20670212

PUEBLO VIEJO DOMINICANA CORPORATION
EL LLAGAL TSF
SADDLE DAM 1 PERMITTING PACKAGE
PROJECT NO.:
0011-168
DISTRIBUTION:
DATE:
February 27, 2014
RECIPIENT:
2 copies
DOCUMENT NO.:
PVF14-10
BGC:
2 copies
OTHER:
1 copy
Suite 800 - 1045 Howe Street

Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 2A9
Telephone (604) 684-5900
Fax (604) 684-5909
February 27, 2014

Project No.: 0011-168
Mr. Luis Santana, TSF Construction Manager
Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation
Pueblo Viejo Mine
Cotui, Dominican Republic
Dear Luis,
Re:
El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package
Please find attached two copies of our above referenced report, dated February 27, 2014.
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at the
number listed above.
Yours sincerely,
BGC ENGINEERING INC.
per:
Brian Nachtigal, P.Eng.

Project Manager
Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package
February 27, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the ongoing development of the Pueblo Viejo Mine, Pueblo Viejo Dominicana
Corporation (PVDC) has retained BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) to provide design services for
the tailings storage facility (TSF) in the El Llagal Valley. The TSF will require a dam, Saddle
Dam 1 (SD1), on the western side of the valley to provide the design storage capacity.
SD1 is currently under construction to an interim crest elevation of 200 m, as permitted by
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hidrulicos (INDRHI) in communication Number 811 dated
August 8, 2012 (INDRHI, 2012), based on the 2012 SD1 permitting document (BGC, 2012b).
This document updates the information presented in 2012 and is intended to support permitting
for raising SD1 to the design crest elevation of 258 m.
Previous design for the TSF included two tailings storage cells the lower cell contained by
the Lower Llagal (LL) Dam and associated saddle dams, and the upper cell contained by the
Upper Llagal (UL) Dam and one saddle dam. At present, the construction of the UL Dam has
been suspended and is currently under economic evaluation by PVDC in order to optimize
sustaining capital expenditures based on the current gold price. The detailed design of the El.
258 m UL Dam is also suspended at present, and the project is currently evaluating a TSF with
a single larger cell contained by the LL Dam and associated saddle dams.
SD1 is designed as a tailings and water retention dam with a central low-permeability fill (LPF)
core, graded granular filter zones upstream and downstream of the core, and rockfill shells
consisting of non-acid generating, durable rock. The proposed design alignment for SD1
includes joining SD1 to the LL Dam upstream of the existing ridgeline. The transition between
the SD1 central core geometry and the LL Dam inclined core geometry has been designed
incorporating protective measures such as increasing filter thickness and smoothing core slope
inflections. The dam will be raised in stages throughout the mine life as additional storage is
required.
The upstream and downstream slopes of SD1 have been designed to account for end of
construction, static, and seismic loading conditions. The downstream face of the dam will be
sloped at an overall angle of 1.7H:1V to 4.8H:1V. The design of the downstream fill has locally
allowed for a zone of select compacted common fill to allow for the use of local construction
materials.
The proposed design satisfies the design criteria for static Factor of Safety and seismic
displacement for all modelled stability section locations and loading conditions. The proposed
fill configuration was compared against the current conditions in the slope and increases the
factor of safety by 20% or greater for all cases. An instrumentation program is proposed to
monitor the performance of the downstream slopes as the TSF is raised over the mine life.
http://coreshack/sites/pveldd/RB/IssueforPermit/2014 SD1 Permitting-Working files/El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting

Package 2014.docx
Page i

February 27, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................iii
LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................iii
LIST OF DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................iii
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background Information ..................................................................................... 1
2.0 DAM SITE CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................... 2
2.1. Site Investigations ............................................................................................... 2
2.2. Engineering Geology ........................................................................................... 2
2.2.1. Surficial Geology ...........................................................................................3
2.2.2. Bedrock Geology...........................................................................................3
3.0 SADDLE DAM 1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................. 5
3.1. Design Basis and Criteria.................................................................................... 5
3.2. Design Overview .................................................................................................. 7
3.3. Construction Methods and Schedule ................................................................. 8
3.4. Instrumentation and Monitoring ......................................................................... 9
3.5. Spillways .............................................................................................................. 9
3.6. Seepage Recovery ............................................................................................... 9
4.0 DAM STABILITY ...................................................................................................10
4.1. Updated Strength Parameters............................................................................10
4.1.1. Influence of Foundation Structure on Rock Strength Parameters ................ 12
4.2. Results of Stability Analysis ..............................................................................13
5.0 CLOSURE .............................................................................................................15
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1.
Summary of TSF Dam Design Criteria. ....................................................... 6
Table 4-1
Summary of Material Parameters. ............................................................. 11
Table 4-2
Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Parameters Used to Approximate Hoek-Brown

Parameters for Weathering Grade III Rock Mass Material. ........................ 12
Table 4-3

