# CONSTRUCTION METHODS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPACTED SALT PANEL CLOSURES December 2012 NUCLEAR WASTE PARTNERSHIP LLC Ben Zimmerly Tami Moffatt John Zavicar IV

## i INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 2. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 3. LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................. 5 4. FIELD TESTING ................................................................................................................................ 7 4.1. Location .........
.............................................................................................................................. 7 4.2. Equipment ................................................................................................................................... 7 4.3. Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................................... 8 4.3.1. Lower Zone ....................................... ................................................................................ 8 4.3.2. Upper Zone ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.3.3 . Construction Time ...
.. ....................................................................................................... 13 4.4. Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................... 13 4.4.1. Lower Zone ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.4.2. Upper Zone ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.4.3. Construction Time ............................................................................................................ 17 4.5. Scenario 3 ......
.............................................................................................................................. 18 4. 5 .1. ROM Salt Placement ...
...................................................... . ............................................ 18 4. 5.2 . Construction Time ............................................................................................................ 19 5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURES: Figure 1. Compacted Salt Test Area Plan and Cross Section Figure 2. LHD Placing ROM Salt On Lower Zone Lift Figure 3. Walk
- Behind Roller Compactor Compacting Lower Zone Lift Figure 4. Fletcher With Push
- Plate Attachment Figure 5. Fletcher Compacting Upper Zone TABLES : Table 1 - Scenario 1 Lower Zone Moisture/Density Table 2 - Scenario 1 Upper Zone Moisture/Density Table 3 - Scenario 1 Moisture/Density by Position in the Upper Zone Table 4 - Scenario 2 Lower Zone Moisture/Density Table 5 - Scenario 2 Upper Zone Moisture/Density Table 6 - Scenario 3 M oisture/Density by Position in the Lift

## ii APPENDIX A 1. Laboratory T est Reports for T he Nuclear Density Testing and Sand
- Cone Testing Performed Prior To The Actual Field Testing 2. Laboratory Test Reports For the Sieve Analysis Performed On The ROM Salt Used For The Proctor Evaluation And On The ROM Salt Used For The Field Testing 3. Proctor Evaluation Data APPENDIX B -1 Scenario 1 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – Lower Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – Lower Zone Lift Testing Results APPENDIX B -2 Scenario 2 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – Lower Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – Lower Zone Li ft Testing Results APPENDIX C -1 Scenario 1 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information APPENDIX C -2 Scenario 2 1. The Work Pac kage Data Log Sheets Attachment C – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information APPENDIX C -3 Scenario 3 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – ROM Salt Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – ROM Salt Placement Information

## iii APPENDIX D -1 Scenario 1 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On t he Lifts Of The Lower Zone 2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand
- Cone Testing Performed On the Lifts Of The Lower Zone APPENDIX D -2 Scenario 2 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On t he Lifts Of The Lower Zone APPENDIX E -1 Scenario 1 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On the lifts Of The Upper Zone 2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand
- Cone Testing Performed On t he Lifts Of The Upper Zone APPENDIX E -2 Scenario 2 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For T he Nuclear Density Testing Performed On the lifts Of the Upper Zone APPENDIX E -3 Scenario 3 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On the ROM Salt Placement APPENDIX F-1 Scenario 1 1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift Moisture/Density Data

## iv APPENDIX F-2 Scenario 2 1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift Moisture/Density Data APPENDIX F-3 Scenario 3 1. The Summar y Sheets For ROM Salt Placement And Down Time 2. The Summary Sheet For The Moisture /Density Data APPENDIX G 1. The Data Sheet For The Walk
- Behind Vibratory Roller Compactor Used To Compact The Lower Lifts 2. The Data Sheet For The LHD Used To Place The Lower And Upper Lifts. 3. The Data Sheet For The Fletcher Scaler Used To Push ROM Tight To Back And To Compact Upper Lifts

## Page 1 of 

## 25 1. INTRODUCTION In 2011, a new panel clos ure system (PCS) design was proposed to close the hazardous waste disposal units at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The proposed PCS, referred to as the WIPP Panel Closure (WPC), consisted of two barriers (i.e., either two standard bulkheads or one standard bulkhead and one block wall, if a block wall was previously installed) and emplacement of a minimum of 100 feet of compacted run
- of
- mine (ROM) salt between the two barriers. The proposed ROM salt PCS design called for emplacing three distinct zones ranging in compact ion from 85% t o 70% of the in
- situ density of salt. ROM salt densities are reported as a percentage of the in
situ density of salt which is assumed to be 135 pounds per cubic foot (SDD AU00). Compaction of ROM salt in zones , per the proposed draft specifications , had not been performed at the WIPP. Concerns over the constructability of the WPC arose due to the limited size of the drifts in which the WPC would be installed and the expected performance of the available equipment. A test plan was developed to demonstrate if the WPC could be construc te d in accordance with the proposed compaction specifications using equipment currently at the WIPP or equipment that is readily available by renting or leasing. The proposed design was modified from three distinct horizonta l layers to two zones. A lower z one was placed horizontally up to a height that could safely accommodate the equipment and an upper zone placed diagonally up to the back. If the compaction specifications could not be met, then the test plan would identify what level of compaction could b e achieved. And finally, the best practices for the construction of the WPC would be established. Three scenarios were developed for th e test plan (Figure 1). Scenario 1 consisted of 1% (by weight) water added to the ROM salt and compaction of th e mat erial. Scenario 2 consisted of compaction of the ROM salt with no additional water added. Scenario 3 consisted of the ROM salt simply being placed and pushed up tight to the back without adding water or compaction. The test plan also included laboratory testing to determine the moisture/density properties of the ROM salt used for this demonstration. This report presents the data from the laboratory testing, a description of the emplacement and compaction methodology; and the moisture/density testing resul ts for all three scenarios
. 2. SUMMARY 2.1. Laboratory Testing Sieve analysis, moisture determination and proctor evaluations were performed in the lab to determine the characteristics of the ROM salt used in the field testing. Gradational analysis indicates that about 9% of the ROM salt sample was greater than 3 inches, 7% passed the #80 screen, and about 3% passed the #200 screen. The natural moisture content of the ROM salt averaged 0.4 %. The results of a modified proctor evaluation, using a 6 inch diameter m old,

## Page 2 of 

## 25 produced a maximum density of about 108 to 109 pounds per cubic foot ( 80% to 81% of the density of in
- situ salt) with optimum moisture of between 2.5% and 4.5%. The maximum density using a 4 inch diameter mold was a bit lower at about 107 pounds per cubic foot (79% of the density of in

- situ salt) and the optimum moisture was higher at about 6%. The field testing showed that Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 were able to achieve about 93% (101 pounds per cubic foot) of the maximum proctor densi ty on the lower zone and about 78 % (85 pounds per cubic foot) on the upper zone. Scenario 3 field testing showed that the density achieved was about 83 % (90 pounds per cubic foot) of the maximum proctor density. The ASTM nuclear density method used for mo isture/density determination was evaluated for use in salt prior to field testing. The nuclear density method produced acceptable density values but did not produce reasonable percent moisture values when compared to moisture sampling by ASTM D2216. The nuclear density method used for field testing was backed up by occasional sand
- cone tests. The moi sture content was determined from grab sampl es taken near the nuclear density locations. 2.2. Construction Scenarios Scenario 1 consisted of ROM salt with 1% water add ed and compacted into two zones; a lower zone consisting o f 6 inch thick horizontal lifts and an upper zone consisting of 12 inch thick diagonal lifts. The lower zone was 4 feet thick and the upper zone was 8.5 feet thick. The thicknesses of the lower and upper zone were based on the operational clearance required for the equipment used to emplace and compact the ROM salt. The density achieved for either zone did not reach the proposed compaction specification. Density measurements, at select locations, were taken after multiple compaction passes to determine a correlation between density and compaction effort. A load
- haul
- dump (LHD) was used to place each lift of the lower zone and roughly smooth it out. A skid
- steer loader was needed to get a uniform lift thickness of 6 to 8 inch. Placing the lifts with a consistent and uniform thickness proved challenging. The walk
- behind roller compactor was awkward to maneuver but was simple to operate. As anticipated, on the upper zone, the LHD could place ROM salt to within about 18 to 24 inches of the back. A modified Fletcher scaler with the push
- plate attachment , worked well to push the ROM salt tight to the back. The slope of each lift , on the upper zone , was about 30 degrees once emplacement and c ompaction was completed. The first seven lifts of the upper zone were compacted using the boom to push the material tight and then the push
- plate was vibrated. This method was discontinued because the vibration caused material to loosen and slide down th e slope of the lift. The remaining lifts were compacted by just using the boom to push the push
- plate into the lift. Water was added to the ROM salt using an adjustable nozzle set to deliver 20 gallons per minute and timing the length of application based on the cubic yards of ROM salt in each lift. Results from moisture sampling showed that this method was fairly consistent. For the lower zone after six

## Page 3 of 

## 25 compaction passes the moisture averaged about 1.4% and for the upper zone the moisture averaged about 1.3%. The natural moisture for ROM salt was determined to be 0.25% to 0.5%. The average dry density achieved for the lower zone after six compaction passes was about 75% of the in
- situ density of salt. The draft specification called for 85%. The average dry density for the upper zone after one compaction pass was about 63% of the in
- situ density of salt . At 3 feet, 5 feet and 7 feet from the back, the average dry density of the upper zone was about 63%, 64% and 62% respectively. The draft specification called for 80% for the lower portion of the upper zone and 70% fo r the upper portion of the upper zone. A crew of two qualified miners was used to construct the lower and upper zones. This crew worke d a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. The lower zone was constructed at a rate of about 181 cubic feet per hour and the upper zone at a rate of 162 cubic feet per hour. These rates do not include equipment down time, time to perform support actives or test ing. Accounting for equipment down time and support activities, the projected time to construct both an intake and exhaust WPC with a drift height of 12.5 feet would be about 61 shifts. Moisture/density testing would add an additional 2 to 4 hours per se t of tests. Scenario 2 consisted of ROM salt compacted into two zones , the same as with Scenario 1, but no additional water was added to the ROM salt. The lower zone was constructed with 6 inch thick horizontal lifts and the upper zone was constructed wit h 12 inch thick diagonal lifts. The lower zone was 4 feet thick and the upper zone was 8.5 feet thick. As with Scenario 1, the thickness of the lower and upper zones were based on the operational clearances required for the equipment used for emplacement and compaction of the ROM salt. The lower zone of Scenario 2 was constructed using an LHD to place ROM salt for each lift. A skid
steer loader was needed to get a uniform lift thickness of 6 to 8 inches. Equipment operator proficiency improved from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2, but placing the lifts with a consistent and uniform thickness was still challenging. Three different compaction metho ds were used on the lower lifts; walk
- behind roller compactor, LHD with empty bucket and LHD with full bucket. E ach method achieved about the same level of compaction. On the upper zone, the LHD could place ROM salt to within about 18 to 24 inches of the back. The Fletcher with the push
- plate attachment was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back. The slope of ea ch lift on the upper zone was about 30 degrees once emplacement and compaction was completed. The average dry density achieved for the lower zone of Scenario 2 after four or six compaction passes was about 75% of the in
- situ density of salt. The draft specification called for 85%. The average dry density for the upper zone of Scenario 2 after one compaction pass was about 63 % of the in
- situ density of salt . At 3 feet, 5 feet and 7 feet from the back, the average dry density of the upper zone was about 6 3%, 63% and 62% respectively. The draft specification called for 80% for the lower portion of the upper zone and 70% for the upper portion of the upper zone.

## Page 4 of 

## 25 The crew used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone of Scenario 2 consisted of two quali fied miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. The lower zone was constructed at a rate of about 283 cubic feet per hour and the upper zone was constructed at a rate of 239 cubic feet per hour. These rates do not inclu de equipment down time and support activities or testing. The construction rates for Scenario 2 are significantly better than those achieved during Scenario 1 and are attributable to an improved equipment operator pr oficiency placing and compacting the li fts. Accounting for equipment down time and support activities, the projected time to construct both an intake and exhaust WPC with a drift height of 12.5 feet would be about 42 shifts. Moisture/density testing would add an additional 2 to 4 hours per se t of tests. Scenario 3 consisted of ROM salt, with no water added and no compaction, placed and pushed tight to the back. The ROM salt was emplaced with the LHD to a height within 18 to 24 inches of the back. Two to four buckets (7.20 to 14.40 cubic yard s) of ROM salt were placed with the LHD, and then the Fletcher with the push
- plate attachment was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back. An additional two to three feet of ROM salt was placed on the floor to enable the Fletcher to reach the top of the loosely placed ROM salt and push it tight to the back. One or two passes pushing up the ROM salt was necessary to get it tight to the back. The slope of the lifts after the ROM salt was pushed tight to the back was about 30 degrees. The average dry de nsity achieved for the loosely placed ROM salt of Scenario 3 was about 67% of the in
- situ density of salt . At 3 feet, 5 feet and 8 feet from t he back, the average dry density was about 66%, 68% and 66% respectively. A crew of two qualified miners was used to emplace the ROM salt of Scenario 3 . This crew worked a 10 hour shift for 5 days. This zone was co nstructed at a rate of about 690 cu bic feet per hour. This rate do es not include equipment down time and support actives or testing. Accounting for equipment down time and support activities, the projected time to construct both an intake and exhaust WPC with a drift heigh t of 12.5 feet would be about 15 shifts. Moisture/density testing would add an additional 2 to 4 hours per set of tests. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 produced very similar results. The dry density achieved in both scenarios for the lower zone was about 75% of the in
- situ density of salt . Based on the results from Scenario 2, both the walk
- behind roller compactor and the LHD achieved the same compaction level. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 also had similar results for the upper zone with a dry density of about 63% of the in
- situ density of salt achieved. Both scenarios did show a slight variation in dry density at 3 feet, 5 feet and 7 feet from the back at 63%, 63% to 64% and 62% respectively. Scenario 3 was similar to the upper zone on Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in both construction technique and achievable compaction. The average dry density achieved for Scenario 3 was about 67% of the in
- situ density of salt . This is slightly higher than the 63% achieved by Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.

