appendix a completion and construction information for

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation | Environmental Restoration Group

South Facilities Groundwater May 2008 2007 Remedial Progress Report

APPENDIX A Completion and Construction Information for Extraction Well BSG2784



APPENDIX B Completion Report Monitoring Well Installation at the Former South Jordan Evaporation Pond Area

i

COMPLETION REPORT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR GROUNDWATER IN THE SOUTHWEST SALT LAKE VALLEY

ADDENDUM 2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AT THE FORMER SOUTH

JORDAN EVAPORATION POND AREA

February 2008 KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION GROUP

2

MONITORING WELLS INSTALLED AT THE FORMER SOUTH JORDAN EVAPORATION POND AREA

The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for Groundwater in the Southwest Salt Lake Valley Work Plan (Work Plan) was submitted to and approved by EPA in March 1995. Addendum 2 to the Work Plan, submitted in October 2007, described procedures for the installation of one double completion monitoring site and data collection. This Completion Report Addendum describes the drilling and completion activities, sampling results and hydrogeologic assessment. INTRODUCTION Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) drilled and installed a double completion monitoring well (EPG2785A and B) in November 2007. The contractor conducting the work was Boart Longyear and they employed sonic drilling methods to bore the hole. Well development and sampling was completed on November 21, 2007. Previous monitoring wells abandoned in the early 1980s in the former South Jordan Evaporation Pond (SJEP) contained poor water quality. Even though the SJEP area was addressed in the 1990’s Remedial Investigations, recent review of new and historic data has prompted KUCC to conduct further examination of the area. In 2006, KUCC installed a replacement well for ABC08 immediately east of the newly installed south portion of Oquirrh Lake. This replacement well, EPG2781A and B, is located approximately 325 feet southeast of abandoned monitoring well ABC08 and 2900 feet south southeast of abandoned monitoring well K99. The water in the EPG2781A and B completions contained sulfate concentrations higher than measured in ABC08. Based upon the data from EPG2781A and B and from historic data from abandoned monitoring wells, K99 and P207A, KUCC selected a site between EPG2781A and B and K99 to install EPG2785A and B (Figure 1). MONITORING WELLS LOCATION Residential development, including roads and residential units, has been placed over much of the former SJEP. Well EPG2785A and B was sited in a parking strip east of the intersection of Milford Drive and Topview Road. The new monitoring well site is approximately 100 feet east southeast of the abandoned K99 and approximately 1400 feet southeast of abandoned P207A. The street coordinates are 10585 South 4465 West. The site was the closest available area to the former K99 monitoring well site (Figure 1). DRILLING METHOD, SAMPLE COLLECTION AND WELL INSTALATION The boring was advanced to 320 feet by vibrating the drill pipe and/or rotating the drill bit as necessary to advance the drill pipe (Sonic Method). No drilling fluids were added during drilling. A nine inch drill pipe was advance to 120 feet below ground surface (bgs), eight inch to 255 feet bgs and six inch to 320 feet bgs. The boring was completed with two separate 2-inch Schedule 80 PVC well casings and screens, with the upper screen, EPG2785A, set at 210-230 feet bgs and the lower screen, EPG2785B, set at 300 - 320 feet

3

bgs. The screens are factory slotted 0.02-inch flush threaded. Silica sand (10-20) was poured from the surface into the annular space at each screen interval, and transition sand was placed above and below the 10-20 sand pack. Bentonite chips were poured into the annular space between the sand packs adjacent to the Schedule 80 PVC riser to within 10 feet of surface and cement grout was placed from 10 feet to 2 feet below surface. Depths of the respective completion materials were measured continuously to assure that bridging did not occur. Sand was placed in the upper two feet to allow drainage of any surface infiltration into the surface completion. The surface completion was flush mounted but slightly elevated above the planned sod strip and consists of a 12-inch vault and an 8-inch lid set in 4 inches of cement. A cement pad approximately 2 feet by 2 feet by four inches thick was then placed around the vault. Both wells were fitted with expandable lockable well caps (Figure 2). The sonic drilling method allows the collection of continuous soil cores and the opportunity to collect select discrete intervals for water samples during advancement of the borehole. The soil cores were collected and logged and described on a borehole log (Attachment A) and representative samples were also collected and placed into labeled chip trays for archival storage. Six intervals were selected to sample water. KUCC sampled composite soil cores; sample intervals ranged from five to thirteen feet. The cuttings not collected for analysis were containerized and transported to KUCC’s Blue Water Repository for disposal. Grab water samples of discrete zones were collected with a QED Hydro-Punch tool. The Hydro-Punch consists of metal probe, stainless steel tube (sheath) and a plastic screen. The water sampling process consists of inserting the probe into the boring with small diameter drill pipe and advancing the probe past the end of the drill bit into undisturbed soils. The sheath is then pulled back to expose the screen to the formation and undisturbed groundwater. Water is then bailed from the pipe and collected in sample containers. Field parameters including temperature, conductivity and pH were measured and a split of the sample was filtered through a 0.45 micron filter. The samples were then submitted to Kennecott Environmental Laboratory for analysis. After the individual completions were installed, a 10 ft long bailer was used to surge and pull fine grained material and water from each completion. Since no drill fluids were added during drilling or completion activities, only three passes were made with the bailer for each completion. It was determined that additional well development could be completed with a submersible pump. Five borehole volumes were then pumped from each completion and respective samples were collected. UDERR obtained a split of each well during the sampling on November 21, 2007.

SAMPLING AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS Soil: KUCC collected a total of 40 soil samples. The composite samples were collected by taking representative volumes from each interval. The samples were labeled with borehole identification and footage interval. The footage interval corresponds to the footage below ground level. Each sample was analyzed for paste conductivity and pH, sulfur and water soluble sulfate (Table 1).

4

Table 1 SAMPLE ID Collection

Date Soil Paste

Conductivity (umhos/cm)

pH Paste (su)

Sulfur (%)

Sulfate in Soils

(mg/kg) MDL=500

EPG2785 0-7.5 11/2/2007 1840 6.93 0.1827 548 EPG2785 7.5-10 11/2/2007 2290 6.65 0.1684 505 EPG2785 10-20 11/2/2007 2750 3.86 0.5361 1608 EPG2785 20-30 11/2/2007 3020 4.14 0.5330 1599 EPG2785 30-38 11/2/2007 3170 5.90 0.3588 1076 EPG2785 38-40 11/2/2007 2840 7.27 0.1078 <500 EPG2785 40-50 11/2/2007 1880 7.29 0.0845 <500 EPG2785 50-60 11/2/2007 3950 7.64 0.0362 <500 EPG2785 60-65 11/2/2007 3460 7.75 0.0439 <500 EPG2785 65-70 11/2/2007 2730 7.67 0.0844 <500 EPG2785 70-76 11/3/2007 2160 8.21 0.0945 <500 EPG2785 76-80 11/3/2007 2630 8.31 0.0329 <500 EPG2785 80-90 11/3/2007 3020 7.85 0.2201 660 EPG2785 90-96 11/3/2007 5170 8.00 0.2306 692 EPG2785 96-101 11/3/2007 3240 7.31 0.2017 605 EPG2785 101-110 11/3/2007 1590 8.29 0.1461 <500 EPG2785 110-120 11/3/2007 1810 8.16 0.1158 <500 EPG2785 120-130 11/3/2007 1930 7.98 0.1220 <500 EPG2785 130-140 11/3/2007 3520 8.06 0.0024 <500 EPG2785 140-150 11/3/2007 1970 8.36 0.0342 <500 EPG2785 150-160 11/3/2007 2870 8.14 0.1363 <500 EPG2785 160-170 11/3/2007 2020 7.94 0.2116 635 EPG2785 170-175 11/3/2007 2790 7.78 0.0024 <500 EPG2785 175-180 11/4/2007 2620 7.95 0.0339 <500 EPG2785 180-190 11/4/2007 2230 7.79 0.0024 <500 EPG2785 190-200 11/4/2007 1870 7.59 0.1050 <500 EPG2785 200-210 11/4/2007 1740 7.70 0.1483 <500 EPG2785 210-220 11/4/2007 780 7.64 0.1051 <500 EPG2785 220-230 11/4/2007 880 7.88 0.1168 <500 EPG2785 230-235 11/4/2007 230 7.77 0.1185 <500 EPG2785 235-246 11/5/2007 423 7.49 0.0610 <500 EPG2785 246-253 11/5/2007 303 7.87 0.0130 <500 EPG2785 253-263 11/11/2007 449 7.93 0.0300 <500 EPG2785 263-269 11/11/2007 357 8.24 0.0130 <500 EPG2785 269-275 11/11/2007 378 8.10 0.0174 <500 EPG2785 275-283 11/11/2007 490 7.95 0.0263 <500 EPG2785 283-292 11/11/2007 2180 7.67 0.0443 <500 EPG2785 292-305 11/12/2007 2130 7.54 0.0610 <500 EPG2785 305-313 11/12/2007 1200 7.62 0.0420 <500 EPG2785 313-320 11/12/2007 492 7.76 0.0320 <500 Water Samples: Six grab samples were collected from discrete zones during drilling from 208, 238, 258, 278, 298 and 323 feet bgs. After the well was completed, five borehole volumes were removed from each completion and samples were collected. The suite of analytes measured by the Kennecott Environmental Lab included those typical for Zone A plume wells (Table 2). Collection and handling were consistent with KUCC’s Ground Water Characterization and Monitoring Program (GCMP).

5

Table 2

During Drilling Data: Collection Date and Depth Below Ground Surface in Feet

Water Quality After Development

(11/21/07)

Analyte 11/4/07

208' 11/4/07

238' 11/5/07

258' 11/11/07

278' 11/11/07

298' 11/12/07

323' MDL

EPG2785A (Screen

210-230 ft)

EPG 2785B

(Screen 300-320

ft)

Alk (mg/l as CaCO3) 808 573 137 262 490 445 5 mg/l 759 536 Ca (mg/l) 492 513 493 250 729 542 1 mg/l 703 715 Cl (mg/l) 157 195 194 197 333 285 5 mg/l 156 325

Cond *Field (umhos/cm) 4620 3320 1120 2480 4710 3930 1 4820 4410

Lab Cond (umhos/cm) 7830 4280 1350 2530 4890 4030 1 NM NM Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 6335 2652 2442 1246 2990 2239 5 mg/l 3415 2852 K (mg/l) 12 12 198 9.5 7.2 11 .5 mg/l 9.5 7.8

Mg (mg/l) 1240 333 294 151 284 215 1 mg/l 403 259 Na (mg/l) 140 123 502 97 191 149 1 mg/l 175 179 pH *Field

(su) 6.35 6.85 7.03 7.04 6.61 7.11 0.01 6.4 6.33 pH Lab (su) 6.78 7.55 7.81 7.17 6.91 6.84 0.01 NM NM SO4 (mg/l) 5870 2200 259 1020 2290 1760 5 mg/l 2820 2260 TDS (mg/l) 8280 3870 774 1810 4030 3170 20 mg/l 4790 4140

Temp *Field (*C) 16 14.7 11.7 13 12.8 14.3 0.5 11 11 TSS (mg/l) NM NM NM 9100 2490 35600 3 mg/l 168 10

Al (ug/l) 308 < 20 < 20 105 < 20 < 20 20 ug/l NM NM As (ug/l) < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 5 ug/l < 5 < 5 Ba (ug/l) NM NM NM 86 49 76 10 ug/l 35 34 Cd (ug/l) 6 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 1 ug/l < 1 1 Cr (ug/l) < 10 14 < 10 < 10 11 < 10 10 ug/l 18 < 10 Cu (ug/l) 47 50 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 20 ug/l 28 < 20 Fe (ug/l) 2850 < 20 < 20 12900 9940 37800 20 ug/l NM NM Mn (ug/l) 29300 14500 64 8800 1650 10700 10 ug/l NM NM Ni (ug/l) 1170 252 < 30 93 85 160 30 ug/l NM NM Pb (ug/l) < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 5 ug/l 13 < 5 Se-DRC

(ug/l) 6 4 5 2 6 4 2 ug/l 6 5 Zn (ug/l) 229 252 23 26 120 25 10 ug/l 58 66

NM = No measurement made DATA SUMMARY Soil: The upper 38 feet bgs of soil has pH ranging from 4.14 to 6.93, sulfur from 0.16 to 0.53 percent and water soluble sulfate from 505 mg/kg to 1608 mg/kg. From 38 feet

6

through 320 feet bgs, the pH is consistently above 7, sulfur less than 0.23 percent and water soluble sulfate less than 692 mg/kg with most sample intervals containing less than 500 mg/kg. The distribution of low pH soil and water soluble sulfate in the upper 38 feet bgs is likely most attributable to surface infiltration of waters from the former SJEP. Soil conductance values range from 1740 to 5170 umhos/cm in unsaturated soil. Within saturated soil the conductance decreased to values ranging from 230 to 2180 umhos/cm. The wide ranging conductance values in unsaturated sediments are mostly attributable to the inter-bedded nature of fine grained sediments that were generally deposited on shorelines concurrent with evaporite deposits. Elevated conductance observed may also be due to contribution from infiltration of high TDS water from the SJEP and a slow rate of rinsing due to low permeability of the subsurface sediments. Within the saturated sediments, the silty and clayey inter-beds generally had higher conductance values. Water: Groundwater was encountered at approximately 205 feet bgs. The first grab water sample collected at 208 feet, contained significantly higher concentrations of total dissolved solids than all other sample intervals. Sulfate concentrations at 208 feet (5870 mg/l) were about three times higher than the next grab sample collected at 238 feet (2200 mg/l) and approximately 2.5 times higher than the A completion screen at 210-230 feet (2820 mg/l). Water quality as measured from the grab samples at 258 feet and 278 feet show the stratified nature of the groundwater which is controlled by inter-bedded fine sediments. Both intervals at 258 feet (SO4 at 259 mg/l) and 278 feet (SO4 at 1020 mg/l) contained silt and clayey silt formations. At 298 feet, there were minor gravel lenses and the sulfate concentration increased to 2290 mg/l while at 323 feet, the sulfate decreased to 1760 mg/l with the formation containing increasing silt. The B completion screen at 300-320 feet contained sulfate at 2260 mg/l. HYDROGEOLOGY EPG2785 is located on the Provo Bench at an elevation of 4807 feet above mean sea level. This broad, relatively flat bench is elevated approximately 40 feet higher than lands located approximately one-half mile east. The upper 40 feet of the bench is predominately sand and sandy gravel with limited silt and is quite permeable. Stratigraphically, the sandy gravels lie on top of finer grained units with less gravel and abundant silt and some clay. During the boring of EPG2785, a number of interbedded fine grained units were encountered beginning at 38 feet bgs where cuttings contained two feet of clay with silt. Generally, the sequence became finer with depth; however, some silty and clayey gravel was also encountered. Based upon stratigraphy observed in this area, relative potentiometric water levels, and water quality measured from discrete intervals in EPG2785, it is appears that the interbedded geology allows limited vertical hydrologic communication. However, because degraded water quality is found at depth, it is believed that the fine grained units located greater than 40 feet bgs are non-continuous lenses allowing water to move laterally and downward. While the SJEP area was active over a 35-45 year period and then periodically over a 30 year period, poor quality pond water, driven by higher hydraulic head associated with the pond, infiltrated the underlying soil. A large part of the pond leakage moved vertically to depths less than 50

7

feet bgs to the fine grained soils and then laterally to the east to form seeps at the base of the Provo Bench. Water level measurements after completion of EPG2785A and B show an upward gradient from the lower completion (B) to the upper completion (A) suggesting semi-confined conditions. Figure 3 is a plan view of the SJEP area and contoured sulfate distribution. The plan view indicates the location for two cross sections that transect the former SJEP area, which are shown on Figures 4 and 5. The sulfate distribution was contoured using the most recent data from individual wells in the area, which includes measurements collected as early as 1994. The 500 mg/l sulfate contour line extends laterally to the north and south of the former SJEP and easterly into the basin. As depicted on Figure 3, water with sulfate greater than 1500 mg/l is generally confined to the footprint and immediate downgradient area of the former SJEP and up to one-third of mile north, one-half mile southeast and one-third mile east. (Historic monitoring wells K99 and P207A and B are shown on the map, but data from these wells were not used. The three wells were abandoned in the 1980s when it was found that annular leakage along the casing was allowing poor quality surface ponded water to be injected. K99 was screened at 240-260 feet, P207A at 225-235 feet and P207B at 560-570 feet.) Figure 4 depicts an East-West cross section that transects the south center of the former SJEP area. KUCC installed monitoring wells EPG2781A and B and EPG2780A and B in 2006. EPG2781 is located at the eastern margin of the former SJEP and more or less within the footprint of the former ponds and immediately east of the southern portion of Oquirrh Lake. EPG2780 is located approximately 2700 feet east of EPG2781 on top edge of the Provo Bench. Silty gravel units encountered at depth adjacent to the EPG2781A and B screen intervals (A screen at 260-280 ft and B at 440-460 ft) contain relatively high concentrations of sulfate. Cuttings from EPG2780, east of EPG2781 boring, show relatively permeable sediments of sandy gravel from surface to 225 feet bgs and from 225 through 540 feet bgs, the sequence contains very fine grained sediments, mostly silt with a small sand lens at 440-460 feet where EPG2780B is screened. The fining of sediments eastward at depth appear to confine the higher sulfate concentrations at depth nearer to where the waters originally infiltrated. Figure 5 depicts a North-South cross section that transects an area immediately east of the former SJEP. The north portion of the section includes two wells located on the northern edge of the greater than 1500 mg/l sulfate area at 10200 South. The two wells include a shallow well (EPG1689) screened within highly permeable sandy gravel and a deeper well (EPG1166) screened in silty gravel. EPG1689, when last sampled on July 10, 2008 contained 1480 mg/l sulfate and a water level of 204.11 feet. EPG1166 contained 31 mg/l sulfate and a water level at 245.80 feet showing that the water in EPG1689 is perched relative to EPG1166. The cross section includes monitoring wells EPG2785A and B and EG2781A and B with water and soils data described above. The section extends southerly to HMG1163A,B and C located at approximately 11900 South and 3600 W. The 1500 mg/l sulfate distribution as seen in Figure 3 and in this section extends south of P263. Time series information for sulfate at P263 show that the water quality has not appreciably changed since sampling commenced in 1986 suggesting that the

8

transmissivity is low, flux is low, or that the source is steady. Since the surface source of elevated sulfate water was removed when the Evaporation Ponds were no longer used after 1985, it is likely that the steady sulfate concentrations in P263 reflect the low transmissivity and limited groundwater movement. REFERENCES Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC), 1994, Standard operating procedures - borehole drilling

and monitoring well installation, addendum no. 1 to Standard operating procedures for water sampling 1994: 7 p.

⎯⎯⎯⎯1995, Work plan; remedial investigation and feasibility study for ground water

in the southwest Salt Lake Valley: March, 71 p. ⎯⎯⎯⎯1997, Standard operating procedures for water sampling: July, New Monitoring

Well Construction section, pp. 32-64.

Attachment A WELL ID: EPG2785 A,B Double Completion Well LOCATION: GENERAL LOCATION: Daybreak. Replacement monitoring well for K99 KENNECOTT GRID: NORTHING: NA EASTING: NA U.S.G.S: 2548 ft. south, 2168 ft. east of the northwest corner of Section 18, T3S, R1W, SLBM U.S. PUBLIC LAND SURVEY GRID: SE 1/4, SE 1/4, NW1/4 of Section 18, T3S, R1W, SLBM CADASTRAL COORDINATES: (C31) 18 bdd SLBM ELEVATIONS (KENNECOTT): NATURAL GROUND (BOLT IN CEMENT PAD): 4807.25 TOP OF STEEL CASING: 4807.25 TOP OF WELL CASING: A) 4806.84 B) 4806.75 TOTAL DEPTH OF COMPLETED WELL: A) 230.0’ bgl B) 320.0' bgl START DATE: 11-02-07 COMPLETION DATE: 11-13-07 DRILLING COMPANY: Boart-Longyear Drilling DRILLING METHOD, BIT DIAMETER/TYPE (BOREHOLE DIAMETER), AND DRILLING FLUID: 0-120’: 9”, SONIC 120’-255': 8”, SONIC 255’-320': 6”, SONIC SURFACE CASING: (none) CASING: A TYPE: PVC, Sch. 80 DIAMETER: 2.0" DEPTH: 0.25’ agl - 210' bgl B TYPE: PVC, Sch. 80 DIAMETER: 2.0" DEPTH: 0.20' agl - 300' bgl SCREEN: A TYPE: PVC, Sch. 80, 0.02" slot, 1.5" long, 21 slots/inch (7 slots/inch x 3 slots around) DIAMETER: 2.0" DEPTH: 210' bgl - 230' bgl B TYPE: PVC, Sch. 80, 0.02" slot, 1.5" long, 21 slots/inch (7 slots/inch x 3 slots around) DIAMETER: 2.0" DEPTH: 300' bgl - 320' bgl COMPLETION MATERIALS:

CEMENT: 2' bgl - 10' bgl BENTONITE CHIPS MED.: 10' bgl - 203' bgl ; 16x40 MESH SILICA SAND: 203' bgl - 206' bgl ; 10x20 MESH SILICA SAND: 206' bgl - 232' bgl ; 16x40 MESH SILICA SAND: 232' bgl - 235' bgl BENTONITE CHIPS MED: 235' bgl - 293' bgl 16x40 MESH SILICA SAND: 293' bgl - 295' bgl 10x20 MESH SILICA SAND: 295' bgl - 320' bgl

WELL ID: EPG2785 A,B STATIC WATER LEVEL IN OPEN BOREHOLE: 205’ STATIC WATER LEVEL AFTER WELL COMPLETION: A) 203.61' TOP DATE: 11-21-07 STATIC WATER LEVEL AFTER WELL COMPLETION: B) 196.40' TOP DATE: 11-21-07 WATER QUALITY DURING DRILLING (SONIC DRILLING):

DEPTH (ft. bgl)

CONDUCTIVITY (μmho/cm)

SO4 (mg/L)

pH TEMP. (°F)

FLOW RATE (gpm)

COMMENTS/ CALIBRATION

208 4,620

5820 6.35 16.0

NA

Elevated temp probably from drilling friction

238 3,320

2200 6.85 14.7

NA

258 1,120

259 7.03 11.7

NA

278 2,480

1020 7.04 13.0

NA

298 4,710

2290 6.61 12.8

NA

323 3,930 1760 7.11 14.3

NA

WATER QUALITY AFTER WELL DEVELOPMENT:

WELL DATE

pH

Cond. (μmho/cm)

SO42-

(mg/L) Cl

(mg/L) T.D.S. (mg/L)

Cu (ug/L)

EPG2785A 11/21/07 6.40 4820 2820 156 4790 28 EPG2785B 11/21/07 6.33 4410 2260 325 4140 < 20

BOREHOLE LITHOLOGY:

0’ – 7.5’: SITE FILL 7.5’ - 10’: SILT WITH SAND 10’ - 38’: SAND 38’ - 40’: CLAY WITH SILT 40' - 50': GRAVEL WITH SAND 50' - 65': SAND, FINE GRAINED 65' - 90': GRAVEL WITH SAND 90' - 101': SAND, FINE GRAINED 101' - 130': GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT 130' - 140': SILT WITH SOME CLAY 140' - 210': GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND 210' - 246': SILT WITH SAND AND SOME GRAVEL 246' - 253': SAND WITH GRAVEL 253' - 292': SILT WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL 292' - 305': GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT/CLAY 305' - 320': SILT WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL



APPENDIX C Water Chemistry Data 2007

Table C-1 Water Quality Data 2007pH Cond Temp DTW TDS Ca-T Mg-T Na-T K-T SO4 Cl-T F Alk Ag Acidity Al-D As-D Ba-D Cd-D Cr-D Cu-D Fe-D Pb-D Mn-D Hg-T Ni-D Se-D (DRC) Zn-D

WELL DATE * uS/cm *Degrees C *Feet mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

B1G1120A 06/04/07 3.60 8500 16 341.88 12100 420 1410 118 11.0 8320 218 No Data <10 No Data No Data 260 0.013 No Data 0.886 0.012 13.5 0.85 <0.005 206 0.0018 8.36 0.018 32.1B1G1120B 06/04/07 6.70 8170 16 340.77 11500 506 1470 239 8.2 7890 150 No Data 409 No Data No Data 0.096 0.006 No Data 0.002 <0.02 0.031 <0.02 <0.005 9.84 0.048 0.124 0.006 0.038B1G951 01/29/07 3.59 11910 13 63.18 18500 456 2060 130 5.0 12700 205 No Data <10 No Data 5000 759 0.013 No Data 0.376 0.03 54.4 131 <0.005 155 <0.0002 7.77 0.011 65.4B2G1157A 02/08/07 7.02 3410 13 No Data 3380 584 168 85 4.3 2000 149 No Data 234 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.013B2G1157A 04/23/07 6.79 3580 12 432.97 3510 642 187 91 5.1 2130 154 No Data 240 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.004 0.023B2G1157A 07/13/07 6.73 3760 16 436.90 3550 650 187 92 4.8 2150 146 No Data 237 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.004 0.02B2G1157A 11/28/07 6.73 3520 10 430.91 3280 625 184 101 5.1 2180 159 No Data 231 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.019 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01B2G1157B 02/08/07 7.02 6850 14 437.05 8750 439 1250 90 6.4 5960 146 No Data 393 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 0.0014 <0.040 0.004 0.022B2G1157B 04/23/07 6.76 7560 13 436.08 9040 457 1310 97 6.6 6220 151 No Data 394 <0.001 No Data <0.02 0.007 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.005 0.031B2G1157B 07/12/07 6.53 6890 15 439.15 9260 404 1680 104 6.0 6240 143 No Data 389 <0.001 No Data 381 0.021 <0.01 0.669 <0.02 167 24 0.024 161 0.0019 7.66 0.022 34.2B2G1157B 11/28/07 6.63 8010 12 433.30 8870 480 1400 100 6.7 6530 149 No Data 399 <0.001 No Data <0.02 0.007 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 0.023 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 0.0018 0.03 0.005 0.038B2G1157C 02/09/07 7.50 1168 14 No Data 785 146 49 36 2.9 328 94 No Data 167 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.097 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 <0.01B2G1157C 04/24/07 7.31 1264 14 436.20 932 163 55 37 3.1 389 98 No Data 168 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.103 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01B2G1157C 07/13/07 7.22 1205 17 439.78 796 147 47 36 2.7 331 92 No Data 169 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.093 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01B2G1157C 11/29/07 7.05 2310 13 433.94 1850 349 111 56 4.2 1090 142 No Data 187 <0.001 No Data <0.02 0.016 0.052 <0.001 <0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01B2G1176A 12/18/07 3.94 5200 13 No Data 5680 458 681 92 9.7 3690 142 No Data <10 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.02 No Data No Data 0.0027 No Data 0.006 No DataB2G1176B 05/03/07 6.97 3640 13 409.55 3890 742 206 92 4.8 2230 153 No Data 275 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.006 <0.01B2G1176B 12/14/07 6.73 3690 12 348.36 3810 744 220 99 5.3 2410 149 No Data 268 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.02 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.005 No DataB2G1193 01/12/07 6.72 3240 14 390.63 3020 454 235 80 4.4 1760 183 0.2 213 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.222 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.024B2G1193 05/29/07 6.86 3480 16 452.30 3110 448 231 75 4.0 1970 186 0.2 217 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.104 <0.005 0.021 No Data <0.040 0.004 0.07B2G1193 07/12/07 6.66 3230 16 390.63 3290 454 236 73 4.3 2010 179 0.2 215 No Data No Data <0.02 0.008 0.021 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.479 <0.005 0.031 0.0003 0.03 0.004 0.038B2G1193 12/20/07 6.75 3260 14 390.63 3470 505 296 78 5.0 2090 169 0.1 220 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.205 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.003 No DataB2G1194A 12/06/07 7.02 2100 13 373.84 1460 279 84 65 3.7 654 232 No Data 192 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01B2G1194B 12/06/07 6.96 2650 13 373.72 2170 400 124 78 4.5 1280 172 No Data 204 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01B3G1197A 03/22/07 7.54 940 14.5 327.95 582 92 33 38 2.7 174 103 No Data 156 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01B3G1197B 03/22/07 7.52 810 15 327.58 456 74 30 32 3.1 72 119 No Data 156 No Data No Data <0.02 0.009 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.089 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01BFG1156B 09/20/07 7.06 3230 15 422.55 2850 531 157 85 4.2 1620 178 No Data 205 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01BFG1156C 09/18/07 6.99 2710 15 422.65 2120 410 124 85 3.9 1170 232 No Data 209 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.035 0.004 <0.01BFG1156D 02/09/07 7.30 1982 14 No Data 1600 296 90 57 3.6 964 127 No Data 152 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data No Data No DataBFG1168A 09/25/07 7.28 1660 15 456.75 1120 211 56 56 2.9 464 151 No Data 218 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.018 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 <0.01BFG1168B 09/25/07 6.99 2670 14 455.95 2070 382 109 67 3.7 1100 210 No Data 185 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.004 <0.01BFG1195A 12/12/07 6.94 3030 13 436.80 2720 520 149 91 4.3 1550 184 No Data 227 No Data No Data <0.02 0.008 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01BFG1195B 12/12/07 7.05 2840 13 437.42 2480 482 136 80 4.1 1430 178 No Data 200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.02 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.004 No DataBFG1198A 06/06/07 7.02 2400 14 410.85 1800 315 91 86 3.8 801 273 No Data 165 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01BFG1200 01/12/07 7.02 2090 14 No Data 1600 290 92 63 3.5 830 168 0.1 197 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 0.028 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.052 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 0.012BFG1200 02/20/07 7.23 2110 14 No Data 1580 286 91 61 3.8 880 173 0.1 201 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.028 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.042 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.044BFG1200 04/10/07 7.16 2040 15 No Data 1560 264 84 57 3.5 709 170 0.1 180 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 0.023BFG1200 07/16/07 7.06 2100 17 No Data 1650 280 88 58 3.6 773 165 0.1 177 No Data No Data <0.02 0.007 0.033 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.041 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 0.02BFG1200 12/05/07 7.11 2090 14 No Data 1580 298 91 59 3.8 833 174 0.1 179 No Data No Data <0.02 0.007 0.032 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 0.013BRG287 03/21/07 6.93 3780 13 280.45 2740 516 135 130 10.0 750 654 No Data 424 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.044 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.007 <0.01BRG287 12/19/07 6.99 3470 11 284.86 2720 520 135 120 10.0 806 624 No Data 319 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.006 No DataBRG921 04/27/07 6.86 2430 14 307.23 1890 324 85 112 8.6 741 291 No Data 275 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 <0.01 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 <0.01BRG921 11/26/07 6.78 2470 12 295.61 1740 339 88 113 6.0 733 277 No Data 267 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.031 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.014BRG999 06/06/07 6.93 1825 13 241.45 1290 235 63 66 7.1 466 209 No Data 216 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.007 0.039 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01BRG999 11/26/07 6.67 1703 12 243.52 1240 253 65 68 7.1 489 207 No Data 212 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.039 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.014BSG1119B 01/15/07 4.63 8470 11 449.57 9930 402 1420 93 10.0 7440 162 No Data 7 No Data No Data 48.6 0.009 No Data 0.77 <0.02 0.064 <0.02 0.006 160 0.0047 6.56 0.006 1.34BSG1119B 05/31/07 4.49 7200 16 389.00 9910 416 1450 92 9.5 6620 164 No Data 9 No Data No Data 48.7 0.01 No Data 0.74 <0.02 0.081 <0.02 0.006 154 0.0054 6.31 0.007 1.53BSG1119B 10/08/07 4.65 7410 14 454.95 9590 439 1410 89 6.6 7030 161 No Data <10 No Data No Data 49 0.01 No Data 0.77 <0.02 0.075 <0.02 0.007 149 0.0052 6.34 0.005 1.66BSG1125B 01/02/07 7.06 1522 13 324.85 1060 184 52 52 2.6 131 334 No Data 143 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.006 0.011BSG1125C 01/03/07 7.27 825 14 326.63 486 95 29 41 2.2 45 123 No Data 207 No Data No Data 0.071 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 0.033BSG1130A 10/09/07 6.94 1889 15 354.00 1320 271 71 60 4.2 525 222 No Data 227 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01BSG1130B 10/09/07 7.12 1310 15 357.42 768 142 47 47 3.4 157 211 No Data 181 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.015 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01BSG1132A 01/17/07 6.99 2300 12 367.77 1720 288 89 72 3.5 793 251 No Data 203 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 <0.01BSG1132A 04/03/07 7.10 2080 13 367.55 1680 310 97 79 3.6 735 226 No Data 198 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 0.025 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01BSG1132A 08/24/07 7.05 2330 18 372.72 1760 307 93 77 3.6 747 246 No Data 203 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01BSG1132A 10/04/07 6.92 2100 15 374.28 1740 307 95 76 3.5 750 242 No Data 197 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.006 <0.01BSG1132B 01/16/07 6.91 3210 12 369.12 2990 518 165 73 4.5 1810 152 No Data 234 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.008 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 <0.01BSG1132B 04/03/07 7.04 2880 14 368.08 2970 547 176 80 4.8 1770 171 No Data 231 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 <0.01BSG1132B 08/24/07 6.96 3360 18 374.60 3090 546 175 80 4.8 1750 152 No Data 234 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.005 <0.01BSG1132B 10/04/07 6.88 2970 15 376.13 2940 560 186 83 4.9 1750 148 No Data 229 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.005 0.013BSG1133A 01/15/07 6.42 2000 12 405.17 1560 217 117 55 3.5 824 192 No Data 160 No Data No Data 0.023 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 <0.01BSG1133B 01/16/07 6.99 3970 12 405.25 4010 673 238 89 5.5 2620 143 No Data 328 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01BSG1133B 04/02/07 7.11 3580 14 405.27 3960 704 253 95 5.7 2440 158 No Data 310 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01BSG1133B 08/23/07 6.98 4020 18 408.92 3910 696 247 91 5.7 2490 138 No Data 307 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 0.011BSG1133B 10/05/07 6.80 3680 14 410.82 3800 682 258 95 6.1 2470 136 No Data 305 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.037 0.004 0.012BSG1135A 01/25/07 7.37 1803 12 265.30 1220 255 62 51 3.9 334 290 0.1 223 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 <0.01

South Facilities Groundwater2007 Remedial Progress Report

May 2008C-1

pH Cond Temp DTW TDS Ca-T Mg-T Na-T K-T SO4 Cl-T F Alk Ag Acidity Al-D As-D Ba-D Cd-D Cr-D Cu-D Fe-D Pb-D Mn-D Hg-T Ni-D Se-D (DRC) Zn-D


BSG1135A 04/17/07 7.29 1850 14.5 265.93 1250 242 60 50 3.6 337 287 0.1 226 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 <0.01BSG1135A 07/17/07 7.16 1950 17 272.12 1340 245 63 55 3.7 320 281 0.1 222 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.024 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01BSG1135B 09/20/07 7.31 1020 16 271.85 544 104 33 39 2.6 66 147 No Data 201 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.149 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01BSG1137A 06/13/07 7.15 1330 17 350.22 852 160 47 47 2.6 218 191 No Data 178 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01BSG1137A 12/11/07 7.13 1390 13 354.55 814 167 49 46 2.7 550 186 No Data 173 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01BSG1148A 10/31/07 6.72 4180 14 436.95 4350 742 289 117 5.7 2760 164 No Data 346 No Data No Data 0.07 <0.005 No Data 0.01 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 3.01 <0.0002 0.14 0.004 0.044BSG1177A 03/26/07 5.11 4850 14 430.03 5660 455 644 159 5.2 3900 182 No Data 15 No Data No Data 14.4 <0.005 No Data 0.285 <0.02 0.036 <0.02 <0.005 38.39 0.0014 1.86 0.006 3.42BSG1177B 03/27/07 3.64 11980 13 433.71 18300 434 2490 114 6.5 13600 156 No Data <10 No Data No Data 494 0.027 No Data 1.22 <0.02 22.2 0.81 0.009 303 0.008 13 0.013 47BSG1177C 03/28/07 7.31 1650 11 422.76 1430 270 87 42 4.1 677 119 No Data 169 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 0.065BSG1179A 10/10/07 3.73 10230 15 431.60 14400 438 2040 107 14.0 11300 159 No Data <10 No Data No Data 256 0.028 No Data 0.671 0.019 4.71 0.1 0.035 196 0.0055 6.74 0.019 28.7BSG1179B 10/09/07 4.06 6270 15 431.91 7510 479 940 108 12.0 5600 139 No Data <10 No Data No Data 82.8 0.009 No Data 0.285 0.011 0.86 0.039 0.033 58.7 0.013 2.46 0.008 8.7BSG1179C 10/10/07 3.40 13770 15 438.43 24900 442 2590 59 8.2 18200 146 No Data <10 No Data 3480 1120 0.029 No Data 0.586 <0.02 69.7 199 0.006 199 0.0035 11.9 0.018 72.2BSG1180A 02/13/07 6.96 3700 12 404.24 3610 630 207 145 4.5 2160 153 No Data 333 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 0.011BSG1180B 02/12/07 3.87 12260 14 406.67 17300 407 2560 139 14.0 12400 151 No Data <10 No Data 1560 248 0.023 No Data 0.968 <0.02 1.42 0.067 0.025 256 0.033 10.4 0.016 25.7BSG1180C 02/13/07 5.81 6580 13 403.78 8450 457 1220 118 7.6 5800 145 No Data 118 No Data No Data 29.8 <0.005 No Data 0.24 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 111 0.022 3.94 <0.002 0.951BSG1196B 12/05/07 6.32 6390 13 397.28 7210 466 1050 115 6.8 5510 139 No Data 257 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data 0.008 <0.02 0.022 <0.02 <0.005 1.93 0.0023 0.066 0.005 0.039BSG1196C 12/05/07 6.54 5610 13 396.44 6360 650 693 201 6.7 4530 168 No Data 462 No Data No Data 0.208 <0.005 No Data 0.012 <0.02 0.021 <0.02 <0.005 8.17 0.053 0.354 0.006 0.062BSG1201 01/12/07 3.57 10550 13 No Data 14800 477 250 84 4.2 11400 154 68.4 No Data No Data 2910 383 0.018 <0.01 0.654 <0.02 18.9 27 0.022 175 No Data 7.08 0.012 38.3BSG1201 03/21/07 3.45 10590 14 752.00 15200 432 1840 109 11.0 11200 156 69.2 <10 No Data 2480 480 0.016 <0.01 0.7 0.014 25.95 5.07 0.021 198 0.017 9.69 0.011 44BSG1201 05/02/07 3.60 10420 16 No Data 15500 418 1780 106 12.0 10800 155 72.2 <10 No Data 2660 314 0.018 <0.01 0.679 <0.02 18.5 28.1 0.024 170 0.0067 7.99 0.013 36.3BSG1201 07/12/07 3.42 9810 16 No Data 15400 467 1480 97 6.9 11300 151 70.9 <10 <.001 2420 381 0.021 <0.01 0.669 <0.02 16.7 24 0.024 161 0.0067 7.66 0.022 34.2BSG1201 12/05/07 3.43 10340 12 No Data 15000 429 1780 104 11.0 11300 155 74 <10 No Data 2620 534 0.021 <0.01 0.681 <0.02 24.4 29.4 0.021 231 0.007 10.5 0.014 42.9BSG2777A 02/16/07 4.51 15430 13 376.66 25300 414 4190 169 15.0 21400 148 No Data <10 0.01 1020 135 0.065 0.013 1.49 <0.02 0.108 0.367 <0.05 469 No Data 17 0.013 16.5BSG2777A 04/17/07 4.41 16080 14 376.33 25900 451 4480 179 13.0 22500 148 No Data <10 0.011 819 133.06 0.061 0.024 3.2 0.02 0.256 0.347 0.082 468 0.011 18.8 0.01 13BSG2777A 09/10/07 4.52 15430 16 381.00 25400 412 4090 164 9.1 21100 145 No Data <10 0.01 877 131 0.028 0.012 1.33 <0.02 0.12 0.216 <0.05 451 0.01 17.8 0.016 12.1BSG2777A 11/01/07 4.36 15480 13 380.85 25200 405 4080 168 11.0 21600 151 No Data <10 0.01 1050 128 0.028 0.011 1.43 <0.02 0.11 0.377 <0.05 463 0.0077 16.7 0.007 11.9BSG2777B 02/16/07 7.38 1120 13 374.00 694 119 41 40 2.7 233 97 No Data 187 0.01 No Data <0.1 <0.02 0.026 0.01 <0.02 0.015 <0.02 <0.05 0.012 No Data 0.05 <0.002 0.02BSG2777B 04/17/07 7.29 1069 15 373.63 690 123 41 41 2.7 236 100 No Data 182 <0.001 No Data 0.025 <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.037 No Data <0.040 <0.002 0.012BSG2777B 08/28/07 6.99 1130 18 378.40 700 118 39 39 2.4 229 99 No Data 182 0.01 No Data 0.12 0.025 0.025 0.011 0.02 0.035 <0.02 0.055 0.07 No Data 0.08 <0.002 0.03BSG2777B 11/01/07 7.37 1058 13 378.58 676 114 38 38 2.6 230 103 No Data 185 0.01 No Data 0.139 0.025 0.027 0.011 0.02 0.035 <0.02 0.055 0.092 <0.0002 0.08 <0.002 0.032BSG2778A 02/07/07 7.01 3760 14 364.33 4090 720 228 101 5.7 2420 127 No Data 285 0.01 No Data 0.12 0.025 0.029 0.011 0.02 0.035 <0.02 0.055 0.069 0.0014 0.09 0.005 0.03BSG2778A 04/16/07 6.90 4140 14 365.23 4190 755 245 107 6.1 2530 131 No Data 278 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.025 No Data <0.040 0.005 <0.01BSG2778B 02/14/07 7.71 918 13 356.57 603 94 33 45 3.8 240 66 No Data 144 0.01 No Data 0.12 0.025 0.138 0.011 0.02 0.035 <0.02 0.055 0.025 No Data 0.09 <0.002 0.03BSG2778B 04/16/07 7.54 985 14 367.39 640 105 36 46 3.9 255 72 No Data 140 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01BSG2779A 05/09/07 6.71 4330 15 411.70 4360 590 365 100 6.4 2600 189 No Data 213 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.086 No Data <0.040 0.005 0.014BSG2779A 09/12/07 6.71 4070 16 417.30 4440 609 422 96 5.7 2860 182 No Data 204 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.052 <0.0002 0.033 0.004 0.015BSG2779A 12/10/07 6.55 4470 12 412.39 4430 594 417 87 5.8 2790 177 No Data 197 No Data No Data <0.02 0.009 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.087 <0.005 0.05 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 0.016BSG2779B 03/15/07 7.18 3160 14 412.01 3330 628 191 85 4.9 1920 163 No Data 256 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.042 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 <0.01BSG2779B 05/10/07 6.98 3490 15 412.33 3380 623 186 83 4.8 2000 148 No Data 269 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.004 <0.01BSG2779B 08/30/07 6.87 3670 18 417.70 3450 631 197 92 5.0 2110 146 No Data 253 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.031 0.004 <0.01BSG2779B 12/11/07 6.94 3490 13 414.42 3310 641 201 79 5.2 2130 134 No Data 230 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 0.012BSG2779C 03/16/07 7.58 689 15 416.17 408 65 26 28 2.4 53 94 No Data 158 No Data No Data 0.028 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01BSG2779C 05/09/07 7.45 716 15 417.12 404 67 26 28 3.0 49 96 No Data 157 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01BSG2779C 08/30/07 7.27 727 18 424.00 418 66 25 29 2.1 52 92 No Data 159 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01BSG2779C 12/10/07 7.32 758 12 415.98 396 69 27 28 2.7 58 91 No Data 153 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01BSG2782A 03/06/07 3.61 18520 13 404.68 4490 420 3990 71 22.0 30800 169 180 <10 No Data 11000 1690 0.069 No Data 1.91 0.02 26.6 1.61 0.052 566 0.0093 23.6 0.064 155BSG2782A 06/20/07 3.50 19221 19 421.20 10000 435 1400 123 13.0 11100 142 33 <10 No Data 381 70.7 0.013 No Data 0.793 0.017 0.089 0.254 0.024 148 0.0071 5.98 0.017 8.05BSG2782A 08/16/07 3.48 19300 18 409.62 38300 427 4030 70 25.0 34400 166 180 <10 No Data 9540 1690 0.071 No Data 1.77 0.024 28.7 1 0.07 551 0.0085 24.2 0.056 157BSG2782A 11/12/07 3.43 18930 14 409.64 38100 424 3930 63 23.0 30400 166 212 <10 No Data 10500 1750 0.17 No Data 1.75 No Data 29.8 0.103 No Data 524 0.009 23.1 0.032 145BSG2782B 03/06/07 4.39 7420 13 402.22 9250 403 1200 106 12.0 6440 139 29.2 <10 No Data 464 52.5 0.012 No Data 0.738 <0.02 0.091 0.252 0.023 120 0.0064 4.83 0.015 6.98BSG2782B 06/20/07 4.37 8130 19 422.00 38700 460 4340 75 23.0 34000 165 185 <10 No Data 9690 2010 0.065 No Data 1.88 0.022 32.1 1.1 0.057 652 0.0086 27.7 0.048 167BSG2782B 08/16/07 4.45 8340 22 408.05 10300 431 1450 125 12.0 7010 145 30 <10 No Data 400 53.5 0.013 No Data 0.7 <0.02 0.081 0.21 0.026 122 0.011 5.09 0.015 6.54BSG2782B 11/12/07 4.34 8200 14 406.43 10300 424 1440 113 12.0 7310 146 33 <10 No Data 444 57.1 0.014 No Data 0.655 <0.02 0.086 0.143 0.026 117 0.012 4.73 0.012 6.87BSG2782C 03/07/07 3.78 19660 14 410.38 36500 400 4720 100 21.0 23800 162 230 <10 No Data 7160 983 0.065 No Data 2.57 0.015 3.29 2.16 0.028 740 0.016 30.8 0.066 114BSG2782C 06/21/07 3.60 19280 19 414.54 36400 447 5140 127 18.0 23600 158 233 <10 No Data 4720 948 0.053 No Data 2.83 0.018 2.93 1.12 0.024 874 0.018 36.9 0.05 94.9BSG2782C 08/28/07 3.82 20400 17 415.10 35200 426 5130 127 16.0 30600 152 245 <10 No Data 3610 617 0.052 No Data 2.28 0.018 1.73 0.505 0.024 754 0.02 32 0.071 58.7BSG2782C 11/02/07 3.75 18480 13 414.44 34500 422 4880 119 17.0 27900 157 246 <10 No Data 4520 619 0.051 No Data 2.26 0.014 2.17 0.467 0.044 735 0.02 32 0.044 72.3BSG2783A 03/15/07 7.24 1456 14 354.31 1020 202 57 48 3.5 387 197 0.1 165 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01BSG2783A 04/30/07 7.14 1772 16 355.97 1230 226 61 50 3.5 508 179 0.1 169 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01BSG2783A 08/28/07 7.04 1880 17 358.88 1320 252 69 52 3.5 594 181 0.2 168 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.005 <0.01BSG2783A 12/03/07 7.07 1910 11 358.94 1420 271 71 52 4.0 617 186 0.1 167 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01BSG2783B 01/05/07 3.75 15180 12 359.72 23100 428 2780 120 18.0 16400 157 178 <10 No Data No Data 361 0.046 No Data 1.64 <0.02 0.221 0.904 0.026 425 No Data 18.76 0.035 42.5BSG2783B 05/01/07 3.96 14400 17 359.47 23600 458 3420 104 20.0 16400 158 171 <10 No Data No Data 319 0.048 No Data 1.61 <0.02 0.244 1.29 0.031 401 0.0064 17.7 0.075 46.4BSG2783B 08/30/07 3.76 14850 17 362.30 23000 413 3080 97 12.0 19900 156 165 No Data No Data No Data 392 0.05 No Data 1.65 0.012 0.29 0.85 0.035 392 0.0065 17.3 0.07 44.9BSG2783B 09/06/07 3.90 14160 16 362.93 23000 440 3210 92 13.0 16800 153 162 <10 No Data No Data 404 0.049 No Data 1.62 <0.02 0.281 0.528 0.033 393 0.0084 17.3 0.081 45.8BSG2783B 12/04/07 3.61 13950 13 362.40 22300 462 3280 99 18.0 17000 157 159 <10 No Data No Data 410 0.053 No Data 1.54 0.011 0.295 0.605 0.032 414 0.0063 17.7 0.045 41.8BSG2783C 03/13/07 7.38 1664 16 352.62 1390 251 77 50 3.5 692 111 0.1 214 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.019 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01BSG2783C 04/30/07 7.30 1855 16 354.97 1380 258 76 51 3.4 678 110 0.1 213 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01BSG2783C 08/28/07 7.18 1690 18 358.41 1240 221 67 48 2.9 573 105 0.2 213 No Data No Data 0.04 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01BSG2783C 12/03/07 7.17 1613 13 357.87 1140 221 64 45 3.3 535 108 0.1 205 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01


May 2008C-2



BSG2784 05/18/07 3.51 10730 15 No Data 17000 445 2020 69 14.0 11100 158 96.3 <10 <0.001 3280 500 0.028 0.012 0.87 <0.02 13.8 2.1 0.046 243 0.005 10.4 0.024 54.9COG1149A 01/22/07 7.18 1365 11 127.58 880 151 51 30 3.3 25 326 No Data 155 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.196 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01COG1149A 04/16/07 7.18 1420 13 127.60 920 150 49 29 3.1 23 338 No Data 149 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.2 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01COG1149A 08/15/07 7.03 1470 15 127.87 954 149 51 31 3.5 15 296 No Data 153 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.212 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01COG1149A 11/07/07 7.25 1348 13 128.12 894 148 50 31 3.3 23 328 No Data 153 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.202 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01COG1149B 01/22/07 7.29 814 12 149.34 530 84 32 15 4.5 10 149 No Data 162 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.269 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01COG1149B 04/16/07 7.34 830 15.5 149.13 526 85 32 15 4.7 8 153 No Data 161 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.271 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01COG1149B 08/15/07 7.20 850 15.5 150.32 564 85 32 15 4.7 7 158 No Data 162 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.007 0.284 <0.001 0.014 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01COG1149B 11/07/07 7.43 806 13 150.88 542 86 31 15 4.6 9 149 No Data 164 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.278 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01COG1152A 08/07/07 5.68 5410 15 208.00 4980 550 464 213 6.2 2790 552 No Data 100 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data 0.012 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 20 <0.0002 0.268 0.007 0.033COG1175A 10/23/07 3.82 4140 14 399.97 3800 556 302 79 5.1 2440 329 No Data <10 No Data No Data 25.8 <0.005 No Data 0.062 <0.02 3.04 <0.02 0.008 6.52 0.0004 0.174 0.004 2.39COG1175B 10/23/07 3.61 6520 14 400.56 8030 437 949 90 10.0 5760 175 No Data <10 No Data No Data 94.5 0.015 No Data 0.578 <0.02 10.6 0.073 0.028 144 0.0019 5.82 0.011 22.9COG1178A 02/21/07 7.08 2470 13 344.15 1630 272 79 69 3.7 315 509 0.1 147 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 0.032 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.005 <0.01COG1178A 04/12/07 7.10 2400 13 344.67 1660 286 92 74 4.3 310 525 0.1 135 No Data No Data <0.02 0.007 0.033 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01COG1178A 07/10/07 6.97 2160 17 355.02 1500 293 91 73 4.4 275 508 0.1 143 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.035 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.006 <0.01COG1178A 10/23/07 6.96 2300 14 347.60 1650 282 91 72 4.1 307 535 0.1 144 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.034 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.005 0.011COG1178A 01/02/08 7.23 2120 12 348.10 1640 273 86 71 4.3 No Data 494 No Data 147 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.02 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data No Data No DataCOG1178B 03/23/07 7.24 2230 13 344.20 1540 252 82 69 4.2 333 457 No Data 154 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 0.032 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.005 <0.01ECG1113A 08/31/07 6.91 2580 16 94.20 2030 418 95 64 4.8 997 164 No Data 290 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG1114A 09/19/07 7.25 1020 17 41.32 616 85 32 63 13.0 38 189 No Data 170 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.239 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.012ECG1114B 09/20/07 7.31 443 17 388.58 236 45 15 14 2.5 24 45 No Data 121 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.01 0.215 <0.001 <0.02 0.071 0.027 <0.005 0.02 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.016ECG1115A 02/20/07 3.41 20400 11 420.15 44400 458 4630 59 7.5 37600 196 No Data <10 No Data No Data 2200 0.044 No Data 0.643 0.056 117 589 <0.005 280 0.001 20.3 0.025 124ECG1115B 02/20/07 4.81 18550 13 424.02 36600 436 5920 153 18.0 31600 155 No Data <10 No Data No Data 203.5 0.032 No Data 0.585 <0.02 0.145 0.06 <0.005 858 0.035 34.4 0.018 7.62ECG1115C 06/06/07 3.40 21800 14 428.38 46800 473 5970 96 37.0 36000 160 No Data <10 No Data No Data 1390 0.1 No Data 1.77 0.03 77.1 0.692 0.015 1000 0.014 38.2 0.068 163ECG1115D 06/05/07 7.42 598 16 404.33 378 50 20 32 6.8 42 68 No Data 151 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 0.013 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01ECG1116B 09/04/07 6.94 3490 15 393.35 3100 586 153 70 18.0 1640 223 No Data 204 <0.001 No Data <0.1 <0.005 0.039 <0.001 <0.02 0.015 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 No Data 0.004 0.02ECG1117A 10/03/07 3.59 10420 16 405.50 15700 451 1960 119 2.4 12200 144 No Data <10 No Data 2670 392 0.014 No Data 0.632 0.024 24.8 54 <0.005 250 0.019 9.07 0.012 33.8ECG1117B 10/03/07 6.76 4141 16 396.33 4350 798 283 81 9.8 2680 141 No Data 449 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 0.025 0.035 0.008 0.013ECG1118A 05/02/07 3.58 9850 17 406.00 14600 425 1530 109 6.7 9950 185 No Data <10 No Data 3110 369 0.016 No Data 0.597 <0.02 30.5 63.3 <0.005 188 0.0027 8.52 0.013 43.2ECG1118B 05/02/07 7.24 1706 17 399.97 1340 213 72 48 8.0 711 68 No Data 147 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1121A 10/05/07 3.51 1160 14 425.08 17600 430 2020 118 6.6 13600 178 No Data <10 No Data 3490 561 0.021 No Data 0.869 <0.02 34.7 23.8 <0.005 276 0.0056 11.5 0.019 55.5ECG1121B 10/05/07 6.79 3890 14 423.47 4080 772 243 93 8.4 2650 142 No Data 307 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.016 0.014 <0.040 0.006 0.014ECG1124B 10/24/07 5.44 2680 16 383.68 2550 271 243 49 3.8 1720 53 No Data 29 No Data No Data 2.76 <0.005 No Data 0.035 <0.02 0.989 2.51 <0.005 20.5 0.0012 1.62 0.043 2.99ECG1124C 10/25/07 7.62 486 16 371.56 290 42 12 35 3.9 86 41 No Data 90 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 0.038 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.017 <0.01ECG1128A 10/11/07 3.78 8900 14 344.57 11000 398 1260 69 12.0 7950 221 No Data <10 No Data No Data 215 0.016 No Data 1.08 <0.02 6.57 0.05 0.08 209 0.0056 7.53 0.013 49.2ECG1128B 10/11/07 7.20 933 14 334.29 526 93 31 31 3.2 104 117 No Data 149 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.033 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.019ECG1131A 05/02/07 6.70 3460 14 308.08 2710 545 158 75 4.5 1160 535 No Data 206 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.007 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.012ECG1144A 04/04/07 3.55 8230 15 400.40 11200 445 1230 85 5.7 7300 197 No Data <10 No Data No Data 366 0.01 No Data 0.289 <0.02 25.2 68.4 <0.005 98.9 <0.0002 5.3 0.008 27.9ECG1144B 04/12/07 4.50 5760 13 368.82 6760 400 792 34 9.6 4950 79 No Data <10 No Data 570 86.4 0.007 No Data 0.295 <0.02 13.1 1.3 <0.005 148 0.0046 5.11 0.007 18.9ECG1144C 04/04/07 7.22 1521 15 361.92 1240 226 82 37 7.2 707 88 No Data 156 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1145A 10/31/07 3.71 8410 13 392.57 10500 430 1280 85 14.0 7770 168 No Data <10 No Data 915 207 0.013 No Data 1.11 <0.02 17.5 0.091 0.09 225 0.0052 9.19 0.009 47.6ECG1145B 10/30/07 5.81 5480 16 391.55 6560 527 842 79 11.0 4640 143 No Data 246 No Data 211 10.7 <0.005 No Data 0.129 <0.02 0.509 0.038 <0.005 94.1 0.0027 2.34 0.027 4.45ECG1145C 10/26/07 6.84 3430 14 379.96 3240 589 212 58 8.4 1870 131 No Data 354 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 0.0049 0.03 0.005 0.022ECG1146 05/31/07 3.47 15260 16 411.10 27000 400 2760 67 10.0 19500 169 123 <10 No Data 7140 970 0.033 <0.01 0.76 <0.02 63.66 187 <0.005 303 0.0089 14.7 0.028 80.6ECG1146 07/16/07 3.37 14950 18 No Data 27200 414 3040 79 12.0 19900 174 122 <10 No Data 6140 997 0.09 0.017 0.77 <0.02 78.9 175 <0.05 311 0.008 14.8 0.05 98.3ECG1146 12/07/07 3.19 14620 14 264.00 25600 431 2800 74 11.0 18000 170 132 <10 No Data 6480 1010 0.038 No Data 0.812 <0.02 66.9 158 <0.005 314 <0.0002 16 0.023 83.7ECG1182A 09/21/07 7.97 730 20 88.62 386 16 5.5 120 1.8 56 65 No Data 185 No Data No Data 0.24 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.048 <0.005 0.029 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.02ECG1182B 09/21/07 7.19 1070 22 40.15 578 101 43 40 2.9 102 119 No Data 240 No Data No Data <0.02 0.009 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.832 <0.005 0.042 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.013ECG1183A 05/29/07 6.77 4050 14 43.85 2820 493 131 214 7.4 881 677 No Data 322 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.005 <0.01ECG1183A 11/19/07 6.71 3460 13 45.08 2490 426 115 185 7.8 641 702 No Data 292 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.004 <0.01ECG1183B 05/29/07 7.17 2270 16.5 33.85 1380 213 76 92 9.0 128 514 No Data 183 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 0.011ECG1183B 11/19/07 7.05 2120 14 34.03 1370 214 73 90 8.9 132 516 No Data 185 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG1184 03/21/07 7.10 1200 11 39.00 848 132 68 56 2.5 272 105 No Data 293 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1184 08/21/07 6.82 1244 12 49.20 924 128 63 49 2.7 308 120 No Data 293 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.025 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01ECG1185 09/20/07 3.82 6860 14 144.61 9300 303 897 95 5.1 6280 825 No Data <10 <0.001 2070 310.3 0.012 <0.01 0.194 0.016 159 0.109 0.18 44.7 <0.0002 3.54 0.013 38.5ECG1186 02/01/07 6.88 1970 11 45.55 1420 232 56 109 5.1 361 367 No Data 188 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1186 05/24/07 7.05 2160 14 45.90 1460 229 55 107 4.0 365 372 No Data 190 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1186 07/25/07 6.68 2140 15 45.93 1490 247 58 117 3.9 372 379 No Data 188 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.033 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 5 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 10ECG1186 11/26/07 6.80 2130 11 46.43 1330 242 57 115 4.2 366 366 No Data 186 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.031 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG1187 01/19/07 6.87 1946 12 63.58 1330 219 56 65 4.4 115 493 0.2 158 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.123 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 02/14/07 7.03 2090 12 63.61 1320 230 59 68 4.4 129 476 0.2 160 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.136 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 03/13/07 6.88 2090 13 63.50 1300 226 59 69 4.5 125 505 0.2 158 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.132 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/03/07 7.14 2050 13 63.70 1280 231 58 67 4.3 123 547 0.2 158 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.135 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/09/07 6.96 1930 12 43.66 1310 223 58 68 4.5 123 504 0.2 159 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.127 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/09/07 7.05 1827 13 43.66 1310 218 58 64 4.4 119 485 0.2 159 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.124 <0.001 <0.02 0.022 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/10/07 7.12 1868 10 65.77 1300 216 56 69 4.3 115 500 0.2 152 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.133 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/11/07 6.93 2090 11 65.80 1320 239 63 79 4.7 125 513 0.2 149 <0.001 No Data <0.02 0.006 0.133 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/12/07 6.95 2080 11 65.69 1420 226 59 74 4.4 119 510 0.2 150 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.13 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/13/07 6.93 2090 11 66.02 1500 228 59 74 4.4 117 502 0.2 150 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.131 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 04/13/07 7.08 2050 11 66.02 1470 233 61 77 4.6 124 503 No Data 152 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.135 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01


May 2008C-3



ECG1187 05/03/07 6.67 2020 13 63.60 1260 232 59 69 4.7 102 506 2 157 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.125 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 0.016ECG1187 06/04/07 7.02 2130 15 63.71 1250 232 60 70 4.6 130 492 0.2 160 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.131 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 07/05/07 6.95 2130 15.5 63.80 1490 246 62 70 4.7 128 498 0.2 155 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.132 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 08/09/07 6.96 2180 15 63.82 1420 227 58 68 4.6 128 506 0.2 162 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.137 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 09/06/07 6.96 2120 15 63.95 1410 236 62 72 4.4 133 496 0.2 157 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.136 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01ECG1187 10/26/07 7.00 2090 13 64.00 1350 240 62 72 4.4 142 495 0.2 155 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.139 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG1187 11/16/07 7.14 2120 14 59.71 1320 244 61 70 4.9 147 494 0.2 158 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No DataECG1187 12/05/07 7.08 2210 12.5 56.10 1280 252 63 74 4.8 151 497 0.2 153 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.143 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.103 No Data 0.03 0.003 0.015ECG1188 02/01/07 7.04 4020 11 45.10 3470 610 129 223 5.8 1600 474 0.2 289 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.025 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.036 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1188 05/24/07 6.84 4240 14 45.41 3600 611 131 226 6.0 1600 491 0.2 300 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1188 07/25/07 6.86 4220 15 45.46 3540 647 137 240 6.2 1630 492 0.2 283 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.032 <0.002 <0.01ECG1188 10/05/07 7.05 4200 14 36.35 3540 645 142 237 6.2 1720 469 0.2 277 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.036 <0.002 <0.01ECG1189 02/01/07 7.24 920 12 225.30 582 93 29 27 4.3 13 207 0.2 129 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.326 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1189 05/23/07 7.26 954 13 226.03 622 94 29 27 4.0 8 216 0.2 132 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.327 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1189 07/26/07 7.29 1126 16 225.66 568 106 32 30 4.5 9 213 0.2 128 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.344 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG1189 10/05/07 7.44 950 14.5 226.36 682 101 32 29 4.6 12 210 0.2 134 <0.001 No Data <0.02 0.017 0.351 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 0.012ECG1190 01/31/07 6.99 1390 13 132.46 853 158 43 26 2.8 54 291 No Data 157 <0.001 No Data 0.082 <0.005 0.169 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.016 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1190 05/23/07 7.12 1289 13 133.00 890 147 40 25 2.5 47 300 No Data 158 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.163 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG1190 07/26/07 7.06 1420 16 133.20 782 161 45 29 2.9 49 298 No Data 158 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.17 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG1190 10/05/07 7.30 1310 13.5 133.36 924 162 44 27 2.8 55 290 No Data 157 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.167 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG1203 12/07/07 3.80 8830 15 150.00 13600 431 1240 90 3.9 9300 139 No Data <10 <0.001 No Data 496 0.012 <0.01 0.216 0.02 207 0.543 <0.005 65.2 No Data 4.9 0.011 50.1ECG299 06/15/07 6.00 2530 16 161.85 1940 229 147 124 8.0 912 252 No Data 75 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.015 0.004 <0.02 0.175 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.291ECG299 11/26/07 5.76 2680 10 163.42 2150 262 181 133 8.9 1240 228 No Data 63 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.012 0.005 <0.02 0.202 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.36ECG900 01/30/07 7.01 1829 12 156.76 1220 221 63 71 4.8 260 307 No Data 234 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.068 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG902 05/25/07 6.90 1542 14 177.73 1080 186 55 78 5.1 256 248 No Data 222 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.084 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.021ECG902 11/27/07 6.92 1616 12 176.95 980 196 55 82 5.2 271 249 No Data 216 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.084 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG905 05/29/07 6.17 2350 14 209.04 2130 400 94 84 7.3 1130 123 No Data 179 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 0.012ECG905 11/27/07 6.06 2420 10 213.35 2120 408 96 89 7.5 1200 129 No Data 178 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.011ECG906 01/10/07 6.95 4480 12 107.40 3960 714 168 286 11.0 2080 394 No Data 446 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG906 09/10/07 7.08 4730 15 108.51 3990 717 169 284 11.0 2140 397 No Data 443 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.025 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG907 01/19/07 6.97 2470 12 107.58 1660 290 67 62 6.4 225 542 No Data 223 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.126 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 02/14/07 7.04 2450 12.5 107.77 1600 299 69 63 6.3 213 527 No Data 225 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.138 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 03/13/07 6.93 2460 14.5 107.70 1610 300 69 64 6.4 210 557 No Data 223 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.134 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 04/03/07 7.14 2400 14 107.85 1580 308 71 67 6.5 211 613 No Data 222 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.134 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 05/03/07 6.80 2360 13 107.82 1540 303 68 64 6.5 203 549 No Data 223 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.121 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 06/04/07 7.05 2490 16 107.95 1490 305 72 67 6.7 220 539 No Data 225 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.129 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 07/05/07 7.01 2510 16 108.00 1530 322 73 68 6.9 215 545 No Data 226 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.129 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 08/09/07 6.92 2480 16 108.05 1500 299 72 68 6.9 218 553 No Data 231 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.13 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 09/06/07 7.04 2470 15 108.17 1590 307 73 68 6.3 220 542 No Data 223 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.131 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 10/24/07 6.77 2360 15 108.67 1710 316 74 68 6.2 238 552 No Data 226 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.134 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.004 <0.01ECG907 11/16/07 7.06 2450 15 108.23 1600 313 71 66 6.9 241 612 No Data 226 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.132 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG907 12/05/07 7.19 2560 13 103.31 1620 322 73 67 6.8 250 3535 No Data 226 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.129 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG909 06/29/07 4.15 7490 21 138.20 9340 475 1050 308 13.0 5680 355 No Data <10 <0.001 849 No Data 0.01 0.016 0.039 0.033 3.943 No Data 0.015 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.01 4.487ECG909 08/15/07 3.96 7880 31 139.27 9630 436 1050 286 11.0 6190 363 No Data <10 <0.001 783 No Data 0.018 0.016 0.042 0.034 4.08 No Data 0.008 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.017 4.77ECG916 03/28/07 8.50 1160 8.5 3750.00 662 50 35 135 5.9 144 155 No Data 185 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.016 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG916 08/07/07 7.94 1230 22 20.82 676 48 33 126 5.8 194 140 No Data 182 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.016 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG917 01/30/07 6.86 1835 13 127.72 1130 208 51 82 4.4 139 398 No Data 191 <0.001 No Data 0.025 <0.005 0.124 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG917 04/05/07 6.93 1860 15 126.68 1120 195 50 83 4.4 139 413 No Data 190 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.125 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01ECG917 07/24/07 6.84 1910 15 126.80 1040 185 47 78 4.1 127 397 No Data 193 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.125 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 0.068ECG917 11/15/07 6.92 1920 15 121.85 1130 207 51 88 4.6 139 399 No Data 189 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.127 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG922 06/28/07 6.56 1640 16 111.61 966 172 54 47 2.9 88 340 No Data 183 <0.001 No Data <0.02 5 0.061 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01ECG922 09/10/07 7.25 1670 14.9 109.21 966 172 56 49 2.9 83 341 No Data 185 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.061 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 0.011ECG923 02/20/07 7.31 1660 13.5 103.00 890 121 19 181 3.9 109 329 No Data 211 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.131 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG923 10/02/07 7.30 1750 14.8 104.92 934 127 20 178 4.1 101 308 No Data 210 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.134 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.019ECG924 01/09/07 6.33 5000 12 31.91 4460 593 311 240 12.0 2360 472 No Data 467 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.027 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.079ECG924 04/05/07 6.51 4430 13 31.67 4460 618 325 260 12.0 2350 492 No Data 440 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.027 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.052ECG924 07/20/07 6.44 5360 15.5 32.47 3930 610 319 253 8.1 2260 494 No Data 441 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.028 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.09ECG924 10/03/07 6.50 5490 14 33.98 4590 648 341 263 13.0 2430 507 No Data 431 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.007 0.028 0.003 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.084ECG925 01/09/07 6.52 3800 12 33.88 2870 573 123 239 5.4 931 600 No Data 392 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.004 <0.01ECG925 04/05/07 6.68 3450 13 33.65 2820 520 120 204 5.3 1020 614 No Data 389 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.031 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.004 <0.01ECG925 07/20/07 6.45 3980 17 34.15 2940 486 115 199 5.0 939 599 No Data 390 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.03 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG925 10/03/07 6.74 3870 14.7 36.78 2610 489 121 207 5.7 891 564 No Data 355 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.03 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data 0.007 No Data No Data No Data 0.004 <0.01ECG931 02/26/07 6.83 7410 12.5 50.37 4850 860 201 329 13.0 501 2200 No Data 226 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.081 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.01 <0.01ECG931 05/23/07 6.89 7350 14 50.44 5400 825 190 315 11.0 465 2160 No Data 222 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.08 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.011 <0.01ECG931 08/21/07 6.50 735 15 50.99 4870 881 187 304 13.0 517 2220 No Data 225 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.082 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.012 <0.01ECG932 02/01/07 7.09 1099 11 82.63 675 107 47 28 2.9 131 125 No Data 241 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG932 08/07/07 7.42 1180 17 83.50 678 113 49 30 2.8 141 129 No Data 250 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.03 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01ECG932 08/21/07 7.00 977 15 84.60 652 107 46 28 2.9 142 133 No Data 249 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.033 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.014ECG933 09/20/07 5.89 2120 14 121.85 1950 321 89 114 4.1 1120 162 No Data 69 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data 0.126 No Data 0.052 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 10.36ECG934 05/22/07 6.88 1260 12 117.05 892 156 52 53 3.1 320 94 No Data 284 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.032 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.016


May 2008C-4



ECG934 11/02/07 7.01 1290 12 116.42 894 153 52 55 3.0 333 93 No Data 278 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.033 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.014ECG935 05/23/07 6.83 3490 14 52.55 2840 394 170 182 5.4 1430 215 No Data 404 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG935 11/02/07 7.04 3110 14 53.15 2650 364 159 179 5.6 1400 221 No Data 389 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 <0.01ECG936 05/23/07 6.78 4380 13 42.68 3950 524 269 196 4.3 2160 265 No Data 308 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.015 <0.01 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.018ECG936 10/31/07 6.67 3730 12 42.68 3970 563 287 204 5.0 2450 262 No Data 310 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.014 <0.01 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.026ECG937 05/14/07 6.88 1630 14.5 240.38 1070 190 46 83 2.8 352 167 No Data 272 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.019 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.012ECG937 10/31/07 6.86 1470 14 242.42 1090 198 48 81 2.9 365 168 No Data 267 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.027ECG938 05/14/07 6.99 1321 14 214.32 802 129 46 73 2.5 190 134 No Data 312 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.01 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.013ECG938 10/31/07 6.93 1120 13.4 215.63 794 133 47 71 2.5 212 130 No Data 297 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.009 0.025 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.015EPG1165A 01/24/07 7.01 1286 13 253.73 786 154 48 45 2.7 166 209 0.1 209 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.052 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01EPG1165A 04/13/07 7.23 1325 13 254.03 846 150 46 43 2.7 159 213 0.1 204 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.05 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01EPG1165A 07/09/07 7.08 713 18 255.17 868 150 46 44 2.9 157 205 0.1 204 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.052 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 0.011EPG1165A 11/19/07 7.01 1331 14 256.10 800 153 46 44 3.2 149 208 0.1 208 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.052 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01EPG1166 07/10/07 7.68 793 15.8 245.80 438 62 32 58 3.6 31 124 No Data 162 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.102 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.175EPG1689 07/10/07 6.46 3920 14.1 204.11 3270 499 209 296 7.5 1480 304 No Data 562 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.016 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.14 <0.005 0.012 No Data 0.03 0.007 0.067EPG2780B 09/24/07 7.48 766 16 183.08 422 54 31 50 3.7 55 106 No Data 153 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01EPG2781A 09/21/07 6.11 4570 17 205.17 4390 613 376 131 6.1 2330 327 No Data 564 No Data No Data 0.142 <0.005 No Data 0.021 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 8.35 No Data 0.357 0.006 0.739EPG2781B 09/21/07 6.21 5900 17 208.37 6360 544 808 125 7.8 3560 238 No Data 973 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.217 No Data 0.066 <0.002 0.038EPG2785A 11/21/07 6.40 4820 11 203.61 4790 703 403 175 9.5 2820 156 No Data 759 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.035 <0.001 0.018 0.028 No Data 0.013 No Data No Data No Data 0.006 0.058EPG2785B 11/21/07 6.33 4410 11 196.40 4140 715 259 179 7.8 2260 325 No Data 536 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.034 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.005 0.066HMG1122A 01/23/07 7.15 1529 11 310.90 1120 218 59 45 2.9 430 156 No Data 241 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01HMG1123A 01/24/07 7.17 2270 13 313.88 1640 334 88 74 5.4 704 312 0.1 217 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.005 <0.01HMG1123A 05/31/07 7.29 2450 17 315.16 1710 314 85 74 5.5 651 309 0.1 219 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.028 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.005 <0.01HMG1123A 07/17/07 7.08 2450 17 315.64 1790 328 87 76 5.2 658 304 0.1 211 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.03 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.005 <0.01HMG1123A 11/21/07 7.30 2390 13 315.83 1650 327 84 72 5.7 691 303 0.2 213 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.029 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01HMG1126A 01/23/07 7.11 1691 11 311.36 1280 243 73 61 3.1 547 150 No Data 271 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01HMG1126A 05/14/07 7.07 1753 13 312.97 1310 234 69 61 3.2 521 154 0.1 278 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.04 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.007 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01HMG1126A 07/24/07 7.14 1840 17 314.15 1390 220 65 55 2.6 525 151 0.1 277 No Data No Data No Data 0.009 0.044 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01HMG1134B 06/12/07 7.75 461 17 194.30 268 31 12 40 2.5 18 54 No Data 116 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01LRG910 03/29/07 6.96 2020 12 78.90 1500 280 78 76 3.1 679 180 No Data 165 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.019 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 <0.01LRG910 08/03/07 6.94 2008 15 76.86 1550 270 75 76 3.0 764 161 No Data 166 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.004 0.012LRG911 01/29/07 6.77 2640 12 126.77 2370 453 132 61 9.7 1350 150 No Data 185 <0.001 No Data 0.88 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 0.114 0.185 <0.005 0.241 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.142LRG911 08/03/07 7.02 2906 15.2 122.00 2430 437 123 60 8.9 1440 151 No Data 180 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 0.021 <0.02 <0.005 0.022 No Data 0.013 0.005 0.069LRG912 12/19/07 3.51 5880 13 99.00 6560 447 670 169 8.6 4270 208 No Data <10 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.09 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.009 No DataLTG1139 02/21/07 7.37 870 13 No Data 506 65 24 50 12.0 31 146 0.2 160 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.093 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.094 <0.005 0.099 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 <0.01LTG1139 04/10/07 6.86 840 11 No Data 506 63 24 45 11.0 29 146 No Data 160 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.111 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.062 <0.005 0.033 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 <0.01LTG1139 04/25/07 7.19 885 15 No Data 492 68 25 45 10.0 27 146 0.3 163 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.12 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 <0.01LTG1139 08/14/07 7.06 870 21.5 No Data 566 73 26 43 9.1 27 149 0.3 166 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.136 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01LTG1139 12/17/07 7.32 870 17.5 No Data 500 72 26 47 10.0 28 142 0.3 161 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.065 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 No DataLTG1140A 08/24/07 7.01 2400 17 217.71 1700 301 92 91 8.0 655 269 0.2 230 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.048 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01LTG1140B 08/24/07 7.18 870 17 224.26 512 80 27 36 6.2 34 129 0.3 162 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01LTG1147 01/12/07 7.12 2130 13 No Data 1560 285 77 95 5.3 625 264 0.2 233 No Data No Data 0.149 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.027 No Data <0.040 0.004 0.014LTG1147 02/28/07 7.05 2080 14 No Data 1600 279 73 86 5.0 608 269 0.2 236 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.019LTG1147 04/05/07 7.24 2200 15 No Data 1530 275 72 88 5.0 596 270 0.2 236 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 0.027LTG1167A 05/14/07 7.26 2080 20 201.90 1460 242 78 96 9.8 420 302 No Data 274 No Data No Data No Data 0.03 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.013LTG1191 01/25/07 6.29 4840 14 22.94 4570 547 403 259 7.9 2540 411 No Data 280 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data 0.056 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.017 No Data 0.097 0.006 7.78LTG1191 05/24/07 6.69 5080 14 23.20 5010 520 371 236 7.1 2440 428 No Data 313 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data 0.051 <0.02 0.022 <0.02 <0.005 0.022 No Data 0.098 0.007 7.63LTG1191 08/07/07 6.57 5130 10 23.78 4650 546 402 261 7.6 2570 432 No Data 315 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data 0.055 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.0002 0.105 0.007 7.8LTG1191 10/03/07 6.52 5380 16 25.23 4630 560 399 266 7.9 2730 414 No Data 304 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data 0.054 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.104 0.007 7.97SRG946 01/31/07 3.58 16110 12 118.73 28900 425 3200 236 3.4 23000 163 No Data <10 No Data 6780 993 0.03 No Data 0.688 0.063 104.1 36 <0.005 353 <0.0002 14.4 0.018 101VWK72 01/31/07 7.07 1750 13 215.00 1120 193 53 69 5.6 136 356 0.2 186 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.066 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.049 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01VWK72 04/05/07 7.11 1700 13 144.40 1060 167 47 65 5.2 133 361 0.2 173 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.059 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.076 <0.005 0.02 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01VWK72 07/25/07 7.01 1750 14 215.00 1030 182 51 72 5.3 133 362 0.2 185 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.064 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.003 <0.01VWK72 10/03/07 6.90 1710 13 144.40 1100 181 52 70 5.4 145 351 0.2 184 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.064 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.068 <0.005 0.02 No Data 0.03 0.003 0.027VWP190B 10/12/07 6.99 1531 15 331.48 1000 191 57 48 3.0 283 228 0.1 206 No Data No Data 0.057 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.254 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 0.596VWP192B 03/08/07 7.68 613 15 274.88 342 34 15 72 1.8 39 76 0.2 160 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.104 <0.001 <0.02 0.039 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.079VWP192B 04/20/07 7.62 618 13 274.60 338 33 14 69 1.9 38 74 0.2 156 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.098 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.079VWP192B 07/10/07 7.44 605 17 276.42 348 38 15 76 2.4 36 72 0.2 156 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.108 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.086VWP193B 10/06/07 7.50 604 14 295.55 336 52 23 42 2.5 41 71 No Data 159 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.084 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.185VWP194B 03/15/07 7.44 640 15 239.61 330 52 20 42 2.3 41 81 0.2 159 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.007 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 0.092VWP194B 04/18/07 7.61 630 14 239.43 362 57 21 41 2.3 41 76 0.2 164 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.082 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 0.108VWP194B 07/18/07 7.48 640 19 241.30 388 52 19 39 2.4 38 70 0.2 165 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.089 <0.001 0.012 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.15VWP197B 09/12/07 7.02 2610 16 434.32 2010 373 107 77 3.4 976 259 No Data 203 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.005 <0.01VWP208B 05/18/07 4.81 5890 14 355.88 7070 445 987 90 8.3 4820 163 No Data 20 No Data No Data 7.65 0.007 No Data 0.47 <0.02 0.269 <0.02 0.01 60.1 0.0038 4.84 0.008 30.3VWP209B 05/21/07 6.80 3480 13 424.44 3610 643 189 105 4.6 2090 201 No Data 230 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.004 0.011VWP220 06/19/07 7.04 2510 16 65.95 1700 166 54 330 8.5 616 233 No Data 373 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.015 0.03 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01VWP220 11/12/07 6.95 2440 15 66.63 1630 167 52 281 5.8 575 254 No Data 362 0.003 No Data No Data 0.014 0.031 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01VWP228 02/08/07 6.05 6340 13 24.95 6770 408 852 139 5.5 4360 257 No Data 128 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 <0.01 0.025 <0.02 0.171 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 2.01VWP228 04/10/07 6.03 6420 11 23.49 6750 433 884 144 5.4 4240 285 No Data 120 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 <0.01 0.026 <0.02 0.182 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 1.99VWP228 07/24/07 6.12 6551 16.5 24.95 6670 421 848 139 5.0 4800 299 No Data 125 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.011 0.023 <0.02 0.094 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 1.83


May 2008C-5



VWP228 08/22/07 6.00 6430 15 25.65 7010 466 937 152 5.9 4780 299 No Data 126 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 <0.01 0.024 <0.02 0.133 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 1.86VWP228 10/02/07 6.17 6820 15 26.48 6830 487 969 157 4.8 4650 306 No Data 120 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 <0.01 0.024 <0.02 0.16 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 1.79VWP241B 10/08/07 3.64 8550 14 433.83 12200 463 1530 76 6.9 10000 118 No Data <10 No Data No Data 348 0.013 No Data 0.56 <0.02 16.5 8.68 0.009 170 0.0012 6.98 0.01 33.1VWP241C 03/15/07 7.01 2440 14 335.95 1820 351 94 61 4.9 834 293 No Data 168 No Data No Data 0.028 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01VWP241C 04/17/07 7.13 2380 14.5 236.08 1910 350 96 61 5.0 862 262 No Data 174 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01VWP241C 08/08/07 7.04 2080 17 338.80 1920 346 91 60 5.2 867 265 No Data 177 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.005 <0.01VWP241C 10/08/07 6.96 2420 13 338.79 1960 385 104 61 5.4 916 252 No Data 173 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01VWP242 11/26/07 4.07 5110 12 170.97 4990 533 465 204 9.8 2970 502 No Data <10 No Data No Data No Data 0.007 No Data 0.277 No Data 13.46 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.011 No DataVWP244A 02/20/07 4.04 8610 11 44.10 7690 568 893 427 7.5 4290 1450 No Data <10 No Data 283 33.3 <0.005 No Data 0.118 <0.02 2.56 <0.02 <0.005 43.2 0.0005 1.37 0.007 3.87VWP244A 04/04/07 4.21 8750 17 44.21 7490 549 852 420 6.8 3400 1600 No Data <10 No Data 572 33.8 <0.005 No Data 0.124 0.017 2.72 0.067 <0.005 42.1 <0.0002 1.47 0.006 3.59VWP244A 07/11/07 4.08 8310 24 44.60 8010 557 832 403 7.3 3590 1380 No Data <10 No Data 217 36.34 0.006 No Data 0.135 0.044 2.404 0.172 <0.005 34.76 <0.0002 1.55 0.009 3.52VWP244A 10/12/07 4.10 8720 16.5 47.80 8790 658 868 557 5.5 3580 2260 No Data <10 No Data 262 39.06 0.006 No Data 0.159 0.023 2.46 0.08 <0.005 43.4 0.0005 1.65 0.007 3.74VWP244B 01/19/07 6.57 6680 12 48.13 5460 938 239 328 8.7 1730 1350 No Data 518 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.02 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.043 0.004 0.015VWP244B 02/20/07 6.77 7140 11.5 48.30 5590 1010 269 394 8.6 1840 1510 No Data 497 0.002 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 0.033 No Data 0.016 0.004 0.03VWP244B 03/13/07 6.65 6980 15 48.23 5020 931 236 322 7.7 1740 1400 No Data 516 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.004 0.035VWP244B 04/03/07 6.74 6880 14 48.35 5510 1010 255 358 8.4 1810 1550 No Data 519 0.002 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.011 No Data 0.05 0.004 0.016VWP244B 05/14/07 6.55 7300 14 48.55 5930 1000 249 361 11.0 1730 1460 No Data 516 0.003 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.118 0.012 No Data 0.05 0.005 0.018VWP244B 06/04/07 6.68 6900 16 48.57 5840 1010 258 342 10.0 1810 1430 No Data 529 0.003 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.024 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.012 No Data #NAME? 0.004 0.013VWP244B 07/05/07 6.58 7430 17 48.69 5960 1080 270 378 11.0 1760 1510 No Data 512 0.004 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.022 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.014 No Data 0.057 0.005 0.012VWP244B 08/09/07 6.45 7520 16 49.00 6030 1030 262 371 11.0 1810 1540 No Data 519 0.004 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.013 No Data 0.082 0.004 0.016VWP244B 09/04/07 6.51 747 15 49.20 5890 1040 258 349 4.0 1720 1510 No Data 515 0.005 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.012 No Data 0.045 0.005 0.012VWP244B 10/12/07 6.76 5920 15 49.52 6000 1120 266 368 6.9 1870 1500 No Data 534 0.004 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.024 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.021 No Data 0.057 0.005 0.017VWP244B 11/16/07 6.70 7570 14 No Data 6060 1140 278 407 10.3 1920 1570 No Data 513 0.004 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.024 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.011 No Data 0.033 0.005 0.016VWP244B 12/05/07 6.60 7690 12 No Data 5630 1110 264 349 7.9 1900 1510 No Data 529 0.004 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.024 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.015 No Data 0.046 0.005 0.04VWP244C 06/14/07 6.77 4250 16 52.35 3110 580 135 162 8.8 710 833 No Data 368 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.056 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01VWP244C 10/12/07 7.07 3630 14.2 47.02 3470 649 148 157 8.9 939 841 No Data 403 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.056 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.035 0.003 <0.01VWP248A 03/15/07 3.93 2410 13 86.75 1880 196 160 54 3.7 1090 226 5.2 <10 <0.001 161 23.05 <0.005 <0.01 0.032 <0.02 9.18 <0.02 0.015 6.13 <0.0002 0.439 <0.002 4.23VWP248A 04/12/07 4.12 2370 13 85.88 1890 208 170 58 3.9 1130 205 5.2 <10 <0.001 232 22.93 <0.005 <0.01 0.032 <0.02 8.94 <0.02 0.017 6.46 <0.0002 0.442 <0.002 4.36VWP248A 07/09/07 4.09 2250 16 87.45 1790 172 140 50 3.6 1030 202 4.8 <10 <0.001 239 15.7 <0.005 <0.01 0.028 <0.02 8.018 0.077 0.016 5.4 0.0005 0.44 <0.002 3.784VWP248A 10/03/07 4.14 2240 14 87.11 1720 194 152 55 3.7 1020 198 4.6 <10 <0.001 193 18.5 <0.005 <0.01 0.027 <0.02 7.48 <0.02 0.016 5.17 <0.0002 0.392 <0.002 3.86VWP248B 02/26/07 6.17 3110 10 86.85 2610 389 213 61 9.3 1600 115 No Data 188 <0.001 67 0.262 <0.005 <0.01 0.022 <0.02 0.901 <0.02 <0.005 7.03 <0.0002 0.266 <0.002 2.18VWP248B 07/09/07 5.93 3170 24 87.71 2930 402 224 59 8.8 1700 112 No Data 140 <0.001 100 0.918 <0.005 0.013 0.033 <0.02 1.76 <0.02 <0.005 8.98 <0.0002 0.417 <0.002 3.05VWP248C 02/28/07 6.42 1240 12 82.84 926 151 60 34 3.2 407 124 No Data 125 <0.001 No Data <0.02 0.007 0.017 0.002 <0.02 0.192 <0.02 <0.005 0.054 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 0.235VWP248C 07/09/07 6.34 1340 15 83.56 978 145 57 33 3.3 393 122 No Data 125 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.017 0.002 <0.02 0.164 <0.02 <0.005 0.046 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.171VWP261 12/17/07 6.91 2480 14 72.45 1680 300 75 170 4.7 569 399 No Data 174 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.005 No DataVWP267B 11/21/07 7.11 1739 11 211.03 1110 228 61 54 4.3 251 302 No Data 233 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.058 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 0.018VWP272 06/15/07 7.26 3590 20 60.94 3010 519 142 196 12.0 1350 259 No Data 448 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.024 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.011VWP272 11/26/07 7.36 3720 12 79.32 3140 563 150 191 12.0 1600 266 No Data 456 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.025 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.013VWP273 01/10/07 6.74 3280 13 298.31 2970 566 174 77 4.9 1890 191 No Data 180 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.017 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01VWP277 01/05/07 6.74 3110 13 375.03 2720 498 149 90 4.2 1460 178 No Data 209 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.014 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.182 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.005 <0.01VWP277 07/11/07 6.73 2770 15 376.87 2840 495 150 90 4.2 1530 177 No Data 204 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.016 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.146 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01VWW185 08/23/07 7.27 1349 21 135.00 1010 196 52 51 2.8 391 78 No Data 266 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data 0.038 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.077VWW189 01/10/07 7.19 886 15 No Data 541 86 33 41 2.8 112 117 No Data 168 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.065VWW189 05/25/07 7.36 869 20 No Data 586 87 34 41 3.0 105 121 0.1 169 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.061 <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.134VWW189 07/10/07 7.21 856 21 No Data 586 91 35 42 3.2 100 115 0.1 165 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.062 <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.119VWW189 11/27/07 7.34 927 14 No Data 506 89 34 43 3.0 106 117 0.1 166 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 0.059 <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.077VWW22 03/09/07 7.09 1335 13 No Data 992 171 50 47 4.3 210 166 No Data 304 No Data No Data 0.021 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01VWW22 06/15/07 7.05 1315 15 No Data 916 158 47 49 4.4 186 162 No Data 275 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01VWW22 08/23/07 7.17 1324 15 No Data 906 165 50 49 4.9 214 154 No Data 278 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01VWW22 12/07/07 7.02 1346 13 No Data 868 167 48 46 4.5 210 154 No Data 278 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 <0.002 <0.01VWW27 03/08/07 6.95 2225 13 179.00 1520 233 56 164 5.3 188 445 No Data 325 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data 0.026 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.007 0.138VWW31 02/02/07 7.15 820 10 No Data 568 83 33 26 6.3 32 155 No Data 188 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.185 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 <0.01VWW31 03/20/07 7.07 888 13 315.35 582 86 34 27 6.5 26 154 No Data 187 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.195 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.003 <0.01VWW31 05/07/07 7.36 841 12 No Data 576 80 31 26 6.8 26 153 No Data 188 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.006 0.181 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 0.013VWW31 09/04/07 7.28 994 15 No Data 582 89 33 27 6.7 25 155 No Data 188 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.007 0.204 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.003 <0.01VWW31 11/05/07 7.13 961 11 No Data 578 87 32 26 6.4 29 157 No Data 189 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.204 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 <0.01VWW363 06/22/07 7.45 1000 17.7 184.00 612 107 38 44 3.6 122 148 No Data 161 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.018VWW363 09/25/07 7.19 960 18 184.00 584 98 34 41 2.6 119 140 No Data 157 No Data No Data <0.02 0.007 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.014VWW366 06/08/07 6.89 2640 13 No Data 2160 356 125 100 4.5 964 268 No Data 324 <0.001 No Data No Data <0.005 0.018 <0.001 <0.02 0.063 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.006 0.073VWW387 06/22/07 7.33 1140 18 251.03 750 109 37 54 3.6 47 231 No Data 160 No Data No Data 0.027 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 0.018VWW408 12/18/07 6.81 1335 6 No Data 884 170 51 48 4.6 243 156 No Data 288 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.002 No DataVWW41A 03/09/07 6.98 1221 6 13.00 918 145 58 57 2.5 228 128 0.2 311 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.117VWW41A 06/15/07 6.75 1373 19 13.00 936 147 57 65 2.7 239 135 0.2 313 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 0.104VWW41A 08/23/07 7.04 1384 24 13.00 948 161 58 58 2.8 280 126 0.2 298 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 0.072VWW41A 11/30/07 7.02 921 13 No Data 724 120 48 49 2.9 212 81 0.3 296 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 0.096VWW420 06/22/07 7.39 1120 17.7 No Data 720 113 42 56 4.0 33 259 No Data 153 <0.001 No Data No Data 0.008 0.149 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.003 0.034WJG1154A 02/07/07 7.19 1410 14.5 291.00 1060 176 56 46 4.5 410 148 0.2 162 No Data No Data <0.02 0.008 0.026 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.023 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 <0.01WJG1154A 04/19/07 7.44 1270 15.5 332.55 1040 179 58 47 3.3 430 153 0.2 158 No Data No Data <0.02 0.008 0.028 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 0.003 <0.01WJG1154A 07/09/07 7.13 788 19 335.68 1100 175 58 50 3.7 405 147 0.2 158 No Data No Data <0.02 0.009 0.028 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01WJG1154A 12/13/07 7.15 1393 14 333.64 932 169 54 47 3.4 385 136 0.2 156 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.02 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data 0.003 No Data


May 2008C-6



WJG1154B 05/04/07 7.24 1026 14 327.80 696 104 36 41 3.1 216 115 No Data 152 No Data No Data No Data <0.005 No Data <0.001 No Data <0.02 No Data <0.005 No Data No Data No Data <0.002 <0.01WJG1154B 12/13/07 7.33 862 14 332.41 496 88 30 38 2.8 129 101 No Data 148 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 No DataWJG1154C 05/04/07 7.34 806 15 328.54 512 66 27 48 3.1 98 92 No Data 177 No Data No Data <0.02 0.012 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 <0.01WJG1154C 12/14/07 7.19 825 14 286.97 496 75 30 54 3.2 110 89 No Data 177 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.02 No Data No Data <0.0002 No Data <0.002 No DataWJG1169A 01/25/07 7.26 2390 12 403.93 1680 310 82 90 4.3 476 460 0.1 189 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 0.003 <0.01WJG1169A 06/14/07 7.00 2570 17 404.40 1830 307 84 98 3.8 406 469 0.1 189 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.023 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01WJG1169A 07/27/07 7.24 2628 17 367.23 1900 312 81 88 0.7 433 461 0.1 188 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 0.026 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01WJG1169A 10/11/07 6.97 2440 14 407.25 1750 310 84 95 4.1 458 466 0.1 186 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 0.025 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.004 <0.01WJG1169B 09/26/07 7.19 2330 15 406.80 1500 260 74 75 3.1 499 372 No Data 170 No Data No Data 0.022 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 <0.01WJG1170B 09/19/07 7.31 1160 17 395.00 754 131 46 44 4.6 293 110 No Data 143 No Data No Data 0.07 0.011 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 0.021 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 0.012WJG1170B 10/12/07 7.24 1149 14 392.84 776 131 45 43 4.7 302 109 No Data 142 No Data No Data <0.02 0.012 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 0.013 <0.0002 0.03 0.003 0.023WJG1171A 05/11/07 7.35 874 17 303.55 584 90 30 37 2.6 138 103 No Data 151 No Data No Data <0.02 0.006 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.040 <0.002 <0.01WJG1171A 10/12/07 7.16 934 15 319.30 580 105 33 38 2.5 166 108 No Data 151 No Data No Data <0.02 <0.005 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 0.03 <0.002 <0.01WJG1171B 03/23/07 7.51 587 16 303.29 366 57 22 30 2.6 45 76 No Data 164 No Data No Data <0.02 0.011 No Data <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data <0.040 <0.002 0.02WJG1968 08/03/07 7.10 2200 20 No Data 1460 188 74 127 5.5 184 512 0.2 169 <0.001 No Data <0.02 <0.005 0.046 <0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01 No Data 0.03 0.019 0.41


May 2008C-7



APPENDIX D Lime Usage Forecasting Golder Associates, Inc.

Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO USA 80228 Telephone: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com

OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA

LIME USAGE FORECASTING

KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER CORPORATION

SOUTH JORDAN FACILITIES GROUNDWATER PLUME

SOUTHWEST JORDAN VALLEY, UTAH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1995 2005 2015 2025

Perc

ent A

cid

ity R

em

ain

ing in

Aquife

r (%

)

Transformed ECG1124B data

Transformed P241B data

Expon. (ECG1124B, P241B)

EVS Estimates

Prepared for:

Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

10200 South 8400 West

Bingham Canyon, Utah 84006

Prepared by:

Golder Associates Inc.

44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Draft Distribution:

3 Copies – Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

1 Copy – Golder Associates Inc.

1 Copy – Geochimica, Inc.

June 16, 2008 063-2287

June 2008 ES-1 063-2287

I:\06\2287\0400\0401 FNL LIME RPT\0632287 FNL LIMEFORCAST 16JUN08.DOC Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) has prepared estimates of lime usage forecasting for the Zone A acid

plume, Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, South Jordan Facilities Groundwater Plume, Southwest

Jordan Valley (SWJV), Utah. Golder has developed metrics for assessing past, current, and future

performance of ongoing plume remediation and attendant lime demand. The metrics are based on

approaches developed previously by Geochimica and Golder (Geochimica and Golder 2006, Golder

2006a,b,c,d) with recent updates using additional data, expanded and modified technical methods,

and revised assumptions. This report presents the results of the updated evaluation.

Metrics for past performance presented in this report are based on a) an annual plume mass and

volume modeling building on previous analyses (Golder 2006a), b) calculation of mass removal using

pumping and chemistry records from the acid extraction wells with comparison to the plume mass

modeling, and c) rinse curve evaluation (RCE), which revisits and updates an earlier evaluation

(Golder 2006d). These metrics apply to the period 1996 through 2006.

The methods developed to provide metrics for future performance range from relatively simple

extrapolations using curve fitting techniques to simple one-dimensional numerical modeling of

coupled flow and reactive transport. The methods each account for remobilization, either implicitly

or explicitly, but do not rigorously account for all changes (past and future) in the hydrogeochemical

conditions of the plume. As such, the metrics are intended for short-term predictions (e.g., 5 to

10 years) to bound risks associated with lime demand. The three methods updated and presented in

this report are:

1. Extrapolation based on the laboratory column interpretations;

2. Extrapolation using the analytical results from individual wells that have

undergone complete recovery; and

3. Expanded one-dimensional geochemical modeling predictions.

Metrics for Past Performance

To date, more than 26 million kg of combined aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese

(Mn), and zinc (Zn) have been removed by the Zone A remedial pumping wells. This represents

nearly 118 million kg of mineral acidity removed. Another 355 million kg of sulfate (SO4) have been

removed by the Zone A wells and LTG1147. Of the total mass removed from 1996 to 2006, 60% is

Al, 16% Mn, 14% Fe, and 5% each for Zn and Cu. The extraction wells have removed approximately

12,006 acre-feet through 2006, or 523 million cubic feet (ft3).

The total mass removed corresponds to the modeled change in plume mass for the period 1996 to

2006. The two methods’ estimates are within 5% for Al (0.7%), Zn, (2.8%), and acidity (3.2%). The

majority of the estimated changes in mass within the plumes is due to extraction of mass at the

highest concentrations ranges within the acid core. This suggests that the changes in mass observed

to date within the plume are dominated by the extraction system. When compared to the estimated

reduction in plume volume for each constituent, one can conclude that the effect of remobilization on

plume mass, if any, may have a significant effect on maintaining the plume volume to concentrations

above background, but little to no current effect on plume mass. This will likely change in the future,

as metals and SO4 concentrations decrease due to extraction and rinsing of the plume footprint

progresses. The extent to which metals remobilization to date is offset by metals mass lost by

June 2008 ES-2 063-2287


chemical precipitation at the leading edge and plume margins cannot be evaluated using this mass

balance approach

Metrics for Future Performance

As described above, three methods were developed and applied to bracket future lime demand. Each

method includes the effects of future remobilization of metals and acidity either empirically or by

simulated reactive transport. The three methods provide comparable estimates for lime demand

through the year 2015. Predicted annual lime demand in 2010 and 2015, using the three metrics for

future performance described above, is summarized in the table below.

Predicted Annual Lime Demand

Kg x 106 as CaCO3 Equivalent

Method 2010 2015

Laboratory Columns

End Period Method 6 - 10 3.5 - 7

Midpoint Method 4.5 – 6 1.5 – 2.5

Step Method 2 – 6 1.5 – 3.5

Empirical Rinse Curves 7 4.3

Geochemical Modeling 9 - 10.5 4.5 - 7

The trends predicted for the individual extraction wells do not reflect the effects of any additional

extraction wells or changes to the remedial pumping rates. Further, the predictions assume that

source controls are effective and no additional sources are introduced during this time period.

A capture zone analysis was not conducted as part of this evaluation. The curve fitting methods

require the assumption that hydraulic containment is provided by the existing extraction systems

because the methods are based on model estimates of mass remaining in the aquifer. Therefore,

predicted lime demand will exceed actual lime demand if significant bypass is occurring or orphaned

contaminant mass exists within Zone A. Drilling and testing south and west of the extraction well

BSG1201 in 2007 shows that hydraulic containment is not provided by the two extraction wells. The

addition of extraction wells will increase the short-term lime demand but not the total lime

requirement.

June 2008 -i- 063-2287


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 METRICS FOR PAST AND CURRENT PERFORMANCE ......................................... 3 2.1 Mass and Plume Modeling.................................................................................................. 3

2.1.1 Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Plume Volume and Mass Calculations ......................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Results ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.4 Interpretation .............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 13 2.1.6 Uncertainties ............................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Acid and Sulfate Extraction Well Records ....................................................................... 16 2.3 Rinse Curve Evaluation .................................................................................................... 21

2.3.1 Data ............................................................................................................................ 21 2.3.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 22 2.3.3 Limitations of the RCE............................................................................................... 23 2.3.4 Results of the Updated RCE ....................................................................................... 23

3.0 METRICS FOR FUTURE PERFORMANCE................................................................ 25 3.1 Laboratory Columns ......................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Empirical Rinse Curves .................................................................................................... 28 3.3 Geochemical Modeling ..................................................................................................... 29

3.3.1 Approach .................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2 ECG1146 Acid Extraction Well ................................................................................. 31 3.3.3 BSG1201 Acid Extraction Well ................................................................................. 32 3.3.4 Results ........................................................................................................................ 34 3.3.5 Sensitivity Analyses: Redox Conditions .................................................................... 36 3.3.6 Sensitivity Analyses: Mineral Phases Conditions ...................................................... 38

3.4 Discussion and Limitations ............................................................................................... 40

4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Metals Non-Detect Limits and Sulfate Background Value

Table 2-2 Computed Volume and Mass of Aluminum in Groundwater

Table 2-3 Computed Volume and Mass of Copper in Groundwater

Table 2-4 Computed Volume and Mass of Iron in Groundwater

Table 2-5 Computed Volume and Mass of Manganese in Groundwater

Table 2-6 Computed Volume and Mass of Zinc in Groundwater

Table 2-7 Computed Volume and Mass of Sulfate in Groundwater

Table 2-8 Computed Volume and Mass of Acidity in Groundwater

Table 2-9 Metals and Sulfate Extracted by Remedial Pumping

June 2008 -ii- 063-2287


Table 2-10 Summary of Results from the Two Methods

Table 2-11 Rinse Curve Evaluation: Wells and Results

Table 2-12 Pore Volume Times Estimated by RCE

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Domain Used in MVS Modeling

Figure 2-2 Wells Used in MVS Modeling

Figure 2-3 Water Table in 1996 Used in MVS Modeling











Figure 2-14 Bottom of the Alluvial Aquifer Used in MVS Modeling

Figure 2-15 Bottom of the Plume Used in MVS Modeling

Figure 2-16 Domain Used in MVS Modeling

Figure 2-17 Calculated Aluminum, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-18 Calculated Copper, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-19 Calculated Iron, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-20 Calculated Manganese, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-21 Calculated Zinc, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-22 Calculated Sulfate, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-23 Calculated Acidity, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-24 Cumulative Percent Change in Aluminum Mass, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-25 Cumulative Percent Change in Sulfate Mass, Zone A Plume

Figure 2-26 Wells Used in RCE and Estimated Pore Volumes

Figure 3-1a Zone A Plume Acidity Forecast - SMI Column Data, End Period Method

Figure 3-1b Zone A Plume Acidity Forecast - SMI Column Data, Midpoint Period Method

Figure 3-1c Zone A Plume Acidity Forecast - SMI Column Data, Step Period Method

Figure 3-2 Well Locations for Empirical Rinse Curves

Figure 3-3 Empirical Rinse Curve Predictions: P241B

Figure 3-4 Empirical Rinse Curve Predictions: ECG1124B

Figure 3-5 Empirical Rinse Curve Predictions

Figure 3-6 Schematic of Geochemical Modeling Approach

Figure 3-7 ECG1146 Flow Paths for Geochemical Modeling

Figure 3-8 ECG1146 Predictions: Path 2 with clean endpoint

Figure 3-9 ECG1146 Predictions: Path 2 with contaminated endpoint

Figure 3-10 ECG1146 Predictions: Comparison

Figure 3-11 BSG1201 Flow Paths for Geochemical Modeling

Figure 3-12 BSG1201 Predictions: Path 3 with marginal endpoint

Figure 3-13a BSG1201 Predictions: Path 3 with clean endpoint

Figure 3-13b BSG1201 Predictions: Path 3 transistions

June 2008 -iii- 063-2287


Figure 3-14 BSG1201 Predictions: Comparison

Figure 3-15a Extraction Well Predictions

Figure 3-15b Extraction Well Predictions

Figure 3-16 Eh-pH Diagrams

Figure 3-17 Sensitivity Analysis for Geochemical Modeling: Redox Evaluation: Varying pe

Values in Flushing Models

Figure 3-18 Sensitivity Analysis for Geochemical Modeling: Redox Evaluation: Varying Oxygen

Fugacity in Flushing Models

Figure 3-19 Sensitivity Analysis for Geochemical Modeling: Redox Evaluation: pH and Mineral

Assemblages for 1-D Modeling

Figure 3-20 Sensitivity Analysis for Geochemical Modeling: Redox Evaluation: Comparison of

Concentrations for 1-D Modeling

Figure 3-21 Sensitivity Analysis for Geochemical Modeling: Mineral Evaluation: pH, Fe, Al for

Different Mineral Assemblages

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Surfaces Developed for Use with the MVS Modeling (electronic media provided on

CD-ROM)

Appendix B Annualized Chemistry for the Constituents of Concern (electronic media provided on

CD-ROM)

Appendix C Detailed Volume and Mass Estimates (electronic media provided on CD-ROM)

Appendix D Extraction Well Summary

Appendix E Rinse Curve Evaluation Results

June 2008 -1- 063-2287


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) has prepared estimates of lime usage forecasting for the Zone A acid

plume, Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, South Jordan Facilities Groundwater Plume, Southwest

Jordan Valley (SWJV), Utah. This work was executed pursuant to the scope of work (SOW)

prepared cooperatively by Geochimica, Inc. (Geochimica) and Golder to address recommendations by

the Rio Tinto Technical Services (RTTS) review team in the document entitled Review of

Assumptions and Predictions Related to the KUCC Zone A Acid Plume Remediation dated April 3,

20061. The ultimate objective of the RTTS recommendations is to enable future lime usage to be

forecast with greater certainty. The SOW reflects an approach developed through discussions with

KUCC and Rio Tinto during a meeting on site held March 14, 2006, in subsequent telephone

conversations on July 20 and 31, 2006, and modified as required by project conditions during the

analysis.

Golder has developed metrics for assessing past, current, and future performance of ongoing plume

remediation and attendant lime demand. The metrics are based on approaches developed previously

by Geochimica and Golder (Geochimica and Golder 2006, Golder 2006a,b,c,d) with recent updates

using additional data, expanded and modified technical methods, and revised assumptions. This

report presents the results of the updated evaluation. This report documents the updated results;

readers are referred to the preceding memoranda for more details regarding the previous evaluations

and site background. Note that alternative metrics have been developed by others (Paul Brown

[RTTS], Craig Stevens [RT OTX]), but we have elected to complete this work using only the metrics

developed by this team to maintain internal consistency and to simplify the presentation. KUCC is

expected to evaluate the overall situation in light of the other analyses as well, but such alternative

analyses are best done by their originators.

Metrics for past performance presented in this report are based on a) an annual plume mass and

volume modeling building on previous analyses (Golder 2006a), b) calculation of mass removal using

pumping and chemistry records from the acid extraction wells with comparison to the plume mass

modeling, and c) rinse curve evaluation (RCE), which revisits and updates an earlier evaluation

(Golder 2006d). These metrics apply to the period 1996 through 2006.

1 Rio Tinto Technical Services, Draft Report No. TS Ref. Authors Paul Brown, Mark Lipman, Stuart Rhoades.

June 2008 -2- 063-2287


The methods developed to provide metrics for future performance presented in this report range from

relatively simple extrapolations using curve fitting techniques to numerical modeling of coupled flow

and reactive transport. The methods each account for remobilization, either implicitly or explicitly,

but do not rigorously account for all changes (past and future) in the hydrogeochemical conditions of

the plume. As such, the metrics are intended for short-term predictions (e.g., 5 to 10 years) to bound

risks associated with lime demand. The three methods updated and presented here are:



undergone complete recovery (e.g., ECG1116); and


The first two methods rely on the EVS mass balance results (Section 2) for historical performance

with curve fitting techniques to extrapolate into the future. The third method employs

one-dimensional flow and reactive transport along representative flow paths to each of the acid

extraction wells.

This scope does not identify nor provide an assessment of the capture zones of the existing or planned

acid extraction wells for the Zone A Plume.

June 2008 -3- 063-2287


2.0 METRICS FOR PAST AND CURRENT PERFORMANCE

Metrics for past performance are based on a) an annual plume mass and volume modeling building on

previous analyses (Golder 2006a), b) calculation of mass removal using pumping and chemistry

records from the acid extraction wells with comparison to the plume mass modeling, and c) rinse

curve evaluation (RCE), which revisits and updates the earlier evaluation (Golder 2006d).

2.1 Mass and Plume Modeling

The previous modeling generated estimates of the volume and mass of dissolved aluminum in

groundwater from 1996 through 2005, which were then compared to the mass of aluminum removed

by remedial pumping for each of these years. The metals mass balance allows for a direct calculation

of four metrics of the progress of the remedial pumping: 1) estimated initial dissolved mass, 2) annual

mass removed, 3) annual estimated change in mass, and 4) annual dissolved mass remaining. An

additional metric for past performance is 5) the observed degree of remobilization estimated by

comparing the annual mass removed by remedial pumping to the annual change in estimated

dissolved mass in the aquifer. Remobilization for the time period 1996 through 2006 is likely a small

percentage of the total mass removed or observed dissolved mass, but with time may become a more

important component of the total mass balance. The mass balance also provides a basis for

extrapolating future lime demand using the rinsing behavior of the laboratory column experiments

(SMI 1997a) and the field-scale hydrogeochemical modeling (Golder 2006b), as described in

Section 3.

2.1.1 Approach

The analysis uses all of the KUCC wells for which drilling and water-level data are internally

consistent. First, Golder used a three-dimensional data analysis and presentation program (MVS) to

model volumes and mass of dissolved metals and SO4 in groundwater on an annual basis from 1996

to 2006. The model uses geologic and water-level data, determined from KUCC monitoring

activities, together with groundwater chemistry to estimate the spatial extent of the plume in time and

space. Second, using KUCC pumping records and pumping well chemistry, Golder computed the

total mass of each metal and sulfate (SO4) removed on an annual basis for the extraction wells. This

memorandum then compares the results from the two methods to computing changes in plume mass

and discusses the implications of the mass and volumetrics of the plume.

June 2008 -4- 063-2287


The methods described herein provide an update to a previous analysis of using records and plume

volume and chemical mass modeling (Golder 2006). The dissolved constituents evaluated in this

analysis for the Zone A Plume include dissolved Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn; total SO4; and mineral

acidity calculated from the metals. Although SO4 was included in the update, the study area excluded

at KUCC’s request the Zone B plume located below and downgradient of the KUCC Evaporation

Ponds. The analyses were updated to include:

Additional water level, pumping rates, and groundwater chemistry data through

2006;

Extending the calculations beyond Al to include Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn; total SO4;

and calculated mineral acidity;

Revising interpolation and extrapolation for data deficient periods;

Adjusting the kriging parameters for spatial modeling; and

Conducting a sensitivity analysis on the model parameters.

Further, the analysis addresses recommendations by the Rio Tinto Technical Services (RTTS) review

team in the document titled Review of Assumptions and Predictions related to the KUCC Zone A Acid

Plume Remediation dated April 3, 20062 and comments received following presentation of

preliminary results during meetings with KUCC, Kennecott Minerals, and RTTS on February 25 and

26, 2007.

2.1.2 Plume Volume and Mass Calculations

Golder conducted volume and mass calculations for the plume for each constituent in

three dimensions using existing static information (well locations, water levels, well depths, and

completion intervals) and dynamic information (water levels and chemistry through time). The data

were compiled from site records and configured for use in the computer software Mining

Visualization System (MVS). MVS is a three-dimensional data analysis and presentation program in

which environmental data, particularly geology and groundwater data, are interpolated, contoured,

and rendered in three dimensions. The volumetrics module in MVS was used to calculate the

volumes and masses of constituents in groundwater on an annual basis. The plume extent was limited

2 Rio Tinto Technical Services, Draft Report No. TS Ref. Authors Paul Brown, Mark Lipman, Stuart Rhoades.

June 2008 -5- 063-2287


by imposing a user-defined surface representing background concentrations. For this application,

volume and mass of the dissolved metals and acidity were calculated for all concentrations exceeding

1 mg/L. The modeling of volume and mass of total SO4 were limited to concentrations exceeding

50 mg/L. All SO4 results are reported for concentrations greater than or equal to 350 mg/L, as

directed by KUCC.

Model Domain

The model domain fully encompassed the current spatial extent of the Zone A plume with SO4

concentrations above approximately 350 mg/L, as directed by KUCC. An additional buffer zone was

included to provide for good definition of plume limits and for future plume expansion. This

boundary is shown on Figure 2-1. Data for wells outside of the boundary were not included in this

analysis.

Groundwater chemistry data were provided by site in an Access database on December 22, 2006.

Well construction, coordinates, and groundwater levels were provided by spreadsheet. Data errors

were corrected by hand and included unit errors (mg/L and ug/L), data transposition, and well

coordinates.

Plume Boundaries

The spatial extent of the plume was defined for the modeling by its lateral and vertical extent at

detectable concentrations, the water table, and the base of the aquifer.

Points along the model domain boundary shown on Figure 2-1 were included in the kriging analysis

to restrict the interpolation of the plume limits to the domain. Chemical concentrations for these

points were specified as non-detect for metals and SO4 background of 50 mg/L (kriging and chemical

inputs are discussed more below). The value of 50 mg/L was chosen by Golder based on a review of

the data.

The plume extent was defined by reported concentrations for samples from monitor and extraction

wells. Between the edge of the plume and boundary of the model domain, concentrations for wells

were assigned a non-detect value for metals or the background value for SO4 as follows:

June 2008 -6- 063-2287


1. Several wells in the west portion of the model area that have been impacted by

minor contamination by mine rock (the ―plume-lets‖);

2. Some wells on the eastern border of the model area due to influence from the

Zone B plume; and

3. Several wells in the Lark area for metals, but not for SO4. Metals and SO4 were

treated differently in this area for the analysis. The limit of the Zone A

metals/acid plume was well defined in this area, however, there is little

distinction for SO4.

These wells are shown on Figure 2-2. Because the spatial extent of the SO4 plume is larger than the

acid plume, several wells are present in the model domain with little to no metals data. These wells

outside the boundary of the acid plume but within the boundary of the SO4 plume were assigned a

non-detect value for each metal.

The plume extent was also limited to the water table surface (specified annually) and the bottom of

the alluvial aquifer. Ground surface was also provided for rendering purposes only. Figures 2-3

through 2-16 show each of the surfaces developed by Golder and used in the modeling. The surfaces

are provided electronically in Appendix A.

The top of the plume (the upper physical limit of the volume and mass calculations) was modeled as

the phreatic surface on an annual basis. These surfaces were not corrected for density. Golder

computed the average of all water levels for a given year for the uppermost completion for each well.

For wells with no available data for some years, water levels were either interpolated between years

or extrapolated using neighboring well data. Data for pumping wells were excluded, along with other

nearby wells based on professional judgment. Surfer (Golden Software Inc., 2004) was used to

generate annual surfaces using the minimum curvature method (which is typically best representing a

potential field). In poorly constrained areas within the model domain, especially near the boundaries,

artificial control points were added based on professional judgment. The surfaces were imported to

MVS and then kriged for use in the modeling.

A surface was created to define the bottom of the alluvial aquifer using drawing 451-T-4634,

―Basement Contour Map Borehole Data Through 1997‖ provided by site. This surface was extended

near its boundaries using well screen information, hydrogeochemical cross sections from the RI/FS

last updated in 1998, and professional judgment.

June 2008 -7- 063-2287


The Zone A plume extends below the bottom of the alluvial aquifer into the underlying bedrock,

especially west of the old Bingham Creek Reservoir, and an additional surface was created to define

the maximum depth of the plume in these areas. The surface was generated combining different

methods depending on location. East of the old reservoir, the bottom surface was extended 50 feet

below the alluvium. West of the reservoir, the surface was extended to include the deeper well

screens, although several wells were removed to generate a reasonable surface without anomalies.

The two surfaces in the west and the east were then combined in Surfer.

A ground surface was created using a GIS shapefile provided by the site. The shapefile was provided

in state plane coordinates and converted to mine site coordinates by Golder. The maximum error of

the conversion was less than 0.01 feet for elevation and less than 5 feet for northing and easting. The

elevation data with the converted coordinates were then kriged in Surfer and imported into MVS.

Groundwater Chemistry

Groundwater chemistry data were provided by site in an Access database on December 22, 2006.

Results were provided for the majority of the wells through the third quarter of 2006. Data were

considered in the analysis for each screen interval for the wells shown on Figure 2-2. The average of

the reported concentrations was used for each year for available data for dissolved Al, Cu, Fe, Mn,

and Zn; and total SO4.

In order to properly constrain the volume and mass calculations, annual values were required for all

wells for all screened intervals for each year of the simulation. This eliminated artifacts caused by the

addition of new control points from year to year (e.g., the addition of new monitoring wells). Periods

with missing data were managed by extrapolating concentrations backward or forward in time, linear

interpolation across data gaps, interpolation using data from neighboring wells, or extrapolation using

surrogate analytes.

Measured acidity from the database was not used for the analysis, as they were not consistently

available and performed using different analytical methods (e.g., different titration endpoints)

resulting in poor correlation to metals concentrations. Therefore, acidity was calculated for this

analysis using the annual concentrations for Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn using equation 1 (personal

communication, Geochimica). The calculation assumes half the Fe measured is Fe+2

and half is Fe+3

.

June 2008 -8- 063-2287


1000*100*2

2*][2*][3*2

][2*

2

][2*][3*][ ZnMn

FeFeCuAl

(1)

Where [ ] is the metals concentration in mol/L and the result is in mg/L as CaCO3 equivalent.

For the purposes of modeling, several wells were assigned the concentration of the non-detect limit

for metals or the background value for SO4. These values are listed in Table 2-1.

The annualized chemistry for the constituents of concern is provided electronically in Appendix B.

Two sets of annualized chemistry were developed. The first set includes recent results from

additional monitoring wells, BSG2777 through BSG2783, installed and first sampled in 2006.

Samples from several of these wells returned elevated constituent concentrations and better defined

the extent of the acid plume. This set of chemistry data is referred to hereafter as ―Chemistry Set A.‖

A second set was developed excluding data from the new wells in order to evaluate sensitivity of the

modeling to the addition of the new data and the backcasting required to include them in the analysis.

The second set of chemical inputs is referred to hereafter as ―Chemistry Set B.‖

Aquifer Porosity

The mass calculation required an estimate of the effective porosity of the aquifer. Estimates for the

plume area range from 0.12 to 0.25 (KUCC 1998a). A value of 0.2 was used for the alluvial aquifer

and a value of 0.01 was used for the aquifer within the volcanic bedrock units. Scaling of the results

can be accomplished for other assumed uniform porosities.

June 2008 -9- 063-2287


Kriging Method

Three-dimensional ordinary (no drift) kriging3 of log-transformed concentrations was used as the

interpolation method for the mass calculations. Kriging is a geostatistical gridding method that is

commonly used in environmental sciences.

Due to the three-dimensional nature of the plume and the three-dimensional capabilities of MVS,

many options exist to constrain the kriging algorithm including:

Grid definition;

The number of points used to define well screens of differing lengths;

Search radius;

Number of sample points used per grid element; and

Search method.

MVS models three-dimensional parameter distribution within a defined domain (plume boundaries

discussed above) by creating a hexahedral finite-element grid and calculating values based on the

kriging algorithm to each element of the grid. Based on the inputs used for MVS in this analysis, the

finite-element grid was determined based on three criteria. First, a grid node (or block) is placed at

3 Ordinary kriging is a linear method and is thus based on a linear weighted average. What makes kriging different to other

linear weighted averages is that it is firmly based upon a probabilistic model. At its simplest, a search is made around the

block to be estimated. Samples located within the search ―neighborhood‖ are utilized for estimation of the block in

question, whereas samples outside this neighborhood are not used. The samples within the search are assigned weights

that reflect the spatial variability of the property (as characterized by the relevant variogram model). A weighted average

is calculated to produce the block estimate.

Advantages of ordinary kriging over other, non-geostatistical interpolations (for example inverse distance weighting) are:

1. The weights are based on the data themselves (via the variogram model) rather than being arbitrary (as is the case

for inverse distance). Thus, the method estimates correctly account for nugget variance and short-range structures.

2. Kriging weights reflect better the anisotropy of spatial property distribution, compared to non-geostatistical

interpolators.

3. The method estimates reflect the support of the estimated block and the informing data.

4. A major, well-known advantage of ordinary kriging is that the optimal interpolation weights assigned to data are

calculated in such a way that they minimize the variance of the estimation error.

In particular, kriging employs the variogram model as the weighting function. Because of this, kriging weights are

assigned in a way that reflects the spatial correlation of the property itself, which makes it ideal for geostatistical

applications (based on http://www.qgeoscience.com /references_kriging.asp).

June 2008 -10- 063-2287


each location of measured data, i.e., each screen interval in a well. Second, in the XY direction,

additional grid nodes are resolved to a spacing of between 850 and 1,000 feet. Third, in the vertical

direction, grid nodes are resolved to a spacing of approximately 100 feet, with the limitation that a

minimum of two elements is present for each geologic layer and the total nodes are spaced across

layers according to the fractional thickness of each geologic layer. By placing a grid node at each

location of measured data, each data point is honored precisely.

The measured concentrations specified as input to the kriging algorithm represent the concentration of

the plume over a finite vertical extent corresponding to the length of the well screen. For MVS to

properly account for different, multiple screened intervals, the model assigns multiple control points

per screen for each well, with each control point assigned the same chemistry. The number of control

points per screen is determined by dividing the screen interval by a uniform ―max gap‖ specified by

the user and rounding up the resulting value. The max gap chosen for the site was 40 feet. For

screens less than or equal to 40 feet, one control point was assigned, while screens longer than 40 feet

were assigned two control points or more. Defining a max gap value of 40 feet resulted the

assignment of one control point per well screen.

The kriging algorithm uses a search radius to define what grid nodes will be used to determine the

result for each grid element. The default search radius for MVS is approximately two-thirds the

model domain. A large search radius ensures the required number of points is available and that it

considers all nearby data. A small search radius can result in a local bias.

The kriging algorithm also uses a maximum number of control points to determine the parameter

value for the grid element to be evaluated. Using a small number of points tends to produce very

localized results, i.e., only points close to the grid element affect the resulting parameter value. Using

a large number of points forces the algorithm to consider grid nodes farther away, but also can take

significant more computing time. The default is 20 points.

The kriging algorithm uses two different search methods to define the points considered for the

element being calculated. The default method does not constrain in space what data are used. The

octant search method constrains the algorithm to consider an equal proportion of the total points from

each octant surrounding the grid node. In some cases, the method forces the algorithm to look

beyond the locally available control points to calculate a value for each grid node.

June 2008 -11- 063-2287


A range of reasonable values for search radius, max gap, number of control points, and search method

used in the kriging algorithm were evaluated as part of a sensitivity analysis (described later). Based

on the sensitivity analysis, Golder determined that the octant search method, a radius of 15,000 feet,

200 total points, and a max gap of 40 feet provided the best model parameter set. The results based

on this parameter set are described next.

2.1.3 Results

The results of the volume and mass calculations for both Chemistry Set A and Chemistry Set B are

provided in Tables 2 through 8. The results listed under ―Chemistry Set A‖ contain data from all

monitoring wells with extrapolated and interpolated values. The results listed under ―Chemistry

Set B‖ do not include chemistry for the new wells, as previously described. Figures 2-17 through

2-23 show the results graphically as time series for each constituent, including mass of the plume, the

cumulative decrease in the mass, and the mass removed by pumping. The figures also show the

contributing mass and plume volume for ranges of concentrations for each constituent for Chemistry

Set A. Detailed volume and mass estimates for each constituent are provided electronically in

Appendix C.

2.1.4 Interpretation

This section provides an interpretation of the mass and volume estimates based on Chemistry Set A

results. Chemistry Set B results will be described further below in the sensitivity analysis section of

this memorandum.

In general, the analysis shows a decrease in the mass of the plume for each constituent and consistent

trends with time; 58% for Al and Cu from 1996 to 2006, 55% for calculated acidity, 51% for Zn, 75%

for Fe, 36% Mn, and 28% SO4. The change in plume volume for each constituent is smaller than the

computed change in mass, as seen with previous analyses (Golder 2006); approximately 1% for Al

from 1996 to 2006, 13% for Cu, 12% for acidity, 9% for Zn, 41% for Fe, 3% for Mn, and 11% for

SO4. Results for each constituent are summarized below:

Al - Based on the calculations, the mass of Al increased from 1996 to 1997 by

4%. From 1997 to 2006, the mass of the plume continually decreased. The

overall decrease in mass of the plume from 1996 to 2006 was 58%. The

computed decrease in the mass of Al is almost 16 million kg. The estimated total

June 2008 -12- 063-2287


mass of dissolved Al remaining in the plume in 2006 is slightly over

11 million kg. Nearly all the mass decrease has occurred for areas with

concentrations above 1,000 mg/L. Overall, the volume of the plume decreased

merely 1% from 1996 to 2006.

Cu - The mass of Cu decreased from 1996 to 2000 but then slightly increased in

2001. From 2002 to 2006, the plume mass decreased. Overall the mass

decreased from 1996 to 2006 58%, representing almost 1 million kg Cu. The

estimated total mass of dissolved Cu remaining is approximately 700,000 kg.

The majority of the mass decrease has occurred for areas with concentrations

above 100 mg/L. Overall, the volume of the plume decreased 13% from 1996 to

2006.

Fe - The mass of Fe decreased from 1996 to 2006 by 75%, representing

3.2 million kg of Fe. The estimated total mass remaining is slightly greater than

1 million kg. The majority of the mass decrease has occurred for areas with

concentrations above 100 mg/L. The volume of the plume continually decreased

from 1996 to 2006 except in 2001. The overall decrease in volume was 41%.

Mn - The mass of Mn decreased from 1996 to 1998, then increased from 1999 to

2001. From 2002 to 2006, Mn decreased in mass. The overall decrease in

dissolved Mn from 1996 to 2006 was 36% representing 3.5 million kg. The

estimated total mass remaining is approximately 6.2 million kg. The mass

decrease occurred in the higher concentrations. The total reduction in volume of

the Mn plume was 3% from 1996 to 2006.

Zn - The mass of Zn decreased from 1996 to 1999, increased in 2000 and 2001,

and then decreased from 2002 to 2006. The overall decrease in dissolved Zn

from 1996 to 2006 was 51%, representing 1.3 million kg. The estimated total

mass remaining in the plume in 2006 is approximately 1.2 million kg. The

majority of the mass decrease has occurred for areas with concentrations above

100 mg/L. The total reduction in volume of the Zn plume was 9% from 1996 to

2006.

SO4 - The mass of SO4 increased in 1997 and 2002 with mass reductions in the

remaining years. The overall decrease in total SO4 from 1996 to 2006 was 28%,

representing 404 million kg for concentrations equal to or exceeding 350 mg/L.

In 2006, approximately 1 billion kg of SO4 remain in the plume. The majority of

the mass decrease occurred in the fraction above 10,000 mg/L. Similar to the

metals, the volume of the SO4 plume alternately increased and decreased from

1996 to 2006. The total reduction in volume of the SO4 plume was 11% from

1996 to 2006.

Acidity - The calculated mass of acidity in the plume increased from 1996 to

1997 by 2% and then continually decreased from 1998 to 2006. The overall

decrease in mass of acidity from 1996 to 2006 was 55%, representing

114 million kg. In 2006, an estimated 94 million kg of acidity remain in the

June 2008 -13- 063-2287


plume in a dissolved state. The majority of the mass decrease has occurred for

areas with concentrations above 10,000 mg/L as CaCO3 equivalent with a

significant reduction in the fraction between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/L as CaCO3.

Similar to the metals, from which acidity was calculated, the volume of the

plume has alternately increased and decreased from 1996 to 2006. The total

reduction in volume of the plume was 10% from 1996 to 2006.

The small calculated changes in the plume volume for Mn and Zn are expected, considering that the

constituents are elevated along the plume margins and not limited to the acidic core. This also holds

for SO4, which is additionally controlled by gypsum redissolution. The small change in Al volume

above 1 mg/L from 1996 to 2006 can likely be attributed to remobilization, as was previously

proposed (Golder 2006), which illustrates that the process of rinsing of Al (and other constituents) to

concentrations below 1 mg/L is slow. The mass removed has been largely in concentrations above

1,000 mg/L (Figure 2-17), with little effect on the mass and Al plume volume below this

concentration. This is expected given that the wells were located within the area of the plume with

the highest concentrations, and this portion of the plume must first be extracted before lower

concentration portions of the plume can move to the extraction wells.

2.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of kriging parameters on results. The

sensitivity analysis was conducted prior to selection of the final parameters set used for the final

results. During the analysis, kriging results were reviewed for reasonableness, honoring of individual

control point concentrations, and maximum modeled versus measured concentrations. The latter was

particularly important since some parameters sets resulted in modeled concentrations an order of

magnitude higher than the maximum measured concentration. Thus, this measure of sensitivity was a

focus for the analysis.

Max gap values of 10 to 50 were evaluated using the existing data. The modeling showed that an

excessively low max gap biased interpolated result to wells with large screened intervals. In addition,

a low max gap values produced a region between ECG1146 and ECG1115 of excessively high

concentrations. A max gap of 40 reduced the maximum concentration of the region to more

reasonable levels and reduced the volume of the higher concentrations. Lower max gap values also

biased high concentrations near other wells with long screens, e.g., BSG1201, B2G1193, BFG1200,

LTG1139, and LTG1147.

June 2008 -14- 063-2287


Refinement of the grid used for the kriging, while affecting computation time, had little effect on

results.

The maximum number of points used specified for kriging was increased from the default value of

20 to 100 and 200 points using the default search method and the default search radius. Increasing

the number of points reduced the maximum concentration from a half an order of magnitude above

the measured maximum to less than 0.2 orders of magnitude above the measured maximum. This in

effect forced consideration of points at greater distances.

Models were also run using the default search method and the octant search method along with the

default number of points and default search radius. Using the octant search method reduced the

maximum concentration similar to reducing the number of points described above and generally

provided more reasonable results.

The default search radius of approximately 40,000 feet was also decreased to 15,000 feet (a radius of

10,000 feet was preferred but did not allow for the number of points within the search radius) using

the octant search method. Similar reduction in the maximum concentration resulted, as described

above.

Based on the sensitivity analysis, the final results were kriged using the octant search method, a

maximum gap of 40 feet, a search radium of 15,000 feet, and a maximum of 200 points. This

parameter set was chosen to best represent the spatial differences in the plume while not

overestimating high concentration areas.

The model sensitivity was also evaluated for data (and backcasting) for the additional monitoring

wells installed in 2006. Tables 2 through 7 and figures 2-17 through 2-22 show the difference

between Chemistry Set A and Chemistry Set B. Set A incorporates the new wells installed in 2006

with extrapolation back in time to 1996, while these data are excluded for Set B. Comparing the two

analyses provides a measure of uncertainty in definition of plume extent—which the wells improved

in 2006—and the influence of backcasting concentrations for these wells from 2006 to 1996. In most

cases, excluding the new wells and backcasting results in a calculated volume and mass of the plume

that is slightly smaller than Chemistry Set A. For the five metals analyzed, the maximum reduction in

volume was 5% and the maximum reduction in mass was 10%. This is logical, given that the mass of

June 2008 -15- 063-2287


the plume for most constituents is defined by high concentrations in the core of the plume and not by

low concentrations at the margins.

Preliminary results of the mass and volume modeling presented in February 2007 and in the effort last

year (Golder 2006) used the default values for kriging options and a max gap value of 10 feet. As

explained above, this overestimated concentrations in the acidic core of the plume areas where

concentrations are highest, especially near ECG1146. This resulted in an elevated total mass of the

plume, especially in the earlier years of the analysis. This also affected the calculated cumulative

decrease in mass of the plume. The affect of this kriging parameters set suggested that, especially in

2006, the mass was decreasing at a rate slower than calculated mass removal by remedial pumping. It

is clear that this was an artifact of the kriging parameters and does not represent the field processes.

2.1.6 Uncertainties

Apart from issues with the kriging parameters set identified during the sensitivity analysis,

uncertainties that affect the estimates of the volume and mass of the plume include:

A uniform porosity of 20% was used for the alluvial aquifer while the reported

range of porosities is from 12 to 25%. Therefore, the computed mass of the

plume could vary by as much as -40 to +25% of the results provided above.

Further, porosity likely varies spatially for the materials whereas a uniform

porosity was used for these calculations.

Uncertainties in the input chemistry data include the methods used to interpolate

and extrapolate the chemistry data as well as data gaps in the samples available to

define the plume. Although the methods used to interpolate and extrapolate the

chemistry data were mathematically rigorous, other methods could have been

used that would provide different results. Other methods were not investigated.

The method of spatial interpolation, kriging, imparts some uncertainty. Kriging

of the log-transformed concentrations is a standard and defensible approach,

however, other interpolation methods may yield different, and equally reasonable

results.

Analytical error is greater at lower concentrations ranges. As higher

concentration groundwater within the acidic core of the plume is removed by the

extraction wells, analytical error can be expected to increase.

For the reasons presented in this sensitivity analysis, Golder recommends that application of these

results emphasize computed changes in constituent mass and volume in the plume (for which the

June 2008 -16- 063-2287


modeling assumptions are equivalent) rather than on the absolute magnitude of constituent mass in

the plume.

2.2 Acid and Sulfate Extraction Well Records

Pumping and chemistry records were provided by KUCC for acid extraction wells ECG1146 and

BSG1201 and SO4 extraction wells B2G1193, BFG1200, and LTG1147. The pumped-volume and

chemistry records were processed to generate estimates of the metals, acidity, and SO4 mass removed

by year. Some limited extrapolation was required, mostly using surrogate analytes, to address data

gaps in the record.

The resulting annual and cumulative estimates are provided in Table 2-9. The estimates provided for

the metals and acidity represent mass removed by the Zone A acid extraction wells: ECG1146,

BSG1201, B2G1193, and BFG1200. The estimates provided for SO4 include the Zone A wells along

with LTG1147 (Lark). A breakdown of the mass removed by well is provided in Appendix D.

To date, more than 26 million kg of combined Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn have been removed by the four

Zone A remedial pumping wells. This represents nearly 118 million kg of mineral acidity removed.

Another 355 million kg of SO4 have been removed by the Zone A wells and LTG1147. Of the total

mass removed from 1996 to 2006, 60% is Al, 16% Mn, 14% Fe, and 5% each for Zn and Cu. From

1996 to 2006, the Fe mass removed has decreased from approximately 20% to 10% while Mn has

increase from 9% to 20%, with no significant change for the other constituents. This appears to be

largely due to the addition of extraction well BSG1201, which began extracting less impacted water

relative to ECG1146, removing more Mn relative to Fe.

The extraction wells have removed approximately 12,006 acre-feet through 2006, or 523 million ft3.

The estimated Al plume volume (aqueous) in 1996 (Table 2-4) is 4.2 billion ft3 assuming a porosity

of 0.2. The volume removed is approximately 12% of the estimated 1996 plume volume.

The results of the two methods are summarized in Table 2-10. Overall, the results of the two

independent methods to estimate mass removed match well for the period 1996 to 2006. The total

mass removed corresponds to the estimated change in plume mass for the period. The two method

estimates are within 5% for Al (0.7%), Zn, (2.8%), and acidity (3.2%). For Cu, the mass removed is

greater than the calculated change in mass in the aquifer by approximately 24%, 14% for Fe, and 23%

June 2008 -17- 063-2287


for Mn. These differences are still considered small, given their small percentage of the total metals

mass and acidity for the plume. The estimated change in plume mass for SO4 (for concentrations

equal to or greater than 350 mg/L) is larger than the calculated mass removed by approximately 12%.

The agreement between the two independent methods (the results of the modeling and calculated

mass removed from remedial pumping) for metals indicates the modeling approach has produced

reliable and reasonably accurate estimates of plume mass for all constituents.

The majority of the estimated changes in mass within the plumes is due to extraction of mass at the

highest concentrations ranges within the acid core. This suggests, as previously concluded (Golder

2006), that the changes in mass observed to date within the plume are dominated by the extraction

system. When compared to the estimated reduction in plume volume for each constituent, one can

draw the conclusion that the effect of remobilization on plume mass, if any, may have a significant

effect on maintaining the plume volume with concentrations above 1 mg/L, but little to no current

effect on plume mass. This will likely change in the future, as metals and SO4 concentrations

decrease due to extraction and rinsing of the plume footprint progresses. The extent to which metals

remobilization to date is offset by metals mass lost by chemical precipitation at the leading edge and

plume margins cannot be evaluated using this mass balance approach.

Al

Al is the most important constituent for this analysis. It constitutes approximately 55 to 60% of the

total dissolved metals mass of the plume, represents approximately 54 to 63% of the metals mass

removed by the extraction system, and dominates acidity (approximately 80 to 85%). The computed

changes for Al mass in the plume from 1996 to 2006 using the MVS simulations match closely the

calculated mass removed by the extraction wells for the same period (Figure 2-17). The model

estimate of total decrease in Al mass in the plume is within 1% of the total mass removed based on

pumping records. The overall trend and magnitude of the annual values match closely. This strongly

supports a conclusion that extraction with some displacement and mixing is the cause for the

observed changes in Al within the plume. The mass removed is largely at concentrations greater than

1,000 mg/L with lesser changes seen for concentrations between 100 and 1,000 mg/L, as shown by

the cumulative percent change in mass on Figure 2-24. The change in mass attributed to

concentrations below 100 mg/L remains small, with a slight increase beginning in 2001. This likely

reflects the redistribution of mass from higher concentrations to lower concentrations. The same is

observed for volume estimates.

June 2008 -18- 063-2287


The computed decrease of 58% in dissolved Al mass in the aquifer from 1996 to 2006 is consistent

with the observed concentration decreases noted by Golder (2006). Golder prepared hydrochemical

sections through acid extraction wells ECG1146 and BSG1201 which showed the estimated areal

extent and magnitude of Al from 1996 to 2005 has decreased generally 40% to 75% near extraction

well ECG1146, and 40% to 60% in the vicinity of extraction well BSG1201.

Also shown on Figure 2-17 is the estimated total mass of dissolved Al in the plume with time. Based

on the estimates, slightly less than 60% of the total dissolved Al mass has been removed, with

approximately 40% of the dissolved mass remaining. Estimates of mass remaining do not consider

remobilization within the acidic footprint during natural rinseout, which will likely remobilize small

amounts (at low concentrations below the 1 mg/L isopleth used for spatial control in this study) of Al

for many pore volumes. Thus, the remaining rinseout process is not expected to follow the trend

shown on Figure 2-17. This is indicated, in Golder’s opinion, by the small computed change in the

plume volume above 1 mg/L (approximately 1%) compared to the computed changes in plume mass

(almost 60%). The effects of remobilization, if any, are obscured by the large dissolved Al mass in

the aquifer for the time period evaluated.

The process of rinsing to Al concentrations below 1 mg/L is a slow and almost surely non-linear

process (Golder 2006), as shown also in the rinsing of the Shepherd Miller columns (SMI 1997a).

However, in the context of the KUCC study, it is important to understand that the lime demand

associated with Al concentrations below 1 mg/L is extremely small. The high impact of elevated

concentrations of Al (and Fe) on total lime demand derives from the high mineral acidities associated

with Al concentrations in the range of hundreds to thousands of mg/L.

Fe

Fe is the second most important constituent for this analysis. It constitutes approximately 5 to 10% of

the total dissolved metals mass of the plume, represents approximately 10 to 20% of the metals mass

removed by the extraction system, and is the second largest contributor to acidity (approximately

10 to 11%). The computed decrease in mass of the Fe plume also compares well with the overall

trend of mass removed by pumping. Similar to Al and Cu, the mass of the higher concentration range

of the plume has decreased significantly while the lower concentration ranges of the plume have

decreased at slower rates. More than 99% of the mass above 500 mg/L present in 1996 has been

June 2008 -19- 063-2287


removed. The computed mass and plume volume reduction is larger than for any constituent, with

75% and 41%, respectively.

The Fe mass removed by the extraction system has decreased from approximately 20% to 10%, while

the computed change in the total mass for the aquifer from 1996 to 2006 is approximately 75%. Of

the total metals mass in the aquifer, Fe has decreased from 10% to 5%, suggesting that it is becoming

less important for total acidity and associated lime demand relative to other metals of concern.

Mn

Mn is the third most important consistent for this analysis. It constitutes approximately 21% to 30%

of the total dissolved metals mass of the plume, represents approximately 9% to 20% of the metals

mass removed by the extraction system, and is the third largest contributor to acidity (approximately

5% to 6%). The computed decrease in mass of the Mn plume compares well with the mass removed

by pumping. Similar to the other metals, the mass of the higher concentration ranges of the plume

has decreased significantly. The mass of the Mn plume between 1 and 10 mg/L has increased

through time, similar to the lower concentrations of the Al plume.

The Mn mass removed by the extraction system has increased from approximately 9% to 20%, while

the computed change in the total mass for the aquifer from 1996 to 2006 is approximately 23%. Of

the total metals mass in the aquifer, Mn has increased from 21% to 30%, suggesting that it is

becoming relatively more important for total acidity and associated lime demand.

Cu

Cu constitutes approximately 3% to 4% of the total dissolved metals mass of the plume, represents

approximately 4% to 6% of the metals mass removed by the extraction system, and contributed less

than 2% of acidity. Cu results are similar to Al, although the mass is but a small percentage of the

total metals evaluated. The computed decrease in mass of the plume matches mass removed by

remedial pumping (Figure 2-18) until the last two years, where the computed change in plume mass

falls below mass removed. This may reflect remobilization, which will have a greater influence as

concentrations decline, or may reflect error attributable to the mass estimates. Similar to Al, the

majority of the mass decrease has occurred in the high concentration portions of the plume with the

mass of the Cu plume above 100 mg/L reduced 99% from 1996 to 2006. While the lower

June 2008 -20- 063-2287


concentration range of the plume has also decreased through time, the rate is much slower compared

to the higher concentration range.

Zn

Zn constitutes approximately 6% of the total dissolved metals mass of the plume, represents

approximately 3% to 5% of the metals mass removed by the extraction system, and contributed less

than 2% of acidity. As with the other metals, the computed decrease in mass of the Zn plume

matches well with the mass removed by remedial pumping. Further, the mass of the higher

concentration portions of the plume has decreased significantly while the mass of the plume between

1 and 10 mg/L has increased slightly from 1996 to 2006.

SO4

The computed decrease in mass of the SO4 plume exceeds the mass removed by pumping by

approximately 12%, keeping in mind that the estimated change in mass is for concentrations greater

than or equal to 350 mg/L, whereas the SO4 mass removal is independent of concentration. This may

be due to continued gypsum precipitation at advancing plume margins and dilution. The mass of the

plume above 10,000 mg/L decreased more than 60% from 1996 to 2006. However, the mass of the

plume between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/L increased nearly 20% from 1996 to 2006 (see Figure 2-25),

which may be due to redissolution of gypsum along the receding plume margins and within the acid

core. The mass of the less concentrated portions of the plume has decreased, but at slower rates

compared to the highest concentration fraction.

Acidity

The computed decrease in mass of mineral acidity of the plume matches well with that removed by

pumping. The pattern is very similar to Al, which is expected since Al represents more than 80% to

85% of the total acidity of the plume. The mass of the plume above 10,000 mg/L decreased nearly

100% from 1996 to 2006, and the mass between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/L decreased more than 40%.

June 2008 -21- 063-2287


2.3 Rinse Curve Evaluation

The SOW for this update did not include effort to update the RCE initially conducted in 2006 and

described in a March 7, 2006 Technical Memorandum (Golder 2006c). However, additional column

data in electronic format were located and provided to Golder following the development of the

SOW. These data are of particular importance because 1) they match data provided in the original

SMI report on the columns (SMI 1997a) and 2) the rinseout results for aluminum and zinc follow a

more consistent pattern (i.e., no spikes in the data) and the sampling intervals are more conducive to

RCE analysis4. The analysis was also updated to incorporate field data collected since the initial

analysis. Golder felt that an update should be included to incorporate the additional column data set,

and additional field data collected since the initial RCE.

A complete discussion of rationale and approach of the RCE, as well as the overall study context in

which the RCE was performed, is provided in Golder 2006. Briefly, RCE provides a technically

rigorous means to compare the progress of aquifer recovery in the field to that simulated by

laboratory columns. While this can be performed qualitatively by visually superimposing the two

data sets, RCE provides a rigorous superposition using mathematical normalization, interpolation, and

transformation. The result is a reproducible, quantitative comparison between column and field data.

This allows a geochemist to identify differences between the two scales of performance and to

elucidate controlling geochemical processes. Furthermore, RCE provides a means to estimate the

time to elute a plume pore volume, the estimates from which are used in the empirical rinse curve

method, described in Section 3.2 of this report.

2.3.1 Data

The RCE requires column data and field data for the comparison. In this update, Golder utilized the

following sources of data.

Column Data: Golder used data from the SMI column tests (SMI 1997a)

performed as a part of the Remedial Investigation (RI; KUCC 1998a). The

column tests simulated interaction of Large Bingham Creek Reservoir leach

water with alluvial sediments. Following acidification of the sediments, SMI

eluted unimpacted water through the columns in order to simulate a pump-and-

treat remedial action. Golder data used for the updated RCE were from the

4 The section titled ―Limitations of the RCE‖ in Golder 2006 provides a discussion of the completeness and quality of the

previously available dataset, particularly for aluminum and zinc concentrations.

June 2008 -22- 063-2287


quartzitic gravel column test and were obtained electronically by Golder through

coordination with Geochimica and KUCC. Unlike the initial RCE, these data

match the results shown in SMI 1997a and were unavailable at the time of the

initial RCE. SMI reported that the rinse phase for the quartzitic gravel column

began at pore volume 38.1 following full acidification of the columns (SMI

1997a).

Field Data: Golder used data from 17 selected groundwater wells at the KUCC

site. These data were obtained from the KUCC database through Brian Vinton

(KUCC/North American Mine Services Inc.) Golder selected these wells with

recommendations from Geochimica and KUCC and they are not intended to be a

statistical sampling. A list of wells examined with RCE are provided in

Table 2-11 and their locations are shown on Figure 2-26.

As described in Golder 2006, the RCE focuses on the ―rinse phase‖ for the columns and the aquifer.

The rinse phase for the column tests occurs following the switch from an impacted-acidic to an

unimpacted lixiviant. The rinse phase for an aquifer refers to a period where a significant

improvement in groundwater quality occurs, generally assumed to be the result of inflow of

unimpacted water as a result of remedial and/or source control activities. Rinse curves for the aquifer

vary from well to well depending on the timing and efficacy of remedial and source control activities

and on local changes in the hydrogeologic regime, but is initially characterized by decreasing metals

concentrations. For the South Facilities Plume in Zone A, the rinse phase is assumed to be the

combined result of 1) source controls, 2) remedial pumping from two acid extraction wells, ECG1146

and BSG1201, and 3) displacement of impacted groundwater with unimpacted or less impacted

groundwater marginal to the acid plume. This displacement undoubtedly occurs in three dimensions

including both lateral and vertical components of groundwater.

2.3.2 Methodology

The methodology for the RCE involves the following (Golder 2006):

Accounting for background;

Normalization of concentrations in the columns and the aquifer;

Relating calendar date to pore volume using curve fitting parameters for the

magnesium rinse phase slope and intercept; and

Applying the curve fitting parameters to other constituents.

June 2008 -23- 063-2287


2.3.3 Limitations of the RCE

Overall, the results of the analysis, specifically the conclusions and observed patterns discussed

below, are unaffected by potential error in the analysis. However, limitations to the RCE exist due to

the nature of field and laboratory data. Obviously for RCE to be a useful exercise, groundwater at the

well must have experienced similar conditions to the columns, that is, acidification followed by

displacement by unimpacted or less impacted groundwater.

Some error may have been imparted in the analysis due to laboratory analytical error for available

data, database errors, data paucity, effects from continuing sources, and the absence of clear trends.

Accordingly, it may be possible to calculate slightly different sets of parameters for the normalization

and other transformations, particularly when evaluating the beginning and linear portions of rinse

curves. As described in Golder 2006, Golder previously evaluated the sensitivity of the analysis to

the selected parameters for the site data.

Additional limitations are placed on the RCE due to the completeness or quality of column data, even

with the updated column data. For example, SMI did not collect samples at every pore volume for

every constituent and some variation in the data occurs (likely due to standard laboratory or analytical

error).

2.3.4 Results of the Updated RCE

Golder updated the RCE for the 17 wells listed in Table 2-11; locations are shown on Figure 2-26.

Results for the updated RCE are also summarized in Table 2-11. Graphical results for Al, Mn, Cu,

Fe, Zn, and SO4 are provided on Figures E-1 through E-21 in Appendix E.

Results for the updated RCE are similar to those described in Golder 2006 indicating that the initial

assumptions regarding the start of the rinse phase and curve matching were generally correct and that

the additional well data considered are consistent with the previous results. The differences in results

between the initial and updated RCE are described below.

Behavior of Metals Recovery: Comparisons of recovery for metals between

column and field conditions are generally unaffected by the update, with the

exception of Al and Zn. This is expected given the revised column results for

these two metals. Updated results for Al indicate that recovery in the field is

June 2008 -24- 063-2287


occurring at a similar or faster rate than that observed in the columns

(Table 2-11, Figures E-1 through E-21). Updated results for Zn indicate that

recovery in the field is occurring at a similar to slower rate than that observed in

the columns.

Pore Volume: Results for pore volume estimates between the initial and

updated RCE are provided in Table 2-12. Results between the initial and updated

analyses are generally within 15%. Variations in pore volume are due to both the

updates to the column data and the recent field data. Distribution of updated

estimated pore volumes (Figure 2-26) are also similar to those predicted in the

initial RCE.

June 2008 -25- 063-2287


3.0 METRICS FOR FUTURE PERFORMANCE

The methods developed to provide metrics for future performance presented here were originally

developed by Golder and Geochimica. The methods range from relatively simple extrapolations

using curve fitting techniques to sophisticated numerical modeling of coupled flow and reactive

transport. The methods each account for remobilization, either implicitly or explicitly, but do not

rigorously account for all changes (past and future) in the hydrogeochemical conditions of the plume.

As such, the metrics are intended for short-term predictions (e.g., 5 to 10 years) to bound risks

associated with lime demand.

The three methods updated and presented here are:



undergone relatively complete recovery; and


The first two methods rely on the EVS mass balance results (Section 2) for historical performance

with curve fitting techniques to extrapolate into the future. The third method employs one-

dimensional flow and reactive transport along representative flow paths to each of the acid extraction

wells.

3.1 Laboratory Columns

A major geochemical activity of the Remedial Investigation (RI; KUCC 1998a) for the South

Facilities Plume was the performance and analysis of bench-scale column tests by Shepherd Miller,

Inc (SMI; SMI 1997a). The column tests simulated interaction of Large Bingham Creek Reservoir

leach water with alluvial sediments. Following acidification of the sediments, SMI eluted unimpacted

water through the columns in order to simulate a pump-and-treat remedial action. The selection of

the pump-and-treat remedy during the Feasibility Study (FS; KUCC 1998b) was based on the results

of the column tests, as extrapolated to full-scale aquifer performance by KUCC’s internal modeling

program. The internal modeling assumed that pore volumes of fluid represent a dimensionless time

June 2008 -26- 063-2287


that allow the geochemical changes in the column tests to be extrapolated directly to those of the

aquifer.

The same assumption may be applied to fit the SMI column data to observed changes in

concentrations at selected wells across the Zone A Plume (Section 2.3). RCE was used to estimate a

range of equivalent pore volumes between the experimental columns and the field response from 2.8

to 9 years, with an average of 4.7 years for the 15 wells to which RCE was applied. For comparison,

SMI estimated the equivalent pore volume of 9 years (SMI 1997a). Using this range of estimates, the

normalized column data were transformed and matched to the EVS estimates of acidity remaining in

the aquifer from 1996 to 2006.

The time between data points from the columns depends on the frequency of the column samples and

the scaling factor to the field. The table below shows the first 3 column data points and scaled dates

for the three pore volume scenarios.

PV = 2.8 PV = 4 PV = 9

Point 1 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006

Point 2 09/15/2011 01/13/2015 07/26/2022

Point 3 07/01/2016 01/30/2023 12/22/2037

The rates computed for each time period will look very different if plotted using different methods,

for example:

A method that relies on the end period date (e.g. for PV=9, one would calculate

the rate from point 1 to point 2 and assign the 7/26/2022 date to that rate), as

shown on Figure 3-1a;

A method that uses the midpoint date (e.g. for PV=9, one would calculate the rate

from point 1 to point 2 and assign the 9/7/2014 date to that rate), as shown on

Figure 3-1b;

A method that uses a step function, where one assigns the rate to the entire

interval, as shown on Figure 3-1c;

A central differencing method scheme where one would average the two rates

from points 1/2 and points 2/3; or

June 2008 -27- 063-2287


A method whereby a function to the fitted data points (e.g. Figure 3-1, top

graph), and computing the rate from the function.

The last two methods would likely provide the best approach, but the effort exceeds the precision of

the column method. Recall that the short term forecasts with this method are based on very few

column data points. For example, the first data point for PV=9 after 2006 is in 2022. Also,

the method suffers from subjective selection of the match point for the columns and the field data.

Both significantly affect the precision of predicted rates. Further, the forecasts based on column

predictions likely underestimate future annual lime demand due to the assumption of a constant

pumping rate. The results are shown on Figures 3-1a, b and c. The figures include both the estimated

mass of acidity remaining in the plume and the estimated annual acidity removed historically based

on the EVS results. Predictions of lime demand are based on extrapolation.

A comparison of the predicted lime demand using the various methods follows:

Predicted Lime Demand – Laboratory Columns

Kg x 10

6 as CaCO3

Equivalent

Method 2010 2015



Step Method 2 – 6 1.5 – 3.5

This method assumes that the column response is a perfect analog for the behavior of the Zone A

Plume, which further implies that the extraction wells provide full capture of the acid plume and not

partial interception. It is important to note that the rate of change of mass in the plume thus far is

dominated by extraction of dissolved acidity at the highest concentrations, concentrations above

1,000 mg/L as CaCO3 equivalent with little or no significant change in the volume or mass of acidity

below these concentrations. The rate of change will decrease as concentrations decrease. Thus, the

extrapolations based on this initial trend (as defined by the EVS modeling) likely underestimate

future annual lime demand. Further, the curve fitting method implies constant extraction rates for the

match period, whereas the extraction rates increased in 2003 with commissioning of BSG1201. This

results in a real and EVS modeled increase in the rate of mass decrease for the plume. The curve

fitting includes this later period and thus may underestimate the predicted annual lime demand in the

short-term. This limitation of the method will become more important when additional extraction

wells are added and/or changes to extraction rates occur.

June 2008 -28- 063-2287


3.2 Empirical Rinse Curves

A separate method for predicting acidity of the Zone A plume is through empirical rinse curves. This

method equates the measured chemical changes at individual monitor wells during recovery to the

EVS estimates for the Zone A plume. Both are normalized and matched, then the matched well data

are used to forecast the annual acidity remaining in the aquifer as well as annual lime demand,

assuming that the extraction rates remain constant.

The method was applied to data from two monitor wells, P241B and ECG1124B. The locations of

these wells are shown on Figure 3-2. Of the many monitor wells considered for this method, these

two provided the best records, exhibiting initially high concentrations of acidity followed by

substantial decreases in concentrations. Further, the two sets of records were complementary,

together providing a more complete period of record once the data were transformed. The calculated

acidity for these wells are shown on Figures 3-3 and 3-4.

The well data were normalized then offset and scaled in time using linear optimization to match the

EVS estimates of acidity remaining in the aquifer. Exponential equations were then fit to the

transformed well data to predict annual acidity removed from 2007 forward. The transformed well

data fit to the EVS estimates and the predictions are shown on Figures 3-3 and 3-4. Golder was able

to develop an agreeable match between the transformed well data and the EVS estimates. The

exponential equations provided a good fit to the transformed data as well.

Using the equation for P241B, the estimated annual lime requirement will be approximately 7 million

Kg of acidity (as CaCO3 equivalent) for 2010 and 4.5 million Kg for 2015 (Figure 3-3). The method

provides similar results for ECG1124B (Figure 3-4). The combined results using data from both

wells are shown on Figure 3-5.

This method assumes that the observed responses at the extraction wells are good analogs for the

behavior of the plume as a whole. This implies that the extraction wells provide full capture of the

acid plume and not partial interception, that the hydrogeologic conditions are at steady state, and the

extraction rates remain constant into the future. As with the previous method, the extrapolations

based on this initial trend (as defined by the EVS modeling) likely underestimate future annual lime

demand. Further, the curve fitting method implies constant extraction rates for the match period, may

underestimate the predicted annual lime demand in the short-term. This limitation of the method will

June 2008 -29- 063-2287


become more important when additional extraction wells are added and/or changes to extraction rates

occur.

3.3 Geochemical Modeling

3.3.1 Approach

Groundwater and dissolved metals mass travel together toward the acid extraction wells along a range

of different hydrogeochemical flow paths. These flow paths can exhibit different hydrogeologic and

chemical conditions. For example, the plume traveling along a flow path toward an extraction well

from one direction may move at a different velocity and involve exhibit different concentrations than

traveling along other flow paths from other directions. To improve the accuracy of the lime demand

predictions, Golder proposed to expand the one-dimensional flow and geochemical modeling

conducted in 2006 to include multiple (perhaps five or six), generalized, hydrogeochemical flow

paths for each extraction well to better account for the range of flow paths, compared to the previous

modeling involving single flow paths. The generalized flow paths and relative flow along each were

to be identified and quantified in cooperation with KUCC using the existing numerical groundwater

flow model (reverse particle tracking). The geochemical modeling would be calibrated, in part, using

historical magnesium5 concentrations along each flow path measured at monitor wells and the

historical mass removal records for the extraction wells. The calibrated geochemical models would

then be used to predict future metals concentrations (as calculated acidity) at each extraction well,

which in turn would provide predictions of lime demand.

Through discussions with KUCC, reverse particle tracking using the existing groundwater flow model

was considered unreliable for this approach and Golder was required to develop a revised approach.

The revised approach was presented to KUCC on June 14, 2007, and approved at that time. Golder

has executed that revised approach and the results are presented here.

The revised approach relies on two "representative" flow paths selected for each acid extraction well.

One representative "clean" and one representative "dirty" flow path for each extraction well were

identified. The flow paths for each well were estimated based on contoured groundwater levels and

5 As described Golder 2006b and Golder 2006c, Golder has generally used magnesium as a conservative constituent for

modeling and curve fitting exercises. While magnesium is not strictly a conservative constituent under all conditions, the

availability of magnesium data and the lack of another suitable conservative constituent or constituent make magnesium

the best choice for model calibration and curve fitting.

June 2008 -30- 063-2287


aligned through existing monitoring wells for the purposes of establishing initial conditions and for

model calibration. Geochemical modeling was used to simulate flow and reactive transport along

each path line. An apportionment of the simulated concentrations for each representative flow path at

the extraction well was developed by calibrating to monitor wells along the flow path and then to the

extraction well chemistry in the following manner:

Clean flow path

Calibrate to well in flow path

Dirty flow path

Calibrate to well in flow path

Extraction Well

X% Y%

Calibration to monitor wells in the flow paths was performed by trial and error, adjusting the model

inputs within reasonable ranges until an acceptable visual match was achieved between measured and

predicted concentrations. Apportionment of clean and dirt flow paths (―X‖ and ―Y‖ above) was

performed using a combination of linear optimization and visual fits with the magnesium data. Once

the apportionment was selected, it was held constant for all future predictions.

The clean flow path was used to simulate the displacement of the contaminated groundwater with

background or clean groundwater. This flow path represents both lateral and vertical flushing and

mixing. The flow path follows a single representative path line starting beyond the edge of the acid

plume (unimpacted or background areas) to an extraction well. A dirty flow path was selected that

follows the estimated axis of the acid plume. This flow path was represented with two different

conditions; an endpoint with clean chemistry; and a endpoint with impacted chemistry assuming some

continuing source (e.g., vadose sediment drainage). A schematic of the geochemical modeling

approach is shown on Figure 3-6.

Geochemical modeling was performed using the Geochemists Workbench (GWB; Bethke 2005),

which is a well-established thermodynamic equilibrium and reaction model. Golder used the

Wateq4F thermodynamic database, consistent with the previous modeling performed by SMI

modeling (SMI 1997a). The standard surface reaction database distributed with GWB was modified

to match the Wateq4F database, also consistent with SMI (1997a). Reduction-oxidation (redox)

conditions, temperature, the partial pressure of carbon-dioxide (PCO2), and mineral phases allowed to

June 2008 -31- 063-2287


precipitate and dissolve were held constant throughout the modeling at the conditions shown in the

table below. Exceptions to this were for the sensitivity analysis performed for redox conditions and

mineral assemblages, described further in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.

Input Parameter

Value/Condition/

Factor Applied Comments

Redox Conditions (Eh/pe)* fixed at Eh of 0.237 V or pe of 4 Varied in sensitivity runs

Temperature Fixed at 15 oC --

Partial Pressure of Carbon

Dioxide

Fixed at 10-3.5 --

Thermodynamic Database Wateq4f Consistent with previous

modeling

Sorption Database FeOH.dat Modified for Wateq4f

Sorbing Mineral Phases Ferrihydrite --

Precipitating/Unsuppressed

Mineral Phases

Al(OH)3(a), Basaluminite,

Birnessite, Calcite . Fe(OH)3(a),

Gibbsite, Gypsum

Varied in sensitivity runs

Charge Balance Balanced on sulfate --

Preliminary modeling, including preliminary speciation and flush models, as well as initial sensitivity

analyses, were run using the React module of GWB. The preliminary modeling was then used to

establish and guide the one-dimensional models in the X1t module of GWB.

3.3.2 ECG1146 Acid Extraction Well

The representative flow paths for ECG1146 are shown on Figure 3-7. The clean flow path (Path 1)

extends from monitor well P274, located outside the plume, to monitor wells P208B, just inside the

plume, to ECG1145, located adjacent to the ECG1146 extraction well, and finally to the extraction

well. Influent chemistry to this flow path was representative chemistry for P274 (2/27/1998) , similar

to the clean background water shown in the table below. Calibration was conducted to ECG1145,

and the calibrated model used to project conditions to the extraction well.

The dirty flow path (Path 2) extends from B1G951 located immediately below Bingham Canyon

Reservoir, to monitor wells K120 and ECG1115, and then to the ECG1146 extraction well. Two

influent chemistries were specified for this flow path; a clean background water and an impacted

chemistry for well B1G951 (1/13/2006). The clean and impacted chemistry data are shown below:

June 2008 -32- 063-2287


Constituent

Clean Influent

SMI Column

(1997a)

Impacted Influent

B1G951

1/13/2006

Al3+ 0.01 801

Ca2+ 134 430

Cl- 125 203

F- 0.18 91

Fe2+ 0.01 173

K+ 3.9 12.9**

Mg2+ 24.8 2,080

Mn2+ 0.005 167

Na+ 42.1 117

pH 7.3 3.39

SO42- 140 13,400

As 0.0001 0.081**

Cu2+ 0.001 61

Zn2+ 0.027 71.2

CO32- 197.5 3**

All units in mg/L, except pH

** From ECG1146

Calibration was conducted to monitor well ECG1115, and the calibrated model used to project

conditions to the extraction well (figures 3-8 through 3-10). The calibration was conducted by

varying the specific discharge and longitudinal dispersivity, with some adjustments to the initial

distribution of concentrations along the flow paths. Apportionment between the two flow paths was

selected by calibrating to the Mg concentrations for acid extraction well ECG1146.

3.3.3 BSG1201 Acid Extraction Well

Data for extraction well BSG1201 begin in August 2003. Since concentrations may have been

decreasing prior to this time, Golder used data for monitor well ECG1177B, a monitor well next to

BSG1201, to extend the period of record back to 2001 when rinseout may have begun (based on the

decreasing concentrations in ECG1177B).

A number of trials with different flow paths and flow conditions were evaluated until a final set of

flow paths were selected. Representative flow paths for the BSG1201 extraction well and monitor

well ECG1177B are shown on Figure 3-11. The initially selected clean flow path extended from

monitor well BSG1148A, outside the plume, to monitor well P241B, and then to the BSG1201

extraction well. Water chemistry for BSG1148A (8/3/01), which was similar to the clean background

water, was used as the influent chemistry. Calibration was performed to monitor well P241B.

June 2008 -33- 063-2287


However, while a good calibration to P241B was achieved, an unrealistically low velocity and

dispersivity value were required to achieve calibration. The low velocity did not result in full rinseout

at the BSG1201 extraction well during the modeling time period (12,000 days or just under 33 years).

This result is not unexpected, given that this flow path extends parallel, rather than perpendicular to,

the water level gradients shown in Figure 3-11; therefore, flow in this general south to north/northeast

direction is likely limited. While this result is understandable, it indicated that any strictly clean flow

path would be required to extend flow cross- or counter- to the gradient. A clean flow path from the

west would extend past the ECG1146 extraction well or its capture zone, effects of which would not

be accounted for in this one-dimensional modeling. Therefore, a true clean flow path to extraction

BSG1201 was not utilized in forecasting.

The clean flow path was replaced by a flow path from P208B to P264 to the extraction well BSG1201

(Figure 3-11). This chemistry for monitor wells P208B and P264 are marginal or partially acidified

(Golder 2006c and Golder 2006d). Two rinse waters were used for this flow path, a marginal rinse

water (Figure 3-12; chemistry from P264 on 1/18/1998) and a clean background rinse water

(Figure 3-13).

The initial dirty flow path extended from ECG1117B to ECG1118A, to extraction well BSG1201

(Figure 3-11). However, calibration to ECG1118A was not possible, as flow from ECG1117B is

more contaminated than that at ECG1118A or acid extraction well BSG1201. Thus, the model could

not be used to simulate rinseout or match observed decreasing concentrations at ECG1118A or

BSG1201. A dirty flow path, with a contaminated endpoint, was established using a shortened

version of the flow path shown on Figure 3-11. The simulated dirty flow path modeled extended

from ECG1118A to extraction well BSG1201, with contaminated influent chemistry (chemistry for

ECG1118A on 8/8/01) followed by a marginal endpoint after 4 years, as determined through trial and

error calibration (Figures 3-12 and 3-13). This flow path was calibrated visually to match

concentrations at ECG1177B and to match the slope of rinse out at BSG1201.

Water chemistry data used for modeling flow paths to extraction well BSG1201 are shown below.

June 2008 -34- 063-2287


Constituent

Clean Influent

SMI Column

(1997a)

Marginal

Influent

P264

(1/18/1998)

Impacted

Influent

ECG118A

(8/8/01)

Al3+ 0.01 0.126 826

Ca2+ 134 476 436

Cl- 125 94 168

F- 0.18 0.18* 32.4

Fe2+ 0.01 0.202 118

K+ 3.9 6** 7.8

Mg2+ 24.8 1170 2590

Mn2+ 0.005 162 291

Na+ 42.1 63 102

pH 7.3 6.06 3.49

SO42- 140 5,310 14,949

As 0.0001 0.0001* 0.046

Cu2+ 0.001 0.02 47.5

Zn2+ 0.027 0.061 71.2

CO32- 197.5 61.8 <3

All units in mg/L, except pH

*Values from clean effluent used

**Value from adjacent date used

3.3.4 Results

The results for extraction ECG1146 are shown on Figures 3-8 and 3-9 for the two Path 2 endpoint

chemistries. The calculated pore volumes (travel time) from GWB for each flow path are shown on

the figures. Although the apportionment was based on Mg, a good fit was achieved for Al and acidity

without further adjustment. The apportionment is approximately 55% Path 1; 45% Path 2.

Figure 3-10 shows a) the comparison of the two sets of results, with a third estimated transition

between the two and b) historical acidity removal records and predicted annual lime demand for

extraction well ECG1146. The transition is a more likely outcome, given that an impacted influence

along the dirty flow path is not likely to persist. This method produces estimated annual lime demand

for extraction well ECG1146 for the year 2010 of between 8.8 and 9.8 million Kg (as CaCO3

equivalent) and between 4.3 and 6.8 million Kg for the year 2015.

The results from this method for ECG1146 are non-unique. In other words, selection of different

flow paths and values for the parameters could result in different results. However, the short-term

results were found to be relatively insensitive to a number of factors including chemistry chosen for

June 2008 -35- 063-2287


the flow paths, flow and dispersivity properties, redox and mineral assemblages (Sections 3.3.5 and

3.3.6), and the selected apportionment between the clean and dirty flow paths.

The results for extraction BSG1201 are shown on Figures 3-12 and 3-13a for the two Path 3 endpoint

chemistries. The apportionment is approximately 50% Path 1; 50% Path 2. The apportionment was

based on Mg, which provided a good fit to Al using a marginal endpoint chemistry, but a poor fit to

Al using the clean endpoint chemistry for Path 3. The apportioned curve is a composite of the two

paths and its shape is influenced by both paths. The second transition for the apportioned curve is

influenced by the chemical transitions from the dirty flow path. Figure 3-13b provides explanation of

the two dirty path transitions (which are subsequently represented in the apportioned path). The first

transition is from BSG1201 chemistry (represented by BSG1177B) to ECG1118A chemistry, which

occurs from approximately 2003 to 2006. The second transition is from the chemistry of ECG1118A

to a nominal marginal water chemistry. The second transition is likely; given the assumption of full

hydraulic containment with invasion by marginal waters (Figure 3-12) and/or background water

(Figure 3-13). The timing of the second transition to a marginal endpoint chemistry was specified at

an equivalent 4 year-travel time from ECG1118A. This timing for the introduction of marginal water

was based on model calibration to the BSG1201 observations.

Figure 3-14 shows a) a comparison of the two sets of results and b) historical acidity removal records

and predicted annual lime demand for extraction well BSG1201. This method produces estimated

annual lime demand for BSG1201 for the year 2010 of between 0.5 to 0.6 million Kg (as CaCO3

equivalent) and an estimated 0.3 to 0.5 million Kg for the year 2015.

Like the results from this method for ECG1146, the results for BSG1201 are non-unique. Selection

of different flow paths and values for the parameters could result in different results. However, once

reasonable reaction flow paths were selected, the short-term results for extraction well BSG1201 from

this method were found to be relatively insensitive to a number of factors including chemistry chosen

for the flow paths, flow and dispersivity properties, redox and mineral assemblages (sections 3.3.5

and 3.3.6), and the selected apportionment between the clean and dirty flow paths. The short term

results are sensitive, however, to the estimated travel time along the dirty flow path (Path 2), which

dictated the transition from contaminated water to marginal water chemistry. A minimum travel time

of 4 years was chosen based on calibration to chemistry at BSG1201. While this estimate is

consistent with aquifer properties along the flow path, a longer travel time would result in a higher

predicted lime demand for this extraction well.

June 2008 -36- 063-2287


Figure 3-15a shows the combined results for both extraction wells. The average estimate shown on

the figures provides a more realistic combination of the range of results for each extraction well. The

conservative results combine the most conservative results for each. When combined, this method

produces estimated annual lime demand for the acid extraction system for the year 2010 of between

0.4 and 10.3 million Kg (as CaCO3 equivalent) and an estimated 0.3 and 7.1 million Kg for the year

2015. As a check on the reasonableness of the results, the total predicted lime demand using this

method for 2007 through the year 2030 of approximately 110 Kg as CaCO3 compares well with the

estimated total acidity in the aquifer of approximately 95 Kg as CaCO3 (Table 2-8) in 2006. Golder

expects the predicted lime demand from this method to exceed the EVS predictions, since the EVS

predictions do not consider future remobilized acidity.

When the predictions for Figure 3-15a are translated to the EVS model results, a significant negative

mass remaining is predicted for the high estimate which exceeds the likely percent remobilization.

This is shown on Figure 3-15b. The starting mass from the EVS modeling for 1996 was used as the

starting point. This underestimation of mass remaining in late time and resulting negative values is

the result of 1) remobilization, which is not represented in the 1996 total mass estimate from the EVS

modeling, and 2) the reduced number of flow paths and rinse chemistries used for each well, which

likely do not fully present the complex influence of the extraction wells on the plume.

3.3.5 Sensitivity Analyses: Redox Conditions

As a part of the geochemical modeling, Golder, with guidance from the KUCC and RTTS, proposed

evaluating the sensitivity of specified redox conditions on the one-dimensional geochemical modeling

predictions. Previous modeling was performed at a single redox condition (Eh = 0.2366 V or pe

value of 4).

As a first step toward this objective, Golder performed a search of the existing database, as provided

by KUCC, for redox data that may be used to guide the modeling. Golder focused on redox data such

as Eh measurements, dissolved oxygen measurements, or analytical results for redox pairs, such as

ferric/ferrous iron, nitrate/nitrite, or sulfate/sulfide. Redox data were collected in 1996 and 1995 from

samples for wells HMG1126B, HMS1340, K109, LTG1138B/D, and P212A/B. However, these data

were determined to be of limited value for the geochemical modeling because 1) these wells are not

located within the Zone A plume, 2) did not provide temporal trends (generally data were limited to

one or two sampling events per well), and 3) some of the data were insufficient or contradictory. For

June 2008 -37- 063-2287


example, all non-detect values or Eh values ranging from -77 mV to +292 mV over the course of one

month at one well. As understood by Golder, KUCC is aware of the need for selective redox

sampling and analysis for the Zone A plume.

Given the paucity of useful redox data, Golder performed a sensitivity analysis using a range of redox

conditions to evaluate their impact on the geochemical modeling. The sensitivity analysis was

initially performed using a flushing model in the React module of GWB. In a flushing model, a

single cell is established, rather than a column of cells as in the one-dimensional modeling. In this

case, the single cell is filled with water representative of the acidic core (chemistry for ECG1146 on

6/3/01) and flushed with increments of background water (SMI 1997a) to simulate rinseout. The cell

is flushed, with each increment reaching equilibrium, until rinseout is achieved.

In order to simulate varying redox conditions, two sets of flushing models were run:

With varying pe values (pe values of 2, 4, and 9); and

With varying fugacity of oxygen (log fO2 of -35, -55, and -65).

A strict pe condition was enforced for the first of these two sets of models. The conditions set for the

second set of models is based on a method described by Ague and Brimhall 1989 whereby pe (or Eh)

is allowed to shift during reactions with pH. With a fixed fO2, the Eh shift will follow the slope of that

for the stability of water (as shown on the Eh-pH diagram provided on Figure 3-16) and will shift

within the boundaries set for particular type of environment (i.e., environments in contact with the

atmosphere, transitional, or isolated from the atmosphere).

Figures 3-17 and 3-18 provide a summary of results from the redox flushing models. The figures

provide pH and pe on one graph and the log of Fe and Al concentrations (constituents most pertinent

to acidity) on a second graph for each simulation.

Given the observed effects in the flushing models, two redox conditions were selected to be applied to

the one-dimensional modeling to determine potential impacts. Two fixed oxygen fugacity (log values

of -35 and -55) were applied to Path 1 for ECG1146 (Section 3.3.2). These two fixed fugacities were

also compared with the initial model run at a constant pe of 4. A summary of results, including

estimated pH, Fe, Al, and Mn concentrations and mineral phases, is shown on Figures 3-19 and 3-20.

June 2008 -38- 063-2287


Based on the redox sensitivity analyses the following observations are made with respect to redox

conditions.

The predicted pH increases in all simulations in a relatively consistent manner,

independent of redox conditions considered by the modeling. The timing (with

respect to reaction progress in the flushing models or days in the one-dimensional

models) of the pH increase varies slightly, as do some of the minor pH

inflections and steps during the rise. However, these variations do not affect the

final pH values, create significant ―buffering,‖ or significantly change the timing

of the pH rise.

Al concentrations do not appear sensitive to the redox conditions, as the decrease

in Al concentrations is the same in all of the sensitivity analyses. The minor

decrease and subsequent increase in Al concentrations in the flushing models

(Figure 3-17 and 3-18) is due to gibbsite precipitation and dissolution as the pH

rises.

Fe shows sensitivity to redox conditions, as expected. At the lower oxygen

fugacities (log fO2 of -55), ferrous Fe remains in solution and ferrihyrdite does

not precipitate as the pH rises. While this does result in elevated Fe

concentrations, iron still continues to decrease throughout the simulation. In

addition, the final Fe concentrations are only slightly elevated in the low oxygen

fugacity simulations (Fe concentrations are displayed on a log scale).

Mineral assemblages are not significantly affected by the varied redox

conditions, with the exception of ferrihydrite, as described above.

Overall, some sensitivity to redox conditions does exist, resulting in minor pH fluctuations and varied

iron concentrations. However, the impact of varying redox conditions is not the current dominant

factor for increasing pH and decreasing aluminum and iron concentrations. Rather, displacement of

acidic water with background water is currently the dominant mechanism for decreasing acidity and

for the immediate future. As the displacement continues to the point where background water, rather

than acidic waters, is the dominant influence, the impact of redox conditions, particularly on

dissolution and precipitation of iron phases, will become more significant.

3.3.6 Sensitivity Analyses: Mineral Phases Conditions

As a part of the geochemical modeling, Golder, with guidance from the KUCC and RTTS, proposed

evaluating the mineral assemblage used in the modeling to that existing occurring in the field. As a

part of this effort, Golder proposed collecting samples from existing core and submitting them for

mineralogical analyses. This work was not performed due to timing, questionable condition, and

June 2008 -39- 063-2287


representativeness of the existing core, and availability (due to illness) of the scientist Golder and

Geochimica intended to perform the mineralogical analysis.

As a result, Golder performed a sensitivity analysis using different mineralogical assemblages in the

one-dimensional ECG1146 Path 1 model. The sensitivity analysis considered minerals already

included in the mineral assemblage, such as ferrihyrdrite, gibbsite, and basaluminite, as well as other

minerals such as chlorite, hematite, chalcopyrite, jarosite, and alunite. Thermodynamic data for these

minerals were included in the Wateq4f database. These mineral phases were selected because they

were tentatively identified in the quartz gravel alluvium column materials (SMI 1997b) or are known

to occur or have an effect in acid rock drainage conditions (Nordstrom and Alpers 1999; Lowson et

al. 2005).

Given the lack of specific mineral data, the minerals were added to the model in a variety of different

manners and in varying amounts in order to perform the sensitivity analysis. For example, minerals

could be added at the beginning of the model run to selected cells or to each cell incrementally

throughout the model run (providing some approximation of a timed release of mineral or ―kinetic‖

controlled dissolution).

A variety of results were produced from the sensitivity analyses depending particularly on the mineral

assemblage used, but also how the mineral was added and the amount added. Several factors were

affected by the mineral sensitivity assemblages. Examples of these effects are shown in Figure 3-21.

pH: The increase in pH as rinseout occurs was affected by the varying mineral

assemblages, including the timing of the pH increase, the final pH, and the

occurrence of pH ―steps‖ or periods of time when the pH was buffered at a

constant value by a mineral phase rather than increasing. Minerals such as

alunite and basaluminite had a larger effect on the final pH and pH steps than

other minerals examined.

Aluminum: The addition of mineral phases such as basaluminite, alunite, and

gibbsite, resulted in increased aluminum concentrations, though more apparent in

the latter phases of rinseout when overall aluminum concentrations are lower.

Iron: The addition of mineral phases such as ferrihydrite or hematite, resulted in

increased iron concentrations, though more apparent in the latter phases of

rinseout when overall iron concentrations are lower.

June 2008 -40- 063-2287


Despite observed effects, the overall result of the mineral sensitivity assemblage is similar to that of

the redox sensitivity analysis. In the short term (i.e., approximately the next five years) the decrease

in iron and aluminum concentrations, and hence acidity concentrations, is dominated in the

geochemical model at the extraction well by the displacement of influent water, rather than varying

mineral assemblages. As this displacement progresses, the influence of mineral phases, through

precipitation and remobilization will become more important.

3.4 Discussion and Limitations

Three methods were developed and applied to bracket future lime demand. Each method includes the

effects of future remobilization of metals and acidity either empirically or by simulated reactive

transport. The three methods provide comparable estimates for lime demand through the year 2015.

Predicted annual lime demand in 2010 and 2015, using the three metrics for future performance

described above, is summarized in the table below.

Predicted Annual Lime Demand

Kg x 106 as CaCO3 Equivalent

Method 2010 2015

Laboratory Columns



Step Method 2 – 6 1.5 – 3.5

Empirical Rinse Curves 7 4.3

Geochemical Modeling 9 - 10.5 4.5 - 7

The trends predicted for the individual extraction wells do not reflect the effects of any additional

extraction wells or changes to the remedial pumping rates. Further, the predictions assume that

source controls are effective and no additional sources are introduced during this time period.

A capture zone analysis was not conducted as part of this evaluation. The curve fitting methods

require the assumption that hydraulic containment is provided by the existing extraction systems

because the methods are based on EVS predictions of mass remaining in the aquifer. Therefore,

predicted lime demand will exceed actual lime demand if significant bypass is occurring or orphaned

contaminant mass exists within Zone A. Recent drilling and testing south and west of the extraction

well BSG1201 shows that hydraulic containment is not provided by the two extraction wells. The

June 2008 -41- 063-2287


addition of extraction wells will increase the short-term lime demand but not the total lime

requirement.

The column and empirical rinse curve methods are not purely independent. The methods are similar

in approach (curve fitting) and each is related directly to the EVS results for modeled percent acidity

remaining in the aquifer. The data sets fit to the EVS results, however, are independent, with one

using laboratory column data, the other using field data for wells that have undergone rinseout. Both

methods incorporate geochemical rinseout processes, at lab and field scales, respectively. The

methods’ results are expressed as rates and as % acidity remaining relative to the starting 1996

estimated dissolved mass. Expression in this fashion appears to attempt to balance mass, which will

return negative predictions in the long term when the acidity removed is dominated by remobilization.

Therefore, one should focus of the forecasted rates, not percent remaining, Of these two methods,

Golder’s preference is for the empirical rinse curves because 1) of issues with the sparse translated

column data set (Section 3.1), and 2) the field data are likely more representative of field scale

remobilization processes than the laboratory column results.

The geochemical modeling is independent from the column and empirical rinse curve methods. The

most significant limitation of this method is the simplification of two representative flow paths for

each extraction well. These two paths cannot represent all the 3-dimensional pathways influencing

concentrations at the extraction wells. The current formulation suffers from this limitation, resulting

in a mass imbalance when translated to the EVS model results, as shown on Figure 3-15b. The figure

shows a significant negative mass remaining for the high estimate which exceeds the likely percent

remobilization.

As described in SOW, multiple flow paths were proposed in the original scope for this method, but

the method was subsequently modified when it was determined that the numerical groundwater flow

model should not be used to map reliable flow pathways for the geochemical modeling. In Golder’s

opinion, the only rigorous geochemical modeling method to ensure a chemical mass balance would be

a 3-dimensional flow and transport modeling. As discussed by Golder (2007), such modeling would

be highly complex with uncertain success due to fluid density issues.

With that said, Golder believes that the geochemical modeling provides the most accurate forecasts of

lime demand for the short-term. This method rigorously represents the transport processes (albeit

steady state) and geochemical reactions, and the models are calibrated to concentrations at the

June 2008 -42- 063-2287


extraction wells. The method is expandable, in that more flow paths may be added in the future

(provided there is some basis to define them) and can be applied most easily to the third extraction

well, with the least data of the three methods. We recommend that the lime forecasts provided by the

empirical rinse curves and the geochemical modeling be used to bracket the lime demand for the short

term.

June 2008 -43- 063-2287


4.0 REFERENCES

Ague, J. J. and G. H. Brimhall 1989. Geochemical Modeling of Steady State Fluid Flow and

Chemical Reaction during Supergene Enrichment of Porphyry Copper Deposits. Economic

Geology, V. 84, pp. 506-528.

Bethke C.M. 2005. The Geochemist’s Workbench. Release 6.05. University of Illinois, Urbana

Illinois.

Geochimica Inc. (Geochimica) and Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) 2006. Memorandum, Proposed

Scope of Work, SWJV Plume, Summary of Recent Exchanges with RTTS. To Paul Brown

(RTTS) and Kelly Payne (KUCC), from M. Logsdon (Geochimica) and M. Wickham

(Golder), September 26.

Golden Software Inc. 2004. Surfer Version 8.05 – May 11, 2004. Surface Mapping System.

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), 2006a. Aluminum Plume Mass Calculations. Golder Associates

Inc. Technical Memorandum, March 2006.

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), 2006b. Geochemical Modeling of the South Facilities Groundwater

Acidic Plume. Golder Associates Inc. Technical Memorandum, March 2006.

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), 2006c. Analysis Of Plume Recovery By Rinse Curve Analysis.

Golder Associates Inc. Technical Memorandum, March 2006.

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), 2006d. Hydrogeochemical Analysis of Marginal Areas on

Aluminum Plume Recovery. Golder Associates Inc. Technical Memorandum, March 2006.

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), 2007. Outline for Phased Development of a Partially Coupled Flow

and Reactive-Transport Model for Lime Usage Forecasting. Report. January 2007.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) 1998a. Remedial Investigation Report for Kennecott

Utah Copper Couth Facilities Groundwater Plume, South Jordan Valley, Utah, March 1998.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) 1998b. Final Draft Feasibility Study for Kennecott

Utah Copper South Facilities Groundwater Plume Southwestern Jordan Valley, Utah, March

1998.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) 2006. South Facilities Groundwater Remediation

Action Progress Report for 2005. December.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) 2007. South Facilities Groundwater Remediation

Action Progress Report, 2006. March 2007.

June 2008 -44- 063-2287


Langmuir, D. 1997, Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

600 p.

Lowson R.T., M.C. Josick Comarmond, G. Rajaratnam, and P.L. Brown 2005. The Kinetics of the

Dissolution of Chloride as a Function of pH and at 25ºC. Geochimica et Cosmochimica

Acta, v69, No.7. pp. 1687-1699.

Nordstrom, D.K. and C.N. Alpers 1999. Geochemistry of Acid Mine Waters, in Reviews in

Economic Geology, Volume 6A, The Environmental Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits,

Part A: Processes, Techniques, and Health Issues. G.S. Plumlee and M.J. Logsdon editors.

Society of Economic Geologists Inc. pp. 125 to 160.

Shepherd Miller Inc. (SMI) 1997a, Draft Final Geochemical Modeling of the Ground Water In the

Southwest Jordan Valley, Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. July 1997.

Shepherd Miller Inc. (SMI) 1997b, Chemical and Mineralogical Analyses of Aquifer Materials from

Column Tests, Southwest Jordan Valley, Uath. Prepared for Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

July 1997.

June 2008 Golder Associates 063-2287 I:\06\2287\0400\0401 FNL LIME RPT\0632287 FNL LIMEFORCAST 16JUN08.DOC

TABLES

Constituent Type Value (mg/L)Al (D) Non-Detect Limit 0.01Cu (D) Non-Detect Limit 0.01Fe (D) Non-Detect Limit 0.3Mn (D) Non-Detect Limit 0.01Zn (D) Non-Detect Limit 0.01SO4 (T) Background 50

TABLE 2-1

METALS NON-DETECT LIMITS AND SULFATE BACKGROUND VALUE

June 2008J:\06JOBS\063-2287 KUCC Lime Forecasting & Model Scope\2008 Lime Forecasting Report - Final\Tables_Figures_Section 2.xlsx

063-2287Golder Associates

YearSoil

Volume (ft3 x 109)

Annual Change

Chemical Mass* (kg x

106)

Annual Change

Soil Volume

(ft3 x 109)

Annual Change

Chemical Mass+ (kg x

106)

Annual Change

1996 21.58 26.94 20.68 24.881997 21.41 -1% 27.92 4% 20.70 0% 26.17 5%1998 21.22 -1% 24.48 -12% 20.58 -1% 22.80 -13%1999 21.10 -1% 23.86 -3% 20.47 -1% 22.28 -2%2000 21.01 -0.4% 23.23 -3% 20.38 0% 21.70 -3%2001 21.33 2% 22.83 -2% 20.76 2% 21.41 -1%2002 22 32 5% 19 29 16% 21 68 4% 17 90 16%

2007 Chemistry Set A 2007 Chemistry Set B

TABLE 2-2

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF ALUMINUM IN GROUNDWATER

2002 22.32 5% 19.29 -16% 21.68 4% 17.90 -16%2003 21.73 -3% 16.08 -17% 21.12 -3% 14.87 -17%2004 21.37 -2% 13.97 -13% 20.67 -2% 12.74 -14%2005 21.47 0% 12.30 -12% 20.77 0% 11.32 -11%2006 21.45 0% 11.29 -8% 20.78 0% 10.60 -6%Total -0.14 -1% -15.65 -58% 0.11 1% -14.27 -57%

Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2

+ Porosity = 0.2 in the Principal Aquifer and 0.01 in the Volcanic Bedrock

Total changes are for the period 1996 to 2006



YearSoil

Volume (ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

Soil Volume

(ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

1996 13.00 1.65 12.95 1.661997 13.51 4% 1.58 -4% 13.49 4% 1.59 -4%1998 13.44 -1% 1.48 -6% 13.30 -1% 1.47 -8%1999 13.26 -1% 1.40 -6% 13.16 -1% 1.40 -5%2000 13.03 -2% 1.32 -6% 12.94 -2% 1.32 -6%2001 13.07 0.2% 1.36 3% 13.02 1% 1.36 3%2002 13 33 2% 1 16 14% 13 21 1% 1 16 15%


TABLE 2-3

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF COPPER IN GROUNDWATER

2002 13.33 2% 1.16 -14% 13.21 1% 1.16 -15%2003 12.74 -4% 0.98 -16% 12.58 -5% 0.98 -16%2004 12.24 -4% 0.88 -10% 12.18 -3% 0.88 -10%2005 11.65 -5% 0.78 -11% 11.60 -5% 0.79 -10%2006 11.34 -3% 0.70 -11% 11.30 -3% 0.71 -11%Total -1.66 -13% -0.95 -58% -1.65 -13% -0.96 -58%

Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2





YearSoil

Volume (ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

Soil Volume

(ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

1996 27.83 4.33 27.89 4.481997 26.83 -4% 4.24 -2% 27.11 -3% 4.29 -4%1998 21.46 -20% 3.05 -28% 21.36 -21% 3.07 -29%1999 21.16 -1% 2.81 -8% 21.04 -2% 2.83 -8%2000 21.05 -1% 2.81 0.0% 20.94 -0.5% 2.83 0.1%2001 21.81 4% 2.79 -1% 21.73 4% 2.81 -1%


TABLE 2-4

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF IRON IN GROUNDWATER

2002 20.22 -7% 2.20 -21% 19.96 -8% 2.21 -21%2003 20.07 -1% 1.83 -17% 19.80 -1% 1.84 -17%2004 19.55 -3% 1.65 -10% 19.57 -1% 1.67 -9%2005 17.61 -10% 1.38 -17% 17.59 -10% 1.40 -16%2006 16.32 -7% 1.09 -21% 16.18 -8% 1.11 -21%Total -11.51 -41% -3.24 -75% -11.71 -42% -3.37 -75%

Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2





YearSoil

Volume (ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

Soil Volume

(ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

1996 23.25 9.70 23.35 8.741997 22.85 -2% 9.56 -1% 23.00 -1% 8.77 0.3%1998 22.25 -3% 8.56 -10% 22.28 -3% 7.79 -11%1999 22.13 -1% 8.95 5% 22.16 -1% 8.25 6%2000 22.07 -0.3% 9.15 2% 22.14 0% 8.44 2%2001 22.20 1% 9.30 2% 22.27 1% 8.57 2%


TABLE 2-5

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF MANGANESE IN GROUNDWATER

2002 23.26 5% 7.94 -15% 23.20 4% 7.15 -17%2003 22.80 -2% 7.62 -4% 22.73 -2% 6.87 -4%2004 22.75 -0.2% 7.06 -7% 22.62 -0.5% 6.38 -7%2005 22.88 1% 6.63 -6% 22.60 -0.1% 6.03 -5%2006 22.64 -1% 6.20 -7% 21.96 -3% 5.69 -6%Total -0.61 -3% -3.50 -36% -1.39 -6% -3.05 -35%

Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2





YearSoil

Volume (ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

Soil Volume

(ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

1996 17.03 2.50 16.17 2.331997 16.99 -0.2% 2.43 -3% 16.18 0.1% 2.31 -1%1998 16.50 -3% 2.22 -9% 15.65 -3% 2.07 -10%1999 16.31 -1% 2.15 -3% 15.48 -1% 2.01 -3%2000 16.34 0.2% 2.19 2% 15.58 1% 2.05 2%2001 16.54 1% 2.22 1% 15.82 2% 2.09 2%


TABLE 2-6

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF ZINC IN GROUNDWATER

2002 16.55 0.1% 1.79 -19% 15.79 -0.2% 1.66 -21%2003 16.29 -2% 1.64 -9% 15.55 -2% 1.52 -8%2004 15.60 -4% 1.41 -14% 14.90 -4% 1.30 -14%2005 15.39 -1% 1.22 -13% 14.68 -1% 1.14 -13%2006 15.51 1% 1.22 -0.1% 14.76 1% 1.12 -2%Total -1.51 -9% -1.28 -51% -1.41 -9% -1.20 -52%

Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2





YearSoil

Volume (ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

Soil Volume

(ft3 x 109)

Annual Change


106)

Annual Change

1996 86.1 1,441 86.0 1,3811997 86.2 0% 1,474 2% 86.0 0% 1,405 2%1998 88.1 2% 1,465 -0.6% 87.9 2% 1,397 -0.6%1999 87.0 -1% 1,411 -4% 86.8 -1% 1,353 -3%2000 84.9 -2% 1,320 -6% 84.8 -2% 1,270 -6%2001 82.0 -3% 1,229 -7% 81.9 -3% 1,189 -6%


TABLE 2-7

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF SULFATE IN GROUNDWATER

2002 82.0 0% 1,238 0.7% 81.9 0% 1,191 0.1%2003 79.2 -3% 1,110 -10% 79.1 -3% 1,068 -10%2004 77.5 -2% 1,057 -5% 77.5 -2% 1,019 -5%2005 77.8 0% 1,043 -1% 77.8 0% 1,010 -1%2006 76.7 -1% 1,037 -0.6% 76.7 -1% 999 -1%Total -9.4 -11% -404 -28% -9.3 -11% -382 -28%

Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2



All volumes are for concentrations greater than or equal to 350 mg/L



Year Chemical Mass+

(kg x 106)Annual Change

1996 208.531997 212.81 2%1998 188.32 -12%1999 183.22 -3%2000 178.33 -3%2001 175.26 -2%2002 147.79 -16%2003 127.59 -14%2004 114.29 -10%2005 102.55 -10%2006 94.46 -8%Total 114 08 55%

2007 Chemistry Set A

TABLE 2-8

COMPUTED VOLUME AND MASS OF ACIDITY IN GROUNDWATER

Total -114.08 -55%Notes:

* Porosity = 0.2





Acidity Al Cu Fe Mn Zn Tot Me SO4

1995 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.0211996 1.359 0.201 0.014 0.065 0.028 0.011 0.320 2.8321997 3.908 0.587 0.041 0.167 0.078 0.035 0.907 9.4701998 5.271 0.785 0.055 0.216 0.133 0.050 1.239 16.0551999 9.449 0.936 0.110 0.431 0.176 0.068 1.721 20.8922000 0.096 0.014 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.024 8.8782001 10.392 1.062 0.119 0.442 0.209 0.084 1.915 23.0402002 14.876 2.215 0.149 0.496 0.503 0.159 3.523 45.4642003 16.908 1.785 0.152 0.498 0.509 0.155 3.099 41.4442004 17.283 2.549 0.164 0.434 0.808 0.221 4.176 59.0872005 20.240 2.987 0.201 0.502 0.954 0.243 4.888 64.4462006 17.934 2.640 0.176 0.430 0.889 0.213 4.348 63.6621995 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.021

TABLE 2-9

METALS AND SULFATE EXTRACTED BY REMEDIAL PUMPING

kg x 106Year

Ann

ual

1996 1.369 0.203 0.014 0.066 0.028 0.011 0.322 2.8541997 5.277 0.789 0.055 0.233 0.106 0.046 1.229 12.3231998 10.548 1.574 0.110 0.449 0.239 0.096 2.468 28.3791999 19.997 2.511 0.220 0.879 0.415 0.164 4.189 49.2712000 20.093 2.524 0.221 0.885 0.417 0.165 4.212 58.1492001 30.485 3.586 0.340 1.327 0.626 0.248 6.127 81.1892002 45.361 5.801 0.489 1.823 1.129 0.407 9.650 126.6532003 62.269 7.586 0.641 2.321 1.638 0.563 12.749 168.0982004 79.552 10.135 0.805 2.755 2.446 0.784 16.925 227.1852005 99.792 13.123 1.006 3.257 3.400 1.027 21.813 291.6312006 117.726 15.763 1.182 3.687 4.289 1.240 26.161 355.293

Notes:

-Extraction calculated using total acre-feet removed per month per well

-Tot Me - total metals

-Acidity as CaCO 3 equivalent-Chemistry not available for all time periods. Chemical concentrations estimated between available data using linear interpolation

Cum

ulat

ive



mg/L 1996 2006 Kg x 106 % 1996 2006 ft3 x 109 % Kg x 106

Al 2,090 - 2,650 27 11 -16 58% 22 21 -0.1 0.6% 16Cu 125 - 157 1.7 0.7 -1.0 58% 13 11 -1.7 13% 1.2Fe 528 - 890 4.3 1.1 -3.2 75% 28 16 -12 41% 3.7Zn 153 - 206 2.5 1.2 -1.3 51% 17 16 -1.5 8.9% 1.2Mn 893 - 1,060 9.7 6.2 -3.5 36% 23 23 -0.6 2.6% 4.3SO4 33,700 - 42,500 1,441 1,037 -404 28% 86 77 -9 10.9% 355

Acidity 209 94 114 55% 118

TABLE 2-10

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM THE TWO METHODS

Max. Conc. RangeConstituent

ft3 x 109 DifferencePumping Records

Mass RemovedEstimated Mass (Model) Estimated Volume (Model)

Kg x 106 Difference

Acidity - 209 94 -114 55% - - - - 118Notes:Acidity as CaCO 3 equivalent

Negative difference implies a decrease in mass or volume

Maximum Concentration Range is the range of maximum annual average concentrations for any well used in the modeling



Well RCE Applied?

Estimated PV (yrs) Comments/Results

ECG1124C no na pH between 7 and 8, low sulfateABC02 no na pH between 7 and 8, low sulfateECG1116B no na pH between 7 and 8, generally low sulfateECG1128B no na pH between 7 and 8, generally low sulfateW387 no na pH between 7 and 8, low sulfate

BSG1119B no -- pH dropping, Cu and Al increasing, Fe below detection. BSG1177A yes 2.8 Cu recovery slower than columns. Fe below detection.ECG1128A** yes 2.8 Al recovery faster than columns, Fe below detection.P208B yes 4.8 Cu increasing, Fe below detection, Al and Zn recovery slower than columns

B1G1120A yes 9.0 Fe recovery faster than columns. SO4 similar to column recovery.BSG1177B yes 3.6 Fe recovery faster than columns. SO4 similar to column recovery.

Examples of Wells in Acidified Areas

RINSE CURVE EVALUATION: WELLS AND RESULTS

TABLE 2-11

Examples of Unimpacted Area Wells

Examples of Wells in Margin Areas

BSG1201 yes 3.5 Fe, Al, and Cu recovery slower than columns, SO4 similar to column recovery.ECG1115A yes 5.3 Cu, Fe recovery slower than columns. Al generally below detection.ECG1117A yes 4.7 Fe and Al recovery faster than columns. Cu and SO4 similar to column recovery.ECG1118A yes 7.7 Fe recovery faster than columns. Al, Cu, and SO4 similar to column recovery.ECG1121A yes 4.4 Fe recovery similar to column recovery. Al, SO4, Cu recovery slower.ECG1124A yes 5.2 Al, Fe, Cu recovery faster than column recoveryECG1124B yes 5.0 Al, Fe, Cu recovery faster than column recoveryECG1128A** yes 2.8 Al recovery faster than columns, Fe below detection.ECG1144A yes 5.0 Fe recovery faster than columns. Al, Cu, and SO4 similar to column recovery.ECG1146 yes 4.2 Fe recovery faster than columns. Al, Cu, and SO4 similar to column recovery.K26 yes 3.5 Fe and Al recovery faster than columns. Cu and SO4 similar to column recovery.P241B yes 5.2 Al, Fe, SO4 recovery similar to column recovery. P279 yes 5.1 Al, Fe, Cu recovery faster than column recovery, with exception of final data point

4.7ECG1121A (early)* yes 13.1 Al, Fe, SO4 recovery similar to column recovery. K26 (early)* yes 7.4 Fe and Al recovery faster than columns. Cu and SO4 similar to column recovery.P241B (early)* yes 9.9 Al, Fe, Cu recovery faster than column recoveryP279 (early)* yes 10.3 Al, Fe, Cu recovery faster than column recovery

10.2

Notes:

** Monitor well ECG1128 listed twice. It is a marginal well at early dates, acidified at later dates

* "early" notation indicates RCE performed a second time, starting at an earlier date where early recovery is observed. However, these early recovery dates are often prior to the initiation of remedial pumping.

-Well list for all three categories is not all inclusive. Wells were selected by Golder, Geochimica, and KUCC personnel as representative.

avg "early" PV:

avg PV:


Golder Associates 063-2287

Initial RCE Updated RCEB1G1120A 10.5 9.0BSG1177B 3.8 3.6BSG1201 3.4 3.5ECG1115A 5.1 5.3ECG1117A 5.1 4.7ECG1118A 9.5 7.7ECG1121A 3.7 4.4ECG1124A 5.2 5.2ECG1124B 5.6 5.0ECG1144A 5.4 5.0ECG1146 5.0 4.2K26 3.9 3.5P241B 5.7 5.2P279 5.7 5.1ECG1121A (early) 16.7 13.1K26 (early) 8.6 7.4P241B (early) 10.6 9.9P279 (early) 11 3 10 3

Well

PORE VOLUME TIMES ESTIMATED BY RCE

TABLE 2-12

Pore Volume (Years)

P279 (early) 11.3 10.3BSG1177A 7.1 2.8ECG1128A 5.3 2.8P208B 5.1 4.8

Notes:-"early" indicates early time data were used in the RCE



Aluminum Iron Copper Manganese Zinc Acidity (calculated)mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L as CaCO3

Year: 2011B1G1120A 852.6 255.8 79.7 147.8 60.5 5,799BSG1177B 302.6 101.0 36.2 62.1 27.4 2,120BSG1201 368.3 124.2 42.6 75.1 32.5 2,579ECG1115A 315.8 105.6 37.4 64.7 28.4 2,212ECG1117A 302.6 101.0 36.2 62.1 27.4 2,120ECG1118A 473.0 155.6 51.4 92.5 39.3 3,287ECG1121A 368.3 124.2 42.6 75.1 32.5 2,579ECG1124A 250.1 82.3 31.0 51.7 23.2 1,753ECG1124B 263.2 87.0 32.3 54.3 24.3 1,845ECG1144A 289.5 96.3 34.9 59.5 26.3 2,028ECG1146 381.5 128.9 43.9 77.7 33.6 2,671K26 173.3 54.2 23.1 35.8 17.0 1,212P241B 315.8 105.6 37.4 64.7 28.4 2,212P279 355.2 119.6 41.3 72.5 31.5 2,487ECG1121A (early) 1080.3 315.9 96.7 180.9 73.2 7,306K26 (early) 146.4 42.6 19.8 28.7 14.5 1,015P241B (early) 368.3 124.2 42.6 75.1 32.5 2,579P279 (early) 624.8 246.6 62.7 114.6 47.8 4,406BSG1177A 181.0 57.6 24.1 37.8 17.7 1,269ECG1128A 184.8 59.2 24.6 38.8 18.1 1,297P208B 302.6 101.0 36.2 62.1 27.4 2,120

Year: 2015B1G1120A 473.0 155.6 51.4 92.5 39.3 3,287BSG1177B 177.1 55.9 23.6 36.8 17.4 1,241BSG1201 223.8 73.0 28.4 46.6 21.1 1,569ECG1115A 210.6 68.4 27.1 44.0 20.1 1,477ECG1117A 197.5 63.7 25.8 41.4 19.1 1,386ECG1118A 355.2 119.6 41.3 72.5 31.5 2,487

TABLE 2-13

Well

CONCENTRATIONS ESTIMATED BY RCE

ECG1121A 250.1 82.3 31.0 51.7 23.2 1,753ECG1124A 177.1 55.9 23.6 36.8 17.4 1,241ECG1124B 177.1 55.9 23.6 36.8 17.4 1,241ECG1144A 184.8 59.2 24.6 38.8 18.1 1,297ECG1146 263.2 87.0 32.3 54.3 24.3 1,845K26 150.3 44.2 20.3 29.8 14.9 1,043P241B 223.8 73.0 28.4 46.6 21.1 1,569P279 250.1 82.3 31.0 51.7 23.2 1,753ECG1121A (early) 852.6 255.8 79.7 147.8 60.5 5,799K26 (early) 110.9 24.5 16.1 19.3 11.1 749P241B (early) 315.8 105.6 37.4 64.7 28.4 2,212P279 (early) 394.6 154.6 45.2 80.3 34.6 2,810BSG1177A 127.2 34.2 17.4 23.7 12.7 874ECG1128A 131.1 35.9 17.9 24.7 13.1 902P208B 197.5 63.7 25.8 41.4 19.1 1,386

Year: 2025B1G1120A 276.3 91.7 33.6 56.9 25.3 1,937BSG1177B 94.4 10.4 16.1 14.5 9.2 614BSG1201 103.6 18.2 16.1 17.2 10.3 689ECG1115A 123.4 32.6 16.9 22.7 12.4 846ECG1117A 110.9 24.5 16.1 19.3 11.1 749ECG1118A 184.8 59.2 24.6 38.8 18.1 1,297ECG1121A 119.6 30.9 16.4 21.7 12.0 818ECG1124A 109.1 23.0 16.1 18.7 10.9 734ECG1124B 107.2 21.4 16.1 18.2 10.7 719ECG1144A 112.7 26.1 16.1 19.8 11.3 764ECG1146 116.4 29.3 16.1 20.8 11.7 794K26 109.1 23.0 16.1 18.7 10.9 734P241B 119.6 30.9 16.4 21.7 12.0 818P279 131.1 35.9 17.9 24.7 13.1 902ECG1121A (early) 394.6 133.6 45.2 80.3 34.6 2,763K26 (early) 71.1 8.2 10.1 13.5 8.8 468P241B (early) 181.0 57.6 24.1 37.8 17.7 1,269P279 (early) 263.2 99.8 32.3 54.3 24.3 1,873BSG1177A 71.1 8.2 10.1 13.5 8.8 468ECG1128A 71.1 8.2 10.1 13.5 8.8 468P208B 114.6 27.7 16.1 20.3 11.5 779

Notes:-"early" indicates early time data were used in the RCE-Acidity calculated from Al, Fe, Cu, Mn , and Zn concentrations




FIGURES

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

1

48

20000

Scale is in mine coordinates, units are feet. Figure 2-1

Denver, Colorado, USA Domain Used in MVS Modeling5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t -

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

2

48

20000

BRG920 BRG921

BRG999

ECG1190

ECG299ECG900ECG901

ECG902

ECG903

ECG904ECG905

ECG909

K72

P220

P225

P245

P192AP192B

P193AP193BW308

ABC08

EPG1166EPG1689

EPG2780AEPG2780BEPG2781AEPG2781B

W107

W108

ABC01

ABC02

ABC04ABC04A

ABC05

ABC07B1G1120AB1G1120BB1G1120CB1G951

B2G1157AB2G1157BB2G1157C

B2G1176AB2G1176BB2G1176C

B2G1193

B2G1194AB2G1194B

B3G1197AB3G1197BB3G1197C

BCG1149ABCG1149BBCG1149C

BCG1150ABCG1150BBCG1150CBCG1158ABCG1158BBCG1158C

BFG1136ABFG1136BBFG1136C BFG1155ABFG1155BBFG1155CBFG1155DBFG1155EBFG1155F

BFG1156ABFG1156BBFG1156CBFG1156DBFG1156EBFG1156F

BFG1168ABFG1168BBFG1168C

BFG1195ABFG1195B

BFG1198ABFG1198BBFG1198C BFG1200

BSG1119ABSG1119BBSG1119C BSG1132ABSG1132BBSG1132C

BSG1133ABSG1133BBSG1133C





BSG1180ABSG1180BBSG1180CBSG1196ABSG1196BBSG1196CBSG1201

BSG2777ABSG2777BBSG2778ABSG2778B




COG1112ACOG1112B

COG1151ACOG1151BCOG1151CCOG1151D

COG1152ACOG1152BCOG1152C COG1175ACOG1175BCOG1175C

COG1178ACOG1178BCOG1178C

COG918

COG947

CPG950

ECG1115AECG1115BECG1115CECG1115DECG1115E

ECG1116AECG1116BECG1116C







ECG1142AECG1142BECG1142CECG1144AECG1144BECG1144C

ECG1145A

ECG1145BECG1145CECG1146

ECG1189

ECG293

ECG294ECG295BECG296

ECG297ECG298AECG298B

ECG952

EPG1165AEPG1165BEPG1165C

K105

K106 K109

K120K26

K60

K84LRG910

LRG911

LRG912LRG914

P190AP190B

P191B

P194AP194B

P196A

P197AP197B

P202CP208AP208B

P209B

P241AP241B

P242

P248AP248BP248C

P249AP249B P250B

P264P274

P275

P277

P279

SRG945SRG946

W167W189

W27

W363W387

WJG1154AWJG1154BWJG1154C

WJG1169AWJG1169BWJG1169C

Scale is in mine coordinates, units are feet. Figure 2-2Denver, Colorado, USA Wells Used in MVS Modeling

5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000 ECG1114AECG1114BECG1186

ECG1187

ECG1188ECG1199AECG1199BECG1199CECG1199DECG1199EECG1199FECG1199G

ECG904

ECG906

ECG907

ECG908

ECG915

ECG916

ECG917

ECG922

ECG923

ECG924

ECG925

ECG926

ECG928

K70

P239

P243

P244AP244BP244C

P245

P271

P272

HMG1643

P255AP255B

P256P257

P263

W309LTG1129ALTG1129BLTG1129CLTG1138ALTG1138BLTG1138CLTG1138DLTG1138ELTG1138FLTG1139LTG1140ALTG1140BLTG1140CLTG1140DLTG1141ALTG1141BLTG1141C LTG1147

ABC06



BSG1135ABSG1135BBSG1135CBSG1153ABSG1153BBSG1153C

BSG1560



ECG1183AECG1183B

HMG1122AHMG1122BHMG1122C




HMG1500HMG1511

HMG1514

HMG1521

HMG1540

HMG1632

HMG1856

K201

LTG1127ALTG1127BLTG1127C

LTG1167ALTG1167BLTG1167C

LTG1191

LTG1522LTG1523

LTG929ALTG929B

P211AP211B

P212AP212B

P214A

P231

P241C

P267B

P268

P269

P270

P273

W131AW18

W22

W405W407W41A

Well

PlumeletZone BLark

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

3

111

48

20000

Scale is in mine coordinates, units are feet. Figure 2-3Denver, Colorado, USA Water Table in 1996 Used in MVS Modeling


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

4

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

5

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

6

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

7

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

8

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

9

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

10

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

11

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

12

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

13

111

48

20000



J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

14

PA

48

20000

Scale is in mine coordinates, units are feet. Figure 2-14Denver, Colorado, USA Bottom of the Alluvial Aquifer Used in MVS Modeling


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

15

Volc

48

20000

Scale is in mine coordinates, units are feet. Figure 2-15Denver, Colorado, USA Bottom of the Plume Used in MVS Modeling


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

16

GS

48

20000

Scale is in mine coordinates, units are feet. Figure 2-16Denver, Colorado, USA Domain Used in MVS Modeling


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

LL

LARK

111

HERRIMAN

12600 SOU

11800 SOUTH

BINGHAM TUNNEL

LARK SHAFT

20000 30000 40000

0

10000

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30P

lum

e M

ass

(Mil

kg)

Total Dissolved Al in Plume - Set ACumulative Decrease in Al Mass in Plume - Set ATotal Dissolved Al in Plume - Set BCumulative Decrease in Al Mass in Plume - Set BAl Removed by Extraction Wells

20

25

30

l kg)

Al > 1,000 mg/L100 < Al < 1,000 mg/L10 < Al < 100 mg/L1 < Al < 10 mg/L

Figure 2-17Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Aluminum, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

5

10

15

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il

0

5

10

15

20

25

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Vol

ume

(Bil

ft3)

Al > 1,000 mg/L100 < Al < 1,000 mg/L10 < Al < 100 mg/L1 < Al < 10 mg/L

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Total Dissolved Cu in Plume - Set ACum Decrease in Cu Mass in Plume - Set ATotal Dissolved Cu in Plume - Set BCum Decrease in Cu Mass in Plume - Set BCu Removed by Extraction Wells

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

il kg

)

Cu > 100 mg/L50 < Cu < 100 mg/L10 < Cu < 50 mg/L1 < Cu < 10 mg/L

Figure 2-18Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Copper, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

0

5

10

15

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Vol

ume

(Bil

ft3)

Cu > 100 mg/L50 < Cu < 100 mg/L10 < Cu < 50 mg/L1 < Cu < 10 mg/L

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Total Dissolved Fe in Plume - Set ACum Decrease in Fe Mass in Plume - Set ATotal Dissolved Fe in Plume - Set BCum Decrease in Fe Mass in Plume - Set BFe Removed by Extraction Wells

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Mil

kg)

Fe > 500 mg/L

100 < Fe < 500 mg/L

10 < Fe < 100 mg/L

1 < Fe < 10 mg/L

Figure 2-19Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Iron, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Vol

ume

(Bil

ft3)

Fe > 500 mg/L

100 < Fe < 500 mg/L

10 < Fe < 100 mg/L

1 < Fe < 10 mg/L

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Total Dissolved Mn in Plume - Set ACum Decrease in Mn Mass in Plume - Set ATotal Dissolved Mn in Plume - Set BCum Decrease in Mn Mass in Plume - Set BMn Removed by Extraction Wells

6

7

8

9

10

il kg

)

Figure 2-20Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Manganese, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

Mn > 800 mg/L100 < Mn < 800 mg/L10 < Mn < 100 mg/L1 < Mn < 10 mg/L

0

5

10

15

20

25

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Vol

ume

(Bil

ft3)

Mn > 800 mg/L100 < Mn < 800 mg/L10 < Mn < 100 mg/L1 < Mn < 10 mg/L

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Total Dissolved Zn in Plume - Set ACum Decrease in Zn Mass in Plume - Set ATotal Dissolved Zn in Plume - Set BCum Decrease in Zn Mass in Plume - Set BZn Removed by Extraction Wells

1.5

2.0

2.5

Mil

kg)

Zn > 100 mg/L50 < Zn < 100 mg/L10 < Zn < 50 mg/L1 < Zn < 10 mg/L

Figure 2-21Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Zinc, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Vol

ume

(Bil

ft3)

Zn > 100 mg/L50 < Zn < 100 mg/L10 < Zn < 50 mg/L1 < Zn < 10 mg/L

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Total Dissolved SO4 in Plume - InitialCum Decrease in SO4 Mass in Plume - InitialTotal Dissolved SO4 in Plume - RevisedCum Decrease in SO4 Mass in Plume - RevisedSO4 Removed by Extraction Wells

1000

1200

1400

1600

(Mil

kg)

Figure 2-22Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Sulfate, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

200

400

600

800

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (

SO4 > 10,000 mg/L1,000 < SO4 < 10,000 mg/L500 < SO4 < 1,000 mg/L350 < SO4 < 500 mg/L

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Vol

ume

(Bil

ft3)

SO4 > 10,000 mg/L1000 < SO4 < 10,000 mg/L500 < SO4 < 1,000 mg/L350 < SO4 < 500 mg/L

406080

100120140160180200220

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Total Dissolved Acidity in Plume - Set A

Cum Decrease in Acidity Mass in Plume - Set A

Acidity Removed by Extraction Wells

Figure 2-23Denver, Colorado, USA Calculated Acidity, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

-200

20

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Plu

me

Mas

s (M

il kg

)

Acidity > 10,000 mg/L1,000 < Acidity < 10,000 mg/L100 < Acidity < 1,000 mg/L1 < Acidity < 100 mg/L

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

24

-40

-20

0

20

Perc

ent C

hang

e in

Mas

s

Figure 2-24Denver, Colorado, USA Cumulative Percent Change in Aluminum Mass, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

-100

-80

-60

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

P

1< Al >10 mg/L10< Al >100 mg/L100< Al >1000 mg/LAl >1000 mg/L

ort -

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

25

-40

-20

0

20

rcen

t Cha

nge

in M

ass

Figure 2-25Denver, Colorado, USA Cumulative Percent Change in Sulfate Mass, Zone A Plume


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epo

-100

-80

-60

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Pe

350< SO4 >500 mg/L

500< SO4 >1000 mg/L

1000< SO4 >10000 mg/L

SO4 >10000 mg/L

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 2.

xlsx

]Fig

26

4.85.2 (A) 5.0 (B)

5.3 (A)

5.1

3.5

4.7 (A)4.4 (A)

5.0 (A) 7.7 (A)

3.5

2.8 (A) 3.6 (B)

9.0

4.2

Figure 2-26

Denver, Colorado, USA Wells Used in RCE and Estimated Pore Volumes5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Fig

After Figure 3-37 Aluminum Concentrations in 2006 (KUCC 2007)

ESTIMATED PORE VOLUMES BASED ON RCE IN YEARS(A) DENOTES WELL COMPLETION USED IN EVALUATION

5.22.8 (A)

4.7 (A)

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 3.

xlsx

]NEW

Fig

3-1

a

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cent

Aci

dity

Rem

aini

ng in

Aqu

ifer (

%)

Column Estimates (PV=2.8)Column Estimates (PV=4.7)Column Estimates (PV=9.0)EVS Estimates

Figure 3-1a

Denver, Colorado, USA Zone A Plume Acidity Forecast - SMI Column Data, End Period Method5/29/2008 063-2287

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t -

0%

10%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Esi

tmat

ed A

nnua

l Aci

dity

R

emov

ed a

s C

aCO

3(k

g x

106 )

Time (years)

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 3.

xlsx

]NEW

Fig

3-1

b

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cent

Aci

dity

Rem

aini

ng in

Aqu

ifer (

%)


Figure 3-1b

Denver, Colorado, USA Zone A Plume Acidity Forecast - SMI Column Data, Midpoint Method5/29/2008 063-2287

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t -

0%

10%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Esi

tmat

ed A

nnua

l Aci

dity

R

emov

ed a

s C

aCO

3(k

g x

106 )

Time (years)

Fin

al\[T

able

s_Fi

gure

s_Se

ctio

n 3.

xlsx

]NEW

Fig

3-1

c

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cent

Aci

dity

Rem

aini

ng in

Aqu

ifer (

%)


Figure 3-1c

Denver, Colorado, USA Zone A Plume Acidity Forecast - SMI Column Data, Step Method5/29/2008 063-2287

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t -

0%

10%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Esi

tmat

ed A

nnua

l Aci

dity

R

emov

ed a

s C

aCO

3(k

g x

106 )

Time (years)

P264

Figure 3-2

Denver, Colorado, USA Well Locations for Empirical Rinse Curves5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 2


P

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025

Aci

dity

(mg/

L as

CaC

O3)

ECG1146BSG1201BSG1177BP241B

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ning

in A

quife

r (%

) Transformed P241B data

EVS Estimates

Expon. (P241B)

Figure 3-3Denver, Colorado, USA Empirical Rinse Curve Predictions: P241B


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1995 2005 2015 2025

Per

cent

Aci

dity

Rem

ai

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1997 2007 2017 2027

Est

imat

ed A

nnua

l Lim

e D

eman

das

CaC

O3

(Kg

x 10

6 )

Time (years)

EVS EstimatesPredicted trend based on P241B dataPredicted based on P241B data

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

inin

g in

Aqu

ifer (

%) Transformed ECG1124B data

EVS Estimates

Expon. (ECG1124B)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1995 2000 2005

Acid

ity (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)ECG1146BSG1201BSG1177BECG1124B

Figure 3-4Denver, Colorado, USA Empirical Rinse Curve Predictions: ECG1124B


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1995 2005 2015 2025

Per

cent

Aci

dity

Rem

a

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1995 2005 2015 2025

Estim

ated

Ann

ual L

ime

Dem

and

as C

aCO

3 (K

g x

106)

Time (years)

EVS Estimates

Predicted trend based on ECG1124B data

Predicted based on ECG1124B data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1995 2005 2015 2025

Per

cent

Aci

dity

Rem

aini

ng in

Aqu

ifer (

%)

Transformed ECG1124B dataTransformed P241B dataExpon. (ECG1124B, P241B)EVS Estimates

50Predicted based on ECG1124B data

Figure 3-5Denver, Colorado, USA Empirical Rinse Curve Predictions


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina -20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1995 2005 2015 2025

Est

imat

ed A

nnua

l Lim

e D

eman

das

CaC

O3

(kg

x 10

6 )

Time (years)

Predicted based on P241B dataPredicted trend based on ECG1124B, P241B dataEVS Estimates

Extraction Well

Flow = calibrated Porosity: n = 0.20Dispersivity = calibrated (initial 10% length)Length = Flow path dependent

Monitor (Calibration) Well

Effluent Chemistry

Figure 3-6

Denver, Colorado, USA Schematic of Geochemical Modeling Approach5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 6

Influent chemistry

Cell (nx=20)

1 m

1 m

Geochemical ConditionsEh = ~230 mVTemperature 15 oCFixed PCO2

Flow path dependent

Dirty Flow Path (2)B1G951 toECG1115 toECG1146

Figure 3-7

Denver, Colorado, USA ECG1146 Flow Paths for Geochemical Modeling5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 7


Clean Flow Path (1)P274 toECG1145 toECG1146

After Figure 4-1 Water Table Surface Elevation Contours, September 2006 (KUCC 2007)

1,500

2,000

2,500

atio

n (m

g/L)

Aluminum Calibration

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

Acidity Calibration

Apportioned

Path 1 (Clean)

Path 2 (Dirty)

ECG1146

�Percentage Path 1:

Figure 3-8ECG1146 Predictions:

Denver, Colorado, USA Path 2 with clean endpoint5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

500

1,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ra

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

Magnesium Calibration

1 Pore Volume

1 Pore Volume

1,500

2,000

2,500

atio

n (m

g/L)


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

Acidity Calibration

Apportioned

Path 1 (Clean)

Path 2 (Dirty)

ECG1146

�Percentage Path 1:


Denver, Colorado, USA Path 2 with contaminated endpoint5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

500

1,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ra

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)


1 Pore Volume

1 Pore Volume

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n of

Aci

dity

(mg/

L as

CaC

O3)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

ECG1146Path 2 (Dirty) with contaminated endpointPath 2 Transitional rinsePath 2 (Dirty) with clean endpoint

Assumes 1,497 acre-feet per year (2006 total) for predictions


Denver, Colorado, USA Comparison5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Estim

ated

Ann

ual L

ime

Dem

and

as C

aCO

3Eq

uiva

lent

(Kg

x 10

6 )

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

ECG1146 Mass Removal RecordsPath 2 (Dirty) contaminated endpointPath 2 Transitional rinsePath 2 (Dirty) clean endpoint

Dirty Flow Path (2)ECG1117 toECG1118 toBSG1201

PP264

Figure 3-11

Denver, Colorado, USA BSG1201 Flow Paths for Geochemical Modeling5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 1

1


Clean Flow Path (1)BSG1148 toP241B toBSG1201

After Figure 4-2 Water Table Surface Elevation Contours, September 2006 (KUCC 2007)

Clean/Marginal Flow Path (3)P208B to P264 to BSG1201

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

atio

n (m

g/L)


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

Acidity Calibration

ApportionedPath 2 (Dirty)Path 3 (Clean) with marginal endpointBSG1177BBSG1201

�Percentage Clean/Martina:

Figure 3-12BSG1201 Predictions:

Denver, Colorado, USA Path 3 with marginal endpoint5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

200

400

600

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ra

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)


800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

atio

n (m

g/L)


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

Acidity Calibration

ApportionedPath 2 (dirty)Path 3 (clean) with clean endpointBSG1177BBSG1201

�Percentage Clean/ Marginal:

Figure 3-13aBSG1201 Predictions:


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

200

400

600

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ra

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)


Figure 3-13bBSG1201 Predictions:


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 3

-13b

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

BSG1201

BSG1177B

Path 3 (Clean) with clean endpoint

Path 3 (Clean) with marginal endpoint


Figure 3-14BSG1201 Predictions:

Denver, Colorado, USA Comparison5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

( )

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Estim

ated

Ann

ual L

ime

Dem

and

as C

aCO

3Eq

uiva

lent

(Kg

x 10

6 )

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

BSG1201 Mass Removal RecordsECG1146 Mass Removal RecordsPath 3 (Clean) with clean endpointPath 3 (Clean) with marginal endpoint

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

ECG1146ECG1146 Path 2 (Dirty) with contaminated endpointECG1146 Transitional rinseECG1146 Path 2 (Dirty) with clean endpointBSG1201BSG1201 Path 3 (Clean) with marginal endpoint


Figure 3-15aExtraction Well Predictions

Denver, Colorado, USA5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

ina

0

5

10

15

20

25

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Estim

ated

Ann

ual L

ime

Dem

and

as C

aCO

3Eq

uiva

lent

(Kg

x 10

6 )

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

total Mass Removed (Records)High estimateAverage estimate

40%

60%

80%

100%

cidi

ty R

emai

ning

(%)

Based on EVS and mass removed (Records)

Based on EVS estimates

High estimate

Average estimate

Figure 3-15bExtraction Well Predictions

Denver, Colorado, USA5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 3

-15b

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Estim

ated

Ac

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

6

From Langmuir 1997

From Ague and Brimhall 1989.

Figure 3-16Denver, Colorado, USA Eh-pH Diagrams


J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 1

6

17n

SBautts Tue Jun 19 2007

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rxn progress

Value

ECG1146 (6/13/2001) Flushed with GW (pe = 9)


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rxn progress

Value


ECG1146 (6/13/2001) Fl h d ith GW ( 4)SBautts Tue Jun 19 2007

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rxn progress

Valu

e



pe

pH

pe

pH

pe

pH

Figure 3-17Sensitivity Analysis for Geochemical Modeling:

Denver, Colorado, USA Redox Evaluation: Varying pe Values in Flushing Models5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 1


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Rxn progress



0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Rxn progress



0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Rxn progress


Al+++

Fe++

Al+++

Fe++

Al+++

Fe++

18n

ECG1146 (6/13/2001) Flushed with GW (log fO2 = 55)SBautts Tue Jun 19 2007

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 12

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.56

6.57

7.58

8.59

9.510

10.511

11.512

Rxn progress

ECG1146 (6/13/2001) Flushed with GW (log fO2 = –35)


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–5

–4–3–2–1

012

34567

89

1011

12

Rxn progress

Valu

e


pe

pH


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–2

–1.5–1

–.50

.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.56

6.57

7.58

8.59

9.510

10.5

pe

pH

pe

pH


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–2

–1.5–1

–.50

.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.56

6.57

7.58

8.59

9.510

10.5

pe

pH

1111.5

12

Rxn progress


pH

ECG1146 (6/13/2001) Flushed with GW (log fO2 = 65) ECG1146 (6/13/2001) Fl shed ith GW (log fO2 35)SBautts Tue Jun 19 2007

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 12

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.56

6.57

7.58

8.59

9.510

10.511

11.512

Rxn progress



0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–5

–4–3–2–1

012

34567

89

1011

12

Rxn progress

Valu

e


pe

pH pe

pH


Denver, Colorado, USA Redox Evaluation: Varying Oxygen Fugacity in Flushing Models5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 1


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Rxn progress


Al+++

Fe++

Al+++

Fe++


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Rxn progress

Som

e flu

id c

ompo

nent

s (lo

gm

g/kg

)


Al

Al+++

Fe++


0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Rxn progress


Al+++

Fe++

19n

–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120003

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Time (days)

pH, x

= 1

.152

km

ECG1146 Path 1 fO2 = –55 [063–2287]

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120003

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Time (days)

pH, x

= 1

.152

km

ECG1146 Path 1 log fO2 = –35 [063–2287]

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120003

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Time (days)

pH, x

= 1

.152

km

ECG1146 Path 1 [063–2287]

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

pH pH pH

ECG1146 Path 1 fO2 = –55 [063–2287]ECG1146 Path 1 log fO2 = –35 [063–2287]ECG1146 Path 1 [063–2287]

Open squares represent data for ECG1146 (6/13/01); red lines are model predictions


Denver, Colorado, USA Redox Evaluation: pH and Mineral Assemblages for 1-D Modeling5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 1

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000–14

–13

–12

–11

–10

–9

–8

–7

–6

Time (days)

3Gibbsite

Gypsum

Basaluminite

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000–14

–13

–12

–11

–10

–9

–8

–7

–6

Time (days)

3Gibbsite

Gypsum

Basaluminite

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–13

–12

–11

–10

–9

–8

–7

–6

Time (days)

(g

3

), x

= 1.

152

km

Gibbsite

Fe(OH)3(a)

Gypsum

Basaluminite

Fe(OH)3(a)

20n

Fixed pe of 4 (standard case) Fixed log fO2 = -35 Fixed log fO2 = -55

ECG1146 Path 1 fO2 = –55 [063–2287]3

ECG1146 Path 1 [063–2287]3

ECG1146 Path 1 log fO2 = –35 [063–2287]JWaples Thu Jul 05 2007

–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (days)

ECG1146 Path 1 fO2 = –55 [063–2287]

�

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

Al+++

Mg++

JWaples Thu Jul 05 2007

–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (days)

ECG1146 Path 1 log fO2 = –35 [063–2287]

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Al+++


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time (days)

ECG1146 Path 1 [063–2287]

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

Al+++

Mg++ Mg++



Denver, Colorado, USA Redox Evaluation: Comparison of Concentrations for 1-D Modeling5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 2


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Time (days)

Fe++

��

�

��

�

��

Fe++


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Time (days)

��

�

��

�

��

Fe++


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

Time (days)

Fe++

��

�

��

�

��

Fe++

21n

Standard caseExcess minerals added at each step

(including alunite) Excess minerals (no alunite)

JWaples Mon Jul 09 2007

–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120003

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

Time (days)

ECG1146 Path 1 Min_3b [063–2287]

��

��

��

��

��

��

pH


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120003

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

Time (days)

pH, x

= 1

.152

km

ECG1146 Path 1 [063–2287]

��

��

��

��

��

��

pH


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 120003

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

Time (days)

ECG1146 Path 1 Min_2b [063–2287]

��

��

��

��

��

��

pH

4ECG1146 Path 1 [063–2287]

4ECG1146 Path 1 Min_3b [063–2287]

4ECG1146 Path 1 Min_2b [063–2287]



Denver, Colorado, USA Mineral Evaluation: pH, Fe, and Al for Different Mineral Assemblages5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS\0

63-2

287

KUC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\[Tab

les_

Figu

res_

Sect

ion

3.xl

sx]F

ig 2


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

4

Time (days)

�

��

�

��

�

�� Al+++

Fe++


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

4

Time (days)

�

��

�

��

�

��

Al+++

Fe++


–2e3 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1e4 12000

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

4

Time (days)

�

��

�

��

�

��

Al+++

Fe++


ELECTRONIC MEDIA APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SURFACES DEVELOPED

FOR USE WITH THE MVS MODELING

APPENDIX B

ANNUALIZED CHEMISTRY

FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN

APPENDIX C

DETAILED VOLUME AND MASS ESTIMATES


APPENDIX D

EXTRACTION WELL SUMMARY

Flow Flow Acidity Al Fe Cu Zn Mn Cd Total Me SO4Acre-ft Liters Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg

ECG1146 MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), ANNUALYear/Total 7,581 9,350,721,564 100,923,898 13,267,919 3,524,146 1,062,107 991,865 3,235,670 130,337 22,212,045 232,347,407

1995 1 647,208 9,810 1,453 467 100 80 206 0 2,307 21,3851996 71 87 908 964 1 358 794 201 140 65 444 13 889 11 170 27 998 40 319 680 2 832 461

TABLE D-1 - MASS REMOVAL SUMMARY

1996 71 87,908,964 1,358,794 201,140 65,444 13,889 11,170 27,998 40 319,680 2,832,4611997 223 275,480,147 3,908,332 586,874 166,657 40,544 34,703 78,228 240 907,245 9,469,5881998 337 415,476,331 5,269,079 784,812 215,298 55,032 49,860 132,725 464 1,238,190 13,322,2781999 464 572,533,402 9,445,136 936,254 429,481 110,262 67,834 175,536 35,291 1,754,656 15,264,7782000 6 6,806,185 90,743 13,506 3,670 933 917 2,334 5 21,365 234,0492001 496 611,220,394 10,387,348 1,061,786 440,193 118,582 83,582 208,463 34,706 1,947,314 15,498,1642002 1,022 1,260,272,274 14,863,056 2,214,904 494,261 149,163 158,868 500,103 1,174 3,518,472 36,971,8152003 835 1,030,077,105 14,369,847 1,403,352 481,950 136,431 113,810 354,660 54,283 2,544,488 23,431,6512004 1,099 1,355,282,528 12,315,452 1,813,598 387,699 129,495 142,033 492,073 1,191 2,966,090 32,803,6142005 1,531 1,888,443,778 15,469,810 2,276,873 453,511 164,949 178,568 660,954 1,531 3,736,386 41,968,6202006 1,497 1,846,573,248 13,436,491 1,973,367 385,514 142,726 150,440 602,391 1,412 3,255,850 40,529,003

BSG1201 MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), ANNUALYear/Total 4,425 5,458,488,798 16,756,760 2,493,724 151,273 118,705 247,493 1,048,824 4,302 4,064,321 65,401,653

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02003 551 679,434,039 2,531,551 381,240 14,112 15,193 41,337 153,953 661 606,496 9,267,6252004 1,282 1,581,245,597 4,962,433 735,391 44,519 34,466 79,016 315,425 1,351 1,210,168 19,874,7662005 1,292 1,593,926,754 4,767,218 710,318 48,158 35,842 64,516 293,454 1,180 1,153,467 17,955,0122006 1,300 1,603,882,408 4,495,558 666,776 44,484 33,203 62,624 285,993 1,109 1,094,190 18,304,249

B2G1193 MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), ANNUALYear/Total 19,079 23,533,955,468 19,904 616 6,202 477 530 379 23 8,228 38,045,152

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01998 666 821,057,575 781 11 281 17 13 8 1 331 1,141,3771999 1,218 1,502,054,613 1,230 14 455 30 22 15 2 537 2,129,9932000 2,867 3,536,086,900 3,021 66 1,061 71 50 35 4 1,287 5,566,9032001 2,637 3,252,306,592 2,731 34 976 65 103 33 3 1,214 5,281,9642002 2,808 3,463,659,201 3,188 90 1,039 69 91 40 3 1,333 5,624,6632003 2,667 3,289,529,886 2,841 65 987 69 55 33 3 1,212 5,693,4532004 1,936 2,388,599,952 2,078 43 717 50 57 26 2 894 4,185,3822005 2,093 2,581,656,366 2,805 218 566 57 64 67 3 974 4,522,3762006 2,188 2,699,004,383 1,228 75 121 48 75 123 3 446 3,899,040

5/29/2008 063-2287Golder Associates Inc.



TABLE D 1 MASS REMOVAL SUMMARY

BFG1200 MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), ANNUALYear/Total 18,931 23,351,233,625 25,560 530 5,718 396 282 3,920 30 10,875 19,498,962

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01998 1,061 1,309,319,959 1,560 94 405 30 16 19 1 566 1,591,6341999 2,546 3,140,994,817 2,600 48 942 63 35 31 3 1,123 3,497,2992000 2,289 2,823,136,799 2,395 51 847 56 40 29 3 1,026 3,077,2532001 1,888 2,329,288,910 1,896 26 699 47 38 24 2 836 2,259,6842002 2,778 3,427,208,901 9,402 156 1,028 79 73 3,279 13 4,628 2,867,7532003 2,654 3,273,930,171 3,737 83 982 66 42 491 5 1,669 3,051,7382004 2,390 2,947,555,053 2,663 71 814 54 38 47 3 1,028 2,223,6392005 1,080 1,331,899,989 660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02006 2,244 2,767,899,025 648 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 929,961

LTG1147 MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), ANNUALYear/Total 5,711 7,043,882,837 8,247 529 1,977 182 134 140 9 2,971 5,011,489

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01996 216 265,880,322 204 1 80 5 3 3 1 92 194,9061997 22 27,345,873 21 0 8 1 0 0 0 9 19,2291998 336 414,643,539 319 2 124 8 4 4 0 144 313,4011999 1,262 1,556,719,862 3,123 313 467 49 37 50 2 918 1,225,6522000 399 492,403,634 405 4 148 18 8 6 0 184 351,4812001 961 1,185,018,126 1,011 22 356 29 13 14 1 434 839,1062002 104 128,072,111 142 8 38 3 2 3 0 54 98,4442003 639 788 245 555 776 28 236 17 25 10 1 317 575 8012003 639 788,245,555 776 28 236 17 25 10 1 317 575,8012004 1,106 1,364,628,729 1,798 132 409 35 27 23 1 628 885,5832005 292 359,940,436 309 7 96 6 7 17 2 136 206,9132006 374 460,984,649 139 11 14 11 8 10 0 55 300,975




Acre ft Liters Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg

ALL WELLS MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), ANNUALYear/Total 55,727 68,738,282,292 117,734,369 15,763,318 3,689,315 1,181,867 1,240,305 4,288,933 134,700 26,298,440 360,304,663

1995 1 647,208 9,810 1,453 467 100 80 206 0 2,307 21,3851996 287 353,789,287 1,358,998 201,141 65,523 13,894 11,172 28,000 41 319,772 3,027,3661997 246 302,826,021 3,908,353 586,875 166,665 40,545 34,703 78,228 240 907,255 9,488,8161998 2,400 2,960,497,404 5,271,739 784,919 216,109 55,087 49,893 132,757 466 1,239,232 16,368,6901999 5,490 6,772,302,694 9,452,090 936,629 431,345 110,404 67,928 175,632 35,297 1,757,234 22,117,7212000 5,560 6,858,433,519 96,563 13,626 5,725 1,079 1,015 2,405 12 23,862 9,229,6872001 5,981 7,377,834,022 10,392,986 1,061,867 442,223 118,723 83,737 208,533 34,713 1,949,797 23,878,9182002 6,712 8,279,212,487 14,875,788 2,215,158 496,367 149,314 159,034 503,424 1,190 3,524,487 45,562,6752003 7,346 9,061,216,755 16,908,752 1,784,769 498,268 151,778 155,268 509,146 54,953 3,154,182 42,020,2692004 7,813 9,637,311,859 17,284,423 2,549,235 434,158 164,100 221,171 807,593 2,549 4,178,807 59,972,9852005 6,288 7,755,867,323 20,240,803 2,987,416 502,330 200,854 243,156 954,491 2,715 4,890,963 64,652,9212006 7,603 9,378,343,713 17,934,064 2,640,229 430,134 175,989 213,148 888,518 2,524 4,350,542 63,963,229

ALL WELLS MASS REMOVED (Kg/Year), CUMULATIVEYear1995 1 647,208 9,810 1,453 467 100 80 206 0 2,307 21,3851996 287 354,436,495 1,368,808 202,594 65,991 13,995 11,253 28,206 41 322,080 3,048,7521997 533 657,262,516 5,277,160 789,469 232,656 54,540 45,955 106,434 281 1,229,335 12,537,5681998 2,933 3,617,759,919 10,548,899 1,574,388 448,765 109,626 95,848 239,191 747 2,468,566 28,906,2581999 8,423 10,390,062,614 20,000,989 2,511,017 880,110 220,031 163,776 414,823 36,044 4,225,801 51,023,9802000 13,984 17,248,496,133 20,097,552 2,524,643 885,835 221,109 164,790 417,228 36,056 4,249,662 60,253,6662001 19,965 24,626,330,155 30,490,538 3,586,511 1,328,059 339,833 248,527 625,761 70,769 6,199,459 84,132,5842002 26,677 32,905,542,642 45,366,326 5,801,669 1,824,425 489,147 407,561 1,129,185 71,959 9,723,946 129,695,2592003 34,023 41,966,759,397 62,275,078 7,586,438 2,322,693 640,924 562,829 1,638,331 126,913 12,878,128 171,715,5282004 41,836 51,604,071,256 79,559,502 10,135,673 2,756,851 805,025 784,000 2,445,925 129,461 17,056,935 231,688,5132005 48,124 59,359,938,579 99,800,304 13,123,089 3,259,181 1,005,879 1,027,157 3,400,416 132,177 21,947,898 296,341,4342006 55 727 68 738 282 292 117 734 369 15 763 318 3 689 315 1 181 867 1 240 305 4 288 933 134 700 26 298 440 360 304 6632006 55,727 68,738,282,292 117,734,369 15,763,318 3,689,315 1,181,867 1,240,305 4,288,933 134,700 26,298,440 360,304,663

Notes:-Removal calculated using total acre feet removed per month per well-Aluminum data not available for all time periods. Aluminum concentrations estimated between available data using linear interpolation


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Flow

(Acr

e-Ft

)

LTG1147

BFG1200

B2G1193

BSG1201

ECG1146

Figure D-1Denver, Colorado, USA Flows


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-1

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Flow

Rat

e (A

cre-

Ft/Y

ear)

BFG1200

BSG1201

LTG1147

ECG1146

B2G1193

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BSG1201

ECG1146

Figure D-2Denver, Colorado, USA Aluminum Mass Removal


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-2

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

BSG1201

ECG1146

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BSG1201

ECG1146

Figure D-3Denver, Colorado, USA Iron Mass Removal


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-3

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

BSG1201

ECG1146

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BSG1201

ECG1146

Figure D-4Denver, Colorado, USA Copper Mass Removal


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-4

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

BSG1201

ECG1146

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BSG1201

ECG1146

Figure D-5Denver, Colorado, USA Zinc Mass Removal


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-5

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

BSG1201

ECG1146

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BSG1201

ECG1146

Figure D-6Denver, Colorado, USA Manganese Mass Removal


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-6

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

BSG1201

ECG1146

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BSG1201

ECG1146

Acidity is as CaCO 3 equivalentFigure D-7

Denver, Colorado, USA Acidity Removal5/29/2008 063-2287 Golder Associates

J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-7

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

BSG1201

ECG1146

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

400,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cum

ulat

ive

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g)

BFG1200

B2G1193

BSG1201

LTG1147

ECG1146

Figure D-8Denver, Colorado, USA Sulfate Mass Removal


J:\0

6JO

BS

\063

-228

7 K

UC

C L

ime

Fore

cast

ing

& M

odel

Sco

pe\2

008

Lim

e Fo

reca

stin

g R

epor

t - F

inal

\App

endi

x D

- E

xtra

ctio

n W

ell S

umm

ary\

[Ext

ract

ion_

Sum

mat

ion.

xlsx

]Fig

ure

D-8

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mas

s R

emov

ed (K

g/Ye

ar)

B2G1193

BSG1201

LTG1147

BFG1200

ECG1146


APPENDIX E

RINSE CURVE EVALUATION RESULTS

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-11PV volume: 9 years RCE: B1G1120A

'Data utilized in curve matching are highlighted in yellow on magnesium graph ("cal Mg" data) Updated Analysis of Plume Recovery by Rinse Curve EvaluationLakewood, Colorado, USA South Facilities Groundwater Plume, Zone A, KUCC

May-08 063-2287 Golder Associates

0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Field pH DatapH Column Data

0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.00.30.50.81.01.31.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1.3F

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.00.30.50.81.01.31.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.00.30.50.81.01.31.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.00.30.50.81.01.31.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-21PV volume: 3.6 years RCE: BSG1177B



0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

C/C

0

FeColumn Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1995 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

pH Column DataField pH Data

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1995 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-3 1PV volume: 3.5 years RCE: BSG1201



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

AlColumn Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-41PV volume: 5.3 years RCE: ECG1115A



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4




0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

2.5

4.0

5.5

7.0

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

pH Column Data

Field pH Data

0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4




0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-7 1PV volume: 4.4 years RCE: ECG1121A



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1995 2005 2015 2025


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1995 2005 2015 2025

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4




0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-91PV volume: 5 years RCE: ECG1124B



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023

pH Column Data

Field pH Data

0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-101PV volume: 5 years RCE: ECG1144A

Data utilized in curve matching are highlighted in yellow on magnesium graph ("cal Mg" data) Updated Analysis of Plume Recovery by Rinse Curve EvaluationLakewood, Colorado, USA South Facilities Groundwater Plume, Zone A, KUCC


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

pH Column Data

Field pH Data

0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5Al

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-111PV volume: 4.2 years RCE: ECG1146



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3

4

5

6

7

1996 2006 2016 2026

pH Column Data

Field pH Data

0.0

0.5

1.0

1996 2006 2016 2026

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1996 2006 2016 2026

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0123456

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-121PV volume: 3.5 years RCE: K26



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

1990 1995 2001 2006 2012 2017


0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1990 1995 2001 2006 2012 2017

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

1.0

2.0

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

15 0

-1 1 3 5 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

3 0

-1 1 3 5 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-131PV volume: 5.2 years RCE: P241B



0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

9.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

pH Column Data

Field pH Data

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

4 0

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

MnColumn Mn

2 0

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-141PV volume: 5.1 years RCE: P279



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

AlColumn Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-151PV volume: 13.1 years RCE: ECG1121A (early)



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

77 87 97 07 17 27 37 47 57 67 77


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

AlColumn Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

77 87 97 07 17 27 37 47 57 67 77

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1.5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-161PV volume: 7.4 years RCE: K26 (early)



0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

pH Column Data

Field pH Data

0.0

0.5

1.0

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-171PV volume: 9.9 years RCE: P241B (early)



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Fe

Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 2023 2033 2043


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 2023 2033 2043

C/C

0ZnColumn Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

2 0

-1 1 3 5 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

2 0 l

-1 1 3 5 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-181PV volume: 10.3 years RCE: P279 (early)



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

FeColumn Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

78 83 88 93 98 03 08 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

AlColumn Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

78 83 88 93 98 03 08 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.00.51.01.52.02.5

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-191PV volume: 2.8 years RCE: BSG1177A



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Fe Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1996 2006 2016


.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Al Column Al

0.00.51.01.52.02.5

1996 2006 2016

C/C

0Zn Column Zn

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

C/C

0

Cu

Column Cu

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

1 5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Fe Column Fe

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1997 2002 2007 2012 2017


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Al

Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1997 2002 2007 2012 2017

C/C

0Zn

Column Zn

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

C/C

0

CuColumn Cu

1 5

-1 1 3 5 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

MgColumn Mgcal Mg

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

C/C

0

Mn

Column Mn

4 0

-1 1 3 5 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Column Rinseout PV

C/C

0

SO4

Column SO4

Figure E-211PV volume: 4.8 years RCE: P208B



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

C/C

0

Fe Column Fe

3.04.05.06.07.08.0

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

C/C

0

Al Column Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

C/C

0Zn Column Zn



APPENDIX E Evaluation of the On-going Lime Demand for Treatment of Zone A Acid Plume Rio Tinto Technology and Innovation

Project Code: 11045 Document Reference: 11045-1 Version: 3

Evaluation of the On-going Lime Demand for Treatment of the

Zone A Acid Plume

Prepared For: Kennecott Utah Copper Author/s:

Distribution:

Paul Brown

Kelly Payne

Issue Date: 11 December 2007

Project Manager:

Reviewer

Paul Brown Craig Stevens

Technology and Innovation

Report No 11045-1

Date 12 December 2007 ©2007 Technology and Innovation

SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Purpose

The Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) is required to remediate groundwater contamination resulting from historical mining operations at Bingham Canyon, including a plume of low pH groundwater referred to as the acid plume. In treatment of the plume, it was recognised in 2004 that the concentration of acidity, and its major constituents aluminium and iron, were decreasing faster than would be expected on the basis of earlier column studies. KUCC have established a remediation reserve to cover the cost of on-going treatment of the plume. The more rapid remediation of the plume will have substantial impact on the cost associated with its treatment. The focusing question of this study is therefore:

What will be the on-going lime demand for treatment of the Kennecott Utah Copper Zone A acid plume?

Major Findings

Five models have been developed to determine the geochemical behaviour of the acid plume and predict the on-going lime demand required for treatment of the plume. Nine separate scenarios were developed in these models and, of these, five were selected as the most credible. The predicted lime demand from these five scenarios agree very well and indicate that there is a continuing decrease in the lime demand of the acid plume as a result of the extraction of acidity from the plume. The predicted lime demand for 2010 ranges from 12.4 to 18.6 lb/1000 gal, in 2015 from 6.8 to 10.9 lb/1000 gal and in 2027 from 1.7 to 3.2 lb/1000 gal. These values are substantially lower than the initial lime demand of 119 lb/1000 gal and the adjustment to the lime demand proposed in 2005 of 65 lb/1000 gal. It is clear from the models that the use of a constant lime demand for determination of the remediation reserve cannot be justified.

Recommendations

The following recommendations have been made:

• Given the influence that water treatment has on closure costs it will be important for KUCC to continue to update the model scenarios selected in this report.

• One of the models predicts a significant transition in the concentration of acidity in well BSG1201. If and when this occurs, a strong case for termination of extraction from this well and its relocation elsewhere is apparent.

• KUCC should more fully understand the likelihood and impact that a long-term, slow “decay” of acidity may have on lime demand since this may lead to an on-going lime demand of 1-3 lb/1000 gal that may last many decades.

Technology & Innovation

Report No 11045-1

©2007 Technology & Innovation Date 12 December 2007

CONFIDENTIAL This document is the copyright property of Technology and Innovation and contains information that is

confidential to companies within the Rio Tinto Group. Any request to copy or circulate this document will require the prior approval of the Regional General Manager.

CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

2 GEOCHEMICAL MODELS.................................................................................................... 2

2.1 ACIDITY CONCENTRATION ESTIMATIONS .......................................................... 2 2.2 CONTAMINANT MASS ESTIMATIONS................................................................... 7 2.3 LIME DEMAND ESTIMATIONS ............................................................................... 8

3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ................................................................... 13

4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 15


Report No 11045-1


List of Appendices

A1 ADVECTION-DISPERSION MODEL................................................................................... 17

A2 EMPIRICAL RINSE CURVE MODEL .................................................................................. 30

A3 GOLDER MODELS ............................................................................................................. 38

List of Tables

Table 1: Predicted concentrations of acidity (mg/L as CaCO3) in the two extraction wells from the geochemical model (Golder, 2007), advection-dispersion-extraction (ADE) model and empirical rinse curve (RCE) model. Predicted data are for the end of each year stated... 6

Table 2: Calculated contaminant mass in the acid plume calculated from EVS (Golder, 2007) and from the empirical rinse curve model ................................................................................ 7

Table 3: Calculated lime demand for 2010 and 2015 (a lime excess of 30% has been included in the estimated values) ....................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Calculated lime demand for 2010 and 2015 from most credible models and from smallest to largest in each year (a lime excess of 30% has been included in the estimated values)............................................................................................................................ 10

Table 5: Predicted lime demand for treatment of acid plume and acidity concentrations at the extraction wells ECG1146 and BSG1201 – calculated from the upper 95% confidence limit of all selected credible models ................................................................................ 11

List of Figures

Figure 1: Predicted acidity concentrations at extraction wells ECG1146 and BSG1201 (reproduced from Golder (2007)) using the one-dimensional geochemical model ................................ 3

Figure 2: Predicted acidity concentrations at extraction well ECG1146 using the advection-dispersion-extraction model.............................................................................................. 4

Figure 3: Predicted acidity concentrations at extraction well BSG1201 using the advection-dispersion-extraction model.............................................................................................. 4

Figure 4: Predicted acidity concentrations for eleven wells using the empirical rinse curve model .. 5 Figure 5: Schematic of marginal groundwater movement to BSG1201 (Golder, 2007).................... 6 Figure 6: Calculated lime demand for 2007 through 2027 from most credible models (a lime excess

of 30% has been included in the estimated values) including an upper 95% confidence limit calculated from all model data................................................................................. 11


Report No 11045-1 Page 1


SECTION 2 - MAJOR FINDINGS & ACTIONS

1 INTRODUCTION

The Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) is required, under agreements with the EPA and UDEQ, to remediate groundwater contamination resulting from historical mining operations at Bingham Canyon. At the southern end of the property, a plume of low pH groundwater occurs that contains elevated concentrations of metals, referred to as the acid plume. This plume sits within a much larger plume of partially neutralised water with elevated sulfate concentrations.

Remediation of the acid plume (Zone A) entails:

• extraction of contaminated water; • treatment of sulfate contaminated water by reverse osmosis; and • neutralisation of the acid plume water by mixing with the tailings discharge (with

supplemental lime addition, if necessary).

KUCC have established a remediation reserve to cover the cost of the on-going treatment of the acid plume. At closure, when tailings are no longer discharged, lime will need to be added to water extracted from the plume to neutralise its inherent acidity. Thus, it is essential that KUCC understand the geochemical behaviour of the plume and the effect that current extraction has on the geochemistry so that the on-going lime demand can be established.

A Remedial Investigation study was conducted by KUCC in the late 1990s (KUCC, 1998). Part of the study included leach column tests of gravel samples considered representative of the aquifer affected by the acid plume. The gravel samples were leached initially with background aquifer water followed by acid plume water (the composition of this water was obtained from the acid extraction well ECG1146 at the time) and finally were rinsed again with the background water (see SMI (1997) for the composition of the leach waters used in the tests). The acid leach was used to represent the response of the aquifer to the impact of acidic contamination from various sources and the rinse leach was used to simulate the recovery of the aquifer following the implementation of source controls.

In 2004, it was recognised that the concentration of acidity, and its major constituents, aluminium and iron, were decreasing faster than would be expected on the basis of the SMI column studies. Subsequently, a number of studies were undertaken that were aimed at understanding the geochemical behaviour of the plume and the on-going lime demand (Golder, 2006). The assumptions and predictions relating to the KUCC acid plume remediation were also reviewed by Rio Tinto Technical Services (RTTS, 2006). Both of these studies produced models of the geochemical behaviour of the acid plume and the associated lime demand, all of which have been subsequently updated (Golder, 2007; this report). In addition, an advection-dispersion model has also been developed to describe the behaviour of the plume (RTOTX, 2007). These models and their respective predictions are compared in the present report and an on-going lime demand is estimated.


Page 2 Report No 11045-1

©2007 Technology and Innovation Date 12 December 2007

2 GEOCHEMICAL MODELS

There have been five models used to understand the geochemical behaviour and lime demand of the Zone A acid plume. These models include:

• an extrapolation based on interpretations of the SMI column data (Golder, 2007); • an extrapolation using data from individual wells that have undergone complete recovery

(Golder, 2007); • an expanded one-dimensional geochemical model (Golder, 2007); • an empirical rinse curve model (RTTS, 2006); and • an extended one-dimensional advection-dispersion model with mass extraction (RTOTX,

2007).

The first two methods of Golder (2007) rely on the results obtained from use of a three-dimensional model of contaminant volume and mass to perform the extrapolation. These results were obtained using the data analysis and presentation program MVS. All five methods are inherently different, except that, as indicated, the first two methods use the same data to perform extrapolations.

2.1 Acidity concentration estimations

In the acid plume, acidity is comprised mostly of mineral acidity from elevated concentrations of aluminium and iron. The concentration of acidity in the two extraction wells ECG1146 and BSG1201 has been estimated using three of the models: the expanded one-dimensional geochemical model (Golder, 2007), the empirical rinse curve model and, for ECG1146, the advection-dispersion model with mass extraction. Existing data from the extraction wells was used to calibrate all the models, from which future concentrations were then estimated.

Geochemical modelling was performed by Golder (2007) using the Geochemists Workbench (GWB; Bethke, 2005) by assigning two representative flow paths of groundwater to each extraction well. The first flow path simulated a clean flow where contaminated groundwater is displaced by background or “clean” groundwater. The second flow path was selected to simulate a path that follows the axis of the acid plume and represents continued “dirty” water. Three acidity concentration estimations were determined indicative of a clean endpoint, a dirty endpoint and an intermediate endpoint. Predicted concentrations of acidity over the short-term for BSG1201 were found to be insensitive to a range of factors that were chosen, including chemistry, flow path, dispersivity, redox and mineral assemblages. Thus, a single model could be used for this well. The predicted acidity concentrations obtained from this model are shown in Figure 1; predicted acidity concentrations are also shown in the figure for the other extraction well ECG1146. As can be seen from the figure, the model can be used to reproduce the historical monitoring data from the two extraction wells.

The advection-dispersion model was used to describe the change in acidity in the SMI column data. This model was then adapted to describe the change of acidity in the extraction well ECG1146 and included an extraction term of just under 50% per pore volume. The duration of a pore volume was found by Golder (2006) to be about five years at ECG1146. Long-term acidity




was estimated by the inclusion of an exponential decay term (see Section A1 in the Appendix). Predicted acidity concentrations from the model are shown in Figure 2. The model gives a reasonably good reproduction of the measured acidity data in ECG1146 and the SMI column acidity data. A similar methodology was then applied to the data from BSG1201. Predicted acidity concentrations for this latter borehole are illustrated in Figure 3. Again it can be seen that the model reproduces the observed data quite well. To give a reasonable fit to the data, the acidity concentration at BSG1201 in the late 1990’s is predicted to be 11000 mg/L (as CaCO3). This concentration is substantially higher than that observed since 2003 when monitoring at BSG1201. The predicted concentration, however, is in reasonable agreement with an acidity concentration of near 10000 mg/L (as CaCO3) observed at the nearby monitoring well BSG1177B in the late 1990’s. Pumping of the aquifer by ECG1146 may have begun to clean up the aquifer at BSG1201 even before an extraction well was established at the latter location. This conclusion was also reached in the analysis Golder (2007) from their geochemical model (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Predicted acidity concentrations at extraction wells ECG1146 and BSG1201 (reproduced from Golder (2007)) using the one-dimensional geochemical model

The empirical rinse curve model used the acidity data from ECG1146 to produce a rinse curve. The data from BSG1201 were then projected onto this curve (see Section A2 in the Appendix). This then allows acidity concentrations in the future to be determined from the rinse curve which for BSG1201 is performed after back-projection of the dates. The empirical rinse curve for acidity determined by this model is illustrated in Figure 4. Also given in the figure are projected data for nine other monitoring wells. It can be seen that, in general, the empirical rinse curve can be used to describe the acidity data from all eleven wells.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Year (6/13/01 as t=0)

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L a

s C

aCO

3)

ECG1146ECG1146 Path 2 (Dirty) with contaminated endpo intECG1146 Transitional rinseECG1146 Path 2 (Dirty) with clean endpointBSG1201BSG1201 Path 3 (Clean) with marginal endpoint




Figure 2: Predicted acidity concentrations at extraction well ECG1146 using the advection-dispersion-extraction model

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1998 2004 2010 2016 2022 2028 2034

Pore Volumes

Aci

dity

con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L) SMI column Acidity data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.35ECG1146 Acidity data

1-D model with extractionin each pore volume

Figure 3: Predicted acidity concentrations at extraction well BSG1201 using the advection-dispersion-extraction model

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1998 2004 2010 2016 2022 2028 2034

Pore Volumes

Aci

dity

con

cen

trat

ion

(mg/

L) SMI column Acidity data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.35BSG1201 Acidity data





Figure 4: Predicted acidity concentrations for eleven wells using the empirical rinse curve model

y = 2.7435E+10e-3.8807E-04x

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

12500

15000

17500

20000

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Aci

dit

y (m

g/L

)

ECG1146BSG1201B1G951BSG1180BECG1118ALRG912P248ABSG1179CECG1117AECG1145AECG1145BExpon. (ECG1146)

Predicted concentrations of acidity at the two extraction wells from the three models are listed in Table 1. It should be noted that all models formulated, and therefore their predictions, are based on a constant rate of extraction at ECG1146 and BSG1201. Model results would need to be modified if, for example, the extraction rate changed or a third extraction well is brought on-line. However, in general, there is good agreement between the model predictions for ECG1146. All the models, except for the geochemical model with a dirty endpoint, indicate that there will be an order of magnitude decrease in acidity at ECG1146 by the end of 2027 with respect to the acidity currently observed at this extraction well.

There is poorer agreement between the predicted acidity at BSG1201. Figure 4 shows that the predicted acidity at BSG1201 follows the empirical rinse curve whereas Figure 1 suggests that a sharp decrease in the acidity concentration will occur in the near future. The predicted acidity from the advection-dispersion model with extraction is closer to the empirical rinse model than the geochemical model of Golder (2007). Golder determined the acidity concentrations at BSG1201 by apportioning two flow paths to the well. One was a dirty flow path and the second a clean path; the same procedure was also used for ECG1146. The apportioned curve (50% from each flow path) is the composite of the two paths and the final shape is influenced by both paths. Two transitions are evident in the predicted concentration for BSG1201 in Figure 1. The first occurs because of a transition in chemistry occurring between BSG1201 and ECG1118A (used for the dirty flow path) and the second occurs because of a transition in chemistry from that of ECG1118A to marginal water. The second transition assumes full hydraulic containment with final invasion by marginal waters. The transition to marginal water is based on a four year travel time of such water from ECG1118A to BSG1201. The scenario is illustrated in Figure 5. As described earlier, Golder




(2007) found that the predicted behaviour was insensitive to changes in a range of parameters: chemistry; flow path; dispersivity; redox; and mineral assemblages. This result provides more credence to a substantially greater acidity concentration at BSG1201 in the late 1990’s to early 2000’s than those that have been observed since extraction commenced at the well.

Table 1: Predicted concentrations of acidity (mg/L as CaCO3) in the two extraction wells from the geochemical model (Golder, 2007), advection-dispersion-extraction (ADE) model and empirical rinse curve (RCE) model. Predicted data are for the end of each year stated

ECG1146 BSG1201 Geochemical Year

Clean Transitional Dirty ADE RCE Geochemical ADE RCE

2007 6481 6629 6631 5382 6166 1271 2229 2286 2012 3363 4211 4319 2036 3034 293 965 1125 2017 1611 2417 3259 1083 1494 293 616 554 2022 716 1172 2769 777 735 293 488 272 2027 304 526 2551 631 362 293 411 134

Figure 5: Schematic of marginal groundwater movement to BSG1201 (Golder, 2007)

The geochemical model (Golder, 2007) predicts that the transition in chemistry resulting in a decrease in the concentration of acidity at BSG1201 is imminent or has already started to occur




and that the change to a background (marginal) acidity concentration will occur quite quickly, being complete by 2010 (Figure 5). If this transition is to occur, then at some point in the near future, there would seem to be value in discontinuing extraction from BSG1201 and replacing it with an extraction well elsewhere in the plume. The decision to replace BSG1201 could be made over the next year or so after it has been demonstrated that the transition in chemistry has started to occur and there is a rapid decrease in acidity.

2.2 Contaminant mass estimations

The mass of contaminants in the aquifer have been calculated by Golder (2007) and by using the empirical rinse curve model. In both studies, the mass of contaminants in the plume was calculated for aluminium, iron, acidity, copper, zinc, manganese and sulfate. In addition, the mass of magnesium was calculated in the empirical rinse curve model. The calculated mass of contaminants in the acid plume determined by the two models is listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Calculated contaminant mass in the acid plume calculated from EVS (Golder, 2007) and from the empirical rinse curve model

Mass (106 kg) Parameter

Golder (2007) Empirical Rinse Curve Al 27.9 33.4 Fe 4.33 4.90

Acidity 213 226 Cu 1.65 2.52 Zn 2.50 3.39 Mn 9.70 8.65 Mg ND 132

Sulfate 1474 1150

It is clear from the data presented in Table 2 that there is good agreement in the masses calculated by the two methods, which is a very important result given the very different methodologies employed to calculate the masses (see Appendix). In particular, there is very good agreement in the acidity mass calculated with the two methods deriving masses that have a difference of just over 5%. The acidity mass can also be calculated from the sum of the masses of the mineral acidity elements and the hydrogen ion, with the latter being determined from the pH of water being extracted from the plume. The equation used to calculate acidity from the element masses is given in equation (1): Acidity (kg as CaCO3) = 50 x (3 x [Al]/26.98 + 2.5 x [Fe]/55.85 + 2 x [Cu]/63.54 + 2 x [Mn]/54.94 + 2 x [Zn]/65.3 + [H]/1.008) (1)




where the mass of each contaminant is in kg and it is assumed that the speciation of iron is equally divided between iron(II) (ferrous iron) and iron(III) (ferric iron) (as also assumed by Golder (2007)). The mass of acidity calculated to be in the acid plume using equation (1) from the empirical rinse curve data is 227 x 106 kg whereas from the Golder (2007) data is 194 x 106 kg. In the empirical rinse curve model the mass of hydrogen ions in the acid plume was calculated to be 1.1 x 105 kg. This latter value was used for the hydrogen ion mass with both models and on average accounts for only about 2.5% of the total acidity. Both methods give excellent agreement with the actual mass of acidity calculated, with the actual acidity and acidity determined using equation (1) agreeing by 100.3% and 91.2%, respectively. In both models, aluminium accounts for about 80% of the total acidity (82% in the empirical rinse curve model and 80% in the EVS model of Golder (2007)), iron 5% (4.8% and 5.0%, respectively), manganese 8% (6.9% and 9.1%, respectively), zinc 2% (2.3% and 2.0%, respectively), copper 1.5% (1.7% and 1.3%, respectively) and hydrogen ions 2.5% (2.4% and 2.8%, respectively). Overall, this indicates that there is very good agreement between the two methods in the estimation of acidity in the plume.

2.3 Lime demand estimations

The on-going lime demand has been calculated by all five models and for two of the models developed by Golder (2007), a range in the on-going lime demand was determined, with one model including an examination of a number of differing endpoints. The calculated lime demand for 2010 and 2015 from each model and the various scenarios are given in Table 3. The empirical rinse curve evaluation has also been used to determine a lime demand based on the upper 95% confidence limits taken from the uncertainty values in the exponential rinse curve.

The majority of the data that are given in Table 3 indicate that the lime demand will decrease between about 40 and 60% between 2010 and 2015. The data also indicate that the lime demand will decrease substantially by 2010 from the current lime demand. Further, by 2010 the lime demand is more than an order of magnitude lower than the original calculated lime demand of 119 lb/1000 gal. The calculated values given in Table 3 are also much less than the adjustment to the lime demand proposed in 2005 of 65 lb/1000 gal. All models demonstrate that the lime demand will continue to decrease in the future. This is to be expected due to the fact that effective source controls have been put in place and a substantial mass has been, and will continue to be, extracted from the acid plume (for example, the average acidity concentration in water removed from ECG1146 during 2005 was 8900 mg/L (as CaCO3) and the amount of water removed was about 1500 acre/feet – this equates to the removal of about 16.5 kilotonnes of acidity being removed from the aquifer). In the absence of a continued source of contamination, contaminant concentrations can only decrease if mass is removed from the system and, as such, the lime demand must also decrease.

In the extrapolated column data model, there is a need to relate a pore volume to a representative time length to be able to determine the lime demand. Evaluation of the column data by Golder (2007) resulted in a range of equivalent pore volumes to field response of between 2.8 and 9.0




years, with an average of 4.7 years. The range in the lime demand determined from this model result from the use of the range in pore volume lengths. The range in the lime demand determined from use of the geochemical model (Golder, 2007) result from use of different flow paths (clean, transitional and dirty).

Table 3: Calculated lime demand for 2010 and 2015 (a lime excess of 30% has been included in the estimated values)

Lime demand (lb/1000 gal) Model

2010 2015 Extrapolated column data model – endpoint from end of period (Golder, 2007) 10.5 – 17.7 6.1 – 12.4 Extrapolated column data model – endpoint from middle of period (Golder, 2007) 7.9 – 10.5 2.6 – 4.4 Extrapolated column data model – endpoint from number of steps (Golder, 2007) 3.5 – 10.5 2.6 – 6.1 Extrapolated well data model (Golder, 2007) 12.4 7.5 Geochemical model (Golder, 2007) 15.9 – 18.5 7.9 – 12.4 Advection-dispersion-extraction model 16.6 6.8 Empirical rinse curve model 18.6 9.2 Empirical rinse curve model – upper 95% confidence 21.5 11.1

In relation to the lime demand calculated by using the five models, the values from the extrapolated column data model are seen as the least reliable. This model is based on the use of sparse data and, in addition, the column data does not include a sink for the contaminants that is induced by extraction of mass from the acid plume. Thus, it is believed that the rate of decrease in the concentrations of contaminants cannot be simulated appropriately by this model. It has been recognised that the contaminant concentrations in the acid plume are decreasing at a more rapid rate than had been predicted on the basis of the SMI columns. Even the fastest movement of groundwater used in this model (i.e. 2.8 years per pore volume) still leads to a significantly greater predicted acidity remaining in the aquifer than those of other models. The lime demand predictions of the geochemical “dirty” model appear inconsistent with calculations for the acidity remaining in the plume. Based on EVS estimates and the concentrations of acidity from the geochemical “dirty” model, the estimated acidity remaining in the aquifer is overestimated by more than 20% (in 2025), that is, a substantially greater mass of acidity is predicted to be extracted from the aquifer than is available. It is understood that the EVS estimates do not account for remobilisation but a greater than 20% overshoot equates to greater than 40 million kg of acidity that could be remobilised. Although possible, the remobilisation of such a large mass of acidity is deemed not to be very likely. Thus, there are five remaining results which appear to give credible results and the predicted lime demand from all five agree very well. The predicted lime demand data are listed in Table 4, where the two sets of data from the geochemical model (Golder, 2007) have been separated to give a fuller picture. The lime demand for 2010 predicted by the models range from 12.4 to 18.6 lb/1000 gal (where the 30% lime excess has been included). These values range from 10 to 16 percent of the original lime demand of 119 lb/1000 gal. In 2015, the predicted lime demand ranges from 6.8




to 10.9 lb/1000 gal which equates to between 6 and 9% of the original lime demand. Thus, all models predict that there will be a continual decrease in lime demand that is required for treating the acid plume.

Table 4: Calculated lime demand for 2010 and 2015 from most credible models and from smallest to largest in each year (a lime excess of 30% has been included in the estimated

values)

2010 2015 Model Lime Demand

(lb/1000 gal) Model Lime Demand

(lb/1000 gal) Extrapolated well data model (Golder, 2007) 12.4 Advection-dispersion-extraction model 6.8

Geochemical model – clean (Golder, 2007) 15.9

Extrapolated well data model (Golder, 2007) 7.5

Advection-dispersion-extraction model 16.6 Geochemical model – clean (Golder, 2007) 7.9

Geochemical model – transitional (Golder, 2007) 18.5 Empirical rinse curve model 9.2

Empirical rinse curve model 18.6 Geochemical model – transitional (Golder, 2007) 10.9

For the five models listed in Table 4, the predicted lime demand in 2027 ranges from 1.7 to 3.2 lb/1000 gal, where the 30% lime excess has been included. In 2027, the largest lime demand is predicted by the advection-dispersion-extraction model, with the empirical rinse curve predicting the lowest demand. The advection-dispersion-extraction model has incorporated a long-term slow release component (see Section A1 in the Appendix), which is based on evaluation of the SMI column data. As a result of the way the transitional geochemical model is set up, it also simulates a tail of higher acidity concentration and predicts the second highest concentration. Both of these values lie slightly outside the 95% confidence intervals predicted from the empirical rinse curve model. This latter model most likely requires additional field data information, as the acidity concentrations in the plume decrease, to be able to adequately predict the longer term behaviour. It is probable that higher concentrations will occur in the acid plume as seen in the column study. There is likely to be a slow release of acidity from the slow dissolution of oxyhydroxide precipitates which will maintain a relatively low pH in the plume for many decades. Nevertheless, the agreement between all five models for the 2027 predicted acidity concentration, and the associated lime demand, is still excellent. These lime demand predictions are only from 1.4 to 2.7% of the original lime demand of 119 lb/1000 gal. The lime demand predicted by all models is illustrated in Figure 6 for the period 2007 through 2027. As indicated above, in general there is good agreement between all of the model predictions. All of the predicted data has been used to estimate an upper 95% confidence interval for the lime demand. The upper 95% confidence limit data are reproduced in Table 5 for both the lime demand and the acidity concentrations predicted for ECG1146 and BSG1201. Four of the five models used to calculate the confidence limits are completely independent which adds more credibility to the use of the upper confidence limit for the on-going lime demand. Further, this limit should be updated as more data is gathered and the model predictions are updated. The upper




95% confidence limit has predicted lime demands greater than any of the individual models at any point in time. As such, the model using the 95% confidence limit is seen as being conservative and it is recommended that this limit is used for on-going lime demand estimation. It is more appropriate to use these values for the predicted on-going lime demand rather than a fixed value. There is no justification for a constant lime demand as more mass, and therefore acidity, is continually extracted from the acid plume. Figure 6: Calculated lime demand for 2007 through 2027 from most credible models (a lime

excess of 30% has been included in the estimated values) including an upper 95% confidence limit calculated from all model data

Table 5: Predicted lime demand for treatment of acid plume and acidity concentrations at the extraction wells ECG1146 and BSG1201 – calculated from the upper 95% confidence

limit of all selected credible models

Year Acidity Concentration

ECG1146 (mg/L as CaCO3) Acidity Concentration

BSG1201 (mg/L as CaCO3) Lime Demand (lb/1000 gal)

2007 7465 2974 32.6 2010 5422 2408 21.0 2012 5649 1600 18.2 2015 3561 1081 11.7 2017 2751 802 9.2 2022 1271 533 4.9 2027 746 499 3.5

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

0

10

20

30

40

50

Lim

e de

man

d (lb

/100

0 ga

l)

Year

Rinse curve model Extrapolated well data model Advection-dispersion-extraction model Geochemical model (clean) Geochemical model (transition) Upper 95% confidence limit of all models




The upper 95% confidence limit from the five model predictions is believed to be a conservative prediction of the lime demand. The upper limit calculates a larger lime demand than do any of the individual models, being approximately 10% larger than the largest prediction of an individual model for a given year. The predicted lime demand from the upper 95% confidence limit for 2018 is 8.8 lb/1000 gal. As indicated this value is believed to be conservative, but is substantially less than the 20 lb/1000 gal suggested by RTTS (2006) that could be used from 2018 to 2048. It is also evident that the lime demand continues to decrease from 2018 through 2027, thus the use of a constant lime demand in water treatment cost analysis cannot be justified. This constant lime demand should be replaced by one that continually decreases but is still conservative, such as the upper 95% confidence data illustrated in Figure 6 and listed in Table 5. The concentration data shown in Table 5 were determined from the individual predicted values of four of the five data sets – the extrapolated well data model of Golder (2007) was not used to calculate the upper 95% confidence limit as this model could not be used to determine individual acidity concentrations at ECG1146 and BSG1201. The lime demand at early times predicted by the extrapolated well data model was generally lower than the other models. Consequently, the absence of this model leads to higher predicted acidity concentrations (for the 95% confidence limit). If the 95% acidity concentrations are used from Table 5 to determine the lime demand they give a higher predicted lime demand than is listed in the last column of Table 5 for the period between 2010 and 2027. The discrepancy increases from about 16% in 2010 to a maximum of 25% in 2012 and 2015, but then decreases substantially and the two values only differ by 8% in 2027. The predicted lime demand in 2027 from the acidity concentration data given in Table 5 is 3.8 lb/1000 gal. The 95% confidence limit values for both the lime demand and acidity concentration are about 10% higher than the values predicted by the advection-dispersion-extraction model at later times (post 2022). This model predicts the highest concentrations of acidity in the aquifer at these times. Using this data and increasing the values by 10% allows an estimation of the lime demand and acidity concentrations in the aquifer post 2030 (the Golder models did not determine predicted values after this time). The predicted acidity concentration plus 10% from the advection-dispersion-extraction model are 335 and 317 mg/L (as CaCO3) for ECG1146 in 2047 and 2052, respectively, and 285 and 245 mg/L (as CaCO3) for BSG1201. The predicted lime demand using this methodology is 2.2 and 1.9 lb/1000 gal in 2027 and 2042, respectively. The average of these latter values (2.1 lb/1000 gal) could be used for the in-perpetuity lime demand costs.




3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Five models have been used to predict the temporal changes in the acidity and other contaminant concentrations in the acid plume. These models include:

• an extrapolation model based on interpretations of the SMI column data (Golder, 2007); • an extrapolation model using data from individual wells that have undergone complete

recovery (Golder, 2007); • an expanded one-dimensional geochemical model (Golder, 2007); • an empirical rinse curve model (RTTS, 2006); and • an extended one-dimensional advection-dispersion model with mass extraction (RTOTX,

2007).

The models have also been used to estimate the on-going lime demand for treatment of water extracted from the plume. In addition, two models have been used to estimate the mass of acidity and other contaminants in the plume.

In total, nine different scenarios were presented and of these five were selected as having the most credible predictions. Of the five selected models, the predicted acidity concentrations, mass of acidity and other contaminants in the plume and the associated lime demand were all in relatively good agreement. All of these model predictions were independently derived and all indicated a continuing decrease in acidity concentration, and therefore, lime demand. An upper 95% confidence limit was determined from the results of the five selected scenarios, which has predicted lime demands greater than any of the individual models at any point in time. As such, this model is seen as being conservative and it is recommended that this limit is used for on-going lime demand estimation.

Given the influence that water treatment has on closure costs, it will be important for KUCC to continue to update the model scenarios selected in this report. For those models that would require a complete reanalysis then a frequency of updating should be of the order of three years. The empirical rinse curve model has been automated and can be updated as new data become available from each of the eleven monitoring/extraction wells. Excel® workbooks for each contaminant are contained on the disk attached to this report.

The geochemical model produced by Golder (2007) for the extraction well BSG1201 suggested that a significant transition in geochemistry may be imminent. This transition was found to be largely independent of the range of sensitivity analyses carried out by Golder. It will therefore be important for KUCC to closely monitor the geochemistry at this extraction well. Monitoring will indicate when the geochemistry undergoes a transition due to the inflow of marginal water. If this does occur then there will likely be a strong case for termination of extraction from the well, at the time or slightly after the transition occurs, and relocation of the point of extraction to somewhere else in the acid plume.

The advection-dispersion-extraction model indicates the likelihood of a long-term slow “decay” of contaminant concentrations. This behaviour was found to occur in the SMI columns. As a consequence, this behaviour is also likely to occur in the acid plume resulting from the persistence




of low pH in the plume. The acidity concentrations and their associated lime demand (Figure 6), because of this slow “decay” in the advection-dispersion-extraction model, post 2026 is predicted to be the greatest. Further, this behaviour might not be captured adequately by any of the other models. It will be important for KUCC to more fully understand the likelihood and impact that the persistence of a slow “decay” in contaminant concentrations may have on lime demand since a small residual lime demand of 1-3 lb/1000 gal is likely to persist in the plume for a considerable period of time.




4 REFERENCES

Bethke, C.M., 2005. The Geochemist’s Workbench. Release 6.05. University of Illinois, Urbana Illinois.

Golder, 2006. Analysis of plume recovery by rinse curve analysis. Golder Associates technical memorandum, March 2006.

Golder, 2007. Lime usage forecasting. Golder Associates report 063-2287, July 2007.

RTOTX, 2007. Review of Outline for phased development of a partially coupled flow and reactive transport model for lime usage forecasting by Golder Associates, Rio Tinto Operational and Technical Excellence Memorandum, February 2007.

RTTS, 2006. Review of assumptions and predictions related to the KUCC Zone A acid plume remediation, Rio Tinto Technical Services Report AR2704, April 2006.

SMI, 1997. Geochemical modelling of the groundwater in the southwest Jordan Valley, Utah. Final draft. Appendix H. Remedial investigation report of Kennecott Utah Copper south facilities groundwater plume. Shepherd Miller, Inc. report, July 1997.




APPENDICES

A1 ADVECTION-DISPERSION MODEL

The one-dimensional advection-dispersion equation is:

( ) nks

skkk

RCq

vCxx

CD

xtC

�++∂∂−��

�

��

�

∂∂

∂∂=

∂∂

θ (A1)

where C k is the concentration of the k-th component (contaminant), t is time, D is the dispersion coefficient, x is distance, v is velocity, qs is the volumetric flux in or out of the system from a sink or source (in the case of the acid plume, this represents the flux of a component taken out by the extraction wells), Cs

k is the concentration added/taken out by the sink/source, θ is the porosity and Rn is a sink or source resulting from chemical reactions (this may be from dissolution/precipitation of a mineral phase or the slow kinetic release of a component).

In equation (A1), the term on the left hand side of the equation represents the change in concentration of a component as a function of time. The terms on the right hand side of the equation represent changes in concentration of a component (from left to right) due to dispersion, advection, sources and sinks and chemical reactions. The equation can be used to describe both the data from the SMI (1997) columns and the observed change in component concentrations in the field as a result of water extraction.

In relation to the SMI column data, the advection-dispersion equation can be applied in the absence of a sink/source term. Simulation of contaminant clean-up in the columns was simulated by rinsing the columns with water. The extraction of water (sink) was not simulated in the experiments conducted. As the columns were rinsed at a constant rate, the change in contaminant concentration can be directly linked to the number of pore volumes of water that were rinsed through the columns. If water had also been extracted from the side of the columns, then some contaminant mass would be removed via this sink and the concentrations of contaminants in water exiting the bottom of the columns would have been less than was actually measured (i.e. contaminant concentrations would decrease more rapidly on a pore volume basis than was observed by SMI).

The advection-dispersion equation can also be applied to the actual acid plume recovery. In this case, because mass is removed from the plume via extraction, a sink term can be included. To directly compare the ability of the advection-dispersion model to describe contaminant concentrations in the field with those from the columns, monitoring data from the acid plume needs to be converted into pore volumes. Golder (2005) has determined the duration of a pore volume in the acid plume and this has been used to convert dates into pore volumes.

The following values have been used in equation (A1) for the dispersivity D and velocity v, namely 0.2 feet (6.1 cm) and 2 feet/day (0.6 metres/day), respectively. The “effective” velocity of each




contaminant is, however, marginally different due to differing effects of retardation on the travel time of individual components. In addition, the sink term has been determined from the rate of change in contaminant concentrations in the acid plume; it has been assumed that the extraction rate is maintained at a constant rate, and consequently, the rate of change in concentration also changes at a constant rate. A demonstration of a constant rate of change for each contaminant is shown below in Section A1.2. In general, the rate of change approximates about 50% per pore volume.

Examination of the SMI column data reveals that clean-up of effluent from the columns showed two distinct behaviours for nearly all contaminants. The first was a rapid decrease of concentration as a result of advection-dispersion and a second much slower rate of decrease because contaminants are released back into solution as a consequence of desorption and/or mineral dissolution which consequently slows the decrease in contaminant concentrations resulting from rinsing of the columns. This latter behaviour has been incorporated into the advection-dispersion model using either a constant final concentration (this has been used for sulfate and simulates gypsum dissolution) or an exponential concentration decrease (used for other contaminants to simulate a slow phase release), that is, the inclusion of a chemical reaction term. For the exponential behaviour, the chemical reaction term in equation (A1) is described by the following equation:

)exp(0 tCR kn λ−= (A2)

where C0k is the initial concentration relating to the release mechanism for a component (it differs

from the initial concentration of the same contaminant observed in either the columns or acid plume) and λ is the exponential decay constant, set equal to 0.15 for all contaminants (it is assumed that the same control mechanisms are responsible for all the contaminants other than sulfate). The two chemical reaction processes have also been used to describe the acid plume behaviour.

A1.1 Parameter Values

The parameters used to describe the concentrations of the contaminants in both the SMI columns and in the acid plume are listed in Table A1. As described above, equation (A2) has been used to simulate the slower rate of decrease in the contaminant concentration at longer times in both the columns and the plume for all contaminants except for sulfate. For sulfate, gypsum has been used to control the long-term concentration, and consequently, the long-term concentration has been set at 1500 mg/L (this value has been placed in the same column as the other contaminants in Table A1, but as indicated it is not used with equation (A2)). These parameters have been used in the advection-dispersion model to produce simulated curves of contaminant concentrations as a function of time. The figures, however, are given in pore volumes which have been estimated from the time where one pore volume is equal to approximately five years. The advection-dispersion




model can be used to explain the contaminant concentrations in the columns and together with extraction also the concentrations in the acid plume.

Table A1: Parameter values used in the advection-dispersion model

Parameter Unit Al Fe Acidity Cu Zn Mn Mg Sulfate Dispersivity feet 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Velocity feet/day 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Retardation factor 2.22 2.50 2.35 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.35 2.50 “Effective” velocity feet/day 0.9 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.8 Decay constant 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Extraction factor 1.919 2.288 1.964 1.724 1.608 1.724 1.578 1.480 Initial conc. (column) mg/L 2460 620 15860 212 152 383 5480 32700 Initial conc. (plume) mg/L 2465 832 21395 185 172 372 5960 33500 Initial conc. (slow release) mg/L 175 0.1 1500 25 15 45 450 1500* Pore volume length years 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98

As shown in Table A1, the extraction factor ranges from about 1.5 to 2.3. This indicates that the contaminant concentrations in the acid plume are decreasing between about 33% and 55% per pore volume (five years). Iron is decreasing at the fastest rate whereas sulfate is the slowest. The concentration of sulfate is controlled, in part, by the solubility of gypsum and thus there is continued solubilisation of sulfate into solution as the extraction progresses. Further, the size of the plume for sulfate is much larger than that of iron and aluminium, the main contributors to the acidity in the plume. The retardation factors for all contaminants only cover a small range (2.22-2.50). This suggests that, in general, the same processes are affecting all contaminants. It is to be expected that retardation has only a limited influence on the transport of a contaminant to the point of extraction in the plume. This is because contaminants are travelling against the concentration gradient and there will be a reduced tendency for their transport to be retarded. As indicated, the majority of the acidity in both the acid plume and in the columns is comprised of mineral acidity in the form of aluminium and iron. As expected, therefore, both the extraction and retardation factors determined for the acidity lie between those of aluminium and iron. The bulk of the acidity is from aluminium which explains why the extraction and retardation factors of acidity are closer to those of aluminium than they are to those of iron. Given that aluminium is the dominant contaminant in the acidity, it may be expected that the majority of the parameters determined for the two will be related. However, the initial concentration used for the acidity (1500 mg/L) to explain the slow release at long times is much higher than would be predicted from the corresponding value for aluminium (175 mg/L). The higher concentration for the acidity most likely results from the persistence of low pH in the columns for many tens of pore volumes indicating that in the long-term actual acidity rather than mineral acidity will become predominant. This behaviour is also likely to occur in the acid plume.




A1.2 Extraction factors

The extraction factors have been determined from the rate of change of the contaminant concentrations in the acid plume. The rate of change is calculated from a plot of the logarithm of the contaminant concentration versus time (pore volumes). The extraction factor is then equal to the inverse of ten raised to the power of the slope of the plot (i.e. ext. coeff. = 1/10slope). The smaller the value of the slope, the larger will be the extraction factor. Plots of concentration against pore volume are shown for each contaminant in Figures A1-A8. The only contaminant where this data have not been used is manganese; the reasons for this are discussed below. Figure A1: Variation of aluminium concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well

ECG1146

y = -0.283x + 3.5016R2 = 0.8715

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Al c

once

ntra

tion)

Figure A2: Variation of iron concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well ECG1146

y = -0.3594x + 2.9102R2 = 0.77

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Fe c

once

ntra

tion)




Figure A3: Variation of acidity concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well

ECG1146

y = -0.2932x + 4.3838R2 = 0.8149

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Aci

dity

con

cent

ratio

n)

Figure A4: Variation of copper concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well ECG1146

y = -0.2365x + 2.2874R2 = 0.8865

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Cu

conc

entr

atio

n)




Figure A5: Variation of zinc concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well

ECG1146

y = -0.2062x + 2.2829R2 = 0.9186

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Zn c

once

ntra

tion)

Figure A6: Variation of manganese concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well ECG1146

y = -0.0484x + 2.6247R2 = 0.2543

2.5

2.6

2.7

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Mn

conc

entr

atio

n)




Figure A7: Variation of magnesium concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well ECG1146

y = -0.198x + 3.8608R2 = 0.8437

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

3.7

3.75

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Mg

conc

entr

atio

n)

Figure A8: Variation of sulfate concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well ECG1146

y = -0.1704x + 4.6093R2 = 0.6334

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

SO

4 co

ncen

trat

ion)




A1.2 Simulation of Column and Acid Plume Behaviour

The parameter values listed in Table A1 have been used in the advection-dispersion model to simulate the behaviour of contaminants in both the SMI columns and the acid plume. Figures A9 to A16 demonstrate that the advection-dispersion model can be used with good effect to simulate the behaviour of contaminants in the columns and plume. In the columns, dispersion, advection and chemical reactions were the only processes that affected the change in the contaminant concentrations with time. No source (mass flux in) or sink (mass flux out) needs to be simulated since this process was not applied to the columns during the rinse phase. Conversely, in the plume, in addition to dispersion, advection and chemical reactions, a sink must also be applied to simulate the effect of pumping from the plume by the acid extraction wells. With the inclusion of this mass removal term, the model generally provides a reasonable estimate of the contaminant concentrations measured at ECG1146. The sink term is included by determining the rate of concentration decrease in each contaminant and dividing the fit of the contaminant transport in the SMI columns by the extraction factor calculated from the rate of concentration decrease – this essentially induces a percentage removal in mass in each successive pore volume. The only contaminant whose concentrations in the acid plume are not represented well by the model is manganese. However, the manganese concentrations observed in the extraction well ECG1146 are not representative of concentrations in other monitoring wells. In many of the other extraction wells, the concentration of manganese decreases much more quickly than is observed in ECG1146. This difference suggests that there may be a source of manganese in the vicinity of the extraction bore which maintains an elevated manganese concentration. The manganese extraction factor has been determined from the rate of change in the concentration of manganese from another monitoring well (BSG1180B). This latter well has also been used as the reference in the empirical rinse curve model described in Section A2. Figure A9: Modelled and measured aluminium concentrations in both the SMI columns and

acid plume at ECG1146

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Al c

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

L)

SMI column Al data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.2ECG1146 Al data





Figure A10: Modelled and measured iron concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid

plume at ECG1146

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Fe

conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

SMI column Fe data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.5ECG1146 Fe data


Figure A11: Modelled and measured acidity concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid plume at ECG1146

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Aci

dity

con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L) SMI column Acidity data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.35ECG1146 Acidity data





Figure A12: Modelled and measured copper concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid plume at ECG1146

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Cu

conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

SMI column Cu data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.2ECG1146 Cu data


Figure A13: Modelled and measured zinc concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid

plume at ECG1146

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Zn c

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

L)

SMI column Zn data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.2ECG1146 Zn data





Figure A14: Modelled and measured manganese concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid plume at ECG1146

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Mn

conc

entr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

SMI column Mn data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.2ECG1146 Mn data


Figure A15: Modelled and measured magnesium concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid plume at ECG1146

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Mg

conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

SMI column Mg data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.35ECG1146 Mg data





Figure A16: Modelled and measured sulfate concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid plume at ECG1146

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

SO

4 co

nce

ntra

tion

(m

g/L

) SMI column SO4 data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.5ECG1146 SO4 data


A1.2.1 Acidity concentration in extraction well BSG1201

The methodology adopted above was also used to describe the concentration of acidity in the extraction well BSG1201. In general, the same parameters were used in the advection-dispersion model for BSG1201 as are given in Table A1 for acidity. Analysis of the rate of change in acidity observed at BSG1201 indicated that the extraction factor was greater at this well than was found for acidity in ECG1146, as is illustrated in Figure A17. The extraction factor of acidity at BSG1201 is 2.23 compared to 1.96 at ECG1146 indicating that the acidity is relatively decreasing faster at the former well – the consequences of this are discussed in the main report.

Extraction from BSG1201 commenced in 2003 and monitoring at the location also only commenced at that time. Thus, there are no earlier records at the location, although anecdotal evidence from the nearby monitoring well BSG1177B suggests that earlier than 2003 acidity concentrations were much greater. To provide a reasonable fit to the observed monitoring data at BSG1201, a much higher “initial” concentration needed to be used in the model and is not too dissimilar to the concentration observed at BSG1177B at the same time (11000 versus near 10000 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively). Using this “initial” concentration in the model, the predicted concentrations for acidity are as illustrated in Figure A18. It is evident from the figure that there is again a good agreement between the predicted and observed acidity concentrations for this extraction well using the advection-dispersion model with extraction.




Figure A17: Variation of acidity concentration with time (pore volumes) in extraction well BSG1201

y = -0.3477x + 4.0167R2 = 0.8182

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Pore Volumes

log(

Aci

dity

con

cent

ratio

n)

Figure A18: Modelled and measured acidity concentrations in both the SMI columns and acid plume at BSG1201

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Pore Volumes

Aci

dity

con

cen

trat

ion

(mg/

L) SMI column Acidity data

1-D model: velocity = 2ft/day; dispersivity = 0.2feet; R = 2.35BSG1201 Acidity data





A2 EMPIRICAL RINSE CURVE MODEL

Rio Tinto Technical Services (now Rio Tinto T&I) reviewed the assumptions and predictions that had been performed in relation to the Zone A acid plume in 2005 (RTTS, 2005). As part of that review, a rinse curve evaluation was undertaken using the following methodology:

• Field data obtained from the two extraction wells (ECG1146 and BSG1201) was used. • A rinse curve was established for the constituents, acidity, Al, Fe, Mg and sulfate using the

data from extraction well ECG1146 only. The data used was that obtained post mid-2001. • Chemical data obtained from extraction well BSG1201 have lower concentrations than those

from ECG1146. As such, if the same rinse curve were to fit the data from BSG1201 it would fall further along the curve. This meant that the same lower concentrations would occur at ECG1146 at some time in the future. Therefore, the data from BSG1201 for each constituent was projected onto the rinse curve established for ECG1146 (an example, for acidity, is shown in Figure A19) to determine whether the rinse curve also adequately described the chemical data from BSG1201.

• The rinse curve was then used to estimate constituent concentration values at various points in time from December 2008 to December 2048. From the concentration values estimated for acidity, the lime demand was calculated for each point in time.

• The estimated constituent concentration values were used to calculate the total mass of the constituent present in the aquifer. This was compared with the total mass removed to date.

• The field rinse curve for Al was compared with the Al rinse curve obtained from the SMI column tests (SMI, 1997). The Al concentration at a given pore volume was assigned a date on the basis of where that concentration would occur on the rinse curve established for the Al field data. From the dates calculated, the field pore volume was determined.

This methodology has also been used in the present assessment but has been extended. In the present assessment, monitoring data from wells other than the two extraction wells have also been used with the same methodology. The additional bores include: B1G951, BSG1180B, ECG1118A, LRG912, P248A, BSG1179C, ECG1117C, ECG1145A and ECG1145B. All of these bores are located in the acid plume and have on-going pH values less than 5.5. They were chosen to span as large a range in contaminant concentrations as possible; other monitoring data could also have been used but would not likely add to the evaluation of the rinse curve. The data from each of the above monitoring bores was, like that for BSG1201, projected to the rinse curve determined from analysis of the ECG1146 data.

The concentration data obtained for each of the contaminants are illustrated in Figures A20 to A27. A rinse curve for each contaminant has been fitted to the data from ECG1146. The exception to this is manganese. As indicated in Section A1, the data for manganese from ECG1146 are not typical of data from other monitoring wells since there would appear to be a source of manganese in the vicinity of ECG1146. The rinse curve for manganese has been obtained using the monitoring data from well BSG1180B using the same methodology as described above.




Figure A19: Example of how the data from one monitoring bore (in this case, BSG1201) are projected onto the rinse curve determined for ECG1146. The green points for BSG1201 are

the actual data and the purple points the data projected to the rinse curve by 2557 days.

y = 1.4774E+10e -3.7175E-04x

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

Jul-98 Apr-01 Jan-04 Oct-06 Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23

Date

Aci

dit

y (

mg/

L)

ECG1146

BSG1201

+2700 days

Figure A20: Rinse curve evaluation of aluminium data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 9.9156E+08e-3.5320E-04x

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Alu

min

ium

(m

g/L

)


+2557 days




Figure A21: Rinse curve evaluation of iron data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 5.0488E+09e-4.3728E-04x

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Iro

n (

mg

/L)


Figure A22: Rinse curve evaluation of acidity data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 2.7435E+10e-3.8807E-04x

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

12500

15000

17500

20000

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Aci

dit

y (m

g/L

)





Figure A23: Rinse curve evaluation of copper data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 8.3418E+06e-2.9773E-04x

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Co

pp

er (

mg

/L)


Figure A24: Rinse curve evaluation of zinc data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 3.8736E+06e-2.7579E-04x

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Zin

c (m

g/L

)





Figure A25: Rinse curve evaluation of manganese data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 8.1723E+09e-4.4154E-04x

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Man

gan

ese

(mg

/L)

BSG1180BBSG1201B1G951ECG1146ECG1118ALRG912P248ABSG1179CECG1117AECG1145AECG1145BExpon. (BSG1180B)

Figure A26: Rinse curve evaluation of magnesium data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 2.1894E+08e-2.8601E-04x

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Mag

nes

ium

(m

g/L

)





Figure A27: Rinse curve evaluation of sulfate data from extraction and monitoring wells

y = 5.8589E+07e-2.0352E-04x

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

24000

28000

32000

36000

28/10/1995 14/01/2004 1/04/2012 18/06/2020 4/09/2028 21/11/2036 7/02/2045 26/04/2053 13/07/2061Date

Su

lfat

e (m

g/L

)


The projection of the monitoring data for each well to the rinse curve was performed by least squares evaluation. The data from each well were projected onto the rinse curve by adding a single time (in days) to each data point and minimising the difference between the rinse curve concentration and the concentration at the projected dates. The values obtained for each contaminant and monitoring or extraction well are given in Table A2. In one instance, the projection led to a negative value, that is, the data had to be moved back in time rather than forward in time. Values have not been provided for iron for some wells in Table A2 because the majority, if not all, of the monitoring data were below the analytical detection limit.

Table A2: Number of days required to project the monitoring or extraction well data onto the rinse curve

Well Al Fe Acidity Cu Zn Mn Mg Sulfate ECG1146 0 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 BSG1201 2837 5317 2557 4866 1931 1420 2638 3315 B1G951 1662 1254 1591 2242 1521 2806 1909 2608 BSG1180B 2176 — 1922 12054 -79 0 1395 1665 ECG1118A 2454 3535 2214 3223 2478 1448 2192 3207 LRG912 6924 — 6355 4204 7063 6263 6544 9418 P248A 11701 — 9735 8099 11378 9886 11865 15505 BSG1179C 762 1653 530 2121 1114 1943 1337 1705 ECG1117A 1183 421 1664 2362 1225 1734 1807 1999 ECG1145A 2253 7446 2191 3074 1813 596 826 3098 ECG1145B 7848 — 6671 12437 2459 1328 7555 5612




The data listed in Table A2 for each contaminant can be related to the concentration of that contaminant in each bore at a particular point in time. An example of such a relationship is shown in Figure A28. Similar relationships occur for all other contaminants. These relationships are not surprising since the lower the contaminant concentration then the larger will be the number of days required to project the well data to the rinse curve.

Figure A28: Example of the relationship between the number of days needed to project data (adjustment) to the rinse curve and the concentration of the contaminant at a point in

time. The data illustrated are for aluminium and the data are from each well as near as possible to February 2003.

y = -6671.7x + 21277R2 = 0.9867

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

log (Aluminium)

Adj

ustm

ent

(day

s)

Data from the relationships, illustrated by Figure A28, can be utilised together with the rinse curve data and the concentration of a contaminant in any well at a point in time to determine the concentration of that contaminant at any other point in time. This information can then be used in two ways: first, to compare the predicted concentrations of a contaminant in a well with measured concentrations; and second, to predict contaminant concentrations in various wells at times in the future. This will enable a more detailed spatial and temporal understanding of the behaviour of the plume to be ascertained.

The data from the rinse curve evaluation can also be used to determine the mass of each contaminant in the aquifer and to determine the lime demand at any point in the future. In performing these calculations it has been assumed that the extraction rate at ECG1146 and BSG1201 do not change and are equal to the current rates of extraction, that is, about 1500 and 1300 acre feet/year, respectively. If these values were to change, or a new extraction well is




placed in the acid plume, the calculations for lime demand would need to be updated. The calculated mass for each contaminant is listed in Table A3.

Table A3: Calculated mass of each contaminant in the acid plume using the empirical rinse curve model

Parameter Mass (106 kg) Al 33.4 Fe 4.90 Acidity 226 Cu 2.52 Zn 3.39 Mn 8.65 Mg 132 Sulfate 1150

The predicted lime demand for treating water extracted from the acid plume as determined from the empirical rinse curve model is shown in Figure A29. Also shown on the figure is another lime demand determined from the 95% uncertainty values in the two rinse curve parameters for acidity (these parameters are given on Figure A22). This latter line indicates that the predicted lime demand will be below or equal to the line with a 95% certainty.

Figure A29: Predicted lime demand determined from empirical rinse curve model together with upper 95% confidence interval

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Year

Lim

e D

eman

d (lb

/100

0 g

al)




A3 GOLDER MODELS

Golder (2007) utilised three methods to model the acid plume and determine the future lime demand. The three methods include:

• an extrapolation based on interpretations of the SMI column data; • an extrapolation using data from individual wells that have undergone complete recovery;

and • an expanded one-dimensional geochemical model.

The metrics produced by Golder (2007) from these methodologies were seen to be short-term (i.e. 5 to 10 years) so that the risks associated with the lime demand predictions were bounded.

Golder (2007) used the results from the models to predict the mass of contaminants in the aquifer and also to determine the on-going lime demand to 2015. These predictions are reproduced in Tables A4 and A5, respectively; the mass values are from their 2007 chemistry set A and is the maximum mass calculated to be present in the aquifer (Golder, 2007).

Table A4: Calculated mass of each contaminant in the acid plume from Golder (2007)

Parameter Mass (106 kg) Al 27.9 Fe 4.33 Acidity 213 Cu 1.65 Zn 2.50 Mn 9.70 Sulfate 1474

Table A5: Calculated lime demand determined from Golder (2007)

Lime Demand (lb/1000 gal) Model

2010 2015 SMI column data 8.1-13.6 4.7-9.5 Empirical rinse curves 9.5 5.8 Geochemical model 12.2-14.2 6.1-9.5

For more detail in regard to the Golder models, the reader is referred to the original report (Golder, 2007).



APPENDIX F Water Level Monitoring Data 2007

Table F-1 Water Elevation Data 2002-2007Measurements are reported in feet above mean sea level

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007ABC01 5248.62 5247.94 5247.67 5246.12 5245.22 5244.5 5244.31 5244.44 5245.30 5245.40 5245.18 5244.50ABC02 5152.70 NM 5150.22 5149.94 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKEDABC03 NM 4520.47 4519.87 4519.23 4518.16 4517.67 4517.04 4516.67 ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONEDABC04 BLOCKED 5145.94 5146.69 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKEDABC04A 5154.09 5153.32 5153.68 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKEDABC05 4709.72 4709.27 NM 4702.51 4694.36 4687.92 4681.10 4676.73 4673.73 4670.48 4671.15 4667.15ABC06 5014.39 5031.25 5041.58 5045.02 5035.31 5010.05 5026.24 5034.36 5028.81 5017.41 5022.52 4985.55ABC07 5251.51 5250.62 5250.12 5248.79 5247.95 5247.21 5247.21 5247.46 5248.97 5248.53 5248.11 5247.44ABC08 NM 4598.63 4590.58 4597.64 4590.38 4595.73 4589.81 4594.53 ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONEDB1G1120A 4815.2 4815.5 4811.64 4809.02 4806.25 4805.52 4801.96 4799.65 4796.60 4794.77 4792.25 4789.59B1G1120B NM 4815.05 NM 4810.32 NM 4806.6 NM 4802.44 NM 4796.97 NM 4791.13B1G1120C NM 4815.85 NM 4810.83 NM 4807.25 NM 4802.29 NM 4796.47 NM 4791.20B1G951 5177.16 5176.59 5176.07 5175.75 5176.23 5174.98 5175.38 5175.76 5176.54 5176.42 5176.32 5175.45B2G1157A 4595.75 4588.46 4589.2 4581.33 4587.25 4582.16 4593.45 4581.24 4589.70 4574.63 4576.30 4565.93B2G1157B NM 4585.75 NM 4579.43 NM 4579.96 4593.77 4579.69 NM 4573.06 NM 4565.74B2G1157C NM 4583.45 NM 4578.62 NM 4577.67 4593.81 4576.53 NM 4570.82 NM 4562.94B2G1176A 4707.4 4709.02 4704.75 4701.96 4694.05 4688.11 4680.45 4675.77 4672.95 4669.74 4669.39 4665.49B2G1176B NM 4708.69 NM 4702.55 NM 4688.61 NM 4676.21 NM 4670.16 NM 4665.77B2G1176C NM 4708.79 NM 4702.96 NM 4689.05 NM 4676.73 NM 4670.63 NM 4666.23B2G1193 NM NM NM NM NM 4569.09 NM 4561.20 NM NM NM NMB2G1194A 4599.98 4590.79 4593.7 NM 4591.05 4583.64 4591.82 4586.89 4588.99 4579.44 4582.17 4572.61B2G1194B NM 4590.71 NM NM NM 4583.58 NM 4586.96 NM 4579.35 NM 4572.61B3G1197A 4605.11 4594.48 4599.66 NM 4595.29 4589.76 4592.71 4592.19 4592.28 4585.27 4587.71 4578.67B3G1197B NM 4593.98 NM NM NM 4591.46 NM 4592.33 NM 4585.22 NM 4578.77B3G1197C NM 4593.93 NM NM NM 4592.13 NM 4592.64 NM 4585.28 NM 4578.89BFG1136A 4706.21 4705.58 4703.85 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYBFG1136B NM 4705.41 NM 4700.43 4692.68 4686.48 4679.31 4673.10 4671.40 4668.49 4667.37 4662.80BFG1136C NM 4705.78 NM 4700.65 NM 4686.72 NM 4673.52 NM 4668.93 NM 4664.09BFG1155B 4595.65 4584.87 4588.84 4579.31 4586.89 4579.02 4590.83 4582.20 4587.73 4573.71 4577.55 4566.34BFG1155C NM 4583.84 NM 4578.26 NM 4578.01 NM 4581.20 NM 4572.84 NM 4566.05BFG1155D NM 4582.83 NM 4577.9 NM 4577.65 NM 4580.98 NM 4572.46 NM 4565.34BFG1155E NM 4583.13 NM 4578.75 NM 4578.23 NM 4581.38 NM 4572.46 NM 4564.56BFG1155F NM 4583.09 NM 4578.8 NM 4578.41 NM 4581.62 NM 4573.03 NM 4565.51BFG1156A 4590.98 DRY 4590.22 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYBFG1156B NM 4588.38 NM 4581.97 4588.38 4581.61 4591.63 4583.61 4588.40 4575.12 4578.71 4568.90BFG1156C NM 4589.04 NM 4583.05 NM 4582.8 NM 4584.57 NM 4577.04 NM 4570.02BFG1156D NM 4588.15 NM 4582.63 NM 4582.31 NM 4584.29 NM 4576.57 NM 4569.58BFG1156E NM 4591.18 NM 4583.48 NM 4583.57 NM 4587.43 NM 4579.44 NM 4571.54BFG1156F NM 4588.2 NM 4583.14 NM 4582.12 NM 4584.63 NM 4576.99 NM 4570.07BFG1168A 4708.4 4708.65 4706.44 4702.81 4695.09 4688.86 4681.50 4674.70 4673.54 4670.60 4669.39 4665.52BFG1168B NM 4707.98 NM 4703.16 NM 4689.2 NM 4674.98 NM 4670.96 NM 4665.93BFG1168C NM 4708.19 NM 4703.22 NM 4689.33 NM 4675.03 NM 4671.16 NM 4666.11BFG1195A 4596.6 4587.45 4589.97 4581.35 4588.13 4581.37 4592.33 4582.67 4588.68 4575.18 4577.84 4568.09


May 2008F-1

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007BFG1195B NM 4587.32 NM 4581.59 NM 4581.54 NM 4582.78 NM 4575.42 NM 4568.23BFG1198A 4708.1 4707.65 4706.08 4702.33 NM 4688.36 4681.08 4674.26 4673.20 4670.30 4669.15 4665.37BFG1198B NM 4707.62 NM 4702.51 NM 4688.59 NM 4674.50 NM 4670.48 NM 4665.56BFG1198C NM 4707.59 NM 4702.64 NM 4688.78 NM 4674.65 NM 4670.69 NM 4665.78BFG1200 NM NM NM NM 4548.55 NM NM 4513.14 NM NM NM NMBRG286 5574.29 5573.29 NM 5569.4 5568.59 5569.37 5569.77 5574.47 5575.15 5573.09 5577.55 5575.63BRG287 5348.26 5347.06 NM 5340.96 5339.96 5338.55 5337.82 5342.95 5343.30 5346.26 5345.12 5342.97BRG288 5348.69 5347.66 5345.96 5344.95 5344.1 5344.25 5345.49 5349.68 5351.59 5356.01 5356.54 5353.56BRG289 5348.41 5347.34 5345.62 5344.62 5343.85 5343.95 5345.36 5349.66 5351.35 5356.09 5356.30 5353.25BRG290 5318.65 5317.75 5314.51 5313.12 5311.35 5310.62 5309.98 5312.23 5313.56 5315.36 5315.87 5314.68BRG291A 5530.73 5529.93 5527.34 5525.41 5526.98 5527.72 5529.84 5532.22 5531.90 5532.95 5529.22 5526.89BRG919 5601.46 5600.64 5599.41 5598.44 5600.17 5601.05 5602.36 5603.19 5602.81 5603.83 5602.00 5601.01BRG920 5535.54 5534.64 5530.2 5528.3 5536.44 5534.55 5544.54 5540.83 5543.55 5540.08 5533.91 5531.46BRG921 5330.07 5326.9 5324.81 5322.75 5320.58 5317.59 5316.60 5318.39 5319.26 5320.74 5320.68 5319.46BRG999 5328.68 5326.86 5323.74 5321.67 5319.45 5318.2 5317.29 5318.78 5320.39 5321.10 5321.14 5319.98BSG1119A 4626.4 4623.45 4620.15 4615.97 4615.01 4611.38 4610.44 4606.79 4605.45 4601.07 4598.41 4593.95BSG1119B NM 4625.29 NM 4616.71 NM 4613.26 NM 4608.82 NM 4603.10 NM 4595.88BSG1119C NM 4719.31 NM 4715.71 NM 4707.68 NM 4698.69 NM 4692.39 NM 4686.79BSG1125A 4714.25 4714.88 4712.5 4707.97 4698.72 4691.75 4686.03 4684.64 4682.27 NM DRY DRYBSG1125B NM 4714.13 NM 4707.4 NM 4691.53 NM 4684.43 NM NM NM 4673.50BSG1125C NM 4713.2 NM 4705.94 NM 4690.46 NM 4682.58 NM NM NM 4672.08BSG1130A 4612.27 4608.41 4605.08 4601.84 4601.71 4599.52 4598.31 4598.54 4596.50 4594.29 4592.42 4588.94BSG1130B NM 4604.41 NM 4598.19 NM 4595.82 NM 4596.24 NM 4591.15 NM 4585.37BSG1130C NM 4601.33 NM 4595.8 NM 4593.77 NM 4595.44 NM 4589.25 NM 4583.23BSG1132A 4604.47 4597.86 4598.96 4591.72 4595.37 4590.07 4594.65 4591.27 4592.28 4585.47 4586.02 4579.11BSG1132B NM 4596.57 NM 4590.61 NM 4589.02 NM 4590.94 NM 4584.40 NM 4577.91BSG1132C NM 4591.91 NM 4586.61 NM 4584.79 NM 4587.37 NM 4580.23 NM 4573.58BSG1133A 4610.6 4607.09 4609.55 4599.54 4600.58 4597.14 4598.63 4595.70 4595.03 4590.84 4589.35 4584.49BSG1133B NM 4607.05 NM 4600.33 NM 4597.79 4599.80 4596.24 NM 4591.03 NM 4584.25BSG1133C NM 4591.63 NM 4586.27 NM 4584.17 NM 4585.79 NM 4579.05 NM 4571.82BSG1135A 4614.08 4611.47 4607.17 4604.89 4603.14 4601.74 4599.64 4600.64 4598.36 4597.38 4595.04 4592.78BSG1135B NM 4607.65 NM 4601.33 NM 4598.72 NM 4598.47 NM 4594.18 NM 4588.84BSG1135C NM 4599.88 NM 4594.35 NM 4592.41 NM 4594.11 NM 4588.16 NM 4582.05BSG1137A 4605.93 4599.63 4599.61 4592.97 4595.84 4591.36 4593.27 4593.03 4591.90 4587.51 4587.34 4580.98BSG1137B NM 4596.56 NM 4591.18 NM 4589.45 NM 4593.41 NM 4586.05 NM 4579.57BSG1137C NM 4595.52 NM 4590.42 NM 4588.57 NM 4592.31 NM 4585.49 NM 4578.92BSG1148A 4712.72 4713.99 NM 4706.23 4697.5 4690.89 4684.62 4681.67 4679.86 4675.74 4674.40 4672.10BSG1148B NM 4712.76 NM 4704.56 NM 4689.77 NM 4679.77 NM 4673.26 NM 4670.25BSG1148C NM 4712.57 NM 4704.74 NM 4689.67 NM 4679.91 NM 4673.94 NM 4670.53BSG1153A 4770.99 4770.66 4767.71 4765.97 4762.25 4761.42 NM 4751.44 4748.74 4747.18 4745.13 4743.68BSG1153B NM 4733.98 NM 4727.42 NM 4741.41 NM 4745.13 NM 4750.89 NM 4750.84BSG1153C NM 4784.94 NM 4776.8 NM 4777.65 NM 4785.33 NM 4793.66 NM 4784.93BSG1177A 4709.12 4711.98 4706.71 4697.83 4689.39 4683.42 4676.04 4671.96 4669.16 4666.21 4666.21 4666.05BSG1177B NM 4712.34 NM 4698.8 NM 4684.22 NM 4672.41 NM 4666.45 NM 4667.04BSG1177C NM 4713.48 NM 4706.25 NM 4691.98 NM 4680.14 NM 4674.12 NM 4671.00BSG1179A 4710 4714.49 NM 4704.21 4695.72 4689.07 4682.72 4679.31 4677.18 4673.85 4672.32 4669.25


May 2008F-2

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007BSG1179B NM 4714.34 NM 4702.99 NM 4688.24 NM 4677.51 NM 4671.21 NM 4668.78BSG1179C NM 4712.22 NM 4704.36 NM 4689.54 NM 4674.41 NM 4672.32 NM 4669.59BSG1180A 4708.59 4709.1 4706.79 4700.56 4692.07 4685.83 4678.59 4674.34 4671.68 4668.56 4668.66 4665.60BSG1180B NM 4712.29 NM 4701.99 NM 4687.06 NM 4675.45 NM 4669.27 NM 4667.29BSG1180C NM 4711.44 NM 4704.1 NM 4689.84 NM 4678.32 NM 4671.79 NM 4669.57BSG1196A 4708.32 4708.93 4706.4 4700.31 4691.96 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYBSG1196B NM 4710.24 NM 4700.79 NM 4686.33 4679.03 4674.76 4672.05 4668.95 4668.97 4666.02BSG1196C NM 4701.41 NM 4702.9 NM 4688.05 NM 4676.18 NM 4670.25 NM 4667.82BSG1201 NM NM NM 4669.07 4675.02 4669.47 4664.09 4659.78 NM NM NM NMBSG2777A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4676.64 4673.64BSG2777B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4672.64BSG2778A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4784.70 4782.05BSG2778B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4789.13BSG2779A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4586.86 4585.68BSG2779B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4592.07 4584.83BSG2779C --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4577.12BSG2782A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4672.41 4674.74BSG2782B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4674.67BSG2782C --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4676.31BSG2783A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4677.40 4675.07BSG2783B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4675.23BSG2783C --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4676.48COG1149A NM NM NM NM NM 5238.72 5238.32 5238.54 5237.40 5237.09 NM 5236.68COG1149B NM NM NM NM NM 5213.32 NM 5213.63 NM 5214.97 NM 5214.13COG1149C NM NM NM NM NM 5212.49 NM 5212.96 NM 5213.69 NM 5212.83COG1150A 5215.14 NM 5214.63 5214.31 5213.66 5213.86 5214.12 5214.66 5215.35 5215.10 NM 5214.20COG1150B NM NM NM 5213.54 NM 5213.11 NM 5213.81 NM 5214.33 NM 5213.42COG1150C NM NM NM 5039.13 NM 5043.71 NM 5050.23 NM 5055.14 NM 5056.15COG1151A 5222.5 NM NM NM 5220.71 5220.41 5219.96 5220.25 5219.59 5219.55 5219.89 5219.90COG1151B NM NM NM NM NM 5231.9 NM 5222.07 NM 5230.52 NM 5230.24COG1151C NM NM NM NM NM 5213.55 NM 5213.88 NM 5214.53 NM 5213.65COG1151D NM NM NM NM NM 5211.2 NM 5211.67 NM 5212.45 NM 5211.47COG1152A 5177.73 NM NM NM 5175.41 5175.79 5175.18 5176.65 5177.09 5177.65 5177.70 5176.97COG1152B NM NM NM NM NM 5205.52 NM 5205.54 NM 5205.70 NM 5205.11COG1152C NM NM NM NM NM 5174.59 NM 5175.04 NM 5175.67 NM 5175.32COG1158A 5238.93 NM 5238.7 5238.13 5237.23 5236.83 5236.64 5237.82 5235.66 5235.39 NM 5234.99COG1158B NM NM NM 5229.97 NM 5229.67 NM 5229.72 NM 5229.41 NM 5229.18COG1158C NM NM NM 5222.71 NM 5222.26 NM 5222.73 NM 5222.93 NM 5222.45COG1175A 4829.96 4829.11 4825.11 4822.43 4819.32 4817.27 4814.08 4811.48 4808.93 4806.96 4804.37 4802.15COG1175B NM 4829.73 NM 4823.08 NM 4817.93 NM 4812.10 NM 4807.52 NM 4802.73COG1175C NM 4829.5 NM 4823.84 NM 4818.93 NM 4812.87 NM 4808.27 NM 4803.45COG1178A 4832.71 4830.91 4827.54 4824.86 4821.7 4819.89 4816.40 4813.79 4811.20 4809.09 4806.23 4804.24COG1178B NM 4830.92 NM 4824.92 NM 4819.63 NM 4813.87 NM 4809.15 NM 4804.21COG1178C NM 4830.96 NM 4825.06 NM 4819.76 NM 4813.98 NM 4809.27 NM 4804.38COG918 NM NM NM NM NM 5219.07 NM NM 5220.58 5220.74 5220.91 5219.53CPG950 NM NM NNM NM NM NM 5140.54 5146.55 5141.31 5142.53 5140.36 5140.43


May 2008F-3

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007ECG1112A 5241.37 NM NM NM NM 5239.4 NM NM 5240.15 5243.07 5242.45 5241.17ECG1112B NM NM NM NM NM 5252.61 NM NM NM 5255.02 NM 5253.54ECG1113A 5174.57 5173.3 5172.39 5171.84 5171.03 5170.26 5169.19 5168.48 5167.82 5167.40 5166.86 5166.51ECG1113B NM 5141.91 NM 5143.65 NM 5139.66 NM 5139.99 NM 5137.18 NM 5133.23ECG1113C NM 5142.88 NM 5144.92 NM 5140.68 NM 5141.20 NM 5138.28 NM 5134.13ECG1114A 5330.34 5324.96 5328.5 5327.31 5325.77 5324.94 5323.81 5324.06 5323.80 5324.28 5323.79 5323.60ECG1114B NM 4980.05 NM 4979.55 NM 4978.81 4978.29 4978.17 4977.58 4977.19 NM 4976.05ECG1115A 4962.95 4958.67 4946.96 4945.42 4937.51 4927.49 4910.61 4898.46 NM 4877.01 4867.42 4863.86ECG1115B NM 4958.06 NM 4948.99 NM 4930.81 NM 4900.03 NM 4880.41 NM 4869.00ECG1115C NM 4952.36 NM 4948.7 NM 4931.24 NM 4903.18 NM 4882.37 NM 4871.45ECG1115D NM 4967.12 NM 4958.33 NM 4939.96 NM 4910.67 NM 4891.10 NM 4877.95ECG1115E NM 4933.18 NM 4932.44 NM 4931.73 NM 4932.73 NM 4932.60 NM 4932.13ECG1116A 4951.65 4945.95 4938.31 4937.55 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYECG1116B NM 4947.57 NM 4940.94 4936.01 4929.84 4924.87 4922.86 4921.64 4920.76 4920.37 4920.50ECG1116C NM 5114.35 NM 5117.15 NM 5114.8 NM 5115.13 Dry 5113.15 NM 5110.37ECG1117A 4961.95 4956.61 4945.98 4943.76 4936.03 4926.05 4908.71 4896.41 4883.83 4875.70 4865.80 4861.41ECG1117B NM 4961.56 NM 4952.91 NM 4935.08 NM 4905.26 NM 4885.22 NM 4871.38ECG1117C NM 4968.01 NM 4958.96 NM 4941.35 NM 4911.63 NM 4891.61 NM 4876.93ECG1118A 4808.61 4808.28 4804.76 4803.79 4798.54 4794.74 4791.94 4789.02 4786.14 4783.96 4781.60 4779.03ECG1118B NM 4810.25 NM 4805.18 NM 4798.83 NM 4793.16 NM 4787.94 NM 4782.85ECG1118C NM 4812.49 NM 4807.55 NM 4802.04 NM 4796.04 NM 4790.74 NM 4785.83ECG1121A 4812.47 4813.62 4808.36 4806.48 4803.27 4800.29 4797.57 4795.23 4792.47 4789.93 4787.75 4785.37ECG1121B NM 4811.81 NM 4807.01 NM 4801.4 NM 4795.36 NM 4789.85 NM 4785.14ECG1121C NM 4812.17 NM 4807.16 NM 4801.52 NM 4795.42 NM 4790.28 NM 4785.49ECG1124A 4951.8 4954.3 4938.69 4937.78 4929.35 4917.36 4899.38 4880.61 4872.33 DRY DRY DRYECG1124B NM 4949.63 NM 4935.66 NM 4912.98 NM 4886.55 NM 4864.87 4855.59 4864.21ECG1124C NM 4964.63 NM 4955.68 NM 4937.23 NM 4907.90 NM 4888.26 NM 4874.36ECG1128A 4951.68 4945.77 4936.06 4934.65 4926.24 4915.13 4897.55 4885.71 4873.66 4865.47 4856.44 4854.69ECG1128B NM 4939.18 NM 4932.08 NM 4916.66 NM 4891.45 NM 4873.44 NM 4861.55ECG1128C NM 4950.31 NM 4940.6 NM 4920.71 NM 4890.65 NM 4870.75 NM 4859.44ECG1131A 4910.13 4908.24 4905.21 4903.83 4900.22 4897.72 4891.28 4886.09 4880.92 4876.95 4872.00 4869.18ECG1131B NM 4918.58 NM 4913.07 NM 4882.39 NM 4890.51 NM 4869.05 NM 4858.50ECG1131C NM 4926.81 NM 4920.14 NM 4905.79 NM 4891.13 NM 4868.43 NM 4854.09ECG1142A 4962.26 4953.4 4944.45 4943.49 4933.69 4923.63 4905.85 4893.24 4880.81 4872.92 4862.64 4862.22ECG1142B NM 4973.42 NM 4967.92 NM 4961.3 NM 4948.83 NM 4938.44 NM 4929.37ECG1142C NM 4965.85 NM 4963.76 NM 4961.73 NM 4959.43 NM 4955.81 NM 4951.11ECG1143A 5050.37 5050.07 5051.49 5052.95 5053.13 5049.58 5048.24 5048.05 5047.50 5044.74 5042.91 5039.14ECG1143B NM 5038.93 NM 5050.78 NM 5025.48 NM 5041.24 NM 5025.61 NM 5000.92ECG1143C NM 5067.69 NM 5076.99 NM 5048.94 NM 5068.01 NM 5052.68 NM 5029.82ECG1144A 4852.6 4854.57 4847.78 4845.8 4843.91 4842.48 4839.77 4837.41 4834.37 4832.03 4829.46 4826.94ECG1144B NM 4952.46 NM 4942.32 NM 4922.41 NM 4891.86 4880.38 4871.22 4860.90 4860.67ECG1144C NM 4955.61 NM 4946.67 NM 4928.33 NM 4898.76 NM 4877.79 NM 4860.38ECG1145A 4953.17 4946 4935.64 4934.72 4925.62 4915.23 4897.70 4885.49 4872.99 4864.96 4854.42 4852.50ECG1145B NM 4942.83 NM 4937.76 NM 4916.54 NM 4887.29 4875.23 4867.55 NM 4859.58ECG1145C NM 4940.23 NM 4940.27 NM 4920.11 NM 4890.11 NM 4869.86 NM 4860.52ECG1146 4945.99 4929.92 4921.8 4921.28 4908.4 4898.52 4880.32 4867.55 4856.71 4847.39 4834.30 NM


May 2008F-4

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007ECG1182A 5569.33 5570.89 5571.77 5571.76 5567.55 5567.23 5565.93 5567.37 5569.85 5562.27 5567.48 5567.29ECG1182B NM 5575.16 NM 5574.82 NM 5574.33 5576.40 5576.33 5576.99 5575.98 5576.76 5574.50ECG1183A 5419.22 5417.99 5418.56 5417.16 5421.02 5419.11 5421.57 5420.73 5424.93 5419.32 5419.02 5417.47ECG1183B NM 5428.58 NM 5427.85 NM 5429.15 NM 5430.39 NM 5429.69 NM 5428.02ECG1184 5411.23 5405.2 5414.45 5404.15 5413.79 5404.19 NM 5404.72 5427.93 5404.22 5414.97 5403.05ECG1186 5330.31 5329.24 5327.98 5326.78 5325.3 5324.71 5323.41 5323.28 5323.02 5323.22 5322.96 5322.83ECG1187 5333.59 5332.56 5331.08 5329.99 5328.45 5327.66 5326.31 5326.09 5325.85 5325.92 5325.65 5325.63ECG1188 5329.03 5327.75 5326.77 5319.59 5324.16 5323.53 5322.41 5322.29 5322.08 5322.24 5321.94 5321.83ECG1189 NM 5156.86 NM 5156.72 5156.37 5156.65 5156.54 5156.42 5156.41 5156.15 5156.19 5156.32ECG1190 5282.09 5281.25 5280.45 5279.65 5278.66 5278.19 5277.43 5277.05 5276.43 5276.33 5275.50 5275.03ECG1199A 5330.3 5329.34 5328.03 5326.88 5325.43 5324.73 5323.53 5323.38 5323.12 5323.32 5323.05 5322.93ECG1199B NM 5315.41 NM 5314.24 NM 5314.19 NM 5313.86 NM 5313.47 NM 5312.89ECG1199C NM 5329.3 NM 5326.74 NM 5324.58 NM 5323.22 NM 5323.16 NM 5322.76ECG1199D NM 5329.3 NM 5327.06 NM 5324.62 NM 5323.25 NM 5323.21 NM 5323.09ECG1199E NM 5329.32 NM 5326.81 NM 5324.68 NM 5323.31 NM 5323.27 NM 5322.86ECG1199F NM 5329.44 NM 5326.97 NM 5324.84 NM 5323.47 NM 5323.43 NM 5323.01ECG1199G NM 5328.97 NM 5326.48 NM 5324.32 NM 5323.30 NM 5323.13 NM 5322.64ECG293 5260.64 5260.47 5259.57 5258.21 5257.63 5256.85 5256.86 5257.08 5258.48 5258.05 5257.60 5257.17ECG294 5280.77 5279.8 5278.13 5276.6 5275.18 5275.64 5275.04 5278.77 5283.70 5281.09 5279.17 5277.42ECG295B NM 5268.24 5266.79 5265.57 5264.69 5265.09 5266.13 5269.32 5278.19 5270.99 5268.62 5266.58ECG296 5294.23 5293.74 5292.44 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED 5290.35ECG297 5305.53 5306.94 5302.47 5301.53 5300.62 5300.35 5301.02 5303.01 5304.42 5305.18 5304.55 5303.01ECG299 5326.62 5324.77 5321.82 5319.88 5317.58 5316.43 5315.42 5316.94 5317.84 5318.95 5317.65 5318.06ECG900 5327.44 5325.45 5322.61 5320.61 5318.38 5317.1 5316.07 5317.44 5318.47 5319.61 5318.33 5318.71ECG901 5327.24 5325.31 5322.43 5320.39 5318.1 5316.91 5315.88 5317.27 5318.28 5319.44 5319.54 5318.55ECG902 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED 5339.71 5337.67 5337.90 5338.49 5339.56 5338.76 5339.63ECG903 5480.61 5477.85 5472.96 5470.06 5466.37 5465.51 5463.66 5469.85 5468.89 5472.98 5470.92 5467.76ECG904 5352.92 5351.37 5348.2 5346.9 5349.54 5347.4 5356.20 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED 5348.60ECG905 5374.93 5373.4 5374.7 5367.76 5368.35 5368.9 5376.32 5378.70 5378.43 5379.61 5375.83 5373.30ECG906 5331.33 5330.4 5328.82 5327.59 5325.94 5325.35 5324.28 5324.46 5324.42 5324.79 5324.40 5324.07ECG907 5331.62 5330.66 5328.81 5327.6 5325.97 5325.16 5323.79 5323.80 5323.79 5324.25 5323.80 5323.55ECG908 5578.15 5567.96 5576.98 5574.58 5577.96 NM 5579.57 5580.73 5580.81 5581.50 5579.79 5579.22ECG909 5475.79 NM 5473.78 5473.04 5475.24 5476.53 5484.97 5485.17 5485.23 5485.28 5479.74 5476.35ECG915 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM BLOCKED BLOCKEDECG916 5563.82 5561.08 5564.17 5562.08 5563.58 LID DAMAGE 5562.16 5563.36 5567.24 5570.42 5566.35 5567.77ECG917 5350.68 5349.22 5346.82 5345.29 5342.9 5341.85 5340.46 5340.06 5340.05 5340.36 5340.06 5339.90ECG922 5331.68 5330.72 5328.94 5328.08 5326.12 5325.36 5324.00 5324.08 5323.93 5324.37 5323.87 5323.64ECG923 5420.37 5417.83 5413.84 5411.25 5408.05 5408.2 5408.15 5411.58 5410.70 5413.54 5411.63 5409.67ECG924 5556.91 5556.57 5555.9 5555.82 5557.69 5556.77 5557.74 5557.06 5557.88 5556.87 5557.05 5556.38ECG925 5520.83 5518 5520.45 5517.19 5521.7 5518.77 5523.50 5520.78 5524.38 5520.43 5521.36 5518.30ECG926 5510.84 5508.48 5509.5 5507.61 5512.58 5508.5 5514.28 5509.65 5514.90 5509.23 5511.81 5508.07ECG928 5419.98 5417.58 5413.17 5411.1 5407.85 5408.11 5408.08 5411.57 5410.71 5413.54 5411.56 5409.55ECG931 5569.68 5568.92 5569.16 5568.48 5573.06 5569.62 5573.35 5570.36 5572.66 5570.02 5569.54 5568.75ECG932 5631.61 5631.18 5630.45 5628.68 5630.36 NM 5629.20 5631.60 5631.92 5631.58 5631.00 5630.04ECG933 NM 5572.69 5572.99 5572.15 5573.51 5571.79 5573.47 5573.03 5574.07 5572.72 5573.52 5571.71ECG934 5579.02 5577.84 5577.88 5576.57 5578.89 5576.52 5578.77 5578.25 5579.57 5578.07 5579.07 5576.55


May 2008F-5

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007ECG935 5707.94 5707.58 NM 5707.58 5708.85 5707.84 5709.31 5708.09 5709.65 5708.02 5708.31 5707.56ECG936 5841.1 5840.84 5840.33 BLOCKED BLOCKED 5841.88 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKEDECG937 5806.7 5804.44 5802.93 5802 5802.1 5801.37 5802.07 5802.27 5804.42 5803.80 5803.58 5802.45ECG938 5983.64 5982.74 5984.42 5982.51 5983.42 5982.31 5984.25 5983.92 5985.53 5983.87 5983.84 5982.57ECG939 5984.55 5982.07 5984.31 5982.22 5983.29 NM 5984.20 NM NM NM BLOCKED BLOCKEDECG940 6079.63 6074.43 6081.07 6075.73 6080 6076.25 6087.84 6077.79 6088.91 6078.80 6079.52 6076.82ECG952 5142.93 NM 5142.54 5142.25 5142.08 5131.29 5130.98 5131.02 5131.31 5130.56 5130.18 5128.74EPG1165A 4609.6 4605.08 4602.68 4598.88 4599.21 4596.56 4597.25 4596.81 4594.98 4592.22 4590.72 4586.79EPG1165B NM 4602.98 NM 4597.03 NM 4595.02 NM 4595.77 NM 4590.68 NM 4584.98EPG1165C NM 4599.36 NM 4594.17 NM 4592.28 NM 4594.27 NM 4588.32 NM 4582.27EPG1166 4589.42 4566.37 4583.61 4561.65 4584.42 4563.35 4586.76 4566.13 4589.39 4568.65 4587.56 4564.24EPG1689 4604.41 NM NM NM NM NM 4602.27 4603.27 4604.80 4605.73 4606.71 4607.52EPG2780A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- DRY 4579.28EPG2780B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4594.06 4590.49EPG2781A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4594.64 4604.21EPG2781B --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NM 4601.92HMG1122A 4717.4 4717.77 4715.53 4710.95 4702.72 4696.63 4690.98 4691.06 4685.85 4684.51 4680.37 4679.72HMG1122B NM 4716.38 NM 4709.26 NM 4694.88 NM 4689.33 NM 4682.71 NM 4678.36HMG1122C NM 4753.46 NM 4750.62 NM 4743.39 NM 4739.59 NM 4735.83 NM 4732.52HMG1123A 4715.19 4715.96 4713.46 4708.5 4699.77 4692.73 4687.57 4687.93 4685.62 4681.09 4677.37 4677.12HMG1123B NM 4715.37 NM 4707.85 NM 4692.78 NM 4686.99 NM 4680.17 NM 4676.24HMG1123C NM 4714.5 NM 4707.08 NM 4692.09 NM 4685.33 NM 4678.59 NM 4674.73HMG1126A 4735.2 4733.71 4731.73 4723.74 4722.5 4716.91 4711.02 4709.31 4706.57 4702.78 4698.91 4696.67HMG1126B NM 4732.92 NM 4727.17 NM 4716.31 4710.68 4709.08 4706.37 4702.48 NM 4696.49HMG1126C NM 4728.98 NM 4722.12 NM 4709.22 NM 4703.73 NM 4696.82 NM 4691.87HMG1134A 4612.4 4616.39 4612.23 4610.35 4607.47 4606.45 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYHMG1134B NM 4608.29 NM 4602.09 NM 4599.75 4599.44 4599.09 4597.26 4594.99 4593.19 4589.95HMG1134C NM 4603.9 NM 4598.04 NM 4596.46 NM 4596.45 NM 4592.16 NM 4587.03HMG1163A 4575.29 4588.06 4575.29 NM 4575.27 4587.94 4574.69 4585.01 4574.99 4584.30 NM 4585.02HMG1163B NM 4588.65 NM NM NM 4588.36 NM 4585.40 NM 4585.35 NM 4585.41HMG1163C NM 4492.61 NM NM NM 4491.28 NM 4489.20 NM 4488.85 NM 4489.68HMG1163Z 4575.94 4587.27 NM NM NM 4586.92 NM NM NM 4584.32 NM 4583.91HMG1164A NM NM NM ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONEDK105 5111.79 5113.95 5113.93 5113.19 5113.02 5115.75 5115.28 5115.28 5115.29 5115.05 5114.90 5114.71K106 4708.55 4706.96 4703.73 4702.98 4695.32 4689.26 4681.89 4677.52 4673.91 4671.26 4669.70 4667.14K120 5139.39 5140.94 5139.32 5138.91 5138.77 5146.52 NM 5146.59 5147.08 5151.00 5150.86 5151.54K201 4616.34 4613.9 4609.7 NM NM 4605.63 4603.37 4603.93 4601.93 4601.31 ABANDONMENTK26 4965.4 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYK70 5326.16 5325 5324.15 5322.75 5321.15 BLOCKED 5319.32 5319.41 5322.72 5319.62 5319.20 5318.93K72 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED 5259.69 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED NMK84 5174.97 5174.98 5174.81 5174.29 NM 5172.67 5174.02 5173.49 5175.59 5175.35 5175.26 5174.23LRG910 5244.43 5243.22 5242.07 5241.25 5241.36 5240.27 5240.72 5240.73 5243.24 5242.65 5242.76 5241.65LRG911 5203.44 5203.32 5201.64 5201.2 5201.3 5201.12 5201.09 5201.50 5201.52 5201.44 5201.77 5202.04LRG912 5223.75 5223.5 5222.68 5222.23 5221.54 5221.48 5221.79 5222.29 5222.96 5223.34 5223.12 5222.38LRG914 5257.61 5256.64 5256.47 5254.8 5253.56 5252.78 NM 5252.81 5253.88 5253.95 5253.64 5252.88LTG1127A 5175.11 5174.07 5172.72 5171.63 5170.32 5169.5 5168.69 5169.27 5171.21 5171.73 5171.23 5170.20


May 2008F-6

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007LTG1127B NM 5180.76 NM 5178.32 NM 5176.28 NM 5175.86 NM 5177.80 NM 5176.43LTG1127C NM 5183.06 NM 5182.29 NM 5180.22 NM 5179.55 NM 5178.45 NM 5176.81LTG1129A 5022.08 5024.37 5029.21 5031.65 5031.71 5025.95 5025.60 5026.68 5027.15 5021.54 5020.39 5014.64LTG1129B NM 5029.5 NM 5043.68 NM 5013 NM 5033.87 NM 5016.65 NM 4986.35LTG1129C NM 5033.17 NM 5047.18 NM 5010.72 NM 5036.99 NM 5019.44 NM 4980.94LTG1138A 4719.5 4720.14 4716.82 4696.71 4685.77 DRY DRY 4690.84 NM DRY DRY DRYLTG1138B NM 4719.54 NM 4688.23 NM 4669.13 4664.14 4690.84 4689.03 4672.39 4668.74 4680.55LTG1138C NM 4719.57 NM 4693.63 NM 4675.67 NM 4691.13 NM 4675.78 NM 4680.68LTG1138D NM 4720.09 NM 4695.82 NM 4678.01 NM 4691.85 NM 4677.21 NM 4681.54LTG1138E NM 4720.06 NM 4696.6 NM 4678.86 NM 4689.82 NM 4677.54 NM 4681.50LTG1138F NM 4716.95 NM 4704 NM 4688.01 NM 4687.75 NM 4678.26 NM 4677.41LTG1139 5013.91 5028.72 5039.22 5044.55 NM 5013.53 5026.61 5032.41 5025.64 5016.03 4970.62 5007.01LTG1140A 5011.54 5029.79 5040.63 5044.17 5034.85 5014.97 5029.55 5033.85 5031.00 5015.32 5017.41 4988.55LTG1140B NM 5030.4 NM 5044.43 NM 5015.37 NM 5034.18 NM 5016.25 NM 4988.52LTG1140C NM 5032.99 NM 5046.64 NM 5016.54 NM 5035.98 NM 5018.69 NM 4985.82LTG1140D NM 5065.56 NM 5075.6 NM 5048.01 NM 5066.54 NM 5051.14 NM 5028.56LTG1141A NM 5026.71 5031.65 5034.23 5034.31 5028.2 NM 5029.12 5029.51 5023.50 5022.31 5016.19LTG1141B NM 5029.9 NM 5043.8 NM 5015.54 NM 5033.69 NM 5016.40 NM NMLTG1141C NM 5032.31 NM 5046.19 NM 5016.24 NM 5035.54 NM 5018.31 NM 4985.99LTG1147 4719.19 4720.87 4716.52 NM NM NM 4621.30 4692.06 NM NM NM NMLTG1167A 4903.62 4908.3 4903.6 4902.3 4900.64 4900.93 4898.83 4903.25 4903.35 4908.75 4904.70 4904.02LTG1167B NM 4909.09 NM 4904.39 NM 4903.09 4901.85 4904.49 4905.89 4907.66 4903.62 4904.63LTG1167C NM 4911.26 NM 4906.26 NM 4905.23 NM 4906.99 NM 4910.72 NM 4907.63LTG1191 5308.5 5307.62 5307.78 5307.23 5308.65 5307.64 5310.35 5310.50 5310.45 5308.23 5308.56 5307.54LTG929A 5209.6 5210.23 5209.01 5206.81 5208.37 5211.77 5211.85 5214.36 5211.73 5212.97 5210.80 5209.84LTG929B NM 5206.41 NM 5204.38 NM 5206.42 NM 5210.32 Dry 5209.59 DRY 5206.30P190A 4607.71 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYP190B NM 4603.64 4601.02 4597.05 4598.61 4594.67 4595.94 4594.97 4594.18 4590.35 4589.44 4584.52P191A DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYP191B 4600.63 4592.44 4594.74 4586.49 4592.12 4585.05 4593.09 4587.73 4590.01 4580.56 4582.67 4573.54P192A DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYP192B 4605.96 4597.2 4599.62 4591.87 4596.28 4593.66 4597.41 4596.61 4596.55 4590.35 4591.78 NMP193A DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY ABANDONEDP193B NM 4595.71 NM 4590.64 4595.72 4587.86 4591.91 4591.66 4591.45 4584.80 4586.69 4578.58P194A 4608.86 4604.09 4601.95 4598.05 4598.63 4595.98 4596.65 4596.43 4594.48 4591.85 4590.35 NMP194B NM 4603.78 NM 4597.69 NM 4595.62 NM 4596.26 NM 4591.47 NM NMP197B 4587.82 4586.94 4590.08 4580.86 4588.04 4582.52 4592.97 4585.01 Dry 4576.95 DRY 4569.53P208A 4950.33 4943.31 4936.36 4936.53 4928.76 4923.16 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYP208B NM 4942.36 NM 4932.97 NM 4916 4899.09 4887.36 4875.22 4867.49 4857.40 4855.14P209B 4710.11 4708.21 4706.1 4701.55 4693.58 4695.79 4688.09 4684.12 4680.54 4677.39 4676.89 4672.49P211A 4895.23 4894.71 4893.07 4892.06 4890.78 4878.16 4876.42 4875.89 4875.30 4875.72 4874.35 4873.70P211B NM 4895.42 NM 4892.88 NM 4878.52 NM 4876.21 NM 4875.99 NM 4873.90P212A 5039.57 NM 5039.45 5043.09 5034.36 5027 5037.59 5043.53 5029.65 5016.37 5013.99 4992.63P212B NM NM NM 5044.66 NM 5025.24 5028.99 5043.83 NM 5015.97 NM 4987.49P214A 5420.23 5419.07 5416.07 5419.36 5422.06 5420.88 5423.13 5422.30 5418.86 5421.14 5420.83 5419.96P220 5492.54 5489.7 5484.64 5481.65 5478.09 5476.72 5474.57 5477.43 5478.31 5481.06 5480.58 5478.80


May 2008F-7

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007P225 5455.63 5452.47 5447.94 5444.62 5440.57 5439.12 5437.00 5439.40 5439.65 5441.53 5439.73 5439.11P228 5760.62 5760.25 5759.7 5758.67 5763.95 5760.91 5763.34 5761.98 5764.29 5761.76 5762.48 5759.35P231 5306.05 5307.34 5307.37 5306.68 5307.91 5306.9 5309.77 5309.89 5309.99 5308.71 5308.08 DRYP239 5900.41 5898.87 NM NM NM NM 5906.52 5901.78 5904.63 5901.31 5900.09 5896.94P240B 4596.61 NM NM NM 4595.48 4592.58 4596.48 4593.73 4597.73 4594.30 4597.85 4594.17P241A DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYP241B 4710.27 4713.38 4708.7 4702.5 4693.95 4688.9 NM 4678.36 4675.84 4672.51 4671.95 4668.97P241C 4713.66 NM 4713.27 4710.18 4700.47 4690.73 4684.51 4682.32 4679.73 4676.05 NM 4671.55P242 5182.88 NM NM 5181.76 5180.59 5181.43 5180.85 5183.07 5183.16 NM 5183.88 NMP243 NM 5335.54 5334.28 5333.47 5332.1 5334.88 5333.87 5333.66 5333.22 5332.99 5332.96 5332.99P244A 5628.96 5629.16 5627.92 5627.76 5629.64 5630.76 5631.68 5631.44 5630.91 5630.69 5629.64 5628.75P244B NM 5624.3 NM 5623.53 NM 5628.77 NM 5629.57 NM 5625.89 NM 5623.80P244C NM 5620.55 NM 5619.38 NM 5628.03 NM 5629.84 NM 5623.40 NM 5619.97P245 NM 5441.04 5439.59 5434.23 5439.67 5438.36 5440.46 5446.14 5450.96 5452.34 5447.86 5444.11P247A NM 4428.82 4421.1 4425.43 4418.26 4428.19 4418.04 4425.39 4419.42 4423.55 4418.48 4423.12P248A 5252.29 5252.1 5255.36 5250.13 5250.06 5249.62 5250.21 5250.28 5252.86 5250.79 5250.21 5248.29P248B NM 5252.97 NM 5251.06 NM 5251.52 NM 5252.09 NM 5252.72 NM 5250.23P248C NM 5256.97 NM 5255.04 NM 5257.36 NM 5257.77 Dry 5258.63 NM 5256.08P249A 4835.64 4833.75 4828.14 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRYP249B NM 4833.82 NM 4827.81 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM BLOCKEDP252A 4418.23 NM NM NM 4415.6 4421.31 4416.06 4418.42 4417.22 4419.45 4416.76 4419.04P252B NM NM NM NM NM 4416.5 4413.23 4415.58 NM 4416.64 NM 4416.23P252C NM NM NM NM NM 4419.26 4415.97 4418.24 NM 4419.36 NM 4419.00P253A NM 4420.9 4412.96 4417.47 4410.79 4417.01 4410.55 4414.93 4411.47 4415.54 4411.02 4415.52P253B NM 4418.36 NM 4415.15 NM 4414.83 NM 4413.06 NM 4413.43 NM 4413.02P254A 4577.7 4585.29 4576.9 4585.37 4576.52 4583.98 4575.95 4583.95 ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED NMP254B 4590.56 4591.23 NM 4590.45 NM 4590.13 NM 4590.07 ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED NMP255A NM 4651.56 4627.71 4646.62 4626.26 4649.17 4625.40 4646.19 4626.00 4656.76 4630.47 4650.25P255B NM 4647.17 NM 4642.99 NM 4644.86 NM 4642.39 NM 4651.34 NM 4646.21P256 NM 4593.39 4583.18 4597.67 4585 4596.64 4591.43 4594.92 4583.13 4595.80 4583.85 4595.21P257 4624.32 4627.97 4620.29 4623.5 4617.7 4621.61 4616.65 4622.28 4617.10 4624.54 4617.43 4626.95P259 NM 4420.25 4412.87 4413.8 4410.63 4416.26 4410.58 4414.42 4411.50 4415.31 4411.01 4415.24P260 4597.69 4599.22 4596.64 4599.3 4597.15 4600.07 4597.93 4601.19 4598.67 4602.08 4598.77 4601.35P261 4615.79 4609.85 4609.33 NM NM 4610.5 4611.30 4612.45 4614.73 4613.40 4616.56 4613.09P262 DRY 4442.33 DRY 4439.5 DRY 4439.25 DRY DRY DRY DRY NM DRYP263 4594.09 4594.39 4594.58 4594.78 4589.41 4597.12 4588.86 4595.95 4589.38 4597.50 4590.15 4598.06P264 4809.71 4806.62 4802.76 4800.37 4797.23 4794.86 4791.11 4788.54 NM 4783.54 4781.00 4778.87P267B 4788.02 4780.22 4782.74 4779.27 4784.05 4777.3 4775.62 4769.00 4770.81 4763.84 NM 4756.87P268 4901.07 4903.39 4901.57 4900.08 4898.74 4898.22 4896.29 4895.02 NM 4893.46 4893.03 4897.05P269 DRY DRY 5038.38 5041.8 5037.08 DRY DRY 5033.15 5032.92 DRY DRY DRYP270 5384.74 5380.36 5391.81 5381.31 5386.64 5380.7 5390.53 5385.23 5392.33 5383.63 5387.76 5379.32P271 5439.04 5438.47 5438.86 5438.05 5440.48 5438.66 5440.86 5440.02 5440.20 5439.61 5439.08 5438.45P272 5529.22 5528.38 5526.25 5524.86 5526.56 5526.66 5535.15 5534.89 5538.67 5534.66 5531.21 5528.83P273 4914.37 NM NM NM 4906.14 4904.35 4900.15 4897.87 4893.61 4901.13 4887.81 4885.79P274 5082.85 NM 5082.36 5082.18 5081.99 5079.51 5081.31 5081.18 5081.15 5080.95 5080.72 5080.65P277 4710.58 4710.12 4708.83 4703.81 4696.78 4691.26 4685.28 4684.75 4677.87 4675.34 4674.51 4673.06


May 2008F-8

Well April 2002 Sept 02 April 2003 Sept 2003 April 2004 Sept 2004 April 2005 Sept 2005 April 2006 Sept 2006 April 2007 Sept 2007P279 4955.66 4952.92 4939.48 4938.39 4930.37 4919.92 4902.57 4890.47 DRY DRY DRY DRYRVG1164Z ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONEDSRG945 5151.69 5151.61 5151.48 NM 5150.96 NM 5149.46 5149.38 5150.41 5149.80 5149.63 5147.90SRG946 5171.2 5171.58 5168.76 NM 5165.58 NM 5165.61 5168.88 NM NM NM NMW131A 4640.37 4637.82 4634.22 4630.85 4630.24 4625.66 ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONED ABANDONEDW32 NM NM NM NM NM NM 5108.86 NM NM NM NM NMW403 4808.16 4798.02 4805.78 4806.26 4807.61 4795.88 4798.22 4785.71 4794.75 4781.42 4786.18 4775.68WJG1154A 4599.25 4584.11 4592.78 4584.4 4590.15 4577.53 4589.40 4585.00 4587.43 4575.07 4581.68 4568.38WJG1154B NM 4584.11 NM 4580.21 NM 4577.56 NM 4584.30 NM 4575.15 NM 4568.44WJG1154C NM 4584.54 NM 4584.4 NM 4577.12 NM 4584.11 NM 4575.31 NM 4568.85WJG1169A 4709.32 4708.69 4707.61 4704.4 4696.63 4690.9 4683.45 4678.41 4674.98 4672.16 4670.15 4667.74WJG1169B NM 4708.65 NM 4704.5 NM 4691.03 NM 4678.74 NM 4672.30 NM 4667.72WJG1169C NM 4708.45 NM 4704.56 NM 4691.1 NM 4678.78 NM 4672.39 NM 4667.84WJG1170A 4598.36 4585.55 4591.93 4580.4 4589.35 4578.68 4589.91 4584.34 4587.26 4575.28 4580.45 4568.33WJG1170B NM 4585.09 NM 4580.25 NM 4578.38 NM 4584.07 NM 4575.09 NM 4568.24WJG1170C NM 4584.81 NM 4580.11 NM 4578.28 NM 4583.65 NM 4574.89 NM 4567.94WJG1171A 4601.88 4573.04 4595.93 4576.65 4592.79 4573.28 4588.92 4588.90 4590.50 4573.56 4586.02 4566.27WJG1171B NM 4569.86 NM 4576.36 NM 4572.47 NM 4588.83 NM 4571.21 NM 4565.65WJG1171C NM 4569.06 NM 4576.4 NM 4572.42 NM 4589.04 BLOCKED 4570.93 BLOCKED 4565.68WJG1980 4596.52 4574.64 4592.75 4578.34 4592.94 4570.89 4589.49 4579.83 4586.60 NM NM NMWJG1981 4599.45 BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKED BLOCKEDWJG2453 4596.5 NM 4595.23 NM 4592.38 NM 4586.73 NM 4590.45 NM NM NMNM=Not MeasuredAll data density corrected.


May 2008F-9



APPENDIX G Tailings Monitoring Data 2007

Table G-1 Daily Tailings Monitoring Data 2007

Tailings pH at North Splitter

BoxAcid Water Pumping

through WDPS

Acid Water Pumping through

WDPS (Back-up/Alternate)

Concentrator Throughput

(su) (gpm) (gpm) (TPH)01/01/07 7.4 4464 4387 680901/02/07 7.5 4350 4274 625701/03/07 7.6 4429 4341 654501/04/07 7.4 4968 4910 682001/05/07 7.3 4658 4617 647201/06/07 7.2 5126 5078 691401/07/07 7.1 5154 5105 635901/08/07 7.8 3320 3245 694401/09/07 7.5 4997 4910 627201/10/07 7.4 4932 4833 603501/11/07 7.5 5088 5001 677501/12/07 7.1 5541 5513 663001/13/07 7.6 4821 4767 579901/14/07 7.2 5199 5152 705401/15/07 7.4 5183 5124 647601/16/07 7.7 5205 5144 648001/17/07 7.5 5641 5593 484901/18/07 7.6 5573 5528 526301/19/07 7.7 4045 3983 707301/20/07 7.3 5293 5247 682701/21/07 7.5 5235 5196 638901/22/07 7.5 5276 5233 610401/23/07 7.4 5420 5366 582001/24/07 7.6 3513 3441 300101/25/07 8.5 65 0 1601/26/07 8.2 2960 2891 346001/27/07 8.1 5007 2757 665601/28/07 7.5 5007 4279 606401/29/07 7.6 5007 4933 621001/30/07 7.7 5007 5407 652001/31/07 8.5 5007 2262 662402/01/07 9.3 5007 0 634402/02/07 9.3 5007 0 677602/03/07 9.3 5007 191 661302/04/07 9.4 5007 0 709302/05/07 9.0 5007 1569 717302/06/07 7.8 5007 4975 709602/07/07 7.3 5007 5562 424002/08/07 7.3 5007 4151 394502/09/07 7.0 5007 2364 103202/10/07 7.5 5007 783 58002/11/07 7.9 5007 4648 644402/12/07 7.8 5007 5437 647602/13/07 7.6 5007 5571 719702/14/07 7.7 5007 5462 5307


May 2008G-1

02/15/07 7.8 5007 5472 632502/16/07 8.1 5007 5859 684502/17/07 8.2 5007 5607 662802/18/07 7.9 5007 5886 718502/19/07 7.8 5007 5554 601302/20/07 7.7 5007 4905 701202/21/07 7.5 5007 5615 628702/22/07 7.6 5007 5716 537402/23/07 7.7 5007 3908 490502/24/07 7.9 5007 3752 738902/25/07 8.1 5007 3870 672902/26/07 8.2 5007 3120 720002/27/07 8.0 5007 4153 580602/28/07 8.2 5007 4179 577603/01/07 8.2 5007 4472 657403/02/07 7.8 5007 4940 508903/03/07 7.7 5007 4938 574103/04/07 7.9 5007 4962 681103/05/07 7.8 5007 5066 582203/06/07 7.7 5007 5023 607003/07/07 7.9 5007 3896 577303/08/07 8.1 5007 3323 544603/09/07 7.6 5007 5527 702203/10/07 7.9 5007 5700 684403/11/07 7.9 5007 5631 647303/12/07 7.9 5007 5268 642203/13/07 7.9 5007 5716 577103/14/07 7.8 5007 5712 655203/15/07 7.7 5007 5727 634803/16/07 7.8 5007 5636 668903/17/07 7.8 5007 5594 696903/18/07 7.8 5007 5577 673703/19/07 7.8 5007 5526 576803/20/07 7.9 5007 5310 588703/21/07 8.0 5007 4059 607403/22/07 7.8 5007 4616 637803/23/07 7.7 5007 5530 688803/24/07 7.9 5007 5566 725003/25/07 7.9 5007 5519 703203/26/07 7.9 5007 5212 701803/27/07 7.8 5007 5516 633603/28/07 7.9 5007 5604 609903/29/07 7.8 5007 5557 639403/30/07 8.3 5007 3924 658003/31/07 7.8 5007 5549 594104/01/07 7.7 5007 5480 610704/02/07 7.9 5007 4168 524604/03/07 8.4 5007 3081 541004/04/07 8.5 5007 2812 598604/05/07 8.3 5007 3328 588604/06/07 8.0 5007 3990 603804/07/07 7.9 5007 3936 6450


May 2008G-2

04/08/07 7.9 5007 3814 696204/09/07 8.2 5007 3586 677404/10/07 8.3 5007 3051 608404/11/07 8.1 5007 3534 699304/12/07 8.3 5007 2545 662204/13/07 8.4 5007 2497 694504/14/07 8.0 5007 4318 610704/15/07 8.1 5007 4348 716304/16/07 8.2 5007 4354 619604/17/07 8.6 5007 2489 664204/18/07 8.5 5007 2459 686004/19/07 8.3 5007 2970 611104/20/07 7.9 5007 5215 668804/21/07 8.1 5007 4823 761604/22/07 8.1 5007 5288 730904/23/07 8.0 5007 5272 755804/24/07 8.1 5007 5152 670004/25/07 8.2 5007 5169 688104/26/07 8.2 5007 5184 624304/27/07 8.2 5007 5140 685504/28/07 8.2 5007 5111 544804/29/07 8.1 5007 5174 703404/30/07 7.9 5007 5156 626905/01/07 8.6 5007 2832 564005/02/07 8.3 5007 3508 452705/03/07 8.1 5007 4337 565305/04/07 8.1 5007 4991 672605/05/07 7.9 5007 5289 675705/06/07 7.8 5007 5380 695205/07/07 8.0 5007 5079 634405/08/07 8.0 4976 5082 619305/09/07 8.0 4657 4706 730905/10/07 8.0 4526 4607 649805/11/07 7.9 4507 4520 610605/12/07 7.8 4495 4411 613305/13/07 7.8 4514 4519 537605/14/07 8.1 3600 3325 763205/15/07 7.9 3643 3438 570705/16/07 8.1 3356 3209 807405/17/07 8.3 3390 3317 721705/18/07 8.0 3529 4074 770905/19/07 7.8 5155 5144 779305/20/07 8.0 4747 4670 762605/21/07 7.9 4653 4628 692405/22/07 7.7 4519 4511 673405/23/07 7.6 4889 4943 624805/24/07 7.8 5183 5157 797705/25/07 8.0 4235 4521 796005/26/07 8.0 4157 4107 820605/27/07 8.0 4234 4090 690405/28/07 7.9 4204 4083 683305/29/07 7.8 4107 3970 6853


May 2008G-3

05/30/07 8.1 4103 3951 691605/31/07 8.1 3936 4048 729506/01/07 8.2 4246 4025 778406/02/07 8.0 4275 4036 531506/03/07 8.1 NM NM NM06/04/07 8.2 3189 2911 694506/05/07 8.7 2094 2339 699506/06/07 8.6 4260 2558 615006/07/07 8.0 5270 5385 664606/08/07 8.0 5290 5228 656406/09/07 8.2 5455 4259 767206/10/07 8.2 3885 3601 822606/11/07 8.0 3743 3596 761106/12/07 7.9 3744 3592 775306/13/07 7.6 4008 4192 747506/14/07 7.5 3205 3542 488506/15/07 7.3 5367 5095 517706/16/07 7.3 5103 4892 574506/17/07 7.7 4079 3428 635906/18/07 8.3 1896 1582 587406/19/07 7.6 2964 4019 486506/20/07 7.6 4348 4086 246306/21/07 8.6 2201 1680 103006/22/07 7.1 3874 3200 188606/23/07 7.5 4364 4097 407506/24/07 7.7 4268 3988 517106/25/07 7.8 4171 3898 571406/26/07 7.8 4454 4280 488506/27/07 7.5 5180 4976 418306/28/07 7.7 5306 5134 470706/29/07 7.8 5158 5029 616506/30/07 7.7 5267 5197 559507/01/07 7.7 5415 5250 520307/02/07 7.6 5223 5125 590907/03/07 7.6 5119 4966 589607/04/07 7.6 4892 4736 553907/05/07 7.6 4851 4668 559607/06/07 7.6 4840 4709 620207/07/07 7.5 4951 4755 564207/08/07 7.4 5138 5049 519907/09/07 7.5 4910 5073 562407/10/07 7.7 5085 4957 445507/11/07 8.3 3956 3070 431207/12/07 8.0 2060 1836 390107/13/07 8.8 55 0 632507/14/07 8.8 54 0 520007/15/07 8.7 55 0 538207/16/07 8.7 55 0 583307/17/07 8.8 55 0 579407/18/07 8.9 55 0 651707/19/07 8.5 55 1032 705607/20/07 8.0 1268 3115 7000


May 2008G-4

07/21/07 7.6 4755 4675 758807/22/07 7.6 4313 4063 702107/23/07 7.4 4295 4206 675307/24/07 7.6 4260 4427 643707/25/07 7.9 4484 4465 490007/26/07 8.0 4504 4194 517307/27/07 7.7 4761 4603 515007/28/07 8.0 3600 3833 696707/29/07 7.5 4950 4165 605307/30/07 7.3 1433 2789 458307/31/07 7.0 4675 4612 450508/01/07 7.4 4501 4508 551908/02/07 7.4 4782 4973 609508/03/07 7.4 4535 4444 621908/04/07 7.4 4455 4457 681108/05/07 7.4 4357 4382 653808/06/07 8.4 2791 3231 345308/07/07 8.7 4567 4226 687108/08/07 8.7 4410 4410 600108/09/07 8.7 3005 3375 624008/10/07 9.2 2024 3654 604908/11/07 8.5 4382 4322 591908/12/07 8.5 4226 4322 603908/13/07 8.2 4427 4215 543508/14/07 8.4 2978 4194 666308/15/07 8.3 4048 4300 617308/16/07 8.4 4399 4304 573508/17/07 8.2 4542 4246 516908/18/07 8.4 4134 4216 651508/19/07 8.4 4047 4146 668008/20/07 8.5 3471 3894 650908/21/07 8.3 4530 4229 541608/22/07 8.9 2497 2620 496408/23/07 9.4 2811 2081 567908/24/07 9.4 2505 2275 581908/25/07 8.7 3962 4062 657708/26/07 8.5 4248 4051 593608/27/07 9.1 2792 3033 616608/28/07 9.6 1742 1885 637608/29/07 9.8 1853 1994 534408/30/07 9.7 2601 2425 567308/31/07 8.7 4673 4727 463009/01/07 8.3 4876 4893 569909/02/07 7.8 4822 4790 308309/03/07 8.0 4727 4865 509509/04/07 8.9 3266 3191 581809/05/07 9.1 2968 2337 656709/06/07 8.6 2990 3690 611909/07/07 9.1 2834 2225 637609/08/07 8.3 4401 4421 635809/09/07 8.3 4265 4298 625309/10/07 8.4 3619 3199 6084


May 2008G-5

09/11/07 8.7 1606 2239 605209/12/07 8.7 2072 1289 581509/13/07 8.7 1775 1771 527009/14/07 9.0 3114 2240 513109/15/07 7.9 3882 3850 460009/16/07 7.8 3885 3863 420009/17/07 7.9 3184 3494 313709/18/07 7.8 63 69 909/19/07 6.5 56 55 409/20/07 6.6 1505 1121 1009/21/07 5.7 4245 4176 188509/22/07 8.1 4201 4257 572009/23/07 8.1 4201 4277 538909/24/07 8.5 2768 2810 408209/25/07 9.1 2462 2616 520309/26/07 9.3 2327 2391 648909/27/07 9.3 2236 2280 553209/28/07 9.4 2110 2137 676409/29/07 9.0 3694 3804 605409/30/07 8.7 3361 3440 524810/01/07 9.3 1128 1125 583810/02/07 9.9 904 1026 512810/03/07 8.9 2182 2298 494510/04/07 8.9 2104 2327 445710/05/07 8.3 1197 1250 565310/06/07 7.7 54 837 615610/07/07 7.7 54 1027 585510/08/07 8.3 186 504 587510/09/07 7.9 82 70 662410/10/07 8.6 713 746 624010/11/07 9.8 1350 1472 562310/12/07 9.1 1667 1888 666610/13/07 8.6 3877 4041 615710/14/07 8.6 3805 4007 575310/15/07 9.2 2229 2331 607210/16/07 9.3 2180 2336 556210/17/07 8.9 3515 3807 625810/18/07 8.5 2924 3186 621910/19/07 7.4 2468 2672 608210/20/07 7.5 2467 2687 620710/21/07 7.5 2470 2741 644610/22/07 7.4 2471 2714 620610/23/07 7.8 1423 1552 591110/24/07 7.9 1502 1659 595610/25/07 8.8 814 949 617810/26/07 9.7 701 1601 661310/27/07 8.3 2391 2595 590310/28/07 8.2 2799 3058 623210/29/07 8.2 968 1786 589010/30/07 9.0 56 2441 640210/31/07 9.6 59 3255 621711/01/07 8.8 64 2749 6201


May 2008G-6

11/02/07 8.7 78 2287 631611/03/07 8.2 62 1085 670811/04/07 8.4 58 1084 687311/05/07 8.5 230 1071 679711/06/07 7.9 62 185 575611/07/07 8.1 63 198 695811/08/07 8.0 65 204 654411/09/07 8.3 62 193 676511/10/07 8.3 60 186 691911/11/07 7.9 63 215 659611/12/07 7.9 72 225 689011/13/07 7.9 65 202 623011/14/07 7.9 69 235 629111/15/07 8.3 68 213 542511/16/07 8.5 66 153 684011/17/07 8.5 63 178 697711/18/07 8.4 63 182 769211/19/07 8.3 62 177 763111/20/07 8.4 2003 2265 581011/21/07 8.0 4722 5190 530511/22/07 8.1 5018 5549 554911/23/07 8.3 4992 5545 579611/24/07 8.4 4942 5478 586911/25/07 8.4 4815 5332 673711/26/07 8.5 4870 5429 650011/27/07 8.5 5008 5565 707011/28/07 8.3 5086 5658 630411/29/07 8.1 5037 5628 544811/30/07 7.7 5072 5633 564112/01/07 8.0 5198 5812 632012/02/07 8.0 5126 5751 661412/03/07 9.2 1474 1837 604812/04/07 9.5 1848 2229 563712/05/07 8.1 5207 5864 608412/06/07 8.0 5393 6087 616012/07/07 8.0 5048 5714 643212/08/07 8.0 4888 4985 338812/09/07 8.1 5157 5850 652812/10/07 8.1 5035 5704 672312/11/07 8.2 4994 5656 698512/12/07 8.1 5101 5788 635812/13/07 8.4 5095 5818 575312/14/07 8.3 4798 5472 630312/15/07 8.2 4304 4878 679212/16/07 8.1 4314 4880 688112/17/07 8.1 4304 4873 690212/18/07 8.0 3659 4150 496712/19/07 8.2 4269 4835 552212/20/07 8.4 3947 4469 590412/21/07 7.9 3788 4336 508512/22/07 7.5 3783 4348 307212/23/07 8.0 3736 4297 5036


May 2008G-7

12/24/07 8.2 3774 4319 590412/25/07 7.2 4061 4671 248312/26/07 8.1 4458 5073 505312/27/07 8.6 3317 3793 642712/28/07 8.5 3265 3756 640912/29/07 8.5 3174 3641 633812/30/07 8.3 3197 3665 529312/31/07 8.8 3203 3682 5418


May 2008G-8

Table G-2 Monthly Tailings Aqueous Chemistry Monitoring Data 2007pH TDS Alk Acidity Ca-T Mg-T Cl SO4 Al-D Cd-D Cu-D Fe-D Mn-D Zn-D* mg/L mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L

BCP2739 1/18/2007 7.50 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <20 No Data No Data 33BCP2739 1/24/2007 7.91 7380 70 No Data 835 200 2140 2860 <100 4 <15 <20 1490 10BCP2739 2/14/2007 6.79 7630 6 No Data 722 290 2050 2900 137 4 <15 26 2590 43BCP2739 2/22/2007 7.63 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data 49BCP2739 3/8/2007 7.60 7450 66 No Data 722 237 2170 2380 28 7 21 <20 1470 44BCP2739 3/16/2007 7.97 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 15 No Data No Data 29BCP2739 3/21/2007 7.67 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 14 170 No Data No Data 90BCP2739 3/30/2007 8.63 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 810 <15 No Data No Data 950BCP2739 4/13/2007 8.60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 16 31 No Data No Data 22BCP2739 4/20/2007 8.78 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 21 No Data No Data 35BCP2739 4/25/2007 8.76 7640 6 No Data 843 206 2200 2670 <100 6 32 <20 1110 26BCP2739 5/11/2007 8.65 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 37 No Data No Data <20BCP2739 5/18/2007 8.27 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 32 No Data No Data 24BCP2739 5/25/2007 8.56 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 27 No Data No Data 33BCP2739 5/30/2007 8.31 8240 <5 No Data 877 197 2360 2850 <100 8 28 34 810 50BCP2739 6/12/2007 8.45 8080 62 No Data 863 221 2350 2670 <100 6 25 22 771 26BCP2739 6/21/2007 10.10 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2739 7/20/2007 8.20 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 23 No Data No Data 29BCP2739 7/27/2007 8.51 8280 <5 No Data 1040 133 2440 2880 <100 5 43 21 330 26BCP2739 8/9/2007 7.84 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 23 No Data No Data <20BCP2739 8/21/2007 8.37 8620 <5 No Data 900 142 2680 2890 100 6 40 40 520 24BCP2739 9/11/2007 8.51 8540 <5 No Data 1080 196 2640 2770 <100 7 44 <20 440 27BCP2739 9/26/2007 7.79 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 16 No Data No Data 70BCP2739 10/10/2007 8.81 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 68 No Data No Data 21BCP2739 10/24/2007 8.55 8220 44 No Data 994 143 2620 2880 <100 7 19 <20 610 23BCP2739 11/7/2007 8.76 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2739 12/18/2007 8.63 7820 46 No Data 900 196 2230 2780 <100 8 <15 <20 1020 32BCP2750 1/18/2007 9.74 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 1/24/2007 9.62 6530 29 No Data 1030 97 2100 2850 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 1.3 <20BCP2750 2/14/2007 9.35 7380 19 No Data 891 187 2080 2710 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 2/22/2007 9.63 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 3/8/2007 9.52 7230 23 No Data 859 164 2130 2350 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 3/16/2007 9.14 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 3/21/2007 9.34 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 110 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 4/13/2007 9.43 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 19 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 4/20/2007 9.60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 4/25/2007 10.01 7390 28 No Data 1100 55 2160 2540 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 5/11/2007 9.39 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 5/18/2007 9.25 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 17 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 5/25/2007 9.71 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 5/30/2007 9.58 7650 19 No Data 1040 61 2280 2500 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 6/12/2007 9.42 7780 30 No Data 1090 100 2300 2560 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 6/21/2007 11.32 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 7/13/2007 9.24 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 19 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 7/20/2007 9.32 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 7/27/2007 9.81 7890 42 No Data 1240 7.6 2370 2840 <100 <0.01 18 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 8/9/2007 8.92 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 8/21/2007 9.64 7950 24 No Data 1140 22 2630 2770 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 13 <20BCP2750 9/11/2007 9.52 8230 29 No Data 1260 80 2630 2770 <100 <0.01 21 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 9/26/2007 9.65 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 10/10/2007 10.19 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 27 No Data No Data <20BCP2750 10/24/2007 9.55 7990 19 No Data 1140 38 2540 2870 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 11/7/2007 9.55 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <0.01 <15 No Data No Data <20


May 2008G-9

BCP2750 11/28/2007 9.51 8090 27 No Data 1110 113 2480 2880 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20BCP2750 12/18/2007 9.78 7330 22 No Data 1090 90 2210 2790 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 14 <20BYP2535 1/24/2007 7.14 7530 192 No Data 1310 615 1800 4600 56 4 <15 2222 13500 102BYP2535 2/14/2007 6.88 8100 140 No Data 1040 579 1790 4430 133 7 23 540 19600 132BYP2535 3/8/2007 9.45 7310 23 No Data 841 156 2140 2340 <20 4 <15 <20 <10 <20BYP2535 4/25/2007 8.37 7780 73 No Data 1150 359 1920 3220 270 5 26 <20 1640 14BYP2535 5/30/2007 7.95 7630 111 No Data 1040 328 2030 2930 196 5 <15 36 2760 16BYP2535 6/12/2007 8.00 8860 67 No Data 1170 327 2170 2810 167 5 <15 <20 2270 10BYP2535 7/27/2007 8.32 8660 8 No Data 1340 325 2000 3300 340 5 25 <20 2620 11BYP2535 8/21/2007 7.22 8700 118 No Data 1040 295 2380 3040 114 9 20 70 7890 21BYP2535 9/11/2007 9.48 8080 28 No Data 1210 77 2620 2740 <20 6 <15 <20 15 12BYP2535 10/24/2007 7.31 9520 91 No Data 1230 451 2320 3810 152 8 24 110 6200 22BYP2535 11/28/2007 7.73 8630 <5 No Data 1220 416 2210 3240 193 8 28 <20 5070 23BYP2535 12/18/2007 6.21 8830 60 No Data 1210 424 2050 3570 107 36 181 <20 20000 1660BYP2538 1/24/2007 3.30 28600 <5 8930 554 3110 245 23800 1240000 510 96500 228000 233000 74400BYP2538 2/14/2007 3.50 26300 <5 7420 488 2510 214 22300 1070000 610 78520 230000 253000 <20BYP2538 3/8/2007 3.53 18600 <5 4640 486 2110 184 14300 867000 330 60300 140000 149000 53870BYP2538 4/25/2007 3.75 24300 <5 5870 608 2460 248 17000 926000 360 68200 <20 154000 57500BYP2538 5/30/2007 3.85 23600 <5 6090 574 2380 245 16750 <100 460 64000 448000 210000 66000BYP2538 6/12/2007 3.75 25500 <5 6250 609 2600 263 17200 1050000 455 56400 404000 202000 62800BYP2538 7/27/2007 3.51 19400 <5 4080 556 2200 201 13300 612000 550 38200 79600 191400 50400BYP2538 8/21/2007 3.55 26300 <5 6450 562 2490 274 18800 1070000 410 73200 449000 189000 72700BYP2538 9/26/2007 4.03 12500 <5 2100 955 1340 436 8800 399000 150 107000 115000 62100 33500BYP2538 10/24/2007 4.09 13800 <5 2700 819 1460 361 10200 380000 170 88300 75000 65400 29400BYP2538 11/28/2007 3.76 22500 <5 5230 483 2400 191 15200 <100 550 47500 183000 207000 58710BYP2538 12/18/2007 3.96 23400 <5 6130 540 2650 196 16600 940000 540 55600 211000 209000 55600MCP2536 1/18/2007 8.02 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 132 <0.01 <15 <20 4320 <20MCP2536 1/24/2007 7.36 8000 149 No Data 833 522 1710 3990 <100 <0.01 <15 32 12700 30MCP2536 2/14/2007 7.14 8110 94 No Data 966 492 1790 4410 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 14300 54MCP2536 2/22/2007 7.76 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 249 <0.01 79 <20 7220 <20MCP2536 3/8/2007 9.31 6710 10 No Data 790 134 2040 2250 <100 12 <15 <20 <10 25MCP2536 3/16/2007 7.40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 158 <0.01 <15 <20 4210 <20MCP2536 3/21/2007 7.85 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 115 <0.01 50 <20 1880 <20MCP2536 3/30/2007 7.73 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 6780 21MCP2536 4/13/2007 9.44 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 16 <20 22 <20MCP2536 4/20/2007 7.87 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 4320 <20MCP2536 4/25/2007 8.34 7800 68 No Data 878 314 1880 3300 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 1630 <20MCP2536 5/11/2007 7.83 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 3160 <20MCP2536 5/18/2007 7.78 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 138 <0.01 <15 <20 1410 <20MCP2536 5/25/2007 8.14 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 1560 <20MCP2536 5/30/2007 7.58 7750 64 No Data 817 291 1960 3160 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 1980 <20MCP2536 6/12/2007 7.82 8330 71 No Data 1020 282 2290 2900 <100 <0.01 <15 28 1273 <20MCP2536 6/21/2007 9.94 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20MCP2536 7/13/2007 9.07 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20MCP2536 7/20/2007 9.08 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20MCP2536 7/27/2007 8.44 8280 61 No Data 1050 223 1980 3160 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 650 <20MCP2536 8/9/2007 7.36 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17 <0.01 <15 <20 3600 <20MCP2536 8/21/2007 7.57 8240 70 No Data 880 238 2280 3140 110 <0.01 <15 60 1830 <20MCP2536 9/11/2007 7.54 8480 80 No Data 1070 382 2410 3370 <100 <0.01 <15 60 2980 <20MCP2536 9/26/2007 9.46 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 <15 <20 <0.01 <20MCP2536 10/10/2007 10.00 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data <100 <0.01 22 <20 12 <20MCP2536 10/24/2007 7.34 8900 6 No Data 976 370 2110 3780 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 4220 <20MCP2536 11/7/2007 8.05 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 110 <0.01 <15 <20 1120 <20MCP2536 11/28/2007 8.13 8460 22 No Data 1020 322 2140 3210 <100 <0.01 <15 <20 1690 <20MCP2536 12/18/2007 8.10 8170 <5 No Data 1120 288 1960 3520 170 <0.01 <15 <20 1320 <20


May 2008G-10

appendix a completion and construction information for

Documents