Parameters for Weathering Grade I and II Rock Mass Material. ................ 12

Package 2014.docx
Page ii

February 27, 2014

Table 4-4
Structure Dip Ranges of Influence for SD1 Cross-sections. ...................... 13
Table 4-5
Stability Results Summary for Saddle Dam 1. ........................................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Hydraulic Conductivity Under the Saddle Dam 1 Footprint
Figure 2
Strucrtural Domains
Figure 3
SD1 South Domain Stereonets
Figure 4
SD1 North Domain Stereonets
Figure 5
Raising Schedule to El. 258 m
Figure 6
Saddle Dam 1 Stability Analysis Loading Conditions and Criteria Summary
Figure 7
Saddle Dam 1 El. 258 m Seismic Deformation Results
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
DRILL HOLE LOGS
APPENDIX B
TEST PIT LOGS
APPENDIX C
TELEVIEWER LOGS
APPENDIX D
OUTCROP MAPPING LOGS
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DRAWING 1
General Arrangement
DRAWING 2
Saddle Dam 1 Plan
DRAWING 3
Saddle Dam 1 Site Investigation Plan
DRAWING 4
Saddle Dam 1 Profile Section A
DRAWING 5
Saddle Dam 1 Section B
DRAWING 6
Saddle Dam 1 Section C

Package 2014.docx
Page iii

February 27, 2014

LIMITATIONS
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared this document for the account of Pueblo Viejo
Dominicana Corporation. The material in it reflects the judgment of BGC staff in light of the
information available to BGC at the time of document preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this document or any reliance on decisions to be based on it is the responsibility of
such third parties. BGC accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third
party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document.
As a mutual protection to our client, the public, and ourselves, all documents and drawings are
submitted for the confidential information of our client for a specific project. Authorization for
any use and/or publication of this document or any data, statements, conclusions or abstracts
from or regarding our documents and drawings, through any form of print or electronic media,
including without limitation, posting or reproduction of same on any website, is reserved
pending BGCs written approval. If this document is issued in an electronic format, an original
paper copy is on file at BGC and that copy is the primary reference with precedence over any
electronic copy of the document, or any extracts from our documents published by others.

Package 2014.docx
Page iv

1.0
February 27, 2014

INTRODUCTION
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) was requested by Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corp (PVDC) to
provide relevant information and documents required for permitting of the El Llagal tailings
storage facility (TSF) Saddle Dam 1 (SD1). The relevant information includes the current
design of SD1 to elevation 258 m, timing of proposed construction stages, plus an update of
associated investigation work carried out up to December 31, 2013.
The El Llagal TSF was commissioned to receive tailings and waste rock in June 2012, upon
completion of the initial phase of construction at the main cross-valley Lower Llagal (LL) dam.
SD1 is located over a depression on the west ridge of the El Llagal valley, adjacent to the LL
Dam, as shown in Drawings 01 and 02. SD1 is currently under construction to an interim crest
elevation of 200 m, as permitted by Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hidrulicos (INDRHI) in
communication Number 811 dated August 8, 2012 (INDRHI, 2012), based on the 2012 SD1
permitting package (BGC, 2012b). This document updates the information presented in that
package.
This document focuses on the design of the SD1 structure itself, and does not repeat
information common to the LL impoundment that was presented in the LL Ultimate Dam
Technical and Schedule Update (BGC, 2012a). That document should be consulted for
background information on climate, hydrology, seismic hazard and design ground motions,
design criteria, closure spillway, and design and construction details specific to the LL Dam life
of TSF waste production. Where the SD1 design basis or TSF criteria have been updated
from previous work in order to reflect recent site investigation data and design updates,
relevant information is provided herein.
1.1.
Background Information
The Project is currently re-evaluating the storage capacity needs for the TSF. Previous work
on the project has included a two cell layout; the lower cell contained by the Lower Llagal (LL)
Dam and associated saddle dams, and the upper cell contained by the Upper Llagal (UL) Dam
and one saddle dam. In order to support regulatory review, updates to the 2009 feasibility
study (BGC, 2009) were prepared in 2012 (BGC 2012a, 2012b), prior to completion of the
detailed design of the LL Dam and UL Dam.
At present, the construction of the UL Dam has been suspended and is currently under
economic evaluation by PVDC in order to optimize sustaining capital expenditures based on
the current gold price. The detailed design of the El. 258 m UL Dam is also suspended at
present, and the project is currently evaluating a TSF with a single larger cell contained by the
LL Dam and associated saddle dams. This revised TSF layout will maintain the need for SD1
at its current location.
El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package 2014
Page 1