## Page 5 of 

## 25 All three scenarios we re not able to achieve the proposed compaction specification s . But these scenarios did show what level of compaction can be achieve d with the equipment currently available at the WIPP and demonstrated techniques that could be used for the construction of the WPC. The three scenarios provided an estimate on WPC construction time. The shortest construction time was for Scenario 3, whic h is the simplest to construct, at about 15 shifts to construct the intake and exhaust drift WPCs. For Scenario 2 , the construction time for the WPCs would be about 42 shifts and for Scenario 1 the construction time would be about 61 shifts. The construction of Scenario 1 and 2 are identical except that Scenario 1 adds 1% water by weight to the ROM salt. The Scenari o 2 construction time is shorter than that of Scenario 1 primarily due to the improved equipment operator proficiency in placing and compacting both the lower zone and upper zone lifts. 3. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed by Pettigrew & Associates (Pettigrew), located in Hobbs, New Mexico. Pettigrew is a qualified supplier for Quality Control for the WIPP, accredited by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) and the AASHTO Cement and Concrete Research Laboratory (CCRL). Sieve analysis, per ASTM C 136, was performed on the ROM salt used for proctor testing and the ROM salt that was used for the construction methods evaluation. The results of these sieve analysi s are presented in Appendix A. SA
- 1 through SA
- 3 is the sieve analysis data on the material used for the proctor testing. SA
- 4 is the sieve analysis of the ROM salt used for the field demonstration. Both the proctor test ROM salt and construction ROM salt samples were taken from the same stock pile. When the proctor material was taken, large chunks were avoided. Whereas, the construction sample consisted of whatever size material was in the sample location. Of the construction ROM salt, 9% of the ma terial was greater than 3 inches in size, of which occasionally pieces were up to 7 to 9 inches in size. Of the finer material, only 7% passed the #80 screen and only 3.1% pa ssed the #200 screen. Moisture of the ROM salt was determined by ASTM D 2216 and averaged 0.36% w ith a high of 0.9% and a low approaching 0%. Standard Proctor evaluations were performed in accordance with ASTM D
- 1557. The Proctor evaluation was used to determine the optimal moisture to achieve the maximum density. The moisture added during the performance of the evaluation was in the form of fresh water as opposed to brine because fresh water would also be used in the field assessment. Larger material that was inappropriate for the proctor mold size used was screened off prior to placement of material into the molds.

## Page 6 of 

## 25 Two proctor evaluations were run using 6 inch molds and one evaluation using the 4 inch mold. Excess water bled from both the 4 inch and 6 inch molds once the moisture content was over 3%. A best
- fit curve was gene rated from the data to determine the optimum moisture and maximum density. The maximum density for the 6 inch mold evaluations was between 108 to 109 pounds per cubic foot (80% to 81% of the density of in

- situ salt). The optimum moisture varied significa ntly from about 2.5% and to about 4.5%. The evaluation, using the 4 inch mold, produced a maximum density of about 107 pounds per cubic foot (79% of the density of in

- situ salt) with optimum moisture of about 6%. Appendix A contains a graph summarizing t he proctor evaluations. The optimum moistures produced by the proctor evaluations were not used in the field testing. Scenario 1 of the field testing called for the addition of 1% water to the ROM salt. This would give total moisture of between 1.25% an d 1.5%. This is more in line with the plans for the WIPP shaft seals (SAND96

- 1326/1). Moisture/density testing by the nuclear method is not common in salt. A small ROM salt pad was constructed near the test area to determine if the nuclear method would provide adequate results. The nuclear method results were compared to sand
- cone and balloon density methods and standard moisture sampling. Technical problems were experienced with the sand
- cone and balloon density methods. Only one sand
- cone could be taken and no valid balloon tests were achieved. Several nuclear moisture/density tests were made after a trench calibration of the instrument was made. As anticipated, the nuclear method did not accurately determine moisture content. The nuclear density results were in good agreement with the sand
- cone density de termination. For the field moisture/density testing, the nuclear method was used for density and occasional sand

- cone density tests were performed as a check. Table 1 in Appendix D -1 compares the density results by the nuclear and sand cone methods for scenario 1. Samples were collected at or near where the density tests were made to determine moisture content in the lab. Data from this testing can be found in Appendix A, Test No. SG 1 through S G 12 and SC 1. Four nuclear density tests were made at the stock pile of ROM salt used to construct the lower and upper lifts. These tests were made to determine the density of the stock pile at different time periods and are reported as a percentage of the in
- situ density of salt . Test SG 58 was at a portion of the stock pile that had been undisturbed for about two months; SG 59 was at a portion that was added to the stock pile four days earlier ; and SG166 and SG167 were in ROM salt placed on the stock pile within an hour of the testing. Test SG 58 in the older portion of the stockpile showed a density of 71.9%. Test SG 59 in the newer portion of the stockpile showed a density of 68.1%. Test SG 166 and SG 167 in the youngest portion of the stockpile showed densities of 64% and 63% respectively. These tests seem to indicate that settling or self compaction of the stockpile occurs rapidly. The loose density of ROM salt is about 65%. The test data for SG 58, SG 59 , SG 166 and SG 167 can be found in Ap pendix A. Note that the densities for SG 58 and 59 a re not corrected for moisture, whereas the densities for SG 166 and 167 are corrected for moisture.

## Page 7 of 

## 25 4. FIELD TESTING 4.1. LOCATION The field testing was conducted in the southern portion of the WIPP undergroun d adjacent to Panel 5 in the W
- 30 drift, between S
- 3310 and S
- 3650 and south of Bulkhead 506. Bulkhead 506 was used to simulate the bulkhead portion of the p roposed WPC. The drift width was abou t 16 feet wide and the height was about 12.5 feet. The length of drift available for testing was about 230 feet. 4.2. EQUIPMENT The following list of equipment was used in the field testing.

**•** Load
- haul
- dump (LHD) with 3.6 cubic yard bucket capacity **•** Skid
- steer loader **•** Fletcher Scaler (modified with a push plate attachment) **•** Walk
- behind steel wheel vibratory roller compactor **•** 500
- gallon water tank **•** Electric water pump **•** 1 inch dia. Water hose **•** Adjustable water nozzle **•** Auxiliary Fan **•** 30 inch dia. ventilation tubing The LHD was the primary piece of equipment used to place ROM salt for the lifts for the lower zone and upper zone. The skid
- steer loader was used to work the lower zone lifts to the desired thickness. Water was added to the ROM salt using the 500
- gallon tank, water pump, hose and a djustable nozzle. The nozzle was adjusted to maintain a consistent flow rate of 20 gallons per minute. This rate also provided a good spray pattern. Compaction of the lifts of the lower zone was accomplished using a walk
- behind steel wheel roller compac tor or LHD . Information on the roller compactor, the LHD, and the Fletcher scaler can be found in Appendix G. On the upper zone, a push
- plate attachment on the Fletcher scaler, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back and to compact the material. The push
- plate was fabricated in
- house using 1 inch plate steel, 4 inch steel channel and 4 inch steel tubing and had a height and width of 2 feet. The auxiliary fan and ventilation tubing was set up in an exhausting configuration to provide fresh air an d remove diesel smoke and dust from the work area.

## Page 8 of 

## 25 4.3. SCENARIO 1 The test parameters for Scenario 1 were as follow. One percent water (by weight) was added to the ROM salt. Compaction of the lower zone was by the walk
- behind roller compactor and c ompaction of the upper zone was by the Fletcher with the push
- plate. Figure 1 shows the configuration of the test area. The lower zone was approximately 63 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 4 feet thick. A 2:1 slope was constructed for the lower zone o n the end near the bulkhead. The upper zone was comprised of two areas. Towards the bulkhead, un
compacted ROM salt with no water added was placed to provide a “back
- stop” for the ROM salt that would be placed and compacted for the remainder of the upper zone. The compacted portion of the upper zone was approximately 32 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 8.5 feet high. The slope angle on the upper zone was about 30 degrees after compaction of each lift. 4.3.1. LOWER ZONE The lower zone was constructed using the LHD to place ROM salt in horizontal lifts of about 6 inches thick. The LHD that was used had a capacity of 3.6 cubic yards of ROM salt per bucket and six buckets were required to get the lift thickness of 6 inches. The LHD could not provide an adequately uniform lift thickness, so the skid
- steer loader was used to even out the lifts. After placement, compaction and testing of the second lift, a change was made to improve the water distribution through the thickness of the lift. Instead of the full six inches of ROM salt being placed, placement of the lift was split in two. About 3 inches of ROM salt would be placed, water added, another 3 inches placed and the final water added to the lift. It was a little easie r for both the LHD and skid
- steer loader to spread and evenly distribute the ROM salt in the thinner layers. Figure 2 shows the LHD placing ROM salt on a lower zone lift . Placement of each lift was challenging for the equipment operator and time consumi ng. The placement of each lift took an average of 2 hours and 12 minutes. One percent water was added to the lifts either after the lift was placed or halfway through the placement. Based on the loose density of the ROM salt at 88 pounds per cubic foot, 2.85 gallons of water must be added per cubic yard to get 1% water added. For the six LHD buckets placed each lif t, about 62 gallons of water would be required to get 1% added moisture . An adjustable nozzle was set to deliver 20 gallons per minute. The volume delivered by the nozzle was initially set and periodically checked by recording the time to fill a container of known volume. Water was added to each lift uniformly with the nozzle and timed to get the necessary volume. The time necessary to add water was about 3 minutes per lift. Moisture sample results are presented for the lower zone in Appendix B -1 , Appendix D -1, and Appendix F -1 . The average moisture for the compacted samples taken on the lower zone was 1.4%. The moisture content for ROM salt ranges f rom 0.25% to about 0.5%
.

## Page 9 of 

## 25 Most of the moisture results were similar, but the results of the last lift of the lower zone were significantly lower. This is likely because the last lift was completed on a Friday afternoon and moisture/densi ty testing was not performed until the next Monday. The moisture content for these tests was much lower than the previous tests perhaps due to the ventilation passing through the test area causing the water to evaporate. The moisture for lift 7 averaged 0.3% which is within the natural range. A walk
- behind steel wheel vibratory roller compactor was used to compact the lifts of the lower zone. Specifications and data on the compactor are contained in Appendix G. Six compaction passes were made on each lift with moisture/density testing after two, four and six passes. The compaction passes were started at one rib and the compactor was run the length of the lift and back in the same path then shifted a half drum width and run the length and back again. T his sequence was repeated until the opposite rib was reached. Figure 3 shows the roller compactor in use on a lift. Each set of two compaction passes averaged about 17 minutes and a set of six averaged about 51 minutes. The time to place, add water an d compact a single lift averaged about 3 hours and 5 minutes. Field testing of the lower zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear methods (ASTM D

- 6938) and for the sand

- cone method (ASTM D

- 1556). Four density tests were made using the nuclear method. Generally, two tests were made along the centerline of the drift and two tests were made between the centerline of the drift and the rib. All four tests were performed in the middle third of the lift’s length. One to four moisture s amples were taken at locations near the nuclear tests. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination. Sand
- cone tests were performed periodically as checks to the nuclear tests. The densities by the nuclear method and by sa nd
- cone were in general agreement. Information on placement, compaction and moisture/density testing on the lower zone, is contained in Appendix B -1 , Appendix D -1, and Appendix F -1 . Table 1 summarizes the results from the lower zone.

## Page 10 of 

## 25 Table 1 - Scenario 1 Lower Zone Moisture/Density Average Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction Passes Moisture % Dry Density% * 132 2 1.6 74.1 141 4 1.7 74.5 148 6 1.4 74.8 * Density reported as a percentage of the in

- situ density of salt The results show that the average achievable dry density on the lower zone was 74.8% after six compaction passes. The density does increase slightly as the number of compaction passes increases. The results also indicated that dividing the lift height in two and adding water to each half did not improve the compaction of the lifts. The actual densities achieved for the lower zone were significantly less than the proposed value of 85% of the in
- situ density of salt
. A moisture/density test (SG 78) was ma de on the last lift of the lower zone 25 days after the initial tests were performed. The test results were a density of 80.5% of the in
- situ density of salt with moisture of 0.2%. The original density averaged 73.8% with moisture of 0.3%. The increase in density could be due to the combination of the operation of heavy equipment on the lift during the construction of the upper zone and settling of the material. The height of the lower zone was determined by the operational clearance needed for the LHD. The height of the LHD to the top of the cab is about 7.5 feet, so an operational clearance of 8.5 feet was maintained. The available operational clearance set the upper zone to 8.5 feet high and the lower zone to the difference from the total drift heig ht. The height of the drift in the test area was 12.5 feet. In order to maintain the operational clearance, the thickness of the lower zone was about 4 feet.

4.3.2. UPPER ZONE The upper zone was constructed using the LHD to place ROM salt, the Fletcher, with the push
plate, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back and compact the material. Initially several feet of un
- compacted ROM salt was placed tight to the back to provide a back
- stop for the compacted lifts. The lifts of the upper zone were placed on a slope of about 30 degrees. This slope was the result of pushing the ROM salt tight to the back to create the back
- stop. The LHD placed two buckets per lift. This resulted in a lift thickness of about 12 inches. The LHD could place the material to within about 18 to 24 inches of the back. An average of about 13 minutes was needed to place the ROM salt on each lift.

## Page 11 of 

## 25 Once the ROM salt was placed but not pushed up and compacted, water was added using the nozzle set to a volume of 20 gallons per minute. Two LHD buckets (7.2 cubic yards) required one minute of water to be added. The average moisture for the upper zone was about 1.3%. Pushing the ROM salt tight to the back and compacting the material tended to mix the water into the lift, but dry or very wet areas were common. The Fletcher with the push
- plate, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back usually starting along the left rib and working to the right. Compaction of the upper zone lifts usually started in the upper left hand corn er and worked across to the opposite rib by moving the plate about a foot, half of the plate width, each time. When the opposite rib was reached the plate would be moved back to the left rib and down about a foot and worked to the opposite rib. This cycl e was followed until the bottom of the lift was compacted. Figure 4 shows the push
- plate attachment for the Fletcher and Figure 5 shows the compaction on a lift of the upper zone. Two methods of compaction were tried on the upper zone. The modified Flet cher had the push
plate attached to the jack
- hammer head of the machine. By activating the jack
- hammer, the push
- plate could be vibrated like a plate compactor. For the first method, the boom was used to push the material tight and maintain pressure as t he jack
- hammer was activated for 5 seconds to vibrate the push
- plate. This method was used for lifts 1 through 7 of the upper lift. The method was discontinued because the vibration from the jack
- hammer caused the adjacent ROM salt to loosen and slide d own the slope. The remaining lifts were completed using only the Fletcher’s boom extension to push the push
- plate into the slope. Pushing up and compacting the lifts of the upper zone with the jack
- hammer action averaged about 76 minutes per lift. Push ing up and compacting the lifts of the upper zone by just pushing into the slope averaged about 53 minutes per lift. Originally two and three compaction passes per lift were planned. However, spending 2 to 3 hours compacting each lift was not operational ly practical; thus, the addition al compaction passes were not preformed. Field testing of the upper zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear methods (ASTM D

- 6938) and for the sand

- cone method (ASTM D

- 1556). Six density tests were made using the nuclear method. Generally two tests were made about 3 feet down from the back of the drift, two tests were made about 5 feet down from the back and two tests were made about 7 feet down from the back. The nuclear density tests varied from a few feet from the ribs to near the center line of the drift . Moisture samples were taken at each nuclear density test. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination. Sand
- cone tests were taken periodically as checks to the nuclear tests. The densities achieved by the nuclear method and by sand
- cone were in general agreement.

