M) or radioactivity (T-1),
A is the area of the sediment that contains waste (the dispersed area, as L2), and
D is the depth of the lake (L).
There is an insufficient record of lake elevations to construct a data-based distribution for lake
depth. Thus, the distributions for lake depth are chosen based upon the conceptual model. Depths
for intermediate lakes have a Beta distribution with mean of 30 m, standard deviation 18 m,
minimum of 0 m, and maximum of 100 m. Depths for deep lakes have a Beta distribution with
mean 150 m, standard deviation 20 m, minimum of 100 m, and maximum of 200 m.
For intermediate lakes, the time step is about the duration of the intermediate lake. For deep
lakes, the lake may exist for several time steps in the GoldSim model, in which case the time step
is the portion of the time step for which the lake is present. When deep lakes cross multiple time
steps, the concentration in sediment is allowed to change between time steps (only due to decay
and ingrowth) and the activity in the lake water is accumulated over those time steps.
7.10 Modeling of 222Rn Flux
Radon-222 flux through the overlying sediment is calculated using the approach described in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 3.64 Calculation of Radon Flux
Attenuation by Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers (NRC, 1989). These equations were
developed for estimating radon flux from uranium mill tailings buried under a monofill cover.
For the Deep Time Model, an assumption is made that the material above the below-grade DU
waste and the additional lake sedimentation is homogenous material with properties similar to
those of the surrounding Unit 3 sediments. The use of an analytical model such as that described
in NRC (1989) allows radon flux to be estimated through a homogeneous cover of varying
thickness with minimal complexity.
The increasing depth of material covering the disposed DU waste over time will result in
attenuation of radon flux. However, this rate of attenuation will be partly offset by the slowly
increasing activity of the radioactive progeny of 238U. Previous modeling results, such as those
from the Clive DU PA Model v1.2, indicated that sediment accumulation overwhelms the
influence of progeny ingrowth.
Although the median and mean sediment thickness track closely, the mean radon ground surface
flux is much larger than the median. This strongly skewed result for radon flux is a consequence
of the non-linearities inherent in the NRC radon ground surface flux calculation. These are
equations (9) through (12) in NRC (1989):
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 47

(17)
The definitions of variables are available in the NRC Regulatory Guide (1989), but the salient
point is that these equations will produce a highly non-linear result, Jc, which is the ground
surface flux of radon. Although all of the inputs to the calculation are essentially normal
distributions, the division calculations, exponents, etc. in the equations produce non-linear
results.
Modeling of radon transport to the surface of the intact Federal DU Cell in the Clive DU PA
Model v1.2 does not lend itself to such simplified analytical solutions, because the cover is
constructed of layers with widely-varying properties. Radon diffusive flux is therefore integrated
with other transport processes employing a column of well-mixed cells, allowing for the vertical
redistribution of radionuclides over time throughout the disposal system by diffusive, advective,
and biotic processes. Because the above-ground part of the Federal DU Cell is assumed to be
dispersed by wave action from the first intermediate lake, these processes are not relevant to the
Deep Time Model except insofar as they affect radionuclide concentrations in the below-grade
waste cells.
7.10.1 Waste and Sediment Water Content
Volumetric water contents are defined for the DU waste, and for sediments overlying the waste,
in order to support radon diffusive flux calculations through these sediments.
In the 10,000-year model, the waste material is assumed to be Unit 3 material. In the Deep Time
Model it is also assumed to be Unit 3, for both the mound material that is directly above the
waste but below grade when the first lake returns and for the sediment material that is deposited
from deep and intermediate lakes in deep time. Sediment porosity is assumed to be the same as
Unit 3 porosity.
The Deep Time Model water contents for the cover materials after the first lake recedes are
based on concentrations of waste materials just above the DU waste, in Waste Cells 17 – 21 and
the upper-most waste cell containing DU waste, Waste Cell 22. This cell may not be completely
full of DU waste, because the discretization of the model may not match exactly the
discretization of the disposed wastes, so Cell 22 was included in these calculations for moisture
content. Because the Deep Time Model is now fully integrated in the v1.4 model, these values
are taken directly from the waste properties and align with those directly for each model
realization.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 48
7.11 Human Health Exposure and Dose Assessment
In the Deep Time component of the GoldSim model, external radiation dose and radon inhalation
dose are evaluated for the time period after a lake returns. Specifically, this special analysis
evaluates dose at a time immediately after the first intermediate lake has formed and
subsequently receded. The wave action of the lake is assumed to have destroyed the
embankment. The DU wastes at this point in time when the intermediate lake has receded are
covered by a thickness of material equal to the thickness of the eolian sediments that have been
continually deposited at a constant rate over time, plus the deposition of lake sediments while the
intermediate lake exists. The lower stratum of material of thickness equivalent to the eolian
sediments is comprised of the waste layers that existed above the DU waste in the embankment.
Although these wastes at one time contained radionuclides that had migrated upwards from the
DU, these radionuclides are assumed to have been dissolved and dispersed during the time when
the intermediate lake was present. Therefore, both these materials as well as the lacustrine
sediments are assumed to be practically free of DU-related radionuclides in this modeling.
The purpose of the dose calculations the Deep Time component of the GoldSim model is to
determine whether hypothetical doses in Deep Time may be higher or lower than doses
calculated for the 10,000-year performance period. The Deep Time dose calculation results are
not considered to have independent validity. Rather, they are a tool for evaluating the relative
radiation dose during these two time periods. For the dose assessment during the first 10,000
years of the Clive DU PA v1.4 Model, two future use exposure scenarios are identified for the
Clive site: ranching and recreation. However, only ranching receptors are evaluated for the Deep
Time component of the model because their utilization of the area including the Clive site is far
greater than that of recreational users and their doses are therefore higher.
The radiological assessment method for the Deep Time the Deep Time component of the
GoldSim model calculates total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) as the product of exposure
(behavioral) parameters, dose conversion factors (DCFs), and the concentrations of radium and
gamma-emitting radionuclides in the DU waste. The calculations are analogous to those
described for the Ranching scenario during the 10,000-year performance period with two
exceptions:
1. Radon flux is calculated using the approach described in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 3.64 Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by
Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers (NRC, 1989). These equations were developed
for estimating radon flux from uranium mill tailings buried under a monofill cover, and
the properties of the overlying materials are homogenous material with properties similar
to those of the surrounding Unit 4 sediments.
2. The external DCFs are multiplied by radionuclide-specific modifying factors to account
for the attenuation of external gamma radiation due to the material that overlies the DU
waste. The modifying factors were calculated using the RESRAD computer code by
evaluating the ratio of external dose at different cover thicknesses to external dose with
no overlying material.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 49
8.0 References
Adams, K.D., 2003, Age and paleoclimatic significance of late Holocene lakes in the Carson
Sink, NV, USA, Quaternary Research, Vol. 60, pp. 294–306, 2003.
Archer, D. and A. Ganopolski, 2005. A movable trigger: fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next
glaciation. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 6(5), doi:10.1029/2004GC000891.
Asmerom, Y., Polyak, V. J., and S. J. Burns, 2010. Variable winter moisture in the southwestern
United States linked to rapid glacial climate shifts. Nature Geoscience, 3, 114-117.
Balch D.P., A.S. Cohen, D.W. Schnurrenberger, B.J. Haskell, B.L.V. Garces, J.W. Beck, H.
Cheng, and R.L. Edwards, 2005. Ecosystem and paleohydrological response to Quaternary
climate change in the Bonneville basin, Utah, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, Vol. 221, pp. 99–121.
Berger, A., 1988. Milankovitch theory and climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 26(4): 624-657.
Berger, A. and M. F. Loutre, 2002. An exceptionally long interglacial ahead? Science, 297: 1287-
1288.
Benson, L.V., S.P. Lund, J.P. Smoot, D.E. Rhode, R.J. Spencer, K.L. Verosub, L.A. Louderback,
C.A. Johnson, R.O Rye, R.M. Negrini, 2011, The Rise and Fall of Lake Bonneville Between
45 and 10.5 ka, Quaternary International, Vol. 235, p. 57-69.
Briggs, R.W., S.G. Wesnousky, and K.D. Adams, 2005, Late Pleistocene and late Holocene lake
highstands in the Pyramid Lake subbasin of Lake Lahontan, Nevada, USA, Quaternary
Research, Vol. 64, pp. 257–263, 2005.
Brimhall W. H. and L. B. Merritt, 1981. The geology of Utah Lake – implications for resource
management. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, 5: 24-42.
Brockwell, P.J. and R.A. Davis, 1991. Time Series: Theory and Methods. Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY.
Clark, P. U., Dyke, A. S., Shakun, J. D., Carlson, A. E., Clark, J., Wohlfarth, B., Mitrovica, J. X.,
Hostetler, S. W., and A. M. McCabe, 2009. The Last Glacial Maximum. Science, 325: 710-
714.
Cochelin, Anne-Sophie B., L.A. Mysak, Z. Wang, 2006, Simulation of long-term future climate
changes with the green McGill paleoclimate model: The next glacial inception. Climate
Change, 79, 381-401.
Cook, E.R., R. Seager, R.R. Helm Jr, R. S. Vose, C. Herweijer, and C. Woodhouse, 2010.
Megadroughts in North America: Placing IPCC Projection of Hydroclimatic Change in a
Long-Term Palaeoclimate Context, Journal of Quaternary Science, 25, Issue 1, 48-
61.Currey, D.R., G. Atwood, and D.R. Mabey, Map 73 Major Levels of Great Salt Lake and
Lake Bonneville, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City, UT, May 1984
Davis, O.K., 1998. Palynological evidence for vegetation cycles in a 1.5 million yr pollen record
from the Great Salt Lake, Utah, U.S.A., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, Vol. 138, pp. 175–185.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 50
Driscoll, N. W. and G. H. Haug, 1998. A short circuit in thermohaline circulation: a cause for
Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Science, 282: 436-438.
Einselle, G. and M. Hinderer, 1997. Terrestrial sediment yield and the lifetimes of reservoirs,
lakes, and larger basins. Geologische Rundschau, 86: 288-310.
EPICA community members, 2004. Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature, 429:
623-628.
Faybishenko, B. 2006. Climatic Forecasting of Net Infiltration at Yucca Mountain Using
Analouge Meteorological Data. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. DT#46762
QA:NA. MOL.20061204.0226.
Fritz, S.C., 1996, Paleolimnological records of climatic change in North America, Limnol.
Oceanogr. 45, 882-889.
GTG (GoldSim Technology Group), 2011. GoldSim: Monte Carlo Simulation Software for
Decision and Risk Analysis, http://www.goldsim.com
Harding, B.L., A.W. Wood, and J.R. Prarie, 2012. The Implications of Climate Change Scenario
Selection for Future Streamflow Projection in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci, 16, 3989-4007.
Hart, W. S., Quade, J., Madsen, D. B., Kaufmann, D. S., and C. G. Oviatt, 2004. The 87Sr/86Sr
Ratios of Lacustrine Carbonates and Lake-level History of the Bonneville Paleolake System.
GSA Bulletin, 116: 1107-1119.
Haug, G. H. and R. Tiedemann, 1998. Effect of the Formation of the Isthmus of Panama on
Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline Circulation. Nature, 393: 673-676.
Hays, J. D., Imbire, J., and N. J. Shackleton, 1976. Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of
the Ice Ages. Science, 194: 1121-1132.
IAEA. The Safety Case and Safety Assessment for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Vienna,
Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; Specific Safety Guide No. SSG-23;
2012.Jansen, E. J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.-C. Duplessy, F. Joosv, V. Masson-Delmotte, D.
Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D.. Raynaud, D. Rind, O.
Solomina, R. Villalba, and D. Zang, 2007, Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, s. D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tigor and H.L Miller (eds.)] Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jewell, P.W. 2010, River incision, circulation, and wind regime of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville,
USA, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 293, 41-50.
Jewell, P.W., and K. Nicoll, Wind Regimes and Eolian Transport in the Great Basin, U.S.A.,
Geomorphology 129, 1-13 (2011).
Jouzel, J., Masson-Delmotte, V., Cattani, O., Dreyfus, G., et al., 2007. Orbital and millennial
Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 yr. Science, 317: 793-796.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 51
Kukla, G. J., R. K. Matthews, J. M. Mitchell Jr., Quat. Res. 2, 261 (1972)
Lisiecki, L. E. and M. E. Raymo, 2005. A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed
benthic δ18O records. Paleoceanography, 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071.
Link, P. K., Kaufmann, D. S., and Thackray, G. D., 1999. Field guide to Pleistocene lakes
Thatcher and Bonneville and the Bonneville flood, southeastern Idaho, In: Hughes S. S. and
G. D Thackray (eds.), Guidebook to the Geology of Eastern Idaho, Idaho Museum of Natural
History, p. 251-266.
Lyle, M., L. Heusser, C. Rovelo, M. Yamamoto, J. Barron, N.S. Diffenbaugh, T. Herbert,
D. Andreasen, 2012, Out of the Tropics: The Pacific, Great Basin Lakes, and Late
Pleistocene Water Cycle in the Western United States, Science, Vol. 337, p. 1629–1633.
Machette, M.N., S.F. Personius, and A.R. Nelson, 1992. Paleoseismology of the Wasatch fault
zone: A summary of recent investigations, interpretations, and conclusions, in Gori, P.L., and
W.W. Hays, eds., Assessment of regional earthquake hazards and risk along the Wasatch
Front, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1500-A-J, pp. A1–A71, 1992.
Madsen, D.B., 2000. Late Quaternary Paleoecology in the Bonneville Basin, Utah Geological
Survey Bulletin 130, 2000.
Masson-Delmotte, V., Stenni, B., Pol, K., Braconnot, P., et al., 2010. EPICA Dome C record of
glacial and interglacial intensities. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29: 113-128.
Masson-Delmotte, V., M. Schulz, A. Abe-Ouchi, J. Beer, A. Ganopolski, J.F. Gonzalez Rouco, E.
Jansen, K. Lambeck, J. Luterbacher, T. Naish, T. Osborn, B. Otto-Bliesner, T. Quinn, R..
Ramesh, M. Rojas, X. Shao, and A. Timmermann, 2013, Information from Paleoclimate
Archive. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia,
V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
Matsubara, Y. and A. D. Howard, 2009. A spatially explicit model of runoff, evaporation, and
lake extent: application to modern and late Pleistocene lakes in the Great Basin region,
western United States. Water Resources Research, 45, W06425,
doi:10.1029/2007WR005953.
Miller, D.M., C.G. Oviatt, and J.P. Mcgeehin, 2013. Stratigraphy and chronology of Provo
shoreline deposits and lake-level implications, Late Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, eastern
Great Basin, U.S.A., Boreas, Vol. 42, pp. 342–361, 2013.
Nash, W.P., 1990, Black Rock Desert, Utah, in C.A Woods and J. Kienle, eds. Volcanoes of
North America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p. 271-273.
Nelson, D.T., 2012. Geomorphic and Stratigraphic Development of Lake Bonneville’s
Intermediate Paleoshorelines during the Late Pleistocene, PhD Dissertation, University of
Utah, 237 p.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 52
Neptune and Company, Inc., 2015a, Neptune field studies, December, 2014, Eolian depositional
history Clive Disposal Site.
Neptune and Company, Inc., 2015b, Final report the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA Model
v1.4, Neptune and Company In., (November, 2015).
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by
Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research, Task WM 503-4, June 1989.
Oviatt, C. G. and W. P. Nash, 1989. Late Pleistocene basaltic ash and volcanic eruptions in the
Bonneville basin, Utah. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 101: 292-303.
Oviatt, C. G., McCoy, W. D., and Nash, W. P., 1994a. Sequence stratigraphy of lacustrine
deposits: a Quaternary example from the Bonneville basin, Utah. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 106: 133-144.
Oviatt, C.G., G.D. Habiger and J.E. Hay, 1994b. Variation in the Composition of Lake Bonneville
Marl: A Potential Key to Lake-Level Fluctuations and Paleoclimate, Journal of
Paleolimnology, Vol 11, p. 19-30.
Oviatt, C. G., 1997. Lake Bonneville fluctuations and global climate change. Geology, 25(2):
155-158.
Oviatt, C. G., Thompson, R. S., Kauffman, D. S., Bright, J., and R. M. Forester, 1999.
Reinterpretation of the Burmester core, Bonneville Basin, Utah. Quaternary Research, 52:
180-184.
Oviatt, C.G., 2002, Comparing the Shoreline and Offshore Sedimentary Records of Lake
Bonneville. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 34(6): 292.
Oviatt, C. G., D. M. Miller, J. P. McGeehin, C. Zachary, and S. Mahan, 2005. The Younger Dryas
phase of Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,
219: 263-284.
Oviatt, C.G., and B. P. Nash, 2014, The Pony Express Basaltic Ash: A Stratigraphic Marker in
Lake Bonneville Sediments, Utah, Miscellaneous Publication 14-1, Utah Geological Survey
10 p.
Oviatt, C.G., Chronology of Lake Bonneville, 30,000 to 10,000 yr B.P. Quaternary Science
Reviews 110, 166-171, (2015).
Paillard, D., 2001. Glacial cycles: toward a new paradigm. Reviews of Geophysics, 39(3): 325-
346.
Paillard, D., 2006. What drives the Ice Age cycle? Science, 313: 455-456.
Ruddiman, W.F., 2006. Orbital Changes and Climate, Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 25,
pp. 3092–3112.Sack, D., 1999.The composite nature of the Provo Level of Lake Bonneville,
Great Basin, Western North America, Quaternary Research, v. 52, 316-327.
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
22 November 2015 53
SC&A, Inc. 2015. Safety Evaluation Report: Volume I. for Utah Department of Environmental
Quality. April 2015.
Schnurrenber, D. J. Russell, and K Kelts, 2003, Classification of lacustrine sediments based on
sedimentary components, Journal of Paleolimnology 29, p. 141-154.
Schofield, I., P. Jewell, M. Chan, D. Currey, and M. Gregory, 2004, Shoreline development,
longshore transport, and surface water dynamics, Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, Utah, Earth
Surf. Process. Landforms, 29, 167-1690.
Tzedakis, P.C., E.W. Wolff, L.C. Skinner, V. Brovkin, d.A. Hodell, J.F. McManus, and D.
Raynaud, 2012a, Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? Climate Past 8, 1473-1485.
Tzedakis, P.C., J.E.T. Channel, D.A. Hodell, H.F. Kleiven, and L.C. Skinner, 2012b,
Determining the natural length of the current interglacial, Nature Geoscience, 5, 138-141.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2001. National Water Information System data (Water
Data for the Nation), accessed December, 2010 URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov
Utah, State of, 2015, Utah Administrative Code Rule R313-25. License Requirements for Land
Disposal of Radioactive Waste - General Provisions. As in effect on September 1, 2015.
(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r313/r313-025.htm, accessed 5 Nov 2015).
Woodhouse, C.A., D. M. Meko, G. M. MacDonald, D.W. Stahle, and E. R. Cook, 2010. A
1,200-year Perspective of 21st Century Drought in Southwestern North America, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Of Sciences, 107, 21283-21288.

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
4 November 2015 54
Appendix A
A.1 Clive Pit Wall Interpretation (C. G. Oviatt, unpublished data) and
stratigraphic comparison with quarry wall studies from Neptune
(2015a).

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
4 November 2015 55

Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
4 November 2015 56
Appendix B
B.1 Knolls Core Interpretation (C. G. Oviatt, unpublished data)
Deep Time Assessment for the Clive DU PA
4 November 2015 57

 NAC-0031_R1

Fitting Probability Distributions

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
26 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Fitting Probability Distributions
2. Filename: Probability Distributions v1.4.docx
3. Description:
Name Date
4. Originator Daniel Levitt 5 Nov 2015
5. Reviewers Paul Black 26 Nov 2015
6. Remarks

6/5/2014: No changes since v1.0 except for document formatting.
5 Nov 2015: Updated v1.2 to v1.4. – D.Levitt.
13 Nov 2015: Added discussion of upscaling and model abstraction. – D.Levitt.

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0
 Types of Parameters ............................................................................................................... 1

3.0
 Fitting Distributions to Data ................................................................................................... 3

3.1
 Distributions Representing Epistemic Uncertainty ........................................................... 3

3.2
 Distributions Representing Aleatory Variability .............................................................. 4

4.0
 Fitting Distributions to Reported or Elicited Quantiles .......................................................... 8

4.1
 Quantiles ........................................................................................................................... 9

4.2
 Likelihood Functions ........................................................................................................ 9

4.3
 Example: Gaussian Distribution ..................................................................................... 11

5.0
 Parameter Relationships and Conditioning .......................................................................... 13

6.0
 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 13

7.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 18

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Examples of normal probability density functions .......................................................... 5

Figure 2. Examples of lognormal probability density functions ..................................................... 6

Figure 3. Examples of gamma probability density functions .......................................................... 7

Figure 4. Examples of beta probability density functions ............................................................... 8

Figure 5. Fitted distribution to the quantiles of the example data ................................................ 12

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Example data, reported only as quantiles ........................................................................ 11

Table 2. Calculation of quantities for the log-likelihood .............................................................. 11

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 1
1.0 Introduction
In the Clive DU PA Model, most of the input parameters are treated as probabilistic. The term
parameter is used to refer to any numerical quantity in the PA model. This document provides an
overview of the approach to construction of probability distributions for parameters.
Note that the term parameter is used here because it is in common use in the PA and modeling
community. However, since probability distributions are applied to these parameters, from a
statistics perspective they should be termed variables, or even random variables.
2.0 Types of Parameters
Parameters of the PA model are mathematical constructs that represent a variety of different
concepts. Assignment of a probabilistic distribution must consider the use of the parameter
within the PA model.
The probabilistic behavior associated with the input may also represent a variety of different
concepts. The variation may represent aleatory variability, epistemic uncertainty, or some
combination of those two. The appropriate probabilistic representation for the parameter can
differ greatly depending on the appropriate representation.
• Epistemic uncertainty represents lack of knowledge about the true value of the parameter.
Hypothetically, data could be collected to reduce the uncertainty, which would then result
in a distribution with less variation.
• Aleatory variability represents inherent randomness in the “outcome” of the parameter.
The outcome may represent changes through time or space or the characteristics of
individual members of a population. Given assumptions about the population or modeling
assumptions underlying the parameter, further information gathering does not reduce
aleatory variability. Changing the modeling or population assumptions can lead to a
change in the variability (e.g. changing the spatial extent a soil porosity distribution is
applied to).
Many parameters in the Clive DU PA contain at least some element of both epistemic
uncertainty and aleatory variability, though the probabilistic construction is typically based on
assuming one or the other. Although there are exceptions, for the most part, distributions
developed assuming aleatory uncertainty are contained in the individual dose model (see the
Dose Assessment white paper). Most other input distributions are developed based on epistemic
uncertainty, although as noted, most parameters contain some element of both. It is often
difficult to completely separate epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. Another, and perhaps better,
way of framing the distinction is with respect to the spatial and/or temporal scale of each
parameter. Most parameters in the Clive DU PA model represent long time frames or large areas,
and the distribution of the average of the trait of interest is needed for the model. These cases are
aligned more with the concept of epistemic uncertainty. However, the dose parameters are
specific to individuals, representing points, space, and time frames that are specific to the
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 2
available data. These cases are aligned more with the concept of aleatory variability. In effect, in
this model, epistemic uncertainty, upscaling and distribution of the average are related, and
aleatory variability, and distribution of the data are related without the need for upscaling.
These are important distinctions in the development of complex PA models, not just for model
building purposes, but also for model interpretation and comparison with performance
objectives. The PA model is constructed so that raw output doses are provided for each
hypothetical individual included in the model, in each year of the model. Typically, risk
assessment is based on the average risk. In that context, the average dose to the individuals in
each year is the relevant statistic for each receptor group (ranchers, hunters, OHV enthusiasts).
Since 5,000 simulations are performed, there are 5,000 estimates of the average dose in each year
of the model. If the input distributions are specified as epistemic at the appropriate spatio-
temporal scale, then, by analogy with typical approaches to risk assessment, the 95th percentile of
the average dose in each year is the relevant statistic of interest. This has the added advantage of
properly representing uncertainty in the average dose, and hence the uncertainty can be reduced
through further data collection.
Typically, doses generated from a PA are compared to performance objectives by using the
“peak of the means”, however, this does not adequately address the issue of dose in a year
(unless the peak of the mean dose is in the same year for every simulation). There are also 5,000
estimates of the peak of the mean, however, it is not clear how to match a statistic from that
distribution to the performance objectives. This model will allow exploration of this issue, to
evaluate possible approaches to comparison of output doses to performance objectives.
There are other sources of uncertainty that should also be considered in a PA model. These do
not fall easily into either the epistemic or aleatory categories.
• Conceptual uncertainty is typically not associated with a parameter, except in conjunction
with the model as a whole.
• Numerical uncertainty is similar to model uncertainty, except that it typically relates only
to the mathematical aspect of the model, and whether or not a single number can
adequately represent the process.
These latter sources of uncertainty are largely ignored when constructing probabilistic
distributions for parameters. These uncertainties are typically explored, to limited extent, with
sensitivity analyses. However, where expert judgment is utilized in construction of a probability
distribution, the presence of conceptual or numerical uncertainty may cause the expert to
increase the variation associated with a parameter in order to (perhaps) produce a broader range
of model outputs.
More generally, the development of distributions for model input parameters in a PA model
needs to accommodate a wide range of options that address spatio-temporal scales, correlation
structures, available data, secondary data, literature review information, expert opinion and
abstraction from more complex sub-models. Statistical methods that can be considered in each
case are described in the following sections. This is a critical component of model development.
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 3
If not performed properly then the PA model runs the risk of the “garbage in – garbage out”
syndrome, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are compromised, and the results of the model are
potentially meaningless. If performed properly, then everything falls into place regarding model
results, comparison with performance objectives, and useful uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.
3.0 Fitting Distributions to Data
3.1 Distributions Representing Epistemic Uncertainty
When data are available, whose distribution depends on a parameter of interest, then a Bayesian
approach can be used to combine any available prior information with information from the data.
The posterior distribution on the parameter represents the uncertainty about the value of the
parameter. Prior information could be obtained through expert elicitation, but for nearly every
parameter in the Clive DU PA model for which data are available, a non-informative prior is
used.
Most parameters in the Clive DU PA model correspond to physical quantities that represent an
average of some type. Some parameters represent averages over time, as they represent typical
behavior that will be used throughout the 10,000 year performance period, such as annual
precipitation. Other parameters represent averages over space. For example, properties of
vegetation represent an average vegetation effect across a model area, while soil properties
represent an average across a volume of material represented by a model cell. When data are
available that represent small amounts of time relative to the 10,000 years, or small
areas/volumes relative to the model cells, then it is the mean of the data distribution that needs to
be modeled. Under most regularity conditions (such as finite variance and the true parameter not
on the border of the parameter space), the asymptotic distribution of a posterior distribution of a
parameter is normally distributed (Gelman 2004). When a non-informative prior is used, the
posterior distribution is generally well-approximated by the sample distribution of the statistic
used to estimate the parameter. Thus, the posterior distribution for a mean µ is generally well-
approximated by a normal distribution, according to the Central Limit Theorem, if the sample
size n is sufficiently large:
𝜇∣𝑋~𝑁𝑋,𝑠
𝑛 (1)

where 𝑋 is the sample mean, and s is the sample standard deviation. This approximation can be
generalized to most other types of parameters, with the posterior distribution well-approximated
by:
𝑁  𝜃,𝑠.𝑒.(𝜃) (2)

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 4
where 𝜃 is an estimate of the parameter of interest θ, and 𝑠.𝑒.(𝜃) is the standard error associated
with the estimate. Stricter regularity conditions may be required for the general approximation to
hold, and larger sample sizes may be needed for the posterior distribution to converge to
normality.
For parameters whose sampling distributions are difficult to calculate, due to the type of
parameter or the small sample size, a bootstrap approach can be utilized to simulate a sampling
distribution (Efron and Tibshirani 1994). The bootstrap method simulates a sampling distribution
for a parameter by simulating new sets of data of the same size and structure as the existing data.
The data simulation may be either parametric, assuming an underlying distribution for the data,
or non-parametric, simulating from the empirical distribution of the data. The simulated
bootstrap samples of the parameter are then fit to a distribution following the guidelines of fitting
presented in Section 3.2, since the bootstrap data represent hypothetical data that can be
processed similarly to the processing of data that represent aleatory uncertainty.
3.2 Distributions Representing Aleatory Variability
For cases where the goal is to find a distribution that reflects the variability in the data, a
goodness-of-fit approach is used. When the complete data set is available, the Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC) is used to choose a distribution (Akaike 1974). The special case of
data that are reported only as quantiles is address in Section 4.0.
AIC provides a measure of fit based on the likelihood function that attempts to discourage over-
fitting by penalizing models with larger numbers of fitted parameter values. AIC could be used
directly to choose a distribution by selecting the distribution that minimizes AIC. However, in
order to allow for scientific judgment to choose between models that are close in fit, Akaike
weights can be used for model selection (Burnham 2002). Akaike weights can be interpreted as
conditional probabilities for each model when all models are treated as equally likely a priori.
The Akaike approach is the following:
• Choose a set of distributions to be considered: M1, M2, …, Mk.
• Fit each distribution via maximum likelihood, and calculate the AIC for each model: A1,
A2, …, Ak.
• Calculate the Akaike weights for each model:
𝑊!=𝑒!!.!⋅(!!!!!"#)
∑!!!!𝑒!!.!⋅(!!!!!"#) (3)

where 𝐴!"# is the smallest AIC amongst the models being considered. Distributions with low
weights are removed from consideration, and scientific considerations are used to choose
between distributions with similarly high weights.
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 5
The following descriptions and figures (Figures 1 through 4) provide a list of distributions that
are commonly considered for parameters in the Clive DU PA model: Normal, Lognormal,
Gamma, Beta. Note that the uniform distribution is special case of the Beta distribution. Many
other distributions are considered for special cases, but these four are adequate for most
purposes. Log-uniform distributions are used for Kd and solubility as described in the
Geochemistry white paper, and triangular distributions are used for a few parameters in the dose
model, which represent aleatory variability, when there was insufficient data and expert
elicitation has not yet been performed.
• Normal – N( m, s ), where m is the mean, and s is the standard deviation. This
distribution is unimodal and symmetric and has support on the entire real line. This
distribution occurs naturally in many settings and is generally preferred for parameters
representing averages or sums. Since the normal distribution has infinite support, the
distribution must be left-truncated at 0 (or some other natural boundary) for certain types
of parameters.

Figure 1. Examples of normal probability density functions

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 6
• Lognormal – LN( m, s, θ ), where m is the geometric mean, and s is the geometric
standard deviation, and θ is a location parameter specifying the minimum. This
distribution is unimodal and right-skewed and has support on all real values greater than
θ. When the geometric standard deviation is near 1, the lognormal distribution closely
approximates the normal distribution. Physical quantities can often be modeled well with
a lognormal distribution, and typically θ=0, forcing those quantities to be positive.

Figure 2. Examples of lognormal probability density functions

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 7
• Gamma – Gamma( m, s, θ ), m is the mean, s is the standard deviation, and θ is a location
parameter specifying the minimum. This distribution is unimodal and right-skewed and
has support on all real values greater than θ. Fitted gamma distribution and lognormal
distributions often appear quite similar, and the lognormal is typically preferred for
physical quantities. However, the gamma distribution can fit certain types of tail behavior
that the lognormal distribution cannot.

Figure 3. Examples of gamma probability density functions

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 8
• Beta - Beta( m, s, l, u ), where m is the mean, s is the standard deviation, l is the lower
bound, and u is the upper bound. The beta distribution can take on a variety of shapes. It
is typically unimodal, but can be bimodal, with modes at the lower and upper bounds.
The beta distribution is sufficiently flexible that it might provide a reasonable fit where
other distributions cannot, and it is the only standard distribution that has finite support.
For many parameters, finite support does not make good sense, so the beta distribution is
typically only chosen when it is the only distribution that provides a reasonable fit, or
when there is a natural lower and upper bound.

Figure 4. Examples of beta probability density functions

4.0 Fitting Distributions to Reported or Elicited Quantiles
In many cases, data are available only in the form of reported quantiles of the distribution. A
formal method for fitting a distribution and choosing amongst possible distributions is needed.
While the focus here is on empirical quantiles, the same approach may also apply to quantiles
achieved via expert elicitation, though some assumptions about the expert's knowledge base must
be considered. This section begins with a definition of quantiles, and follows up with a
likelihood estimation method for estimating distributions based on quantile input, and ends with
an example.
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 9
4.1 Quantiles
Let X be a random variable whose distribution is of interest. Suppose that a random sample of n
observations from this distribution has been collected, 𝑋=𝑋!!!!!, but that the reported
summaries of this sample are restricted to a set of k empirical quantiles, 𝑞!!!!
!, corresponding
to a set of proportions 𝑝!!!!
! (considered to be given in increasing order for convenience; i.e.,
𝑝!<𝑝!!!).
The empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) is defined as:
𝐹!𝑥=# of sample values less than  𝑥
𝑛=  𝐼𝑋!<𝑥!!!!
𝑛 (4)

where I is the indicator function. An empirical quantile corresponds to the inverse of the
empirical distribution function:
.  𝑞!=𝐹!!!𝑝! (5)

Since 𝐹! is a step function, the inverse is not uniquely defined. However, there are many
common methods for defining a unique quantile (Hyndman and Fan, 1996). In practice, the exact
method of defining the quantile is rarely cited. Thus, there is some potential error associated with
a reported quantile. The relative size of the error is dependent on the underlying distribution and
the quantile of interest. When sample sizes are large and/or the underlying distributions are
smooth (as is the case with named families of distributions that one is likely to fit), the error
associated with non-uniqueness should be small, though sensitivity analysis to this error should
be performed in assessing fits based on reported quantiles. For the purposes of this document, 𝑞!
will be considered to be uniquely defined.
4.2 Likelihood Functions
If the original data set were available, then a reasonable choice for fitting the parameters of a
distribution is maximum likelihood. Suppose that the random variable of interest, X, is assumed
to come from a parametric family of distributions (e.g. Gaussian, gamma, etc.), that are uniquely
defined by a set of parameters θ. The likelihood function for a sample X is defined as:
𝐿𝜃∣𝑋=𝑓!  𝑥!∣𝜃!!!!, (6)

where fX is the probability density (or mass) function corresponding to the parametric family of
distributions. The maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the parameters is then defined by:
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 10
𝜃=arg max!𝐿𝜃∣𝑋, (7)

or equivalently when maximizing the log-likelihood:
𝜃=arg max!ln𝐿𝜃∣𝑋=arg max!𝑙𝜃∣𝑋. (8)

When the sample has been summarized by quantiles, the likelihood function for the data takes a
different form. The reported data are effectively 𝑌=𝑌!!!!
!!!, where Yj is the number of
observations between qj-1 and qj.
𝑌!=𝐼𝑞!!!<𝑋!≤𝑞!!!!!, (9)

where 𝑞!=−∞ and 𝑞!!!=∞ for notational convenience.
The reported data thus follow a multinomial distribution:
𝑌~Multinomial!!!𝑛,𝜋𝜃, (10)
where
𝜋!𝜃=𝐹!𝑞!∣𝜃−𝐹!𝑞!!!∣𝜃, (11)

and FX represents the CDF for X.
The likelihood function associated with the reported data is then:
𝐿𝜃∣𝑌=𝑛!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!∝𝜋!𝜃!!!!!!!!, (12)

Where proportionality is with respect to the parameters of interest, θ. Maximizing the log-
likelihood is thus equivalent to maximizing:
𝑙*𝜃∣𝑌=𝑌!ln 𝜋!𝜃!!!!!!=𝑛𝜋!ln 𝜋!𝜃!!!!!!∝𝜋!ln 𝜋!𝜃!!!!!!, (13)
where
𝜋!=!!
!. (14)

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 11
Note that maximizing Equation (13) does not depend on knowing the sample size n, which may
not be available for some data reports, and is only an abstract concept if the quantiles represent
elicited values.
For most parametric families, πj(θ) does not have a functional form that lends itself to analytical
maximization of Equation (13). However, the CDF for most parametric families is sufficiently
smooth that maximization routines work robustly.
Note also that the use of maximum likelihood estimation is similar to intent to using Bayesian
statistical methods with some types of non-informative prior distributions. This approach,
therefore, is similar in intent for quantile data as the methods described in Section 3.1. Use of
least squares minimization instead is not recommended, because the underlying assumptions will
probably not be met (e.g., normality, independence, identically distributed data).
4.3 Example: Gaussian Distribution
Suppose that data are reported as in Table 1:
Table 1. Example data, reported only as quantiles
p1 = 0.05 = 5% p2 = 0.25 =
25%
p3 = 0.5 = 50% p2 = 0.75 =
75%
p5 = 0.95 = 95%
q1 = 31 q2 = 58 q3 = 76 q4= 89 q5 = 120

Five quantiles are reported, and thus the data are separated into 6 bins. In fitting a Gaussian
distribution to these quantiles, π can be expressed in terms of the standard Gaussian CDF, Φ, as
in Table 2.
Table 2. Calculation of quantities for the log-likelihood
𝜋!=0.05 −0 =0.05 𝜋!=𝛷31 −𝜇
𝜎
𝜋!=0.25 −0.05 =0.2 𝜋!=𝛷58 −𝜇
𝜎−𝛷31 −𝜇
𝜎
𝜋!=0.50 −0.25 =0.25 𝜋!=𝛷76 −𝜇
𝜎−𝛷58 −𝜇
𝜎
𝜋!=0.75 −0.50 =0.25 𝜋!=𝛷89 −𝜇
𝜎−𝛷76 −𝜇
𝜎
𝜋!=0.95 −0.75 =0.2 𝜋!=𝛷120 −𝜇
𝜎−𝛷89 −𝜇
𝜎
𝜋!=1 −0.95 =0.05 𝜋!=1 −𝛷120 −𝜇
𝜎

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 12
Maximum likelihood estimators can thus be calculated: 𝜇=74.6 and 𝜎=25.8, resulting in a
value of -1.65 for the (right portion of) Equation (13). The CDF and probability density function
(pdf) for the fitted distribution are plotted in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Fitted distribution to the quantiles of the example data
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 13
5.0 Parameter Relationships and Conditioning
Many parameters in the Clive DU PA model are related to one another. One parameter may be
physically constrained by the value of another parameter, or they may simply tend to vary
together. Information about the joint behavior is often unavailable, but where it is, the preferred
approach is to construct joint distributions for the parameters.
When joint data are available, a simple approach is to simply calculate the sample correlation of
the parameters in the data and apply the same correlation to the parameters in the model to
induce a joint distribution. A simple correlation structure may not fully capture the relationship
between two parameters but often provides a reasonable first approximation. Where a correlation
structure is used in the Clive DU PA model, the correlation algorithms implemented in GoldSim
for Gaussian copula are used (Iman and Conover 1982, Embrechts et al. 2001).
Where data and expertise are available, it is generally preferable to construct joint distributions
for the parameters by constructing a marginal distribution for one parameter and conditional
distributions for the remaining parameters. By fitting a distinct conditional distribution of the
second parameter for each possible value of the first parameter, a more realistic relationship
might be constructed than can be achieved through simple correlation.
For example, for the population of American males the distribution of body weight changes as a
function of age, even after reaching adulthood. Beyond age 20, the median body weight tends to
increase as a function of age, until middle-age, after which median body weight decreases. The
variation in body weight across the population also changes with the mean. Thus, a reasonable
approach might be to model body weight as:
𝐵𝑊!"#$%~LN 𝑒!!!⋅!"#!!⋅!"#!,𝑒!. (15)
where a, b, c, and σ are estimated from data. This general approach was utilized for the Clive DU
PA model (including for this body weight example), by using the fitting techniques outlined in
Section 4.0 to quantile data available for age and body weight.
6.0 Scaling and Model Abstraction
Development of appropriate probability distributions is critical for ensuring that model results
are useful. The input distributions are based on expectation and uncertainty. Bias is not
introduced in general. If the input distributions are not based on expectation and associated
uncertainty, then the model is compromised as is the sensitivity analysis and more general model
evaluation. This is in part because the model is fully coupled, so that biases would propagate
through the entire model. Many aspects of distribution fitting are described above, but there are
two further aspects that are critical for understanding how these types of models are specified.
The first is model scaling, and the second is model abstraction.
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 14
6.1 Upscaling
Upscaling of Clive DU PA model is required to ensure that the model is specified at the
appropriate spatial and temporal scale. The Clive disposal systems covers a large area, and the
model is run for 10,000 years (or longer) into the future. However, the models are also set up so
that inputs for a single realization of the simulation are sampled randomly at the beginning of
time, and those values that represent the input distributions are used throughout time. They are
also applied throughout the spatial domain of the model. This has broad implications for the
correct structure of the model from the perspective of spatio-temporal scaling (upscaling).
For example, suppose data for a specific input such as near surface moisture content has a
minimum of 0 and a maximum value of 30, and suppose there are 100 data points. Suppose a
distribution fit to these data is Gamma(1,10), so the mean is 10%, and the standard deviation is
10%. For a single realization it would be possible to draw a random number of very near 0%, or
of 30%. However, the nature of the model is such that this value would be applied to the entire
spatial domain of the disposal facility for the entire duration of the model. The variability of data
at points in time and space is not the appropriate representation of variance in a model that is
constructed and run this way. If, instead, the model could be constructed to choose, for a single
realization, a new random number every very small time step, then the net effect of 10,000 years
would be that the system is represented by the average of the many values drawn at each very
small time step (very small because the data in this example represent points in time and space,
or very small volumes over a very short amount of time). This assumes that the system is fairly
stable over the modeling time frame, and is not evolving in unexpected ways that would cause a
major shift in moisture content for this example. If such as a model could be constructed, then
the net effect on the system is the average moisture content over 10,000 years. (Also note that if
sufficient attention is not paid to the interaction between the number of time steps and the
variability in the data, such an approach would lead to a very tight (very little variance) average
(for example, 1-yr time steps would result in 10,000 random draws over time, and the variance of
the average would be an inverse function of the square root of that number of time steps). Also,
autocorrelation across time should be addressed in a model system constructed that way, which
would not be straightforward without the supporting data. A further disadvantage of constructing
a system with such small time steps is the computational complexity of doing so.
The correct approach is to upscale the data to reflect the spatial and temporal scale of the model.
In this particular case of moisture content, averaging provides a reasonable approximation to
addressing the underlying issues. That is, the input distribution represents the average moisture
content and the associated uncertainty in the average. In this case, since there were 100 data
points, this might result in a distribution that is N(10%, 1%). That is, the mean is 10% moisture
content, just as it was for the Gamma distribution of the data, and the standard deviation is 1%,
which is 1/10th of the variance of the data (because there are 100 data points).
Upscaling is critical for properly addressing uncertainty in the fate and transport model.
However, it is not always as straightforward as, using as a reasonable approximation, simple
averaging. For example, plant root depth matters because of the deeper roots that might uptake
radionuclides. Simple averaging across plant root depth could completely miss the effect that
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 15
matters. Instead averaging across the plant root depth function is needed, so that, in effect, an
average is formed at each point (or interval) in the depth profile. Similarly, averaging across rain
events might not be appropriate if a subsequent action or response of interest is non-linear. In
general, averaging (expectation) is a linear construct. If the response is non-linear, then
consideration needs to be given to how the model must be constructed so that important non-
linear effects are captured. In the context of upscaling, this is usually an issue of breaking down
each component of the model until averaging can be reasonably applied (until there are
approximately linear responses).
Without temporal and spatial scaling the fate and transport model would carry variance
components that are far too large, do not represent the system effect, and lead to unnecessarily
wide ranges in the output. They would not adequately describe the system. Upscaling needs to be
done with care, and needs to address to the extent reasonable non-linear effects, autocorrelation,
and correlation between variables.
Upscaling applies to many of the contaminant transport processes in the Clive DU PA model.
However, they are not also applied to the exposure assessment. This is because the variability
between the hypothetical receptors is captured. The population of receptors is modeled explicitly,
and each receptor has different characteristics, which capture the variability between receptors.
The exposure and dose assessment evaluates dose to each receptor rather than does to an
“average individual”, in which case upscaling is not appropriate.
Because upscaling is a form of averaging, this also means that the model output represents
uncertainty in the system (average) response, rather than variability from data collected at (near)
points in time and space. This is also a necessary construct for understanding uncertainty, and
managing uncertainty through a decision process. That is, model evaluation might suggest data
collection is needed to reduce uncertainty in the model. This makes no sense without upscaling
so that the input distributions are averages (in the appropriate spatial and temporal scale, etc.). It
is not possible to reduce the variance term in the moisture content data example by collecting
more moisture content data. This also provides an indication that in the context of reducing
uncertainty, models that are built without upscaling are inappropriate.
A further note is that human health risk (exposure/dose) assessment is based on average
concentrations and uncertainty about those averages. Again, this implies the need to construct
models that are scaled correctly to the endpoint of interest.
Upscaling is performed for many of the input distributions in the Clive DU PA model, and some
attention is paid in each case to non-linearity, auto-correlation and correlation. This leads to a
model that appropriately addresses the endpoints of interest. In each case the details are provided
in the appropriate White Paper.

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 16
6.2 Model Abstraction
There are several ways in which input distributions can be developed depending on the nature of
the data or information available. If data are available, then simple distribution fitting can be
performed as described in previous sections. This might also be the case when literature review
information is the primary source of information, but in this case, some meta analysis is often
performed as well. Elicitation of expert opinion is another option. A final option is model
abstraction, which is used when a more detailed process model is performed externally to the
Clive DU PA model developed in GoldSim, the results of which need to be incorporated into the
Clive DU PA model.
Model abstraction has been defined as “the intelligent capture of the essence of the behavior of a
model, without all the details (and therefore, run-time complexities) of how that behavior is
implemented in code” (Frantz and Ellor, 1996). Caughlin and Sisti (1997) describe model
abstraction methods as “techniques that derive simpler conceptual models while maintaining the
validity of the simulation results. These methods include variable resolution modeling, combined
modeling, multimodeling, and metamodeling. In addition, some taxonomies include
approximation, aggregation, linear function interpolation, and look up tables as model
abstraction methods.”
More generally the intent is to simplify the complex process model without losing much
information, so that the simpler form can be used in the probabilistic simulation that supports the
system model for the Clive DU PA. Perhaps all approaches can be thought of as creating a
“response surface” that adequately captures the essence of the process model. This is usually
supported by some statistical experimental design across the inputs of interest. Model abstraction
has been applied to the Clive DU PA model to components such as infiltration, erosion,
tortuosity, and air dispersion.
An example of model abstraction in the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 is the calculation of net
infiltration using a regression model that was developed from results of 50 simulations using
HYDRUS-1D. The HYDRUS methods and results are described in the Unsaturated Zone white
paper (see Appendix 5 of the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 Final Report). An experimental design
was set up across the expected sensitive inputs of interest, and a regression equation was
developed to predict the HYDRUS net infiltration results using the sensitive input parameters.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the net infiltration results calculated using HYDRUS and using
the regression equation in the Clive DU PA Model v1.4 GoldSim model. Clearly, the comparison
shows an excellent fit to the HYDRUS results, demonstrating that the use of a regression
equation to approximate the HYDRUS simulations resulted in a successful model abstraction in
this case.
Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 17

Figure 6. Comparison of 1,000 realizations of net infiltration using the linear model in
GoldSim with the results of the 50 HYDRUS simulations of infiltration.

7.0 Summary
For the Clive DU PA considerable effort has been expended to provide statistical rigor and
defense for the PA model. There are few, if any, previous examples of PA for low-level waste
that have achieved this level of statistical support, except others developed by Neptune. This
should also be regarded as a critical quality assurance aspect of this type of modeling.
Regulations and guidance that could be used are sadly lacking in sufficient definition of how PA
models should be constructed and the role that statistics should play to ensure proper
construction, despite the fact that these are probabilistic models. When insufficient attention is
paid to proper development of input distributions the ensuing models are potentially worthless.
The Clive DU PA model provides an opportunity for others who perform PA for low level
radioactive waste to follow this path, and improve the statistical defensibility for PA more
generally.

Fitting Probability Distributions
26 November 2015 18
8.0 References
Akaike, H. (1974). “A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 19 (6): 716-723.
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R. (2002). “Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection.”
Sociological Methods and Research. Sociological Methods and Research, 33 (2): 261-304.
Caughlin, D. and A.F. Sisti (1997). Summary of model abstraction techniques. Proc. SPIE 3083,
Enabling Technology for Simulation Science, 2 (June 20, 1997).
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1994). Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press LLC, Boca
Raton, FL.
Embrechts, P., Lindskog, F., and McNeil, A. (2001). Modelling Dependence with Copulas and
Applications to Risk Management, Department of Mathematics, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zurich.
Frantz, F.K., and A.J. Ellor (1996). Model Abstraction Techniques. Report for Rome Laboratory,
Air Force Materiel Command, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. RL-TR-96-87.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., and Rubin, D.B. (2004). Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd
Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Hyndman, R.J., and Fan, Y. (1996). “Sample Quantiles in Statistical Packages,” American
Statistician, 50: 361-365.
Iman, R.L., and Conover, W.J. (1982). “A Distribution-Free Approach to Inducing Rank
Correlation Among Input Variables,” Communications in Statistics: Simulation and
Computation,11 (3): 311-334.

 NAC-0029_R2

Machine Learning for
Sensitivity Analysis of
Probabilistic Environmental
Models
8 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
2. Filename: Sensitivity Analysis (Appendix 15) v1.4.docx
3. Description: Sensitivity Analysis methods with GW example from v1.4 model

Name Date
4. Originator Paul Duffy 7 November 2015
5. Reviewer Paul Black 8 November 2015
6. Remarks

5 Nov 2015: Updated from v1.2 to v1.4. – D.Levitt

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ v

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... vi

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.0
 Sensitivity Analysis Approaches ............................................................................................ 2

2.1
 Analytical Approach: Sobol Design of Experiment and Fourier Amplitude
Sensitivity Test (FAST) .................................................................................................... 4

2.2
 Meta-models: Regression Based Methods ........................................................................ 4

2.3
 Meta-models: Machine Learning Approaches .................................................................. 5

2.3.1
 Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) ................................................... 6

2.3.2
 Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM) .......................................................................... 6

2.4
 Example: Comparison of SA methods .............................................................................. 8

2.4.1
 “Sobol g-function” ...................................................................................................... 8

2.4.2
 Visualization ............................................................................................................... 9

3.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 17

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Sensitivity and Partial Dependence Plots for the GBM fit to the Sobol Function. ........ 11

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 vi
TABLES
Table 1. Sensitivity Indices by Sensitivity Analysis Method for Sobol g-function application
with p = 8. ...................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Peak Groundwater Well Concentrations within 500 years - Tc99 .................................. 12

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to explain the development and application of the method used
for sensitivity analysis (SA) of Performance Assessment (PA) models constructed in GoldSim.
The overarching goal of the SA is to determine which explanatory variables (e.g. Kd in Sand for
Tc) have the largest impact on specific endpoints of interest (e.g. Peak Ground Surface Flux of
Radon-222). The SA procedure implemented for the Clive DU PA assesses the importance of
every explanatory variable (input parameters) used in the GoldSim PA model. In practice, this
means that for each endpoint of interest, every explanatory variable in the model has a
quantitative measure of importance associated with it. For a given explanatory variable, the
quantitative measure of importance depends on the endpoint of interest. All input parameters are
included and are essentially varied simultaneously. This is very different from the one-at-a-time
SA approaches that are used on deterministic models. This global SA approach allows all levels
of interactions to be evaluated, so that the variation in the output can be measured at every level
of possible interaction. The effects are collected together during SA processing, and then
separated out to attribute the overall contribution of each input parameter to the model output.
As described below, some global SA procedures have the ability to characterize non-linear and
non-monotonic relationships between explanatory variables (input parameters) and endpoints of
interest (output parameters). This is critically important because of the need to characterize
complex interactions among multiple explanatory variables in the PA models. These interactions
are often non-linear and non-monotonic.
The approach to simulating the PA model affects how the SA should be set up. Each PA
simulation is set up to draw random numbers from the input distributions at the beginning of
time, and then those random numbers are used throughout time in that simulation. This is one of
the reasons why the input distributions are set up to describe the mean of the factor of interest. If,
instead, random numbers were drawn at every time step, then the net effect over a long period of
time (e.g., 10,000 years) is to create an overall averaging effect. The SA is essentially a
regression model that uses the simulated inputs as observations of the input parameters, and the
simulated outputs as observations of the output parameters. The form of regression used
accommodates non-linear and non-monotonic effects, which are inherent in PA models.
The results of the SA provide a clear indication of the explanatory variables that most strongly
influence a given endpoint, since the result of the SA, applied to a given PA endpoint, is a
quantitative metric of importance for each explanatory variable. This information can be used in
a number of ways. During model development it is a very useful tool for model evaluation, often
leading to a better understanding of model constructs and modifications to the model structure as
necessary. This leads to iterative model development. Also, if there is an unacceptable level of
uncertainty associated with an endpoint of interest (for decision making purposes), the sensitive
parameters can be targeted for effective uncertainty reduction; that is, further data or information
should be collected to reduce the uncertainty on these sensitive input parameters. Another
possibility is to use the results of the SA to simplify the PA model, although the simplification
would depend on each specific endpoint.
The remainder of this document provides some background information on SA methods, leading
to the choice of SA methods that are used for the Clive DU PA model. This starts with one-at-a-
time SA methods for deterministic models, and moves through linear modeling approaches
before finishing with global SA approaches.
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 2
1.0 Introduction
Decision making for the management of complex systems in the presence of uncertainty requires
an explicit characterization of the current state of knowledge. In this context, a model is a
valuable tool for understanding the interactions and influence of explanatory variables on the
response of interest (e.g. media concentrations or future potential doses). The quantitative
assessment of the importance of inputs is critical, and this is especially true when uncertainty in
the response is deemed to be unacceptable for the decision at hand. Sensitivity analysis (SA) can
be used to help identify those inputs with the greatest impact on uncertainty in the model
response (Saltelli et al. 1999, Marrell et al. 2009, Nossent et al. 2011, Morris et al. 2014).
Specifically, SA helps quantify the benefit of subsequent data collection through the
identification of the explanatory variables for which uncertainty reduction through further
information collection will yield the most effective decrease in uncertainty for the response of
interest. Both analytical and simulation approaches can be implemented to develop SA models
that characterize the state of knowledge for a system, and the approach selected depends on the
application in question. Analytical representations (e.g. systems of differential equations) have
the advantage of allowing more straightforward analysis of model effects; however, some
systems possess sufficient complexity that simulation approaches need to be utilized.
Performance assessment (PA) is an integral part of post-closure for radioactive waste disposal
facilities and it requires characterization of the fate and transport of waste through space and
time. The main goal of a PA is to provide reasonable assurance that performance objectives for
radioactive waste disposal will be met; hence it is necessary to depict the relevant dynamics of
the facility of interest. This requires the characterization and simulation of multiple system
components including: hydrologic, edaphic, radiologic, biotic, and structural features. The
overarching model used for a PA is an aggregation of information from multiple sources
including: field studies, literature review, and output from other models. PAs are a modeling
application where analytical approaches alone are insufficient and the use of a high-dimensional
simulation model is essential. SA of high dimensional probabilistic models can be
computationally challenging; however, these challenges can be met through the application of
machine learning methods applied to probabilistic simulation results. This approach is sometimes
referred to as meta-modeling (Marrell et al. 2010, Coutts and Yokomizo 2014).
2.0 Sensitivity Analysis Approaches
This section provides a brief review of the common approaches to SA and reviews their pros and
cons in the context of application to PA models. Generally speaking, SA deals with the
estimation of influence measures for input variables that are components of a given model. In the
application to PA models, it is of interest to determine which input variables are driving the
uncertainty associated with an endpoint of interest (dose, flux, concentration, etc.). This can be
accomplished with either a qualitative (Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2012) or quantitative (Liu et al.
2006, Storlie et al. 2009) approach applied across a spectrum ranging from local (McKay et al.
1979) to global (Sobol 2001, Friedman 2002) analyses.
Qualitative SA provides a relative ranking of the importance (sensitivity) of input factors without
incurring the computational cost of quantitatively estimating the percentage of the response (e.g.
media concentrations or future potential doses) uncertainty accounted for by each input factor. It
was considered more useful prior to the availability of the computational capability needed for
quantitative SA approaches. Currently, for the purpose of PA modeling, qualitative SA is of little
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 3
utility beyond perhaps the initial preliminary model development stages. It is not considered
further in this document.
A local SA varies one input factor while holding all other input factors constant and assesses the
impact on the corresponding model response. This is often accomplished in an analytical context
by examining partial derivatives evaluated at the solution of interest locally. This analysis is
local in the sense that only a minimal portion of the full volume of the input factor space is
explored (i.e., the point at which all but one of the input factors are held constant). Although
local sensitivity analysis is useful in some applications, the region of possible realizations for the
model of interest is left largely unexplored. Global sensitivity analysis attempts to explore the
possible realizations of the model more completely. The space of possible realizations for the
model can be explored through the use of search curves or evaluation of multi-dimensional
integrals using Monte Carlo methods.
An example of quantitative local SA approach is differential analysis based on the partial
derivatives of the model with respect to each input factor. Given a model of the form y = f (X),
the local relative sensitivity measure, Si, of each input factor, xi, on model response y can be
calculated as:
Si =Ex
∂f (X)
∂xi
"
#$
%
&'
2
varx[xi ]
(
)*
+*
,
-*
.*
1/2
(1)
Typically, evaluation of this derivative at a specific solution is performed; hence the analysis is
relevant in a small local neighborhood around the solution of interest.
Quantitative global SA attempts to explore the full hyper-volume defined by the collective
ranges of possible values for the input factors. Sensitivity indices (SIs) for a single value are
obtained by averaging over the variation of all other input factors to provide an estimate of
sensitivity:
Si =varxi[E(y |xi )]
var(y) (2)
The degree of success for this type of analysis is measured using the quantity,∑
=
p
i
ixS
1
, where p is
the number of model parameters. If this sum is approximately 1, then the analysis is considered
successful in terms of depicting (and hence allowing the ability to decompose) the observed
variability in the response. Given the complexity of PA models, and the rigor that needs to be
applied in order to provide reasonable assurance that PA goals being met, the global, quantitative
SA is the most effective approach.
Quantitative global SA approaches can be partitioned into two groups: analytical; and, meta-
model. Several approaches have been proposed to implement analytical SA for nonlinear,
nonmonotonic models. Two of the analytical approaches that are considered here are the Fourier
Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST) (Saltelli et al. 1999) and Sobol’s design of experiment
(SDOE) approach (Sobol 1993). Application of the meta-model approach (Borgonovo et al.
2012, Coutts and Yokomizo 2014) consists of the development of a statistical model that
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 4
quantifies the relationship between the response of interest and all of the explanatory variables
that enter into the PA model.
The following is a brief review of these approaches. The goal of this review is to articulate the
logic for the implementation of the preferred approach, which is the application of the meta-
model using gradient boosting machines (GBM).
2.1 Analytical Approach: Sobol Design of Experiment and Fourier
Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST)
Several analytical approaches have been proposed to handle nonlinear, nonmonotonic models.
Two of these approaches include the Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST) (Saltelli et al.
1999) and Sobol’s design of experiment (SDOE) approach (Sobol 1993). These methods provide
an estimate of the proportion of the variation in the model response from an explanatory variable,
by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) type of decomposition of the variability in the model
response. These two analytical methods use a different computational strategy for decomposing
the partial variances corresponding to increased dimensionality (main-effects, two-way
interactions, three-way interactions, etc.).
FAST and SDOE have been shown to be effectively equivalent with respect to SA application
(Saltelli et al. 1999). In the context of SA, the ANOVA decomposition can be described in terms
of total sensitivity indices for each input factor, STi. The STi for explanatory variable i is
calculated as the sum across all main and interaction sensitivities that involve the ith input
explanatory variable:
!+++=∑∑≠≠
n
ikj ijk
n
ij ijiT SSSSi, (3)
where Si is the first-order or (main effect) sensitivity index and Sij is the second-order (two- way
interaction effect) sensitivity index and so on. For a single STi,, the total number of interactive
terms for sensitivity indices is 2n – 1, where n is the number of explanatory variables. Because
SDOE requires multi-dimensional integration to estimate the sensitivity indices, this method can
be prohibitive computationally for moderately complex models. These approaches become more
computationally intensive as the dimensionality of the model (i.e., the number of model
parameters) increases and can be prohibitive for models that include hundreds or thousands of
stochastic explanatory variables.
2.2 Meta-models: Regression Based Methods
Regression based approaches are an option for the quantitative global SA of PA models. These
approaches include squared standardized regression coefficients (SSRC) and squared
standardized rank regression coefficients (SSRRC) (Storlie et al. 2009, Cea et al. 2011). Some of
the benefits of these methods are ease of implementation and relative familiarity of the basic
output of regression models for most members of a target audience. However, one of the main
drawbacks of these approaches is that the methods assume a monotonic and linear relationship
between the input factors and the model response. The degree to which the relationships between
explanatory and response variables follow these assumptions impacts the validity of the results
of these simple linear regression-based analyses. That is, this method does not provide reliable
SA for systems with a high degree of non-linearity or moderate lack of monotonicity.
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 5
A linear regression model has the following form
∑=++=p
i iixy10 εββ (4)
where y represents the output from a PA model (i.e. the response of interest), and the  𝑥!’s
corespond to each of the explanatory variables built into the PA model. The variance of the
linear regression model in Equation 4 can be estimated as
𝑣(𝑦)=𝛽!!!
!!!𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑥!) (5)
where 𝛽!!  is the square of the standard parameter estimate for the ith variable in the regression
model. Equation [5] requires an assumption that the input factors are independent, which is often
not the case. For example, many of the explanatory variables in a PA model are correlated as a
direct consequence of the nature of the system. If the model response and explanatory variables
are standardized to a mean of 0 and a variance of 1 then the square of the regression coefficients
(i.e.  𝛽!!) provides an estimate of Si (in the form of Equation 3).
Regressing the ranks of the model response on explanatory variables can help to mitigate (but
not obviate) the impact of nonlinearities in the model on the lack of validity of output for the
regression model. The coefficient of determination associated with the regression model in
Equation [4], R2, measures the percent of variability in the ranks of the model response that is
explained by the linear combination of the explanatory variables multiplied by their respective
parameters. The closer R2 is to one, the less unexplained variability there is in the rank response
and the better the regression model performs as a meta-model estimating the dynamics of the
more complex PA model.
Alternatively, the quantity 1- R2 represents the percent of rank response variation not accounted
for by the SA method. As this percent increases, confidence in the analysis is reduced although
the resulting relative ranking may still be of value. For models with low enough values of R2, the
validity of the relative rankings also comes into question. In this context, it is worth recalling that
SSRC and SSRRC assume a monotonic linear relationship between the explanatory variables and
the response of interest for the PA model output. A low R2 might be reflective of a model
structure that does not meet this assumption.
2.3 Meta-models: Machine Learning Approaches
Because of the computational cost, SA of high-dimensional probabilistic PA models requires
efficient algorithms for practical application. Machine learning is a general approach that
provides tools for the construction of meta-models that can be used for subsequent SA. These
models allow for the partitioning of the variance in the model response in a manner that allocates
a proportion to the explanatory variables. Two common machine learning approaches that could
be used for SA are Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) (Friedman 1991) and the
gradient boosting machine (GBM) (Friedman 2001, Friedman 2002). Several of the most
important advantages of machine learning approaches are: the ability to fit non-monotonic and
non-linear effects; the ability to fit parameter interaction effects; and, the ability to visualize
these effects and their interaction across the range of the response and input parameters. MARS,
boosting and other machine learning approaches typically produce similar results for noisy data.
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 6
In the case of realizations from a probabilistic process model, each realization is a deterministic
evaluation of the model and all the stochastic predictor variables are available. As such there is
no unexplainable variation in the process model response, which is a stark contrast to the case
with observed data. Hence, machine learning algorithms should theoretically be able to construct
models that have R2 values very close to one. Given that, it might be tempting to conclude that
machine learning SA methods are all effectively equivalent; however, with respect to the ease of
implementation and interpretability of results, GBM has an advantage. The remainder of this
section articulates this with a high level review of both MARS and GBM.
2.3.1 Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS)
MARS is a recursive partitioning approach that directly addresses the ANOVA decomposition
“curse of dimensionality”, making estimation of sensitivity indices computationally achievable
for large n (Friedman, 1991). MARS accomplishes this by optimally partitioning or, splitting the
model response and explanatory variables into subsets, from which splines (i.e. piecewise
smooth polynomial functions) are fit. The recursive nature of the algorithm results in
increasingly local splits of the model response in which all significant interaction effects in sub-
regions are found. MARS is able to find and fit significant nonlinear and threshold relationships
between the model input and explanatory variables. An explanatory variable’s influence is
calculated using MARS as the sum of the partial residuals removing all main and interaction
effects that variable enters.
∑∑∑∑⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡++++−=
≠≠≠
2
1,,1,1
),,(),()(!
kji
kji
ji
ji
i
iox xxxfxxfxfafSi (6)
2.3.2 Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM)
Boosting of regression trees provides a technique that adds to the flexibility offered by recursive
partitioning methods such as MARS. The GBM (Friedman 2001, Friedman 2002) approach
utilizes boosting of binary recursive partitioning algorithms that deconstructs a response into the
relative influence from a given set of explanatory variables (i.e. PA model input parameters).
The deconstruction breaks the PA model into separate parts (braches of the regression tree), and
each part is examined separately. This process is repeated with smaller and smaller parts, each
analyzed for the relationship between the explanatory variables and the PA model output (i.e. the
response of interest). The deconstructed parts are then collected together to provide estimates of
the sensitivity of each exploratory variable for a specific response variable from the PA model.
Hence, GBM provides a method for constructing a statistical meta-model of the more complex
PA simulation model. The GBM approach identifies the most influential explanatory variables in
the context of the observed uncertainty in the PA model output or response. Critically, the GBM
method also identifies the range over which the influence is strongest, which can be used to
better understand the full effect of a sensitive explanatory variable on the output results.
Variance decomposition of the GBM fit is then used to estimate SIs. Under this decomposition
approach, the goal is to identify the most influential explanatory variables that are identified
within a model. The necessary degree of model complexity can be assessed using validation
metrics, based on comparison of model predictions, with randomly selected subsets of the data.
This approach uses the “deviance” of the model as a measure of goodness of fit. The concept of
deviance is fundamental to classical statistical hypothesis tests (e.g., the common t-test can be
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 7
derived using a deviance-based framework) and guides the model selection process applied here.
The deviance for a model given a set of data, y, is defined as
𝐷𝑦=  −2(log 𝑝𝑦𝜃!"#−log 𝑝𝑦𝜃!"## (7)
Where 𝜃!"# is the vector of fitted values from the model of interest, and 𝜃!"## is the vector of
fitted values from the saturated model. Equation 7 is effectively the log likelihood ratio of the
fitted versus the full model. In this sense, it measures the deviance of the fitted model from the
full model.
Given that the PA models are deterministic simulations, where the only stochasticity comes from
the distributions assigned to each of the explanatory variables, the variance of the response from
the PA is solely attributable to the model uncertainty. Hence, these models can’t be overfit in the
same way that they would when applied to observational data. Because of this, the determination
of sufficient GBM model complexity should be focused on the minimal amount necessary to
explain approximately the maximal amount of the observed variance in the PA model response.
The GBM fitting approach is based on finding the values of each explanatory variable that result
in the greatest difference in the mean for the corresponding subsets of the response. For example,
if there were only a single explanatory variable, the GBM would identify the value of the
explanatory variable that corresponds to a split of the response into two parts for which the
means are more different than those corresponding to any other split of the response into two
subsets. When multiple explanatory variables are present, multiple splits are made corresponding
to each of the explanatory variables and the collection of splits is referred to as a “tree”. Each
tree results in an estimate (e.g., prediction) of the response. As multiple potential trees are
evaluated, they are compared to the observed data using a loss function. The selection of the loss
function is an important aspect of the GBM process, and depends on the distribution of the
response variable. For data that are sufficiently skewed (e.g., non-normal), experience has shown
the absolute error loss function typically produces more reliable results. This is often the case
with realizations of responses generated from PA models since there are often many cases of
small response (e.g., dose, flux, concentration) and only a few for which large responses are
simulated by the PA model.
There is a trade-off that exists when considering which loss function to use. The squared-error
loss function results in better fitting models, but can do so at the expense of introducing spurious
variables into the model selection process when the response distribution is sufficiently skewed.
The absolute error loss function produces model predictions with more variability, but is less
likely to result in the selection of spurious variables in the model. This is due to the squared-error
loss function methods increased sensitivity to results from the tails of distributions.
When considering the utility of the GBM approach and its increased computational burden
relative to simpler linear regression based approaches, it is important to recall that linear
regression techniques (e.g. SSRC) assume that the relationship between the response and the
explanatory variable is a constant (i.e. the statistical model is linear in the parameter space). With
the GBM approach, this relationship is not constrained by assumptions of linearity, and partial
dependence plots are used to show the estimate of the relationship between the response (i.e. the
output from the PA model) and the explanatory variables.
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 8
Partial dependence plots are used to describe and interpret the results of the SA. The partial
dependence curve depicts the change in the value of an endpoint as a function of the values of
the response variable (see blue curves in Figure 1). It is conceptually equivalent to the slope in a
linear regression model, but shows the non-linear impact across the range of input values. In a
linear regression model, this relationship is constrained to be constant. That is, the relationship
between a change in the explanatory variable and the endpoint of interest does not change across
the range of values for the explanatory variable. In the GBM approach, the relationship between
the explanatory variable and the endpoint of interest is allowed to change across the range of
values for the explanatory variable. For example, the x2 explanatory variable in Figure 1 displays
a different relationship to the response between the values of 0 and 0.5 than it does between 0.5
and 1.0. Specifically, for the range of explanatory variable values between 0 and 0.5 there is a
decrease in the response; however for the range of values between 0.5 and 1.0, there is an
increase in the response. This is a powerful distinction between the GBM approach and other
meta-modeling applications that do not allow this functional flexibility in the relationship
between the explanatory variable and response to be evaluated.
2.4 Example: Comparison of SA methods
2.4.1 “Sobol g-function”
The Sobol g-function (Saltelli et. al. 1999) provides an analytic non-monotonic test function for
evaluating the performance of various SA methods. This function is defined as:
∏
=
=
p
i
iixgf
1
)( (7)
where p is the total number of input factors and gi(xi) is given by

i
iiiia
axxg+
+−=1
|24|)(, (8)
with
xi =1
2 +1
π
arcsin(sin(ωis +φi)), (9)
and s varying along (-π,π), ϕi ~ U [0,2π), and ωi are specified frequencies.
The Sobol g function was simulated for p = 8 and frequencies {ωi} = {23, 55, 77, 97, 107, 113,
121, 125} for a specific set of ai’s. Table 1 provides a comparison of sensitivity indices, S,
calculated analytically (Saltelli et. al. 1999) versus those computed using GBM, MARS, FAST,
differential analysis (DERIV), squared standardized regression coefficients (SSRC), and, squared
standardized rank regression coefficients (SSRRC). DERIV is used to represent the calculus
based approach based on derivatives evaluated at a point.
Note that the GBM, MARS and FAST methods all return sensitivity indices that are close to the
actual sensitivities for the Sobol function (S). The Sobol function is highly non-linear; hence the
standardized regression approaches (i.e. SSRC and SSRRC) do not work very well. As described
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 9
above, FAST is computationally challenging. The difference between MARS and GBM is small,
but preference based on the results in this example is given overall to the GBM approach.
A goodness-of-fit statistic is also presented in the bottom row of Table 1. This is calculated as
the standard chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic (i.e. the sum of the square of the observed (SA
method) minus the expected (S value)) all divided by the expected value, in which case a small
value implies a better fit. These goodness-of-fit statistics show that the GBM method
outperforms the other methods, although the difference is small for GBM and FAST.
Table 1. Sensitivity Indices by Sensitivity Analysis Method for Sobol g-function application
with p = 8.
a S GBM MARS FAST DERIV SSRC SSRRC
x1 99 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0043 0.0037 0.6880 0.7805
x2 0 0.4227 0.4146 0.4397 0.4287 0.3151 0.0137 0.0036
x3 9 0.0058 0.0011 0.0084 0.0190 0.0401 0.0003 0.0000
x4 0 0.4227 0.4200 0.4239 0.4269 0.3169 0.0163 0.0098
x5 99 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0006 0.0037 0.0350 0.1152
x6 4.5 0.0182 0.0335 0.0239 0.0141 0.0787 0.0012 0.0554
x7 1 0.1304 0.1303 0.1041 0.1063 0.2382 0.0574 0.0344
x8 99 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0037 0.1881 0.0012
Goodness-of-Fit statistic 3.3 14.8 3.6 470 7,250 535

GBM is run on the realizations themselves, whereas FAST requires set up in terms of an
embedded signal. This makes FAST relatively cumbersome to deal with. Also, GBM
outperforms MARS, which is not as flexible and takes more time to implement computationally.
GBM tends to provide the best fit, is flexible and is applied directly to the realizations from the
PA model. Consequently, GBM is the preferred method, and the one that is used for the
sensitivity analyses for the Clive DU PA.
2.4.2 Visualization
Once a GBM has been is constructed, every explanatory variable in the PA model has a
corresponding sensitivity index (SI). Experience has shown that for PA models with hundreds of
parameters, the majority of them will have SI values that are very near zero. That is, for a given
response from the PA model, the majority of the uncertainty in the response values simulated by
the PA model will be attributable to a handful of explanatory variables. The collection of
important variables will change as different responses from the PA model are considered.
The SI is obtained through variance decomposition and can be interpreted as the percent of
variability in the PA model output explained by a given explanatory variable. The sum of the
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 10
SI’s across the entire set of explanatory variables in the PA model will approximately equal the
R2 of the linear regression of the realizations from the PA model on the GBM predictions.
For a GBM model, the partial dependence of the response on each explanatory variable is
determined through the integration across the joint density of the explanatory variables to obtain
a marginal distribution for each explanatory variable. That is, if there are n explanatory variables
in a given PA model, the partial dependence for a single explanatory variable is obtained by
integrating across the other n-1 explanatory variables in the PA model. The integration is
performed using a “weighted tree traversal” measure that is analogous to more common
integration procedures performed with Riemann or Lebesgue measures (Friedman 2001).
The vertical axis of a partial dependence plot has units corresponding to those of the response
variable of interest for the meta-model built on the PA model output response. The partial
dependence shows the change in the response variable as a function of the changes in the
explanatory variable. If the underlying relationship between the response from the PA model and
the explanatory variable of interest is linear in the parameters (as is the assumption for a linear
regression model), then the partial dependence curve will be a line with slope equal to that of the
corresponding regression model.
In order to assess the relationship between an individual explanatory variable and the response of
interest, partial dependence plots are used (an example is provided in Figure 1). The first panel
depicts a density estimate of the simulated response from the PA model as well as the R2 and
summary statistics for the response. The percentiles of the response distribution in this panel are
shaded to provide a context for the partial dependence plots presented in the remaining panels.
The colors indicate the percentile range of the response as follows:
1. The 0th - 25th percentile region is shaded orange-brown
2. The 25th - 50th percentile region is shaded dark yellow-green
3. The 50th - 75th percentile region is shaded light green
4. The 75th - 100th percentile region is shaded light blue
To reiterate, the y-axis of the partial dependence plots is in units of the response distribution
(which is the x axis of the first panel in the upper left). Given that each parameter has a different
range and strength of influence on the response, the y axes of the partial dependence panels have
been constructed to depict only the range of the response over which a particular parameter is
influential. This provides the most meaningful presentation of the variables and their
relationships. In contrast, if the original scale of the response were maintained on each partial
dependence panel, then the influence of the least influential parameter would not be visible in
many cases. To mediate issues associated with this change in range of the vertical axes among
the different partial dependence plots, the background of the partial dependence panels is colored
to depict the percentiles of the response over which the parameter is influential. For example, if
the background of the partial dependence plot under the partial dependence line is light blue,
then that indicates the parameter’s influence on the upper end of the response distribution (i.e.,
the 75th to 100th percentile of the response).
The partial dependence panels in each figure show the distributions of the explanatory variables
(black line), and the partial dependence curve (blue line) shows changes in the response as a
function of each explanatory variable.
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 11

Figure 1. Sensitivity and Partial Dependence Plots for the GBM fit to the Sobol Function.
The plots show that the distributions for the three input parameters are uniform, and that the
effects show sensitivity across the entire range of the inputs. The effects are first negative, and
then positive, which is to be expected given Equation 15. Also note that the linear regression
methods would not be able to track the non-linearity, and instead fits a straight, horizontal line
for these parameters, which shows them to be non-sensitive. This is a prime example of why
methods such as GBM are advantageous.
NA
Pr
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
0 2 4 6
y
R² = 0.95
Mean: 1 50%: 0.7 95%: 3 99%: 4.3
0−25% 25−50% 50−75% 75−100%
5.0e−01
1.0e+00
1.5e+00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x2
SI = 42
5.0e−01
1.0e+00
1.5e+00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x4
SI = 41.7
8.0e−01
1.0e+00
1.2e+00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x7
SI = 12.2
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 12
Table 2 shows a specific example for one of the Clive DU PA endpoints of interest – the peak
groundwater concentrations within 500 years for technetium-99. As can be seen, all explanatory
variables (input parameters) are included in the GBM-based global SA. The dependent variable
(output variable or response variable) of interest is the peak groundwater concentration of 99Tc in
500 years. The most sensitive input parameter is the van Genuchten alpha parameter. This is
consistent with the conceptual understanding of the model. That is, infiltration is low and
diffusion dominates infiltration as a mechanism of movement. Note that, although inventory of 99Tc is the fourth most sensitive input parameter, its impact on the output is dominated by the
van Genuchten alpha parameter. This means that the output is relatively less affected by the
inventory of 99Tc because the inventory uncertainty is swamped by the uncertainty of the impact
of the van Genuchten alpha parameter. This is true only for the range considered in the 99Tc
inventory distribution.
Further examples are provided in the Sensitivity Analysis Results (Appendix 19) v1.4 White
Paper.
Table 2. Peak Groundwater Well Concentrations within 500 years - Tc99
Explanatory
 Variable
 Sensitivity
 Index

Unit
 4
 ET
 Layers
 log
 of
 van
 Genuchten’s
 α
 31.97

Molecular
 Diffusivity
 in
 Water
 (cm2/s)
 24.96

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Tc
 (mL/g)
 13.97

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Tc99
 (pCi/g)
 10.59

Unit
 4
 ET
 Layers
 log
 of
 van
 Genuchten’s
 n
 3.83

GDP
 DU
 Inventory
 Storage
 Dead
 Space
 (m2)
 1.26

Saturated
 Zone
 Water
 Table
 Gradient
 1.20

OHV
 Dust
 Adjustment
 0.55

Unit
 2
 Saturated
 Hyd
 Cond
 (cm/s)
 0.38

Federal
 DU
 Cell
 Unsaturated
 Zone
 Thickness
 (m)
 0.34

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Ra
 (mol/L)
 0.34

Fine
 CobbleMix
 Porosity
 0.28

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Cs
 0.26

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Ra
 (mL/g)
 0.22

Surface
 Atmosphere
 Thickness
 (m)
 0.21

Unit
 4
 Compacted
 Hb
 (cm)
 0.20

Deep
 Time
 Deep
 Lake
 Sedimentation
 Rate
 (m/yr)
 0.20

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Th
 (day/kg)
 0.19

Kd
 Silt
 for
 U
 (mL/g)
 0.17

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Th
 0.17

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 U233
 (pCi/g)
 0.16

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Sr
 (mL/g)
 0.15

Unit
 3
 Bubbling
 Pressure
 Head
 (cm)
 0.14

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Ac
 (mL/g)
 0.14

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Ra
 (mL/g)
 0.13

Forb
 Root
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.13

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Pa
 0.12

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 13
Mammal
 Mound
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 4
 (1/ha)
 0.12

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Cs
 (mL/g)
 0.11

Unit
 4
 Compacted
 Porosity
 0.11

Fine
 Gravel
 Mix
 BulkDensity
 (g/cm3)
 0.11

Liner
 Clay
 Saturated
 Hyd
 Cond
 (cm/s)
 0.11

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Pu239
 (pCi/g)
 0.11

Unit
 2
 Porosity
 0.10

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Ac
 0.10

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Pu240
 (pCi/g)
 0.10

Shrub
 Root.Shoot
 Ratio
 0.10

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 I
 (mol/L)
 0.10

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Rn
 (mol/L)
 0.10

Grass
 Root.Shoot
 Ratio
 0.09

Shrub
 Root
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.09

Unit
 4
 Compacted
 Residual
 Water
 Content
 0.09

Intermediate
 Lake
 Sed
 Thickness
 (m)
 0.09

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 U236
 (pCi/g)
 0.09

Unit
 3
 Bulk
 Density
 (g/cm3)
 0.09

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Cs137
 (pCi/g)
 0.08

Deep
 Time
 DCF
 Alpha
 REF
 0.08

Fine
 Cobble
 Mix
 BulkDensity
 (g/cm3)
 0.08

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Pu
 0.08

Saturated
 Zone
 Thickness
 (m)
 0.08

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Am
 (mL/g)
 0.08

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Pa
 (mol/L)
 0.07

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Sr
 (mL/g)
 0.07

RipRap
 Bulk
 Density
 (g/cm3)
 0.07

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Cs
 (mL/g)
 0.07

Deep
 Time
 DCF
 Photon
 2
 REF
 0.07

Ant
 Colony
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 1
 (1/ha)
 0.07

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Ac
 (mL/g)
 0.07

Unit
 3
 Residual
 Water
 Content
 0.07

Natural
 Rn
 Barrier
 Clay
 Sat
 Hyd
 Cond
 (cm/s)
 0.07

Deep
 Time
 Lake
 Start
 (yr)
 0.07

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Pu
 (mol/L)
 0.06

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 UO3
 (mol/L)
 0.06

Grass
 Root
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.06

Ant
 Nest
 Volume
 (m3)
 0.06

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Tc
 (mol/L)
 0.06

Soil
 Ingestion
 Rate
 for
 Cattle
 (kg/day)
 0.06

Ant
 Nest
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.06

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Pu
 (day/kg)
 0.06

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Ra
 (day/kg)
 0.06

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 14
Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Np
 (day/kg)
 0.06

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Tc
 (day/kg)
 0.06

Deep
 Time
 DCF
 Photon
 1
 REF
 0.05

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Pu238
 (pCi/g)
 0.05

Fine
 Gravel
 Mix
 Porosity
 0.05

RipRap
 Porosity
 0.05

Unit
 3
 Saturated
 Hyd
 Cond
 (cm/s)
 0.05

Unit
 2
 Bulk
 Density
 (g/cm3)
 0.05

Vegetation
 Association
 Selector
 0.05

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 U
 0.05

Surface
 Wind
 Speed
 (m/s)
 0.05

Soil
 Ingestion
 Tracer
 Element
 0.05

Tortuosity
 Water
 Content
 Exponent

 0.05

Intermediate
 Lake
 Depth
 (m)
 0.05

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Pa
 (mL/g)
 0.05

Unit
 3
 Porosity
 0.05

Ant
 Colony
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 5
 (1/ha)
 0.05

Forage
 Ingestion
 Rate
 for
 Cattle
 (kg/day)
 0.05

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Th
 (mL/g)
 0.05

Kd
 Sand
 for
 U
 (mL/g)
 0.05

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Sr
 (mol/L)
 0.05

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Am
 (mL/g)
 0.05

Site
 Dispersal
 Area
 (km2)
 0.05

Unit
 4
 Compacted
 Bulk
 Density
 (g/cm3)
 0.05

Random
 Gully
 Selector
 0.04

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Th
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Antelope
 Range
 Area
 (acre)
 0.04

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Pu
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Unit
 4
 ET
 Layers
 Bulk
 Density
 (g/cm3)
 0.04

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Np
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Tortuosity
 Porosity
 Exponent
 0.04

Ant
 Colony
 Lifespan
 (yr)
 0.04

Plant
 Fresh
 Weight
 Conversion
 0.04

Biomass
 Production
 Rate
 (kg.ha.yr)
 0.04

Meat
 Post-­‐Cooking
 Loss
 0.04

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Cs
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Am
 (mol/L)
 0.04

Body
 Weight
 Factor
 for
 Antelope
 0.04

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Pa
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Tc
 0.04

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 I129
 (pCi/g)
 0.04

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Ra
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Np
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 15
Kd
 Clay
 for
 Pb
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Ant
 Colony
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 3
 (1/ha)
 0.04

Receptor
 Area
 (ha)
 0.04

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Am
 (day/kg)
 0.04

DCF
 Alpha
 REF
 0.04

Biomass
 %
 Cover
 Selector
 0.04

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 U238
 (pCi/g)
 0.04

Unit
 4
 ET
 Layers
 Porosity
 0.04

Deep
 Time
 Aeolian
 Correlation
 0.04

Ant
 Colony
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 4
 (1/ha)
 0.04

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 I
 0.04

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Pu
 (mL/g)
 0.04

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Pu241
 (pCi/g)
 0.03

DCF
 Beta
 REF
 0.03

Radon
 Escape.Production
 Ratio
 for
 Waste
 0.03

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 U
 (day/kg)
 0.03

Mammal
 Burrow
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.03

Forb
 Root.Shoot
 Ratio
 0.03

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Np
 (mol/L)
 0.03

Water
 Ingestion
 Rate
 for
 Cattle
 (kg/day)
 0.03

Deep
 Time
 Aeolian
 Deposition
 Depth
 (m)
 0.03

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Am
 (mL/g)
 0.03

Deep
 Time
 DCF
 Beta
 REF
 0.03

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Sr
 (day/kg)
 0.03

DCF
 Photon1
 REF
 0.03

Silt
 Sand
 Gravel
 BulkDensity
 (g/cm3)
 0.03

Deep
 Time
 Aeolian
 Deposition
 Age
 (yr)
 0.03

Unit
 3
 Brooks-­‐Corey
 Fractal
 Dimension
 0.03

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Sr90
 (pCi/g)
 0.03

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Pa
 (mL/g)
 0.03

Resuspension
 Flux
 (kg.m2-­‐yr)
 0.03

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 I
 (day/kg)
 0.03

Soil
 Ingestion
 Rate
 for
 Antelope
 (kg/day)
 0.03

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Th
 (mol/L)
 0.03

Water
 Ingestion
 Rate
 for
 Antelope
 (kg/day)
 0.03

Mammal
 Mound
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 1
 (1/ha)
 0.03

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Np
 0.03

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 U3O8
 (mol/L)
 0.03

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Ac
 (mL/g)
 0.03

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Cs
 (mol/L)
 0.03

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Np237
 (pCi/g)
 0.03

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Cs
 (day/kg)
 0.03

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Pb
 (mol/L)
 0.03

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 16
Tree
 Root.Shoot
 Ratio
 0.03

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Sr
 0.03

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Pu
 (mL/g)
 0.03

Deep
 Time
 Diffusion
 Length
 (m)
 0.02

Deep
 Time
 Deep
 Lake
 End
 (yr)
 0.02

Silt
 Sand
 Gravel
 Porosity
 0.02

Deep
 Lake
 Depth
 (m)
 0.02

Resuspended
 Particle
 Fraction
 0.02

Mammal
 Mound
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 3
 (1/ha)
 0.02

Saltwater
 Solubility
 for
 Ac
 (mol/L)
 0.02

Surface
 Atmosphere
 Diffusion
 Length
 (m)
 0.02

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Am241
 (pCi/g)
 0.02

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 Ra226
 (pCi/g)
 0.02

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Sr
 (mL/g)
 0.02

Mammal
 Burrow
 Excavation
 Rate
 (m3/yr)
 0.02

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Pb
 (day/kg)
 0.02

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Th
 (mL/g)
 0.02

Soil
 Temperature
 (°C)
 0.02

Deep
 Time
 Intermediate
 Lake
 Duration
 (yr)
 0.02

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Ra
 0.02

Meat
 Preparation
 Loss
 0.02

Kd
 Sand
 for
 Pb
 (mL/g)
 0.02

Mammal
 Mound
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 2
 (1/ha)
 0.02

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Am
 0.02

DCF
 Photon2
 REF
 0.02

Kd
 Silt
 for
 Pb
 (mL/g)
 0.02

Greasewood
 Root.Shoot
 Ratio
 0.02

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 U234
 (pCi/g)
 0.02

Greasewood
 Root
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.02

Plant.Soil
 Conc
 Ratio
 for
 Pb
 0.02

Kd
 Sand
 for
 I
 (mL/g)
 0.02

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Pa
 (day/kg)
 0.01

Contaminated
 Fraction
 of
 GDP
 DU
 0.01

Mammal
 Mound
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 5
 (1/ha)
 0.01

Kd
 Clay
 for
 Np
 (mL/g)
 0.01

Ant
 Colony
 Density
 -­‐
 Plot
 2
 (1/ha)
 0.01

Tree
 Root
 Shape
 Parameter
 b
 0.01

Activity
 Conc
 in
 SRS
 DU
 Waste:
 U235
 (pCi/g)
 0.01

Kd
 Clay
 for
 U
 (mL/g)
 0.01

Beef
 Transfer
 Factor
 for
 Ac
 (day/kg)
 0.01

Deep
 Time
 Receptor
 Area
 (ac)
 0.01

Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 17
3.0 References
Borgonovo E., Castaings W., and Tarantols S. (2012) “Model emulation and moment-
independent sensitivity analysis: An application to environmental modelling”,
Environmental Modelling and Software 34:105-115.
Cea, L., Bermudez M., and Puertas J. (2011) “Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of a depth-
averaged water quality model for evaluation of Escherichia Coli concentration in shallow
estuaries” Environmental Modelling and Software 26:1526-1539.
Coutts S.R. and Yokomizo H. (2014) “Meta-models as a straightforward approach to the
sensitivity analysis of complex models”, Population Ecology 56:7-19.
Friedman J.H. (1991) “Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines”, Annals of Statistics 19(1):1-
67.
Friedman J.H. (2001) “Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine”, Annals of
Statistics 29(5):1189-1232.
Friedman J.H. (2002) “Stochastic gradient boosting”, Computational Statistics and Data
Analysis 38:367-378.
Liu H., Chen W., and Sudjianto A. (2006) “Relative Entropy Based Method for Probabilistic
Sensitivity Analysis in Engineering Design” Journal of Mechanical Design 128:326-336.
Marrel A.M., Iooss B., Laurent B., and Roustant O. (2009), “Calcluations of Sobol indices for
the Gaussian process metamodel” Reliability Engineering and Safety System 94:742-751.
Marrel A.M., Iooss B., Jullien M., Laurent B., and Volkova E. (2011), “Global sensitivity
analysis for models with spatially dependent outputs” Environmetrics 22:383-397.
McKay M. D., Beckman R.J., and Conover W.J. (1979) “A comparison of three methods for
selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code”
Technometrics 21(2): 239-245.
Melbourne-Thomas J., Wotherspoon S., Raymond B., and Constable A. (2012) “Comprehensive
evaluation of model uncertainty in qualitative network analyses” Ecological Monographs
82(4):505-519.
Morris D.J., Speirs D.C., Cameron A.I., Heeath M.R. (2014) “Global sensitivity analysis of an
end-to-end marine ecosystem model of the North Sea: Factors affecting the biomass of
fish and benthos”, Ecological Modelling 273:251-263.
Nossent J., Elsen P., and Bauwens W. (2011) “Sobol’s sensitivity analysis of a complex
environmental model”, Environmental Modelling and Software 26:1515-1525.
Saltelli A., Tarantola S., and Chan K.P.-S. (1999) “A quantitative model-independent method for
global sensitivity analysis of model output”, Technometrics 41:39-55.
Sobol I.M. (1993) “Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models”, Mathematical
Modeling & Computational Experiment 1:407-414.
Sobol, I.M. (1993), “Sensitivity Analysis for Nonlinear Mathematical Models,” Mathematical
Modeling & Computational Experiment, 1, 407-414.
Sobol I.M. (2001) “Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte
Carlo estimates”, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 55:271-280.
Machine Learning for Sensitivity Analysis of Probabilistic Environmental Models
5 November 2015 18
Storlie C.B., Swiler L.P., Helton J.C., and Sallaberry C.J. (2009) “Implementation and evaluation
f nonparametric regression procedures for sensitivity analysis of computationally
demanding models.” Reliability Engineering and Safety System 94:1735-1763.

 NAC-0026_R4

Model Parameters for the
Clive DU PA Model

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
8 November 2015

Prepared by

NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1505 15th St, Suite B, Los Alamos, NM 87544

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 ii
1. Title: Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
2. Filename: Clive PA Model Parameters v1.4.docx
3. Description: This white paper provides documentation of all the parameters in the Clive DU
PA Model and references for their values and input distributions.

Name Date
4. Originator Gregg Ochiogrosso 27 October 2015
5. Reviewer Katie Catlett 8 November 2015
6. Remarks

17 Jul 2015 Amir Mokhtari updated terminology from “Class A South” to “Federal DU.”
29 Jul 2015 K. Catlett QA’d those changes.
11 August 2015 Amir Mokhtari updated deep time parameters
30 Sep 2015 G. Occhiogrosso Updated water content and infiltration regression coefficients
as well as saturated hydraulic conductivity distribution based on Calc Sheet ES 006 Rev 1.
27 Oct 2015 G. Occhiogrosso Updated with new geometry for the DU cell for v1.4 in
Section 7.2, with associated updates elsewhere. Revised several sections in Materials section to
clarify values for materials derived from Unit 4 materials. Other minor revisions for updated
values.
8 Nov 2015 K Catlett. Accepted changes and minor edits on a few references in the Deep Time
dose assessment tables.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 iii

This page is intentionally blank, aside from this statement.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 iv
CONTENTS
FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... vii

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... viii

1.0
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0
 Distribution Specification ....................................................................................................... 1

3.0
 \SimulationSettings ................................................................................................................. 1

3.1
 Simulation Settings (the GoldSim dialog) ........................................................................ 2

3.2
 \SimulationSettings\Chronology ....................................................................................... 3

3.3
 \SimulationSettings\Switches ........................................................................................... 4

4.0
 \Materials ................................................................................................................................ 4

4.1
 \Materials\DecayChains .................................................................................................... 5

4.2
 \Materials\Loess_Properties .............................................................................................. 8

4.3
 \Materials\Unit4_Compacted_Properties .......................................................................... 9

4.4
 \Materials\Unit4_ETLayers_Properties ............................................................................ 9

4.5
 \Materials\Unit3_Properties ............................................................................................ 10

4.6
 \Materials\Unit2_Properties ............................................................................................ 11

4.7
 \Materials\RipRap_Properties ......................................................................................... 11

4.8
 Materials\FineCobbleMix_Properties ............................................................................. 12

4.9
 Materials\SiltSandGravel_Properties .............................................................................. 12

4.10
 Materials\FineGravelMix_Properties ............................................................................. 12

4.11
 Materials\UpperRnBarrierClay_Properties .................................................................... 13

4.12
 Materials\LowerRnBarrierClay_Properties .................................................................... 13

4.13
 Materials\LinerClay_Properties ...................................................................................... 14

4.14
 \Materials\UO3_Waste_Properties ................................................................................. 14

4.15
 \Materials\Waste_U3O8_Properties ............................................................................... 14

4.16
 \Materials\Generic_Waste_Properties ............................................................................ 14

4.17
 \Materials\Water_Properties ........................................................................................... 14

4.18
 \Materials\Kd .................................................................................................................. 15

4.18.1
 \Materials\Kd\Kd_Sand_Values ............................................................................... 15

4.18.2
 \Materials\Kd\Kd_Silt_Values .................................................................................. 16

4.18.3
 \Materials\Kd\Kd_Clay_Values ................................................................................ 16

4.19
 \Materials\WaterSolubility .............................................................................................. 17

4.19.1
 \Materials\WaterSolubility\Solubilities_Saltwater ................................................... 17

4.20
 \Materials\Air_Properties ................................................................................................ 18

5.0
 \Processes ............................................................................................................................. 18

5.1
 \Processes\AirTransport .................................................................................................. 18

5.2
 \Processes\AnimalTransport ........................................................................................... 20

5.2.1
 \Processes\AnimalTransport\AntData ....................................................................... 20

5.2.2
 \Processes\AnimalTransport\MammalData .............................................................. 21

5.3
 \Processes\PlantTransport ............................................................................................... 21

5.3.1
 \Processes\PlantTransport\PlantCR .......................................................................... 22

5.3.2
 \Processes\PlantTransport\BiomassCalcs ................................................................. 22

5.3.3
 \Processes\PlantTransport\GreasewoodData ............................................................ 23

5.3.4
 \Processes\PlantTransport\GrassData ....................................................................... 23

5.3.5
 \Processes\PlantTransport\ForbData ......................................................................... 23

5.3.6
 \Processes\PlantTransport\TreeData ......................................................................... 23

5.3.7
 \Processes\PlantTransport\ShrubData ....................................................................... 24

5.4
 \Processes\WaterTransport ............................................................................................. 24

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 v
5.5
 \Processes\ErosionTransport ........................................................................................... 24

6.0
 \Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 25

6.1
 \Inventory\SRS_DU_Inventory ...................................................................................... 25

6.2
 \Inventory\GDP_DU_Inventory ..................................................................................... 26

6.3
 \Inventory\Other_DU_Inventory .................................................................................... 26

6.4
 \Inventory\ClassA_LLW_Inventory ............................................................................... 26

7.0
 \Disposal ............................................................................................................................... 27

7.1
 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion .................................................................................. 27

7.1.1
 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\AirConc_Onsite ................................................. 27

7.1.2
 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\MediaConc_Offsite ............................................ 27

7.1.3
 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\AirConc_Remote ............................................... 28

7.2
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell ................................................................................................ 29

7.2.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\FederalDU_Cell_Dimensions ......................................... 30

7.2.2
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\NaturalSystemGeometry ................................................. 31

7.2.3
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\CapCell_Thickness .......................................................... 31

7.2.4
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope ......................................................................... 31

7.2.4.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_Transport ........................ 31

7.2.4.1.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_Transport \WaterTransport 32

7.2.4.2
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile .............. 32

7.2.4.2.1
\Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile\WaterContent
Calcs_ETCover ................................................................................. 32

7.2.4.2.2
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_RnBarrier ......................................................... 33

7.2.4.2.3
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Waste ............................................................... 33

7.2.4.2.4
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Liner ................................................................ 34

7.2.4.2.5
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Unsat ............................................................... 34

7.2.4.3
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Cap_Layers ................................... 35

7.2.4.3.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\CapLayers\CapCell_Dimensions35

7.2.4.4
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Liner .............................................. 35

7.2.4.5
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\UnsatLayer .................................... 36

7.2.4.6
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\WasteLayers ................................. 36

7.2.4.6.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\WasteLayers\ WasteCell_Dimensions
........................................................................................................... 36

7.2.5
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope ......................................................................... 36

7.2.5.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_Transport ....................... 36

7.2.5.1.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_Transport \WaterTransport 36

7.2.5.2
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile ............. 37

7.2.5.2.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_RnBarrier ......................................................... 37

7.2.5.2.2
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Waste ............................................................... 37

7.2.5.2.3
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Liner ................................................................ 37

7.2.5.2.4
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Unsat ............................................................... 37

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 vi
7.2.5.3
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Cap_Layers .................................. 38

7.2.5.3.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\CapLayers\CapCell_Dimensions 38

7.2.5.4
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Liner ............................................. 39

7.2.5.5
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\UnsatLayer ................................... 39

7.2.5.6
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\WasteLayers ................................. 39

7.2.5.6.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\WasteLayers\ WasteCell_Dimensions
........................................................................................................... 39

7.2.6
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\ErosionCalcs .................................................................... 39

7.2.6.1
 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\ErosionCalcs\SiberiaErosionCalcs ................ 39

7.3
 \Disposal\SatZone ........................................................................................................... 39

7.3.1
 \Disposal\SatZone\SatZone_Parameters ................................................................... 40

7.3.2
 \Disposal\SatZone\SZ_FederalDUFootprint ............................................................. 40

7.3.2.1
 \Disposal\SatZone\SZ_FederalDUFootprint\Waste_to_Footprint .......... 40

7.3.3
 \Disposal\SatZone\SZ_ToWell ................................................................................. 40

7.4
 \Disposal\EngineeredSystemGeometry .......................................................................... 40

8.0
 \Exposure_Dose .................................................................................................................... 41

8.1
 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs ....................................................................................... 41

8.1.1
 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs\Exposure_Areas ..................................................... 41

8.1.2
 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs\Animal_Concentrations .......................................... 41

8.1.2.1
 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs\Animal_Concentrations\Beef_TFs ....... 42

8.2
 \Exposure_Dose\DCFs .................................................................................................... 43

8.2.1
 \Exposure_Dose\DCFs\Stochastic_REFs ................................................................. 43

8.3
 \Exposure_Dose\OuterLoop_Exposure_Parameters ...................................................... 45

8.4
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations ............................................................................... 45

8.4.1
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Physiology_Rancher ...................................... 46

8.4.2
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Physiology_SportOHV .................................. 47

8.4.3
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Physiology_Hunter ......................................... 48

8.4.4
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\ExposureTime_Rancher ................................. 49

8.4.5
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\ExposureTime_SportOHV ............................. 50

8.4.6
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\ExposureTime_Hunter ................................... 51

8.4.7
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Population_Size_Variables ............................ 52

8.4.8
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\UraniumHazard .............................................. 53

8.4.9
 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\OffSite_Receptors .......................................... 53

8.4.10
 \Exposure_Dose\Screening_Calculations ................................................................. 54

9.0
 \GWPLs ................................................................................................................................ 54

10.0
 \DeepTimeScenarios ............................................................................................................. 55

10.1
 \DeepTimeScenarios\LakeReturnCalcs .......................................................................... 56

10.2
 \DeepTimeScenarios\LakeChemistry ............................................................................. 56

10.3
 \DeepTimeScenarios\RadonFlux_NRC364 .................................................................... 57

10.4
 \DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime ............................................................ 57

10.4.1
 \DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime\Exposure_Areas .......................... 58

10.4.2
 \DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime\DCFs ........................................... 58

10.4.2.1
 DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime\DCFs\Stochastic_REFs58

11.0
 References ............................................................................................................................ 59

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 vii
FIGURES
Figure 1. Decay chains modeled in the Clive DU PA Model, part 1 of 2. ...................................... 6

Figure 2. Decay chains modeled in the Clive DU PA Model, part 2 of 2. ...................................... 7

Figure 3. Details of the actinide decay chains modeled in the Clive DU PA Model, showing
which species are omitted, in gray. ............................................................................... 8

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 viii
TABLES
Table 1. Statistical distribution types used in the parameter specifications. ................................... 1

Table 2. Generic constants used in simulations ............................................................................... 2

Table 3. Monte Carlo simulation settings ........................................................................................ 2

Table 4. Times Phase Settings for the full 2.1-million year run ...................................................... 3

Table 5. Global events and their probability of occurrence ............................................................ 3

Table 6. Atomic mass of Species .................................................................................................... 5

Table 7. Atomic masses of other elements ...................................................................................... 5

Table 8. Unit 4 compacted material properties ................................................................................ 9

Table 9. Unit 4 ET Layers material properties .............................................................................. 10

Table 10. Unit 3 material properties .............................................................................................. 10

Table 11. Unit 2 material properties .............................................................................................. 11

Table 12. Rip rap material properties ............................................................................................ 11

Table 13. Fine cobble mix material properties .............................................................................. 12

Table 14. Silt sand gravel material properties ............................................................................... 12

Table 15. Fine gravel mix material properties ............................................................................... 13

Table 16. Upper radon barrier clay material properties ................................................................. 13

Table 17. Lower radon barrier clay material properties ................................................................ 13

Table 18. Liner clay material properties ........................................................................................ 14

Table 19. Properties of water, the reference fluid. ........................................................................ 14

Table 20. Soil/water partition coefficients (Kds) for sand ............................................................. 15

Table 21. Soil/water partition coefficients (Kds) for silt ................................................................ 16

Table 22. Soil/water partition coefficients (Kds) for clay .............................................................. 16

Table 23. Aqueous solubilities in saltwater, by chemical element ................................................ 17

Table 24. Parameters relevant to diffusion in air. ......................................................................... 18

Table 25. Radon diffusive transport parameters. ........................................................................... 18

Table 26. Atmospheric transport parameters. ................................................................................ 19

Table 27. Model parameters for ants. ............................................................................................ 20

Table 28. Model parameters for small mammals. ......................................................................... 21

Table 29. Parameters general to all plants. .................................................................................... 22

Table 30. Plant/soil concentration ratio parameters. ..................................................................... 22

Table 31. Biomass calculation parameters. ................................................................................... 22

Table 32. Greasewood parameters. ............................................................................................... 23

Table 33. Grass parameters. .......................................................................................................... 23

Table 34. Forb parameters. ............................................................................................................ 23

Table 35. Tree parameters. ............................................................................................................ 23

Table 36. Other shrub parameters. ................................................................................................ 24

Table 37. Water transport parameters. ........................................................................................... 24

Table 38. Water transport parameters. ........................................................................................... 25

Table 39. SRS DU inventory parameters. ..................................................................................... 25

Table 40. GDP DU inventory parameters. .................................................................................... 26

Table 41. Atmosphere dispersion parameters for on-site exposures. ............................................ 27

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 ix
Table 42. Atmosphere dispersion parameters for off-site exposures (in the “air dispersion”
area.) ............................................................................................................................ 28

Table 43. Atmosphere dispersion parameters for remote off-site exposures. ............................... 28

Table 44. Interior (waste) dimensions of the Federal Cell, Federal DU section. .......................... 30

Table 45. Natural system geometry parameters for the Federal DU cell. ..................................... 31

Table 46. Dimensions of the cap cells for the Federal DU cell. .................................................... 31

Table 47. Infiltration parameters for cap cells. .............................................................................. 32

Table 48. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the ET Cover. .................................... 32

Table 49. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the radon barrier. ............................... 33

Table 50. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the waste. .......................................... 33

Table 51. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the clay liner. .................................... 34

Table 52. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the unsaturated zone below the
clay liner. ..................................................................................................................... 34

Table 53. Cap layering dimensions for the top slope. ................................................................... 35

Table 54. Number of liner cells. .................................................................................................... 35

Table 55. Number of unsaturated zone cells. ................................................................................ 36

Table 56. Top slope waste cell dimensions. .................................................................................. 36

Table 57. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the radon barrier. ............................... 37

Table 58. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the waste. .......................................... 37

Table 59. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the clay liner. .................................... 37

Table 60. Cap layering dimensions for the side slope. .................................................................. 38

Table 61. Side slope waste cell dimensions. ................................................................................. 39

Table 62. SIBERIA erosion parameters. ................................................................................... 39

Table 63. Saturated zone parameters. ............................................................................................ 40

Table 64. Total number of cells in the saturated footprint zone. ................................................... 40

Table 65. Total number of cells in both footprint ends. ................................................................ 40

Table 66. Total number of cells from footprint to well. ................................................................ 40

Table 67. Engineered system geometry parameters. ..................................................................... 40

Table 68. Mechanically generated dust ......................................................................................... 41

Table 69. Exposure areas used in the calculation of exposure media concentrations ................... 41

Table 70. Animal tissue concentrations for the recreational and ranching scenarios ................... 41

Table 71. Parameters related to beef transfer factors ................................................................... 42

Table 72. Dose conversion factors ................................................................................................ 43

Table 73. Stochastic radiation effectiveness factors ...................................................................... 43

Table 74. Exposure parameters, sampled once per realization ...................................................... 45

Table 75. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
rancher receptors (ranch hands) ................................................................................... 46

Table 76. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for Sport
OHV receptors ............................................................................................................. 47

Table 77. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for Hunter
receptors ...................................................................................................................... 48

Table 78. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
Rancher receptors – Exposure Time ............................................................................ 49

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 x
Table 79. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for Sport
OHV receptors – Exposure Time ................................................................................ 50

Table 80. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for Hunter
receptors – Exposure Time .......................................................................................... 51

Table 81. Attributes of population variability. .............................................................................. 52

Table 82. Uranium hazard for Rancher and Recreationists. .......................................................... 53

Table 83. Inhalation dose for off-site receptors. ............................................................................ 53

Table 84. Parameters used in screening dose calculations. ........................................................... 54

Table 85. Groundwater protection limits. ...................................................................................... 54

Table 86. Deep time scenario parameters. ..................................................................................... 55

Table 87. Parameters for the lake return calculations. .................................................................. 56

Table 88. Parameters for calculating the dispersal of the embankment and subsequent lake
and sediment concentrations. ....................................................................................... 56

Table 89. Parameters for the deep time human exposure and dose assessment. ........................... 57

Table 90. Exposure areas used in the calculation of exposure media concentrations. .................. 58

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 1
1.0 Introduction
This document, along with the complementary Excel workbook, Clive PA Model Parameters.xls,
is a collection of all the input parameters used in the Clive DU PA GoldSim model. The
workbook contains those parameters that are most conveniently stored in arrays (such as
collections of values by contaminant Species or by chemical Elements), and this document
contains individual parameter values and distributions, organized by Containers in the model.
Expressions and other operators that do not have model inputs are not represented in these
documents. Some input distributions refer to other expression for part of their specification.
Rather than writing in those expressions, these are generally noted here as simply “f(x)”.
2.0 Distribution Specification
Distributions in this document are specified according to the notation shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Statistical distribution types used in the parameter specifications.
distribution type value or distribution
discrete value
uniform U( minimum, maximum )
log uniform LU( minimum, maximum )
triangular Tri( minimum, mode, maximum )
normal N( mean µ, standard deviation σ )
truncated normal N( mean µ, standard deviation σ, minimum, maximum )
log-normal LN( geometric mean GM, geometric standard deviation GSD )
truncated log-normal LN( GM, GSD, minimum, maximum )
beta (generalized) beta( mean µ, standard deviation σ, minimum, maximum )
Weibull W( minimum, Weibull slope, mean - minimum )
Gamma Gamma( mean µ, standard deviation σ )

3.0 \SimulationSettings
The SimulationSettings container has two primary subcontainers, Chronology and Switches. A
standard set of simulation settings is suggested in order to control intercomparisons between
various runs. The standard set includes Simulation Settings and the values of the various
Switches.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 2
Table 2. Generic constants used in simulations
GoldSim
element
value units reference / comment
Small 1 × 10–30 — arbitrarily small number for use in modeling constructs
Large 1 × 1030 — arbitrarily large number for use in modeling constructs
U_mask vector by
species of
1's for U
species, 0's
for non-U
species
Modeling construct: All uranium isotopes have a value
of 1, and all other radionuclides have a value of 0.

3.1 Simulation Settings (the GoldSim dialog)
The GoldSim Simulation Settings dialog (accessed through the F2 key, or from the menu as Run
| Simulation Settings...) controls a number of settings controlling the probabilistic and
deterministic modeling runs (Table 3) as well as the specification of time steps (Table 4). Time
steps are specific so that values of time-varying outputs are recorded at various times during the
simulation. These values, the saving of which is identified by checking the “FV” column, are
then available for post-processing analysis. Users of GoldSim are able to modify these time
steps, but GoldSim Player users may not. Do not modify the 2500-yr time step length in the later
time steps, as these are assumed to exist for the deep time assessment.
If the user desires to run a shorter simulation than the full 2.1 My, this should be done using the
model’s Control Panel dashboard—not by entering in a shorter duration in the Simulation
Settings dialog. See the Clive PA Model User Guide for more details on the use of model
controls and dashboards.
Table 3. Monte Carlo simulation settings
setting value comments
Time
Time Display Units yr This is a fixed model setting.
Duration 21000000 yr 2.1 million years is required for U-238 to reach
secular equilibrium with its decay products.
Start-time / End-time — These are ignored.
Probabilistic Simulation
# Realizations variable Set by user.
# Histories to save variable Set to # Realizations for viewing all realizations;
set to zero for sensitivity analysis.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 3
setting value comments
Use Latin Hypercube
Sampling
checked Use of LHC sampling is advisable in order to
evenly sample distributions.
Repeat Sampling Sequences checked Check to ensure reproducibility.
Random Seed variable This is a user-selected value.
Deterministic Simulation
Solve Simulation
deterministically using:
Element
Deterministic
Values

The Time Phase Settings are set on the Time tab of Simulation Settings. The table of values is
shown below, but there are also related settings accessed with the Advanced... button. These
settings should be as follows:
Uncheck “Allow events to occur between timesteps”
Check “Allow dynamic reduction in timestep length”, and set “Maximum timestep length to
allow:” to be if( ETime < 10 yr then 0.1 yr else if( ETime < 1e5 yr then 40 yr else 1000 yr )).
Set “Time to use for Edit Model updates:” to 0 s.
Table 4. Times Phase Settings for the full 2.1-million year run
time range (y) # steps time step length
(y)
plot every FV
0 - 1 10 0.1 10
1 - 10 9 1 9
10 - 100 18 5 2
100 - 1000 45 20 1
1000 - 10000 36 250 2 X
10000 - 100000 36 2500 2
100000 - 2100000 800 2500 4 X

3.2 \SimulationSettings\Chronology
The model chronology is documented in this container, referenced throughout the model (Table
5).
Table 5. Global events and their probability of occurrence
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 4
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ModelTimeZero
time at which calculations start
2012 Assumed date for first disposal of DU
in the Federal embankment.
IC_Period
time since time zero of loss of
institutional control
discrete, 100 yr Assumed duration of active
institutional control, per regulatory
language.
CapNaturalization_Time
time since time zero to when the
cap is fully naturalized
discrete, 1 yr Assume the ET Cover becomes
naturalized at the beginning of the
simulation.
Dose_Simulation_Duration
time since time zero that dose
user-selected yr User can set this value, up to 10,000
yr, per UAC R313-28-8

3.3 \SimulationSettings\Switches
Switches that control the model are not model inputs documented here, as they are user-
selectable via the Control Panel and other dashboards.
4.0 \Materials
Most of the Species-specific properties are defined in the Excel workbook, Clive DU PA Model
Parameters.xls, since they are tabulated lists and therefore better suited to a spreadsheet format
from which values can be electronically transferred to the model. A number of parameters,
however, as well as the overall decay chain scheme, are presented in the decay chain diagrams,
shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Radionuclides in black are modeled for contaminant transport
and dose contributions, those in green are modeled for dose contributions only, and those in gray
are not modeled. Figure 3 shows details of those actinide decay chains where some radionuclides
are omitted from the model calculations. These are radionuclides with exceedingly small
branching fractions and/or no dose conversion factors, so they could not possibly affect model
results or decisions based on those results.
One value defined for each contaminant species in the Species element cannot be referenced to
an array: the molecular (or in this case, atomic) mass, also called the molecular or atomic weight.
GoldSim assumes the same atomic mass for all isotopes for a given chemical element. For
example, all isotopes of uranium are assigned the atomic mass of the first isotope encountered — 232U in this case. Therefore, the atomic masses shown in Table 6 are defined for each element,
not for each radionuclide. These values are entered manually into the Species element in the
\Materials container of the model. In all cases, the most abundant isotope is used, based on
inventory mass as developed in \Inventory\Total_DU_Inventory for disposed radionuclides, and
the corresponding decay products for radionuclides that ingrow. For example, the disposed mass
of thorium is reported as zero, but since most of the thorium would be ingrowing from the large
mass of 238U, the corresponding thorium isotope of greatest mass would be 230Th. This ignores
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 5
the half-life of the decay products, but any error in averaged or presumed atomic masses is
expected to be quite minor, since 230Th and 232Th have very similar atomic masses anyway.
Table 6. Atomic mass of Species
Species ID atomic mass
(g/mol)
Species ID atomic mass
(g/mol)
Sr90 90 Ac227 227
Tc99 99 Th228, Th229, Th230, Th232 230
I129 129 Pa231 231
Cs137 137 U232, U233, U234, U235, U236, U238 238
Pb210 210 Np237 237
Rn222 222 Pu238, Pu239, Pu240, Pu241, Pu242 239
Ra226, Ra228 226 Am241 241

Other chemical elements used in the model have their atomic masses listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Atomic masses of other elements
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Fluorine_AtomicMass 19.0 g/mol Chart of the Nuclides, 16th Edition
Oxygen_AtomicMass 16.0 g/mol ibid.