2.0
DAM SITE CHARACTERIZATION
2.1.
Site Investigations
February 27, 2014

In or near the SD1 footprint, 28 drill holes and 54 test pits have been completed. The majority
of these holes were completed in two recent site investigation programs: an investigation for
final design of TSF structures to 258 m crest elevation, carried out in 2011 and 2012, and a
supplementary investigation carried out between August and November 2013. The locations
of all drill holes, test pits, and geotechnical mapping completed to date are shown in plan on
Drawing 03. Drill hole and test pit logs can be found in Appendices A and B respectively.
Subsurface information was collected by geotechnical logging of drill core, test pit sidewalls
and outcrop faces; down-hole or surface testing of material strength and permeability;
monitoring of installed piezometers; and laboratory testing on collected samples. Downhole
acoustic televiewer surveys to measure geological structure have also been completed in 11
drill holes. Downhole acoustic televiewer logs are presented in Appendix C. Hydraulic
conductivity values obtained under the SD1 footprint from packer and falling head tests are
shown in Figure 1.
Geological mapping of the El Llagal valley was undertaken in 2001 and 2002 by BGC and
Placer Dome Exploration (PDEx) personnel, and again in 2004 and 2005 by Placer Dome
Dominicana Corp. (PDDC) personnel. The results were presented in the 2005 feasibility study
(BGC, 2005). Additional geological and geotechnical mapping was carried out during the
ongoing development of the TSF and as part of the 2011/2012 and 2013 site investigation
programs. Structural geology data collected during those programs are discussed in Section
2.2.2. Outcrop mapping logs are presented in Appendix D.
2.2.
Engineering Geology
SD1 sub-surface information is provided on three cross-sections shown on Drawings 04, 05,
and 06 and is described in the following sections. The project basis for weathered stratigraphy
nomenclature is briefly discussed below.
The surficial geology in the El Llagal valley generally follows tropical weathering patterns.
Residual soils are generated through chemical and mechanical weathering processes acting
on a parent rock mass. The weathered rock stratigraphy for the project is classified using the
weathering grade profile outlined by Fookes (1997). Weathering grade boundaries are
transitional and local zones of relatively more or less weathering can be found within all strata.
Typical characteristics of each general unit are described below, with weathering grades in
parentheses:
Page 2

Commonly referred to together as soil, overburden, or residual soil;
Mature residual soil (W6 / VI) All rock structure and fabric destroyed;
Saprolite/completely weathered rock (W5 / V) All rock is decomposed to soil, but
often contains relict joints. Soil typically comprises a very stiff to hard sandy silt
with some clay and trace gravel, low to medium plastic; and
Highly weathered rock (W4 / IV) Contains relict joints/structure but over 50% of
rock is decomposed to soil. The soil fraction is stiff to hard silt with clay content
decreasing with depth and sand and gravel content increasing with depth. Fresh
or discoloured rock is present as a discontinuous framework.
Commonly referred to together as bedrock:
2.2.1.
February 27, 2014

Moderately weathered rock (W3 / III) Less than 50% of rock is decomposed to
soil, fresh/discoloured rock is present as a continuous framework ;
Slightly weathered rock (W2 / II) Discolouration indicates weathering of rock or
discontinuity surfaces, rock may be weaker than fresh state; and
Fresh rock (W1 / I) No visible signs of weathering.
Surficial Geology
The surficial geology in the El Llagal valley is described in previously presented reports (BGC
2005, 2009, 2011a, b). In general, the depth of weathering is relatively shallow in the
topographic saddle that will be filled by SD1, with highly weathered rock typically encountered
from surface to a depth of 1 m to 2 m before transitioning to moderately weathered rock.
Saprolite and residual soil are typically not encountered. An area of deeper weathering is
present in the southwest part of the SD1 downstream footprint with local depth to moderately
weathered rock ranging from 9 m to 25 m.
At the topographic knob north of the saddle, the depth to moderately weathered rock ranged
from 1 m to 9 m with the deeper weathering typically observed on the northern downstream
slope of the knob. Moderately weathered rock in this area is typically overlain by highly
weathered rock ranging in thickness from 1 m to 8 m, which is occasionally overlain by near
surface saprolite and colluvium units typically ranging in thickness from 3 m to 5 m and 1 m to
2 m, respectively.
2.2.2.
Bedrock Geology
Bedrock geology underlying SD1 comprises Maimon Formation metavolcanics and minor
metasedimentary rocks. Rocks of the Maimon Formation are generally foliated to distinctly
schistose with the rock foliation planes typically dipping to the southwest at 30 to 60. Within
the SD1 footprint, bedrock structural orientation patterns differ between the northern and
southern extents, resulting in the use of two different structural domains for design purposes.
The south domain, which underlies the centre and southern portions of the SD1 footprint
(Figure 2), is dominated by the regional foliation evident across the El Llagal valley, as shown
in Figure 3. The northern domain, underlying the northern portion of the SD1 footprint and
Page 3

February 27, 2014

transition with the LL Dam, has joint/fault sets that dip steeply to the south, northwest and east,
as shown in Figure 4, in addition to the regional foliation. Design of foundation excavation,
construction water diversions, and access roads will consider these discontinuity orientations.
Page 4

3.0
SADDLE DAM 1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
3.1.
Design Basis and Criteria
February 27, 2014

The TSF design criteria are summarized in Table 3-1 for reference. The tailings and waste
rock volumes and the associated operational deposition plan used for design were provided to
BGC by PVDC (dated August 1, 2013). Upon receiving the operational deposition plan from
PVDC, BGC updated the volume-elevation curve, tailings density, design flood event inputs,
and freeboard, in order to reflect the revised impoundment layout. Designs are based on
topography data provided by PVDC, dated June 4, 2013 and October 25, 2013.
Page 5

February 27, 2014

Table 3-1. Summary of TSF Dam Design Criteria.