## Page 12 of 

## 25 Appendix C -1 , Appendix E -1 and Appendix F -1 contain information on placement, compaction and testing of the upper zone. The average dry density achieved using the push plate with vibration was 63.3% of the in
- situ density of salt . The average dry density achieved by just pushing the material was 64.6% for lifts 13 through 19 but the average dropped to 63.3% by lift 32. Table 2 and Table 3 summariz e the results of the upper zone. Table 2 - Scenario 1 Upper Zone Moisture/Density
Compaction Type Number of Compaction passes Moisture % Dry Density % * Push
- plate with 5 seconds Vibration 1 1.1 63.3 Push Plate 1 1.4 63.3 * Density reported as a percentage of the in

- situ density of salt

Table 3 - Scenario 1 Moisture/Density by Position in the Upper Zone Distance from Back of Drift Moisture % Dry Density % * 3 feet 1.2 63.4 5 feet 1.3 64.6 7 feet 1.4 61.5 * Density reported as a percentage of the in
- situ density of salt The results show that the average achievable dry density on the upper zone is 63.3% after one compaction pass whether or not the vibration was activated. The dry density does vary by the position in the upper zone. The middle has the highest density at 64.6% and surprisingly the lowest is close to the bottom of the zone at 61.5%. Close to the back the average was 63.4%. The proposed design called for 80% density in the lower half of the upper zone and 70% in the upper half of the upper zone. The actual average density achieved did not meet the proposed density.

## Page 13 of 

## 25 4.3.3. CONSTRUCTION TIME The crew used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone consisted of two qualified miners. Construction work was performe d on a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week . As part of the construction methods assessment, each process to construct the lower and upper zones was documented and the data collected can be found in Appendix F. Excluding down time, the time necessary to place, wet, and compact each lift of the lower zone averaged about 3 hours and 5 minutes. This equates to about 181 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. Excluding down time, the time necessary to place, wet, and compact each lift of the upper zone averaged about 1 hour and 12 minutes. This equates to about 162 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. In a 10 hour shift, about 6.5 hours of work can be performed. About 80% or 5.2 hours per shift could be expected to be worked accounting for equipment down time and support work. Assuming the 5.2 hours per shift and the rates determined above, the time necessary to construct a WPC in an intake drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 20 feet wide, would be about 36 shifts and in an exhaust drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 14 feet wide, would be about 25 shifts. The preceding construction time estimate does not include time necessary for moisture/density testing. For each set of tests, an additional 2 to 4 hours should be added to the total construction time. 4.4. SC ENARIO 2 The test parameters for Scenario 2 were as follow s . No water was added to the ROM salt. Six lifts of the lower zone were compacted by the wa lk
- behind roller compactor and four lifts of the lower zone were compacted by the LHD. The lifts of the upper zone were compacted using the Fletcher with the push
- plate attachment
. Figure 1 shows the configuration of Scenario 2 in relation to the other two scenario test areas. The lower zone was approximately 33 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 4 feet thick. The upper zone was approximately 39 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 8.5 feet high. The slope angle on the upper zone was about 30 degrees after compaction of each lift. 4.4.1. LOWER ZONE The ramp that was constructed to aid in the placement and comp action of the Scenario 1 ROM salt was removed prior to placement of the Scenario 2 lower lifts. The lower lifts were constructed using the LHD to place the ROM salt in horizontal lifts of about 6 inches thick. The LHD used had a capacity of 3.6 cubic yards of ROM salt per bucket and three buckets were required to get the lift thickness of 6 inches. As with Scenario 1, the LHD could not provide an adequately uniform lift thickness, so the skid
- steer loader was used to even out the lifts. The placement of each lift took an average of 38 minutes. The placement of the lower lifts for

## Page 14 of 

## 25 Scenario 2 took less time than in Scenario 1 because the length of the lower lift for Scenario 2 is about half that of Scenario 1 , no water was added and operator proficiency was improved. A walk
- behind steel wheel vibratory roller compactor was used to compact the first six lifts of the lower zone. The compactor used was the same one used for Scenario 1 and the data on the compactor are contained in Appendix G. The last four lifts of the lower zone were compacted using the LHD. The LHD bucket was empty during compaction of two lifts and full during compaction of two lifts. The full LHD bucket adds about 4.3 tons to the weight of the LHD. Using either the compactor or LHD, six compaction passes were made on each lift. The compaction passes were started at one rib and the compactor/LHD was run the length of the lift and back in the same path then shifted about one foot and run the length and back again. This sequence was rep eated until the opposite rib was reached. Each set of two compaction passes averaged about 8 minutes and a set of six averaged about 25 minutes. Using either the walk
- behind roller compactor or the LHD, the compaction times were comparable. The compacti on times are less for Scenario 2, because the length of the lift is about half that of Scenario 1. Moisture/density testing was performed on selected lifts after two, four and six compaction passes. Density testing of the lower zone was performed in acc ordance with ASTM standard for nuclear methods (ASTM D

- 6938). The sand

- cone method for determining density could not be used because the walls of the hole dug for the sand
- cone test would collapse under the base plate. Four density tests were made after each set of two compaction passes. Generally, two tests were made along the centerline of the drift and two were made between the centerline of the drift and the rib. All four tests were performed on the middle third of the lifts length. Moisture sampl es were taken per ASTM D
- 2216 near the location of each of the density tests. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination. Information on placement, compaction and moisture/density testing on the lower zone, is contained in Appendix B
- 2, Appendix D
- 2 and Appendix F -2 . T able 4 summarizes the results from the lower zone.

## Page 15 of 

## 25 Table 4 - Scenario 2 Lower Zone Moisture/Density Roller Compactor

Average Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction Passes Moisture % Dry Density% * 98.0 2 0.4 74.6 73.5 4 0.4 75.5 100.2 6 0.4 74.7 LHD - Empty B ucket

Average Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction Passes Moisture % Dry Density% * 93.5 2 0.1 73.8 93.5 4 0.0 73.0 83.1 6 0.3 74.9 LHD – full bucket

Average Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction Passes Moisture % Dry Density% * 95.0 2 0.4 72.5 83.1 4 0.4 75.0 95.0 6 0.4 75.3 * Density reported as a percentage of the in

- situ density of salt The results show that using either the roller compactor or LHD with loaded bucket, the achievable dry density was about 75% after four compaction passes. After six compaction passes, the LHD with an empty bucket was able to achieve an average dry density of just under 75%. The actual densities achieved for the lower zone were significantly less than the proposed value of 85%. The average compactor speed is lower in Scenario 2 than in Scenario 1. This is likely attributable to the shorter length of the S cenario 2 lifts. The proportion of time repositioning the compactor is greater relative to the time to travel the length of the lift.

## Page 16 of 

## 25 The height of the lower zone was determined by the operational clearance needed for the LHD. The height of the LHD to t he top of the cab is about 7.5 feet, so an operational clearance of 8.5 feet was maintained. The available operational clearance set the upper zone to 8.5 feet high and the lower zone to the difference from the total drift height. The height of the drift in the test area was 12.5 feet. In order to maintain the operational clearance, the thickness of the lower zone was about 4 feet. 4.4.2. UPPER ZONE The upper zone was constructed using the LHD to place ROM salt, the Fletcher, with the push
plate attachment , was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back and compact the material. The upper zone of Scenario I was used as the back
- stop for the upper zone of Scenario 2 . The lifts of the upper zone were placed on a slope of about 30 degrees. This slope matches that of the upper zone of Scenario 1. The LHD placed two buckets per lift. This resulted in a lift thickness of about 12 inches. The LHD could place the material to within about 18 to 24 inches of the back. An average of about 13 minutes was needed t o place the ROM salt on each lift. This time is similar to that of Scenarios 1 and the upper zone dimensions for both scenarios are similar. The Fletcher with the push
- plate was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back usually starting along the left rib and working to the right. Compaction of the upper zone lifts usually started in the upper left hand corner and worked across to the opposite rib by moving the plate about a foot, half of the plate width, each time. When the opposite rib was reached t he plate would be moved back to the left rib and down about a foot and worked to the opposite rib. This cycle was followed until the bottom of the lift was compacted. Figure 4 shows the push
- plate attachment for the Fletcher and Figure 5 s hows the compac tion of a lift of the upper zone. The upper zone lifts were compacted using the Fletcher’s boom extension to push the push
plate into the slope. The push plate was not vibrated during compaction because of the adverse effects it had on the compaction of the Scenario 1 upper zone lifts. Pushing up and compacting the lifts of the upper zone averaged about 43 minutes. Improved operator proficiency reduced the average compaction time in Scenario 2 from that of Scenario 1. Only one compaction pass was performed per lift. Additional compaction passes would not be operationally practical due to the time necessary to perform each pass. Moisture/density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear methods (ASTM D

- 6938). As with the low er zone, the sand
- cone method for determining density could not be used because the walls of the test hole would collapse under the base plate. Six density tests were made on selected lifts. Generally two tests were made about 3 feet down from the back of the drift, two tests were made about 5 feet down from the back and

## Page 17 of 

## 25 two tests were made about 7 feet down from the back. The nuclear density tests varied from a few feet from the ribs to near the drift centerline. Moisture samples were taken in accordan ce with ASTM D
- 2216 at each nuclear density test. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination. Appendix C
- 2, Appendix E
- 2 and Appendix F
- 2 contain information on placement, compaction and testing of the upper zone. The average dry density achieved was 62.5% of the in
- situ density of salt
. Table 5 summarizes the results of the Scenario 2 upper zone. Table 5 - Scenario 2 Upper Zone Moisture/Density
Moisture % Dry Density % * Upper Zone Lifts Average 0.4 62.5

Distance from Back of Drift Moisture % Dry Density % * 3 feet 0.4 62.9 5 feet 0.5 63.1 7 feet 0.3 61.5 * Density reported as a percentage of the in

- situ density of salt The results show that the average achievable dry density on the upper zone is about 62.5% after one compaction pass. The dry density does vary by the position in the upper zone. The middle has the highest density at 63.1%. The lowest density is near the bottom of the zone at 61.5%. Close to the back the average was 62.9%. The propos ed design called for 80% density in the lower half of the upper zone and 70% in the upper half of the upper zone. The actual average density achieved did not meet the proposed density. 4.4.3. CONSTRUCTION TIME The crew used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone of Scenario 2 consisted of two qualified miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. As part of the construction methods assessment, each process to construct the lower and upper zones was documented and the data collected can be found in Appendix F
- 2. Excluding down time, the time necessary to place and compact each lift of the lower zone averaged about 1

## Page 18 of 

## 25 hour and 2 minutes. This equates to about 283 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. Excluding down t ime, the time necessary to place and compact each lift of the upper zone averaged about 49 minutes. This equates to about 239 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. In a 10 hour shift, about 6.5 hours of work can be performed. About 80% or 5.2 hours p er shift could be expected to be worked accounting for equipment down time and support work. Assuming the 5.2 hours per shift and the rates determined above, the time necessary to construct a WPC in an intake drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 20 feet wid e, would be about 24 shifts and in an exhaust drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 14 feet wide, would be about 18 shifts. The preceding construction time estimate does not include time necessary for moisture/density testing. For each set of tests, an addit ional 2 to 4 hours should be added to the total construction time. 4.5. SCENARIO 3 The test parameters for Scenario 3 were as follow. An LHD was used to emplace ROM salt and the Fletcher with the push
- plate attachment was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back. Figure 1 shows the configuration of the test area and the relation to the other two scenarios
. The zone was approximately 44 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 12.5 feet high. The upper (back) portion of the zone was approximately 37 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 12.5 feet high. The slope angle on the zone was about 35 degrees after each lift was pushed tight to the back
. 4.5.1. ROM SALT PLACEMENT An LHD was used to emplace buckets of ROM salt as high as possible
. A t ypically lift was construct ed with the LHD plac ing four buckets of ROM salt and then push ing the ROM salt to within 18 to 24 inches of the back. The LHD that was used had a bucket capacity of 3.6 cubic yards. After the LHD had placed the ROM salt for each lift, the Fletcher with the push
- plate attachment was use to push the ROM salt tight to the back. But i t was apparent after the first buckets were emplaced that the Fletcher could not effectively reach the back from the original floor . To reduce the distance the Fletcher had to reach the back, two to three feet of ROM salt was placed to build up the floor. Initially s even buckets were placed on the floor and later two to four buckets were emplaced as needed to allow the Fletcher to maintain the height neede d to reach the back. The Fletcher was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back usually starting along the left rib and working to the right. Most of the time this was done with one pass across the face. If the slope became steeper, then two passes were made to keep the salt from sliding down the slope. The placement of each lift took an average of 30 minutes.

## Page 19 of 

## 25 Field testing of the zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear methods (ASTM D

- 6938). Six density tests were made using th e nuclear method. Generally two tests were made about 3 feet down from the back of the drift, two tests were made about 5 feet down from the back and two tests were made about 8 feet down from the back. The nuclear density tests varied from a few feet fr om the ribs to near the drift centerline. Moisture samples were taken at each nuclear density test. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination. The sand
- cone method for determining density could not be used because the w alls of the hole dug for the sand
- cone test would collapse under the base plate. Information on placement and moisture/density testing on the zone is contained in Appendix C

3 , Appendix E -3 and Appendix F -3 . Table 6 summ arizes the results from the Scenar io 3 lifts
. Table 6 - Scenario 3 Moisture /Density by Position in the Lift Distance from Back of Drift Moisture % Dry Density % * 3 feet 0.5 66.5 5 feet 0.4 68.0 8 feet 0.4 66.0 * Density reported as a percentage of the in

- situ density of salt The results show that the a verage achievable dry density was 66.8%. The dry density does vary by the position on the lift. The middle has the highest density at 68.0% and surprisingly the lowest is close to the bottom of the zone at 66.0%. Close to the back the average was 66.5%. 4.5.2. CONSTRUCTION TIME The crew, used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone, consisted of two qualified miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift for five days. As part of the construction methods asses sment, each construction process was documented and the data collected can be found in Appendix F -3 . The time necessary to emplace and push up each lift of the zone averaged 30 minutes. This equates to about 690 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. In a 10 hour shift, about 6.5 hours are available for work to be performed. About 80% of the available time, or 5.2 hours per shift, could be expected to be used for actual work. This would account for equipment down time and support work. Assuming the 5.2 hours per shift and the rate determined above, the time necessary to construct a WPC in an intake drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 20 feet wide, would be about 9 shifts. The time necessary to construct a WPC in the exhaust drift, that is 12.5 feet h igh and 14 feet wide, would be about 6 shifts. This time

## Page 20 of 

## 25 estimate does not include time necessary to perform moisture/density testing. For each set of tests, an additional 2 to 4 hours should be added to the total construction time.

5. REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Underground Facilities and Equipment, System Design Description, SDD AU00. 2. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Shaft Sealing System Compliance Submittal Design Report, SAND96
- 1326/1. 3. U.S. Depart ment of Energ y, Waste Is olation Pilot Plant, Work Order Number 1202108C, Compacted Salt Evaluation. 4. U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plan t , Construction Methods Assessment for Compacted Salt Panel Closures Interim Report for Scenario 1 Testing.

## Page 21 of 

## 25 Figure 1 – Compacted Salt Test Area Plan and Cross SectionLower Zone6 inch lifts, compacted by rollerUpper ZoneLifts Placed on a slopecompacted by push plateUn-compactedROM SaltScenario 1Test AreaConfigurationBulkhead506Upper ZoneLifts Placed on a slopecompacted by push plateLower Zone6 inch lifts, compacted by rollerLifts Placed by LHDMaterial Pushed Tight toBack by Push-plateNo Compaction EffortSettling MonitorsSettling MonitorsSettling MonitorsScenario 2Test AreaConfigurationScenario 3Test AreaConfigurationScenario 11% Water AddedScenario 2No Water AddedScenario 3No Water Added & No Compaction S-3310

S-3650W-30Bulkhead506Plan View of Compacted Salt Test AreaCross Sectional View of the Compacted Salt Test Area

## Page 22 of 

## 25 Figure 2 ‐ LHD Placing ROM Salt on Lower Zone Lift

## Page 23 of 

## 25 Figure 3 ‐ Walk
‐ behind Roller Compactor Compacting Lower Zone Lift

## Page 24 of 

## 25 Figure 4 ‐ Fletcher with Push
‐ Plate Attachment

## Page 25 of 

## 25 Figure 5 ‐ Fletcher Compacting Upper Zone

# APPENDIX A

Appendix A Contains The Following; 1. Laboratory Test Reports for the Nuclear Density Testing and Sand
- Cone Testing Performed Prior To The Actual Field Testing 2. Laboratory Test Reports For the Sieve Analysis Performed On The ROM Salt Used For The Proctor Evaluation And On The ROM Salt Used For The Field Testing 3. Proctor Evaluation DataTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 1

SG2

SG3

SG4

SG5

SG6 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 5, 2012

Location On W. 30 Drift 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E.Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of 

### E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E. Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: See Below Dry Density % Max % Moisture 74.7 

# * 1.2

74.8 

# * 1.5

74.7 

# * 2.3

75.0 

# * 1.6

74.4 

# * 2.4

76.6 

# * 1.4 Depth 1st Lift Probe Depth 6"

1st Lift Probe Depth 6"

1st Lift Probe Depth 4"

1st Lift Probe Depth 4"

1st Lift Probe Depth 6"

1st Lift Probe Depth 6"

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Correction 21.6 Required Compaction: 85% Densometer ID: 5071 PEniGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 10870-10875 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG7

SG8

SG9

SG10

SG 11

SG 12 LABORATORYTESTREPORT 

# AI& PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 AASHTO R18 (575) 393-9827 DEBRAP. HICKS,P.E.IL.S.I.
Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 5, 2012

Location On W. 30 Drift 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30' Drift 70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30' Drift 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. Material: ROM Salt
Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: See Below

Dry Density



### Ofo Max 

### % Moisture 75.8 

# * 2.0

75.6 

# * 2.3

75.9 

# * 1.7

76.3 

# * 1.5

76.7 

# * 2.2

75.6 

# * 2.1 Depth 1st Lift Probe Depth 4"

1st Lift Probe Depth 5"

1st Lift Probe Depth 5"

1st Lift Probe Depth 6"

1st Lift Probe Depth 4"

1st Lift Probe Depth 4"

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 21.6 Required Compaction: 85% Densometer ID: 5071 PEniGREW & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 10876-10882 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

### .-----------------·---· ------·----·-----···-·------···-·-----··-

To: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG58

SG59 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 26, 2012

Location Old Salt Pile Not part of Closure
New Salt Pile Not part of Closure

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications; NO MOISTURE CORRECTION APPLIED.
Lab No.: 12 11877-11880 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 71.9 

# * 0.0 N/A

68.1 

# * -0.1 N/A

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections -9.7 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATESTo: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 100 E. Navajo Drive, Suite 100

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt 

# AI&

AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I WILLLAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Teat Method: ASTM: D 6938 Project:

Date of Teat:

Teat No. SG 166

SG 167 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 September 5, 2012

Location On Drift W-30 Stockpile on E. 140 N.Side
On Drift W-30 Stockpile on E. 140 on S.Side

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM 0: 1557 Required Compaction: 70-80%

• Does Not Meet Specifications



### Lab No.: 12 15893-15895 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 

### 6" Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 64.0. 0.6 3rd Region

62.5. 0.5 3rd Region

Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATESTo: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N
. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions , LLC 402 1 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P
. 0
. BOX 2078 HOBBS , NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material : ROM Salt AASHTO Rl& DEBRA P HICKS
. P F LSI WILLIAM M
. HI CKS Ill , P E. P S
.

Carlsbad , NM 8822 Test Method : ASTM : D 1556 Sand Cone Project:

Date of Test :

Test No
. 

## sc 1 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Test ing Project No
. 2012
. 1112 June 5, 2012

Location On W. 30 Drift 80'S
. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E
. Wall (Corr esponds to SG 4 )

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM 

### D 1557 Required Compaction: 85%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No .: 12 10883 Copies To : Washington TRU Solutions , LLC Depth : See Below Depth of Probe : N /A Dry Density

% Max % Moisture Depth 77
. 0 

# * 1
. 6 1st L1ft Depth 4 "

Optimum Moistur e: 0
. 0%
Densometer ID : N /A PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATESLABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240

To:

Project: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112

Date of Test: 5/22/2012

Screen Size 50.0 mm 2" 25.0mm 1" 19.0mm 3/4" 12.5mm 1/2" 9.5mm 3/8" 4.75mm #4 2.36mm #8 2.0mm #10 1.18 mm #16 6001Jm #30 4251Jm #40 3001Jm #50 180 IJm #80 1501Jm #100 751Jm #200 Moisture (%)

Delivered 5/18/2012

Lab No.: 12 10356 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC (575) 393-9827

%Passing 100 80 77 71 68 53 35 31 21 12 10 7 4 3 1.2 0.1 Type of Test:

Type of Material:

Location:

Test No: 

# AI&

AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate ASTM:C 136

ROM Salt

WIPP Site

SA-1 Required LimitsTo:

Project: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240
Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 (575) 393-9827 Type of Test: AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. lUCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. lUCKS. III, P.E.IP.S. Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate ASTM: C 136

Type of Material: Course ROM Salt

Date of Test: 5/22/2012

Screen Size 50.0mm 2" 25.0 mm 1" 19.0 mm 3/4" 12.5mm 1/2" 9.5mm 3/8" 4.75 mm #4 2.36 mm #8 2.0mm #10 1.18 mm #16 600 IJm #30 4251Jm #40 300 1-1m #50 180 1-1m #80 150 1-1m #100 751Jm #200 Moisture(%)

Delivered 5/18/2012

Lab No.: 12 10357 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Location: WIPP Site

Test No: SA-2 %Passing Required Limits 100 82 78 68 57 29 13 11 6 4 3 3 2 2 0.7 0.1To:

Project: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240
Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 (575) 393-9827 Type of Test: AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.l. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate ASTM: C 136

Type of Material: Course ROM Salt

Date of Test: 5/22/2012

Screen Size 50.0 mm 2" 25.0 mm 1" 19.0 mm 3/4" 12.5 mm 1/2" 9.5mm 3/8" 4.75 mm #4 2.36mm #8 2.0mm #10 1.18 mm #16 600 1-1m #30 4251Jm #40 300 )Jm #50 180 1-1m #80 150 1-1m #100 751Jm #200 Moisture(%)

Delivered 5/18/2012

Lab No.: Copies To: 12 10358-10359 Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Location: WIPPSite

Test No: SA-3 %Passing Required Limits 100 98 95 90 85 67 45 41 29 18 14 11 7 5 2.0 0.0

### -------------------- -------------- ---------------- -

To:

Project: LA BORA TORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221
Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 (575) 393-9827 Type of Test: AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. ffiCKS. III, P.E./P.S. Materials Finer than #200 Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing ASTM: C 117 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate ASTM: C 136

Type of Material: ROM Salt

Date of Test: 6/19/2012

Screen Size
75.0mm 3" 63.0mm 2Y." SO.Omm 2" 37.5mm 1Y." 31.5 mm 1Y." 25.0mm 1" 19.0 mm 3/4" 12.5mm 1/2" 9.5mm 3/8" 4.75mm #4 2.0mm #10 4251Jm #40 180 1-1m #80 751Jm #200 Moisture (%)
Sampled and Delivered 6/18/2012

Lab No.: 1211226-11227 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC %Passing
91 85 82 80 78 76 74 71 67 52 32 13 7 3.1 0.0 Location:

Test No: Wipp Site Underground from Stockpile

SA-4 Required Limits

### 6 inch mold 6 inch mold 4 inch mold 21
‐ May 23
‐ May 22
‐ May %Mst. Dry Density %Mst. Dry Density %Mst. Dry Density

0.1 78.1 1.4 78.1 0.7 77.6 0.4 77 1.8 79.9 1.9 78.1 0.9 79 2.2 79.6 2.7 78.2 1.3 78.4 2.6 79.3 3.6 78.3 1 8 78 6 3 1 79 6 4 7 77 8 76.0 77.0 78.0 79.0 80.0 81.0 82.0 83.0 84.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Compaction(%)



### Mst (%) 

# Comparison Data

21
‐ May 23
‐ May 22
‐ May



### 1.8 78.6 3.1 79.6 4.7 77.8 1.9 83.8 3.5 79.6 5.6 77.9 2.5 82.5 4 80.8 6.5 79.9 2.8 79 4.1 80.7 7.1 79.9 3 83.4 4.5 80.1 8 79.8 3.4 77.5 8.5 79.7 3.6 79.2 9.1 76.6 4.2 79.9 4.1 80.6

# APPENDIX B -1

Appendix B – 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1; 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – Lower Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – Lower Zone Lift Testing Results

### Lower Zone

Scenario: 1 Test Region 1 ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 1
Date Lift # LHD # Buckets Placed Total cuyd

placed Time Water

Applied (min.) Water Applied

approx (gal.) Moisture

sample# or % 6/4/2012 1 002C 7.5 27 4 80 6/6/2012 2 002C 6 21.6 3:00 60 1.6% 6/7/2012 3 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 1.5% 6/11/2012 3 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 6/12/2012 4 002C 3.5 12.6 1:45 35 1.9% 6/12/2012 4 002C 2.5 9 1:20 26.7 6/13/2012 5 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 6/13/2012 5 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 6/14/2012 6 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 6/14/2012 6 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 6/14/2012 7 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 0.3% 6/14/2012 7 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B Page 1 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor

Speed (ft/min) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density 6/5/2012 1 ROLLER 116.93 6 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.28 2 4.5 36 SG14 73.3 2.2 71.8 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.28 2 4.5 45 SG13 73.6 1.2 74.2 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.25 2 13 37 SG15 75.9 1.2 74.4 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.28 2 12.5 44 SG16 77.3 2.1 75.6 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 8.25 43 SG17 77.6 2 76.1 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 8 34.5 SG18 76.8 1.2 75.9 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 12.5 36 SG19 73.9 1.2 72.9 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 12.5 46 SG20 77 1.7 75.8 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 8 41 SG21 77.3 2.3 75.6 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 7.9 33.9 SG22 75.9 1.1 75 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 11.7 46.4 SG23 78.1 1.5 76.7 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B Page 2 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor

Speed (ft/min) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density 6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 13.5 37 SG24 76.3 1.5 75 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 5.5 35.8 SG25 74.4 1.2 74.4 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 5.5 32.8 SG26 76.1 2.8 74.1 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 11.75 34 SG27 74.2 1.3 73.1 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 11.75 42.5 SG28 74 0.7 73.3 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 6.5 41 SG29 74.6 1.9 73.2 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 5.5 31.5 SG30 76.1 1.7 74.7 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 11.5 33 SG31 73.3 1.2 72.4 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 13.5 43 SG32 75.9 0.7 75.3 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 6.5 31 SG34 77.4 2.2 75.9 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 6.5 40 SG33 77.4 1.6 76.3 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 13.5 31 SG35 74.1 1.2 73 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B Page 3 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor

Speed (ft/min) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density 6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 13.75 41 SG36 74.3 1.1 73.5 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 6.25 40.75 SG37 76.2 1.7 74.9 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 6.33 32 SG38 77.4 1.7 76.1 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 13.5 32 SG39 75 1.7 73.8 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 13.3 40.67 SG40 74 1.7 73.6 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 6 41.25 SG41 76.1 2.1 74.3 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 6.3 32 SG42 75.3 2.1 73.7 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 11 32 SG43 76.9 2.1 75.3 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 10.5 41.75 SG44 76.6 2.7 74.7 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.61 6 7.5 40 SG45 77.1 2.7 75.1 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.61 6 7.5 33 SG46 78.3 2.6 76.3 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.61 6 13 33 SG47 76.3 2.7 74.3

### Lower Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B Page 4 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor

Speed (ft/min) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density 6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.91 6 13 41 SG48 76.2 2.7 74.1 6/18/2012 7 ROLLER 132.28 6 2.5 35 SG49 73 0.4 73.3 6/18/2012 7 ROLLER 132.28 6 8 35 SG50 74 0.3 73.6 6/18/2012 7 ROLLER 132.28 6 13 35 SG51 74.8 0.3 74.5

# APPENDIX B – 2

Appendix B – 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2; 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – Lower Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – Lower Zone Lift Testing Results

### Lower Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 1

Date Lift # LHD # Buckets Placed Total cuyd placed Time Water Applied (min.) Water Applied approx (gal.) Moisture sample# or % 7/24/2012 1 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/24/2012 2 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/24/2012 3 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/24/2012 4 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/25/2012 5 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/26/2012 6 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/26/2012 7 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/26/2012 8 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/30/2012 9 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A 7/30/2012 10 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B Page 1 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample Number Moisture % Density 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 8 13 SG85 0.3 75.0 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 8 7 SG86 0.3 73.3 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 13.5 8.5 SG87 0.3 74.6 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 13.5 15 SG88 0.3 76.1 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 8.5 10.5 SG89 0.4 77.8 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 8.5 6 SG90 0 75.9 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 13.5 9 SG91 0.2 72.6 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 13.5 16 SG92 0.3 76.4 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 8 12 SG93 0.4 74.9 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 6.5 6 SG94 0.3 73.9 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 12.5 8 SG95 0.3 75.1 7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 14 13.5 SG96 0.2 76.7 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B Page 2 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample Number Moisture % Density 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 6.5 14 SG97 0.6 75.3 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 6.5 9 SG98 0.3 73.0 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 8 12 SG99 0.5 74.1 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 15 12.5 SG100 0.4 75.0 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 8.5 15 SG101 0.5 78.3 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 8.5 7 SG102 0.5 75.0 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 12.5 9.5 SG103 0.5 75.1 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 13 16 SG104 0.5 73.0 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 8 12.5 SG105 0.5 74.7 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 9 4.5 SG106 0.5 71.5 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 14 7 SG107 0.5 74.0 7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 14 14 SG108 0.4 76.6 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B Page 3 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample Number Moisture % Density 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 7.5 15 SG109 0 74.7 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 7 6.5 SG110 0.1 73.1 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 12.5 7 SG111 0.1 72.6 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 12 14.5 SG112 0 74.6 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 8.5 14 SG113 0 76.6 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 8.5 5.5 SG114 0.1 68.4 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 13.5 6 SG115 0 72.4 7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 13.5 14 SG116 0 74.5 7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 8 13 SG117 0 77.2 7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 7 5 SG118 0 75.5 7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 13.5 5.5 SG119 0.4 72.0 7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 11.5 13.5 SG120 0.7 75.0 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Lower Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B Page 4 of 4

Date Lift # Compactor Type Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance off North Area Boundary (ft) Sample Number Moisture % Density 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 6.5 14 SG121 0.3 74.1 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 7.5 4.5 SG122 0.3 72.5 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 12 6.5 SG123 0.4 70.1 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 12 14 SG124 0.4 73.3 7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 7 12.5 SG125 0.4 76.4 7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 7 3.5 SG126 0.3 74.1 7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 12 4.5 SG127 0.5 73.8 7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 12 12 SG128 0.5 75.7 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 8.5 13 SG129 0.4 78.1 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 6 5.5 SG130 0.3 72.1 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 11 6 SG131 0.4 73.9 7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 11 13.5 SG132 0.4 76.9 Attachment to WO#1202108C

# APPENDIX C -1

Appendix C - 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1; 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

### Upper Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 3
Date Staged

Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd

staged Water Applied

approx (gal.) Time Water

Applied (min.) Moisture

sample# or % 6/21/2012 1 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/25/2012 2 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/25/2012 3 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 1.3% 6/26/2012 4 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/27/2012 5 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/27/2012 6 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/28/2012 7 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 0.8% 7/2/2012 8 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/2/2012 9 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/2/2012 10 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/9/2012 11 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/9/2012 12 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone

Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1 ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 3
Date Staged

Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd

staged Water Applied

approx (gal.) Time Water

Applied (min.) Moisture

sample# or % 7/9/2012 13 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 1.10% 7/9/2012 14 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/11/2012 15 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/11/2012 16 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/12/2012 17 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/12/2012 18 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/12/2012 19 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 1.60% 7/16/2012 20 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/17/2012 21 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/17/2012 22 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/17/2012 23 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 7/17/2012 24 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone

Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1 ATTACHMENT C Page 3 of 3
Date Staged

Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd

staged Water Applied

approx (gal.) Time Water

Applied (min.) Moisture

sample# or % 6/17/2012 25 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/18/2012 26 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/18/2012 27 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/18/2012 28 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/19/2012 29 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/19/2012 30 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/19/2012 31 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 6/19/2012 32 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region: 1 ATTACHMENT D Page 1 of 3

Date Lift # Staged

Batch # LHD# Buckets

Placed Plate

Impact Time (sec) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample

Number Wet

Density Moisture

% Dry

Density 6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 3 3 SG52 59.7 0.9 58.4 6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 7 2.75 SG53 63.2 1.6 62.1 6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 11 3 SG54 68.8 0.7 68.3 6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 3.5 4.75 SG55 61.5 2 60.1 6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 7 4.75 SG56 64.6 1.2 63.9 6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 10 4.5 SG57 62.1 1.4 61.2 6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 5 8 SG60 64.4 0.6 64.1 6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 12 8 SG61 61 1 60.4 6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 6 6 SG62 67.4 0.8 66.8 6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 15 6 SG63 65.6 0.7 65.1 6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 8 4 SG64 63.4 0.9 62.8 6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 6 4 SG65 67.6 1 66.8 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT D Page 2 of 3

Date Lift # Staged

Batch # LHD# Buckets

Placed Plate

Impact Time (sec) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample

Number Wet

Density Moisture

% Dry

Density 7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 3 6.5 SG66 70.4 1.7 68.7 7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 8.5 5 SG67 73.9 1.7 72.9 7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 2.5 5 SG68 71.9 0.9 71.3 7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 12.5 4 SG69 70.9 0.4 70.5 7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 3.5 2.75 SG70 67.7 0.6 67.3 7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 10 2.5 SG71 67.1 1.5 66 7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 4.5 7 SG72 55.5 1.7 55 7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 11.5 7 SG73 62.5 2.2 61.1 7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 5.5 5 SG74 62.3 1.7 61 7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 14.5 5 SG75 60.4 0.7 59.9 7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 4 3.5 SG76 61.4 1.8 60.1 7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 11.5 3 SG77 66.4 1.6 66.4 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone

Scenario:1 Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT D Page 3 of 3

Date Lift # Staged

Batch # LHD# Buckets

Placed Plate

Impact Time (sec) Cumulative

Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample

Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample

Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample

Number Wet

Density Moisture

% Dry Density 7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 4 7.5 SG79 59.6 2.1 57.9 7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 12 6.5 SG80 56.3 2.2 54.7 7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 405 4 SG81 65.3 0.6 64.6 7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 13 4 SG82 61 1.1 60.3 7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 4 2 SG83 61.7 1.1 61 7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 11 2 SG84 61.2 0.7 60.7

Attachment to WO#1202108C

# APPENDIX C – 2

Appendix C - 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2; 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

### Upper Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 4

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 8/8/2012 1 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/8/2012 2 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/8/2012 3 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/9/2012 4 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/9/2012 5 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/9/2012 6 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/9/2012 7 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/13/2012 8 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/13/2012 9 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/13/2012 10 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/14/2012 11 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/14/2012 12 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 4

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 8/15/2012 13 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/15/2012 14 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/15/2012 15 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/15/2012 16 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/15/2012 17 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/16/2012 18 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/16/2012 19 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/20/2012 20 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/20/2012 21 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/20/2012 22 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/20/2012 23 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C Page 3 of 4

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 8/21/2012 24 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/21/2012 25 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/21/2012 26 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/21/2012 27 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/22/2012 28 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/22/2012 29 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/22/2012 30 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/23/2012 31 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/23/2012 32 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/23/2012 33 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/23/2012 34 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/23/2012 35 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/23/2012 36 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C Page 4 of 4

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 8/24/2012 37 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/24/2012 38 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/24/2012 39 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A 8/24/2012 40 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT D Page 1 of 2

Date Lift # Staged Batch # LHD# Buckets Placed Plate Impact Time (sec) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample Number Moisture % Density % 8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 3.5 6 SG136 0.3 65.1 8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 11 7 SG137 0.4 66.5 8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 6 4.5 SG138 0.4 64.7 8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 13 4 SG139 0.4 65.3 8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 3 3 SG140 0.4 63.6 8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 10 3 SG141 0.4 62.1 8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 3 7.5 SG142 0.3 55.1 8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 14 8 SG143 0.4 59.0 8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 5 5.5 SG144 0.4 61.3 8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 12 5 SG145 0.4 63.7 8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 3 3 SG146 0.4 63.6 8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 14 3 SG147 0.4 58.8 Attachment to WO#1202108C

### Upper Zone Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT D Page 2 of 2

Date Lift # Staged Batch # LHD# Buckets Placed Plate Impact Time (sec) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample Number Moisture % Density % 8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 2 8 SG148 0.4 60.8 8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 12 7.5 SG149 0.3 61.7 8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 5 5 SG150 0.6 61.1 8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 12 4 SG151 0.5 63.1 8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 5 3 SG152 0.5 64.1 8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 12 2.5 SG153 0.4 63.6 8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 2 7.5 SG154 0.3 61.7 8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 13 8 SG155 0.2 62.1 8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 4 5.5 SG156 0.4 61.3 8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 13 5.5 SG157 0.5 64.2 8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 4 2. 5 SG 158 0.4 65.3 8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 13 2.5 SG159 0.3 62.1 Attachment to WO#1202108C

# APPENDIX C -3

Appendix C - 3 Contains The Following From Scenario 3; 1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – ROM Salt Placement Information 2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – ROM Salt Placement Information

## Scenario: 3 Test Region: 3 ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 3

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 9/4/2012 1 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/4/2012 2 002C 9 32.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/5/2012 3 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/5/2012 4 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/5/2012 5 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/5/2012 6 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/5/2012 7 002C 6 21.6 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 8 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 9 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 10 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 11 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 12 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A Attachment to WO#1202108C

## Scenario: 3 Test Region: 3 ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 3

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 9/6/2012 13 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 14 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 15 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 16 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 17 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/7/2012 18 138 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/7/2012 19 138 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/7/2012 20 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/7/2012 21 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 22 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 23 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/6/2012 24 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A Attachment to WO#1202108C

## Scenario: 3 Test Region: 3 ATTACHMENT C Page 3 of 3

Date Staged Batch # LHD # Buckets Staged Total cuyd staged Water Applied approx (gal.) Time Water Applied (min.) Moisture sample# or % 9/7/2012 25 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/7/2012 26 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/8/2012 27 138 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A 9/8/2012 28 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 9/8/2012 29 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

### ATTACHMENT D

Date Lift # Staged Batch # LHD# Buckets Placed Plate Impact Time (sec) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density 9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 3' 8' SG160 64.8 0.4 64.5 9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 12' 8'6" SG161 63.3 0.3 63.1 9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 3' 4'6" SG162 68.4 0.5 68.1 9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 14' 4'6" SG163 67.9 0.5 67.6 9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 6' 3' SG164 65.2 0.5 64.8 9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 13' 3' SG165 65.1 0.5 64.7 9/5/2012 Stock Pile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E140 North End SG166 64.5 0.6 64.0 9/5/2012 Stock Pile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E140 South End SG167 63.1 0.5 62.5 Scenario:____3



## Attachment to WO#1202108C Page 1 of 2 Test Region:__3

### ATTACHMENT D

Date Lift # Staged Batch # LHD# Buckets Placed Plate Impact Time (sec) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Sample Location Distance off West Rib (ft) Sample Locaton Distance from Back (ft) Sample Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density 9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 2'8" 9'7" SG168 58.9 0.3 61.6 9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 13' 8'10" SG169 65.8 0.4 65.6 9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 3' 5'1" SG170 65.3 0.4 65.1 9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 14'6" 6' SG171 63.5 0.4 63.3 9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 2'10" 3'2" SG172 67.1 0.4 66.9 9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 13'4" 3'7" SG173 63.2 0.4 63.0 9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 6'6" 8' SG174 69.7 0.3 71.7 9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 13'6" 8'6" SG175 68.9 0.4 69.6 9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 4' 5'6" SG176 71.1 0.4 71.0 9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 10' 6' SG177 72.9 0.3 73.0 9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 6' 3' SG178 70.4 0.4 70.1 9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 12' 3' SG179 69.4 0.5 69.2 

## Attachment to WO#1202108C Scenario: 3 Page 2 of 2 Test Region: 3

# APPENDIX D – 1

Appendix D - 1 Contai ns The Following From Scenario 1 ; 1. T able 1, Comparison Of Nuclear Density Sampling And Sand Cone Sampling At Corresponding Locations 2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Lower Zone 3. The Laboratory Test R eports For The Sand
- Cone Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Lower Zone

# Comparison of Nuclear Density Sampling and Sand Cone Sampling At Corresponding Locations

Lower Zone
SG Number Density Moisture * SC Number Density Moisture * SG16 75.6 2.1 SC2 77.9 1.2 SG19 72.9 1.2 SC3 72.0 1.2 SG22 75.0 1.1 SC4 74.1 1.1 SG28 73.3 0.7 SC5 75.7 1.6 Average 74. 2 1.3 74.9 1.3 Upper Zone
SG Number Density Moisture * SC Number Density Moisture * SG53 62.1 1.6 SC6 67.5 1.5 SG60 64.1 0.6 SC7 65.0 0.6 SG67 72.9 1.7 SC10 76.4 1.7 SG69 70.5 0.4 SC11 70.2 0.4 SG71 66.0 1.5 SC12 67.6 1.5 SG79 56.4 2.1 SC13 67.9 2.1 SG81 64.6 0.6 SC14 62.1 0.6 Average 65. 2 1. 2 68.1 1. 2 *Moisture determination by ASTM D2216 Table 1

### ,---------------------------- lABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. ill, P.E./P.S.
To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Material: ROM Salt

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 13

SG 14

SG 15

SG 16

SG 17

SG 18 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 7, 2012

Location On W. 30 Drift 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall
Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 85%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 1 0884-1 0889 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 74.2 

# * 1.2 2nd lift

71.8 

# * 2.2 2nd Lift

74.4 

# * 1.2 2nd Lift

75.6 

# * 2.1 2nd Lift

76.1 

# * 2.0 2nd Lift

75.9 

# * 1.2 2nd Lift
Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trech Corrections 19.7 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATESLABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WilliAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.
To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 Material: ROM Salt

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 19

SG20

SG21

SG22

SG23

SG24 Carlsbad, NM 8822 lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 7, 2012

Location On W. 30 Drift 70' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E.Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E.Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80'S. and 10' W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 70'S. and 10' W. of E. Wall
On 

### W. 30 Drift 70'S. and 5' 

### W. of E. Wall
On W. 30 Drift 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E.Wall
Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 85% 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 1 0890-1 0896 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 72.9 

# * 1.2 2nd Lift

75.8 

# * 1.7 2nd Lift

75.6 

# * 2.3 2nd Lift

75.0 

# * 1.1 2nd Lift

76.7 

# * 1.5 2nd Lift

75.0 

# * 1.5 2nd Lift
Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections 19.7 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES.-------------------------------------------------------- LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S. To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 Material: ROM Salt

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG25

SG26

SG27

SG28

SG29

SG30 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 11, 2012

Location On Drift W.30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 1 0' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W.30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 8' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W.30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11070-11075 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 74.4 

# * 1.2 3rd Lift

74.1 

# * 2.8 3rd Lift

73.1 

# * 1.3 3rd Lift

73.3 

# * 0.7 3rd Lift

73.2 

# * 1.9 3rd Lift

74.7 

# * 1.7 3rd Lift
Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections 11.9 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATESTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG31

SG32

SG33

SG34

SG35

SG36 

### ----------·----·------- -------------- ---- LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June11,2012

Location On Drift W.30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of 

### E. Wall
On Drift W.30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W.30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 9' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 9' W. of 

### E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of 

### E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 72.4 

# * 1.2 3rd Lift

75.3 

# * 0.7 3rd Lift

76.3 

# * 1.6 3rd Lift

75.9 

# * 2.2 3rd Lift

73.0 

# * 1.2 3rd Lift

73.5 

# * 1.1 3rd Lift

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/ST AT Trench Corrections 11.9 Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11076-11082 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo: --------------------------------- *Corrected Copy 7-11-12 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG37

SG38

SG39

SG40

SG41

SG42 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 13, 2012

Location On Drift W.30 80'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W.30 70'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W.30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall
On Drift W. 30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 1 0' W. of E. Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 74.9 

# * 1.7 4th Lift

76.1 

# * 1.7 4th Lift

73.8 

# * 1.7 4th Lift

73.6 

# * 1.7 4th Lift

74.3 

# * 2.1 4th Lift

73.7 

# * 2.1 4th Lift

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80% Densometer 10:
* Does Not Meet Specifications; 3 Moisture Samples taken Per TV; Moistures and Percent Maximum Dry Density were Corrected using Moistures from SG 37, 43 & 48.

Lab No.: 12 11084-11089 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

### ,-----------------------------------------------··--------------

---

To: •corrected Copy 7-11-12 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R1B DEBRAP. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG43

SG44

SG45

SG46

SG47

SG48 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 13, 2012

Location On Drift W.30 70'S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall
On DriftW.30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W.30 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall
On Drift W. 30 70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall
On DriftW. 30 70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 75.3 

# * 2.1 4th Lift

74.7 

# * 2.7 4th Lift

75.1 

# * 2.7 4th Lift

76.3 

# * 2.6 4th Lift

74.3 

# * 2.7 4th Lift

74.1 

# * 2.7 4th Lift

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID:

• Does Not Meet Specifications; 3 Moisture Samples taken Per TY; Moistures and Percent Maximum Dry Density were Corrected using Moistures from SG 37, 43 & 48.
Lab No.: 12 11090-11096 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 5071 PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES,---------------------------------------------- -- LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.l Wll..LIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.
To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Material: ROM Salt

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG49

SG50

SG 51 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 18, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' E. of W. Wall
On Drift W. 30 80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of 

### E. Wall
On Drift W.30 80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11261-11264 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 73.3 

# * 0.4 7th Lift

73.6 

# * 0.3 7th Lift

74.5 

# * 0.3 7th Lift

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections 7.8 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

### ------------------------------------------------------------- ··-- - --

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG78 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 13, 2012

Location Bottom Zone Depth: Depth of Probe:

Dry Density %Max 80.5 See Below
6"
%Moisture Depth 0.2 Top Zone Lift19

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -4.4 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12058 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

## ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --To : LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSO C I ATES , P.A
. 1110 N
. GRIMES

Wash 1 ngton TRU Solutions , LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P 0
. BOX 2078 HOBBS , NM 88240 ( 575 ) 393-9827

M ate rial : ROM Sa l t AASHTO Rl8 DEBRA P HICKS , P E L S I WILLIAM M HICKS Ill , P F P S

Car l sbad , NM 8822 Test M ethod: ASTM : D 1556 Sand Cone Proje ct:

Date of T est:

Test No
. SC2



## sc 3

SC4 Lab and F i eld Testing Serv i ces for Compacted Salt Testing Projec t N o . 2012
. 1112 June 7 , 2012

Location On W. 30 Drift 80 ' S
. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E.Wall ( Corresponds to SG 16 ) On W
. 30 Dr i ft 7 0 ' S
. of Bulkhead and 6 ' W. of E
. Wa ll ( Corresponds to SG 19 ) On W
. 30 Drift 70' S
. and 10 ' W. of E.Wall

( Corresponds to SG 22)

Control Den sity: 135
. 0 ASTM D 155 7 Required Compaction : 85 %

• Does Not Me e t Specifications
Lab N o .: 12 10897 Copies To : Washington TRU Solutions, LLC D e pth : See Below Depth of Probe : N /A Dry D ensity

% Max % Moisture 77. 9 

# * 1
. 2

7 2
. 0 

# * 1
. 2

7 4
. 1 

# * 1
. 1

Optimum M oistu r e: 0
. 0 %
D enso meter ID : N / A Depth 2 n d L 1 ft Dep t hS"

2 nd L 1ft D e pth 6 "

2 n d L1ft Depth S"

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATESTo :

Project :

Date of Test :

Test N o. SC5 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES , P.A
. 1110 N
. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions , LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P
. 0
. BOX 2078 HOBBS , NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material : ROM Salt AASHTO R1 8 DE BRA P HI C K S, P E 'L
. S I WILLIAM M HI C K S III , P E 1' S

Carlsbad , NM 8822 Test M e thod : ASTM : D 1556 Sand Cone lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project N o . 2012
. 1112 June 11, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 80' S
. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E
. Wall (Correspond s to SG 28) Depth : Depth of Probe : Dry Density

% M ax 75
. 7 See Below
N /A
% Moisture Depth 1
. 6 3rd Lit! DepthS "

Control Density : 135
. 0 Optimum Moistur e: 0
. 0 % ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction : 85 % Densomet e r ID : N / A PETIIGREW & ASSOCIATES

Lab No. : 12 11083 Copies To : Washington TRU Solutions , LLC

# APPENDIX D – 2

Appendix D – 2 Contai ns The Following From Scenario 2 ; 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Lower ZoneTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG85

SG86

SG87

SG88

SG89

SG90 

### -----·-------·----------------· LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: 

### D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 25, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W.Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 4' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 4' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' 

### E. ofW.Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W.Wall and 6' S. of Salt Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density % Max % Moisture 75.0 

# * 0.3

73.3 

# * 0.3

74.6 

# * 0.3

76.1 

# * 0.3

77.8 

# * 0.4

75.9 

# * 0.0 Depth 4th lift Bottom layer

4th lift Bottom layer

4th lift Bottom layer

4th lift Bottom layer

4th lift Bottom layer

4th lift Bottom layer
Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 12.1 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES



### Lab No.: 12 12612-12617 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC.----------·-----------·--------------··--······-··· .... 

## _

.......

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 91

SG92

SG93

SG94

SG95

SG96 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.L WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 25, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall and 6' S. of N. Wall
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 12' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. ofW.Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 4' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 4' from E. Wall and 15' S. of N.Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density

% Max % Moisture 72.6 

# * 0.2

76.4 

# * 0.3

74.9 

# * 0.4

73.9 

# * 0.3

75.1 

# * 0.3

76.7 

# * 0.2 Depth 4th Lift Bottom Layer

4th Lift Bottom Layer

4th Lift Bottom Layer

4th Lift Bottom Layer

4th Lift Bottom Layer

4th Lift Bottom Layer

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 12.1 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12618-12624 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC**,----·--~--------· ----··--·~-------·--·-----·---------··----~**  ·-------

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG97

SG98

SG99

SG 100

SG 101

SG 102 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.J. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 26, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W.30 5' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' S. of Salt Wall and 5' W. of E. Wall
On DriftW. 30 15' E. ofW. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On DriftW. 30 15' E. ofW. Wall and 6' S. of Salt Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density



### o/o Max 

### o/o Moisture Depth 75.3 

# * 0.6 On Bottom

73.0 

# * 0.3 On Bottom

74.1 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

75.0 

# * 0.4 On Bottom

78.3 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

75.0 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 12.1 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12625-12630 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

### ------------------·----------·---------···-··-·---·-----

....... -- -·-·. -

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 103

SG 104

SG 105

SG 106

SG 107

SG 108 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.l. WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 26, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift 

### W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W.30 15' E. ofW.Wall and 17' S. of Salt
On Drift 

### W. 30 15' E. ofW. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 75.1 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

73.0 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

74.7 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

71.5 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

74.0 

# * 0.5 On Bottom

76.6 

# * 0.4 On Bottom

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/ST AT Trench Corrections 12. 1 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12631-12637 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

### ,----------------------------·-----------------------------------

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 109

SG 110

SG 111

SG112

SG 113

SG 114 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 {575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. IJJ, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 30, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. ofW.Wall and 13' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. ofW. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: See Below Dry Density % Max % Moisture 74.7 

# * 0.0

73.1 

# * 0.1

72.6 

# * 0.1

74.6 

# * 0.0

76.6 

# * 0.0

68.4 

# * 0.1 Depth Probe of Depth 5" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 5" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 5" On Bottom
Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 6.3 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12848-12853 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

### ,--------------------------------------------------------------

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 115

SG 116

SG 117

SG 118

SG 119

SG 120 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P-E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 30, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30, 6' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 6' W. of E. Wal and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 6' E. ofW.Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 15' E. ofW.Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W.30 5' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 16' S. of Salt Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: See Below

Dry Density % Max % Moisture 72.4 

# * 0.0

74.5 

# * 0.0

77.2 

# * 0.0

75.5 

# * 0.0

72.0 

# * 0.4

75.0 

# * 0.7 Depth Probe of Depth 5" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 6" On Bottom

Probe of Depth 5" On Bottom

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 6.3 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES



### Lab No.: 12 12854-12860 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 

### 121

SG 

### 122

SG 

### 123

SG 

### 124

SG 

### 125

SG 

### 126 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

### 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 

### 2078 HOBBS, NM 

### 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAMM. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 

### 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 

### 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 

### 2012.1112 July 

### 31, 2012

Location On Drift W. 

### 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 

### 15' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 

### 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 8' W. of 

### E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 

### 8' W. of E. Wall and 

### 15' S.of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 15' E. ofW. Wall and 

### 16' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 15' 

### E. of W. Wall and 6' S. of Salt Wall Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density % Max % Moisture 

### 74.1 

# * 0.3

72.5 

# * 0.3

70.1 

# * 0.4

73.3 

# * 0.4

76.4 

# * 0.4

74.1 

# * 0.3 Depth On Bottom

1oth Lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

On Bottom

1oth Lift

Control Density: 

### 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 

### 0.0% ASTM D 

### 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 

### 5.1 Required Compaction: 

### 70-80% Densometer ID: 

### 5071 PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 

### 12 12832-12837 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC**~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ----To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 

### 127

SG 

### 128

SG 

### 129

SG 

### 130

SG 

### 131

SG 

### 132 

# _____ .. 

# _______________________________ ------------ ----

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

### 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 

### 2078 HOBBS, NM 

### 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. IDCKS. UI, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 

### 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 

### 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 

### 2012.1112 July 

### 31, 2012

Location On Drift W. 

### 30 8' S. of Salt Wall and 

### 6' W. of E. Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 15' S.of Salt Wall and 

### 6' W. of E.Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 15' E. ofW. Wall and 

### 15' S. of Salt Wall
On DriftW. 

### 30 15' E. of W. Wall and 

### 1 0' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 8' W. of E. Wall and 

### 10' S. of Salt Wall
On Drift W. 

### 30 15' S. of Salt Wall and 8' W. of E. Wall Depth: See Below Depth 

### of Probe: 

### 6"

Dry Density % Max % Moisture 

### 73.8 

# * 0.5

75.7 

# * 0.5

78.1 

# * 0.4

72.1 

# * 0.3

73.9 

# * 0.4

76.9 

# * 0.4 Depth On Bottom

10th lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

On Bottom

1Oth Lift

On Bottom

10th lift

On Bottom

1Oth Lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

Control Density: 

### 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 

### 0.0% ASTM D 

### 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 

### 5.1 Required Compaction: 

### 70-80% Densometer ID: 

### 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 

### 12 12838-12843 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

# APPENDIX E -1

Appendix E – 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1; 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Upper Zone 2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand
- Cone Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Upper Zone

### ,--------------------·-- .. 

### ·-·---------·-------------· -- - -- ---- -- -

To: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P
.. HICKS, P.E../LSJ
.. WILLIAM M
.. HICKS. III, P
.. E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG52

SG53

SG54 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 26, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 5' E. of 

### W. Wall; 4' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 10' E. ofW. Wall; 4' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall; 4' Below Back

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11871-11873 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 58.4 

# * 0.9 3rd Lift Upper Zone

62.1 

# * 1.6 3rd Lift Upper Zone

68.3 

# * 0.7 3rd Lift Upper Zone

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections -9.7 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATESLABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Material: ROM Salt

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG55

SG56

SG57 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 26, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 5' E. of W. Wall; 5'6" Below Back
On Drift W. 30 10' E. ofW. Wall; 5'6" Below Back
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall; 5'6" Below Back

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80%


### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11874-11876 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 60.1 

# * 2.0 3rd Lift Upper Zone

63.9 

# * 1.2 3rd Lift Upper Zone

61.2 

# * 1.4 3rd Lift Upper Zone

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections -9.7 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATESTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG60

SG61

SG62 

### ----------·---------------------------.-------··--- LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.SJ. WILLIAMM. IDCKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted .Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 29, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 5' 

### E. of W. Wall; On Bottom Step; 8' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 12' E. of W. Wall; On Bottom Step; 8' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 6' E. ofW. Wall; On Middle Step; 6' Below Back Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density



### o/o Max 

### o/o Moisture Depth 64.1 

# * 0.6 7th Lift; Top Zone

60.4 

# * 1.0 7th Lift; Top Zone

66.8 

# * 0.8 7th Lift; Top Zone

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -2.5 Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11882-11884 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

### ,-----------------·-----------·--·--------··-------·--·--·-------- --------------· LABORATORY TEST REPORT
. 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAMM. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.
To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Material: ROM Salt 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D6938 Project: lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 Date of Test: June 29, 2012 Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density Test No. Location %Max %Moisture Depth SG63 On Drift W. 30 65.1 

# * 0.7 7th Lift; Top Zone 15' E. ofW. Wall; On Middle Step; 6' Below Back
SG64 On Drift W. 30 62.8 

# * 0.9 7th Lift; Top Zone 6' E. of W. Wall; On Top Step; 4' Below Back
SG65 On Drift W. 30 66.8 

# * 1.0 7th Lift; Top Zone 6' W. of E. Wall; On Top Step; 4' Below Back

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -2.5 Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETIIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 11885-11889 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo: 

### --- --------------·--------------------·-----------------

- LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG66

SG67

SG68

SG69

SG70

SG71 lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 10, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 5' E. of W. Wall and 5' Below Back
On DriftW. 30 12' E. of W. Wall and 5' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 4' E. of W. Wall and 4' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 10' E. ofW. Wall and 4' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall and 3' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 10' E. ofW. Wall and 3' Below Back

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80% Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density % Max % Moisture 68.7 

# * 1.7

72.9 

# * 1.7

71.3 

# * 0.9

70.5 

# * 0.4

67.3 

# * 0.6

66.0 

# * 1.5
Optimum Moisture: 0.0% Depth 

### Upper Zone

Lift13 

### Upper Zone

Lift13 

### Upper Zone

Lift13 

### Upper Zone

Lift13 

### Upper Zone

Lift13 

### Upper Zone

Lift13

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -5.3 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications; SG 66 Moisture lnvaild used Moisture from SG 67 for Correction
Lab No.: 12 12045-12051 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG72

SG73

SG74

SG75

SG76

SG77 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 13, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 5' E. of W. Wall and 8' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 12' E. ofW. Wall and 8' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 7' E. of W. Wall and 5' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 4' W. of E. Wall and 5' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 4' E. ofW. Wall and 3W Below Back
On Drift W. 30 5' W. of E. Wall and 3W Below Back Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density

% Max % Moisture 55.0 

# * 1.7

61.1 

# * 2.2

61.0 

# * 1.7

59.9 

# * 0.7

60.1 

# * 1.8

66.4 

# * 1.6 Depth Top Zone

Lift19
Top Zone

Lift19
Top Zone

Lift19
Top Zone

Lift19
Top Zone

Lift 19
Top Zone

Lift19

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -4.4 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES 

### * Does Not Meet Specifications

Lab No.: 12 12055-12059 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC**---------------·------~-----·--·-·---------------·-----------··-·-----·---·----**

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG79

SG80

SG81

SG82

SG83

SG84 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 23, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 4' E. ofW. Wall and 10' Below Back
On Drift W.30 4' W. of E. Wall and 10' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 8' E. ofW. Wall and 4"W Below Back
On Drift W. 30 4%' W. of E. Wall and 4%' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 5' E. of W. Wall and 3' Below Back
On Drift W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 3' Below Back Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6"

Dry Density % Max % Moisture 56.4 

# * 2.1

54.7 

# * 2.2

64.6 

# * 0.6

60.3 

# * 1.1

61.0 

# * 1.1

60.7 

# * 0.7 Depth Upper Zone

32nd Lift
Upper Zone

32nd Lift
Upper Zone

32nd Lift
Upper Zone

32nd Lift
Upper Zone

32nd Lift
Upper Zone

32nd Lift
Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 6.1 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETIIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12825-12831 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

### .----------------------·----------------------------------··----- ----- --- - - --

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 

### 133

SG 

### 134

SG 

### 135 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

### 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 

### 2078 HOBBS, NM 

### 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 

### 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 

### 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 

### 2012.1112 July 

### 31, 2012

Location On Drift W. 

### 30 6' E. of W. Wall and 6' Below Back
On Drift W. 

### 30 6' W. of E. Wall and 5' Below Back
On Drift W. 

### 30 4' E. ofW.Wall and 4' Below Back Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 5"

Dry Density 

### o/o Max 

### o/o Moisture 

### 60.8 

# * 0.9

59.9 

# * 0.9

56.4 

# * 0.1 Depth On Bottom

10th Lift

On Bottom

1oth Lift

On Bottom

10th Lift

Control Density: 

### 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 

### 0.0% ASTM D 

### 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 

### 5.1 Required Compaction: 

### 70-80% Densometer ID: 

### 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 

### 12 12844-12847 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SC6

Control Density: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P .A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 26, 2012

Location On Drift 

### W. 30 10' E. of W. Wall; 4' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 53)

135.0 ASTM D 1557 Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 67.5 1.5 3rd Lift Upper Zone

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 11881 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SC7 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. IDCKS. Ill, P.E./P.S.

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 29, 2012

Location On Drift 

### W. 30 

### 5' E. of W. Wall; On Bottom Step; 

### 8' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 60) Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density



### % Max 

### % Moisture Depth 65.0 0.6 7th lift; Top Zone

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 11890 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. 

## sc 8 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 29, 2012

Location On Drift 

### W. 30 15' E. of 

### W. Wall; On Middle Step; 6' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 63)

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80% Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density %Max 

# * %Moisture 0.7

Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: N/A Depth 7th Lift; Top Zone

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES *Invalid Test. Technician indicated the surface was still sloped, thus the data was erroneous.
Lab No.: 12 11891 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SC9 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 June 29, 2012

Location On Drift 

### W. 30 6' W. of E. Wall; On Top Step; 4' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 65)

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 80% Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density %Max 

# * %Moisture 1.0

Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: N/A Depth 7th Lift; Top Zone

PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES *Invalid Test. Technician indicated the surface was still sloped, thus the data was erroneous.
Lab No.: 12 11892 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. 

## sc 10

Control Density: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 

### N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 10, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 12' E. ofW. Wall and 5' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 67)

135.0 ASTM D 1557 Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 76.4 

# * 1.7 Upper Zone Lift13

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A
* Does Not Meet Specifications PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12046 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. 

## sc 11

Control Density: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 10, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 1 0' E. of W. Wall and 4' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 69)

135.0 ASTM D 1557 Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 70.2 

# * 0.4 

### Upper Zone Lift13

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A
* Does Not Meet Specifications PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES

Lab No.: 12 12048 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. 

## sc 12 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 10, 2012

Location On Drift 

### W. 30 1 0' E. of 

### W. Wall and 3' Below Back (Corresponds to SG 71)

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM 

### D 1557 Required Compaction: 80%
* Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 12050 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 67.6 

# * 1.5 Upper Zone lift13

Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: N/A PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATESTo: LA BORA TORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. 

## sc 13 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 23, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 4' E. ofW. Wall and 10' Below Back ( Corresponds to SG 79 )

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 70-80%
* Does Not Meet Specifications

Lab No.: 12 12825 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A

Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 67.9 

# * 2.1 Upper Zone 32nd Lift

Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: N/A PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATESTo: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SC14 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 July 23, 2012

Location On Drift W. 30 8' E. of W.Wall and 4Y:! Below Back ( Corresponds to SG 81 )

Control Density: 135.0 ASTM D 1557 Required Compaction: 70-80%
* Does Not Meet Specifications
Lab No.: 12 12825 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: N/A Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 62.1 

# * 0.6 Upper Zone 32nd lift

Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: N/A PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

# APPENDIX E – 2

Appendix E – 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2; 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Upper Zone

### ·-----------------------------------------

-

To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 136

SG 137

SG 138

SG 139

SG 140

SG 141

Control Density: LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 August 14, 2012

Location On Drift W - 30 3'6" E. of W. Rib and 6'3" from Back
On Drift W - 30 11 '2" E. of W. Rib and 6'7" from Back
On Drift W - 30 6'3" E. of W. Rib and 4'6" from Back
On Drift W - 30 13' E. ofW. Rib and 4' 3" from Back
On Drift W - 30 

### 3' E. of 

### W. Rib and 2'1 

### 0" from Back
On Drift W - 30 10' E. of W. Rib and 2'9" from Back

135.0 Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 5" Dry Density %Max %Moisture Depth 65.1 

# * 0.3 10th Lift

66.5 

# * 0.4 10th Lift

64.7 

# * 0.4 10th Lift

65.3 

# * 0.4 1Oth Lift

63.6 

# * 0.4 10th Lift

62.1 

# * 0.4 10th Lift

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% STD/STAT Trench Corrections -4.8 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES * Does Not Meet Specifications

Lab No.: 12 12954-12960 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 142

SG 143

SG 144

SG 145

SG 146

SG 147 lABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 August 16, 2012 Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density Location % Max % Moisture On Salt wall W-30; 5' 

### E. of theW. wall and 1 0' beiow 55.1 

# * 0.3 back
On Salt wall W-30; 5' 

### W. of the E. wall and 10' below 59.0 

# * 0.4 back
On Salt wall W-30; 6' E. of theW. wall and 8' below back 61.3 

# * 0.4

On Salt wall W-30; 6' W. of the E. wall and 8' below back 63.7 

# * 0.4

On Salt wall W-30; 5' E. of theW. wall and 4' below back 63.6 

# * 0.4

On Salt wall W-30; 6' W. of the E. wall and 4' below back 58.8 

# * 0.4 Depth 7th Lift

7th Lift

7th Lift

7th Lift

7th Lift

7th Lift

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D: 1557 Required Compaction: 70-80%
* Does Not Meet Specifications

Lab No.: 12 14022-14028 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC STD/STAT Trench Corrections -8.7 Densometer ID: 5071

## BY:~----~~~~~~----~---­

# BY:~~~~~~~~~~~P~.E.To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 148

SG 149

SG 150

SG 151

SG 152

SG 153 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 August 22, 2012

Location On Drift W-30 5' E. of W. Wall and 10' below back
On Drift W-30 6' W. of E. Wall and 1 0' below back
On Drift W-30 6' E. of W.Wall and 7' below back
On Drift W-30 5' W. of E. Wall and 7' below back
On Drift W-30 5' E. of W.Wall and 4' below back
On Drift W-30 5' W. of E. Wall and 4' below back Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density 

### % Max 

### % Moisture 60.8 

# * 04

61.7 

# * 0.3

61.1 

# * 0.6

63.1 

# * 0.5

64.1 

# * 0.5

63.6 

# * 0.4 Depth 27th Lift on Top Zone

27th Lift on Top Zone

27th Lift on Top Zone

27th Lift on Top Zone

27th Lift on Top Zone

27th Lift on Top Zone

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D: 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -6.0 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES * Does Not Meet Specifications

Lab No.: 12 15116-15122 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLCTo:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 154

SG 155

SG 156

SG 157

SG 158

SG 159 LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. HICKS, P E IL.SI WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E/P.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 August 24, 2012

Location On Drift W-30 6' E. of W. Wall and 1 0' below back
On Drift W-30 3' W. of E. Wall and 1 0' below back
On Drift W-30 6' E. of W. Wall and 

### 7' below back
On Drift W-30 

### 7' W. of E. Wall and 

### 7' below back
On Drift W-30 

### 7' E. of W. Wall and 4' below back
On Drift W-30 5' W. of E. Wall and 4' below back Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density 

### % Max 

### % Moisture 61.7 

# * 0.3

62.1 

# * 0.2

61.3 

# * 0.4

64.2 

# * 0.5

65.3 

# * 0.4

62.1 

# * 0.3 Depth 34th Lift on Top Zone

34th Lift on Top Zone

34th Lift on Top Zone

34th Lift on Top Zone

34th Lift on Top Zone

34th Lift on Top Zone

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D: 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 2.2 Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES • Does Not Meet Specifications

Lab No.: 12 15123-15129 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

# APPENDIX E – 3

Appendix E – 3 Contains The Following From Scenario 3; 1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density Testing Performed On The ROM Salt PlacementLABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 100 E. Navajo Drive, Suite 100 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 AASHTO R18 DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S.
To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 160

SG 161

SG 162

SG 163

SG 164

SG 165 Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services lor Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 September 5, 2012

Location On Drift W-30 · 6' E. of 

### W. Wall and 10' below back
On Drift W-30 5' 

### W. of E. Wall and 10' below back
On Drift W-30 6' E. of 

### W. Wall and 7' below back
On Drift W-30 5' 

### W. of E. Wall and 

### 7' below back
On Drift W-30 6' E. of 

### W. Wall and 4' below back
On Drift W-30 

### 7' W. of E.Wall and 4' below back
Control Density: 135.0 ASTM 0: 1557 Required Compaction: 70-80%

• Does Not Meet Speclflcatlone

Lab No.: 12 15887-15892 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Material: ROM Salt
Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density

% Max % Moisture 

### 84.5. 0.4

63.1 • 0.3

68.1 

# * 0.5

67.6 

# * 0.5



### 84.8 

# * 0.5



### 84.7 

# * 0.5
Optimum Moisture: 0.0% Depth 3rd Teat Region Lift
3rd Teat Region Lift

3rd Teat Region Lift

3rd Test Region Lift

3rd Test Region 

### un

3rd Test Region 

### un

STDISTAT Trench Corrections 2.2 Densometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

P.E.LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P.A. 100 E. Navajo Drive, Suite 100 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827 

# AR

AASI"'TO R1B DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.
To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 168

SG 169

SG 170

SG 171

SG 172

SG 173

Control Density: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 

### 0. BOX 2078 Carlsbad, NM 8822 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 September 7, 2012

Location On Drift W-30 5' E. ofW. Wall and 10' Below Back
On Drift W-30 4' W. of E. Wall and 10' Below Back
On Drift W-30 4' E. of W. Wall and 7%' Below Back
On Drift W-30 4' W. of E. Wall and 

### 7'h Below Back
On Drift W-30 5' E. of W. Wall and 4' Below Back
On Drift W-30 3' W. of E. Wall and 4' Below Back

135.0 ASTM D: 1557 Required Compaction: 70-80%

• Does Not Mast Specifications

Lab No.: 12 15896-15902 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Material: ROM Salt
Test Method: ASTM: D 6938

Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density % Max % Moisture 61.6 

# * 0.3

65.6 

# * 0.4

65.1 

# * 0.4

63.3 

# * 0.4

66.9 

# * 0.4

63.0 

# * 0.4
Optimum Moisture: 0.0%
Densometer ID: 5071 Depth 3rd Test Region Lift

3rd Test Region Lift

3rd Test Region Lift

3rd Test Region lift

3rd Test Region Lift

3rd Test Region Lift

PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES

P.E.To:

Project:

Date of Test:

Test No. SG 174

SG 175

SG 176

SG 177

SG 178

SG 179 

# --------------------·-----

------ LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

## PETTIGREW & 

## ASSOCIATES, P:A. 1110 N. GRIMES

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY P. 0. BOX 2078 HOBBS, NM 88240 (575) 393-9827

Material: ROM Salt AASHTO R1B DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I WtLLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S.