4.1 \Materials\DecayChains
Decay chains are illustrated in this container and reproduced below in Figures 1 through 3.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 6
Figure 1. Decay chains modeled in the Clive DU PA Model, part 1 of 2.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 7
Figure 2. Decay chains modeled in the Clive DU PA Model, part 2 of 2.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 8
Figure 3. Details of the actinide decay chains modeled in the Clive DU PA Model, showing
which species are omitted, in gray.

4.2 \Materials\Loess_Properties
Since loess (windblown sediment) is derived from the surrounding Unit 4 surface soils, the
material properties for Loess are redirected to other containers. The particle density used for the
loess is the same particle density that is used for all materials derived from Unit 4, given in Table
8. Unit 4 compacted material properties. The bulk density is redirected to be the same as the
evapotranspiration layers (Table 9) because the loess is similar in that it is an uncompacted
material derived from Unit 4.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 9
4.3 \Materials\Unit4_Compacted_Properties
Unit 4 is a silty clay, the uppermost unit deposited in the region by ancestral lakes. Certain parts
of the engineered system are constructed using Unit 4 material which is subjected to compaction;
in its compacted form, Unit 4 has the properties listed in Table 8. The particle density in Table 8
is common to all materials derived from Unit 4 (including compacted engineered layers,
uncompacted evapotranspiration layers, and Aeolian deposition layers). All Unit 4 materials are
assigned Kd values for silt (see Section 4.18.2).
Table 8. Unit 4 compacted material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ParticleDensity_Unit4
particle density of Unit 4
material
2.65 g/cm3 see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper
Porosity_Unit4Compa
cted
porosity of Unit 4
material
N( µ=0.428, σ=9.08e-3,
min=Small, max=1-Small )
— ibid., truncated just above 0 and
just below 1
BulkDensity_Unit4Co
mpacted
dry bulk density of
Unit 4 material
N( µ =f(x), σ=0.1,
min=Small, max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
D_Unit4Compacted
Brooks-Corey fractal
dimension parameter for
Unit 4 material
N( µ=2.81, σ=9.93e-5,
min=0, max=3 )
— ibid., truncated at 0 and 3
Hb_Unit4Compacted
bubbling pressure head
of Unit 4 material
N( µ=104., σ=1.72,
min=Small, max=Large )
correlated to D_Unit4
as -0.66
cm ibid., truncated just above 0
MCres_Unit4Compact
ed
residual moisture content
for Unit 4 material
N( µ=0.108, σ=8.95e-4,
min=Small, max=Large )
— ibid., truncated just above 0

4.4 \Materials\Unit4_ETLayers_Properties
The properties defined in this container are used for materials derived from Unit 4 that have not
been subjected to compaction.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 10
Table 9. Unit 4 ET Layers material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Porosity_Unit4ETLaye
rs
porosity of Unit 4
material
N( µ=0.481, σ=0.015,
min=Small, max=1-Small )
— see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper, truncated just
above 0 and just below 1
BulkDensity_Unit4ETL
ayers
dry bulk density of
Unit 4 material
N( µ =f(x), σ=0.1,
min=Small, max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
log_vG_Alpha N( µ= -1.79, σ=0.121,
min= -Large, max=0 )
— ibid., truncated at 0
log_vG_n N( µ=0.121, σ=0.019,
min=0, max=Large )
— ibid., truncated at 0

4.5 \Materials\Unit3_Properties
Material properties for the unsaturated zone below the liner of the disposal embankment,
comprised of stratigraphic Unit 3, a silty sand, are provided in Table 10. Unit 3 is assigned Kd
values for sand.
Table 10. Unit 3 material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ParticleDensity_Unit3
particle density of
Unit 3 material
2.65 g/cm3 see Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper
Porosity_Unit3
porosity of Unit 3
material
N( µ=0.393, σ=6.11e-3,
min=Small, max=1-Small )
— ibid., truncated just above 0
and just below 1
BulkDensity_Unit3
dry bulk density of
Unit 3 material
N( µ =f(x), σ=0.1,
min=Small, max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
D_Unit3
Brooks-Corey fractal
dimension parameter for
Unit 3 material
N( µ=2.73, σ=5.21e-3,
min=0, max=3 )
— ibid., truncated at 0 and 3
Hb_Unit3
bubbling pressure head
of Unit 3 material
N( µ=8.85, σ=0.929,
min=Small, max=Large );
[correlated to D_Unit3 -0.85]
cm ibid., truncated just above 0
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 11
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
MCres_Unit3
residual moisture
content for Unit 3
material
N( µ=6.78e-3, σ=2.05e-3,
min=Small, max=Large )
— ibid.
Ksat_Unit3
saturated hydraulic
condictivity for Unit 3
material
N( µ=5.14e-5, σ=5.95e-6,
min=Small, max=Large);
[correlated to D_Unit3 -0.98]
cm/s ibid., truncated just above 0

4.6 \Materials\Unit2_Properties
Material properties for the saturated zone, comprised of stratigraphic Unit 2, a silty clay, are
provided in Table 11. Unit 2 is assigned Kd values for clay.
Table 11. Unit 2 material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
BulkDensity_Unit2
dry bulk density for
Unit 2 material
N( µ=1.57, σ=0.05,
min=Small, max=Large )
g/cm3 see Saturated Zone Modeling
white paper
truncated just above 0
Porosity_Unit2
porosity for Unit 2
material
N( µ=0.29, σ=0.05,
min=Small, max=1-Small )
— ibid., truncated just above 0
and just below 1
Ksat_Unit2
saturated hydraulic
conductivity for Unit 2
N( µ=9.6e-4, σ=9.67e-5,
min=Small, max=Large )
cm/s ibid., truncated just above 0

4.7 \Materials\RipRap_Properties
Rip Rap was used to construct the uppermost layer: Armor. It quickly becomes infilled with
Loess. The Rip Rap itself is assumed to be an inert material. It is not used in Model v1.4, but it
is left in the model for now.
Table 12. Rip rap material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ParticleDensity_RipRap 2.65 g/cm3 see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper
BulkDensity_RipRap N( µ=f(x), σ=0.1,
min=Small,
max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 12
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Porosity_RipRap N( µ=0.18, σ=0.01,
min=Small,
max=1-Small )
— ibid., truncated just above 0 and
just below 1

4.8 Materials\FineCobbleMix_Properties
Fine Cobble Mix is used to construct the upper filter layer in the Model v1.0. It also becomes
quickly infilled with Loess. The Fine Cobble Mix itself is assumed to be an inert material. It is
not used in Model v1.4, but it is left in the model for now.
Table 13. Fine cobble mix material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ParticleDensity_
FineCobbleMix
2.65 g/cm3 see Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper
BulkDensity_
FineCobbleMix
N( µ=f(x), σ=0.1,
min=Small, max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
Porosity_
FineCobbleMix
N( µ=0.19, 0.01, min=Small,
max=1-Small)
— ibid., truncated just above 0
and just below 1

4.9 Materials\SiltSandGravel_Properties
Silt Sand Gravel is used to construct the Sacrificial Soil layer in Model v1.0 and the Frost
Protection Layer in Model v1.2 and Model v1.4.
Table 14. Silt sand gravel material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ParticleDensity_
SiltSandGravel
2.65 g/cm3 see Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper
BulkDensity_
SiltSandGravel
N( µ=f(x), σ=0.1, min=Small,
max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
Porosity_
SiltSandGravel
N( µ=0.41, 0.0026,
min=Small, max=1-Small)
— ibid., truncated just above 0
and just below 1

4.10 Materials\FineGravelMix_Properties
Fine Gravel Mix is used to construct the lower filter layer in Model v1.0. The Fine Gravel Mix
itself is assumed to be an inert material. It is used as an inert filler material in the Surface Layer
of Model v1.2 and Model v1.4.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 13
Table 15. Fine gravel mix material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ParticleDensity_
FineGravelMix
2.65 g/cm3 see Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper
BulkDensity_
FineGravelMix
N( µ=f(x), σ=0.01,
min=Small, max=Large )
g/cm3 ibid., truncated just above 0
Porosity_
FineGravelMix
N( µ=0.28, 0.01, min=Small,
max=1-Small)
— ibid., truncated just above 0
and just below 1

4.11 Materials\UpperRnBarrierClay_Properties
The Radon Barrier layers are divided into upper and lower layers. Both are constructed of local
Unit 4 clay, compacted to different hydraulic conductivities. UpperRnBarrierClay represents the
upper of the two layers, and has significantly lower Ksat (see Table 16). Other material properties
for this material are redirected to those of compacted Unit 4 material (see Table 8).

Table 16. Upper radon barrier clay material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
UpperRnBarrierKsat_As
Built
4e-3 cm/day see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper
RnBarrierKsat_Natdist LN( 3.37, 3.23) cm/day Ibid., right shift of 0.00432 is added
after a value is pulled from the
distribution

4.12 Materials\LowerRnBarrierClay_Properties
The Lower Radon Barrier underlies the Upper Radon Barrier and is constructed of compacted
local Unit 4 clay, but has its own Ksat (see Table 17). The naturalized Ksat value is set equal to
that of the UpperRnBarrier_Clay_Properties container; see Unsaturated Zone Modeling white
paper. Other material properties for this material are set equal to those of compacted Unit 4
material (see Table 8).
Table 17. Lower radon barrier clay material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
LowerRnBarrierKsat_
Asbuilt
8.6e-2 cm/day see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 14
4.13 Materials\LinerClay_Properties
The Liner is constructed of compacted local Unit 4 clay, but has its own Ksat (see Table 18).
Other material properties for this material are redirected to those of compacted Unit 4 material
(see Table 8).
Table 18. Liner clay material properties
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Ksat_LinerClay LN( GM=1e-6,
GSD=1.2 )
cm/s see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper

4.14 \Materials\UO3_Waste_Properties
UO3 waste is typical of the Savannah River Site DU waste stream. Note, however, that given that
the DU-containing waste layer is overwhelmingly inert fill by volume, the material properties for
this layer as modeled are set to those of Unit 3 (see Table 10).
4.15 \Materials\Waste_U3O8_Properties
U3O8 waste is typical of the gaseous diffusion plant DU waste streams. Like the UO3 waste, the
material properties for this layer as modeled are set to those of Unit 3 (see Table 10).
4.16 \Materials\Generic_Waste_Properties
The current Clive DU PA Model has no generic waste inventory, but this material is defined as a
placeholder. Any layers to be filled with generic LLW borrow material properties from Unit 3
(see Table 10).
4.17 \Materials\Water_Properties
Water is the reference fluid in GoldSim.
Table 19. Properties of water, the reference fluid.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
RefDiffusivity_Water
reference diffusivity in Water
1 × 10–9 m2/s as given in the GoldSim manual
Dm
molecular diffusivity in Water
U( 3e-6, 2e-5 ) cm2/s see the Geochemical Modeling white
paper

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 15
4.18 \Materials\Kd
Since the Kd distribution for each element and each material can be defined independently, with a
different distributional form, the Model Parameters workbook does not lend itself to listing these
as a vector. Instead, each chemical element is listed in the following tables, one table for each
material. Materials are limited to sand, silt, and clay, which spans the gross material properties
found at the site. Since the depleted uranium is assumed to be dispersed in a large volume of fill
material of as yet unspecified characteristics, the material properties of the disposed waste
generally assumes the properties of this fill material. For now, then, the uranium oxide wastes are
not assigned their own chemical properties.

4.18.1 \Materials\Kd\Kd_Sand_Values
Table 20. Soil/water partition coefficients (Kds) for sand
chemical
element
value or distribution units reference / comment
Ac LU( min=16.8, max=535 ) mL/g see Geochemical Modeling
white paper
Am LU( min=43.2, max=811 ) mL/g ibid.
Cs LU( min=2.70, max=22.2 ) mL/g ibid.
I_dist N( 0.428, 0.605 ), with values less
than 0 set to 0.
mL/g ibid.; Values sampled below 0
are set to 0, within the
Expression I.
Np LU( min=0.392, max=51 ) mL/g ibid.
Pa LU( min=8.32, max=331 ) mL/g ibid.
Pb LU( min=2.70, max=22.2 ) mL/g ibid.
Pu LU( min=66.9, max=2390 ) mL/g ibid.
Ra LU( min=0.387, max=64.6 ) mL/g ibid.
Rn 0 mL/g ibid.
Sr LU( min=2.7, max=22.2 ) mL/g ibid.
Tc_dist N( 0.102, 0.145 ), with values less
than 0 set to 0.
mL/g ibid.; Values sampled below 0
are set to 0, within the
Expression Tc.
Th LU( min=19.2, max=41.6 ) mL/g ibid.
U LU( min=0.344, max=6.77 ) mL/g ibid.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 16
4.18.2 \Materials\Kd\Kd_Silt_Values
Table 21. Soil/water partition coefficients (Kds) for silt
chemical
element
value or distribution units reference / comment
Ac LU( min=15.7, max=1910 ) mL/g see Geochemical Modeling
white paper
Am LU( min=88.0, max=1140 ) mL/g ibid.
Cs LU( min=4.23, max=118 ) mL/g ibid.
I Equal to Kd for I in Sand mL/g ibid.
Np LU( min=0.805, max=62.1 ) mL/g ibid.
Pa LU( min=184, max=978 ) mL/g ibid.
Pb LU( min=4.23, max=118 ) mL/g ibid.
Pu LU( min=80.5, max=6210 ) mL/g ibid.
Ra LU( min=0.797, max=75.3 ) mL/g ibid.
Rn 0 mL/g ibid.
Sr LU( min=4.23, max=118 ) mL/g ibid.
Tc Equal to Kd for Tc in Sand mL/g ibid.
Th LU( min=34.4, max=697 ) mL/g ibid.
U LU( min=0.880, max=11.4 ) mL/g ibid.

4.18.3 \Materials\Kd\Kd_Clay_Values
Table 22. Soil/water partition coefficients (Kds) for clay
chemical
element
value or distribution units reference / comment
Ac LU( min=83.6, max=2990 ) mL/g see Geochemical Modeling
white paper
Am LU( min=88.0, max=1140 ) mL/g ibid.
Cs LU( min=6.69, max=239 ) mL/g ibid.
I Equal to Kd for I in Sand mL/g ibid.
Np LU( min=4.32, max=81.1 ) mL/g ibid.
Pa LU( min=180, max=1560 ) mL/g ibid.
Pb LU( min=6.69, max=239 ) mL/g ibid.
Pu LU( min=914, max=5470 ) mL/g ibid.
Ra LU( min=1.42, max=1410 ) mL/g ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 17
chemical
element
value or distribution units reference / comment
Rn 0 mL/g ibid.
Sr LU( min=6.69, max=239 ) mL/g ibid.
Tc Equal to Kd for Tc in Sand mL/g ibid.
Th LU( min=84.7, max=2360 ) mL/g ibid.
U LU( min=9.05, max=66.3 ) mL/g ibid.

4.19 \Materials\WaterSolubility
Since the aqueous solubility distribution for each element and each material could be defined
independently, with a different distributional form, the Model Parameters workbook does not
lend itself to listing these as a vector. Instead, each chemical element is listed in the following
table.
4.19.1 \Materials\WaterSolubility\Solubilities_Saltwater

Table 23. Aqueous solubilities in saltwater, by chemical element
chemical
element
value or distribution units reference / comment
Ac LU( min=6.81e-9, max=1.47e-5 ) mol/L see Geochemical Modeling
white paper
Am LU( min=6.81e-10, max=1.47e-6 ) mol/L ibid.
Cs LU( min=6.81e-3, max=1.47e1 ) mol/L ibid.
I LU( min=5.99e-5, max=1.67e0 ) mol/L ibid.
Np LU( min=6.81e-6, max=1.47e-2 ) mol/L ibid.
Pa LU( min=6.81e-9, max=1.47e-5 ) mol/L ibid.
Pb LU( min=6.81e-9, max=1.47e-5 ) mol/L ibid.
Pu LU( min=5.27e-11, max=1.90e-5 ) mol/L ibid.
Ra LU( min=5.99e-10, max=1.67e-5 ) mol/L ibid.
Rn LU( min=7.74e-4, max=1.29e-1 ) mol/L ibid.
Sr LU( min=6.81e-7, max=1.47e-3 ) mol/L ibid.
Tc LU( min=7.74e-5, max=1.29e-2 ) mol/L ibid.
Th LU( min=7.74e-9, max=1.29e-6 ) mol/L ibid.
UO3 LU( min=3.58e-6, max=2.79e-3 ) mol/L ibid.
U3O8 LU( min=1e-16, max=6.5e-10 ) mol/L ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 18
4.20 \Materials\Air_Properties
Currently, the only gaseous radionuclide in the model is 222Rn, which diffuses in the air phase.
Table 24. Parameters relevant to diffusion in air.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
RefDiffusivity_Air 1 cm2/s arbitrary value in GoldSim, as it falls out in
math
Da_Rn 0.11 cm2/s see Radon Modeling white paper
SoilTemp
average soil
temperature
N( µ=12, σ=1 ) °C Estimated from the Clive Test Cell
temperature data “Temp and Dose Data
9-19-01 to 1-15-09.xls” provided by
EnergySolutions.
Khcp_Rn
parameter used in
devising Henry’s Law
constant
9.3e-3 mol/L·atm Sander (1999), table 7, page 13

5.0 \Processes
Physical process parameters global in scope (general to the entire model) are defined in this
container.
5.1 \Processes\AirTransport
Contaminant transport in air includes both pore air in porous media, and the dispersion into and
within the atmosphere. Chi/Q values for gas and particles that are specific to the Federal DU
embankment are listed in Table 43(for the \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\AirConc_Remote
container).
Table 25. Radon diffusive transport parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
EPRatio_Radon
radon escape/production
ratio
beta( 0.290, 0.156,
min=0, max=1 )
— see Radon Modeling white paper

ThicknessAtm
mixing thickness of the
atmosphere, for
purposes of diffusion
from soil layers
N( µ=2.0, σ=0.5,
min=Small,
max=Large )
m see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 19
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
WindSpeed
average wind speed, for
purposes of diffusion
from soil layers
N( µ=3.14, σ=0.5,
min=Small,
max=Large )
m/s ibid.
AtmDiffusionLength
diffusion length for the
atmosphere, for
purposes of diffusion
from soil layers
N( µ=0.1, σ=0.02,
min=Small,
max=Large )
m ibid.

Table 26. Atmospheric transport parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Dust_mask
logical mask to identify
PM-10 particles
Rn = 0, all others = 1
(see workbook)
— masks Species with 0/1 to be those
found in dust particles
Gas_mask
logical mask to identify
gases
Rn = 1, all others = 0
(see workbook)
— masks Species with 0/1 to be those
found in gaseous phase
ResuspensionFlux
mass flux of soil
particles into
atmosphere
LU( Small, 0.3 ) kg/m2-yr see Atmospheric Modeling white
paper
Particle_Fraction
the fraction of PM-10
particles in the 0 to
2.5 µm size bin
U(0,1) — based on physical limits
Frac_OffSite_
Deposition
fraction of all particles
that migrate off site that
are deposited in the off-
site air dispersion area.
a lookup table based on
Particle_Fraction
0 0.11 — see Atmospheric Modeling white
paper 0.05 0.11 —
0.1 0.11 —
0.2 0.099 —
0.4 0.086 —
0.6 0.072 —
0.8 0.057 —
1.0 0.041 —
OnSiteRedepos_
Ratio_bySize
a lookup table based on
0 4.224e-7 g/m2-yr
per g/yr
ibid.
0.05 4.114e-7
0.1 4.002e-7
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 20
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Particle_Fraction 0.2 3.776e-7
0.4 3.311e-7
0.6 2.827e-7
0.8 2.321e-7
1.0 1.794e-7

5.2 \Processes\AnimalTransport
Burrowing animals have the potential to exhume waste or contaminated cap materials. All
burrowers are collected into one of two types: ants and small mammals.
5.2.1 \Processes\AnimalTransport\AntData
Table 27. Model parameters for ants.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
NestVolume
volume of each nest
N( µ=0.161, σ=0.024, min=0,
max=Large )
m3 see Biological Modeling
white paper
ColonyLifespan
lifespan of each
colony
N( µ=20.2, σ=3.6, min=Small,
max=Large )
yr ibid.
ColonyDensity
area density of
colonies on the
ground
see below for each field study plot 1/ha ibid.
_Plot1 Gamma( 33,1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot2 Gamma( 2, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot3 Gamma( 7, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot4 Gamma( 17, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot5 Gamma( 6, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
MaxDepth
maximum depth for
any colony
212 cm ibid.
b
fitting parameter for
nest shape
N( µ=10, σ=0.71, min=1,
max=Large )
— ibid.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 21
5.2.2 \Processes\AnimalTransport\MammalData
Table 28. Model parameters for small mammals.
GoldSim
element
value or distribution units reference / comment
MoundDensity
area density of
mounds on the
ground

see below for each plot 1/ha see Biological Modeling
white paper
_Plot1 Gamma( 235, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot2 Gamma( 239, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot3 Gamma( 1.33, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot4 Gamma( 1.33, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
_Plot5 Gamma ( 1.33, 1, min=0, max=Large ) 1/ha ibid.
ExcavationRate
volumetric rate of
a single burrow
excavation
N( µ=0.0006, σ=0.00015, min=Small,
max=Large )
m3/yr ibid.
MaxDepth
maximum depth
for any burrow
200 cm ibid.
b
fitting parameter
for burrow shape
N( µ=4.5, σ=0.84, min=1, max=Large ) — ibid.

5.3 \Processes\PlantTransport
Plants have the potential to translocate contaminants in waste or contaminated cap materials. All
plants are collected into one of five types: greasewood, grasses, forbs, trees, and shrubs. Each of
these plant types is characterized in each of the five plot locations that were studied,
corresponding to five vegetation associations:
• Plot 1: Mixed Grassland
• Plot 2: Juniper - Sagebrush
• Plot 3: Black Greasewood
• Plot 4: Halogeton - Disturbed
• Plot 5: Shadscale - Gray Molly

Each of these vegetation associations is picked at random for a given realization.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 22
Table 29. Parameters general to all plants.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
BiomassProductionRate U( 300, 1500 ) kg/ha-yr see Biological Modeling white paper
VegetationAssociationPicker discrete( 1, 2,
3, 4, 5 )
— ibid.

5.3.1 \Processes\PlantTransport\PlantCR
Table 30. Plant/soil concentration ratio parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
CR_GM tabulated in
Clive PA Model
Parameters.xls
workbook
— see Biological Modeling white paper
CR_GSD tabulated in
Clive PA Model
Parameters.xls
workbook
— ibid.
CR_GM_radon Small — ibid.
CR_GSD_radon 1 — ibid.

5.3.2 \Processes\PlantTransport\BiomassCalcs
Table 31. Biomass calculation parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
percent cover tables, such as
PctCover_Plot4_Forb
tabulated in
Clive PA Model
Parameters.xls
workbook
% These are 25 tables, one for each
Plot and for each plant type. Source:
plant.cover.percent.simulations.xlsx
in Clive PA Model Parameters.xls
workbook
PctCoverRandomSelector probability of
0.001 assigned
to discrete
values from 1
to 1000
% An index generator used to pick
correlated sets of percent cover

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 23
5.3.3 \Processes\PlantTransport\GreasewoodData
Table 32. Greasewood parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.30, 1.24 ) — see Biological Modeling white paper
MaxDepth 570 cm ibid.
b N( µ=14.6, σ=0.0807,
min=1, max=Large )
— ibid.

5.3.4 \Processes\PlantTransport\GrassData
Table 33. Grass parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
RootShoot_Ratio T( 1, 1.2, 2 ) — see Biological Modeling white paper
MaxDepth 150 cm ibid.
b N( µ=2.19 σ=0.036,
min=1, max=Large )
— ibid.

5.3.5 \Processes\PlantTransport\ForbData
Table 34. Forb parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.40, 1.80 ) — see Biological Modeling white paper
MaxDepth 51 cm ibid.
b N( µ=23.9 σ=0.313,
min=1, max=Large )
— ibid.

5.3.6 \Processes\PlantTransport\TreeData
Table 35. Tree parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.55, 0.76 ) — see Biological Modeling white paper
MaxDepth 450 cm ibid.
b N( µ=14.6 σ=0.0807,
min=1, max=Large )
— ibid.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 24
5.3.7 \Processes\PlantTransport\ShrubData
Table 36. Other shrub parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
RootShoot_Ratio U( 0.4, 1.8 ) — see Biological Modeling white paper
MaxDepth 110 cm ibid.
b N( µ=23.9 σ=0.313,
min=1, max=Large )
— ibid.

5.4 \Processes\WaterTransport
Flow within moving water (advection) and diffusion within water are typically significant
contaminant transport mechanisms. Global parameters for water transport are located here. Other
parameters specific to a modeled column are located within that column’s modeling container
(e.g. Section Table 47) or that material property’s modeling container (e.g Section 4.11, Table
16).
Table 37. Water transport parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Water tortuosity water content
exponent
N( µ=7/3, σ=0.01) — Ibid.
Water tortuosity porosity
exponent
N( µ=2.0, σ=0.01 — Ibid.

5.5 \Processes\ErosionTransport
Erosion through the formation of gullies can be a significant mechanism for exposing waste to
the environment. Global parameters for erosion are located here. Other parameters specific to an
embankment are located within that embankment’s modeling container (e.g. Section
\Disposal\FederalDUCell\ErosionCalcs\SiberiaErosionCalcs
SIBERIA modeling results were used to create 1000 realization inputs for gully density for each
modeling cell layer.
Table 62. SIBERIA erosion parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
FractionGully Lookup table with 1000
realizations
— See Erosion Modeling white
paper.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 25
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
GullyRandomSelector discrete( 1, ..., 1000 )
equal probability (0.001)
ibid.

). These parameters are for the initial gully screening calculations from Model v.1.0. Those
screening calculations are still in the model, although they are not used in the dose assessment.
Table 38. Water transport parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
AngleOfRepose_Gully
angle of repose for gully walls
N( µ=38, σ=5,
min=Small,
max=90-Small )
degrees see Erosion Modeling white paper
Gully_b_parameter
shape parameter for gully
thalweg
N( µ=-0.4,
σ=0.15,
min=-0.75,
max=-0.05 )
— ibid.

6.0 \Inventory
The DU waste is characterized by analysis of the SRS DU. To date, insufficient information
exists to thoroughly characterize the DU wastes expected to arrive from the gaseous diffusion
plants (GDPs).
6.1 \Inventory\SRS_DU_Inventory
The SRS DU, which consists of several thousand 208-L (55-gal) drums of powdered DUO3, has
been subjected to laboratory analysis, so activity concentrations are based on that information.
Table 39. SRS DU inventory parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ActivityConc_DUWaste_Mean See parameters
workbook, sheet
“Inventory”
pCi/g see Waste Inventory white paper
ActivityConc_DUWaste_StdDev See parameters
workbook, sheet
“Inventory”
pCi/g see Waste Inventory white paper
SRS_DU_Drums_Disposed 21000 — (not considered in this PA)
SRS_DU_Drums_ProposedUT 5408 — see Waste Inventory white paper
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 26
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
SRS_DU_Drums_ProposedEW 5408 × 2 — (not considered in this PA)
Drum_Mass 20 kg see Waste Inventory white paper
ShippedMass_Proposed_UT 3577 Mg see Waste Inventory white paper

6.2 \Inventory\GDP_DU_Inventory
Since insufficient information exists to exactly characterize the DU wastes expected to arrive
from the GDPs, the activity concentrations and other waste material characteristics are borrowed
from the SRS DUO3 waste, as a proxy.
Table 40. GDP DU inventory parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Num_DUF6_Cylinders_PGDP 36191 — see Waste Inventory white paper
Num_DUF6_Cylinders_PORTS 16109 — ibid.
Num_DUF6_Cylinders_K25 4822 — ibid.
Mass_DUF6_PGDP 436400 Mg ibid.
Mass_DUF6_PORTS 195800 Mg ibid.
Mass_DUF6_K25 54300 Mg ibid.
CylinderDiameter 4 ft ibid.
CylinderLength 12 ft ibid.
Num_CylindersDisposed 48628 --- ibid.
FractionGDP_Contaminated Beta( 0.0392,
0.0025, 0, 1 )
— ibid.
CleanDU_Mask see workbook — simply a mask for uranium

6.3 \Inventory\Other_DU_Inventory
This is a placeholder container. No other DU inventory is assumed in the model.
6.4 \Inventory\ClassA_LLW_Inventory
This is a placeholder container. No other LLW inventory is assumed in the model.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 27
7.0 \Disposal
The Disposal container hosts all the actual contaminant calculations, including atmospheric
transport, transport mechanisms within each column of each embankment (water, air, biological,
etc.) and the saturated zone. While global transport parameters are defined in the \Processes
container (Section ), parameters and calculations specific to local mechanisms are defined here.
7.1 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion
The values for the ratio of airborne contaminant concentration to source release rate into the
atmosphere are known as Χ/Q (Chi/Q) values. These are implemented as lookup tables on
Particle_Fraction.
7.1.1 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\AirConc_Onsite
OnSite air concentrations are used for exposures to receptors that traverse the embankment itself.
Table 41. Atmosphere dispersion parameters for on-site exposures.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ChiQ_Embankment
_538m
0 222 (µg/m3)/(g/s) see Atmospheric Modeling white
paper 0.05 223
0.1 224
0.2 225
0.4 228
0.6 231
0.8 234
1.0 238
ChiQ_Gas_Onsite
(Embankment)
234 same ibid.

7.1.2 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\MediaConc_Offsite
OffSite air concentrations are used for exposures to receptors that traverse the area surrounding
the embankment. These receptors also have access to the embankment itself. Functionally, the air
concentrations are set to those same values used for OnSite air.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 28
Table 42. Atmosphere dispersion parameters for off-site exposures (in the “air dispersion”
area.)
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ChiQ_Dust_Offsite set equal to
ChiQ_Dust
_Onsite
(µg/m3)/(g/s) see Atmospheric Modeling white
paper
ChiQ_Gas_Offsite 0.38 same ibid.

7.1.3 \Disposal\AtmosphericDispersion\AirConc_Remote
Various receptors are at specific geographic locations farther away from the site, including
Interstate-80, the rail road, the Grassy Rest Area, the Knolls OHV Recreation Area, and the
UTTR access road.
Table 43. Atmosphere dispersion parameters for remote off-site exposures.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ChiQ_RestArea_1K 0 0.0069 (µg/m3)/(g/s) see Atmospheric Modeling
white paper 0.05 0.0069
0.1 0.0069
0.2 0.0070
0.4 0.0071
0.6 0.0072
0.8 0.0073
1.0 0.0074
ChiQ_Gas_RestArea 0.0088 same ibid.
ChiQ_Knolls 0 0.043 same ibid.
0.05 0.044
0.1 0.044
0.2 0.046
0.4 0.049
0.6 0.052
0.8 0.055
1.0 0.058
ChiQ_Gas_Knolls 0.053 same ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 29
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ChiQ_I80_1K 0 0.26 same ibid.
0.05 0.26
0.1 0.26
0.2 0.27
0.4 0.27
0.6 0.28
0.8 0.28
1.0 0.28
ChiQ_Gas_I80 0.28 same ibid.
ChiQ_Railroad_1K 0 0.43 same ibid.
0.05 0.43
0.1 0.43
0.2 0.43
0.4 0.43
0.6 0.44
0.8 0.44
1.0 0.44
ChiQ_Gas_Railroad 0.44 same ibid.
ChiQ_UTTRaccess_1K 0 222 same ibid.
0.05 223
0.1 224
0.2 225
0.4 228
0.6 231
0.8 234
1.0 238
ChiQ_Gas_UTTRaccess 234 same ibid.

7.2 \Disposal\FederalDUCell
This PA model considers only the Federal DU cell, part of the Federal Waste Cell embankment.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 30
7.2.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\FederalDU_Cell_Dimensions
Exact dimensions of the embankment are somewhat irregular, so the shape of the cell has been
somewhat idealized to facilitate calculations. See Embankment Modeling white paper for details.
Table 44. Interior (waste) dimensions of the Federal Cell, Federal DU section.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
OriginalGrade
Average original grade elevation
4272 ft
amsl
see Embankment Modeling.pdf
WasteTopHeight_Ridge
Height of top of the waste at the
ridgeline
47.5 ft ibid.
WasteTopHeight_Break
Height of top of the waste at the
break in slope
35 ft ibid.
WasteBottomElev
Elevation of the bottom of the
waste
4264 ft
amsl
ibid.
LengthOverall
Length overall
1318 ft ibid.
WidthOverall
Width overall
1775 ft ibid.
LengthToBreak
Length from edge to the break in
slope
175 ft ibid.
WidthToBreak
Width from edge to the break in
slope
175 ft ibid.
BreakToRidge_Width
With from break in slope to the
ridge
521 ft ibid.
BreakToRidge_Length_West
Width from break in slope to the
ridge, west side of cell
521 ft ibid
BreakToRidge_Length_East
Length from break in slope to the
ridge, east side of cell
447 ft

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 31
7.2.2 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\NaturalSystemGeometry
Table 45. Natural system geometry parameters for the Federal DU cell.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
UZ_Thickness
thickness of the
unsaturated zone
below the FDU cell
N( µ=12.9, σ=0.25,
min=Small, max=Large )
ft see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper

7.2.3 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\CapCell_Thickness
Table 46. Dimensions of the cap cells for the Federal DU cell.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
TSurface
Total thickness of the
surface soil layer
6 in see Embankment Modeling.pdf
TEvap
Total thickness of
the evaporative
zone
12 in ibid.
TFrostProt
Total thickness of
frost protection layer
18 in ibid.
TUpperRadon
Total thickness of
upper radon barrier
12 in ibid.
TLowerRadon
Total thickness of
lower radon barrier
12 in ibid.
TopCell_Thickness 1 cm ibid.

7.2.4 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope
No input elements are defined at this level.
7.2.4.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_Transport
No input elements are defined at this level.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 32
7.2.4.1.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_Transport \WaterTransport
Water flow calculations for the top slope column are performed here. These parameters are
clones for the side slope.
Table 47. Infiltration parameters for cap cells.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
B_0
Regression parameter
-0.32921 — see Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper,
units of mm/yr are added
after the regression is
calculated
B_2
Regression parameter
5.56826 — ibid.
B_3
Regression parameter
0.19538 — ibid.

7.2.4.2 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
7.2.4.2.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile\WaterConte
ntCalcs_ETCover
These elements are cloned in the corresponding side slope container.
Table 48. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the ET Cover.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
B_0
Regression parameter vector SurfaceSoil 0.48155
EvapLayer 0.57947
FrostLayer 0.04282
UpperRnBarrier 0.14737
LowerRnBarrier 0.14740

see Unsaturated Zone
Modeling white paper
B_1
Regression parameter vector SurfaceSoil 0.00000
EvapLayer 0.00000
FrostLayer 0.00000
UpperRnBarrier -0.00076
LowerRnBarrier -0.00076

day/cm Ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 33
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
B_2
Regression parameter vector SurfaceSoil 0.54920
EvapLayer 0.73997
FrostLayer 0.43297
UpperRnBarrier 1.70702
LowerRnBarrier 1.70648

Ibid.
B_3
Regression parameter vector SurfaceSoil -0.20020
EvapLayer -0.24790
FrostLayer 0.01617
UpperRnBarrier 0.06353
LowerRnBarrier 0.06351

Ibid.
WaterContentResidual
SurfaceSoil 0.11
EvapLayer 0.11
FrostLayer 0.065
UpperRnBarrier 0.1
LowerRnBarrier 0.1

Ibid.

7.2.4.2.2 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_RnBarrier
These calculations are no longer used in the model. They are currently present for reference
only.
Table 49. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the radon barrier.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
NumNodes 5 this is the number of modeled radon barrier
layers +1
UpperRn_NodeNumber 2 middle node in part of column
LowerRn_NodeNumber 4 middle node in part of column

7.2.4.2.3 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Waste
Table 50. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the waste.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
NumNodes 28 — this is the number of modeled waste layers +1

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 34
7.2.4.2.4 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Liner
Table 51. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the clay liner.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
NumNodes 5 this is the number of modeled liner layers +1
MiddepthNodeNumber 3 middle node in column

7.2.4.2.5 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Unsat
Table 52. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the unsaturated zone below the
clay liner.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumNodes 24 see Unsaturated Zone Modeling
white paper
ZoneThickness
specified from the bottom up
-0.0204
-0.0204
-0.0204
-0.0204
-0.0204
-0.0510
-0.0510
-0.0510
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
-0.2550
0

m ibid.
MiddepthNodeNumber 16 middle node in column

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 35
7.2.4.3 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Cap_Layers
7.2.4.3.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\CapLayers\CapCell_Dimensions
Table 53. Cap layering dimensions for the top slope.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
TArmor
Type B rip rap thickness
18 in see Embankment Modeling white
paper
TUpperFilter
Type A filter zone
thickness
6 in ibid.
TSacrificialSoil
Sacrificial soil thickness
12 in ibid.
TLowerFilter
Type B filter zone
thickness
6 in ibid.
TUpperRadon
upper radon barrier clay
thickness
12 in ibid.
TLowerRadon
lower radon barrier clay
thickness
12 in ibid.
NArmorCells 3 — modeling construct
NUpperFilterCells 1 — modeling construct
NSacrificialSoilCells 2 — modeling construct
NLowerFilterCells 1 — modeling construct
NUpperRadonCells 2 — modeling construct
NLowerRadonCells 2 — modeling construct
TopCell_Thickness U( 1 cm, TArmor –
NArmorCells × 1 cm )
cm modeling construct
This allows the thickness of the
topmost cell to vary between 1 cm
and the maximum so that the other
cells in this layer are at least 1 cm.

7.2.4.4 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\Liner
Table 54. Number of liner cells.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 36
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumLinerCells 4 — modeling construct

7.2.4.5 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\UnsatLayer
Table 55. Number of unsaturated zone cells.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumUnsatCells 10 — modeling construct

7.2.4.6 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\WasteLayers
No input elements are defined at this level.
7.2.4.6.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\TopSlope\WasteLayers\ WasteCell_Dimensions
Table 56. Top slope waste cell dimensions.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumWasteCells_TS 27 — modeling construct

7.2.5 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope
No input elements are defined at this level.
7.2.5.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_Transport
No input elements are defined at this level.
7.2.5.1.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_Transport \WaterTransport
No input elements are defined at this level.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 37
7.2.5.2 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
7.2.5.2.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_RnBarrier
Table 57. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the radon barrier.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
NumNodes 5 this is the number of modeled radon barrier
layers +1
UpperRn_NodeNumber 2 middle node in part of column
LowerRn_NodeNumber 4 middle node in part of column

7.2.5.2.2 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Waste
Table 58. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the waste.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
NumNodes 13 — this is the number of modeled waste layers +1

7.2.5.2.3 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Liner
Table 59. Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the clay liner.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
NumNodes 5 this is the number of modeled liner layers +1
MiddepthNodeNumber 3 middle node in column

7.2.5.2.4 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Column_MoistureProfile
\WaterContentCalcs_Unsat
Parameters for moisture profile calculations for the unsaturated zone below the clay liner in the
side slope are identical to those for the top slope, as listed in Table 52.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 38
7.2.5.3 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Cap_Layers
7.2.5.3.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\CapLayers\CapCell_Dimensions
Table 60. Cap layering dimensions for the side slope.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
TArmor
Type A rip rap thickness
18 in see Embankment Modeling white
paper
TUpperFilter
Type A filter zone
thickness
6 in ibid.
TSacrificialSoil
Sacrificial soil thickness
12 in ibid.
TLowerFilter
Type B filter zone
thickness
18 in ibid. (Note how this is different from
the TopSlope value.)
TUpperRadon
upper radon barrier clay
thickness
12 in ibid.
TLowerRadon
lower radon barrier clay
thickness
12 in ibid.
NArmorCells 3 — modeling construct
NUpperFilterCells 1 — modeling construct
NSacrificialSoilCells 2 — modeling construct
NLowerFilterCells 1 — modeling construct
NUpperRadonCells 2 — modeling construct
NLowerRadonCells 2 — modeling construct
TopCell_Thickness U( 1 cm, TArmor –
NArmorCells × 1 cm )
cm modeling construct
This allows the thickness of the
topmost cell to vary between 1 cm
and the maximum so that the other
cells in this layer are at least 1 cm.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 39
7.2.5.4 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\Liner
Parameters in this section are identical to those defined for the Top Slope in Section .
7.2.5.5 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\UnsatLayer
Parameters in this section are identical to those defined for the Top Slope in Section .
7.2.5.6 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\WasteLayers
No input elements are defined at this level.
7.2.5.6.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\SideSlope\WasteLayers\
WasteCell_Dimensions
Table 61. Side slope waste cell dimensions.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
NumWasteCells 12 — modeling construct

7.2.6 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\ErosionCalcs
The calculation of the volume, depth, and potential to expose waste by gullies is examined here.
This work includes the preliminary calculations, designed to evaluate whether more sophisticated
landform evolution modeling is warranted, as well as the more sophisticated erosion modeling
using SIBERIA, a landscape evolution model.
7.2.6.1 \Disposal\FederalDUCell\ErosionCalcs\SiberiaErosionCalcs
SIBERIA modeling results were used to create 1000 realization inputs for gully density for each
modeling cell layer.
Table 62. SIBERIA erosion parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
FractionGully Lookup table with 1000
realizations
— See Erosion Modeling white
paper.
GullyRandomSelector discrete( 1, ..., 1000 )
equal probability (0.001)
ibid.

7.3 \Disposal\SatZone
The saturated zone underlies and accepts recharge from all the embankments at the Clive
Facility. All contaminated recharge flows down-gradient to a monitoring well.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 40
7.3.1 \Disposal\SatZone\SatZone_Parameters
Table 63. Saturated zone parameters.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
SZ_Thickness N( µ=16.2, σ=0.25,
min=0.1, max=Large )
ft see Saturated Zone
Modeling white paper
MonitoringWellDistance 90 ft ibid.
WaterTableGradient N( µ=6.94e-4, σ=1.27e-4,
min=0, max=Large )
— ibid.
7.3.2 \Disposal\SatZone\SZ_FederalDUFootprint
Table 64. Total number of cells in the saturated footprint zone.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumCells_Footprint 25 modeling construct

7.3.2.1 \Disposal\SatZone\SZ_FederalDUFootprint\Waste_to_Footprint
Table 65. Total number of cells in both footprint ends.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumCells_Footprint_Ends 4 modeling construct

7.3.3 \Disposal\SatZone\SZ_ToWell
Table 66. Total number of cells from footprint to well.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumCells_ToWell 20 modeling construct

7.4 \Disposal\EngineeredSystemGeometry
Table 67. Engineered system geometry parameters.
GoldSim element value units reference / comment
ClayLiner_Thickness 2 ft see Embankment Modeling white paper

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 41
8.0 \Exposure_Dose
The Data element Dose_Timestep_Length is controlled by the user, and so has no set value.
8.1 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs
Concentrations of contaminants in environmental media to which receptors may be exposed are
collected and calculated in this container.
Table 68. Mechanically generated dust
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
OHV_DustAdjustment
OHV dust loading
LN( GM=98.1,
GSD=1.65,
min=Small,
max=Large )
— See Dose Assessment white paper

8.1.1 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs\Exposure_Areas
Table 69. Exposure areas used in the calculation of exposure media concentrations
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Receptor_Area
Receptor area (exposure
area)
U( 16,000, 64,000 ) acres See Dose Assessment white paper
AntelopeRange_Area
Pronghorn range area
U( 995, 9192 ) acres ibid.

8.1.2 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs\Animal_Concentrations
Table 70. Animal tissue concentrations for the recreational and ranching scenarios
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
TF_Beef_GM
Beef transfer factor,
geometric mean
Tabulated in
workbook
day/kg “Clive PA Model Parameters.xls”,
Elements worksheet; see also Dose
Assessment white paper
TF_Beef_GSD
Beef transfer factor,
geometric standard deviation
Tabulated in
workbook
— ibid.
WaterIngRate_Cattle
Cattle water ingestion rate
U( 33, 53 ) kg/day See Dose Assessment white paper
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 42
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ForageIngRate_Cattle
Cattle forage ingestion rate
U( 8.85, 14.75 ) kg/day ibid.
SoilIngRate_Cattle
Cattle soil ingestion rate
U( 0.05, 0.95 ) kg/day ibid.
GrazingTimeFrac_Cattle
Cattle time fraction in
exposure area
1 — ibid.
WaterIngRate_Antelope
Pronghorn water ingestion
rate
U( 0.1, 1 ) kg/day ibid.
BodyWtFactor_Antelope
Pronghorn body weight, as a
unitless factor for allometric
scaling
U ( 38,000,
41,000 )
— ibid. Body mass in Dose Assessment
white paper reported in units of kg.
ForageIngRate_Antelope
Pronghorn forage ingestion
rate
0.577 ×
BodyWtFactor
_Antelope0.727 ×
0.001
kg/day ibid.
SoilIngRate_Antelope
Pronghorn soil ingestion rate
U( 0.005, 0.095 ) kg/day ibid.

8.1.2.1 \Exposure_Dose\Media_Concs\Animal_Concentrations\Beef_TFs
The beef transfer factors are tabulated in the Parameters Workbook, but some values in those
tables point to fixed values in the GoldSim model. These are tabulated here:
Table 71. Parameters related to beef transfer factors
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
BeefTF_GM_radon
Beef transfer factor for radon,
geometric mean
Small day/kg See Dose Assessment white paper
BeefTF_GSD_radon
Beef transfer factor for radon,
geometric standard deviation
1 — ibid.
BeefTF_GSD_generic
Generic beef transfer factor,
geometric standard deviation
1.475 — ibid.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 43
8.2 \Exposure_Dose\DCFs
Table 72. Dose conversion factors
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
BranchingFractions
Radionuclide branching
fractions
Tabulated in
workbook
— “Dose Assessment Appendix II.xls”,
see also Dose Assessment white
paper
DCF_Inh_Dust_determ
Dose conversion factor,
inhalation dust
Tabulated in
workbook
Sv/Bq ibid.
DCF_Inh_Gas_determ
Dose conversion factor,
inhalation gas
Tabulated in
workbook
Sv/Bq ibid.
DCF_Ing_determ
Dose conversion factor,
ingestion
Tabulated in
workbook
Sv/Bq ibid.
DCF_Ext_Imm_determ
Dose conversion factor,
immersion
Tabulated in
workbook
( Sv-m3 )/(
Bq-s )
ibid.
DCF_Ext_Soil_determ
Dose conversion factor,
external
Tabulated in
workbook
( Sv-m3 )/(
Bq-s )
ibid.
Rn222_EffectiveDose
Effective dose for Radon-
222
6 ( mSv-m3 )/ (
mJ-hr )
See Dose Assessment white paper
Rn_progeny_equil
energy per Bq of radon at
equilibrium
5.56E-06 mJ/Bq ibid.
Rn_Inh_rate
Breathing rate for a
standard worker
1.2 m3/hr ibid.

8.2.1 \Exposure_Dose\DCFs\Stochastic_REFs
Table 73. Stochastic radiation effectiveness factors
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Alpha_GM
Alpha radiation effectiveness
factor, geometric mean
18.1 — “Dose Assessment
Appendix II.xls”,
see also Dose
Assessment white paper
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 44
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Alpha_GSD
Alpha radiation effectiveness
factor, geometric standard
deviation
2.37 — ibid.
Alpha_REF
Alpha radiation effectiveness
factor, distribution
LN( GM=Alpha_GM,
GSD=Alpha_GSD )
— ibid.
Beta_GM
Electron radiation
effectiveness factor, geometric
mean
2.41 — ibid.
Beta_GSD
Electron radiation
effectiveness factor, geometric
standard deviation
1.44 — ibid.
Beta_REF
Electron radiation
effectiveness factor,
distribution
LN( GM=Beta_GM, GSD=
Beta_GSD )
— ibid.
Photon1_GM
Photon radiation effectiveness
factor (30-250 keV), geometric
mean
1.96 — ibid. (>0.03 and <=0.25
MeV)
Photon1_GSD
Photon radiation effectiveness
factor (30-250 keV), geometric
standard deviation
1.48 — ibid.
Photon1_REF
Photon radiation effectiveness
factor (30-250 keV),
distribution
LN( GM=Photon1_GM,
GSD= Photon1_GSD )
— ibid.
Photon2_GM
Photon radiation effectiveness
factor (< 30 keV), geometric
mean
2.45 — ibid.
Photon2_GSD
Photon radiation effectiveness
factor (< 30 keV), geometric
standard deviation
1.55 — ibid. (<=0.03 MeV)
Photon2_REF
Photon radiation effectiveness
factor (< 30 keV), distribution
LN( GM=Photon2_GM,
GSD=Photon2_GSD )
— ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 45
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Deterministic_REF
Deterministic radiation
effectiveness factor
1 — See Dose Assessment
white paper
WeightingFactor_Alpha
Weighting factor for alpha
radiation
20 — ibid.
WeightingFactor_Beta
Weighting factor for beta
radiation
1 — ibid.
WeightingFactor_Gamma
Weighting factor for gamma
radiation
1 — ibid.

8.3 \Exposure_Dose\OuterLoop_Exposure_Parameters
Table 74. Exposure parameters, sampled once per realization
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
SoilIngestionTracerElement
Adult incidental soil ingestion
rate tracer elements
Probability Value — See Dose Assessment white
paper
0.3333 0 Tracer element: silicon
0.3334 1 Tracer element: aluminum
0.3333 2 Tracer element: titanium
EF_food
Exposure frequency, food
365 day/yr See Dose Assessment white
paper
Meat_PrepLoss
Meat preparation loss
N( µ=0.27, σ=0.07,
min = 0.01, max =
1 )
— ibid.
Meat_PostCookLoss
Meat post-cooking loss
N( µ=0.24, σ=0.09,
min = 0.01, max =
1 )
— ibid.

8.4 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations
This looping container performs calculations on a finer time step than the outer model, and has
parameters that are sampled on the inner time steps.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 46
8.4.1 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Physiology_Rancher
Table 75. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
rancher receptors (ranch hands)
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Age N( µ=25.7, σ=20.3,
min = 16, max = 60 )
yr See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Gender Male 60.8%, Female
39.2%
— ibid.
BodyWeight
Body mass
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x) ) kg Inputs denoted as f(x)
are calculated based
on other outputs from
the model and are
documented in the
Dose Assessment
white paper
SoilIngestionRate
Adult incidental soil ingestion
rate
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x),
Min=0, Max=f(x) )
mg/day ibid.
BeefIngestionRate_BWA
Ingestion rate: “home-
produced” beef
Gamma( µ=f(x) , σ=f(x) ) g/kg-day ibid.
VentilationRateSleep_BWA
Ventilation rate: sleeping
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationSleep_dist
Daily exposure time: sleeping
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x),
Min=1, Max=24 )
hr/day ibid.
VentilationRateSedentary_
BWA
Ventilation rate: sedentary
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationSedSleep
Daily exposure time:
sedentary+sleeping
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
VentilationRateLight_BWA
Ventilation rate: light activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
VentilationRateMedium_BWA
Ventilation rate: moderate
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
VentilationRateHeavy_BWA
Ventilation rate: high activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 47
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ActivityDurationLight_UN
Daily exposure time: light
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
ActivityDurationMedium_UN
Daily exposure time: moderate
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
ActivityDurationHeavy_UN
Daily exposure time: high
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.

8.4.2 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Physiology_SportOHV
Table 76. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
Sport OHV receptors
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference /
comment
Age N( µ=25.7, σ=20.3,
min = 16, max = 60 )
yr See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Gender Male 60.8%, Female
39.2%
— ibid.
BodyWeight
Body mass
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x) ) kg Inputs denoted as f(x)
are calculated based
on other outputs from
the model and are
documented in the
Dose Assessment
white paper
SoilIngestionRate
Adult incidental soil ingestion
rate
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x),
Min=0, Max=f(x) )
mg/day ibid.
VentilationRateSleep_BWA
Ventilation rate: sleeping
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationSleep_dist
Daily exposure time: sleeping
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x),
Min=1, Max=24 )
hr/day ibid.
VentilationRateSedentary
_BWA
Ventilation rate: sedentary
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 48
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference /
comment
ActivityDurationSedSleep
Daily exposure time:
sedentary+sleeping
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) 1.09
or 1.08 )
hr/day ibid.
VentilationRateLight_BWA
Ventilation rate: light activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
VentilationRateMedium_BWA
Ventilation rate: moderate
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
VentilationRateHeavy_BWA
Ventilation rate: high activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationLight_UN
Daily exposure time: light
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
ActivityDurationMedium_UN
Daily exposure time: moderate
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
ActivityDurationHeavy_UN
Daily exposure time: high
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.

8.4.3 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Physiology_Hunter
Table 77. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
Hunter receptors
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference /
comment
Age
Age
N( µ=25.7, σ=20.3,
min = 16, max = 60 )
yr See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Gender
Gender
Male 60.8%, Female
39.2%
— ibid.
BodyWeight
Body weight
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x) ) kg Inputs denoted as
f(x) are calculated
based on other
outputs from the
model and are
documented in the
Dose Assessment
white paper, Section
1.0.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 49
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference /
comment
SoilIngestionRate
Adult incidental soil ingestion rate
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x),
Min=0, Max=f(x) )
mg/day ibid.
function of age
GameIngestionRate_BWA
Ingestion rate: “home-produced”
game
Gamma( µ=f(x), σ=f(x) ) g/kg-day ibid.
VentilationRateSleep_BWA
Ventilation rate: sleeping
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationSleep_dist
Daily exposure time: sleeping
LN( GM=f(x), GSD=f(x),
Min=1, Max=24 )
hr/day ibid.
VentilationRateSedentary
_BWA
Ventilation rate: sedentary activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationSedSleep
Daily exposure time:
sedentary+sleeping
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
VentilationRateLight_BWA
Ventilation rate: light activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
VentilationRateMedium_BWA
Ventilation rate: moderate activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
VentilationRateHeavy_BWA
Ventilation rate: high activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) m3/min-kg ibid.
ActivityDurationLight_UN
Daily exposure time: light activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
ActivityDurationMedium_UN
Daily exposure time: moderate
activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.
ActivityDurationHeavy_UN
Daily exposure time: high activity
LN( GM=f(x),GSD=f(x) ) hr/day ibid.

8.4.4 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\ExposureTime_Rancher
Table 78. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
Rancher receptors – Exposure Time
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ET_Ranch_DayTrip
Ranchers; day trip time in
exposure area
U( min=4,
max=12 )
hr/day See Dose Assessment white
paper
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 50
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ET_Overnight
Exposure frequency, overnight
trips
24 hr/day ibid.
ET_Camp_OnsiteFrac
All receptors; fraction of camp
trip exposure time on disposal
cell
U( min=0.25,
max=0.75 )
— ibid.
OHV_timeFrac_Camper
All receptors; camp trip time
spent OHVing
U( min=2, max=8 ) hr/day ibid.
OHV_timeFrac_HuntRanch_
DayTrip
Hunter/Rancher; fraction of day
trip time spent OHVing
U( min=0.1,
max=0.75 )
hr/day ibid.
EF_Ranch_dist
Rancher; exposure frequency
beta( µ=135,
σ=34.9, min = 0,
max = 180 )
day/yr ibid.
Frac_Ranch_Overnight_dist
Ranchers; fraction of exposure
frequency related to overnight
trips
U( min=0.5,
max=0.67 )
— ibid.

8.4.5 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\ExposureTime_SportOHV
Table 79. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
Sport OHV receptors – Exposure Time
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ET_Rec_DayTrip
Sport OHVers; day trip time in
exposure area
beta( µ=6.3,
σ=2.11, min = 1,
max = 20 )
hr/day See Dose Assessment white
paper
ET_Overnight
Exposure frequency, overnight
trips
24 hr/day ibid.
ET_Camp_OnsiteFrac
All receptors; fraction of camp
trip exposure time on disposal
cell
U( min=0.25,
max=0.75 )
— ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 51
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
OHV_timeFrac_Camper
All receptors; camp trip time
spent OHVing
U( min=2, max=8 ) hr/day ibid.
EF_Recreational_dist
Sport OHVer; exposure
frequency
LN( GM=11.3,
GSD=3.45, Min=1,
Max=200 )
d/yr ibid.
Frac_recOHV_Overnight_dist
Sport OHVers; fraction of
exposure frequency related to
overnight trips
U( min=0, max=1 ) — ibid.

8.4.6 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\ExposureTime_Hunter
Table 80. Attributes of inter-individual uncertainty in physiological characteristics for
Hunter receptors – Exposure Time
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
ET_Rec_DayTrip
Sport OHVers; day trip time in
exposure area
beta( µ=6.3, σ=2.11,
min = 1, max = 20 )
hr/day See Dose
Assessment white
paper
ET_Overnight
Exposure frequency, overnight
trips
24 hr/day ibid.
ET_Hunt_DayTrip_OnsiteFrac
Hunter; fraction of hunting day
trip exposure time on disposal
cell
U( min=0.02, max=0.17 ) — ibid.
ET_Camp_OnsiteFrac
All receptors; fraction of camp
trip exposure time on disposal
cell
U( min=0.25, max=0.75 ) — ibid.
OHV_timeFrac_Camper
All receptors; camp trip time
spent OHVing
U( min=2, max=8 ) hr/day ibid.
OHV_timeFrac_HuntRanch_
DayTrip
Hunter/Rancher; fraction of day
trip time spent OHVing
U( min=0.1, max=0.75 ) — ibid.
EF_Hunting_dist
Hunter; exposure frequency
LN( GM=4.66, GSD=3.45,
min=1, max=100 )
day/yr ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 52
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Frac_Hunt_Overnight_dist
Hunters; fraction of exposure
frequency related to overnight
trips
U( min=0, max=1 ) — ibid.
EF_Recreational_dist
Sport OHVer; exposure
frequency
LN( GM=11.3, GSD=3.45,
min=1, max=200 )
day/yr ibid.

8.4.7 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\Population_Size_Variables
Table 81. Attributes of population variability.
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
Number_Individuals_Total
Total number of individuals in
vicinity of site, per year
Tri( 100, 350, 500 ) — See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Ranch_Hands_dist
Number of ranchers in vicinity
of site, per year
U( 1, 20 ) — ibid.
Ranchers_Picker
This element is used to identify
the number of ranch receptors
present.
Binomial( Batch Size = 1,
Probability = f(x)/20 )
— For probability, the
denominator
corresponds to the
size of the receptor
array and f(x) to the
value of
Ranch_Hands_dist.
Number_Hunter
Number of hunters in vicinity of
site, per year
Binomial( Batch Size =
round(
Number_Individuals_Total –
Number_Ranch_Hands ),
Probability = 0.25 )
— See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Hunters_Picker
This element is used to identify
the number of hunter receptors
present.
Binomial( Batch Size = 1,
Probability =
Number_Hunter/175 )
— Analogous to
Ranchers_Picker.
Number_Recreationalists
Number of recreationalists in
vicinity of site
f(x) =
Number_Individuals_Total -
Ranch_Hands_Dist
— See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Number_SportOHV
Number of OHVers in vicinity
of site
f(x) =
Number_Recreationalists -
Number_Hunter
— See Dose
Assessment white
paper
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 53
GoldSim element value or distribution units reference / comment
SportOHVers_Picker
This element is used to identify
the number of SportOHV
receptors present.
Binomial( Batch Size = 1,
Probability =
Number_SportOHV/424 )
— Analogous to
Ranchers_Picker.

8.4.8 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\UraniumHazard
Table 82. Uranium hazard for Rancher and Recreationists.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Uranium_RfD
Reference dose for uranium
Probability Value See Dose Assessment white
paper 0.5 0.0006 mg/kg-
day
0.5 0.0030 mg/kg-
day

8.4.9 \Exposure_Dose\Dose_Calculations\OffSite_Receptors
Table 83. Inhalation dose for off-site receptors.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ET_RestArea
Exposure time rest area caretaker
24 hr/day See Dose Assessment white
paper
EF_RestArea
Exposure frequency rest area
caretaker
Tri( 327, 350, 365 ) day/yr ibid.
ET_Knolls
Exposure time for day trip,
Knolls OHVer
Beta( µ=6.3,
σ=2.11, min=1,
max=20)
hr/day ibid.
EF_Knolls
Exposure frequency, Knolls
OHVer
LN( µ=11.3,
σ=3.45, min=1,
max=200 )
day/yr ibid.
ET_Traveller
Exposure time travelers on I-80
and train
U( 2.3, 7.2 ) min/day ibid.
EF_Traveller
Exposure frequency I-80 and
west-side access road traveller
U( 250, 365 ) day/yr ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 54
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ET_UTTR_Road
Exposure time cars on west-side
access road (Utah Test and
Training Range access)
U( 2.4, 4.0 ) min/day ibid.

8.4.10 \Exposure_Dose\Screening_Calculations
Table 84. Parameters used in screening dose calculations.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NativePlant_Ing_Rate 1 kg/yr See Dose Assessment white
paper
FreshWeightConversion U( 0.05, 0.3 ) — ibid.
OffsiteWater_Ing_Rate 1 L/yr ibid.

9.0 \GWPLs
The model estimates concentrations in a hypothetical monitoring well down gradient of the
waste embankment. Certain radionuclides are of interest, and their concentrations are displayed
for comparison to Ground Water Protection Limits (GWPLs) as specified in State of Utah (2010)
Table 1A.
Table 85. Groundwater protection limits.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
MaxTime_WellConcs 500 yr State of Utah (2010)
GWPL_Sr90 42 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_Tc99 3790 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_I129 21 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_Th230 83 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_Th232 92 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_Np237 7 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_U233 26 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_U234 26 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_U235 27 pCi/L ibid.
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 55
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
GWPL_U236 27 pCi/L ibid.
GWPL_U238 26 pCi/L ibid.

10.0 \DeepTimeScenarios
Deep time scenarios are developed to provide information for a qualitative analysis of effects
from the Clive Facility on future conditions after 10,000 years.
Table 86. Deep time scenario parameters.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
NumDUCells
Number of waste cells that
contain DU
6 — See Deep Time white paper

NumCells_BelowGrade
Number of waste layer cells
below grade
10 --- ibid.
DepthAeolianDeposition
long-term aeolian deposition
depths
N(µ=72.7, σ=5
min=Small,
max=Porosity_
Unit4)
cm ibid.
AgeAeolianDeposition
long-term aeolian deposition
ages
Beta(µ=13614,
σ=263.3,min=1
3000,max=150
00)
Correlated to
DepthAeolianD
eposition:
AeolianCorrela
tionFactor
yr ibid.
AeolianCorrelationFactor
correlation between aeolian
deposition depth and Aeolian
deposition age
U(0.5,1.0) — ibid.

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 56
10.1 \DeepTimeScenarios\LakeReturnCalcs
Table 87. Parameters for the lake return calculations.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
LakeDelayTime
time at which the intermediate
lake calculations are allowed
to occur
50,000 yr See Deep Time white paper

IntermediateLakeDuration
length of time that Clive is
covered by an intermediate
lake
LN(GM=500,
GSD=1.5,min=0
, max=2500)
yr ibid.
IntermediateLakeSedimentA
mount
total depth of sediment laid
down by an intermediate lake

LN(GM=2.82,
GSD=1.71)
m ibid.
DeepLakeStart
time before the end of the
100,000-year climate cycle
LN(GM=14000,
GSD=1.2,min=0
, max=50000 )
yr ibid.
DeepLakeEnd
time after the most recent
cold peak within the 100,000-
year climate cycle
LN(GM=6000,
GSD=1.2,min=0
, max=50000)
yr ibid.
DeepLakeSedimentationRate
rate of the sedimentation
during the open water phase
of a deep lake
LN(GM=1.2E-4,
GSD=1.2)
m/yr ibid.

10.2 \DeepTimeScenarios\LakeChemistry
Table 88. Parameters for calculating the dispersal of the embankment and subsequent lake
and sediment concentrations.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
SiteDispersalArea
the area across which the
destroyed site is spread
gamma(µ=24.23
32,
σ=11.43731)
Km2 See Deep Time white paper

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 57
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
IntermediateLakeDepth
depth of an intermediate lake
at Clive
Beta(µ=30,
σ=18,min=0,
max=100)
m ibid.
DeepLakeDepth
depth of a large lake at Clive
Beta(µ=150,
σ=20,min=100,
max=200)
m ibid.
DiffusionLength
Diffusion length for the deep
time sediments
N(µ=0.5, σ=0.16
min=0.0,
max=Large)
m ibid.

10.3 \DeepTimeScenarios\RadonFlux_NRC364
No input elements are defined at this level.
10.4 \DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime
Many dose assessment input parameters for deep time were taken from the dose assessment
container for the 10,000-year analysis. Some dose parameters for deep time were chosen to be
deterministic rather than stochastic, with the assumption that deep time already has many
uncertainties. More information is provided in the tables below.
Table 89. Parameters for the deep time human exposure and dose assessment.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
ET_ranch
length of a work day for a
ranching receptor
8 hr/d Used the mean of the similar
distribution from Section 8.4.4

EF_ranch
upper bound yearly exposure
frequency for the ranching
receptor
180

d/yr ibid.
ChiQ_Gas_Onsite
Chi/Q value for the gases at
the on-site receptor location
234 (ug/m3)/
(g/s)
See Section 7.1 above.
InhRate
moderate intensity short-term
inhalation rate
0.03 m3/min 0.03 m³/min is slightly above the
mean value for ages 21 - 30 (0.026)
through 51 - 60 (0.029) in Table 6-2
of EFH 2011
Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 58
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
external_DCF_modifiers
RESRAD-derived multipliers
for infinite-source external
DCFs to account for
attenuation by overlaying
sediments
Tabulated in
workbook
— See Deep Time white paper and
workbook “ES external DCF
modifiers.xlsx”
Rn_flux_ratio
ratio of Rn-222 flux at
different sediment thickness
to flux with no overlaying
cover
0.001
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.5

1.00000
4.392E-1
1.972E-1
8.750E-2
4.000E-2
8.140E-3
1.656E-3
3.371E-4
6.881E-5
1.00E-30
— See Deep Time white paper and
workbook “ES radon dose.xlsx”

10.4.1 \DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime\Exposure_Areas
Table 90. Exposure areas used in the calculation of exposure media concentrations.
GoldSim element value or
distribution
units reference / comment
Receptor_Area
size of ranching activities
area
U(min=16000,max
=64000)
acre
See Dose Assessment white paper

10.4.2 \DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime\DCFs
This container is identical to the \Exposure_Dose\DCFs container described in Section 8.2.
10.4.2.1 DeepTimeScenarios\ExposureDose_DeepTime\DCFs\Stochastic_REFs
This container is identical to the \Exposure_Dose\DCFs\Stochastic_REFs container described in
Section 8.2.1

Model Parameters for the Clive DU PA Model
25 November 2015 59
11.0 References
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Kocher, D.C., 1981. Radioactive Decay Data Tables, DOE/TIC-11026, Technical Information
Center, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC.
Tuli, J.K., 2005, Nuclear Wallet Cards, National Nuclear Data Center. Brookhaven National
Laboratory. Seventh edition, April 2005.

NAC-0055_R2

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Clive DU PA Model v1.4
11 November 2015

Prepared by
NEPTUNE AND COMPANY, INC.
1435 Garrison St, Suite 110, Lakewood, CO 80215
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 ii

Solutions

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 1
CONTENTS
CONTENTS .....................................................................................................................................1
FIGURES .........................................................................................................................................2
TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................3
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................4
2.0 Project Management and Organization ...................................................................................4
3.0 Personnel Qualifications and Training ...................................................................................5
4.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................6
4.1 DU PA Model Consolidation ............................................................................................6
4.2 Model Embankment Terminology Change .......................................................................7
4.3 SER Unresolved Issues Responses ...................................................................................7
4.4 Class A West ET Cover Model Revisions ......................................................................10
5.0 Quality Objectives and Model Performance Criteria ...........................................................11
6.0 Documentation and Records .................................................................................................11
7.0 Data Acceptance Criteria ......................................................................................................11
8.0 Data Management and Software Configuration ...................................................................12
9.0 Model Assessment and Response Actions ............................................................................12
10.0 Model Requirements Assessment .........................................................................................13
Appendix A: Subversion SOP .......................................................................................................14
Appendix B: GoldSim Model Development SOP .........................................................................26
Appendix C: Neptune Check Print SOP ........................................................................................51

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 2
FIGURES
Figure 1. Neptune Organizational Chart ..........................................................................................5

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 3
TABLES
Table 1. Roles, Responsibilities, and Training ................................................................................6

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 4
1.0 Introduction
This document describes the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for modeling services
provided for the development of a Performance Assessment (PA) model for the disposal of
depleted uranium (DU) by EnergySolutions at the Clive, Utah facility. Throughout this
document, the term Quality Assurance (QA) refers to a program for the systematic monitoring
and evaluation of the various aspects of PA model development to ensure that the models and
analyses are of the type and quality of that needed and expected by the client.
2.0 Project Management and Organization
Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) has developed this QAPP for conducting work for
EnergySolutions. This QAPP is based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) QA/G-5M
Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling, and our company’s 23-year history
working in the environmental quality arena. A tiered approach is used that includes specific
procedures developed by Neptune that have been developed for modeling projects. This project-
specific QAPP will work as an umbrella plan that ensures quality across all tasks.
The Neptune quality program includes:
 Experienced and trained personnel who understand the QA requirements of each task.
 An experienced Project Manager.
 A corporate Quality Assurance Officer
 Task planning, tracking, and operation via internal SOPs.
 Emphasis on continuous improvement via internal reviews and customer feedback.
It is the policy of Neptune to implement a quality program designed to generate products or
services that meet or exceed the expectations established by our clients. This quality policy
addresses all products delivered to our EnergySolutions client under the contract. We will ensure
quality through the use of a quality program that includes program and project management,
systematic planning, work and product assessment and control along with continuous
improvement to ensure that data and work products are produced of acceptable quality to support
the intended use.
To achieve this goal, Neptune will assign appropriately qualified and trained staff and ensure that
all products are carefully planned. Tasks will be conducted according to the QAPP or applicable
SOP and any and all problems affecting quality will be brought to the immediate attention of the
project or task manager for resolution. All products will be reviewed by another technical expert.
Adequate budget and time will be planned to execute the quality system.
As indicated on Figure 1, the Neptune organizational structure ensures direct reporting between
the Neptune Project QA Officer and the Project Manager. This structure requires that all Neptune
technical staff report to the Neptune Project Manager who is responsible for the work.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 5

Figure 1. Neptune Organizational Chart

The Neptune Quality Assurance Officer has the authority and responsibility to ensure that the
project-specific QAPP is implemented by Neptune staff. Roles and Responsibilities for this
project are detailed in Table 1. The QA aspects of the project are handled by those project
members responsible for any particular part of the project. The lead modeler is responsible for
QA for the GoldSim models. For probabilistic models, the lead statistician is responsible for QA
of statistical routines and products that feed into the model. The responsibility for other QA tasks
may be assigned to other project members at the direction of the lead modeler or lead statistician.
The model custodian is responsible for configuration control of the model. The role of model
custodian may be assumed by any project team member, but only one person at a time may be
the custodian.
3.0 Personnel Qualifications and Training
Neptune technical staff is composed of highly qualified chemists, engineers, statisticians, IT
professionals, QA specialists, and biologists with advanced degrees in their fields and direct
training experience. Many of the Neptune staff have participated in GoldSim training courses
and GoldSim User Conferences. Qualifications for the staff are shown in Table 1. Each Neptune
employee or contractor involved with this project will be required to read this QAPP and
associated standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 6
Table 1. Roles, Responsibilities, and Training
Roles and
Responsbilities
Personnel Training
Project Manager Paul Black Ph.D. Statistics
QA Officer,
Hydrologist
Mike Sully Ph.D. Soil Science
GoldSim Training
Technical Lead John Tauxe Ph.D. Civil Engineer, Professional Engineer
(New Mexico), GoldSim Training
Modeler,
Geochemist
Katie Catlett Ph.D. Soil Science
GoldSim Training
Modeler,
Hydrologist
Dan Levitt Ph.D. Soil Science
GoldSim Training
Statistician Stephanie Fitchett Ph.D. Statistics
Modeler,
Hydrologist
Amy Jordon Ph.D. Hydrology
GoldSim Training
Modeler,
Statistician
Tom Stockton Ph.D. Environmental Modeling
GoldSim Training
Modeler,
Exposure and Dose
Assessment
Ralph Perona M.S. Environmental Health, DABT
GoldSim Training
Modeler,
Engineer
Gregg
Occhiogrosso
M.S. Environmental Engineering
GoldSim Training
Risk analyst Robert Lee M.S. Environmental Health
Modeler,
Ecologist
Greg McDermott M.S. Entomology
Statistician Matt Pocernich M.S. Environmental Engineering
M.S. Applied Mathematics (Statistics)
Statistician Will Barnett M.S. Ecological and Environmental Statistics
Technical Writer Annette Devlin M.A. English

4.0 Project Description
Current scope under this QAPP includes four major elements: 1) DU PA model consolidation; 2)
Model embankment terminology change; 3) Responses to unresolved issues in the April, 2015
Safety Evaluation Report (SER); and 4) Modification of the Class A West (CAW)
evapotranspiration (ET) model to address certain SER issues. A description of the activities for
each element are described below in more detail.
4.1 DU PA Model Consolidation
Several different models have been developed to date including: the initial DU PA v1.0; v1.2
developed in response to interrogatories; the original Deep Time Supplemental Analysis (DTSA)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 7
model; and revisions to the DTSA model that addressed changes in sedimentation rates and did
not disperse the DU waste upon destruction of the mound (upon return of a lake to the Clive
elevation). Consolidating these models into a single model will help respond to the SER issues
more efficiently, address any future reviews more efficiently, and will bring all current models
under one roof, which will be needed in the future if the PA is to be expanded to address other
wastes and/or embankments.
The v1.2 model will also be updated to v11 of GoldSim – the DTSA model is already in v11.
The consolidated model will need to be rerun, and results produced, including sensitivity
analysis. The primary changes will be in the deep time part of the model, but the entire model
will be rerun.
The new consolidated version will be labeled the Clive DU PA v1.4 model. Changes will be
noted in the version change log of the GoldSim model. Supporting documentation also needs to
be updated with this model revision (again, mostly for the deep time aspects of the model). This
will include the v1.2 Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and Features, Events and Processes (FEPs)
reports, the white papers, the parameter list document, and the final report including a revised
sensitivity analysis.
4.2 Model Embankment Terminology Change
The terminology for the CAS Cell needs to be changed to the Federal DU Cell, and the
dimensions need to be updated.
The nomenclature will be changed for the embankment from Class A South Cell to Federal DU
Cell. In the model, all references to "_CAS_" will be replaced with "_FDU_". These references
run throughout the model, and will require many changes to parameter names and to in-model
documentation. Any change to a parameter name will require a coordinated change in the
Parameters Document, and an update to QA (at least in the version change notes and Note Panes
for each element changed). The terminology changes are likely to require text modifications on
many elements, and nearly every dashboard and result element.
EnergySolutions will provide the most recent engineering drawings and the Engineering white
paper will be revised accordingly. This will require including references to any new engineering
drawings that EnergySolutions may have of the Federal DU Cell.
4.3 SER Unresolved Issues Responses
The scope of this work involves modifying v1.4 of the model to address the SER issues. New
model versions will be created to address each of the issues. These model versions will be
labeled with v1.4XXX, where the XXX is used to denote that these models are not sanctioned by
Neptune, but rather, were developed in order to respond to SER issues. The SER issues will be
investigated using four XXX models:
 Clive DU PA Model v1.4XXX Benson.gsm
 Clive DU PA Model v1.4XXX Benson Clay Liner.gsm
 Clive DU PA Model v1.4XXX Benson Deep Time.gsm
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 8
 Clive DU PA Model v1.4XXX Benson Erosion.gsm
Documentation will include the results of these four XXX models, and a discussion of the basis,
or lack thereof, of the modifications included in the XXX models. These four models will help to
investigate the following SER issues:
a. UAC R313-25-8(2) and (3): Evapotranspiration Cover (lack of correlation between the
alpha and hydraulic conductivity values, etc.)
The Hydrus 1D model that is used as the basis for infiltration and water balance parameters in
GoldSim will be modified so that the cap is naturalized. Input parameters for these infiltration
models are derived from the distributions and methods described by Dr. Craig Benson in Volume
2, Appendix E, of the SER. Fifty of these parameter sets will be used as inputs to the naturalized
Hydrus 1D model. The infiltration and moisture content results of these runs will be statistically
abstracted to provide inputs to the modified GoldSim model. Tables showing average water
balance components for the last 100 years of the Hydrus simulations will be prepared for 5 of the
parameter sets with model results that span the observed range of net infiltration.
b. UAC R313-25-8(2): Infiltration (lack of correlation between the alpha and hydraulic
conductivity values, etc.)
This issue is resolved as part of issue 4.3 a above.
c. UAC R313-25-25: Erosion of Cover (clarification of certain issues relating to Appendix
10 to the DU PA version 1.2, June 5, 2014)
Appendix 10 of the DU PA Model Final report will be revised to more clearly explain the
SIBERIA model (v1.2). Figure 2 in Appendix 10 will be revised to include all realizations that
were performed, or a new figure will be added with all the realizations for clarification (the
figure currently shows the first 5 simulations, not all 1,000 that were run).
The influence of cover thinning on net infiltration will be investigated using Hydrus 1D models
of the cover system.
Clarification will be provided in Appendix 10, Figure 2 that the distribution of cover area
associated with a channel depth is unaffected when all the realizations are considered.
Cover thinning (erosion) will be included in Hydrus and, consequently, in the GoldSim model.
The CSM document and other supporting documents will be updated to further explain the
conceptual model underlying the v1.4 model. The v1.4XXX Benson Erosion model will be run,
results obtained, sensitivity analysis performed, and a technical memorandum written to
document the results and compare results to the v1.4 model results.
d. UAC R313-25-25(3) and (4): Frost Damage (need to resolve concerns with assumed
recurrence intervals, estimated frost penetration depths, and hydraulic property
estimates)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 9
The SER issue indicates that EnergySolutions should account in modeling for substantial
disruption of near-surface layers above and within the radon barriers by frost, with
accompanying decreases in ET and increases for initially low-permeability soil in both hydraulic
conductivity and correlated values, which could affect modeled infiltration and radon release
rates. These are the types of processes accounted for by using the naturalized cover material
properties for the modeling to be provided for issue 4.3 a. This issue will be addressed through
the analysis to be done in 4.3 a.
e. UAC R313-25-24(3) and (4): Effect of Biologicals on Radionuclide Transport (need to
account for natural increases in cover permeability over time)
The SER issue indicates that an increase in cover permeability will occur in response to biotic
activity. These are the types of processes accounted for by using the naturalized cover material
properties for the modeling to be provided for issue 4.3 a. This issue will be addressed through
the analysis to be done in 4.3 a.
The response should also indicate that the maximum rooting depth currently used in the DU PA
model extends below the lower radon barrier.
f. UAC R313-25-8(2): Clay Liner (lack of increase in Ksat values over time; lack of
correlation between the alpha and hydraulic conductivity values)
These changes will be implemented in the GoldSim model in conjunction with model v1.4XXX
Benson Clay Liner. There could be some small change in GoldSim model results because the
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) for the clay liner affects water content in the clay liner
layer, but not significantly. The model will be run and a table of results produced to show that
there is no significant difference.
g. UAC R313-25-8(10): GoldSim Quality Assurance [the relationship between the process
level model (i.e., HYDRUS) abstractions and the primary model (i.e., GoldSim) results
needs to be demonstrated]:
Table 4-1 in the SER shows that the HYDRUS and GoldSim infiltration rates are different. The
GoldSim and HYDRUS infiltration rates need to be compared and some investigation performed
to fully address the SER issue. This might also require running the GoldSim model to provide a
basis for discussion.
More generally, a discussion of scaling for PAs needs to be included up front and center in the
PA documentation explaining why use of standard errors of data is more appropriate than
standard deviations for parameter distributions.
h. UAC R313-25-9(5)(a): Deep Time Analysis
The v1.4 model will be modified, which will incorporate the latest DTSA model, as follows:
1. The material above the DU waste will be modeled as Unit 3 to account for the expected
grain-size characteristics of intermediate lake sediments and an expected southern flux of
long-shore drift sand from the Grayback Hills southward toward the Clive site.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 10
2. The intermediate lake sedimentation rate will be changed to 10 times the large lake
sedimentation rate.
3. The standard deviation of the eolian deposition rate will be used instead of the standard
error of the mean.
This will result in a v1.4XXX Benson Deep Time version of the model. A technical
memorandum will be prepared to discuss the results, show sensitivity analysis, and compare
results to the current deep time model results. The results will focus on sediment and water
concentrations, but will use receptor scenarios from the main model as well to provide dose
estimates for comparison.
4.4 Class A West ET Cover Model Revisions
The ET cover model for Class A West also needs to be modified to accommodate some of the
SER issue requirements. In particular, SER issues a, b, and c need to be addressed (while issues
d and e will be included implicitly).
The current Hydrus 1D models applied to the ET cover will be revised to accommodate input
from Dr. Craig Benson on the correlation between hydrologic input parameters, the cap will be
naturalized, and some thinning of the cap will be accommodated if infiltration is found to be
affected by erosion. These changes effectively cover the frost and biotic issues (d and e).
Assuming that the 12 in. ET layer cover model will be used as the basis for the SER issue
modifications, the following Hydrus 1D models will be run:
1) the current based model with an updated leaf area index;
2) the current model modified to a naturalized cap, and using input values suggested in the
SER issue responses; and
3) the model modified again to allow for a thinning cap, which will be run by thinning the
entire cap by the same amount (if erosion is found to impact net infiltration for a
naturalized cover).
Note also that the thinned cap will be implemented at time 0 – otherwise Hydrus would need to
be applied to different cap thicknesses over time, which would be computationally
intensive/expensive.
For each model, 50 simulations will be run, and the resulting output will be made available for
revising the RESRAD models. Because the RESRAD modeling is deterministic, a reasonable
deterministic statistic (e.g., the mean or upper confidence bound on the mean) will be selected
for each output parameter from Hydrus that is used in RESRAD. The purpose of running many
simulations is to evaluate the conditions under which the Hydrus output results change.
The results of the different models will be described in a technical memorandum report. If any
other changes are needed to the current report, those will be made as well. The technical
memorandum will address the changes that have been requested through the SER, and why/how
these changes are counter to the conceptual model.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 11
5.0 Quality Objectives and Model Performance Criteria
Systematic planning to identify required GoldSim model components will be accomplished
through the development of a CSM for the disposal of depleted uranium at the Clive facility. The
CSM describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the Clive facility.
The CSM encompasses everything from the inventory of disposed wastes, the migration of
radionuclides contained in the waste through the engineered and natural systems, and the
exposure and radiation doses to hypothetical future humans. These site characteristics are used to
define variables for the quantitative PA model that is used to provide insights and understanding
of the future potential human radiation doses from the disposal of DU waste. The content of the
CSM provides the basis for selection of the significant regional and site-specific features, events
and processes that need to be represented mathematically in the PA model. A report describing
the CSM will be developed as part of Task 1.
As described in Section 4.0 the objective of the PA is to provide a tool for determining if specific
performance objectives will be met for land disposal of radioactive waste set forth in Title 10
Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 (10 CFR 61) Subpart C, and promulgated by the NRC. The
quality objective for the model is to provide results that are consistent with the site
characteristics, the waste characteristics, and the CSM. If data are available, the demonstration of
consistency will be supported by available site monitoring data and other field investigations.
The model predictions of transport of radionuclides and the inadvertent intrusion into the
disposal facility, and the sensitivity and uncertainty of the calculated results should be
comprehensive representations of the existing knowledge of the site and the disposal facility
design and operations.
6.0 Documentation and Records
Subversion version-control software will be used to maintain records of ownership and
traceability of all project-specific files and database contents. Original data are stored in version-
controlled repositories. Additions, deletions and file modifications within the repository are
tracked by the version control software, which documents the file user and the date and time of
modification. The version control software also offers a “compare between revisions” feature for
text files that denotes line-by-line changes between previous and current versions of a file. User-
entered comments are also maintained by the version control software as files are added, deleted,
or modified. Version control of records is described in more detail in the Subversion SOP in
Appendix A.
Internal documentation of the GoldSim model, version change notes, change log, model
versioning, and model error reporting and resolution are described in the GoldSim Model
Development SOP in Appendix B and the Issue Tracking SOP in Appendix C.
7.0 Data Acceptance Criteria
The choice of data sources depends on data availability and data application in the model. The
following hierarchy outlines different types of information and their application. The information
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 12
becomes increasingly site-specific and parameter uncertainty is generally reduced moving down
the list.
 Physical limitations on parameter ranges, used for bounding values when no other
supporting information is available. Example: Porosity must be between 0 and 1 by
definition.
 Generic information from global databases or review literature, used for bounding values
and initial estimates in the absence of site-specific information. Example: A common
value for porosity of sand is 0.3.
 Local information from regional or national sources, used to refine the above
distributions, but with little or no site-specific information. Example: Sandy deposits in
the region have been reported to have porosities in the range of 0.30 to 0.37, based on
drilling reports.
 Information elicited from experts regarding site-specific phenomena that cannot be
measured. Example: The likelihood of farming occurring on the site sometime within the
next 1000 years is estimated at 50% to 90%.
 Site-specific information gathered for other purposes. Example: Water well drillers
report the thickness of the regional aquifer to be 10 to 12 meters.
 Site-specific modeling and studies performed for site-specific purposes. Example: The
infiltration of water through the planned engineered cap is estimated by process
modeling to be between 14 and 22 cm/yr.
 Site-specific data gathered for specific purposes in the models. Example: The density of
Pogonomyrmex ant nests adjacent to the site is counted and found to be 243 nests per
hectare.
The determination of data adequacy is informed by a sensitivity analysis of the model, which
identifies those parameters most significant to a given model result. Such parameters are
candidates for improved quality. As the model development cycle proceeds, sensitive parameters
are identified, and their sources are evaluated to determine the cost/benefit of reducing their
uncertainty.
8.0 Data Management and Software Configuration
The acquired data, developed statistical distributions and results generated by the GoldSim
model and the uncertainty and sensitivity analyses will be archived in a version-control
repository as described in Section 6.0 above. Configuration management for the GoldSim model
is described in GoldSim Model Development SOP in Appendix B.
9.0 Model Assessment and Response Actions
During model development, assessments will be conducted using a graded approach with the
level of testing proportional to the importance of the model feature. Assessments will consist of:
 reviews of model theory
 reviews of model algorithms
 reviews of model parameters and data
 sensitivity analysis
Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 13
 uncertainty analysis
 tests of individual model modules using alternate methods of calculation such as analytic
solutions or spreadsheet calculations
 reasonableness checks
Response actions including error reporting and resolution processes are described in the GoldSim
SOP and the Issue Tracker SOP.
10.0 Model Requirements Assessment
The purpose of these assessments is to confirm that the modeling process was able to produce a
model that meets project objectives. Model results will be reviewed to ensure that results are
consistent with the site characteristics, the waste characteristics, and the CSM as described in
Section 5.0. Model results will be assessed to determine that the requirements of
EnergySolutions for the use of the model have been met. Any limitations on the use of the model
results will be reported to the project manager and discussed with EnergySolutions.

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 14
Appendix A: Subversion SOP

N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 2
 of
 10

Revision
 0

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1. N&C Corporate Quality Assurance Officer (QAO): Maintains current record of this SOP
and may modify as the developments in contracts or internal N&C procedures warrant.
Conveys proposed modifications to contract-specific quality manager and program
manager.

3.2. N&C Contract Specific Quality Manager: Recommends modifications to this SOP when
appropriate and as needed to meet contract specific QA requirements, and drafts
recommended changes for review.

3.3. N&C Program (Contract) Manager: Ensures all Technical Staff working on the contract
are trained to the internal quality SOPs that pertain to the contract and that these procedures
are implemented. Reviews and approves SOPs that relate to the contract. Works with
Contract Specific QA Manager to execute contract specific modifications to this SOP.

3.4. N&C Technical Staff: Maintain current training on, and implement this SOP. Recommend
modifications to this procedure when appropriate by discussing their ideas with the contract
QAM and/or Program Manager, to maximize their effectiveness. Participates in any and all
assessments related to work under the contract, to ensure the Quality Management Plan and
related SOPs are routinely implemented.
4. DEFINITIONS

Definitions relevant to this SOP are provided in the following section.
5. PROCEDURE

As the Subversion online manual (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/) states, Subversion is a centralized
system for sharing information. At its core is a repository, which is a central store of data. The
SVN repositories live on a central server, SVN.neptuneinc.org. New repositories can be created on
the server at any time. To the user, a repository appears as a collection of files and directories
(although they are not actually stored that way on the SVN server).

Users access the contents of a repository by “checking out” a local copy of the repository. This
process copies files from the repository to the user’s computer, creating a local “working copy” of
the repository. The user can then make changes to their local copy and “commit” these changes
back to the repository, so they become part of the centralized data store. To get the latest changes
committed by others, the user should always “update” their repository before working on a given
file. Updating pulls down any new changes from the server that are not yet part of the user’s
working copy (see Section 5.4.3).
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 3
 of
 10

Revision
 0

Repositories have typically been created on a per-project basis, but some have instead been created
to house all the data associated with a particular client (for example, the EPA repository). The
latter approach produces very large repositories, which can make downloading the whole
repository time consuming, especially for users outside the Los Alamos office where the server
resides. However, this can be worked around by the user checking out only the sub-folders they
need from a given repository. This will be discussed in more detail later in this SOP.
5.1 Accessing Repositories

To access Neptune’s subversion repositories, you will need two things:
1) a subversion user account on the server
2) a client program running on your computer which can interact with the subversion server to
allow you to check out, update, and commit files
5.2 Obtaining a Subversion Account

This should be done automatically as part of your new-employee setup but any member of the IT
team can also set yours up. You will receive a username and a password, both of which need to be
submitted for most SVN transactions. Fortunately, all SVN clients provide the opportunity to
cache your identity so that you do not have to repeatedly enter your credentials.
5.3 Subversion Clients
5.3.1 Windows GUI

On Windows machines, the main client we use is Tortoise SVN, which is available from
Tigris.org. Its home page is http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/. Downloading, installing and periodically
upgrading Tortoise SVN is a straightforward process, but IT staff will always be glad to offer
assistance if needed. Tortoise works as a plugin to Windows Explorer (NOT Internet Explorer the
web browser, but the file explorer); once you have Tortoise installed, you will see special icons
next to files that are part of working copies, and you will have access to SVN commands via right-
clicking on any file or folder in Windows Explorer.

Other clients are available – the other client that software developers use is a plugin to the Eclipse
development environment called Subclipse (also from Tigris).
5.3.2 Mac GUI

There are two main Mac clients currently in use at Neptune, SCplugin (http://scplugin.tigris.org/),
which mimics some of the Tortoise functionality but unfortunately does not have all features
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 4
 of
 10

Revision
 0

enabled on the latest OS version (Snow Leopard), and svnX
(http://www.lachoseinteractive.net/en/community/subversion/svnx/), which has a richer feature set
but a very different UI concept. Both clients are useful and can even coexist on the same machine.
As is the case on Windows, plugins are also available for various development environments (e.g.,
Netbeans, Eclipse).
5.3.3 Command Line

On Linux and other Unix-based systems (including the Mac), there is a command-line client
program called SVN. The command line client is the most flexible and powerful way to interact
with subversion, and may be needed in special situations to address issues that the GUI clients
cannot handle. In these cases, IT personnel can lead you through the necessary steps.
5.4 Getting Started with Subversion

Your first experience with subversion will likely involve someone on your project team telling you
to check out a repository (or sub-section of a repository) so you can examine and/or modify files.
You will need the URL of the repository (or sub-directory) to be able to check it out. All Neptune
SVN URLs will begin with http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos followed by the repository name. So
if I wanted to check out the entire Neptune repository (not recommended, as it is very large), I
would use the URL http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos/neptune.
5.4.1 Trunk, Branches, and Tags

Most repositories have three top-level directories called trunk, branches, and tags. The trunk
represents the main line of work in the repository – the branches and tags folders have specialized
uses, which will be discussed later (they are mainly relevant to programmers). When someone asks
you to check out the “project1” repository, and that repository has a trunk, the URL you will want
to use is http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos/project1/trunk. However, the name of the directory you
will create to check the files out into should be called project1, so you will know what repository
you are working with.
5.4.2 Checking Out

Once you have been given the URL of the repository you want to check out, you will enter that
URL into your subversion client as part of a “checkout” operation. Depending on your client, you
may need to create the containing directory first, or the client may do it for you if you indicate a
directory that does not yet exist. Either way, the files you have requested will be copied from the
SVN server to the location you have specified. Subversion does NOT CARE where on your
machine you chose to store your files. Subversion keeps hidden “metadata” folders inside each
folder of your working copy. One of the things these metadata folders keep track of is what URL
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 5
 of
 10

Revision
 0

on the server the current directory corresponds to. This means that you can move the location of
the working copy on your computer, and this will not affect subversion at all – it still knows where
to go on the server to get updates for those files, or commit changes to those files.

If the repository is large, and especially if you are not in the Los Alamos office where the SVN
server resides, this initial checkout could take a long time. Your client will show you a running
progress display, usually listing each file that is pulled down from the server. If the listing seems to
get “stuck” on a particular file, that probably means that the next file in the list is very large, as the
files are not listed until their download is complete. Occasionally, you will some kind of “timeout”
error message during a long checkout. In this case, it almost always works to simply update your
working copy to get the rest of the files (see the next section for updating).
5.4.3 Updating

As time passes, other team members may make changes to files in the repository you have checked
out. The only way for you to see these changes is to update your working copy of the repository.
Your SVN client will allow you to select any directory or file in a working copy and request that it
be updated. Usually, you will want to pick the top-level directory, so you can get all the updates at
once. As with checking out, your client will give you a listing of files, but in this case it will only
be files that have versions newer than the one you already have in your working copy. If nothing
has changed, you will see a message confirming that your working copy is already at the latest
version, for example “at revision 258.”
5.4.3.1 Conflicts

If you have changed a file in your working copy, and someone else has changed the same file in their
working copy and committed (uploaded) their change back to the server, you may get a conflict
notification. If the file is plain text, and the changes in the repository are in a different part of the file
than the changes you made, you will see a notification that those changes have been merged into
your version of the file (there will be a G after the file name in the list of changes). However, if your
text changes conflict with the changes from the repository, or if the file is a binary file, you will get a
conflict. We will talk about resolving conflicts later in this document.
5.4.4 Committing

When you have made changes to one or more files and want to publish those changes back to the
repository, you need to commit them. Your SVN client will allow you to select a file or directory
and issue the commit command. The client will show you a list of the changed files it found, and
offer you the option of unselecting any files that might have changes you are not ready to commit.
It will also provide you a space to enter a comment describing the changes made to the file(s) in
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 6
 of
 10

Revision
 0

question. It is critical that a meaningful comment always be filled in. This requirement will be
discussed in more detail later in the document.
5.4.4.1 Why Commits Can Fail

The main reason that a commit will fail is if one of the files to be committed is not the latest
version from the repository. Subversion will not allow you to potentially overwrite someone else’s
changes. For example, you cannot commit a file that is based on an earlier version than the latest
version from the repository. When a commit fails for this reason, the only thing to do is to update.
If the file is a text file, you may find that the changes in the repository are simply merged into your
file. However, the most likely scenario is that you will get a conflict, which you will then have to
resolve (see Resolving Conflicts later in this document).

Practically speaking, this means that just before you begin editing a file, you need to do an update
to make sure you have the latest version. Also, if the file is binary (e.g. a MS Word document),
you will want to let other members of your team know that you are editing the document, so that
they won’t start editing in parallel. Of course, for large documents, there are strategies that allow
for editing files in parallel when you know that your changes will not conflict with your
colleagues’ (for example when two people are editing different sections of the document). These
strategies will be discussed later under the Workflow section.
5.4.4.2 Reverting Changes

Sometimes you may be working on a file and wish to discard all your changes an return to the base
revision from the repository. This might happen if you were to realize that you had been modifying
the wrong file, or for a variety of other reasons. The revert command will discard all local changes
and restore your working copy with a “pristine” version of the last version of the file or files you
checked out.

Sometimes reverting is the best way to resolve a conflict. You can always save your version of the
changed file to a different location and then revert the conflicted file. This will give you the latest
file from the repository, and allow you to examine that file and see how it differs from yours, so
you can incorporate your changes into the new version.
5.4.5 Adding New Files or Folders

Generally, there are two kinds of new files we add to a repository. The first are new Neptune-
created files, which may become work products or simply supporting project information. In these
cases, it is REQUIRED to enter a comment describing the purpose of the file and perhaps its initial
content.

N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 7
 of
 10

Revision
 0

The second type of files we add to repositories are files received from outside sources – reports,
data, communications from clients, meeting minutes, etc. In these cases it is CRUCIAL that the
comment contain as much detail as possible about the provenance of the file. Being able to track
down exactly where we got the file and from whom is crucial to the QA process. So the comment
“adding new Eco data” is fairly useless, whereas “adding new mammal field data received from
Brett Tiller via email on 7/21/2008” gives us solid backward traceability to the source of the data.

If you create a new file or folder inside a directory that is part of your working copy, it has no
effect on the repository until you first add the file to the working copy and then commit that
addition. Most GUI clients allow you to combine these operations by including new files in the list
of changes when you begin the process of committing a directory. New files will usually appear
with a question mark next to them. If you check the box next to a new file, you are telling the
client program to first add the file to the containing directory and then include that addition in the
final commit operation. Some GUIs will have a check box that allows you to toggle whether or not
new files are shown in the commit list.
5.6 Subversion Workflow
This section describes the workflow process involved in using Subversion.
5.6.1 Repository Creation

A repository can be created at any time by a member of the IT staff. Repository names must
conform to the following requirements (not that not all existing repositories conform):
-­‐ all lower case
-­‐ no spaces – use underscores instead
-­‐ alphanumeric characters only – no special characters

Repositories are created on an as-needed basis. Once again, communication is key – team
members should decide if their project needs a new repository or if it best fits inside an existing
repository.

The structure of the files within the repository is also a team decision. Several templates have been
used on different types of projects. Specific template examples may be made available in the future
to use as starting points for new projects.
5.6.2 Working with Existing Repositories

You always have the option to check out an entire repository, or just a subsection of a repository.
The only difference between the two is the URL that is passed to the checkout command. To check
out an entire repository, your URL will look like this:
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 8
 of
 10

Revision
 0

http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos/repository_name/trunk
or, in the case of a repository with no trunk,
http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos/repository_name
If you only want to check out a sub-section of the repository, you simply include the path to the
sub-section in your URL. Here is an example of how to check out just the QA folder (containing
the new company QA plan documents) from the Neptune repository:
http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos/neptune/trunk/QA
This way you only get a folder with three documents rater than an entire repository.
5.6.3 Repository Browsing

Many of the GUI clients include a feature that allows you to “browse” the repository on the server.
By entering the base URL of the repository (for example,
http://SVN.neptuneinc.org/repos/neptune) in the browser window, you can view the structure of
the repository as it is on the server without having to download anything. This is a great way to
figure out what you might need to check out for a given purpose. For example, the browser will
show you that under the trunk of the Neptune repository there is a Business Development folder,
which in turn contains a proposals folder. If you are just interested in seeing the proposal work
done for DOD, you can just check out the DOD folder from inside the proposals folder. Most
repository browser GUIs allow you to select a sub-folder from within a repository and ask to check
it out. At worst, you can use the browser view to see how to build the URL you will need to check
out the sub-folder you are interested in.

One thing that a repository browser GUI will NOT do is allow you to see all the different
repositories on the server. To see a list of all repositories, visit to the password-protected web page
at http://repositories.neptuneinc.org/index.php. You can get the username and password from one
of the IT staff.
5.6.4 Making Changes

There are three kinds of changes you can make to a repository:
1) Modify existing files in a repository
2) Add new files to a repository
3) Reorganize the structure of a repository
5.6.4.1 Modifying Existing Files

As noted earlier (Section 5.4.1), to make sure that you are working on the latest versions, always
do an update before you begin modifying files. Also, especially in the case of binary files, notify
other team members that you will be modifying the file(s).
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 9
 of
 10

Revision
 0

5.6.4.2 Using Locks to Enforce Serial Editing of Binary Documents

The best way to avoid conflicts when editing files is to use subversion’s locking feature. Both
svnX on the Mac and Tortoise on Windows give you access to this feature. Locking a file is
simple. First be sure you have the latest version of the file by running an update. Then use the GUI
(or command line) to invoke the lock command (you will get an error message if a more recent
version of the file exists in the repository). Once a file is locked, no one else can commit changes
to that file – they will receive an error when trying to commit, telling them the file is locked and
the name of the user who has the lock.

Therefore, when editing a binary file, one should ALWAYS lock the file first. If someone else
already has the file locked, you will get an error with the lock owner’s username, and you know
that you need to wait for that team member to finish his or her edits before you can work on the
file. If you successfully gain the lock, you can be sure that no one will commit a new version that
will then cause a conflict when you try to commit yours. When you commit your version of the
file, the lock is automatically released.

In case someone locks a file and then forgets about it and goes on vacation, locks can be broken
(you may need help from an IT staff member to do this). Locks are not a strict enforcement
mechanism – rather they are a way to enhance team communication.
5.6.4.3 Editing Binary Documents in Parallel

In cases of large binary documents with many sections, team members may work on a file in
parallel, with the understanding that the different team members are working on different sections
of the file. When one team member is ready to commit their changes, they may do so, and the
other member(s) then need to update their versions. Before doing so, they should save their
versions with changes to a location outside of their working copy, or save their changes to a new
filename, perhaps with their initials appended (for example, save Report1.docx as
Report1_WH.docx). This way, before the other members update, they can revert their changes in
the repository to avoid a conflict when they updated to get their colleague’s changes (the revert
operation can also happen after the conflict – this will discard all local changes and leave the
working copy with the latest version from the repository). The next team member to finish their
edits can then copy just their section into the new version of the document and commit those
changes. As discussed in the previous section, locks can be used to enforce the order in which
changes are made to the document. Needless to say, this process requires good communication
among team members to make sure that no ones changes are unintentionally overwritten.

In all cases it is a REQUIREMENT of N&C QA policy that a comment be entered summarizing
the changes to the file as part of the commit process. This is essential to leveraging the full power
of Subversion to provide support for Quality Assurance by providing a clear trail of comments
N&C
 Internal
 Procedure

 Confidential

General
 Procedure

Standard
 Operating
 Procedure

Document
 No.

NAC-­‐0003

Revision:
 0

Document
 Status:

 Final

Title:
 Subversion
 SOP
 Page
 10
 of
 10

Revision
 0

explaining how documents evolve over time. If the project is using Bugzilla to track tasks, the
comment should include references to Bugzilla task numbers where appropriate (for more details
see the Bugzilla SOP; NAC-0004_R0).
5.6.4.4 Reorganizing the Structure of a Repository

This operation is the one most likely to lead to confusion and errors if it is done incorrectly. As
mentioned earlier in the document, each directory in a working copy keeps hidden metadata about
how it corresponds to the data in the repository on the server. This means that moving directories
around on your computer has NO EFFECT on the structure of the repository on the server. You
must move a special “SVN move” command to let the working copy know that you want to
modify the directories in the working copy by adding or removing files from the (a move operation
will delete files from one directory and add them to another). The actual effect on the repository
will not take place until you commit your changes which include the moved files.

Similarly, deleting files from your working copy will have NO EFFECT on those files in the
repository. You must use a special “SVN delete” command to let the directory containing those
files that they are scheduled for deletion. The actual deletion of the files will not take place until
you commit your changes that include the SVN deletes. It is important to realize that deleting a file
does NOT delete the file from the repository. It simply deletes the file from the latest version of the
repository. It is always possible to go back to earlier versions of the repository to “resurrect”
deleted files.

Finally, because deleting files from your hard disk does not affect the repository, this can be a
good last-ditch solution for solving SVN problems. Occasionally, the metadata in some part of a
working copy may become corrupted, leading to error messages when you try to update the
repository or delete files. You can always delete the directory to which the error message refers
and then run an update on the containing directory to get a fresh copy of the data pulled down from
the repository. Of course, if you have changed files in the problem directory or any of its sub-
directories, you should first copy the changed files to a location outside your working copy before
deleting the problem directory. Then once you have done the update to get a clean copy of the
directory, you can copy your changed files back into their appropriate locations in the working
copy, and they will once again show up as changed files that you can commit.

Receipt
 and
 Acknowledgement
 of

Neptune
 and
 Company,
 Inc.

Subversion
 SOP,
 Revision
 0

Please
 read
 the
 following
 statements
 and
 sign
 below
 to
 indicate
 your
 receipt
 and
 acknowledgement

of
 the
 Neptune
 and
 Company,
 Inc.
 Subversion
 SOP
 (NAC-­‐0003_R0).

• I
 have
 received
 and
 read
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 Neptune
 and
 Company,
 Inc.
 Subversion
 SOP.

• I
 understand
 that
 my
 signature
 below
 indicates
 that
 I
 have
 read,
 understand,
 and
 will
 adhere
 to

the
 Neptune
 and
 Company,
 Inc.
 Subversion
 SOP.

Employee’s
 Printed
 Name

Employee’s
 Signature

 Date

Quality Assurance Project Plan
11 November 2015 26
Appendix B: GoldSim Model Development SOP

Neptune and
Company, Inc.
GoldSim Model Development SOP Page 2 of 24
NAC_0040_R1 Revision 1 Effective date 1 Jan 2015

2 Feb 2015 2
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................5
2.0 Modeling Lifecycle .................................................................................................................5
2.1 Model Objectives and Context ..........................................................................................5
2.2 Conceptual Model Development .......................................................................................7
2.3 Model Requirements Evaluation .......................................................................................7
2.4 Verification of Software Installation .................................................................................7
2.5 GoldSim Model Development ..........................................................................................7
2.6 Model Data Inputs .............................................................................................................8
2.6.1 Input Data Selection ....................................................................................................8
2.6.2 Input Data Placeholders ...............................................................................................8
2.6.3 Data Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................................8
2.6.4 Records of Parameter Values ......................................................................................9
2.6.5 The Parameter List ......................................................................................................9
2.6.6 Check Prints ..............................................................................................................10
2.7 Model Evaluation ............................................................................................................10
2.7.1 Scientific Basis ..........................................................................................................11
2.7.2 Computational Infrastructure ....................................................................................11
2.7.3 Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................................11
2.7.4 Peer Review ...............................................................................................................11
2.7.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................................11
2.7.6 Data Availability and Quality ....................................................................................11
2.7.7 Comparison with Analytical or Empirical Solutions ................................................11
2.7.8 Benchmarking against Other Models ........................................................................12
2.7.9 Corroboration of Model Results with Observations ..................................................12
2.7.10 Sensitivity Analyses ..................................................................................................12
2.7.11 Reasonableness Checking .........................................................................................12
2.8 Model Review .................................................................................................................13
3.0 Model Documentation ..........................................................................................................13
3.1 Documentation Components ...........................................................................................13
3.2 Model Element Note Panes .............................................................................................14
4.0 Model Configuration Management .......................................................................................14
4.1 Model Custody ................................................................................................................14
4.1.1 Experimental Module Development .........................................................................15
4.1.2 Criteria for Making Changes .....................................................................................15
4.2 Documentation of Changes .............................................................................................16
4.2.1 Version Change Notes ...............................................................................................16
4.2.2 The Change Log ........................................................................................................17
4.3 GoldSim Versioning ........................................................................................................18
4.3.1 Model Version Numbers ...........................................................................................19
4.4 Model Testing .................................................................................................................21
4.5 Model Backup .................................................................................................................21
4.6 Error Reporting and Resolution ......................................................................................21
Neptune and
Company, Inc.
GoldSim Model Development SOP Page 3 of 24
NAC_0040_R1 Revision 1 Effective date 1 Jan 2015

2 Feb 2015 3
4.6.1 Reporting Error Candidates .......................................................................................21
4.6.2 Assessing Error Candidates .......................................................................................22
4.6.3 Resolving Errors ........................................................................................................22
4.6.4 Error Resolution Verification ....................................................................................22
4.6.5 Error Impact Assessment ...........................................................................................22
4.7 Model Distribution ..........................................................................................................22
5.0 References .............................................................................................................................24

Neptune and
Company, Inc.
GoldSim Model Development SOP Page 4 of 24
NAC_0040_R1 Revision 1 Effective date 1 Jan 2015

2 Feb 2015 4
FIGURES
Figure 1. Model development work process flow diagram .............................................................6
Figure 2. GoldSim provides for annotation regarding any change in an element's definition
through the Version Change Note ................................................................................17
Figure 3. The model’s Change Log can be maintained using a formatted text box ......................18
Figure 4. GoldSim's Version Manager ..........................................................................................19

Neptune and
Company, Inc.
GoldSim Model Development SOP Page 5 of 24
NAC_0040_R1 Revision 1 Effective date 1 Jan 2015

2 Feb 2015 5
1.0 Introduction
This standard operating procedure (SOP) describes the development of GoldSim-based computer
models. These models are used to perform contaminant transport and dose assessment
calculations as the computational basis for radiological Performance Assessments (PA). They are
developed using the GoldSim systems analysis software, developed by the GoldSim Technology
Group (GTG), as a principal platform, commonly in conjunction with various supporting
computer programs and data sources. Throughout this document, the term Quality Assurance
(QA) refers to a program for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the various aspects of
GoldSim model development to ensure that standards of quality are being met.
2.0 Modeling Lifecycle
GoldSim model development follows a structured process or lifecycle that requires a graded
approach to QA at each phase. The lifecycle for GoldSim model development is described below
and correlates with the work process shown in Figure 1. Model documentation is associated with
each step of the work process.
2.1 Model Objectives and Context
The regulatory modeling process is seen by the National Research Council (NRC, 2007) as
beginning when “…decision makers, model developers, and other analysts must consider
regulatory needs and whether modeling could contribute to the regulatory process.” With
consensus on the value of developing a model the next step is to specify the objectives and
context of the GoldSim model.
Defining the objectives of the model includes establishing who will use the model, what
decisions the model will be designed to support and what model calculations are required to
support these decisions.
Model context includes components such as the following (NRC, 2007):
• Determination of spatial and temporal scales,
• Determination of the appropriate level of detail for process representation,
• Identification of the proposed users, their expertise, and any constraints,
• Determination of sources and required quality of input data,
• Determination of sources and required quality of data for model evaluation,
• Definition of the inputs and outputs needed and whether they will be deterministic or
probabilistic,
• Determination of the level of reliability required, and
• Determination of appropriate evaluation criteria required to demonstrate that the model is
sufficiently accurate for its intended use.
Neptune and
Company, Inc.
GoldSim Model Development SOP Page 6 of 24
NAC_0040_R1 Revision 1 Effective date 1 Jan 2015

2 Feb 2015 6

Figure 1. Model development work process flow diagram
Neptune and
Company, Inc.
GoldSim Model Development SOP Page 7 of 24
NAC_0040_R1 Revision 1 Effective date 1 Jan 2015

2 Feb 2015 7
Model objectives and context are documented in the requirements document described in Section
2.3.
2.2 Conceptual Model Development
Model development continues with the development of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM). The
CSM identifies important features and processes of the system being modeled that are consistent
with the existing data. Development of the CSM along with the model objectives and context
form the basis for the GoldSim model design.
The CSM is documented in a Conceptual Site Model document, which explains and provides
justification for the mathematical approaches for modeling geological, hydrogeological,
contaminant fate and transport, demographic, and other component processes of the overall
model. Existing data and literature and expert opinion are used to support the modeling approach
described by the CSM.
2.3 Model Requirements Evaluation
The CSM provides information to determine the attributes and capabilities of the software
required to meet the project objectives. These requirements and those determined in the
definition of the “model objectives and context” step are compiled in a model requirements
document. Model requirements also include consideration of modeling objectives to determine
the reliability, certainty, and accuracy needed in predicting the performance measures for the
decision process. This evaluation also includes a review conducted to verify that the GoldSim
modeling platform is capable of providing these required attributes and capabilities. The model
requirements document is archived in the project repository.
2.4 Verification of Software Installation
The GoldSim software is installed and registered as described in the GoldSim User's Guide
(GTG 2010a et seq.). Following the installation and registration the user runs the example model
“FirstModel.gsm” located in the “General Examples” directory and verifies that the output
obtained matches the chart shown on page 26 of the User's Guide (GTG 2010a et seq.).
The GoldSim User's Guide (GTG 2010a et seq.) and the GoldSim Contaminant Transport
Module User's Guide (GTG 2010b et seq.) provide complete descriptions of the features and
capabilities of GoldSim and the Contaminant Transport Module.
2.5 GoldSim Model Development
During model development individual modelers work in parallel to model specific sub processes
described in the CSM. For example, existing mathematical models are translated into specific
algorithms to be used in the modeling process. GoldSim offers a level of model structure that can
closely resemble a conceptual model, so the structural implementation of the GoldSim model
will follow the CSM developed by the project team. As the different components of the model
Neptune and
Company,