Criteria
Description/Comments
Capacity and Throughput
Capacity
Pit produces: 118 Mt Ore, 70 Mt Waste Rock (as per operational

deposition plan received from PVDC on August 1, 2013)
TSF designed to store: The waste produced from August 1, 2013
operational deposition plan plus associated process high-density sludge.
Tailings volumetrics based on tailings delivery at a slurry density of 35%
solids by weight.
Mill Throughput
Variable (Yr 1,2), expanding to 24,000 tpd

Physical Stability and Hydrology
Static Factor of
Safety
Minimum static factor of safety for steady-state seepage is 1.5

Minimum end of construction factor of safety is 1.3
Minimum rapid draw-down factor of safety is 1.2
Earthquake Induced
Displacement
Maximum deformation in the dam core, chimney filters and in the

foundation footprint of the core and chimney filters is limited to the
normal thickness of each filter downstream of core (2 m).
Design Earthquake
Ground Motion
10-4 annual probability of exceedance (APE)
LL Dam
Pond (Process Solution Storage): Capacity to store operating pond, plus

the 200-year return period, 3-month wet period duration incremental
above average precipitation, plus the 24-hr Probable Maximum
Precipitation (PMP) storm event.
Closure Spillways: Capacity to pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
storm event while maintaining the design freeboard.
LL Dam - Seepage
Recovery Pond
Pond: Capacity to retain the 10-year return period, 24-hour flood event.
Pumping will be designed to manage 2-year events of all durations (2
days to 1 year).
Emergency Spillway: Capacity to pass 100-year return period, 24-hour
flood event, 2 m minimum freeboard.
Design Flood
Freeboard
The greater of: 1 m of freeboard above the maximum routed flood level
(the PMF event); or the wave set-up and run-up plus 0.3 m above the
maximum stored flood level.
Design
Earthquake
Freeboard
A minimum of 1.0 m of freeboard is maintained above average operating

pond level in the event of dam crest deformation caused by the design
earthquake.
Page 6

Criteria
February 27, 2014

Description/Comments
Geochemical
Construction Material
The phreatic surface must be maintained above the waste rock contained
within the TSF upon closure.
Filter zones should not be constructed of limestone or other acid
susceptible or acid generating rock.
Surface Water and

Groundwater
Compliance Points
Compliance point for the TSF is 100 m downstream of the seepage

collection facility.
Surface Water Quality

Requirements
Dominican regulations for aquatic life, similar to World Bank standards.

Any surface water released from the TSF must meet discharge criteria
after closure.
Groundwater Quality
Requirements
Dominican regulations for aquatic life, similar to World Bank standards.
3.2.
Design Overview
SD1 is designed as a tailings and water retention dam with a central low-permeability fill (LPF)
core (transitioning to an inclined core at its right abutment where it joins with the LL Dam),
graded granular filter zones upstream and downstream of the core, and rockfill shells
consisting of non-acid generating, durable rock. Cross-sections through the mid-valley and
right abutment of SD1 are shown on Drawings 05 and 06, respectively.
The upstream slope of SD1 will be 1.5H:1V, and the overall downstream slope will range from
1.7H:1V to 4.8H:1V. The crest width will be 44.4 m at elevation 258 m (68 m high as measured
from the centre of the core).
Zones of fine (sand) filter and coarse (sand and gravel) filter comprise four design elements of
SD1:
Downstream filters: Fine and coarse filter zones, 4.1 m in horizontal width each (4 m
thick) are to be placed on the downstream side of the core. A 10 m (horizontal width)
transition rockfill zone separates the coarse filter from the downstream rockfill shell.
Blanket filter: Comprised of 1 m thick layers each of fine and coarse filter, located
downstream of the core to protect the natural foundation soil beneath the downstream
shell from piping into the downstream rockfill shell. A 2 m thick zone of transition rockfill
is present between the filter blanket and the downstream rockfill.
Upstream crackstopper filters: Zones of fine and coarse filter, 1 m thick, will be placed
against the top one third of the upstream side of the core (i.e. above elevation 235 m
transitioning to 230 m elevation at the LL Dam). These zones are designed to fill any
cracks that may form in the LPF that cannot self-heal due to the relatively low-confining
stress. The upstream filter zones also protect the upper core from internal erosion if a
rapid drawdown condition were to develop.
Page 7