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: · ASTM: D8938 Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted Salt Testing Project No. 2012.1112 September 10, 2012

Location On Drift W-30 WR 6'8" and Back 8'0"
On Drift W-30 WR 13' 6" and Back 8'8"
On Drift W-30 

### WR 4'0" and Back 5'6"
On Drift W-30 WR 1 0' 0" and Back 6'0"
On Drift W-30 WR 6'0" and Back 3'0"
On Drift W-30 

### WR 12'0" and Back 3'0" Depth: See Below Depth of Probe: 6" Dry Density

%Max %Moisture Depth 71.7 

# * 0.3 3rd Region

69.6 

# * 0.4 3rd Region



### 71.0 

# * 0.4 3rd Region

73.0 

# * 0.3 3rd Region

70.1 

# * 0.4 3rd Region

69.2 

# * 0.5 3rd Region

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% ASTM D: 1557 STD/STAT 3170/511 Required Compaction: 70-80% Donsometer ID: 5071 PETTIGREW 

### & ASSOCIATES • Does Not Moot Specifications



### Lab No.: 12 15821-15827 Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC

# APPENDIX F – 1

Appendix F - 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1; 1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift Moisture/Density Data

## Time Page 1 of 4
Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time
1 150 4 31 18 18 25 246 2 180 3 17 18 19 45 282 3 150 3 16 18 19 15 221 4 91 3 14 17 15 140 5 83 3 16 18 14 134 6 92 3 14 11 14 134 7 178 3 16 16 13 50 276
Average Cubic Foot Per Hour = 181 Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1

Lower Zone Total Time (Hr) = 23.9

*Time In Minutes Lower Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr) = 21.65

## Time Page 2 of 4
Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time
1 15 1 85 30 131 2 8 1 100 141 250 3 12 1 79 92 4 15 1 60 90 166 5 9 1 62 72 6 15 1 80 96 7 15 1 68 84 8 13 1 63 30 107 9 11 1 60 72 10 16 1 45 62 11 19 1 47 60 127 12 13 1 33 47 Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1

*Time In Minutes

## Time Page 3 of 4
Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time
13 14 1 45 60 14 13 1 66 45 125 15 15 1 60 76 16 10 1 75 86 17 13 1 46 60 18 14 1 60 75 19 10 1 55 66 20 15 1 60 120 196 21 11 1 64 76 22 9 1 46 56 23 13 1 40 54 24 15 1 45 61 Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1

*Time In Minutes

## Time Page 4 of 4
Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time
25 14 1 50 65 26 15 1 53 30 99 27 14 1 48 63 28 13 1 52 66 29 13 1 54 68 30 11 1 45 57 31 11 1 48 60 32 15 1 60 76 Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1

*Time In Minutes Upper Zone Total Time (Hr) = 47.5 Upper Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr) = 38.4 Averae Cubic Foot Per Hour = 162

## AVERAGE Scenario: 1 Test Region: 1 Page 1 of 1

Date Lift # Compactor Type Avg. Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Maximum Density % Minimum Density % Avg. Wet Density % Avg. Moisture % Avg. Dry Density % 6/5/12-6/15/12 1 - 7 ROLLER 132.28 2 77.4 71.8 75.1 1.6 74.1 6/5/12-6/15/12 1 - 7 ROLLER 141.31 4 76.6 72.4 75.8 1.7 74.5 6/5/12-6/15/12 1 - 7 ROLLER 148.12 6 78.2 73.3 76.0 1.4 74.8 UPPER ZONE 6/26/12-6/29/12 3-7 PUSHPLATE W/VIBRATION 1 68.3 58.4 64.1 1.1 63.3 7/10/12-7/11/12 13-32 1 72.6 54.6 64.2 1.4 63.3 68.3 58.4 64.1 1.2 63.4 72.9 59.9 65.4 1.3 64.6 68.7 54.7 62.5 1.4 61.5 7' From Back PUSHPLATE W/O VIBRATION 3' From Back 5' From Back

# APPENDIX F – 2

Appendix F - 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2; 1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement, Compaction And Down Time 3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift Moisture/Density Data

## Lower Zone

Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 Time Page 1 of 3 Time in minutes unless otherwise noted:

Lift # Emplacement

Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction

Time 4 Passes Compaction

Time 6 Passes Upper Zone

Compaction Time Down Time Total Time 1 45 0 10 6 6 N/A 0 67 2 37 N/A 0 61 3 N/A 4 0 7 9 7 N/A 0 61 5 40 0 N/A 0 64 6 8 11 9 N/A 66 7 31 N/A 55 8 0 8 8 9 N/A 0 63 9 N/A 10 0 7 9 7 N/A 0 61 Avg. 38 0 8 9 8 N/A 0 62 *segment averages used to fill missing data Lower Zone Total Time (Hr)* = 10.3 Lower Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr)* = 10.3 Average Cubic Foot Per Hour = 283

## Lower Zone

Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 Time Page 2 of 3 Time in minutes unless otherwise noted:
Lift # Emplacement

Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction

Time 4 Passes Compaction

Time 6 Passes Upper Zone

Compaction Time Down Time Total Time 1 29 0 N/A N/A N/A 63 0 92 2 13 0 N/A N/A N/A 36 0 49 4 10 0 N/A N/A N/A 70 0 80 5 5 0 N/A N/A N/A 55 0 60 6 10 0 N/A N/A N/A 65 0 75 7 10 0 N/A N/A N/A 35 0 45 13 0 N/A N/A N/A 23 0 36 14 9 0 N/A N/A N/A 27 0 36 15 27 0 N/A N/A N/A 32 10 69 16 15 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 15 18 N/A N/A N/A 0 45 19 N/A N/A N/A 0 55 20 25 0 N/A N/A N/A 41 0 66 21 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 50 22 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 35 23 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 38 24 12 0 N/A N/A N/A 32 0 44 25 8 0 N/A N/A N/A 40 0 48

## Lower Zone

Scenario: 2 Test Region: 2 Time Page 3 of 3 Time in minutes unless otherwise noted:
Lift # Emplacement

Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction

Time 4 Passes Compaction

Time 6 Passes Upper Zone

Compaction Time Down Time Total Time 26 6 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 49 28 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 48 29 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 48 30 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 49 31 0 N/A N/A N/A 43 0 43 32 11 0 N/A N/A N/A 43 0 54 33 8 0 N/A N/A N/A 42 0 50 34 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 40 35 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 42 36 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 28 38 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 35 39 7 0 N/A N/A N/A 37 0 44 40 8 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 51 Avg. 13 43 0 49

Average Cubic Foot Per Hour = 239 *segment averages used to fill missing data Upper Zone Total Time (Hr)* = 32.7 Upper Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr) = 32.5

## Test Region: 2 Page 1 of 1

Date Lift # Compactor Type Avg. Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Maximum Density % Minimum Density % Avg. Wet Density % Avg. Moisture % Avg. Dry Density % 7/25/12-7/26/12 1 - 6 ROLLER 98 2 76.1 73.0 75.0 0.4 74.6 7/25/12-7/26/12 1 - 6 ROLLER 73.5 4 78.3 72.6 76.4 0.4 75.5 7/25/12-7/26/12 1 - 6 ROLLER 100.2 6 77.3 71.5 75.8 0.4 74.7 7/26/12- 7/30/12 7 - 8 LHD 93.5 2 74.7 72.6 73.8 0.1 73.8 7/26/12- 7/30/13 7 - 8 LHD 93.5 4 76.6 68.4 73.0 0.0 73.0 7/26/12- 7/30/14 7 - 7 LHD 83.1 6 77.2 72.0 74.9 0.3 74.9 7/30/12-7/31/12 9 - 10 LHD 95.0 2 74.1 70.1 72.5 0.4 72.5 7/30/12-7/31/13 9 - 10 LHD 83.1 4 76.4 73.8 75.4 0.4 75.0 7/30/12-7/31/14 9 - 10 LHD 95.0 6 78.1 76.9 75.6 0.4 75.3 

## UPPER ZONE 8/8/12-8/24/12 1 - 40 1 66.5 55.1 62.7 0.4 62.5 65.3 58.8 63.1 0.4 62.9 65.3 61.1 63.4 0.5 63.1 66.5 55.1 61.7 0.3 61.5 PUSHPLATE W/O VIBRATION Distance From Back 3' From Back 5' From Back 7' From Back 

## Scenario: 2 AVERAGE

LHD - Empty Bucket Roller Compactor

LHD - Full Bucket

# APPENDIX F - 3

Appendix F – 3 Contains The Following From Scenario 3; 1. The Summary Sheets For ROM Salt Placement And Down Time 

## 2. The Summary Sheet For The Moisture/Density Data

### Time

Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time 1 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6 2 82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 82 3 37 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 37 4 33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 33 5 33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 33 6 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 30 7 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 30 8 31 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 36 9 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 20 Scenario 3 Test Region 3 Page 1 of 3

Zone total time (hr) =14.5 Zone total time without down time (hr) = 14.1 Average cubic foot per hour = 690

### Time

Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time 10 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 21 11 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 22 12 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 22 13 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 25 14 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 33 15 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 41 16 39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 39 17 39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 39 18 34 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 34 19 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 26 Page 2 of 3 Scenario 3 Test Region 3

### Time

Lift # Emplacement Time Water Time Compaction Time 2 Passes Compaction Time 4 Passes Compaction Time 6 Passes Upper Zone Compaction Time Down Time Total Time 20 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 25 21 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 27 22 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 24 23 28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 28 24 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 44 25 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 27 26 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 21 27 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 20 28 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 24 29 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 23 Page 3 of 3 Scenario 3 Test Region 3

## Test Region: 3 Page 1 of 1

Date Lift # Compactor Type Avg. Compactor Speed (ft/min) Cumulative Number of Compaction (No. of Passes) Maximum Density % Minimum Density % Avg. Wet Density % Avg. Moisture % Avg. Dry Density % 9/4/12 - 9/5/12 1 - 5 N/A N/A N/A 68.1 63.1 65.8 0.5 65.5 9/5/12 - 9/7/12 6 -17 N/A N/A N/A 66.9 61.6 64.0 0.4 64.3 9/7/12 - 9/8/12 18 - 29 N/A N/A N/A 73.0 69.2 70.4 0.4 70.8 70.1 63.0 66.7 0.5 66.5 73.0 63.3 68.2 0.4 68.0 71.7 63.1 65.2 0.4 66.0 

## Scenario: 3

3' From Back 5' From Back 8' From Back 

## AVERAGE

# APPENDIX G

Appendix G Contains The Following; 1. The Data Sheet For The Walk
- Behind Vibratory Roller Compactor Used To Compact The Lower Lifts 2. The Data Sheet For The LHD Used To Place The Lower And Upper Lifts 3. The Data Sheet For The Fletcher Scaler Used To Pushup And Compact Upper Zone Lifts• Locations • N ew P r oducts • Manuals t Spare Parts • Mach1 nes • FAQ s • Req uest a P roduct Demo 

# W-'CII<Eit**NEU~;ON** @**S~e** Map ' COn!Oct ? Help

Locat ot" Prod ucts Serv ic e Ubrary Abou t us
) Home > Product Guide

- Machones > RO 7H-CS



### RD 7H -· ES Double Drum Vibratory Roller Item Numbe r. 0009 40 8 r It Requ= o product deononslrllfion or training I> rond your deoler Descript ion Technical Data Accassones Manua ls Broch u res Like Mode ls Descri1ption Metric Imperial Le ngth x width x he i ght 2631 X 697
. 9 X 1166 mm 103
. 6 X 27
. 48 X 45
. 9 in (han d l e• in working position ) Length x w i dth x he i ght 1226
. 8 X 697
. 9 X 2215 mm 48
. 3 X 27.48 X 87 .2 i n ( gu i de h andle i n transport position ) Shipping size 1473 X 914 X 231 1 mm 58 X 36 X 91 in Dry W:•ight n2
. s kg 1703 l b Opera ti ng we i ght 829
. 6 kg 1829 lb Shipping we i ght (incl ud ing 795
. 1 kg 1753 lb packag in g ) Drum width 650 m m 25
. 5 in Drum di ameter 420 mm 16
. 52 i n C u rb clearance ( R / L ) 233
. 7 I 233
. 7 m m 9
. 2 / 9
. 2 in Side**cl1 ~arance**  (R/ L ) 29
. 5/29.5 mm 1
. 16 / 1.16 in Water tank capacity 53 14 US gal Sprinkling system gra v ity fe d grav ity fed Engine Type Hatz , diese l Fuel ty pe D i esel D i esel Startino system Electric S tart or Hand crank E l ectric Start o r Ha nd crank Displa c: ement 445 cm 3 27
. 2 i n 3 Max
. Ra ted Powe r at Rated 6
. 1 kW at 2600 rpm 8
. 2 hp at 2600 rpm S peed " Power Rating Specification ISO 3046 / 1 IF N ISO 3046 / 1 IFN Operating speed 2600 1 /min 2600 rpm Fuel consumption 1
. 63 1/h
. 4 3 US gal lh Fuel tank capacity 5 1
. 3 US gal Hydraulic tank capacity 30 8 US ga l Dyn am ic (c entrifugal) force 13 kN 2921
. 5 lb f Freque · ncy 55 Hz 3300 v pm Static l 1 i near for ce per drum 5.01 /7
. 51 N / mm 28.69 / 43 .04 lb li n (fir) Dynam i c li near force per 10 .03/10
. 03 N / mm 5 7
. 28 / 57
. 28 l b li n d rum (1' / r) Total li n ear fo rce per drum 15
. 04 / 17
. 54 N / rnm 85
. 97 /1 00
. 32 lbfln (fir) Static weight per drum ( f i r ) 331
. 8 / 497
. 8 kg 7 31
. 6 / 1097
. 4 lb V ariable speeds - Forward 0-4
. 0 kmlh 0-2
. 5 mph V ariable speeds - Forward 0-67 m/min 0-220 ftlmin Variable speeds · Reverse 0-2
. 0 k mlh 0-1.2 mph V ariable speeds· Reverse 0-32 m/mi n 0-105 ftlmin Gradenbility without vibration 40 % 40 %III!IWMH»FOURREQUIREDPN.64557708jl4GOJDth_s9·foH'$5j.;PN.6455770887FOURREQUIRED/I'0,,TWOREQUIREDPN.64580267Cct-i·4-eroffit,o51/2t------------91---..alt53ilCe:.H/erPo;t{lofaV'Od)Ih:Jf61500·lbs'AODUCTLINE:MAT£RIAU!nulllN-IQ.E5•••o.l{:.06,XJ!!,03.xxx••ol!451---------·-----··----HEATTREATMENT!WELDSTANDARDS:ALLWELDSEJCMININGEQUIPMENTCHECKEDBY;PBDATE!29/03/06APPRoVEDfJY:PBDATE:29103106owe.NO.l64580263<nulllOFIMillSION3·:.tFlb5l\5TOt-4.5DcBAPOZEI?6LAP£WITH"FLOAI"CAPA/3/J.JT't"----rMAX.CUTTIN4HEI4HT:ZZ'-!0"MAX..V!t>TH:29'-2''(t3f!J90/J1111),0TOOTH(CLAW)HYPI(AULICIMPACTHAMMEl?.,,o•KOTATION7'·0"I.l,l.nll((,p--1'11-=::::::::::-___"IJO4AP"t_CJLn(i/...II(125/mm)5I_app_ro><.76'·8"(11,781.mtt!)WITHHe.AP+"_appro)(.1l'·o•(9]5-f,m)WITH1CALI.V4CLAW,..•.o•(/O,Jt.],.,,.)ki!TH1CALI/V4HAMME!tAL-11!?7.,........_....,.._...................,.,.,.,,...,..rToct"t--'II•.,....,.OK.·''t--Ptt:zt:r..•CC/Nt:ffV.:>L,o1L.CKlj::::".::.!:.::.!"'..::.=-::::=::.::OM..JUJ-10\II,!I.UNTCOfiii'OAATIOH--··-•I-----·I,..,.........................................,_...,.,..tl--,A....Nt..................A1rN:wU:H1T·N6r:=-..SV•<f.0/11·%"""'11'<11,.,,.,.