Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Scott Douglas
Breakwater Resources Ltd.
95 Wellington St. West
Suite 950
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2N7
Canada
This letter documents the design engineering performed by Tetra Tech (Tt) for Phase 2
of the Soledad tailings storage facility (TSF) located at Breakwater Resources, Ltd.’s
(Breakwater) El Mochito Mine in Honduras (operated locally by American Pacific
Honduras – AMPAC). This design letter updates the design presented in a similar letter
dated 09 February 2007 (titled: “El Mochito Soledad Tailings Facility – Stage 2 Design
Engineering,” prepared by Tt).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This letter documents the detailed design engineering completed by Tt for the Stage 2
expansion of the Soledad TSF. The work was completed between June 2010 and March
2011 and included the following tasks:
Up-date base maps using recent field surveys and available as-built surveys for
the Stage 1 construction.
Borrow source delineation and grading.
Performance evaluation of the Soledad overdrain system.
Impoundment grading.
Stabilization of the Guard Shack Slide (GSS).
Performance evaluation of the Soledad basin over-drain system.
Stage 2 dam layout and underdrain expansion.
Stage 2 dam zoning and evaluation design.
Seepage and stability analyses for Stage 2 dam.
Stage 2 impoundment zoning.
Liner design for each impoundment zone.
Up-date impoundment storage capacity curves.
Up-date impoundment water balance.
Volumetrics and quantities.
Construction plans and specification.
The original design criteria established for the facility are documented in a report titled
“Mina El Mochito – Soledad tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design Report” (issued by
Vector and dated September 2004.) The Stage 2 design presented herein follows the
Tetra Tech
Address, City ST ####ZIP
Tel ###.###.### Fax ###.###.### www.tetratech.com
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
original design criteria unless otherwise noted. The Soledad Stage 1 construction is
documented in an interim completion report titled Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility
Stage I Construction Interim Report, dated June 29, 2005 and a final report titled
Soledad Tailings Dam Phase I Final Construction Report, dated July 2006 prepared by
Vector and issued to AMPAC.
The current design approach for Stage 2 incorporates knowledge gained during Stage 1
construction, experience gained during the years of facility operation, facility
performance, and field observations. The primary changes from the previous Stage 2
design engineering presented herein include the following:
The exploitation of borrow sources within the Soledad basin to increase storage
capacity.
The grading of the GSS for stabilization of the slide mass.
The return to a seal zone and chimney drain dam zoning based on the availability
of clay materials available in the GSS grading.
Grading zonation of the Soledad basin to limit the extents of Stage 2 lining.
Liner zonation of the Soledad impoundment to provide adequate liner strength for
each zone.
The return to LLDPE as the primary liner of choice to facilitate Stage 2 liner
connection to the existing LLDPE liner.
The addition of a sacrificial geotextile layer to liner areas extended above the
Stage 2 dam elevation.
The decommissioning of the overdrain system.
The addition of overliner protection system for the impoundment to mitigate
against potential future liner damage from run-on flows.
A thorough description of the GSS as well as mitigation options are provided in the
Guard Shack Slide Mitigation Report prepared by Tt (2008). In that report, Tt identified
strict surface water control and the construction of a toe buttress as the most positive
means of mitigating future movement of the landslide (refer to Table 3.5 in the
referenced report). Slope re-grading was considered as a secondary option based on
the original screening process due to the fact that it was believed that re-grading could
potential result in a higher risk of future movement of adjacent slopes when compared
2
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
with the construction of a toe buttress. However, the removal of fill from the Stockpile
slide (SPS) and the slope monitoring data collected over the past two years indicate that
while the GSS has continued to experience slope movement, no movement has
occurred along the SPS. Therefore, it is currently believed that the two slides are
independent and the risk of future movement of the SPS was largely mitigated through
the removal of the stockpiled soils.
Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF requires significant fill volumes for the construction of the
embankment raise, including clay for use as a seal zone material. The area of the GSS
was identified as a potential borrow source for clay during the feasibility study and
subsequent Stage1 design of the Soledad TSF (VCL, 2003). Due to current material
needs, it is preferable to mitigate the GSS through re-grading rather than the
construction of a toe buttress which would require the exploitation of additional borrow
sources.
Tt evaluated the GSS re-grading mitigation option in a two-fold process: first, a back
analysis was conducted to determine the shear strength properties of the slip surface in
the GSS under current conditions and second, the results of the back analysis were
utilized in the stability analyses conducted to evaluate potential grading options.
Based on construction material needs for the Soledad embankment, slope performance
data for the GSS and SPS from the past two years, and our experience, Tt recommends
mitigating the GSS through re-grading the slope and installing a groundwater collection
system. The proposed grading includes 10-m wide benches at the 782 m, 792 m, and
802 m elevations (corresponding to Stage 1, 2, and 3 crest elevations) with 3:1 (H:V)
inter-bench angles. The proposed grading also includes a 15-m wide bench at the 807 m
(Stage 4) elevation. French drains, constructed at the toe of each inter-bench slope will
intercept groundwater and direct the flow to the facilities underdrain system. Positive
slope grading will direct surface water to drainage swales that will flow to the adjacent
geoweb-protected overliner channels.
In addition to mitigating the GSS, the re-grading of the slope also provides additional
storage capacity for the Soledad TSF.
The details of the GSS mitigation evaluation and grading recommendations are provided
in a Technical Memorandum dated 02 March 2011 (Tt). This memorandum is provided in
Attachment A.
3
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
In an effort to reduce the extents of geomembrane liner to be placed during the Stage 2
expansion of the Soledad TSF, provide an access bench for the tailings delivery pipeline
and Stage 2 anchor trench, and provide continuity of the Stage 2 bench around the north
side of the impoundment (at least to the decant), Tt recommends constructing a small
berm in the North Canyon. The small volume of storage capacity lost through the
construction of this berm is more than offset by the capacity gains provided by the
grading of the GSS and the exploitation of the North Borrow.
The results indicate that positive (up to 294,850 cubic meters) of storage capacity gains
are provided based on the proposed Stage 2 grading.
The storage capacity curves for each grading condition are provided in Attachment B.
4
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
The water balance model results indicate that positive (up to 15 months) of storage
capacity gains are provided based on the proposed Stage 2 grading.
Due to the steep impoundment side slopes, staged clearing of the impoundment area
was considered impractical. Therefore, the ultimate impoundment area was cleared
during the construction of the starter dam. Due to the steep slopes and the intense
rainfall during the wet season, it was recommended that once the impoundment basin
slopes are cleared they should be lined in order to prevent erosion of the subgrade and
possible saturation and instability of the slopes. As a result, the Stage 1 design included
clearing and lining of the ultimate impoundment area to elevation 807m with two
intermediate anchor benches at elevations 782m and 792m. However, a decision was
made by AMPAC to clear the entire basin to elevation 807m but construct the liner to
elevation 782m during Stage 1 construction and extend the liner to 807m during Stage 2
construction. The intermediate anchor bench at elevation 792m was also eliminated by
AMPAC. Given the observed erosion and instability of the denuded slopes above the
installed liner, it is important to maintain strict surface water control and re-vegetate all
slopes that will not receive liner during Stage 2 construction.
This liner system has performed well for Stage 1 facility; however, extension of the liner
to Stage 2 liner limits poses particular design concerns and construction challenges that
require amendments to the existing liner system (LLDPE liner and 12-oz. non-woven
geotextile). Certain zones within the impoundment consist of rough or rocky subgrades
that require the inclusion of additional puncture resistance to the liner system.
Additionally, other zones of the impoundment require lining steep, blocky, limestone
slopes which necessitate additional liner elements to stabilize the slope and provide
additional puncture resistance. Furthermore, portions of the Stage 2 liner extents will be
deployed to elevations in excess of the Stage 2 crest elevation, 792 m. Those lined
areas will be exposed to weathering and will require additional protection from the
elements.
Given the irregular slopes to be lined, high tensile strength and tearing resistance should
be the primary design criteria along with UV resistance, ease of deployment and
seaming/welding reliability on difficult terrain. Based on these design considerations,
LLDPE and RPP were identified as the preferred geomembrane liners.
6
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
Based on the slope survey, each section of the impoundment was classified according to
the relative slope treatment/lining section required. Each section was classified as either
liner Zone 1, 2, or 3. Zone 1 represents slopes that require minimal slope grading and
may be lined using conventional liner sections (prepared soil subgrade, geotextile, and
geomembrane liner. Zone 2 represents sections of the impoundment with steeper slopes
(greater than 1.5:1) and/or occasional rock outcrops that require additional subgrade
preparation prior to liner installation. Zone 3 represents those portions of the
impoundment with exposed, near vertical rock slopes that require significant subgrade
preparation and unconventional lining technology.
Final approval of the liner subgrade preparation methods and final surface is required by
a Tt representative in the field during construction.
Descriptions of the general liner sections developed for each of the zones follow.
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
The proposed liner sections should be supplemented with a sacrificial 6-oz, non-woven
geotextile for additional UV protection for all liner installed above the Stage 2 crest
elevation (792 m.).
The preferred option for overliner protection is concrete-filled Geoweb cells. This
material has been successfully deployed within the Stage 1 facility and has performed
satisfactorily. Tt recommends the continued use of this product in future stages of the
Soledad TSF.
Details concerning the design and construction of the Geoweb overliner system are
documented in the original Stage 2 design letter (Tt, 2007).
8
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
“In order to reduce the head against the geomembrane liner, and thereby
minimize seepage losses, a liner overdrain system consisting of
geocomposite strip drains and perforated pipes was designed to collect
and covey seepage fluids to a sump located at the upstream toe of the
embankment. Seepage collected from the liner overdrain will be returned
to the surface of the impoundment via a pump system...
A series of pump tests were performed in September 2009 and again in November
2010. The pump tests were conducted by AMPAC personnel. The following conclusions
may be drawn from the pump test results:
The system is currently functioning, but at a diminished capacity than originally
designed.
The capacity of the overdrain collection sump has decreased from 16.8 m3 to
approximately 1.3 m3 over the life of the facility.
Recharge of the available capacity of the collection sump is achieved within 24-
hours.
9
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
Strict tailings management must be employed to ensure tailings are beached on the
facility liner and maximum free water depths within the impoundment are not exceeded.
The area of the GSS was identified as a potential borrow source for clay during the
feasibility study and subsequent Stage 1 design of the Soledad TSF (VCL, 2003).
Whereas it is proposed to re-grade the GSS, the clay materials excavated from the site
could be used for the construction of a clay seal zone in the dam raise. Based on the
probable availability of clay materials and the high costs associated with a double
geomembrane plus geocomposite drainage layer system, Tt recommends constructing
the Stage 2 dam raise as originally proposed in the Soledad TSF design report (VCL,
2004) with a clay seal zone and a sand chimney drain.
10
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
A static slope stability analysis was used to determine the factor of safety against critical
failure of the design section under the absence of externally applied forces (i.e. no
earthquake). This factor of safety is calculated as the sum of the forces resisting failure
divided by the sum of the forces driving failure. Resisting forces are primarily driven by
the internal strength of embankment materials, whereas driving forces are primarily the
result of self-weight and the phreatic surface.
The stability of the dam under seismic loading conditions was evaluated using a
simplified deformation process. The seismic design criteria, as documented in the
original design report (VCL, 2004), require design for a peak ground acceleration of
0.46g associated with a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.1 occurring along
the fault comprising the eastern margin of the Lago de Yojoa Graben. The
methodologies used in the analysis are outlined in an Earthquake Engineering Research
Report (EERC) entitled “A Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced
Deformations in Dams and Embankments” (Makdisi and Seed, 1977) as well papers
entitled “Earthquake Induced Ground Displacments” (Ambraseys and Menu, 1988),
“Permanent Displacements of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analysis”
(Franklin and Chang, 1977), “Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method” (Hynes-
Griffin and Franklin, 1984), and “Embankment Dam Deformations Caused by
Earthquakes” (Swaisgood, 2003).
5.3.2 Results
The geotechnical model results indicate that the Stage 2 dam is stable under static
conditions, even with the conservative assumption of a ruptured liner. The calculated
factor of safety under operating conditions is 1.59. The results of the seepage and
stability models are provided in Attachment E.
11
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
The results of the simplified seismic deformation analysis are summarized in Table 3.
The simplified deformation results indicate that minor permanent deformation will occur
as the result of the design earthquake in the Lago de Yojoa graben. However, these
displacements are considered acceptable provided the required freeboard of 1m
(minimum) is maintained within the tailings impoundment.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of AMPAC and Breakwater
Resources for specific application to the area within this report. Any use which a third
party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. Tetra Tech accepts no responsibility for damages, if
any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
report. It has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Sincerely,
Tetra Tech
12
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
Attachments: References
Attachment A: Technical Memorandum – GSS Mitigation
Attachment B: Storage Capacity Curves
Attachment C: Technical Memorandum – Up-dated Water Balance
Attachment D: Technical Memorandum – Soledad Overdrain
Decommissioning
Attachment E: Seepage and Stability Model Results
13
REFERENCES
Ambraseys, N.N. and J.M. Menu, 1988. Earthquake Induced Ground Displacements.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 16. John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd.
Franklin, A.G. and F.K. Chang, 1977. Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rockfill
Dams. Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Hynes-Griffin, Mary Ellen and Arley G. Franklin, 1984. Rationalizing the Seismic
Coefficient Method, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Makdisi, F.I. and H.B. Seed, 1977. “A simplified Procedure fir Estimating Earthquake-
Induced deformations in Dams and Embankments.” Report No. 77/19,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Swaisgood, J.R., 2003. “Embankment Dam Deformations caused by Earthquakes.”
2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society of
Earthquake Engineers, Canterbury, Chrsitchurch, New Zealand.
Tt, 2007. “El Mochito Soledad Tailings Facility – Stage 2 Design Engineering,” letter
prepared for Breakwater Resources Ltd., dated 09 February 2007.
Tt, 2008. “Guard Shack Slide Mitigation Report.” Report prepared for Breakwater
Resources Ltd., dated December 2008.
VCL, 2003. “Mina El Mochito – New Tailings Facility, Feasibility Design Report.” Report
prepared for Breakwater Resources Ltd., dated August 2003.
VCL, 2004. “Mina El Mochito – Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design Report.”
Report prepared for Breakwater Resources Ltd., dated September 2004.
VCL, 2005. “Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility – Stage 1 Construction Interim Report.”
Report prepared for AMPAC, dated 29 June 2005.
VCL, 2006. “Soledad Tailings Dam – Phase 1 Final Construction Report.” Report
prepared for AMPAC, dated July 2006.
ATTACHMENT A
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – GSS MITIGATION
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500
Golden, CO 80401
Tel (303) 217-5700 Fax (303) 217-5705
www.tetratech.com
Technical Memorandum
1.0 Introduction
Whereas, construction of Stage 2 of the Soledad tailings storage facility (TSF) will require lining the
toe of the Guard Shack Slide (GSS) and future movement of the GSS will likely result in significant
operational and environmental consequences, Breakwater Resources, Ltd. (Breakwater) requested
Tetra Tech (Tt) to provide a mitigation solution for the GSS.
A thorough description of the GSS as well as mitigation options are provided in the Guard Shack
Slide Mitigation Report prepared by Tt (2008). In that report, Tt identified strict surface water control
and the construction of a toe buttress as the most positive means of mitigating future movement of
the landslide (refer to Table 3.5 in the referenced report). Slope re-grading was considered Option 2
based on the original screening process due to the fact that it was believed that re-grading could
potential result in a higher risk of future movement of adjacent slopes when compared with the
construction of a toe buttress. However, the removal of fill from the Stockpile slide (SPS) and the
slope monitoring data collected over the past two years indicate that whereas the GSS has continued
to experience slope movement, no movement has occurred along the SPS. Therefore, it is currently
believed that the two slides are independent and the risk of future movement of the SPS was largely
mitigated through the removal of the stockpiled soils.
In conjunction with the design of Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF, Tt reviewed the available options for
mitigating the GSS detailed in the referenced report. The construction of Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF
requires significant fill volumes for the construction of the embankment raise, including clay for use
as a seal zone material. The area of the GSS was identified as a potential borrow source for clay
during the feasibility study and subsequent Stage1 design of the Soledad TSF (VCL, 2003). Due to
current material needs, it is preferable to mitigate the GSS through re-grading rather than the
construction of a toe buttress which would require the exploitation of another borrow source.
Technical Memorandum Page 2
Based on construction material needs for the Soledad embankment, slope performance data for the
GSS and SPS from the past two years, and our experience, Tt recommends mitigating the GSS
through re-grading the slope and installing a groundwater collection system.
Tt evaluated the GSS re-grading mitigation option in a two-fold process: first, a back analysis was
conducted to determine the shear strength properties of the slip surface in the GSS under current
conditions and second, the results of the back analysis were utilized in the stability analyses
conducted to evaluate potential grading options.
The cross section (A-A’) utilized in the stability analysis was cut across the most critical section of the
GSS. The soil and bedrock stratigraphy applied to the critical section is based on the results of a
geotechnical investigation performed in September 2008 and the drilling performed for the
installation of an inclinometer in the GSS area in March 2010.
The GSS is considered a slow-moving, medium sized landslide with significant consequences of
failure (for failure consequences, refer to the draft Geologic Hazard Risk Assessment for the El
Mochito Mine currently under preparation by Stantec). Tt conducted a moderate level of study of the
landslide, including multiple borings, an inclinometer, soil sampling, and groundwater readings.
Additionally, Tt is very experienced in dealing with landslides occurring in tropical regions. A
thorough description of the GSS as well as the primary geotechnical investigation are detailed in the
GSS Mitigation Report (Tt, 2008).
Based on the site-specific conditions, geotechnical investigations, Tt’s experience, and the
qualitative selection criteria discussed in Table 1, Tt selected a factor of safety of 1.4 for static
loading conditions and 1.0 for pseudo-static loading conditions. The more conservative nature of the
static factor of safety selected is largely a function of the potential consequences of future instability.
The selected engineering design criteria are summarized in Table 2.
Criteria Value
defined with the block specified parameters, resulting in a range of possible locations to search for
the most critical (lowest factor of safety) potential failure surface. Analyses were performed using the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria for the materials.
Pseudo-static analyses were also performed to evaluate the performance of the slide under seismic
conditions. Pseudo-static analyses subject the two-dimensional sliding mass to a horizontal
acceleration equal to an earthquake coefficient multiplied by the acceleration of the gravity. The
horizontal seismic load used for the pseudo-static evaluations was 0.18g.
Static and pseudo-static conditions were used to evaluate the selected maximum cross section of
the GSS.
VCL report did not include drilling or laboratory testing of the soils in the GSS area, so representative
data were chosen based on data available for similar materials.
A back analysis was performed to calculate the shear strength along the failure surface. The back
analysis was performed based on the known failure surface geometry (developed based on the
location of the landslide head scarp, toe, inclinometer readings, slip surfaces observed in the borings
drilled, and groundwater conditions). The shear strength of the slip surface was varied until a factor
of safety of approximately 1.0 was achieved for the current slope configuration. Mitigation options
were then evaluated using a stability model that included the known slip surface and its
corresponding shear strength.
The material properties used in the analyses are summarized in Table 3.
Bedrock Impenetrable NA
6.0 Results
The slope stability results indicate that the proposed mitigation re-grading of the GSS improves the
factors of safety to comply with the minimum design criteria established for this landslide. Results of
the stability analysis are presented in Table 4. The corresponding stability figures are attached to this
document.
Table 4: Slope Stability Results
Factor of Safety
Case
Static Pseudo-static
It is important to note that the stability of the GSS mitigation will ameliorate with time as the Soledad
TSF continues to operate and deposited tailings buttress the toe of the slope, providing additional
forces restraining slope movement.
failure). However, since movement in the SPS was first recorded in 2008, AMPAC has removed the
majority of the fill from the stockpile. Also notable is that whereas the GSS has continued to move
over the past two years there is no evidence of movement in the area of the SPS.
The proposed grading of the GSS will remove a significant portion of the slide mass as well as native
soils immediately adjacent to the slide mass. Tt does not anticipate that the proposed grading will
undermine the stability of the adjacent slopes, most notable the SPS. Care should be taken during
grading operations to disturb as little of the natural slopes and vegetation outside the limits of the
GSS to reduce the potential for future slope instability resulting from slope de-nudement, increased
erosion, and surface water run-on/run-off.
10.0 References
Cornforth, D.K. (2005). Landslides in Practice: Investigation, Analysis, and
Remedial/Preventative Options in Soils. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Tetra Tech (2008). El Mochito Guard Shack Slide – Geotechnical Investigation Report. Report
prepared for Breakwater Resources, Ltd. November 12, 2008.
Vector Colorado, LLC (2003). Mina El Mochito New Tailings Facility Feasibility Design Report.
Report prepared for Breakwater Resources, Ltd. 2003.
840
Phreatic 0.97
Surface
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Decomposed Shale Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale
Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
800 Bedrock Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
EL MOCHITO - SOLEDAD
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
Slip Surface Option: Block
Horz Seismic Load: 0.18
840
Phreatic 0.62
Surface
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Decomposed Shale Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale
Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
800 Bedrock Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
EL MOCHITO - SOLEDAD
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
Slip Surface Option: Block
840
Phreatic
Surface Existing Ground 1.88
Name: Shale
Surface
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
3H:1V Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale 15 m 807 m
10 m 802 m Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
800 Bedrock Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)
10 m 792 m
Decomposed Shale Name: Decomposed Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
10 m 782 m Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³
780 Cohesion: 15 kPa
Phi: 22 °
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
EL MOCHITO - SOLEDAD
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
Slip Surface Option: Block
Horz Seismic Load: 0.18
840
Phreatic
Surface Existing Ground 1.01
Name: Shale
Surface
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
3H:1V Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale 15 m 807 m
10 m 802 m Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
800 Bedrock Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)
10 m 792 m
Decomposed Shale Name: Decomposed Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
10 m 782 m Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³
780 Cohesion: 15 kPa
Phi: 22 °
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
ATTACHMENT B
STORAGE CAPACITY CURVE
ATTACHMENT C
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – UP-DATED WATER
BALANCE
136 East South Temple, Suite 910
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Tel (801) 364-1064 Fax (801) 364-2021
www.tetratech.com
Technical Memorandum
As part of the design for the Stage 2 dam raise for the Soledad tailings facility at the El Mochito
Mine, Tetra Tech produced two water balances to assist in the operational planning of the facility,
and to evaluate the effects of basin grading. The first water balance (“Existing Basin”) was
developed based on the May 2010 facility survey and additional surveys received in February 2011,
and represents conditions at the facility if future dam raises are performed, but no additional in-
basin grading is undertaken. The second water balance was for the “Graded Basin” based on the
grading plan for the future stages of the facility (Stage 2 Earthwork plan set). The water balances
were used to predict monthly pool and tailings levels and were compared to determine the effects
the basin grading had on the life of the facility.
Each water balance computes the inflows, outflows, and accumulated tailings and water volumes for
each month to determine the remaining available storage as well as the required dam crest
elevation. The current water balance models were created by modifying the water balance and risk
analysis spreadsheet that was produced in June 2010 for the facility to help determine the
probability of failure due to a storm event in a given month. The June 2010 water balance was
expanded to compute values through the end of facility life (Stage 4, dam crest elevation 807m), to
facilitate comparison with the updated water balances.
Available Data
Available data included the following:
Future stage-area-capacity tables based on grading design prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D, as
depicted in Soledad Tailings Facility, Stage 2 Earthwork, Revision 0, issued February 18,
2011.
Inflows – whole and desanded tailings solids, slurry water, precipitation, and upland runoff,
The previously-used dry density of 1.68 tonnes/m3 was retained for the current analysis. The design
values above were used to determine the average daily tonnage of whole tailings and slimes to be
deposited in the facility. The daily production rates and material properties were then used to
calculate the volume of the entrained water, supernatant water, and deposited solids on a monthly
basis.
The additional storage capacity required in the basin for upland runoff was computed based on a
failed condition for the existing diversions at the facility; with runoff volumes computed using the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Curve Number (CN) method and a half-PMP
(Probable Maximum Precipitation) storm event. The following Curve Numbers (adjusted to
Antecedent Moisture Condition 3) were used for the model:
CN = 98 for disturbed areas (area located between diversion and existing liner limits)
Future embankment upstream slopes graded at preliminary slope of 2:1 (H:V) not at the
(2.3:1) (H:V) used in the final design
New topo data from 2011 surveys of GSS and north abutment area incorporated into surface
Julio Canal topo survey incorporated into surface (adding this reduced the facility volume vs.
the 2010 analysis, unlike other 2011 survey data - GSS and north abutment area)
Julio Canal topo survey incorporated into surface (adding this reduced the facility volume vs.
the 2010 analysis, unlike other 2011 survey data - GSS and north abutment area)
Soledad Tailings Storage Facility - Existing / Ungraded Basin Mass Balance Results
810 300,000
Stage 4 Dam Crest = 807m
805
Stage 3 Dam Crest = 802m
250,000
800
790
150,000
785
775
50,000
770
765 0
May-10 Oct-10 May-11 Nov-11 May-12 Nov-12 May-13 Nov-13 May-14 Nov-14 May-15 Nov-15 May-16 Nov-16 May-17 Nov-17 May-18 Nov-18 May-19 Nov-19 May-20 Nov-20 May-21 Nov-21 May-22 Nov-22 May-23
Time
Tails Elev. at Dam Face Water Pool Elev. Min. Required Dam Crest Elev.
Actual Dam Crest Elev. Water Pool Volume Decant Volume
805
Stage 3 Dam Crest = 802m
250,000
800
Water Volume (m )
3
Elevation (m)
790
150,000
785
775
50,000
770
765 0
May-10 Oct-10 May-11 Nov-11 May-12 Nov-12 May-13 Nov-13 May-14 Nov-14 May-15 Nov-15 May-16 Nov-16 May-17 Nov-17 May-18 Nov-18 May-19 Nov-19 May-20 Nov-20 May-21 Nov-21 May-22 Nov-22 May-23 Nov-23 May-24
Time
Tails Elev. at Dam Face Water Pool Elev. Min. Required Dam Crest Elev.
Actual Dam Crest Elev. Water Pool Volume Decant Volume
Existing Basin / Previous Analysis (June 2010 Water Balance) – End of Life:
Stage 2 (792m) – March 2015
Stage 3 (802m) – February 2022
Stage 4 (807m, end of facility life) – September 2025
Ultimate tailings capacity = 4,893,427 tonnes (dry) / 1,409,875 m3 (dry) / 2,912,754 m3
(as-deposited, 1.68 tonnes/m3 dry density) at ultimate beach elevation 806.4
Note that results based on the June 2010 water balance are not directly comparable with the current
analysis, due to differing tailings deposition rates, less accurate (aerial) survey data used to develop
the stage-storage curve, and use of only early-stage liner and watershed areas in computing runoff
volumes for the 2010 water balance.
4.0
June 2010
3.5 Ungraded - 2011
Graded - 2011
3.0
6
Airspace Volume, m x 10
3
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
782 787 792 797 802 807
Elevation, m
Technical Memorandum
1.0 Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes the performance of the Soledad overdrain system.
Design of the overdrain system was based on results of computer modeling to simulate the
filling and ongoing consolidation process of the tailings. The computer program FSCONSOL
was utilized for this design task. The model assumed a doubly drained condition to simulate
a continuous drainage boundary below the tailings mass. The results of the model were
used to determine the required strip drain spacing. An iterative process was used to vary
the spacing until a fully double drained condition was achieved ...”
Future stages of the Soledad TSF included the extemsion of the overdrain collection system
(geocomposite strip drains).
4.0 History
During a large rain event on 21 August 2006, a debris flow entered the impoundment causing
extensive damage to the geomembrane liner in the impoundment valley bottom. Contributing
factors to the debris flow are believed to be a paleo-landslide upstream of the access road (“Mitch”
slide) that was re-activated by two consecutive 2-inch rainfall events within a 72-hour period,
resulting in a collapsed culvert at the access road and resulted in the flow being diverted over the
road and in to the lined impoundment. An initial assessment was conducted by Matt Fuller of Vector
(VCL) and Shiu Nam Kam of Golder Associates in August 2006 and recommendations for mitigation
against further liner damage were provided, including roadside drainage improvements, culvert
installations and gabion wall debris retention dam construction, at designated locations (Fuller Trip
Report 25-28 September). These measures were completed by AMPAC.
Upon commissioning of the TSF, it was discovered that the overdrain appeared to have been
damaged during the event as evidenced by the reduced flow measured in the sump. At the time, it
was unclear if the pipework was filled with sediment or simply damaged during the event.
6.0 Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn from the pump tests:
The system is currently functioning, but at a diminished capacity than originally designed.
The capacity of the overdrain collection sump has decreased from 16.8 m3 to approximately
1.3 m3 over the life of the facility.
Recharge of the available capacity of the collection sump is achieved within 24-hours.
Each of these conclusions will be discussed in further detail below.
Conclusion 1 – The system is currently functioning, but at a diminished capacity than originally
designed.
Whereas pump tests have expressed water from the overdrain collection sump, it may be concluded
that the system is currently functioning, facilitating the consolidation of the overlying tailings mass;
however, the volume of water reporting to the sump has decreased with time. This decrease in water
volume reporting to the sump (i.e. seepage flux) is likely the result of consolidation of the overlying
tailings. As the tailings consolidate, their permeability decreases, resulting in a decrease in the water
flux through the consolidated layer. Tt anticipates the water flux will continue to decrease over the
life of the facility as the overlying tailings continue to consolidate.
Conclusion 2 – The capacity of the overdrain collection sump has decreased from 16.8 m3 to
approximately 1.3 m3 over the life of the facility.
The results presented in Table 1 indicate that the volume of water pumped from the collection sump
has decreased over the past year from approximately 16 percent of the originally available storage
volume to approximately 7 percent of the available storage volume. System damage (resulting from
previous debris flow and sinkhole events) is the most likely factor affecting the performance of the
sump. Seepage flows are likely transporting tailings and materials deposited in the area of the sump
through the damaged system and into the gravel bed, filling void spaces, and decreasing the
available water storage capacity.
Conclusion 3 – Recharge of the available storage capacity of the collection sum is achieved in 24-
hours.
Approximately the same volume of water was expressed from the sump following a 24-hour recharge
of the system as was pumped from the sump after a recharge of more than a year (refer to Figure 1
and the first two pump test results for November 2010 provided in Table 1). In fact, the recharge
rate (volume pumped/recharge time) for the collection sump for periods of 6- to 24-hours is linear
(see Figure 2). Any additional recharge beyond 24-hours is negligible. This indicates that the
available storage capacity of the collection sump is filled within 24-hours. Therefore, under current
conditions, approximately 1.2 m3 of water could be pumped from the overdrain sump on a daily
basis (equating to approximately 7 minutes of daily pump operation).
7.0 Recommendations
Wheras the overdrain is currently operating at approximately 7 percent of the originally available
capacity (and regardless of the actual combination of factors contributing to its diminished
performance since the commencement of facility operations), it is Tt’s opinion that the performance
of the overdrain system will condition to diminish over the coming years. Furthermore, with its
reduced capacity and flux rates, the overdrain system no longer effectively provides the drainage
conditions necessary to perform its original design intent nor will the expansion of the system in
future phases of TSF development provide for accelerated tailings consolidation or the reduction of
head pressures on the facility liner. Therefore, Tt recommends the abandonment of the overdrain
system. As such, the sump discharge pipes should be sealed during the construction of Stage 2 of
the Soledad TSF.
Strict tailings management must be employed to ensure tailings are beached on the facility liner and
maximum free water depths within the impoundment are not exceeded.
8.0 Reference
VCL (2004). Mina El Mochito – Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility Final Design Report. Report
prepared for American Pacific Honduras, S.A. de C.V. Dated September 2004. VCL
Project No. 03-3003.00.
K-Ratio: 1
K-Direction: 0 °
760
#5
#1 #3
740
#4
720
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Directory: T:\Clients\Breakwater 033003\El Mochito\Soledad\Soledad Stage 2\Geotechnical\Slope Stability\File Name: EM_SOL_SectionC_SEEP_TM_03-15-11.gsz
Name: #1 - Clay Seal Zone
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 19.6 kN/m³
Cohesion: 14.4 kPa
Breakwater
Phi: 23 °
El Mochito
Soledad TSF Stage 2 Name: #2 - Structural Fill
Section C - Static Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Slope Stability Analysis Cohesion: 0 kPa
Method: Morgenstern-Price Phi: 30 °
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
1.59 Name: #3 - Sand Chimney Drain
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
800 Unit Weight: 22.8 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 25 °
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 38 °
760
#5
#1 #3
740
#4
720
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Directory: T:\Clients\Breakwater 033003\El Mochito\Soledad\Soledad Stage 2\Geotechnical\Slope Stability\File Name: EM_SOL_SectionC_S_TM_03-15-11.gsz
Name: #1 - Clay Seal Zone
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 19.6 kN/m³
Cohesion: 14.4 kPa
Breakwater
Phi: 23 °
El Mochito
Soledad TSF Stage 2 Name: #2 - Structural Fill
Section C - Pseudostatic Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Slope Stability Analysis Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Method: Morgenstern-Price Cohesion: 0 kPa
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Phi: 30 °
Horz Seismic Load: 0.23
0.94 Name: #3 - Sand Chimney Drain
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
800 Unit Weight: 22.8 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 25 °
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 38 °
760
#5
#1 #3
740
#4
720
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Directory: T:\Clients\Breakwater 033003\El Mochito\Soledad\Soledad Stage 2\Geotechnical\Slope Stability\File Name: EM_SOL_SectionC_PS_TM_03-15-11.gsz