February 27, 2014

Upstream filters: Zones of fine and coarse filter, 2 m thick, will be placed at the
upstream side of the core below elevation 205 m. The purpose of these filters is to
protect the core against seepage through the core in the upstream direction. This
condition exists during early construction stages because runoff water can pond
between the core and ridge. During later stages, the tailings in the impoundment will
be above the level of the ridge and will reverse the direction of seepage to the west. A
4 m (horizontal width) transition rockfill zone separates the coarse filter from the
upstream rockfill shell.
Waste limestone will be placed to form a blanket on the upstream rockfill shell slope,
approximately 6 m in horizontal width (4 m thick). The purpose of the blanket is to prevent
tailings solids from migrating into the upstream rockfill shell. A secondary benefit is to provide
a fill zone for building access ramps for placement of tailings discharge pipes. The blanket will
extend from the bottom of the valley to the top of SD1.
Within the southern domain, the downstream toe of SD1 has been flattened from the typical
slopes discussed above to improve performance under seismic loading (discussed further in
Section 4.0). The design of the slope has allowed for a zone of select compacted common fill
to allow for the use of local construction materials. This material is assumed to have material
properties similar to LPF with strengths lower than that of rockfill. The Project will continue to
optimize the design of this downstream zone by evaluating the local fill sources and reviewing
the compactive effort and lift thickness relative to undrained shear strength by test fills and
advanced laboratory testing.
An underdrain has been designed beneath the downstream dam fill to carry seepage flows
from the dam and from the local upstream catchment area, as shown in Drawing 05. To
prevent fines from the dam fill migrating into the underdrain and reducing flow capacity, zones
of fine and coarse filter, 1 m thick respectively, will be placed between these two units.
The transition between the SD1 central core and the LL Dam upstream sloping core will occur
over approximately a 150 m length along the dam alignment (Drawing 02). Within the transition
zone, the core geometry will include elements of both core designs. Over this transition, the
downstream fine and coarse filter zone dimensions will be expanded to 8 m perpendicular
thickness in order to provide extra protection against internal erosion from cracking due to any
tendency for stress arching within the variable internal geometry of the transition zone.
3.3.
Construction Methods and Schedule
Similar to the LL Dam, SD1 construction activities include topsoil stripping, surface and
groundwater management, common excavation, foundation preparation and dam fill. IFC
drawings will be prepared during the final design process for each construction stage.
Technical Specifications were Issued for Construction in 2013 (BGC, 2013).
Dam fill placement is planned in stages up to 15 m in height. Stage heights will be based on
impoundment filling rates, material supply, and construction season optimization. Figure 5
shows the proposed SD1 raising schedule prepared based on the design criteria and basis
Page 8

February 27, 2014

presented above. SD1 is not required to provide flood storage for the TSF until the dam crest
exceeds the low point in the ridge located at the downstream toe (elevation 216 m). The
minimum fill placement rates must exceed the rate of waste and operating pond rising prior to
that elevation. The dam raising schedule for SD1 considers flood storage and freeboard.
Foundation preparation requirements for SD1 are consistent with previously reported approval
criteria for the LL Dam (BGC, 2010, 2013). Given the stratigraphy discussed in section 2.2,
most of the highly weathered rock zones will be removed during foundation preparation
activities carried out to form regular or stepped foundation surfaces. Where highly weathered
rock units will remain within the dam foundations, stability analysis has accounted for this, as
discussed in Section 4.0.
Steep foundation slopes under the core will be flattened to provide a regular surface that does
not create stress concentrations or shadows. Steep slopes under other fill zones will be
stepped to improve stability at the interface between the fill and the foundation. Fractures in
the foundation rock will be treated with slush grout and/or dental concrete to provide a regular
shaped impervious surface for placement of LPF material.
The technical specifications require the Contractor to submit a construction water management
and sediment control plan to the satisfaction of the Engineer and Owner. Control of runoff and
groundwater seepage to protect construction works and limit surface erosion and sediment
transport will a requirement of the work.
3.4.
Instrumentation and Monitoring
Similar to the LL Dam, the behaviour and response to construction loading in SD1 fills and
foundations will be monitored via a system of instrumentation. Monitoring will focus on pore
pressures generated in the fine-grained LPF core and foundation, phreatic surface and
deformations of the foundations and settlement of the downstream rockfill. The number, type,
and spatial distribution of instruments will be established during final design.
3.5.
Spillways
Emergency spillways for the TSF will be provided for all dam raise stages throughout mine
operations. These spillways will have a relatively short lifetime, approximately 3 to 5 years.
When practical, operational spillways will be constructed with the capacity to pass the PMF.
However, if space and terrain limit the size of operations spillways, the design discharge
capacity may be lower than the PMF, but no less than a 100 year return period, 24 h event.
3.6.
Seepage Recovery
The project plan is to monitor groundwater quality, seepage flow and quality, and pump it back
into the TSF impoundment if necessary. The need for, the location, and the design of seepage
recovery systems will be evaluated as the pond level approaches 216 m elevation. This is the
lowest elevation of the saddle and the elevation where containment of the impoundment will
be provided by Saddle Dam 1.
Page 9

4.0
February 27, 2014

DAM STABILITY
Stability analyses were completed using limit equilibrium methods and commercially available
software (Geo-Slope, 2012). Four cross-sections along SD1 were analyzed, as shown in plan
view on Drawing 03. Downstream and upstream stability was analyzed for each section and
a variety of loading scenarios, including end of construction, static (steady-state seepage), and
seismic cases, were considered as shown in Figure 6. An evaluation of factor of safety
improvement in the downstream slopes was also carried out as discussed in Section 4.2.
Seismic displacements were calculated using the empirical procedure outlined by Bray and
Travasarou (2007) using the 10-4 APE ground motion calculated probabilistically.
4.1.
Updated Strength Parameters
Material properties for fills and foundation materials used in the stability analysis of SD1 have
been revised based on continuing evaluation of data from recent site investigations and ongoing testing of the as-built material as part of field verification. Material properties are
summarized in Table 4-1 below.
Foundation rockmass strengths are modelled as
Mohr-Coulomb fits to curved Hoek-Brown failure envelope based on the overlying stress, as
shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 for Weathering Grade III and Weathering Grades I and II
materials, respectively. The strength along geologic discontinuities have been incorporated in
the stability model, as discussed in the following section.
Strength parameter review is an ongoing process during the design and construction of the El
Llagal TSF. Re-evaluation of parameters will continue as sampling and lab and field testing
progresses.
Page 10

Table 4-1
February 27, 2014

Summary of Material Parameters.
Material
Undrained Strength
(kN/m3)
Effective Stress Strength
Source
Static
Cyclic
Source
su/vc=0.350
su_min=60 kPa (Saturated)
su_min=170 kPa (Unsaturated)
su/vc=0.315 2
su_min=54 kPa (Saturated) 2
su_min=153 kPa (Unsaturated) 2
UU, CK0UC Triaxial and DSS3
LPF/Compacted
Select Common
Fill
19.5
= 30, c = 0 kPa
CIUC and CK0UC Triaxial
Rockfill
22
Average Leps Strength Curve 4
Literature
N/A
N/A
Waste Limestone
22
Minimum Leps Strength Curve 4
Literature
N/A
N/A
Filter Zones
22
= 35, c = 0 kPa
Literature
N/A
N/A
su/vc=0.260
su_min=150 kPa
(assumed saturated)
su/vc=0.260 6
su_min=150 kPa 6
N/A
su/vc=0.235 5
su_min=135 kPa 5
(assumed saturated)
su/vc=0.235 6
su_min=135 kPa 6
In-situ Saprolite,
WG V
In-situ WG IV
Rock
In-situ WG III
Rock
In-situ WG II/I
Rock
Tailings
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
19.5
= 34, c = 0 kPa
19.5
= 34 6, c = 0 kPa
22
22
Hoek-Brown parameters with anisotropic discontinuity strength7 (detailed Core Logging, Literature,
in Table 4-2 and Table 4-4)
UCS8 and Direct Shear
7
Hoek-Brown parameters with anisotropic discontinuity strength (detailed Core Logging, Literature,
in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4)
UCS8 and Direct Shear
16
= 25
Literature
N/A
su/vc=0.200
CIUC and CK0UC Triaxial and DSS

CIUC and CK0UC Triaxial and DSS
N/A
N/A
09
Literature
Isotropically Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression (CIUC) & K0 Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test (CK0UC).
Cyclic shear strength reduction of 10% for this material was considered for the seismic condition based on cyclic and monotonic Direct Simple Shear (DSS) tests.
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test (UU), Direct Simple Shear Test (DSS).
Leps (1970).
Cyclic shear strength reduction of 10% for in-situ saprolite and WG.IV rock was considered for seismic condition based on cyclic and monotonic DSS tests.
Laboratory tests on WG.IV material did not show noticeable variation from WG.V material strength, hence properties of WG.IV material are assumed similar to those of WG.V material.
Equivalent Mohr-Coulomb strength was used in the stability model. Dip and direction of discontinuity sets were estimated based on regional geology. Anisotropic function was used to specify shear strength along discontinuities in the analysis.
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS).
Tailings are considered liquefied and was applied as a fluid boundary pressure for seismic analyses.
Page 11

Table 4-2
February 27, 2014


Parameters for Weathering Grade III Rock Mass Material.
Input Stress
Max. Depth
to Failure
Surface (m)
10
(kPa)1
SD1 North/LL Dam

max
(kPa)2
SD1 South
c (kPa)
max
(kPa)3
c (kPa)
200
160
40
50
150
35
40
30
600
440
32
90
415
27
70
60
1200
830
27
140
780
23
100
90
1800
1200
24
170
1130
20
130
120
2400
1560
23
200
1470
18
150
Notes:
The normal effective stress, N , is calculated using an average unit weight of dam fill, i.e. 20 kN/m3.
1.
3 max is calculated using an equation developed for slope stability applications (equation 19, in Hoek et al., 2002).
2.
Table 4-3

Parameters for Weathering Grade I and II Rock Mass Material.
Input Stress
Max. Depth
to Failure
Surface (m)
10
(kPa)1
LL Dam and SD1

max
(kPa)2
c (kPa)
200
190
54
160
30
600
510
47
230
60
1200
960
42
330
90
1800
1380
39
410
120
2400
1800
37
480
Notes:
1.
2.
4.1.1.
The normal stress, N , is calculated using an average unit weight of dam fill, i.e. 20 kN/m3.
3 max is calculated using an equation developed for slope stability applications (equation 19, in Hoek et al., 2002).
Influence of Foundation Structure on Rock Strength Parameters
Discontinuities within foundation materials have been observed to influence stability of natural
slopes, so have thus been explicitly considered in dam stability modelling. The rock foundation
units are modelled with two components, a rock mass strength and a reduced strength along
discontinuities. Discontinuities are modelled using anisotropic strength functions applied within
a specified dip range. Outside of this dip range the rockmass strengths described in the
Page 12

February 27, 2014

preceding section are used. The discontinuity strength and dip ranges used for design are
described below.
Kinematic analyses were performed to select the discontinuity sets that will influence stability
modelling. Figures 3 and 4 show stereonets and dam stability influence zones for both the
northern and southern domain based on the dam axis orientation. Table 4-4 presents the
structural dip ranges that influence each modelled section. Model section locations are shown
on Drawing 03 and Figure 2.
Table 4-4
Structure Dip Ranges of Influence for SD1 Cross-sections.

Dip Range1
Cross-Section
SD1 South
10o to 70o
SD1 Middle
10o to 70o
SD1 North
30o to 70o & -60o to -80o
SD1/LLD Transition
65o to 80o & -15o to -85o
Notes:
1.
Dip range is reported as positive for the downstream direction and negative for the upstream direction.
Strengths along discontinuities have been selected based on analysis of direct shear testing
results on samples from the TSF. Within the downstream SD1 footprint in the South domain,
observations of the current slope morphology, the unfavorably oriented foliation, and deeper
weathering indicate that some historical deformation has occurred. A residual discontinuity
strength value of 19 was used in the South domain stability modelling. In the North domain,
which is dominated by steeper slopes and a jointed rockmass that does not appear to be
controlled by foliation, a discontinuity strength value of 23 has been used, which is based on
the lower range of measured, peak discontinuity strengths.
4.2.
Results of Stability Analysis
A summary of stability analysis loading conditions acceptance criteria is shown in Figure 6.

Analysis results are summarized in Table 4-5. The range of values provided in Table 4-5
covers results from all dam crest elevations modeled. Seismic displacements and yield
accelerations for the 258 m crest elevation steady state stability analysis cases are provided
in Figure 7.
Page 13

Table 4-5
February 27, 2014

Stability Results Summary for Saddle Dam 1.

Seismic Displacement1 (cm)
Factor of Safety
Cross-Section
DS
SS2
US
SS2
DS
EOC3
US
EOC3
DS SS2
US
SS2
DS
EOC3
US
EOC3
SD1 South
2.0
2.1
1.8 - 5.2
1.4 - 1.6
199
79
35 - 93
24 - 44
SD1 Middle
2.0
1.9
1.7 - 2.4
1.5 - 1.6
142
58
39 - 74
33 - 46
SD1 North
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.1
1.4 - 1.6
50
74
13 - 40
40 - 49
SD1/LLD Transition
1.6
1.6
1.6 - 1.7
1.5 - 1.6
43
62
22 - 26
46 - 65
Notes:
1.
The allowable seismic deformation is 2 m (one half of the 4 m thick filter zones) mean displacement for end-ofconstruction cases and 2 m with 16% chance of exceedance (mean plus one standard deviation) for steady state cases.
2.
DS SS denotes downstream long-term steady state; US SS denotes upstream long-term steady state
3.
DS EOC denotes downstream end-of-construction case; US EOC denotes upstream end-of-construction case
Factor of Safety and seismic displacement criteria were achieved for all cases modelled. Yield
accelerations for all cases were in excess of 0.1g. For the SD1/LL Dam transition section, this
requires stripping the downstream foundation to Weathering Grade III or better quality material.
Given the complex and variable geology and weathering within the SD1 south domain, stability
analysis results were checked against the results of back analysis of the existing slopes. The
intent was to demonstrate an improvement in factor of safety when the proposed SD1
downstream slope design is compared to the current, assumed conditions of the natural slope.
For comparison purposes, the existing slopes were treated as a homogeneous frictional mass
(i.e. a material without anisotropy or cohesion) for the back analysis. The resulting required
material friction angles were between 24 and 28 for an assumed safety factor of 1.1 and the
current in-situ water table. These friction angles are intended to be used as a means of
representing the overall slope shear resistance capacity for the relative comparison discussed
above. When the proposed SD1 fill configuration in the south domain was compared to the
homogeneous foundation model of the existing slope the factor of safety was found to increase
by 20% or greater for all modelled cases.
Within the SD1 North domain, local observations of historical and recent wedge failure modes
have been made in the area downstream of the dam footprint. To prevent retrogression of
these wedges, placement of compacted rockfill is proposed to reinforce this area. Loose
material in the gullies will be removed and rockfill will be placed, as shown on Drawing 02.
Page 14

5.0
February 27, 2014

CLOSURE
We trust the above satisfies your requirements at this time. Should you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely,
per:
Jennifer Brash, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer
Brian Nachtigal, P.Eng.

Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Adrian Wightman, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Principal Consultant
BJN/AW/aw
Page 15

February 27, 2014

REFERENCES
BGC Engineering Inc., 2005. Pueblo Viejo Project Feasibility Study, Geotechnical Assessment
of Tailings, Waste Rock, and Mine Site Runoff. Final report. Prepared for Placer Dome
Technical Services. October 12, 2005.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2009. Pueblo Viejo Project Feasibility Study Update: Tailings Storage
Facility Design, Final Report submitted to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation January 13,
2009, Doc No: PV09-10.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2010. Response to INDRHI Board of Consultants Report No. 1. Project
Memorandum. Document No. PV10-15. February 12, 2010.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2011a. Pueblo Viejo Project: LL Starter Dam Right Abutment Slide
Assessment, Final Report submitted to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation May 6, 2011,
Doc No: PV11-35
BGC Engineering Inc., 2011b. Pueblo Viejo Project: LL Ultimate Dam Left Abutment Site
Investigation, Final Report submitted to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation September 15,
2011, Doc No: PV11-74.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2012a. LL Ultimate Dam Technical and Schedule Update. Submitted
to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, May 31, 2012. BGC Doc. No.: PVF12-03.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2012b. El Llagal TSF: Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package. Submitted
to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, May 31, 2012. BGC Doc. No.: PVF12-04.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2013. El Llagal Tailings Storage Facility Construction Technical
Specifications. Issued for Construction (Revision 0), submitted to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana
Corporation, December 6, 2013. BGC Doc. Nos.: PV-BGC-SP-5111-06-1001-0 to 1010-0.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Updated Material Properties El Llagal TSF. Prepared for
Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, issue date forthcoming. BGC Doc. No.: TBD.
Bray, J.D. and T. Travasarou, 2007. Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced
Deviatoric Slope Displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, April 2007, Vol. 133, No. 4, pp. 381-392, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)10900241(2007)133:4(381).
Fookes, P.G. 1997. Tropical Residual Soils. Geological Society of London. 184 pp.
Geo-Slope International Ltd., 2012, Stability Modeling with Slope/W 2012 Version, Geo-Slope
International Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada, September 2013
Hoek, E and Brown, E T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34(8): 1165-1186.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-Brown criterion 2002 edition.
Proc. NARMS-TAC Conference, Toronto, 2002, 1, 267-273.
Page 16

February 27, 2014

Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hidrulicos (INDRHI), 2012. Autorizacion de Constuccion

Presa El Llagal, Hasta m.s.n.m Elev. 258 m.s.n.m y Presa o Muro de Cierre 1 (Saddle Dam
1). Submitted to Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, August 8, 2012.
Leps, T. M., 1970, Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE 96 (SM4), pp 1159-1170Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corp (PVDC),
2013.
File name: 2013-08-01_PVDC_Tailings Water Balance_rev5_ (Extended
2024)_V2.xlsx, provided to BGC in August 2013
Page 17

February 27, 2014

FIGURES

APPENDIX A
DRILL HOLE LOGS
February 27, 2014


APPENDIX B
TEST PIT LOGS
February 27, 2014


APPENDIX C
TELEVIEWER LOGS
February 27, 2014


APPENDIX D
OUTCROP MAPPING LOGS
February 27, 2014


February 27, 2014

DRAWINGS

20670212

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20670212

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PUEBLO VIEJO DOMINICANA CORPORATION

SADDLE DAM 1 PERMITTING PACKAGE

February 27, 2014

Suite 800 - 1045 Howe Street

February 27, 2014

El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package

Brian Nachtigal, P.Eng.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

February 27, 2014

http://coreshack/sites/pveldd/RB/IssueforPermit/2014 SD1 Permitting-Working files/El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

February 27, 2014

Summary of TSF Dam Design Criteria. ....................................................... 6

Summary of Material Parameters. ............................................................. 11

Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Parameters Used to Approximate Hoek-Brown

Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Parameters Used to Approximate Hoek-Brown

http://coreshack/sites/pveldd/RB/IssueforPermit/2014 SD1 Permitting-Working files/El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

February 27, 2014

Structure Dip Ranges of Influence for SD1 Cross-sections. ...................... 13

Stability Results Summary for Saddle Dam 1. ........................................... 14

Hydraulic Conductivity Under the Saddle Dam 1 Footprint

SD1 South Domain Stereonets

SD1 North Domain Stereonets

Raising Schedule to El. 258 m

Saddle Dam 1 Stability Analysis Loading Conditions and Criteria Summary

Saddle Dam 1 El. 258 m Seismic Deformation Results

DRILL HOLE LOGS

TEST PIT LOGS

OUTCROP MAPPING LOGS

Saddle Dam 1 Plan

Saddle Dam 1 Site Investigation Plan

Saddle Dam 1 Profile Section A

Saddle Dam 1 Section B

Saddle Dam 1 Section C

http://coreshack/sites/pveldd/RB/IssueforPermit/2014 SD1 Permitting-Working files/El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

February 27, 2014

http://coreshack/sites/pveldd/RB/IssueforPermit/2014 SD1 Permitting-Working files/El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

February 27, 2014

El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package 2014

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

DAM SITE CHARACTERIZATION

February 27, 2014

El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package 2014

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

Commonly referred to together as soil, overburden, or residual soil;

Commonly referred to together as bedrock:

February 27, 2014

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

February 27, 2014

El Llagal TSF Saddle Dam 1 Permitting Package 2014

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation, El Llagal TSF

SADDLE DAM 1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION