Koolyanobbing Range C In-Pit Tailings Storage Facility...Report Reference: ENV -TS-RP-0178...

Report Reference: ENV-TS-RP-0178

Koolyanobbing Range C In-Pit Tailings Storage Facility

AMENDMENT TO LICENCE L5850/1993/11

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – REVISION 1 Proponent: Yilgarn Iron Pty Ltd

Address: 1 Sleat Road, Applecross, WA 6153

Postal Address: Locked Bag 3, Canning Bridge LPO, Applecross, WA 6153

Corporate contact: Les Purves Phone: +61 8 9329 3407 Email: [email protected]

31 March 2020

Koolyanobbing Range C In-pit TSF Licence Amendment

ENV–TS–RP–0178_Rev 1 ii


Issue Date: 31/03/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0178 Page | iii

Revision History

Revision Number

Issue Date Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By Purpose

0 03/12/19 C Thomson & E Chedid

A Parker T Berryman Supporting Document for LAA submission

1 31/03/2020 K Bagnall A Parker T Berryman Revision to address RFI and comments from DMIRS & DWER on supporting documentation


Issue Date: 31/03/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0178 Page | iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Prescribed Premise Categories ........................................................................................................ 9

2. PREMISES MAPS (ATTACHMENT 2) ......................................................................................................... 10

3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Geology, Landform and Soils ......................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Regional Setting ................................................................................................................ 13

3.2.2 Local Conditions ................................................................................................................ 13

3.2.3 C-Pit................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Waste Rock Characterisation ........................................................................................................ 14

3.3.1 C Pit Mining ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.2 C Pit Backfilling.................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Surface Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................ 16

3.5.1 Groundwater Flow ............................................................................................................ 16

3.5.2 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................ 17

3.6 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 19

3.6.1 Flora .................................................................................................................................. 19

3.6.2 Fauna ................................................................................................................................ 20

3.7 Heritage ......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.8 Land use and Community .............................................................................................................. 20

4. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES (ATTACHMENT 3A) .............................................................................................. 21

4.1 In-Pit Tailings Storage Facility ........................................................................................................ 21

4.1.1 Tailings Back-Fill Design Detail .......................................................................................... 21

4.1.2 Tailings Properties ............................................................................................................ 22

5. LOCATION AND RECEPTORS .................................................................................................................... 26

6. EMISSIONS AND DISCHARGES (ATTACHMENT 6A) .................................................................................. 27

6.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 27

6.2 LAND CLEARING AND TOPSOIL ............................................................................................................. 27

6.3 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................... 27

6.4 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................ 27

6.5 FLORA AND FAUNA ............................................................................................................................ 28


Issue Date: 31/03/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0178 Page | v

6.6 Heritage ......................................................................................................................................... 28

6.7 WASTE PRODUCTS ............................................................................................................................. 28

6.8 DANGEROUS GOODS, HYDROCARBONS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ..................................................... 28

6.9 ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND NOISE ................................................................................................. 28

6.9.1 Dust ................................................................................................................................... 28

6.9.2 Air emissions ..................................................................................................................... 29

6.9.3 Noise emissions ................................................................................................................ 29

6.9.4 Light emissions.................................................................................................................. 30

6.10 Waste Products ............................................................................................................................. 30

6.11 Dangerous Goods, Hydrocarbons and Hazardous Substances ...................................................... 30

7. APPLICATION FEE (ATTACHMENT 9) ........................................................................................................ 31

8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 32


Issue Date: 31/03/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0178 Page | vi

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................... 10

FIGURE 2: SITE LAYOUT MAP ........................................................................................................................... 11

FIGURE 3: LONG TERM MONTHLY MEAN RAINFALL & EVAPORATION ........................................................... 12

FIGURE 4: PLAN VIEW AND PROFILE OF C PIT BEFORE PROPOSED TAILINGS DEPOSITION ............................ 14

FIGURE 5: KOOLYANOBBING C PIT BORE LOG (CPWB1) ................................................................................. 15

FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF ROCKWATER MODEL BOUNDARY IN RELATION TO PITS AND KEY GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

FIGURE 7: KOOLYANOBBING A, B & C PIT BORE LOCATIONS .......................................................................... 19

FIGURE 8: COMPLETED TAILINGS DEPOSITION IN C PIT WITH SURFACE CONTOURS ..................................... 22

FIGURE 9: CROSS SECTION OF C PIT SHOWING DESIGN AND COMPLETED TAILINGS DEPOSITION ............... 22

FIGURE 10: PHOTO OF TAILINGS FROM XINYU PLANT IN GURON, CHINA ...................................................... 23

FIGURE 11: LITHIUM HYDROXIDE TAILINGS DRYING RATE ............................................................................. 29

TABLES

TABLE 1: LOCATION OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION ........................................................ 8

TABLE 2: PRESCRIBED PREMISE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 9

TABLE 3: LONG TERM CLIMATE DATA ............................................................................................................. 13

TABLE 4: MEASURED TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS PRODUCTION BORE GROUNDWATER ................................ 18

TABLE 5: EXPECTED PRODUCTION SCHEDULE FOR TAILINGS DEPOSITION .................................................... 21

TABLE 6: TAILINGS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ...................................................................................................... 23

TABLE 7: CONCENTRATION OF ELEMENTS IN TAILINGS SOLIDS AND LIQUORS .............................................. 24

TABLE 8: RESIDENTIAL AND SENSITIVE PREMISES ........................................................................................... 26

TABLE 9: LICENCE AMENDMENT FEE ............................................................................................................... 31

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: TAILINGS DESIGN REPORT

APPENDIX 2: IN-PIT TSF RISK ASSESSMENT

Koolyanobbing Range C In-Pit TSF Licence Amendment

Issue Date: 31/03/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0178 of 34

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Yilgarn Iron Pty Ltd (YIPL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Mineral Resources Limited (MRL), operates the Yilgarn Operations, which includes the mining of iron ore deposits at Deception, the Windarling Range, the Mt Jackson Range and the Koolyanobbing Range, processing of ore at Koolyanobbing, and road and rail transport between these operations and the Esperance Port where the processed ore is exported to international customers.

The Koolyanobbing Range C deposit is situated on M77/607-I and is about 50 kilometres north of Southern Cross in the Yilgarn area (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Mining of the Koolyanobbing Range C deposit via the C Pit was completed in 2017, and then the pit was partially backfilled with waste rock under Mine Plan MP 56363, after Sterilisation Drilling had confirmed exhaustion of the mineral deposit.

In October 2019 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) granted YIPL an amendment to Licence L5850/1993/11 to include C Pit as a Category 64 landfill site for disposal of putrescible waste and mine vehicle tyres, however, no putrescible waste or mine vehicle tyres have ever been placed or disposed of in the pit.

The C Pit has current capacity of 4.3 million cubic metres to 5 metres below the pit crest. YIPL intends to utilise the C Pit for dry stacking of tailings from Albemarle Corporation’s Lithium Hydroxide facility which is currently under construction in Kemerton, Western Australia (the “Kemerton facility” or the “Plant”).

The Kemerton facility is expected to start producing Lithium Hydroxide tailings in first quarter of 2021. The Plant will process spodumene ore transported from the Talison Lithium Pty Ltd Greenbushes Mine, to produce Lithium Hydroxide product and a sodium sulfate by-product.

Lithium tailings are the residue produced from secondary processing of spodumene concentrate (approximately 6% Li2O), through pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes, to produce Lithium Hydroxide monohydrate. Lithium Hydroxide monohydrate is used in the manufacture of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, industrial lubricants and dyes. Lithium processing tailings are an inert, non-toxic material comprised of alumina-silicates, approximately 15% gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore, and approximately 24% water.

Albemarle received approval for the Kemerton facility on 26 October 2018 with conditions stipulated in Ministerial Statement (MS) 1085. Construction of the Plant commenced in late 2018 with commissioning due in 2021 and first production of 150,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of Lithium Hydroxide planned in 2021 ramping up to 560,000 tpa in 2024, with a further 25 years project life at full production. To support the start-up of the Plant’s operations, an interim solution is required for tailings management and storage. This will allow the operator of the Plant to explore all reasonable and practicable measures to minimise the generation of waste and provide an alternative solution within three years, as outlined in MS 1085.

The project location and regional setting are shown in Figure 1.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This document supports an application for an amendment to the Licence L5850/1993/11, pursuant to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), for licensing an In-Pit Tailings Storage Facility (In Pit TSF) for the short term storage of tailings from the Kemerton facility currently under construction.

This document is structured in alignment with the DWER Application Form: Works Approval / Licence / Renewal / Amendment / Registration (February 2020, v 12) (Application Form).

This supporting document together with the completed Application Form constitutes the Licence Amendment Application (LAA) for the In-Pit TSF.



Table 1 provides an overview of the Application Form sections and the relevant parts of this supporting document that addresses the information required.

TABLE 1: LOCATION OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION

Section in Application Form Section in this document

Part 1. Application type Refer to Application Form

Part 2. Applicant details Refer to Application Form

Part 3. Premises details Section 2

Part 4. Proposed activities Section 3

Part 5. Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessments (IBSA) Refer to Application Form

Part 6. Other DWER approvals Refer to Application Form

Part 7. Other approvals and consultation Refer to Application Form

Part 8. Applicant history Refer to Application Form

Part 9. Emissions, discharges, and waste Section 5

Part 10. Siting and location Refer to Application Form

Part 11. Submission of any other relevant information Refer to Application Form

Part 12. Proposed fee calculation Section 7

Part 13. Commercially sensitive or confidential information Refer to Application Form

Part 14. Submission of application Refer to Application Form

Part 15. Declaration and signature Refer to Application Form

Attachment 1A: Proof of Occupier Status Not required

Attachment 1B: ASIC company extract Not required

Attachment 1C: Authorisation to act as representative Not required

Attachment 2: Premises maps Section 2

Attachment 3A: Environmental commissioning plan Not required

Attachment 3B: Proposed activities Section 3

Attachment 3C: Map of area proposed to be cleared Not required

Attachment 3D: Additional information for clearing assessment Not required

Attachment 4: Biodiversity surveys Not required

Attachment 5: Other approvals and consultation documentation Not required

Attachment 6A: Emissions and discharges Section 5

Attachment 6B: Waste acceptance Not required

Attachment 7: Siting and location Not required

Attachment 8: Additional information submitted Not required

Attachment 9: Proposed fee calculation Section7

Attachment 10: Request for exemption from publication Not required



1.3 PRESCRIBED PREMISE CATEGORIES

The proposed activity will trigger Prescribed Premise Category 5C under Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 as detailed in Table 2 below. The activity will take place in M77/607-I, which is within the Licence prescribed premise boundary (see Figure 2).

TABLE 2: PRESCRIBED PREMISE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

Category Number

Activity/Category Production or Design Capacity

Actual Production/Storage

5 Processing or beneficiation of metallic or non-metallic ore: premises on which – (c) tailings or residue from metallic or non-metallic ore are discharged into a containment cell or dam

50,000 tonnes or more per year

Up to 600,000 tonnes per year



2. PREMISES MAPS (ATTACHMENT 2)

FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP



FIGURE 2: SITE LAYOUT MAP



3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The following information is drawn from the Koolyanobbing C Pit Expansion Project Mining Proposal (REG ID 21823) (Cliffs 2009) unless otherwise noted.

3.1 CLIMATE

The closest long term climate records to Koolyanobbing are from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Southern Cross Station (Station Number 012074) and Turkeys Nest North (Station Number 012079). Selected statistics are summarised in Table 3.

The region has an arid to semi-arid climate with four distinct seasons: a hot summer from December to February, a mild autumn from March to May followed by a cool winter from June to August and a mild spring from September to November. January is the hottest month and July is the coldest.

The highest rainfall occurs during the winter months between May and August, with occasional high rainfall events during summer months associated with cyclonic activity. Average annual rainfall for the period from the BoM stations was approximately 290 millimetres (mm). For the purpose of assessing flood potential and drainage design of the In-Pit TSF, the 100-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) peak rainfall event equates to 180 mm (72 hour duration, 2.5 mm/hr) (Astron 2019).

Long term rainfall and evaporation data for Southern Cross is presented in Figure 3. Mean annual potential evaporation is about ten times higher than rainfall and monthly evaporation exceeds rainfall each month (Rockwater 2011).

FIGURE 3: LONG TERM MONTHLY MEAN RAINFALL & EVAPORATION



TABLE 3: LONG TERM CLIMATE DATA

Statistic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Turkeys Nest North BoM Rain Station 012079, elevation 380 m (1929-2020)

Mean rainfall (mm)

17.2 20.8 23.8 25.7 30.5 42.1 39.1 32.2 18.3 15.3 17.5 14.1 289.2

Median rainfall (mm) 7.2 8.8 8.6 15.3 25.2 39.0 36.2 29.0 13.7 9.1 11.0 7.5 281.2

Southern Cross BoM Station 012074, elevation 355 m (1889-2007)

Mean rainfall (mm) 16.3 20.9 24.2 24.5 34.9 40.7 38.6 31.2 19.4 15.6 15.5 12.6 294.5

Mean Evaporation (mm) 387 308 270 174 108 78 87 118 174 257 309 375 2,645

Max Max Temp (°C) 34.5 33.6 30.6 25.7 20.6 17.1 16.3 18.0 21.8 25.5 29.7 33.0 25.5

Mean Min Temp (°C) 17.2 17.2 15.2 11.6 7.7 5.7 4.4 4.8 6.5 9.3 12.9 15.5 10.7

3.2 GEOLOGY, LANDFORM AND SOILS

3.2.1 Regional Setting

The Koolyanobbing Range is the major landform of the area. It extends northwest-southeast for about 30 km at elevations of between approximately 440m AHD to 510m AHD. Surrounding the Koolyanobbing Range are extensive plains varying in elevation between approximately 340 and 400 m AHD, with the salt lakes Lake Deborah and Lake Seabrook occurring at the lowest points.

The Koolyanobbing Range is situated in a typical “greenstone” belt of Archaean age. The greenstone consists of volcanic material with banded ironstone formation (BIF) being precipitated in adjacent shallow basins. The BIFs host iron ore deposits that are typically haematite and goethite and are very resistant to erosion. Away from the Koolyanobbing Mine site, complex bodies of banded gneiss and intrusive granitoids are found between the greenstone belts.

3.2.2 Local Conditions

The Koolyanobbing Project area occurs within three landform and soil types, with elevations between approximately 370 and 510 m AHD comprising elevated ridges, slopes and undulating plains. The Project area geology comprises detrital iron overlying hematite-goethite and goethite mineralisation, surrounded by unmineralised iron formation.

The Koolyanobbing Mine site is located on areas classified as the Boorabbin Plateau and Bungalbin Ridges (Beard 1981, cited in Cliffs 2009). The Boorabbin Plateau is gently undulating with a repetitive succession of salt flats, broad valleys and broad interfluves. Soils are red/brown, silty clay loams and sandy clay loams.

3.2.3 C-Pit

Mining of the Koolyanobbing Range C deposit via the C Pit was completed in 2017. The C Pit walls are banded ironstone which have not shown signs of deterioration or slumping since completion of mining in 2017.

The pit was mined to 305 m AHD (see Figure 4) and has a capacity of approximately 4.3 million cubic metres to 5 metres below surface. The pit has been partially backfilled with waste rock and the base will be raised to 338 m AHD and track rolled to create a stable platform prior to tailings deposition.

A dewatering bore (CPWB1) was constructed in C Pit in 2014 and the bore log is included as Figure 5. Drilling commenced at 371 m AHD and stopped at 91.5 m (i.e. depth from surface).



FIGURE 4: PLAN VIEW AND PROFILE OF C PIT BEFORE PROPOSED TAILINGS DEPOSITION

3.3 WASTE ROCK CHARACTERISATION

3.3.1 C Pit Mining

Test work on samples of waste rock from C Pit were not carried out for the 2009 Mine Proposal (Cliffs 2009). However, test work on waste rock from A and D Pits, located northwest and east of C Pit, indicated that these pits were geochemically similar (Graeme Campbell and Associates 2002, cited in Cliffs 2009). Therefore, the geochemical characteristics of waste rock from Pits A and D were considered indicative of the characteristics of C Pit. Key characteristics were:

• Neutral to alkaline, with pH values typically between 7.0 and 8.7, and were low in soluble salts.

• Negligible quantities of pyrite, with sulphide-S representing less than 0.1% of the waste rock.

• Relatively low acid neutralising capacity (ANC), with values measured of less than 0.5kg H2SO4 per tonne and up to 11kg H2SO4 per tonne.

• Net acid generating (NAG) potential was low, at less than 0.5kg H2SO4 per tonne, and could be classified as not acid forming (NAF).

It was concluded that these bedrocks were barren materials i.e. devoid of both sulphides and carbonates. In addition, almost all weathered and fresh bedrock should pose no geochemical concern for mine-waste management and may be handled as a Run-of-Mine (ROM) operation without the need for selective placement.



FIGURE 5: KOOLYANOBBING C PIT BORE LOG (CPWB1)



In a subsequent Mining Proposal addendum (Cliffs 2013), analysis was undertaken to characterise waste rock of C Pit. The majority of waste material below the water table (assumed to be 337 m AHD) was found to be neutral, with pH values typically between 6 and 8, with some isolated zones of highly alkaline material. A limited volume of PAF waste rock was found. Unoxidised sulphides were considered likely to be present below the proposed pit floor (318 m AHD).

Waste rock excavated from C Pit was assessed and approved for disposal to the B/C Waste Rock Landform.

3.3.2 C Pit Backfilling

After sterilisation drilling had confirmed exhaustion of the mineral deposit, C Pit was partially backfilled with waste rock from the nearby Koolyanobbing Range E Deposit under MP 56363 and MP 61467 (MRL 2020). Approximately 2.49 million cubic metres of waste rock from E Pit has been back filled into the C Pit.

Waste rock from the E Pit has been described in the Koolyanobbing Range E Mining Proposal (REG ID 59431) and the Range E Deposit Extension MP (REG ID 61467) as largely non-acid forming (NAF). Geochemical characterisation has identified a limited mass (1%) of potentially acid forming (PAF, S = ≥0.3%) waste rock material, with a low capacity to generate acidity, metalliferous or saline drainage.

Previous investigations of the geochemistry of the iron ore deposits of the southern Koolyanobbing Range have similarly identified the presence of a limited volume of PAF waste rock. Comingling of the low volumes of PAF waste with NAF waste has been an accepted management practice within these operations, and no adverse monitoring results have been seen to date. To date, the approved Koolyanobbing Range mine operations have not presented any visual signs of acid or metalliferous drainage, confirming the assessment of waste rock in the mining area.

3.4 SURFACE HYDROLOGY

The Koolyanobbing Range coincides with part of the Internal Drainage Division of Western Australia, with salt lakes characteristic of the Yilgarn region. The Koolyanobbing Mine Site is located between Lake Deborah East, Lake Deborah West and Lake Seabrook, which form part of a chain of large, ephemeral salt lakes to the northwest, west and southwest. These lakes follow the course of a paleo-drainage channel. Peripheral dunes around the Lake Deborah system are well developed and comprise Aeolian sands (Cliffs 2009).

Lake Seabrook is located approximately 11.5 km south-east of C Pit and Lake Deborah is located approximately 10 km north-west of C Pit.

There are no significant defined catchment boundaries or surface drainage channels and the majority of runoff from the project area would occur as sheet flow (Cliffs 2009). Occasional small, ill-defined creek lines exist in runoff areas from the Koolyanobbing Range. These terminate in broad outwash zones upon reaching flat ground and would flow only rarely, following heavy rainfall. Flooding potential at the mine is low because the pits are situated high in the landscape and the direction of sheet flow would be away from the pits.

3.5 HYDROGEOLOGY

3.5.1 Groundwater Flow

Cliffs (2013) identified that groundwater in the region generally occurs in sand aquifers within the Tertiary palaeodrainage lines and was found in less substantial quantities in fractured rock aquifers away from these areas. Groundwater in the region moves from elevated areas to low lying drainages and lakes where evaporative losses occur (Cliffs 2013). Inferred connectivity between Lake Seabrook and Lake Deborah was considered by Rockwater (2011) to be poor because drawn down of the K Pit to the northwest of A, B and C Pits was not causing drawdowns in the Koolyanobbing Range pits (see Figure 6).



FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF ROCKWATER MODEL BOUNDARY IN RELATION TO PITS AND KEY GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES

The pre-mining standing water level (SWL) in the Koolyanobbing Range deposits ranged from 330 to 337 m AHD (Rockwater 2011). The orebodies mined in the Koolyanobbing Rage were found to be moderately permeable, and most flow into the pits were anticipated to derive from the adjacent weathered basaltic rocks and faults intersecting the pit margins. The level to which groundwater in the Koolyanobbing Range pits will recover following the cessation of dewatering was considered to be dependent on the balance between groundwater inflow, rainfall and evaporation. Following the completion of mining and dewatering of the C Pit, the groundwater was expected to recover to an elevation of approximately 330 m AHD within 10 years. However, it was noted at the time that the simple water balance did not take into account likely flow between the pits, and the stabilised water level in C Pit would be slightly lower than 330 m AHD as groundwater would flow from C Pit and B Pit into A Pit.

Given the pit lake in C Pit was predicted to stabilise at lower elevations than the SWL (337 m AHD), Rockwater (2011) noted that it would function as a groundwater sink after dewatering ceased. Groundwater flow towards the pit was not expected to impact the regional groundwater system.

The base of C Pit will be filled to 338m AHD with waste rock, removing existing ponded water. This will change the current hydrological conditions associated with the C Pit void. It will no longer be a groundwater sink, but will reinstate pre mining hydrological flows. In relation to this proposal MRL have assumed groundwater level will rebound to pre-mining level of 337 m AHD. Given the hydraulic connectivity with Pit A and Pit B, the final groundwater levels would be lower.

3.5.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater in the Yilgarn region is known to be saline, with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) over 3,000 mg/L (BoM 2012). Groundwater sampling from A Pit, B Pit and C Pit dewatering bores 1 is shown in Table 4. The measured groundwater salinity levels were regularly in the highly saline to brine classification. A pre-mining baseline Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) for C Pit was 63,400 mg/L, and this measurement was taken at construction of the production bore. Sample points are shown in Figure 7.



TABLE 4: MEASURED TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS PRODUCTION BORE GROUNDWATER

Koolyanobbing Production Bores TDS (mg/L)

Salinity Status*

Brackish Saline Highly Saline Brine 1000-2000 2000-10000 10000-35000 >35000

DATE APBW2 APWB3 BPWB1 CPWB1

Oct-12 94290 Nov-12 87250 Dec-12 79030 Jan-13 93110 Jul-13 28250 56060

Nov-13 15120 62010 Jan-14 36240 Apr-14 27140 104100 32420 Jun-14 63400 Jul-14 92840 65150 15310

Aug-14 8628 Sep-14 10890 Oct-14 101800 58370 74250 8515 Jan-15 100200 79730 Apr-15 87770 71470 68480 10310 Jul-15 88390 61800 75780 77800 Oct-15 87180 59410 73820 24090 Jan-16 38400 Apr-16 32350 Jul-16 49910 Oct-16 55680

* Source: Classifications from Mayer, XM, Ruprecht, JK & Bari, MA 2005, Stream salinity status and trends in south-west Western Australia, Department of Environment, Salinity and land use impacts series, Report No. SLUI 38 (https://www.water.wa.gov.au/water-topics/water-quality/managing-water-quality/understanding-salinity)



FIGURE 7: KOOLYANOBBING A, B & C PIT BORE LOCATIONS

3.6 FLORA AND FAUNA

3.6.1 Flora

The Koolyanobbing Range area is located within the Coolgardie Botanical District of the South-western Interzone (Beard 1990 in Cliffs 2009). Several vegetation and flora surveys have been completed for the central Koolyanobbing Range (Cliffs 2009). Five vegetation units were identified in the vicinity C Pit, which are dominated by Acacia sp. Mt Jackson (B. Ryan 176) assemblages reflecting the pit position on the mid- to upper-slopes on the range.

There are no Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) overlying the project area for the In-Pit TSF and no Declared Rare Flora (DRF) have been detected in the vicinity of the C Pit (Cliffs 2009). Populations of priority flora were identified close to, and south east, of C Pit:

• Beyeria rostellata Halford & R.J.F.Hend. (formerly Beyeria sp. Jackson Range (R. Cranfield & P. Spencer 7751)) – Priority 1;

• Hibbertia lepidocalyx subsp. tuberculata – now Priority 3;

• Lepidosperma ferricola – now Priority 3;

• Spartothamnella sp. Helena and Aurora Range (P.G. Armstrong 155-109) – no longer current; and

• Stenanthemum newbeyi – Priority 3.

There is no known groundwater dependent native vegetation in the vicinity of the C Pit (groundwater levels 30 m below adjacent surface level).



3.6.2 Fauna

The plains, slopes and ridges of the Koolyanobbing Range provide habitat for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna taxa, including species of conservation significance (Cliffs 2009). Vertebrate species were noted as having a wide distribution area, not confined to the Koolyanobbing mining project area.

The Tree-stem Trapdoor Spider (Aganippe castellun), a Priority 4 species, has been identified in the vicinity of the C Pit. This species is known to have a wide distribution area and occurs across the southern Koolyanobbing Range, preferring the mid and lower slope habitats on the range across a range of soil types (Bamford 2009, cited in Cliffs 2009). Surveys have found that A. castellum is able to live in close proximity to operational areas, with burrows recorded within 25 m of A Pit and adjacent to the D Pit haul road.

3.7 HERITAGE

A search of the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) found Registered Aboriginal Site 16721, Gnamma Hole, located on mining tenement M77/607, north of C Pit.

Prior to the Project area being developed and mined, YIPL/Cliffs commissioned ethnographic and archaeological surveys over the Project area. No sites of ethnographic or archaeological significance were recorded. While the original survey documents could not be located, a search of the AHIS confirmed that aboriginal heritage surveys had been conducted over the Project area.

3.8 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY

The current land use of the Proposal area and surrounds is mining operations and mineral exploration and is not located in the vicinity of any community areas. The nearest non-mining community is Southern Cross, about 50 km to the south.



4. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES (ATTACHMENT 3A)

4.1 IN-PIT TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY

The objective of the proposal is to provide Albemarle Corporation with an interim solution for disposal of approximately 1 million cubic metres of dry Lithium Hydroxide tailings from its Kemerton facility over the next four years. This proposal is for an In-Pit TSF and involves the backfilling of the C Pit using tailings transported from Albemarle’s proposed Lithium Hydroxide plant in Kemerton in line with estimated production rates detailed in Table 5. This will allow Albemarle to progress further opportunities for alternative tailings solution.

The proposal does not involve any activity beyond previously disturbed areas and no mining is associated with the proposal. Seepage from tailings will not be an issue as tailings will be “dry stacked” within C Pit where the predominant climatic influence is evaporation throughout the year (refer Figure 3). In addition, groundwater in the region is highly saline and there are no known groundwater dependant ecological receptors.

Kemerton tailings will be hauled by road trains to the C Pit.

TABLE 5: EXPECTED PRODUCTION SCHEDULE FOR TAILINGS DEPOSITION

Year 2021 2022 2023 2024

Approximate Tonnage (kt) 150 400 500 560

Approximate Volume (m3) 100,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

4.1.1 Tailings Back-Fill Design Detail

All tailings will be deposited in the C Pit beginning at a base level of 338 m AHD, above the pre-mining groundwater level of 337 m AHD (see Figure 4). The final elevation of the tailings in C Pit are expected to be approximately 383 m AHD.

Tailings proposed deposition in C Pit is illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The tailings will be received at the TSF in dry form and “dry stacked” using earth working equipment. The deposition procedure is described in the TSF Design Report (Appendix 1) which can be summarised as follows:

• The tails will be side cast tipped near the edge of the basin.

• Tails will then be pushed by dozer into the pit void until a level of 364 m AHD is achieved.

• A foundation of waste rock 2 m thick will be constructed.

• Tailings will then be deposited in 500 mm lifts and compacted using conventional mining equipment.

• Tailings placement will be such as to shed water to a constructed infiltration basin.

• Slope angles of less than 18 degrees will be created on batter slopes.

• The surface of the final deposition layer will be graded at a slope angle of less than 5 degrees to allow drainage.

• All tails will be capped with 1 m of competent waste rock at closure.

This methodology which was prepared by MRL Design Engineers with reference to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) Code of Practice for Tailings Storage Facilities (DMP 2013) and independently reviewed by Geotechnical Consultants Okane (Appendix 2). The TSF design will meet objectives of being safe, stable, non-polluting, erosion-resistant and self-sustaining, during construction, operation, rehabilitation and after closure. The proposed TSF is classified as a Category 3 facility, based on the level of hazard associated with the project, including:

• Location (in-pit).



• Physical properties of the tails (dry stacked).

• Limited impact on local environmental values.

• Tailings characteristics.

FIGURE 8: COMPLETED TAILINGS DEPOSITION IN C PIT WITH SURFACE CONTOURS

FIGURE 9: CROSS SECTION OF C PIT SHOWING DESIGN AND COMPLETED TAILINGS DEPOSITION

4.1.2 Tailings Properties

The tailings material are an inert by-product of Lithium Hydroxide processing. Tailings material sampled for material testing was obtained from Xinyu plant in Guron, China (see Figure 10). The Xinyu plant is identical to the Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide Plant, currently under construction. Albemarle advised MRL that the tailings obtained were from treatment of Talison Greenbushes Spodumene, the feedstock used for the



Kemerton facility. Therefore, results of tailings characterisation and testing are representative of the material proposed for the In Pit TSF.

FIGURE 10: PHOTO OF TAILINGS FROM XINYU PLANT IN GURON, CHINA

Physical Characteristics

Detailed analysis of tailings characteristics are provided in TSF Design Report (Appendix 1) and summarised in Table 6. The tailings are: very fine; dry quickly; sodic and dispersive (Emerson class 2); and present some slaking when immersed in water. Moisture content and drying rate analysis of three samples undertaken in February 2018 found the samples had a moisture content of between 23.0-26.2% (see Appendix 2 of TSF Design Report).

The tailings contain some gypsum and the liquor has a slightly alkaline pH, giving the material high acid neutralising capacity (ANC) (1,500 moles H+ / Tonne). The ANC is important as it provides a buffer to prevent the generations of any acidic conditions (pH <4) conducive to the mobilisation of any metals.

TABLE 6: TAILINGS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Moisture Range 15 – 40 %

Solids Content Range 70 – 85 %

Dry density (volumetric) 1.10 – 1.50 t/m3

Specific Gravity 1.79 - 2.66 t/m3

Particle size distribution Approximately 95% passing through 150 micron sieve

Hydraulic Conductivity by Falling Head 8.2 x 10-08 to 1.1 x 10-07 m/s

Permeability by Constant Head 3.6 x 10-09 to 1.0 x 10-07 m/s

Mean resistivity 16 – 18 Ω.m

pH 7.7 – 7.8

Emerson Class number 2



Geochemical Characteristics

Analysis of the major geochemical properties of the tailings was included in the TSF Design Report (Appendix 1). Concentrations of elements in tailings is presented in Table 7. Analysis of both solids and liquor from the tailings show the tailings are inert and non-toxic, comprised of alumina-silicates, gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore.

The median results of elements in the tails were compared to crustal abundance data (Bowen, 1979) to determine elements of interest for leach testing using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). Other elements of concern were also included following discussion with DWER for chemical constituents that were in exceedance of the waste classification and waste definitions guidelines (Rambol, 2018).

TABLE 7: CONCENTRATION OF ELEMENTS IN TAILINGS SOLIDS AND LIQUORS

Element Tailings #1 (ppm)

Tailings #2 (ppm)

Tailings #3 (ppm)

Liquor #1 (mg/L)

Liquor #2 (mg/L)

Liquor #3 (mg/L)

Ag - < 0.2 < 0.2 -

Al 79,780 85,190 93,142 0.172 0.162 0.096

As 27.3 27.4 27.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

B 9 9.1 9.1 13.1 13.1 19.9

Ba - 5 5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Be - 129 124 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Bi - 3.7 3.6 - - < 0.01

Ca 70,690 74,696 79,825 675 709 432

Cd - 4 3.9 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Ce - 1.7 1.6 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Co - 2.3 2.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Cr - 20 18.8 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Cs - 201 196 - - < 0.01

Cu - 5.8 6.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.071

Fe 6594 6397 7362 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.05

K 3102 3188 3472 0.41 -

La < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 - - < 0.01

Li 2364 2515 2674 1.76 1.77 1.64

Mg 1766 1832 1950 327 346 -

Mn - 451 426 0.019 0.019 0.021

Mo - < 1.0 3.8 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.01

Na 1714 1791 1931 1.28 -

Nb - 33.9 28.4 - - < 0.01

Ni - 9.4 9.1 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.036

P 1052 1114 1119 0.106 0.096 -



Element Tailings #1 (ppm)

Tailings #2 (ppm)

Tailings #3 (ppm)

Liquor #1 (mg/L)

Liquor #2 (mg/L)

Liquor #3 (mg/L)

Pb - 2.6 2.6 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

S 36,331 37,194 36,982 892 1022 -

Sb - 27.7 26.8 - - 0.025

Sc - < 1.00 < 1.00 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.04

Se - < 1.00 2.1 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Si 228,083 231,052 - 7.05 7.16 -

Sn - 80.7 79.8 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Sr 89.7 100 110 4.04 4.09 3.24

Ta - 49.9 40.5 - - < 0.01

Th - 1.9 1.6 - - < 0.01

Ti - 425 428 - - 0.464

Tl - 5.5 5.7 - - < 0.01

U - 29 25 - - 0.012

V 9.22 9.25 18.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

W - 24 24 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Zn 108 54.3 63.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

Note: Certificate of Analysis (EGS/2019/155) is appended to the TSF Design Report

Leach testing demonstrated that tailings are slightly alkaline, due to high proportion of gypsum. The tailings also have high acid neutralising capacity of 1,500 moles H+ / Tonne.

LEAF tests of the tailings, undertaken by Ramboll for Albemarle in 2018 and the summary report is appended to the TSF Design Report (Appendix 1). The tests were completed in accordance with US EPA methodologies 1313, 1314, 1315 and 1316.

Results provided by Albermarle in 2019 indicated:

• No leaching of Ag, Bi, Hg, Se, Cr(VI).

• There was increased leaching below pH 4 for Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Cs, Li, Pb, Sb, U, V, Ta, Th.

In summary, both site conditions and the tailings characteristics will not produce conditions conducive to leach metals from the tails. This is reflected in risk assessment undertaken identified this as a low risk (Appendix 2).



5. LOCATION AND RECEPTORS

Table 8 lists the relevant sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Prescribed Premises which may be relevant to this licence amendment.

TABLE 8: RESIDENTIAL AND SENSITIVE PREMISES

Residential and sensitive premises Distance from Prescribed Premises

Southern Cross About 50 km south

Koolyanobbing Site Accommodation About 3.8 km north west from pit

The Koolyanobbing accommodation village is approximately 4 km to the north west of the C Pit, however it is not regarded as a sensitive receptor for the purpose of a Part V Risk assessment as it can be regulated under different legislation.

Utilising the Assessment of Contaminated sites NEPM 1999 Guideline for Site Characterisation (Schedule B2 amended 2013), a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed to show the source and pathways of exposure related to C Pit tailings deposition impact on the surrounding environment (see Appendix 2).

The main receptors identified that have plausible pathways are mine personnel working in the vicinity of tailings deposition within the C Pit, and terrestrial biota close to the pit. Implementation of YIPL Dust Management Plan and standard mining practices will address the safety issues associated with exposure to the tailings and drainage / leachate from tailings.

Metal contaminated leachate from tailings to groundwater will not occur from rainwater, unless the tailings are in contact with waste rock containing potential acid forming (PAF) material. Waste rock from E Pit will form base of the In-Pit TSF and this has been characterised as largely NAF, with a limited mass of PAF material with a low capacity to generate acidity, metalliferous or saline drainage. The accepted practice of comingling low volumes of PAF waste rock with NAF waste rock will continue. Testing of the waste rock prior to use will avoid generation of acid leachates forming and release of metal contamination into the groundwater. It is important to note that the tails material has a high acid neutralising capacity, and as such if any PAF material is encountered, it will not result in AMD issues.

If groundwater were to rebound above current predictions and interact with the tailings, the tails will remain benign and no emissions are likely to occur.

There are no beneficial uses of groundwater.



6. EMISSIONS AND DISCHARGES (ATTACHMENT 6A)

6.1 OVERVIEW

A Risk Assessment of the TSF project was undertaken (see Appendix 2). This took into consideration the following key characteristics of the receiving environment and tailings properties:

• The receiving environment is within a pit with competent NAF rock walls and base.

• The C Pit groundwater is hypersaline with no known other beneficial uses and no connection to ecological receptors.

• Both the tailings and interstitial liquor are benign with the tailings displaying high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 moles H+ / Tonne).

• Leach testing at varying pH shows leaching of metals under acidic conditions (pH <4). These conditions are not encountered within the pit environment.

• Rainfall and any tailings liquor drainage will be diverted to a sump for infiltration, or evaporation away from encapsulated tailings. This is for operability only, with no concerns based on the low environmental impact described above.

Of all the potential hazards considered only two risks were identified with the TSF as follows:

• Potential for localised dust emissions within the pit during deposition.

• Tailings saturation impacting trafficability.

Neither of these risks were deemed to impact the environment and will be controlled with standard mine operating practices.

The following sub-sections describe impacts and any proposed mitigation against each of the environmental factors. The discussion only relates to those relevant to the proposed TSF.

6.2 LAND CLEARING AND TOPSOIL

No clearing will be undertaken for the TSF Project and topsoil management measures will not be required.

6.3 SURFACE WATER

The TSF Project will not change surface water flows at C Pit and current management practices will remain in place.

6.4 GROUNDWATER

The tailings will be deposited from 338 m AHD, above the C Pit ground water recovery level, which is assumed to be 337 m AHD and C Pit will no longer function as a groundwater sink. Any potential interaction with the groundwater will be from tailings liquor drainage (slightly alkaline) or from rain water percolation through the stored tailings and through the backfilled pit floor.

Leach testing (LEAF methodology) of representative tailings were undertaken by Albemarle / Ramboll which found increased leaching of metals below pH 4.0. The geochemical properties of the tails have a high acid neutralising capacity. Together with the tailings deposition method and water management controls associated with the TSF, no conditions conducive to the generation of metalliferous leachates will be created.

A Risk Assessment (see Appendix 2) of the potential impact on groundwater from tailings leachate shows that the TSF Project is unlikely to have significant impact on groundwater quality beneath the tailings due to the following:



• The C Pit groundwater is hypersaline with no known other beneficial uses, and with no connection to ecological receptors.

• The tailings will be dry, with relatively low moisture.

• The tailings and liquor are benign and have a high acid neutralising capacity.

• Leach testing with does not release metal contaminants above pH4.

• Evaporation rates far exceed rainfall in the region.

• Rainfall and any tailings liquor drainage will be diverted to a sump for evaporation, or infiltration away from encapsulated tailings.

Should groundwater rebound higher than modelled and interact with the base of the tailings facility, there would be no change to emissions to the environment. Based on previous assessments:

• There is poor hydraulic connectivity between Lake Seabrook and Lake Deborah.

• There is hydraulic connectivity between A Pit, B Pit and C Pit, with groundwater flowing from C Pit and B Pit into A Pit.

• Groundwater flow from C Pit towards the closest lake (about 4.7 km northwest) is unlikely as water must travel through or underneath A Pit and B Pit.

• The benign nature of the tailings in local conditions will not generate any emissions when in contact with ground water.

6.5 FLORA AND FAUNA

The TSF Project will not change previously assessed impacts to flora and fauna in the Project area. Current flora and fauna management practices will remain in place.

6.6 HERITAGE

The In-pit TSF Project will not affect the registered Aboriginal Site Gnamma Hole. Current heritage management practices will remain in place.

6.7 WASTE PRODUCTS

The TSF Project does not include the storage or use of domestic or industrial waste products.

The previous approval for a Category 64, putrescible landfill, under the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 was never actioned and the outcome of this proposal will revoke that approval.

6.8 DANGEROUS GOODS, HYDROCARBONS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

The TSF Project does not include the storage or handling of dangerous goods or hazardous substances.

Existing management plans are in place in the event of hydrocarbon spill from mobile plant and equipment. These will be minor and not result in any significant impact on the environment.

6.9 ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND NOISE

6.9.1 Dust

The Lithium Hydroxide tailings are known to dry quickly and be dispersive when dry. Figure 11 shows the drying rate of Lithium Hydroxide tailings at laboratory temperatures. As noted in the TSF Design Report (Appendix 1), given that the C Pit is an arid area with very high summer temperatures, it is reasonable to expect that the Lithium Hydroxide tailings will dry quickly and may generate local dust.



Site preparation, construction of the infiltration basin embankments and deposition of the tailings has the potential to generate dust emissions from sources such as:

• Mobile equipment movement.

• Placing and compacting tails.

• Wind erosion from the exposed and disturbed tail surfaces.

Source: Albemarle; 2019 (referencing work undertaken by Stephen Belmont, Kings Mountain)

FIGURE 11: LITHIUM HYDROXIDE TAILINGS DRYING RATE

Extreme weather events such as high wind speed during dry conditions can result in more significant dust emissions. The impact from these events is expect to be contained within the pit void.

Particulate emissions will be minimised during depositions of tailings through:

• Use of water trucks and/or water sprays to control emissions when visible dust is being generated and/or visible dust is reported by site personnel.

• Reducing activities which cause visible dust emissions during periods of high winds if dust cannot be controlled through water sprays.

• Use of defined haul routes for mobile equipment travelling on unsealed surfaces or unformed roads.

Through implementation of these control measures, dust emissions are expected to be temporary, localised and have minimal impact. Any complaints relating to dust emissions will be recorded and investigated. It is unlikely that dust emissions from the site preparation and embankment construction would impact outside of C Pit boundary.

Similarly, dust emissions resulting from deposition of tailings are considered unlikely to impact the vegetation within the surrounding area due to the relatively small scale of the works, the dust suppression which will be implemented, and the distance between the works and the conservation area.

6.9.2 Air emissions

Gaseous emissions during the construction of the Project will be limited to combustion emissions from mobile equipment. Due to the small fleet required for the Project construction, combustion emissions from mobile equipment are expected to have negligible impact on the local air quality and will not impact sensitive receptors. Gaseous emissions will be minimised by ensuring mobile equipment are operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

6.9.3 Noise emissions

Mobile equipment undertaking construction of the Project will be the primary source of noise during the construction period. C Pit is part of an ongoing mining operation, additional noise from mobile equipment

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 16 36 60

Moi

stur

e Co

nten

t

Time (hours)

Moisture Loss at 20oC - No Wind



associated with the tailings deposition would be minimal. The town of Southern Cross is the closest residential sensitive receptor about 50 km from pit wall, which defines the extent of the TSF deposition.

Standard noise minimisation practices will be employed during the construction period:

• Operation and maintenance of mobile equipment in line with the manufacturer’s specifications.

• Regular inspections of vehicles to ensure they are in good working order.

• All complaints relating to noise will be recorded and investigated.

• Majority of the work will be carried out at depth in the pit void, reducing surface noise levels.

Only a small fleet of equipment is required for the deposition of tailings with no noticeable increase in noise emissions expected from the TSF. Any increase is not expected to impact on the amenity of any receptors due to the separation distance and buffering by vegetation and pit walls.

The transport of tailings, peaking at approximately 500,000 t/yr from the Kemerton facility may result in additional noise and vehicle emissions along the nominated routes.

6.9.4 Light emissions

The TSF project is in-pit and therefore light spillage outside the pit is not significant. Minimal lighting will be provided at night for safety and security purposes but this is not likely to be detected by any receptors.

6.10 WASTE PRODUCTS

Given the nature of this proposal and restricted personnel access it is not envisaged any waste products will be produced within the In-Pit TSF. However waste bins and spill kits will be available near the work area and any wastes generated will be taken to one of the approved Part V Landfill facilities within the Prescribed Premise area.

6.11 DANGEROUS GOODS, HYDROCARBONS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

The In-pit TSF Project does not include the storage or handling of dangerous goods or hazardous substances. Spill kits will be located at the In-pit TSF to ensure that any hydrocarbon or chemical spills are promptly cleaned up and contaminated material removed.



7. APPLICATION FEE (ATTACHMENT 9)

The licence amendment fee is detailed in Table 9 and is estimated to be $2,050.

TABLE 9: LICENCE AMENDMENT FEE

Category Production or design capacity Fee Units Fee

Category 5 (c) Tailings Storage Facility

More than 500,000 tonnes per year but not more than 5,000,000 tonnes per year

300 300 x 6.80 = $2040

Fee Multiplier is $6.80, Amendment fee is determined by the category with the largest fee units.



8. REFERENCES

Astron (2019). Yilgarn Mine Closure Plan prepared for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd. May 2019.

Bowen. H. (1979) Environmental Chemistry of the Elements, Academic Press, London

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (2012) Australian Water Resources Assessment 2012. Australian Government.

Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2009) Koolyanobbing C Pit Expansion Project – Addendum to Mining Proposal 2805 (Tenement M77/607). DMP Reg ID 21823. Report prepared by Nielsen J of Sustainability Pty Ltd for Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd. Revision 0. May 2009.

Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd (2015) Yilgarn Operations Koolyanobbing Range C Deposit Backfilling Mining Proposal, Addendum to Mining Proposals 21823 and 32064, Tenement M77/607-I. DMP REG ID 56363. Report prepared by Hawkins S of Globe Environments Australia Pty Ltd for Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd. Revision B. September 2015.

Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) (2013). Tailings Storage Facilities in Western Australia – Code of Practice: Resources Safety and Environment Divisions, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia

Ramboll (2018). Albemarle Australia Lithium Tailings Leaf Testing summary report. April 2018

Ramboll (2019). Albemarle Lithium Processing Project Tailings Storage Facility MCA. August 2019

Rockwater (2011) Koolyanobbing A, B, C Pits: Assessment of Dewatering Rates and Final Void Water Levels. Report prepared by de Broekert P of Rockwater Pty Ltd for Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd. Report No. 246.4/11/02. June 2011.

Xstract (2018). Lithium Tailings characterisation, Dry Stacked Tailings – Laboratory Test Results. April 2018



APPENDIX 1: TAILINGS DESIGN REPORT

1 | P a g e

TSF Design Report

February 2020

Koolyanobbing Range TSF Design Report

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 TSF PROPOSAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 5

2. TSF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 TSF Storage capacity ................................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Tenure and site conditions ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.3.2 Geology and Waste Rock Geochemistry ...................................................................... 10

2.3.3 Landforms and Soils ...................................................................................................... 10

2.3.4 Surface Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 11

2.3.5 Hydrogeology................................................................................................................ 12

2.4 Retaining structure properties .............................................................................................. 13

2.5 Tailings properties ................................................................................................................. 13

2.5.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................ 13

2.5.2 Geochemical Characteristics ........................................................................................ 14

2.5.3 Process and Return Liquor ............................................................................................ 16

2.5.4 Rheology ....................................................................................................................... 16

3. TSF DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Modelling and design studies ................................................................................................ 19

3.2.1 Stability Assessment ..................................................................................................... 19

3.2.2 Design acceptance criteria ........................................................................................... 20

3.2.3 Erosion control ............................................................................................................. 20

3.2.4 Seepage ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.2.5 Surface water flow and storage .................................................................................... 21

3.2.6 Water balance .............................................................................................................. 21

3.2.7 Settlement .................................................................................................................... 21

3.3 Design and construction details ............................................................................................ 22

3.3.1 Stage 1 Design .............................................................................................................. 22

3.3.2 Stage 2 Design .............................................................................................................. 23

3.3.3 Construction and Emissions ......................................................................................... 26

3.4 Tailings discharge and water management ........................................................................... 28

3.5 Covers and liners .................................................................................................................... 28

3.6 Quality Assurance .................................................................................................................. 28

3.7 Spillways ................................................................................................................................ 28

4. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 29


3 | P a g e

4.1 Management of tailings deposition and water ..................................................................... 29

4.2 Seepage management ........................................................................................................... 29

4.3 Erosion control ....................................................................................................................... 29

4.4 Performance monitoring and instrumentation ..................................................................... 29

5. CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 31

5.2 Decommissioning ................................................................................................................... 31

5.3 Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................................... 31

5.4 Performance monitoring against closure criteria .................................................................. 31

6. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................................... 34

7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 35

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: C PIT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 7

FIGURE 2: DWER WATER SALINITY CATEGORIES .................................................................................. 13

FIGURE 3: LITHIUM HYDROXIDE TAILINGS DRYING RATE ..................................................................... 14

FIGURE 4: PREPARATION OF C PIT TO 338M AHD PRIOR TO TAILINGS DEPOSITION ........................... 22

FIGURE 5: STAGE 1 TAILINGS DEPOSITION TO 364M AHD ................................................................... 23

FIGURE 6: TAILINGS DEPOSITION TO 370M AHD .................................................................................. 24



FIGURE 9: C PIT WITH CAPPED TAILINGS .............................................................................................. 25

FIGURE 10: CROSS SECTION OF C PIT AFTER CAPPING ......................................................................... 26

FIGURE 11: INFILTRATION BASIN FOR RAINWATER RUNOFF & TAILINGS LIQUOR DRAINAGE ............ 28

TABLES

TABLE 1: TSF STORAGE DATA SHEET ....................................................................................................... 8

TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE TAILINGS DEPOSITION RATES .......................................................................... 9

TABLE 3: C PIT GROUNDWATER QUALITY ............................................................................................. 12

TABLE 4: TAILINGS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ............................................................................................ 14

TABLE 5: CONCENTRATION OF ELEMENTS IN TAILINGS SOLIDS AND LIQUORS (PPM) ........................ 15

TABLE 6: LITHIUM HYDROXIDE TAILINGS TOTAL AND LEACHABLE METALS ........................................ 17

TABLE 7: CATEGORY 3 FACILITY REPORTING ........................................................................................ 18

TABLE 8: RECOMMENDED FACTORS OF SAFETY (ANCOLD, 2012) ........................................................ 19

TABLE 9: TAILINGS MATERIAL PROPERTIES .......................................................................................... 19

TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................... 20


4 | P a g e

TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS TABLE ........................................................................................... 20

TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF TSF PERFORMANCE MONITORING ............................................................... 30

TABLE 13: C PIT CLOSURE OBJECTIVES, COMPLETION CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROGRAM ........ 32

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 –TSF Project Risk Assessment

APPENDIX 2 – Lithium Tailings Leaf Testing Summary Report

APPENDIX 3 – XSTP Lithium Hydroxide Tailings Characteristics

APPENDIX 4 – EGS Certificate of Analysis

APPENDIX 5 – Tailings Chemical Analysis Data


5 | P a g e

1 TSF Proposal Summary MRL proposes to construct and operate a new in-pit tailings storage facility (TSF) with a capacity of 1 million BCM at the Koolyanobbing C Pit for storage of lithium tailings from Albemarle’s proposed “Lithium hydroxide monohydrate” production plant in Kemerton, WA. The Koolyanobbing C Pit is situated on M77/607-I and is about 50 kilometres north of Southern Cross in the Yilgarn area, refer to Figure 1. The Albemarle Lithium Hydroxide Plant is currently under construction in Kemerton and is expected to start producing Lithium Hydroxide tailings in first quarter of 2021. The Plant will process spodumene ore (containing 6% lithium oxide), transported from the Talison Mine at Greenbushes, to produce lithium hydroxide product and a sodium sulphate by-product. Commissioning is due in 2021 and first Lithium Hydroxide production of 20,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) planned in 2021 ramping up to 100,000 tpa in 2024, with a further 25 years project life at full production. The Koolyanobbing TSF (C Pit) is being proposed as an interim storage solution while investigation continues to minimise the generation of waste and its discharge to the environment for the Lithium Hydroxide plant. The C Pit TSF design report was prepared as per the DMP “Guide to the preparation of a design report for tailings storage facilities (TSFs), August 2015”. The design will meet objectives of being safe, stable, non-polluting, erosion-resistant and self-sustaining; during construction, operation, rehabilitation and after closure. The basis of design relies on the outcome of test work undertaken by Albemarle to characterise the physical and geo-chemical properties of the tailings and the specific environmental setting. Commitments to reduce potential environmental impacts and ensure adequate closure measures include:

• The design of the In-pit tailings handling and storage process, which will address road train access, stacking of the tailings and drainage within the pit.

• Tailings deposition within C Pit will be placed at a minimum 338m AHD, which is 1m above the pre-mining regional groundwater level (337m AHD).

• Tailings will be track rolled to ensure compaction during deposition. • The Yilgarn Iron Ore Pty Ltd (YIPL) Dust Management Plan will be implemented to minimise

tailings dust impact on personnel and the surrounding environment. • Water will be diverted to an infiltration basin, outside of the tailings footprint, during

deposition and post closure. • On completion of tailings deposition, the C Pit TSF will be capped with 1m of waste rock. • The final slope angles on the surface of the capped tails will be less than 5 degrees and batter

slopes no greater than 18 degrees ensuring limited opportunity for erosion. • All waste rock that may come in contact with tailings will be tested for acid metalliferous

drainage to ensure that only non-acid forming (NAF) material is used. • Should early, unplanned or permanent closure occur prior to completion of tailings

deposition, the landform will be made safe, access will be restricted and warning signs will be erected. Existing abandonment bunds will be re-established and or repaired. A Care and Maintenance plan will be developed that includes annual inspections for 3 years to confirm


6 | P a g e

TSF structural stability, access restriction and signage. Closure will remain unchanged with tailings material still being capped with NAF waste rock.

7 | P a g e

Figure 1: C Pit Location

8 | P a g e

Table 1: TSF storage data sheet

Project operator: Yilgarn Iron Ore Pty Ltd

Project name: TSF Date: 24 January 2020

TSF name: TSF Commodity: Lithium

Name of data provider: Enrico Chedid Phone: +61 8 6310 6771

TSF centre co-ordinates (GDA 94) 6584996 m North

744017 m East

Mining Tenement and Holder(s) details

TSF data

TSF status: Proposed

Type of TSF: In-pit Number of cells: 1

Hazard rating: Low TSF category: 3

Catchment area: Internal & external Nearest water course: 1km south of pit

Date deposition started (mm/yy): Tailings deposition has not commenced

Date deposition completed (mm/yy): N/A

Tailings discharge method: paddock dumping Water recovery method: No water recovery

Bottom of facility sealed or lined? N Type of seal or liner: No Liner

Depth to original groundwater level

Current groundwater level

337m AHD

324m AHD

Original groundwater TDS/pH: 55680 mg/l / pH 6.4

Ore process: Pyromet Tailings Deposition rate: 150kt initially

Impoundment volume (present) 4M m3 Expected maximum 1M m3

Mass of solids stored (present) Nil Expected maximum tonnes 1,500 kt

Above ground facilities

Foundation soils: N/A Foundation rocks: N/A

Starter bund construction materials: N/A Wall lifting by: N/A

Wall construction method/materials: N/A

Wall lifting material: N/A

Present maximum wall height agl: N/A Expected maximum m N/A

Crest length (present) N/A Expected maximum m N/A

Impoundment area (present) N/A Expected maximum ha N/A

Below ground (in-pit) facilities

Initial pit depth (maximum) 306m AHD (126m deep from North Central wall)

Area of pit base 0.67 ha

Thickness of tailings (present) Nil Expected maximum 26 m

Current surface area of tailings N/A (no tails)

Final surface area of tailings 6.5 ha

Properties of tailings and return water – no Tailings return is proposed

TDS mg/l pH 7.7 – 7.8 Solids content >70% Deposited density t/m3

Potentially hazardous substances: Nil WAD CN Nil

Any other NPI listed substances in the TSF? N


9 | P a g e

2. TSF Design Considerations 2.1 Introduction MRL proposes to construct and operate a new in-pit tailings storage facility at the Yilgarn Operations Koolyanobbing C Pit on mining tenement M77/607. The C Pit has been mined out and then partially backfilled with waste rock from nearby E pit. The C Pit has a further storage capacity of 4.3 million m3

and this proposal is for storage of approximately 1 million m3 of lithium tailings. The C Pit will be utilised for storage of lithium tailings which will be received from Kemerton Lithium hydroxide monohydrate production plant. The source of the ore to the processing plant, is spodumene from the Talison Greenbushes mine. The tailings are an inert, non-toxic material comprised of alumina-silicates, gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore. 2.2 TSF Storage capacity The C Pit has current capacity of 4.3M cubic metres to 5m below crest. Approximately 1M m3 (1.5Mt) of tailings deposition is expected to commence in 2021 and conclude in 2024 as per the rates in Table 2. Table 2: Approximate Tailings Deposition Rates

Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approximate Tonnage (kt) 150 400 500 560

Approximate Volume (m3) 100,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide tailings, will be hauled by road trains to the proposed In-pit TSF where they will be side cast tipped, then dry stacked using conventional mining equipment e.g. Front End Loader / Dozer.

2.3 Tenure and site conditions

The Range C Deposit mine pit (C Pit) is located on the Koolyanobbing Range, on Mining Lease (M) 77/607-I. Refer to the mining proposal for details of Regional Setting.

Mining of the C Pit deposit was completed in 2017 and then the pit was partially backfilled with waste rock under MP 56363, after Sterilisation Drilling had confirmed exhaustion of the mineral deposit.

The following information is extracted from the Koolyanobbing C Pit Expansion Project Mining Proposal (REG ID 21823).

2.3.1 Climate

The region has an arid to semi-arid climate with four distinct seasons January is the hottest month (maximum averaging 35°C; minimum averaging 19°C) and July is the coldest (maximum averaging 18oC; minimum averaging 4°C). Temperature extremes of -5°C and 47.2°C have been recorded at Southern Cross.

The average rainfall varies from 300mm in the south-western corner of the Jackson area (around Koolyanobbing), to 265mm in the north-east. Winter (June to August) is the wettest time of year. Winter rains consist mainly of small falls associated with the passage of cold fronts. Summer rains occur from thunderstorms or tropical cyclones that have degenerated into rain-bearing depressions. Individual falls are sporadic, unreliable and sometimes exceed 100mm in a single rainfall event.


10 | P a g e

For the purpose of assessing flood potential and drainage design, the 100-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) peak rainfall event (72 hour duration) equates to 2.5 mm/hr (180mm), Astron 2019. The annual evaporation averages around 2800mm, which is substantially in excess of rainfall.

During spring, summer and autumn, the winds are from the north-east to south-east and average approximately 6km/hr – 20km/hr. During winter, the winds are predominantly westerly to north-westerly, averaging around 5km/hr – 20km/hr. The area occasionally experiences strong winds, with speeds in excess of 100km/hr (recorded at Southern Cross) Astron, 2019.

2.3.2 Geology and Waste Rock Geochemistry

The Koolyanobbing Range is situated in a typical “greenstone” belt of Archaean age. The greenstone consists of volcanic material with BIF being precipitated in adjacent shallow basins. The BIFs host iron ore deposits that are typically haematite and goethite and are very resistant to erosion. Away from the Koolyanobbing mine site, complex bodies of banded gneiss and intrusive granitoids are found between the greenstone belts.

Test work on samples of waste rock from C Pit has not been carried out. However test work on waste rock from A and D Pits, located northwest and east of C Pit, indicated that these pits were geologically and geochemically similar (Graeme Campbell and Associates 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the geochemical characteristics of waste rock from Pits A and D are indicative of the characteristics of C Pit.

Samples of waste rock from Pits A and D were found to be neutral to alkaline, with pH values typically between 7.0 and 8.7 and were low in soluble salts (Graeme Campbell and Associates 2002). Furthermore, there were negligible quantities of pyrite, with sulphide-S representing less than 0.1% of the waste rock.

The waste rock had relatively low acid neutralising capacity (ANC), with values measured of less than 0.5kg H2SO4 per tonne and up to 11kg H2SO4 per tonne. Similarly, net acid generating (NAG) potential was low, at less than 0.5kg H2SO4 per tonne. The test results indicated that the waste rock could be classified as not acid forming (NAF).

Graeme Campbell and Associates (2002) concluded that these bedrocks were barren materials i.e. devoid of both sulphides and carbonates. Furthermore, almost all weathered and fresh bedrock should pose no geochemical concern for mine-waste management and may be handled as a Run-of-Mine (ROM) operation without the need for selective placement.

E Pit Waste Rock Geochemistry

The C Pit has been partially backfilled with waste rock from the nearby Range E Deposit Pit. Waste rock from the E Deposit Mine Pit has been described in the Koolyanobbing Range E Mining Proposal (REG ID 59431) and the Range E Deposit Extension MP (REG ID 61467) as largely Non Acid Forming (NAF).

Geochemical characterisation has identified a limited mass (1%) of potentially acid forming (PAF, S = ≥0.3%) waste rock material, with a low capacity to generate acidity. The waste rock presents a low-risk of acid or metalliferous drainage.

To date, the approved Koolyanobbing Range mine operations have not presented any visual signs of acid or metalliferous drainage; confirming the assessment of waste rock in the mining area.

2.3.3 Landforms and Soils

The predominant landscape of the Koolyanobbing area is of gently undulating lateritic duricrust and elevated sandplains, averaging approximately 400m AHD. The landscape is dissected by broad paleo-


11 | P a g e

drainage channels, which contain chains of salt lakes such as Lakes Deborah and Seabrook. The major landform of the area is the hills of the Koolyanobbing Range, which extends northwest-southeast at elevations of up to 513m AHD.

Within the project area, three distinct landform and soil types can be recognised – Hills, Outwash zone and Plains.

Hills

The ridge top comprises a BIF rising to 513m AHD i.e. up to 125m above the surrounding plains. Soils are residual or colluvial skeletal remains amongst rocks. They are predominantly very well drained red brown sandy clay loams to clay loams, which set hard and promote runoff. Rock pavement or scree covers up to 70% of the surface. The soil profile thickness ranges from zero to approximately 1m deep and is uniform. Hills exhibit minimal gully erosion. The soils are not saline and are expected to be acidic in pH.

Outwash Zone

The outwash zone slopes from the steep hill margin to the plains and are generally 500m wide with a vertical elevation of 20m – 50m. Soils comprise colluvial and alluvial materials washed down from the hills, together with patches of skeletal residues. They are predominantly red brown clay loams, silty clay loams and skeletal grits. Soils are well drained, hard setting and the majority of rainfall would run off in sheets.

Scree covers >90% of the soil surface but makes up 60% – 70% of the total soil mass. The soil profile thickness ranges from zero to several metres deep. The profile appears uniform, although there is some evidence of a calcrete hardpan in several locations. There is minimal evidence of erosion gullying. The soils are semi-saline to saline and are expected to be acidic, neutral or alkaline depending on their juxtaposition to calcrete deposits.

Plains

The plains undulate gently with an altitudinal variation of 5m – 15m. Soils are alluvial with only a small proportion of rock, although there is surface evidence of ironstone pebbles, quartz fragments, calcrete and laterite fragments.

The soils are red brown silty clay loams and sandy clay loams. They are poorly drained, set hard and are prone to sheet runoff and water-logging. The soil profile thickness is mostly greater than 1m, although there is evidence of calcrete horizons, laterite indurated bands and a duplex clay horizon at depth in some areas. There is minimal evidence of gully erosion. The soils are saline to highly saline in places and expected to be mostly alkaline in pH.

2.3.4 Surface Hydrology

There are no rivers in the region and all drainage is inland to strings of salt lakes. The Koolyanobbing Mine Site is located between Lake Deborah East, Lake Deborah West and Lake Seabrook, which form part of a chain of large, ephemeral salt lakes to the northwest, west and southwest. These lakes follow the course of a paleo-drainage channel. Peripheral dunes around the Lake Deborah system are well developed and comprise Aeolian sands.

There are no significant defined catchment boundaries or surface drainage channels and the majority of runoff from the project area would occur as sheet flow. Occasional small, ill-defined creek lines exist in runoff areas from the Koolyanobbing Range. These terminate in broad outwash zones upon reaching flat ground and would flow only rarely, following heavy rainfall. Flooding potential at the mine is low because the pits are situated high in the landscape and the direction of sheet flow would be away from the pits.


12 | P a g e

2.3.5 Hydrogeology

Groundwater studies initiated by Cliffs to determine dewatering requirements, indicated that groundwater in the region is typically saline and moves from elevated areas to low lying drainages and lakes where evaporative losses occur.

Groundwater in the region generally occurs in sand aquifers within the Tertiary paleo-drainage lines. Away from these areas, less substantial quantities of groundwater are found in fractured rock aquifers.

Drilling to determine depth to groundwater has shown that groundwater is unevenly distributed across the ridge. Preliminary water quality sampling has shown that the C Pit groundwater is hypersaline with a baseline total dissolved solids (TDS) measured at 63,400ppm (26D From 2014) The high TDS has been confirmed by groundwater sampling from C Pit water bore 1 (CPWB1) dewatering bore was undertaken periodically prior to cessation of mining in C Pit in early 2017.

Groundwater analysis from the dewatering bore in 2016 is presented in Table 3 and shows the C Pit groundwater quality is consistently saline to highly saline and close to neutral pH.

Table 3: C Pit groundwater Quality

Date pH CPWB1

TDS (mg/L)

Depth (m

AHD)

Jun-14 63400 Jul-14 7.05 15310

Aug-14 6.22 8628 342.4 Sep-14 6.48 10890 Oct-14 5.41 8515 342.6 Apr-15 7.07 10310 338.1 Jul-15 5.99 77800 336.5 Oct-15 6.38 24090 339.7 Jan-16 6.36 38400 333.2 Apr-16 6.42 32350 324.3 Jul-16 6.32 49910 311.5 Oct-16 6.41 55680

Figure 2 is extracted from DWER website on “Understanding Salinity” and defines the water quality as Brine.


13 | P a g e

Figure 2: DWER Water Salinity categories

The base of C Pit will be filled to 338m AHD with waste rock, removing the existing pit lake. This will change the current hydrological conditions associated with the C Pit void. It will no longer be a groundwater sink, but will reinstate pre mining hydrological flows. Groundwater levels are expected to rebound to a maximum level of337m AHD.

2.4 Retaining structure properties

C Pit is an in-pit storage facility for dry stacked tailings and as such, no retaining structures are proposed. Tailings will be deposited at the base of the existing pit void. The Koolyanobbing Range is a ridge of banded ironstone rising to 513m AHD. The C Pit walls comprise of banded ironstone which have not shown signs of deterioration or slumping since completion of mining in 2017.

The pit base will be raised to 338m AHD and track rolled to create a stable platform prior to tailings deposition.

2.5 Tailings properties

The tailings material is a by-product (waste) from Lithium Hydroxide processing. The tailings are inert and non-toxic, composed of alumina-silicates, gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore.

Tailings material was obtained from Xinyu plant in Guron, China for materials testing. The Xinyu plant is identical to the Kemerton plant, currently under construction and the tailings obtained were from treatment of Talison Greenbushes Spodumene concentrate, the same source of ore to be processed at the Kemerton plant.

Therefore the results of tailings characterisation and testing can be considered to be representative of the tailings material proposed for the TSF.

2.5.1 Physical Characteristics

Physical & geotechnical characteristics of the tailings are provided in Table 4 and detailed in Appendices 2, 3, 4 & 5. Test work indicated that a maximum dry density of 1.50 t/m3 could be achieved following compaction.


14 | P a g e

In summary the tailings:

• Are very fine • Dry quickly, • Are sodic and dispersive (Emerson class 2) • Present some slaking when immersed in water.

Figure 3 shows a graph of the drying rate of lithium tailings at laboratory temperatures.

Given that the Koolyanobbing C Pit is an arid area with very high summer temperatures, it is reasonable to expect that the lithium hydroxide tailings will dry quickly increasing the potential for generation of dust.

Figure 3: Lithium Hydroxide tailings drying rate

Table 4: Tailings physical properties

Moisture Range 15 – 40 % Solids Content Range 70 – 85 % Dry density (volumetric) 1.10 – 1.50 t/m3 Specific Gravity 1.79 - 2.66 t/m3

Particle size distribution Approximately 95% passing through 150 micron sieve

Hydraulic Conductivity by Falling Head

8.2 x 10-08 to 1.1 x 10-07 m/s

Permeability by Constant Head 3.6 x 10-09 to 1.0 x 10-07 m/s Mean resistivity 16 – 18 Ω.m pH 7.7 – 7.8 Emerson Class number 2

2.5.2 Geochemical Characteristics

The tailings material proposed for this project is a by-product (waste) from a Lithium Hydroxide processing plant, currently under construction in Kemerton. The tailings are an inert, non-toxic material comprised of alumina-silicates, gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore.

Samples of tailings from Xinyu plant in Guron, China, were collected for materials testing. The Xinyu plant processes Talison Greenbushes Spodumene concentrate and as such is identical to the proposed Kemerton plant. The results of tailings characterisation and testing are comparable to this proposal and considered representative of the material proposed for TSF.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%

0 16 36 60

Moi

stur

e Co

nten

t

Time (hours)

Moisture Loss at 20oC - No Wind


15 | P a g e

A summary of the major geochemical properties has been assessed from test work undertaken by Ramboll Environment Australia in 2018 (Appendix 2) and by Albemarle in 2019. This work found leaching of metals did not occur in pH ranges >4 and <9. The tailings are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (ANC). In addition, analysis of both solids and liquor from the tailings show the tailings are inert and non-toxic, comprised of alumina-silicates, gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore.

These results are presented in Table 5 and attached (Appendix 4). Table 5: Concentration of elements in tailings solids and liquors (ppm)

Tailings

#1 Tailings

#2 Tailings

#3 Liquor #1 Liquor #2 Liquor #3

Ag - < 0.2 < 0.2 - Al 79,780 85,190 93,142 0.172 0.162 0.096 As 27.3 27.4 27.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 B 9 9.1 9.1 13.1 13.1 19.9

Ba - 5 5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Be - 129 124 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Bi - 3.7 3.6 - - < 0.01 Ca 70,690 74,696 79,825 675 709 432 Cd - 4 3.9 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Ce - 1.7 1.6 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Co - 2.3 2.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Cr - 20 18.8 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Cs - 201 196 - - < 0.01 Cu - 5.8 6.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.071 Fe 6594 6397 7362 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.05 K 3102 3188 3472 0.41 - La < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 - - < 0.01 Li 2364 2515 2674 1.76 1.77 1.64

Mg 1766 1832 1950 327 346 - Mn - 451 426 0.019 0.019 0.021 Mo - < 1.0 3.8 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.01 Na 1714 1791 1931 1.28 - Nb - 33.9 28.4 - - < 0.01 Ni - 9.4 9.1 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.036 P 1052 1114 1119 0.106 0.096 -

Pb - 2.6 2.6 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 S 36,331 37,194 36,982 892 1022 -

Sb - 27.7 26.8 - - 0.025 Sc - < 1.00 < 1.00 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.04 Se - < 1.00 2.1 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Si 228,083 231,052 - 7.05 7.16 - Sn - 80.7 79.8 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Sr 89.7 100 110 4.04 4.09 3.24 Ta - 49.9 40.5 - - < 0.01 Th - 1.9 1.6 - - < 0.01 Ti - 425 428 - - 0.464 Tl - 5.5 5.7 - - < 0.01 U - 29 25 - - 0.012 V 9.22 9.25 18.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 W - 24 24 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Zn 108 54.3 63.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01


16 | P a g e

Leach testing (Table 6) demonstrated that tailings are slightly alkaline, due to high proportion of gypsum. The tailings also have high acid neutralising capacity of 1,500 moles H+ / Tonne (Appendix 5).

In summary, both site conditions and the tailings characteristics will not produce conditions conducive to leach metals from the tails. The risk assessment undertaken identified this as a low risk (Appendix 1).

2.5.3 Process and Return Liquor

The tailings will be received at the TSF in dry form and “dry stacked” using earth working equipment. As such, no process or return water is in the design.

2.5.4 Rheology

This proposal is for dry stacking of moist solids, rheology of the material is not applicable.

17 | P a g e

Table 6: Lithium Hydroxide tailings total and leachable metals

TOTAL & LEACHABLE CONCENTRATIONS (ASLP - NEUTRAL pH) LT101 LT102 LT103 LT104 LT105 LT106 LT107 LT108 LT109 LT110 LT111 LT112 LT113 LT114 LT115 LT116 LT117 LT118 LT119 LT120

10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17pH Final Leachate pH Units 0.01 7.3 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.5 8 7.5 7.9 8 7.8 7.9

Metals Units PQLDrinking

WaterFresh Water

Marine Water

No of Samples

Min Conc. Max ConcMean conc.

Std Dev Mean + SDNo. Above

GILmg/L 0.05 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 20 <0.01 <0.01 - - - NAmg/kg 1 52 50 46 52 49 50 52 54 53 45 46 42 50 58 51 52 48 53 49 51 20 42 58 50.15 3.48 53.63mg/L 0.05 0.002 0.0002 0.0055 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 20 <0.005 <0.005 - - - NDmg/kg 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 20 0.4 0.5 0.43 0.04 0.47mg/L 0.1 0.01 0.034 0.044 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 20 <0.01 <0.01 - - - NDmg/kg 0.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.8 2 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8 20 1.4 2.8 1.73 0.38 2.11mg/L 0.001 NA NA NA 0.41 0.338 0.434 0.416 0.509 0.424 0.359 0.379 0.375 0.347 0.367 0.234 0.335 0.375 0.271 0.39 0.372 0.262 0.315 0.398 20 0.234 0.509 0.37 0.06 0.43 NAmg/kg 0.1 460 400 430 392 445 465 421 450 459 386 371 391 361 403 453 496 611 642 555 581 20 361 642 458.6 78.45 537.05mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.0006 0.0004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 20 <0.001 <0.001 - - - NDmg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3 1.4 0.2 4.4 1.9 3.4 2.6 20 <0.1 4.4 1.8 1.48 3.28mg/L 0.01 0.02 0.011 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 20 <0.01 <0.01 - - - NDmg/kg 2 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 7 9 11 11 8 7 7 9 8 9 12 9 20 5 12 7.7 1.95 9.65

TOTAL & LEACHABLE CONCENTRATIONS (ASLP pH 4.9) LT101 LT102 LT103 LT104 LT105 LT106 LT107 LT108 LT109 LT110 LT111 LT112 LT113 LT114 LT115 LT116 LT117 LT118 LT119 LT12010/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17 10/10/17

pH extraction fluid pH Units 0.1 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9pH Final Leachate pH Units 0.1 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.4 5.8 6.2 5.9

Metals Units PQLDrinking

WaterFresh Water

Marine Water

No of Samples

Min Conc. Max ConcMean conc.

Std Dev Mean+ SDNo. Above

GILmg/L 0.05 NA NA NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 20 <0.05 <0.05 - - - NAmg/kg 1 52 50 46 52 49 50 52 54 53 45 46 42 50 58 51 52 48 53 49 51 20 42 58 50.15 3.48 53.63mg/L 0.05 0.002 0.0002 0.0055 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 20 <0.05 <0.05 - - - NDmg/kg 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 20 0.4 0.5 0.43 0.04 0.47mg/L 0.1 0.01 0.034 0.044 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20 <0.1 <0.1 - - - NDmg/kg 0.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.8 2 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8 20 1.4 2.8 1.73 0.38 2.11mg/L 0.001 NA NA NA 2.03 1.76 1.93 1.9 2.83 2.94 2.72 2.33 3.08 2.58 2.24 1.83 3.23 2.4 2.92 2.82 3.84 4.21 3.38 4.12 20 1.76 4.21 2.75 0.72 3.47 NAmg/kg 0.1 460 400 430 392 445 465 421 450 459 386 371 391 361 403 453 496 611 642 555 581 20 361 642 458.6 78.45 537.05mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.0006 0.0004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 20 <0.001 <0.001 - - - NDmg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3 1.4 0.2 4.4 1.9 3.4 2.6 20 <0.1 4.4 1.8 1.48 3.28mg/L 0.1 0.02 0.011 0.07 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20 <0.1 <0.1 - - - NDmg/kg 2 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 7 9 11 11 8 7 7 9 8 9 12 9 20 5 12 7.7 1.95 9.65

Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs)

Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs)

Nickel

Berylium

Cadmium

Lead

Lithium

Mercury

Nickel

Berylium

Cadmium

Lead

Lithium

Mercury

18 | P a g e

3. TSF Design 3.1 Introduction The Code of Practice for Tailings storage facilities in Western Australia (Sept, 2013) was referenced in progressing the TSF design. The proposed In-pit TSF is classified as a Category 3 facility, based on the level of hazard associated with the project, including:

• Location (In Pit) • Physical properties of the tails (Dry Stacked) • Limited impact on local environmental values and • Tailings characteristics.

The C Pit design complies with Category 3 Facility reporting requirements: Table 7: Category 3 Facility Reporting

Category 3 Requirement MRL Compliance / Proposed Reporting

Design (including site investigation)

Report prepared by competent person TSF Design completed by MRL Principal Geotechnical Engineer, refer to Section 6 Certificate of Compliance

Construction Constructed by a competent person. As built drawings provided

• C Pit preparation and access ramp modifications will be completed utilising site based mining personnel supervised by a MRL / YIPL Mining Engineer.

• Geochemical testing of rock for PAF will be undertaken

Operations Inspection and audit every 3 years by competent person. A risk assessment must be undertaken to determine frequency of audits.

A competent Geotechnical Engineer will inspect the TSF annually and report will be submitted to DMIRS during operations

Pre-closure Inspection report by competent person confirming current status and intended decommissioning, rehabilitation and monitoring strategies with as-built drawings

A competent MRL Geotechnical Engineer will complete a Pre-closure inspection report with rehabilitation & monitoring strategies and as-built drawings

Relinquishment Final report by competent person confirming closure objectives have been achieved

A competent MRL Geotechnical Engineer will complete a final report to confirm achievement of closure objectives


19 | P a g e

3.2 Modelling and design studies

The Following sections relied on geotechnical testing results of tailings obtained from Xinyu plant in Guron, China in October 2017, Appendix 3. The Xinyu plant is identical to the Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide Plant and the tailings obtained were from treatment of Talison Greenbushes Spodumene, the same source ore.

3.2.1 Stability Assessment

General The stability analysis of the C Pit design was undertaken for static and post seismic loading conditions using the limit equilibrium theorem. Slope stability analyses were conducted using Geostudio Slope/W software. Limit equilibrium computer models were developed adopting the Morgenstern-Price method of slices for all analyses. Criteria The stability analysis results were compared to minimum factors of safety described in the ANCOLD Guidelines on Tailings Dams (2012), which are to be considered conservative as in this case the TSF is fully contained and hence there is no embankment. Table 8: Recommended factors of safety (ANCOLD, 2012)

Loading condition (Note 1) Recommended minimum for tailings dams

Shear strength to be used for evaluation

Long term drained 1.5 Effective strength

Short term undrained (potential loss of containment)

1.5 Undrained strength

Short term undrained (no potential loss of containment)

1.3 Undrained strength

Post-seismic 1.0-1.2 (Note 1) Post seismic shear strength (Note 2)

Note 1. To be related to the confidence in selection of residual shear strength. 1.0 may be adequate for use with lower bound results. Note 2. Cyclically reduced undrained/drained shear strength and/or liquefaction residual shear strength for potentially liquefiable materials.

Phreatic surface No phreatic surface was modelled for the stability analysis as tailings are above water table. However increased pore pressure within materials was modelled through pore pressure coefficient Ru in the stackings. Material Parameters Material properties adopted for the stability analysis are shown in Table 9. The material parameters are based on the available geotechnical data for the capping, tailings and foundation.

Table 9: Tailings Material Properties

Material Unit weight (kN/m3) Angle of friction, ∅ (°) Foundation 21 32 Tailings 15 26 Capping 21 32


20 | P a g e

These material parameters were reduced by 20% due to strain softening for post seismic stability analysis (USCE, 1984). The Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) (now called the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE)) loading was determined using ANCOLD Guidelines (2012) for a significant consequence category facility.

A summary of the design seismic parameters is shown in Table 10.

Stability analysis conducted on the open face for the considered configuration of the stackings (18 degrees compacted every 500mm) showed that the factors of safety (with/without capping and including seismic condition) were above 1.57 and as such considered very stable (Table 11).

Table 10: Summary of seismic design parameters

Return Period PGA(g) Magnitude for design event

1000 year (OBE) 0.07 5.3

Table 11: Summary of Factors of Safety Analysis table

Load case Calculated Factor of Safety

Minimum required Factor of Safety

Acceptable?

Construction without cap 1.90 1.3 Yes

Construction without cap global

2.89 1.3 Yes

Construction without cap local

1.80 1.3 Yes

Final with cap global 2.71 1.5 Yes

Final with cap local 1.57 1.5 Yes

Final with cap seismic 1.32 1.0-1.2 Yes

The remaining tailings will be fully enclosed within the pit walls, as such the repository is inherently stable and eventual mobilisation of the tailings is impossible. In this context stability analysis for the tailings profile does not apply.

3.2.2 Design acceptance criteria

The proposal is for an in-pit TSF, so the worst case failure scenario is wall failure / slumping causing personnel injury and / or contact of PAF with tailings. YIPL / MRL has operating procedures in place for mining personnel working in pits and near walls, which mitigate the risk. The TSF Project Risk Assessment (Appendix 1) identifies this risk and has actions to address this even though the risk is Low and acceptable.

3.2.3 Erosion control

Erosion by wind, causing dust issues has been identified as a risk based on the physical properties of the materials. The main receptor will be personnel working in the pit with less of an issue on the local environment due to the location of the tailings (in-pit). YIPL will implement its Dust Management Plan, along with capping of the potential erosion surfaces to minimise erosion and dust generation.


21 | P a g e

3.2.4 Seepage

Seepage is not a significant issue for the TSF design as the tails will be dry stacked and once compacted are expected to be low permeability restricting the movement of moisture through the tails.

In Stage 1 of the TSF design, approximately 460,000m3 of tailings will be deposited into C Pit until 364m AHD. Deposition will be such that any liquor or surface water will be diverted away from the tails deposition to the pit walls for infiltration to occur.

Above 364m AHD tailings will be dry stacked on a stable surface and each lift will be shaped to direct any tailings liquor or rainfall (via sheet flows) away from the tailings profile to an infiltration basin at 364m AHD. The infiltration basin has a design capacity of 3.6ML - refer to infiltration basin design in section 3.4 and Figure 9.

A risk assessment on this method of control determined no impacts on groundwater quality or on sensitive receptors. Appendix 1.

Table 4 describes the chemical composition of the liquor, which is better quality than the local groundwater.

Groundwater quality beneath the C Pit is hypersaline. The volume of seepage will be limited due to the tailings water content (approximately 24%) and arid conditions in the receiving environment leading to high rates of evaporation.

3.2.5 Surface water flow and storage

For the purpose of assessing flood potential and drainage design, the 100-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) peak rainfall event (72 hour duration) equates to 2.5 mm/hr (180mm, Astron 2019).

The C Pit will have a maximum rainfall catchment area of 250,000 m2 (25ha) which at 100 year ARI peak rainfall event will collect approximately 45ML (45,000m3) of water. This represents about 1.4% of the C Pit capacity available after tailings deposition (3,300,000 m3).

The volume of the infiltration basin has not been designed for a 1:100 year event given the location of the TSF is in-pit. The pit void volume is sufficient to act as an overflow basin under these conditions. No water from an extreme rainfall event will discharge to surrounding surface water catchments.

As identified in the Risk Assessment, such a large amount of water will only impact the tails stacking operations and will be subsequently repaired as required.

The TSF design conceptually meets the ARI for rainfall.

3.2.6 Water balance

A water balance is not required because the In-pit TSF design is for dry stacking of moist tailings and not for slurry with water return. The tailings surface will be slightly graded (or shaped) so any surface water will be directed, via sheet flow, to an infiltration basin for discharge to groundwater or evaporate.

3.2.7 Settlement

The placement of tails will be compacted between each 500mm lift. Geotechnical data indicates a compaction rate of 1.5 tonnes/m3 can be achieved, which will provide a stable mass with low permeability within the tails (10-7 to 10-9 m/s) prior to capping and closure.

The Risk Assessment on the TSF has considered differential consolidation of tailings as a potential post closure risk. This may causing ponding on the capping surface and water saturation of the tailings. The likelihood of this occurring will be reduced through compaction of tails in 500mm lifts and the shaping of the final surface of the tails to encourage water flow away from the tailings which will be capped with a 1m capping layer of NAF waste rock.


22 | P a g e

Any settlement will not have an impact on the structure as it is contained within a pit with no infrastructure associated with the TSF.

3.3 Design and construction details

The basis of design relies on the outcome of test work undertaken by Albemarle to characterise the physical and geo-chemical properties of the tailings (Appendices 2 to 6), plus the specific environmental setting.

3.3.1 Stage 1 Design

Final standing ground water levels are assumed to return to those measured pre mining, at 337m AHD. As such, the 338RL has been selected as the tailings deposition level as it is 1m above predicted GWL. C Pit existing backfill is to be pushed by dozers to an angle of 18 degrees to fill the lowest pit section to 338m AHD.

The new pit floor at 338m AHD level will have been track rolled during the construction process, to provide a stable platform for tailings deposition.

Figure 4: Preparation of C Pit to 338m AHD prior to Tailings Deposition

Tailings will then be deposited along the edge of the pit by side tipping trucks. Dozers will push the tailings material down to the pit base at 338m AHD and continue to fill the pit until 364m AHD level is reached. An estimated total of 460kBCM of tailings is required to fill the C Pit to 364m AHD.

338m AHD


23 | P a g e

Figure 5: Stage 1 Tailings Deposition to 364m AHD

3.3.2 Stage 2 Design A 2m foundation layer of inert waste material, tested to be NAF (from existing C Pit backfill or waste dumps) will then be placed to form a stable base for further tailings deposition.

Tailings material will be pushed by dozers and stacked in 500mm layers to allow for compaction by dozer track rolling. The tailings will be stacked with an outer slope of 18 degrees, which is much flatter than the natural angle of repose of the waste rock (26 degrees) to allow for later capping.

There will be three separate benches in stage 2 – at 370m, 376m and 382m AHD. The outer slopes of the tailings (batters) will be capped when 370m and 376m AHD levels are reached. At 382m AHD the tailings deposition will be complete and the entire tailings surface will be capped with 1m of NAF waste rock to prevent erosion and dusting.

If needed, to allow for trafficability during wet weather, the tipping floor may be sheeted with coarse competent waste material to ensure a stable floor is maintained for equipment movements.

364m AHD


24 | P a g e

Figure 6: Tailings Deposition to 370m AHD

370m AHD

376m AHD

364mRL


25 | P a g e



Figure 9: C Pit with capped tailings

382mAHD


26 | P a g e

Figure 10: Cross section of C Pit after capping

Summary of TSF preparation and tailings deposition methodology:

• Waste rock will be pushed into the pit from 364m AHD (current backfill surface) until 338m AHD is achieved in the base of the pit;

• Approximately 460k BCM of tailings will be side tipped near the edge of the basin and pushed in by dozer to 364m AHD;

• Then a 2m thick layer of capping will be placed and compacted, forming a foundation layer for further deposition above 366m AHD;

• An infiltration basin infiltration basin will be constructed at 364m AHD by placing a windrow (3.5m high, base width 9.0m wide) of waste rock at the base of the new surface;

• Tailings will be deposited in 500mm layers and compacted (track rolled) until tailings deposition is completed at 382m AHD;

• 1m thick capping of outer edges of the tailings will be undertaken upon completion of the final lift for each 6m bench;

• At 382m AHD the entire tailings mound will be capped with 1m layer of waste rock;

• The top surface of the tails will be graded to a slope of less than 5 degrees; all outer batter slopes will be less than 18 degrees to prevent erosion.

• The final capping will be compacted and will be at approximately 383m AHD.

3.3.3 Construction and Emissions

TSF construction activities include pit base preparation and modification of access ramps. YIPL intend to use its fleet of mining equipment and personnel to complete these activities. Dust

Site preparation and construction of the tailings cell and infiltration basin embankments has the potential to generate dust emissions from the following sources:

• Mobile equipment movement;

• Excavating, placing and compacting tails; and


27 | P a g e

Extreme weather events such as high wind speed during dry conditions can result in more significant dust emissions. Although we expect these will be contained to within the pit void.

Particulate emissions will be minimised during construction through:

• Use of water trucks and/or water sprays to control emissions when visible dust is being generated and/or visible dust is reported by site personnel;

• Reducing activities which cause visible dust emissions during periods of high winds if dust cannot be controlled through water sprays; and

• Use of defined haul routes for mobile equipment travelling on unsealed surfaces or unformed roads.

Through implementation of these control measures, dust emissions are expected to be temporary, localised and have minimal impact. Any complaints relating to dust emissions will be recorded and investigated. It is unlikely that dust emissions from the site preparation and infiltration pond embankment construction would impact outside of C-Pit boundary.

Similarly dust emissions resulting from construction works are considered unlikely to impact the vegetation within the surrounding area due to the relatively small scale of the works, the dust suppression which will be implemented and the distance between the works and the conservation area.

Air emissions

Gaseous emissions during the construction of the Project will be limited to combustion emissions from mobile equipment. Due to the small fleet required for the Project construction, combustion emissions from mobile equipment are expected to have negligible impact on the local air quality and will not impact sensitive receptors. Mobile equipment will be operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications to ensure gaseous emissions are minimised.

Noise emissions

Mobile equipment undertaking construction of the Project will be the primary source of noise during the construction period. C-Pit is part of an ongoing mining operation, additional noise from mobile equipment associated with the tailings deposition would be minimal. There are no nearby sensitive receptors for noise.

Standard noise minimisation practices will be employed during the construction period:

• Operation and maintenance of mobile equipment in line with the manufacturer’s specifications;

• Regular inspections of vehicles to ensure they are in good working order;

• All complaints relating to noise will be recorded and investigated; and

• Majority of the work will be carried out at depth in the pit void, reducing surface noise levels.

Only a small fleet of equipment is required for the construction with no noticeable increase in noise emissions expected from the In-pit TSF.

The transport of tailings, peaking at approximately 500,000 t/yr from Kemerton may result in additional noise and vehicle emissions along the truck routes, however the In-pit TSF Project will not change noise impact in the Project area.

Light emissions

The TSF project is in-pit and therefore light spillage outside the pit is not significant. Minimal lighting will be provided at night for safety and security purposes but this is not likely to be detected by nearby receptors.


28 | P a g e

Emissions to land

There are no emissions to land from this project. There is no surface land disturbance associated with activities at C Pit.

Emissions to water

Emissions to surface water are not expected to occur as a result of construction of the TSF Project. The nearest watercourse is approximately 1 km south of the C Pit and as the tailings are fully enclosed within the pit, rainfall run-off will also stay within the pit and not enter the watercourse.

3.4 Tailings discharge and water management

Tailings deposition is by dry stacking and water management is not required. Below 364m AHD, any liquor will seep through the base of C Pit into groundwater. Above 364AHD, all water (liquor and rainwater) will be diverted to an infiltration basin at the base of the storage.

The infiltration basin will have 3.5m high walls and will be capable of containing 3600m3 (3.6ML) of rainfall and tailings liquor, refer to Figure 11 below. The infiltration basin will not be lined.

The infiltration basin is located within the pit adjacent the tailings deposition, which ensures that all water infiltration into ground will bypass the underlying tailings, Figure 11.

Figure 11: Infiltration basin for rainwater runoff & tailings liquor drainage

3.5 Covers and liners The In-pit TSF proposal does not include any lining of the pit base. On completion of tailings deposition, a 1m cap of NAF waste rock cover is proposed. The C Pit infiltration basin will not be lined.

3.6 Quality Assurance

To ensure that C Pit is constructed as designed and approved, Survey measurements will be undertaken to ensure design elevations are correct. As there are no civil construction requirements, no further quality assurance measures are required.

3.7 Spillways

This is an in-pit, dry stacked, TSF proposal. A spillway is not required.


29 | P a g e

4. Operational Requirements 4.1 Management of tailings deposition and water

Tailings deposition is by dry stacking and does not include tailings slurry discharge with water return. Below 364m AHD, any liquor, which may be released from the tailings deposition and compaction, or rainwater, will be diverted to higher permeable zones of pit walls and pit floor.

Above 364m AHD, any liquor or rainwater will be diverted to an infiltration basin at the base of the storage to allow for evaporation, or seepage. Refer to Figure 10 for infiltration basin details.

If there is any excess water in the infiltration basin it may be used for dust suppression within the C Pit only.

The available capacity of the C Pit is 4.3M m3 and this proposal is for 1M m3 of tailings. As such, freeboard capacity is not of concern.

4.2 Seepage management

This proposal is for a Dry Stacked TSF hence seepage management is not applicable as would be for traditional paddock style TSF containing process slurries.

4.3 Erosion control

The lithium hydroxide tailings are very fine and tend to dry out quickly. They also have loose cohesion, are erodible and tend to disperse during rainfall. To limit the area of exposed tailings, capping will be applied to the outer profile of the stacked tailings at the 370m and 376m AHD benches and during prolonged periods without tailings deposition. This should protect faces from wind erosion or diffuse run-off erosion. Compaction of the tails during deposition will also assist in reducing potential for erosion.

4.4 Performance monitoring and instrumentation

A summary of C Pit performance monitoring is presented in Table 12.

30 | P a g e

Table 12: Summary of TSF Performance Monitoring

Stage Performance Monitoring Performance Targets Monitoring Frequency Construction C Pit Survey measurement of pit base elevation

and 364m AHD floor thickness Level at or above 338m AHD, 364m AHD floor thickness of 2m

Once off after pit floor preparation works

Geochemical testing of C Pit floor surface 100% NAF Once off prior to tailings deposition Geochemical testing of competent waste rock to be used for wet weather sheeting & capping of outer surfaces of tailings pile

100% NAF As required

Visual assessment of pit wall stability, Stable pit walls

Daily observations and by exception reporting.

Dust is not visable outside the pit Minimal dust generation from tailings handling

Daily observations and by exception reporting.

Audit of TSF performance Safe & stable TSF Annually Closure Pre-closure inspection report Tailings deposition completed

and ready for capping. Slope angles constructed to design and graded to infiltration basin

Once off, on completion of tailings deposition

Geochemical testing of competent waste rock to be used for capping of tailings

100% NAF As required

Survey measurement of capped tailings surface No surface depressions, slope less than 5o

On completion of capping and Annually thereafter

Relinquishment Final closure report Closure objectives met Once off

31 | P a g e

5. Closure Considerations 5.1 Overview

The C Pit is located on unallocated crown land, with no foreseeable other land uses post mining.

TSF closure objectives are to create a safe, stable, non-polluting landform.

On completion of tailings deposition, the tailings will be capped with 1m of non-acid generating waste rock. The tailings cap surface will be compacted to minimise erosion. The C Pit will be retained as an open void.

A risk assessment was undertaken for the TSF project and shows there are limited environmental risks associated with closure. The key findings are summarised below:

• The main Receptors identified that have plausible pathways are mine personnel working in the vicinity of tailings deposition within the C Pit and terrestrial biota close to the pit. Implementation of YIPL Dust Management Plan and standard mining practices will address the safety issues associated with exposure to the tailing dust.

• Tailings are benign and have a low potential to generate metal contaminated leachates following rainfall events. The permeability of the tails are low following deposition. The underlying groundwater is of poor quality, being highly saline, and there are no down gradient environmental receptors.

• The final structure is consistent with the current mine closure plan, which considers the partial backfilling of C Pit with waste rock. The only change will be the final elevation of the pit floor.

5.2 Decommissioning

This proposal is for dry stacking of moist tailings and does not require decommissioning and removal of any infrastructure. The drainage infiltration basin will be left in place.

5.3 Rehabilitation

The rehabilitation of C Pit will be consistent with the current Mine Closure Objectives and Design Criteria for the pits, as per Table 13 below. After capping, the C Pit will be left as an open void, i.e. no topsoil spreading will be undertaken within the pit.

Abandonment bunds will be constructed around the pit to prevent access. This is consistent with standard closure requirements around mining voids.

5.4 Performance monitoring against closure criteria

Table 13 shows performance monitoring against closure criteria, as presented in the mining proposal section 8.

32 | P a g e

Table 13: C Pit Closure Objectives, Completion Criteria and Monitoring Program

Aspect Objective Completion criteria Monitoring procedure Monitoring frequency Performance Measurement / Outcome

Infrastructure Removal

All infrastructure that is not subject to relinquishment agreements is removed and appropriately disposed of

No additional or fixed infrastructure is associated with the C Pit TSF Project. Access tracks and Hauls ramps will be removed as per the existing MCP

Post-closure site inspection for housekeeping within C Pit

Once-off upon completion of tailings deposition

Inspection report with photographic evidence showing no remaining infrastructure within the pit

Mine Waste Management

Waste materials with potential for environmental impact are appropriately managed

Lithium Hydroxide tailings are: • Placed above 338m AHD • Completed tails are capped with 1m of

competent waste rock as per design

• Survey of C Pit base elevation prior to tailings deposition, after tailings deposition, and after capping

Prior to deposition of tails and at Closure • Survey measurements confirming pit base 338m AHD, Foundation level at 364m AHD, final tailings surface elevation; cap layer elevation, and cap layer slope

Landform / Geotechnical stability

Verify that final landforms have been constructed to approved designs.

• Pit base at 338m AHD; • Pit base is stable and free draining; • Tailings compacted during deposition; • Infiltration basin installed at 364m AHD • The surface of the stacked tails will be

graded to allow water to be shed via sheet flow to a infiltration basin

• Tailings capped with a 1m thick NAF waste rock to reduce erosion of the stored tails.

• Survey of C Pit base elevation prior to tailings deposition, after tailings deposition, and after capping

• Geochemical testing of pit base surface for presence of PAF

• Photographic evidence of dozer track rolling of tailings

• Audit report with evidence of infiltration basin installation

• Prior to deposition and Post Closure • Prior to operation • During operation • Annual audit during operation

• Survey measurements confirming pit base 338m AHD, Foundation level at 364m AHD, final tailings surface elevation; cap layer elevation, and cap layer slope

• Test reports for waste rock used in the TSF showing it is NAF

• Inspection / Audit reports detailing evidence of installed sump and of track rolling of tailings

Rehabilitation - erosion

Verify that surface and outer slopes of landform conform to approved designs.

• Cap layer is compacted with a slope angle of 18 degrees, which will be within typical geometry for erosion protections of waste rock landforms.

• Survey of C Pit surface after capping. Once-off upon completion of tailings deposition and capping

As constructed Survey of cap layer and batter slopes

Verify that erosion gullies do not form and expose the underlying tails.

Erosion does not threaten the integrity of the capping layer

• Settlement survey at allocated locations across the TSF

• Visual inspection of the cap, batter walls and infiltration sump

• Settlement Surveys annually for three years post closure

• After any significant rainfall (>30mm in 24hrs) within three years post closure

• Survey data demonstrating differential settlement is not occurring

• Inspection logs

Surface water Verify that natural drainage lines have been re-instated and impoundment of surface water does not occur.

The C TSF Project is within a pit and will not affect surface water flows. However monitoring is required of the cap surface to ensure that there is no subsidence creating ponding of surface water.

Site inspection to assess if there is subsidence in the pit

Annually for three years and at relinquishment

C Pit inspection reports post TSF closure with photographic evidence showing that C Pit cap layer has no visible subsidence.

Groundwater Verify that pit groundwater not adversely affecting surrounding groundwater quality.

The C Pit groundwater is hypersaline (brine) and the Project Risk Assessment shows that the tailings will not have any adverse impact

Not required Not applicable Not applicable

Site access Verify that: • site access is removed except

where agreed otherwise • retained roads are handed

over in agreed condition.

• Site access to be agreed with post-mining land owners (DBCA) and documented in Post-Mining Site Access Plan.

• At relinquishment, access roads identified for retention are handed over to post-mining land owners in agreed condition

• Access roads are rehabilitated unless agreed otherwise and responsibility transferred to a third-party

Site inspection and review of Post-Mining Site Access Plan and signed agreements to assess whether:

• all site access removed as required • retained roads are in agreed condition

Findings from site inspection will be documented in a report to be submitted to the relevant regulatory authorities.

Once-off prior to relinquishment. MCP has a summary of end land use agreements with relevant stakeholders and includes stakeholder statements of acceptance of access road conditions. Rehabilitation inspection report with photographic evidence

Verify that access to open pits is restricted.

• Access to C Pit is restricted by an abandonment bunds built to regulatory standards ie 2m high and 5m wide at base

• Abandonment bund not located within pit zone of instability

Survey of location, size and construction material of abandonment bunds overlain with zone of open pit instability. Findings from survey will be documented in a report to be submitted to the relevant regulatory authorities.

Once off at completion of abandonment bunds.

C Pit abandonment bund is in place, outside zone of instability and built to regulatory standards (5m wide and 2m high).


33 | P a g e

34 | P a g e

6. Certification of Compliance

Tailings storage facility design report

For and on behalf of Yilgarn Iron Pty Ltd, I ..........................................................................................

being a duly authorised officer of the above company and a qualified geotechnical engineer holding professional registration by a professional body, do hereby certify and confirm that the C In-pit tailings storage facility at the Koolyanobbing mine site has been designed in accordance with the current edition of the Tailings storage facilities in Western Australia – code of practice issued by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia and the design is referenced as Koolyanobbing Range TSF Design Report

Dated .............................................................................................................................

Signature of above person: .....................................................................................................

Signature of witness: ...............................................................................................................

Name of witness: .....................................................................................................................

Date: ..........................................................................................................................................


35 | P a g e

7. References

Astron, 2019. Yilgarn Mine Closure Plan prepared for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd. May 2019.

Australian National Committee on Large Dams. Guidelines on Tailings Dams. Planning, Design, Construction, Operation and Closure. 2012.

Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd. 2009b. Koolyanobbing C Pit Expansion Project - Addendum to Mining Proposal 2805 Tenement M77/607. Report prepared by Cliffs Asia Pty Ltd, Perth, Western Australia.

Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd. 2015b. Yilgarn Operations Koolyanobbing Range C Deposit Backfilling Mining Proposal, Addendum to Mining Proposals 21823 and 32064, Tenement M77/607-I. Report prepared by Hawkins S of globe environments Australia Pty Ltd for Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd. Revision B. September 2015.

Department of Mines and Petroleum. Code of Practice. Tailings storage facilities in Western Australia

Department of Mines and Petroleum 2006. Guidelines for Mining Proposals in Western Australia. February 2006.

Department of Mines and Petroleum 2015. Guide to the preparation of a design report for tailings storage facilities (TSFs). August 2015.

Ramboll, 2018. Albemarle Australia Lithium Tailings Leaf Testing summary report. April 2018

Ramboll, 2019. Albemarle Lithium Processing Project Tailings Storage Facility MCA. August 2019

Xstract, 2018. Lithium Tailings characterisation, Dry Stacked Tailings – Laboratory Test Results. April 2018

Koolyanobbing Range C In-pit TSF Design Report

APPENDIX 1 – C In-pit TSF Project Risk Assessment

Koolyanobbing Range C In-pit TSF Risk Assessment Report

Page | 1

Yilgarn Operations C In-pit TSF Project Risk Assessment Report

Introduction

MRL propose a short-term (2020-2024) Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) to dispose of tailings from Kemerton in the Yilgarn Iron Pty Ltd (YIPL) Koolyanobbing Range C deposit (C Pit), “the Project”. This facility will be utilised while a longer term tailings disposal solution is developed.

Albemarle Lithium Pty Ltd are the proponents for the Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide Plant (the Plant) is located 137km south of Perth and is currently under construction with an expected commissioning in the first quarter, 2021. Once in operation, the Kemerton Plant will process spodumene concentrate delivered from Talison Lithium Pty Ltd’s Greenbushes Mine (Greenbushes). The Plant will produce a Lithium Hydroxide and generate about 100,000 tonnes of residue (or tails) per annum.

A local disposal facility for the Plant tailings has not been finalised.

Lithium tailings are the residue produced from secondary processing of spodumene concentrate (approximately 6% Li2O), through pyro metallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes, to produce lithium hydroxide monohydrate. Lithium hydroxide monohydrate is used in the manufacture of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, industrial lubricants and dyes. Lithium processing tailings are an inert, non-toxic material comprised of alumina-silicates, approximately 15% gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore, and approximately 24% water.

C Pit has been sterilised and partially backfilled with waste rock from nearby Koolyanobbing Range E Deposit (E pit). The C Pit has capacity of approximately 4 million cubic metres to 30m below crest. Tailings will be deposited on top of “NAF” waste rock materials above 338m AHD. The base of the facility will be 1m higher than pre-mining groundwater levels.

On completion of the tailings deposition into C Pit, the material will be capped as soon as practicable. The capping layer will be designed to facilitate water shedding, preventing surface ponding and percolation through the tails and reducing erosion. This is important to prevent any oversaturation of the tails and possible slumping or dissolution of minerals and achieving a long-term stable landform.

This Risk Assessment addresses the risks identified for the Project and will assess the following considerations:

• The C Pit receiving environment • The tailing material’s chemical and physical characteristics • Handling and storage • Exposure pathways and environmental receptors • Mitigation and Residual Risk

The risk analysis can be found in Table 6 of this document.

TSF Design & Deposition Methodology

Side Tipping Road Trains will be used to transport tailings material from the Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide Plant to the C Pit. The trucks will tip the tailings within the pit and dozers will then push the tailings into place.

Following is a summary of the TSF preparation and tailings deposition methodology:

• Waste rock will be pushed into the pit from existing bench at 364m AHD until a base level of 338m AHD is achieved

• The base will track rolled; • Approximately 460k BCM of tailings will be side tipped on the bench at 364m AHD and pushed in by

dozer to complete the filling of the void to 364m AHD. • A 2m thick layer of waste rock will be placed and track rolled, creating a new base for tails deposition


Page | 2

• An infiltration basin will be constructed at 364m AHD by placing a windrow (3.5m high, base width 9.0m wide) of waste rock at the base of the new surface.

• Tailings will then be deposited in 500mm layers and compacted (track rolled) until tailings deposition is completed at 382m AHD

• Batter slopes of the deposited tails will not exceed 18 degrees. • At 382m AHD the entire tailings mound will be capped with 1m layer of waste rock and slightly sloped

to be water shedding • The new capped surface will be compacted, and will be at approximately 383m AHD.

FIGURE 1: CURRENT PLAN VIEW AND PROFILE OF C PIT BEFORE TAILINGS DEPOSITION


Page | 3

FIGURE 2: CROSS SECTION OF C PIT ON COMPLETION OF TAILINGS DEPOSITION

Risk Assessment Criteria

The Risks of the C In-pit TSF Project were assessed using the MRL / YIPL Likelihood & Consequence Criteria and Scales in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Risks that high or critical are reassessed after appropriate mitigations are proposed reduce the risk consequence as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

TABLE 1: LIKELIHOOD CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING THE PROBABILITY OF AN INCIDENT OCCURRING AND RESULTING IN DEFINED CONSEQUENCE, AND RESULTING RISK RANKING


Page | 4

Table 2: Consequence criteria


Page | 5

Conceptual Site Model (Source – Receptor – Pathway)

Utilising the NEPM 1999 Assessment of Contaminated sites Guideline for Site Characterisation (Schedule B2 amended 2013), a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed to show the source and pathways of exposure related to C Pit tailings deposition impact on the surrounding environment, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

FIGURE 3: C IN-PIT TSF ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS AND IMPACTS ON RECEPTORS

The primary release mechanisms of contamination from lithium tailings deposition into C Pit identified:

• Dust & volatile emissions to air during deposition into the In-pit TSF • Leaching to ground water from release of moisture during consolidation of the tailings or from

rainfall percolation • Contaminated rainfall runoff to surface water and lakes

The Receptor sites identified:

• Mine workers in the vicinity or working at C Pit • Terrestrial biota in the vicinity of the C Pit

Potential Exposure Pathways considered to Receptor sites:

• Direct contact and ingestion of tailings dust by people and terrestrial biota • Direct contact with tailings leachate by people and terrestrial biota • Direct contact with tailings contaminated surface water by people or terrestrial biota

The following are considerations of contamination from tailings and the identified exposure pathways:

• Generation of Dust. The lithium tailings are very fine and will have inherent water content of approximately 24%. Because of the rapid drying properties of the tails, dusting is expected to be an issue. Tailings deposition in C Pit will be below the surrounding topography, sheltered from strong winds. The most plausible exposure pathway is to personnel, working in the vicinity of the tailings.


Page | 6

Management measures such as, sealed cabs in vehicles, personal protective equipment and/or water cart spraying will be required during tailings deposition into C Pit.

• Leaching to groundwater. The tailings are “dry stacked” and will be deposited above existing and projected ground water levels so will not be in direct contact with the ground water. The only mechanism of leachate is from rainwater percolation through the tails and discharge to the groundwater. The risks of generating a leachate containing metals only occurs below pH4 (Ramboll 2018). No plausible opportunity will exist for generation of acidic leachant and the groundwater is hypersaline with no foreseeable beneficial use, so there is no plausible pathway to receptors.

• Contamination of surface water by rainfall runoff after contact with tailings. The TSF is contained within the C Pit so no interaction with surface water flows is possible.

Summary of Conceptual Site Model

The main Receptor identified with a plausible pathway, are mine personnel working in the C Pit during tailings deposition. Any potential for dust from the TSF to deposit on terrestrial biota close to the pit is very low. Implementation of YIPL Dust Management Plan and standard mining practices will address the safety issues associated with exposure to any tailings dust.

Tailings deposition is “dry stacked” and will be compacted in 500mm lifts. Water management controls will divert any water from percolating into tailings therefore minimising any opportunity of leachate formation. Any excess water (liquor or incidental rainwater) will be diverted to a collection sump for infiltration and evaporation.


Page | 7

FIGURE 4: C IN-PIT TSF ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS


Page | 8

Summary of Risk Assessment

The risk assessment shows that the risks are associated with dust during tailings deposition and handling. The risk of environmental impacts from the Project, given the receiving environment, is LOW.

TSF Design and the YIPL Environmental Management System procedures will be sufficient to address any worker exposure by controlling dust.

Management Commitments arising from the Risk Assessment:

• The design of the In-pit tailings handling and storage process will address safety issues associated with road train access into the pit, stacking of the tailings and drainage within the pit;

• Tailings deposition within the C Pit will be at 338m AHD, ie above the pre-mining groundwater level • The tailings will be capped as soon as practicable on completion of deposition, with 1m thick layer of

NAF waste rock; • The YIPL Dust Management Plan will be implemented to minimise tailings dust impact on personnel

and the surrounding environment; and • Visual monitoring of tailings dust impact on surrounding vegetation will be undertaken, and dust

control measures increased or modified as required.


Page | 9

Table 5: C In-pit TSF Risk Assessment Findings

Issue / concern Risk Factors & Context Inherent Likelihood Rating

Inherent Consequence Rating

Inherent Risk Ranking

Proposed Controls Residual Likelihood Rating

Residual Consequence Rating

Residual Risk Ranking

Separation of the tailings material into solid and liquid layers, and causing the material to stick to the trays and not tip out at the destination, and with runoff of the tailings liquor into the pit

This is largely a safety concern if material holds up in the trays and needs machinery to scrape it out. The environmental impact of the tailings liquor seeping into the ground are minimal as the pit groundwater is already hypersaline and there is no contaminants in the liquor

C 1 L4 • No action required C 1 L4

Tailings dust emissions during transport from Kemerton plant to C Pit

Tailings will air dry in transit and cause dust problems en route if not covered A 1 M11

• Trucks and trailers to have covers – no tailings to be transported uncovered

• This will be written into the transportation contract E 1 L1

Increased noise and / or odour from tailings handling and deposition at C Pit

There are no communities close by, and tailings handling at the pit is not likely to have significantly different impact on the workforce compared to other pit activities

D 1 L2 • No action required D 1 L2

Driving of mobile plant & vehicles on the tailings material may be a safety issue due to ground stability conditions

High or Unseasonal rainfall may cause the tailings to fluidise and spread within the pit and not drain quickly – safety issue for vehicles. Tipped tailings that have not been moved may create a surface hazard for vehicles after rainfall

C 1 L4

• TSF design has compaction of tailings every 500mm, and coarse material sheeting for wet weather to maintain a stable base for movement of vehicles.

• Design report allows for sheeting with coarse competent waste rock for dozer / vehicle trafficability in wet weather

E 1 L1

Rainwater percolating through the tailings material may leach tailings liquor / salts into ground water

Groundwater in Koolyanobbing Project Area is highly saline to saline in quality, therefore the impact of any rainwater leachate is considered minor. Leach results show that under neutral conditions there is no dissolution of COC’s

B 1 M7

• Tailings will be compacted to reduce voids • The TSF design includes a sump with 3.6ML capacity for

collection of tailings liquor drainage and rainfall runoff at 364m AHD for dust suppression use, or left to evaporate, or seep into groundwater without contacting encapsulated tailings

C 1 L4

A 100-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) peak rainfall event (72 hour duration) occurs and erodes the tailings and contaminates the groundwater

100 year ARI event for 72 hours will cause approximately 45ML of water in the C Pit catchment area Such a large rainfall event is likely to cause widespread erosion of the pit and tailings. This volume would exceed the short term capacity of the infiltration basin. These conditions would impact on the operations but based on the geo-chemistry of the tailings is not expected to result in any leaching of contaminants The underlying aquifer is highly saline so the environmental impact is considered minor

D 1 L2

• After a large rainfall event, YIPL will inspect pit walls and tailings for erosion, as well as the infiltration basin (sump). Rectification works will be undertaken, the infiltration basin will be re-instated, and eroded surfaces will be repaired to make safe

• Post closure the slope angles on the cap material will be

low (<5%) to prevent surface water erosion

E 1 L1


Page | 10







Groundwater may rise higher than the projected recovery level and cause the tailings to be in contact with the hypersaline water and then leach metals

Groundwater recovery level may rise above projected rebound level due to extreme rainfall event. Tailings may come into contact with groundwater or tailings leachate will enter the groundwater and impact on future land use / groundwater requirement Geochemical test work indicates the tailing material is unlikely to leach any COC’s The regional groundwater quality is hypersaline, and there are no environmental receptors close by

D 1 L2 • Base of C Pit will be filled in to 338m AHD, which is 1m

higher than pre-mining regional groundwater level

D 1 L2

Uncapped stored tailings may create a dust problem

The tailings could dry out prior to capping, and may cause excessive dust emissions within the confines of the pit B 1 M7

• If dust generation becomes excessive from uncapped tailings, then capping to commence on unconsolidated material to reduce dust emissions. YIPL will also investigate suitability of dust suppression polymers

• YIPL will implement its Dust Management Plan during

tailings deposition into C Pit

E 1 L1

C Pit wall failure may cause PAF contact with tailings, which may generate acid water seepage into tailings and releasing contaminants into the groundwater C Pit wall failure may cause injury to personnel in the vicinity

C Pit wall rock is slightly alkaline and has less than 0.1% sulphidic material C Pit walls are stable, there has not been any wall failure since C Pit closure in 2017 The tailings material are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 Moles H+/Tonne) Groundwater is hypersaline.

C 1 L4

• No action required to manage the environmental risk - ALARP

• YIPL has operating procedures in place for mining

personnel working in pits and near high walls

D 1 L2

Waste rock for sheeting and capping may contain potential acid forming material, which may acidify rainwater and leach metals out of the tailings

According to Geochemical characterisation of the pit rock, there is 1% PAF with a low risk of acidic, metalliferous or saline drainage The tailings material are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 Moles H+/Tonne) Leach test work shown no leaching of COC’s

D 1 L2 • ALARP

D 1 L2

Insufficient NAF material within C Pit for sheeting and capping of the tailings at closure

Testing of backfilled rock from E pit finds PAF content greater than 1% The tailings material are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 Moles H+/Tonne) Leach test work shows no leaching of COC’s

C 1 L4

• Undertake testwork to confirm NAF material in surrounding waste dumps

• Any areas identified as PAF to be avoided for capping

D 1 L2

C In-pit TSF may not achieve Closure Criteria (safe, stable and non-polluting landform)

Capping over the tailings may erode if the surface slope is too high, resulting in release of tailings dust into the environment B 1 M7

• The tailings cap surface will be compacted with slope of not exceeding 5 degrees

• Survey control to be used to ensure final compliance to design

D 1 L2


Page | 11








Tailings differential consolidation & settlement across the C Pit causes localised sinking of the cap layer and increased rainfall percolation through the encapsulated tailings with possible contamination of groundwater

C 2 M8

• After capping of the tailings, YIPL will undertake annual survey pickups of the C Pit to determine if there is differential settlement of the tailings. If no subsidence detected then the monitoring will stop at 3 years, otherwise the cap layer will be reshaped and monitoring will recommence

D 2 L5

YIPL Operations are placed in Care and Maintenance before Albemarle finalises a local TSF facility

YIPL must stop operations at Koolyanobbing and therefore stop receiving tailings to C Pit C 2 M8

• Should early, unplanned or permanent closure occur prior to completion of tailings deposition, the tailings will be capped, access will be restricted and warning signs will be erected. Existing abandonment bunds will be re-established and or repaired in line with current mine closure plan

• A Care and Maintenance plan will be developed that

includes annual inspections to assess TSF structural integrity, access restriction and signage

A 2 L3


APPENDIX 2 – Lithium Tailings Leaf Testing Report

ALBEMARLE AUSTRALIA

LITHIUM TAILINGS

LEAF TESTING SUMMARY REPORT

Intended for

Albemarle Australia Pty Ltd

Document type

Report

Date

April, 2018

navarke

EXT-ALB-RPT-0004_0

ALBEMARLE AUSTRALIA

LITHIUM TAILINGS LEAF TESTING SUMMARY REPORT

Ramboll

Suite 3, Level 2

200 Adelaide Terrace

East Perth

WA 6004

Australia

T +61 8 9225 5199

+61 8 9225 5155

www.ramboll.com

Revision

Date

Made by

Checked by

Approved by

Description

Final April 2018

R Seebach

C Goodbody

F Robinson

This document comprises a LEAF Testing Summary

Report for the lithium tailings material from a

proposed lithium processing facility at Kemerton,

Western Australia.

Ref 318000381

Lithium Tailings LEAF Testing Summary Report

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Summary of Waste Classification 2 1.3 Objective and Scope of Work 2 2. METHODOLOGY 2 2.1 Sampling and Analysis of Lithium Tailings 2 2.2 Summary of LEAF Testing Methodologies 3 3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 3 4. QUALITY CONTROL 4 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4 6. CONCLUSIONS 1 7. REFERENCES 1 8. LIMITATIONS 1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Leachable Concentration Values for Waste Classification 3 Table 2 Results for LEAF Test Method 1313 5 Table 3 Results for LEAF Test Method 1314 5 Table 4 Results for LEAF Test Method 1315 5 Table 5 Results for LEAF Test Method 1316 6

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Analytical Results

Appendix 2 Laboratory Reports

Lithium Tailings LEAF Testing Summary Report 1 of 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ramboll Australia Pty Ltd (Ramboll) undertook Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework

(LEAF) tests of lithium tailings from the proposed Albemarle Kemerton Plant in Western Australia

(WA). The objective of the LEAF tests were to gain analytical certainty of the leachability of lithium

tailings material under a range of chemical conditions in order to support the findings of the

Albemarle Kemerton Plant Waste Management Strategy (Tailings) Report (Ramboll, 2017).

The proposed Albemarle Kemerton Plant in Western Australia will extract lithium from spodumene

concentrate by heat treatment, followed by leaching of lithium and final product recovery.

Spodumene concentrate is produced at the Talison Greenbushes Lithium Operations in WA from

spodumene ore.

Waste classification for the tailings material was undertaken based on tailings samples recovered

from an Albemarle processing facility in Guorun, Sichuan, P.R. China. The Guorun facility processes

the same feedstock using the same process as the proposed Kemerton facility and therefore is

considered to provide a comparative tailings composition to the proposed plant.

Waste classification sampling and analysis was undertaken by Ramboll as part of a Waste

Management Strategy (WMS) and according to the WA Department of Water and Environment

(DWER, formerly WA DEC) (2009) guideline for Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions

1996 (As amended December 2009) (WA DEC (2009)). Waste classification follows a five step

program where Step 1 and 2 define if an assessment is required and Step 3 is an evaluation of

total concentrations against criteria presented in Table 3 of WA DEC 2009. Where concentrations

are in excess of these guidelines, leachability assessment (Step 4) can be completed and compared

against total and leachable concentrations in Table 4 of WA DEC (2009) (Step 5).

Step 3 was previously completed of the waste (Ramboll 2017) and found elevated concentrations

of Beryllium, Cadmium, Lead, Lithium, Mercury and Nickel. Step 4 and 5 were then undertaken

and found that the process waste is classified as suitable for disposal in a Class I landfill.

WA DEC (2009) does not include criteria for total and leachable lithium and an interim guideline of

20 mg/L for leachable lithium was adopted from the NZ MfE (2004). This approach was discussed

with DWER.

Following their review of the process waste classification (Ramboll 2017), DWER requested that

LEAF testing be conducted as part of Step 4, to provide robustness around leachability under varied

site conditions. This report presents the findings of the LEAF analysis.

Testing followed the LEAF procedure as described in WA DEC (2009). LEAF testing was carried out

on a representative bulk sample of tailings material. The samples were analysed under the LEAF

methodology for chemical constituents that were in exceedance of the WA DEC (2009) Table 3

guidelines. Ramboll 2017 presents data for total concentrations and shows that all concentrations

were below Table 4 concentration limits for Class 1 landfill, therefore no further analysis of total

concentrations was undertaken.

LEAF testing included US EPA methodologies 1313, 1314, 1315 and 1316. Results were compared

with leachable concentrations presented in Table 4 WA DEC 2009. The following exceedances were

noted during LEAF Test 1313:

Beryllium exceeded leachable concentration for Class III at pH2.0 (2.4mg/L).

Nickel exceeded leachable concentration for Class II at pH4.0 (0.3mg/L) and pH2.0

(0.6mg/L).

These exceedances are not considered to alter the original waste classification (Ramboll, 2017)

since the lithium tailings will not be disposed in an environment at below pH4 and metals

concentrations at the expected pH levels were below the guidelines. No further exceedances were

recorded during any of the other LEAF tests.


2 of 9

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Ramboll Australia Pty Ltd (Ramboll) was engaged by Albemarle Australia Pty Ltd (Albemarle) to

conduct Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) testing of lithium tailings, as

directed by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER, formerly Department

of Environment and Conservation (DEC)). The purpose of the LEAF testing was to inform the waste

classification of lithium tailings from the proposed Albemarle Lithium Processing Facility (the

Project) in Kemerton, Western Australia (WA).

The Project will include a lithium hydroxide production facility at the Kemerton Strategic Industrial

Area (SIA), located approximately 17 km north east of Bunbury in WA’s south west region. The

Project will process spodumene ore from the Greenbushes Lithium Mining Operation located

approximately 96 km from the Kemerton site.

1.2 Summary of Waste Classification

Waste classification for the tailings material was undertaken as part of the Albemarle Kemerton

Plant Waste Management Strategy (Tailings) Report (Ramboll, 2017), based on representative

samples of tailings recovered from an Albemarle processing facility in Guorun, Sichuan, P.R. China.

A waste classification sampling and analysis program was undertaken by Ramboll as part of a

Waste Management Strategy (WMS) and according to the WA Department of Water and

Environment (DWER, formerly WA DEC) (2009) guideline for Landfill Waste Classification and

Waste Definitions 1996 (As amended December 2009) (WA DEC, 2009). This analysis found the

process waste is classified as suitable for disposal in a Class I landfill, having total and leachable

concentrations well below the Class I criteria for all constituents identified under the guideline.

Following their review of the process waste classification (Ramboll 2017), DWER requested that

LEAF testing be conducted, to provide robustness around leachability under varied site

conditions. This report presents the findings of the LEAF analysis.

1.3 Objective and Scope of Work

The objective of the LEAF testing programme is to gain analytical certainty of the leachability of

lithium tailings material under a range of chemical conditions in order to support the findings of

the Albemarle Kemerton Plant Waste Management Strategy (Tailings) Report (Ramboll, 2017).

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Sampling and Analysis of Lithium Tailings

Lithium tailings, representative of the material that would be produced by the proposed processing

facility at Kemerton, WA, are currently produced at a plant in China (Gourun in Sichuan Province).

The Gourun Plant uses a similar process and feedstock as that proposed for Kemerton, using natural

gas combustion as a heat source for the roasting treatment phase.

Bulk samples of tailings material were collected in the plant twice a day, over a 10 day period, in

order to gain representative samples. These representative samples were subsequently

subsampled by Ramboll at the Gourun Plant in China and shipped to Australia for analytical testing

to classify the material under WA DEC (2009) as part of the Waste Management Strategy for the

Project.

Following analysis and assessment of the material for total and leachable concentrations as per WA

DEC (2009), a bulk sample of the material was shipped to EnviroLab Services Pty Ltd (EnviroLab)

in Sydney, New South Wales, a National Association Testing Authorities (NATA, Australia)

accredited laboratory. The bulk sample was analysed using the US EPA LEAF testing methodology,

as summarised in Section 2.2. The samples of tailings material were analysed using these

methodologies for chemical constituents that were in exceedance of the WA DEC (2009) Table 3

guidelines during analysis for the WMS namely:


3 of 9

Beryllium

Cadmium

Lead

Lithium

Mercury

Nickel

2.2 Summary of LEAF Testing Methodologies

The methodologies used for the LEAF testing were the US EPA methodologies 1313, 1314, 1315

and 1316. These tests were developed to determine how leaching of chemical constituents varied

with pH and the liquid to solid ratio. The LEAF testing methodologies have been described as

follows (WA DER, 2015):

Test Method 1313, which determines how liquid-solid partitioning varies with the pH of the

leaching solution using a parallel batch extraction procedure

Test Method 1314, which determines how liquid-solid portioning varies with varying liquid to

solid ratios using an up-flow percolation column procedure

Test Method 1315, which determines mass transfer rates of chemical constituents in leachate

from monolithic and compacted granular materials (e.g. construction materials) using a semi-

dynamic tank leaching procedure, and

Test Method 1316, which determines how liquid-solid partitioning varies with the liquid to

solid ratio using a parallel batch extraction procedure.

3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The results of LEAF testing were compared to the guidelines for leachable limits provided in Table

4 of WA DEC (2009) in order to ascertain if there were any exceedances under a range of

chemical conditions simulated through the LEAF test procedure.

WA DEC (2009) does not provide a waste classification guideline criteria for lithium, and therefore,

consistent with Ramboll 2017, an interim guideline of 20 mg/L for lithium in leachate has been

adopted, pending the calculation of a site specific value based on environmental conditions at the

site of waste storage / management. This is consistent with the value adopted by NZ MfE (2004)

for a Class A landfill in New Zealand which is comparable to a Class III landfill in Western Australia.

Table 1 presents the assessment criteria adopted to assess the leachable concentrations of

constituents from the results of the LEAF testing suite.

Table 1 Leachable Concentration Values for Waste Classification

Constituent Unit

Leachable Concentration (ASLP) values for waste classification*

Leachable

Concentration ASLP1

Leachable

Concentration ASLP2

Leachable

Concentration ASLP3

Leachable

Concentration ASLP4

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Beryllium mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10

Cadmium mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10

Lead mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10

Lithium mg/L - - 20^ -

Mercury mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 1

Nickel mg/L 0.2 0.2 2 20

‘-‘ indicates no criteria


4 of 9

* Table 4, WA DECC (2009) – Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation, Landfill Classification and

Waste Definitions 1996 (as amended 2009). Comparision against total concentrations was undertaken in Ramboll 2017.

^NZ MfE (2004). Module 2: Hazardous Waste Guidelines, Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria and Landfill Classification, New

Zealand Ministry for the Environment, May 2004

4. QUALITY CONTROL

Quality control measures that were undertaken as part of the tailings sampling event at the lithium

processing facility at Guorun, Sichuan, P.R. China were discussed in Ramboll (2017). The following

quality control measures were undertaken by the primary laboratory during the LEAF testing

programme as part of the analysis of the tailings material:

EnviroLab was used as the primary laboratory. EnviroLab is NATA accredited for the analyses

undertaken

All critical samples analysed and all analytes analysed according to Standard Operating

Procedures (SOPs)

Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) were appropriate and below guideline values

Laboratory blind duplicate samples were analysed at an appropriate rate and found to be

acceptable

Method blanks results recorded no detections

On the basis of the quality assurance and quality control conducted it was considered that the data

obtained is of suitable quality for use in this project.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A summary of results are provided in Table 2 to Table 5. The full tables of results are provided in

Appendix 1. Laboratory certificates are provided in Appendix 2.

Albemarle Kemerton Plant


5 of 28

Table 2 Results for LEAF Test Method 1313

Constituent Unit


No. of Eluates Min. Conc. Max. Conc. No. Above Guidelines Step 5: Waste Classification Leachable Concentration ASLP1 Leachable Concentration ASLP2 Leachable Concentration ASLP3 Leachable Concentration ASLP4



Beryllium mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.01 2.4 1 Class IV

Cadmium mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.01 0.03 0 Class I

Lead mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.03 - 0 Class I

Lithium mg/L - - 20^ - 9 <0.01 4.3 0 No Guidelines

Mercury mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 1 9 <0.0005 - 0 Class I

Nickel mg/L 0.2 0.2 2 20 9 <0.02 0.6 2 Class III

‘-‘ indicates no criteria or not calculated

*WA DECC (2009) – Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation, Landfill Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (as amended 2009)

^NZ MfE (2004). Module 2: Hazardous Waste Guidelines, Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria and Landfill Classification, New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, May 2004

Waste Classification by Leachable Concentration (ASLP)


Constituent Unit





Beryllium mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.01 - 0 Class I

Cadmium mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.01 - 0 Class I

Lead mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.03 - 0 Class I

Lithium mg/L - - 20^ - 9 0.14 0.39 0 No Guidelines


Nickel mg/L 0.2 0.2 2 20 9 <0.02 - 0 Class I






Constituent Unit







Lead mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 9 <0.03 - 0 Class I










6 of 28


Constituent Unit







Lead mg/L 0.1 0.1 1 10 5 <0.03 - 0 Class I









The following exceedances were noted during LEAF Test 1313:



(0.6mg/L).

These exceedances are not considered to alter the original waste classification (Ramboll, 2017)

since the lithium tailings will not be disposed in an environment at below pH4. It was noted in the

WMS (Ramboll, 2017) that the average pH of the material measured in the laboratory during

assessment for waste classification was found to be pH 7.65, indicating that the material is neutral

to slightly alkaline and would be disposed as such. It is further understood that the Lithium Tailings

will be disposed in a dedicated storage that will avoid the risk of cross contamination with other

materials or wastes that could lead to low pH conditions and promote mobilisation of constituents,

rendering leachate unfit for reuse in the processing facility.

6. CONCLUSIONS

LEAF testing was carried out for total concentrations of constituents that were in exceedance of the

WA DEC (2009) Table 3 guidelines for Class I classification during an initial waste classification

(Ramboll, 2017), namely:

Beryllium;

Cadmium;

Lead;

Lithium;

Mercury; and

Nickel.

LEAF testing comprised US EPA methodologies 1313, 1314, 1315 and 1316. The results of the LEAF

testing were compared to the leachable concentration values provided in Table 4 of WA DEC (2009)

and the adopted interim guideline for leachable lithium from NZ MfE (2004). The following

exceedances were noted during LEAF Test 1313:



(0.6mg/L).

These exceedances are not considered relevant to the original waste classification (Ramboll,

2017) since the lithium tailings will not be disposed at a pH of below 4.0. No further exceedances

were recorded during analysis of other LEAF tests. On the basis of the analysis undertaken, the

tailings material is classified as Class I.



7. REFERENCES

NZ MfE (2004). Module 2: Hazardous Waste Guidelines, Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria and

Landfill Classification, New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, May 2004

Ramboll (2017). Albemarle Kemerton Plant Waste Management Strategy (Tailings), December

2017.

US EPA (2017). Leachate Environmental Assessment Framework – How-to guide, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2017.

WA DEC (2009). Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (As amended December

2009), Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation.

WA DER (2015). Background paper on the use of leaching tests for assessing the disposal and re-

use of waste-derived materials, Western Australia Department of Environment Regulation, July

2015.

8. LIMITATIONS

The Lithium Tailings LEAF Testing Summary Report has been prepared exclusively for use by

Albemarle in commercial confidence. The conclusions presented in this Lithium Tailings LEAF

Testing Summary Report represent Ramboll’s best professional judgment based upon the

information available and conditions existing as of the date of the preparation.

In performing its assignment, Ramboll must rely upon publicly available information, information

provided by the client and information provided by third parties. Accordingly, the conclusions in

this report are valid only to the extent that the information provided to Ramboll was accurate and

complete. This review is not intended as legal advice, nor is it an exhaustive review of site

conditions or facility compliance. Ramboll makes no representations or warranties, express or

implied, about the conditions of the Site.

Conditions described within this document can change in a limited time. There are always some

variations in material conditions, which cannot be fully defined by sampling. Further, because

regulatory criteria are constantly changing, concentrations of contaminants and assessed levels of

risk considered acceptable at the time of the assessment may, in future, become subject to

different regulatory standards.

Lithium Tailings LEAF Testing Summary Report 0-1

APPENDIX 1

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.0005 0.02

Metals-020 ICP-AES Metals-020 ICP-AES Metals-020 ICP-AES Metals-020 ICP-AES Metals-021 CV-AAS Metals-020 ICP-AESRB01 1313 T01 target pH 13 1 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T01 target pH 13 1 1 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T02 target pH 12 2 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T03 target pH 10.5 3 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.02 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T04 target pH 9.0 4 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.05 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T05 target pH 8.0 5 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.08 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T06 target pH natural 6 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.08 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T07 target pH 5.5 7 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.19 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1313 T08 target pH 4.0 8 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 0.04 0.02 <0.03 1.8 <0.0005 0.3RB01 1313 T09 target pH 2.0 9 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 2.4 0.03 <0.03 4.3 <0.0005 0.6RB01 1314 T01 10 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.36 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T02 11 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.37 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T03 12 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.39 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T04 13 0 30/01/2018 30/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.27 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T05 14 0 30/01/2018 30/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.27 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T06 15 0 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.24 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T07 16 0 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.18 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T08 17 0 07/02/2018 07/02/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.16 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1314 T09 18 0 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.14 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T01 19 0 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.17 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T01 19 1 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.16 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T02 20 0 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.28 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T03 21 0 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.24 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T04 22 0 30/01/2018 30/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.2 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T05 23 0 05/02/2018 05/02/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.1 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T06 24 0 19/02/2018 19/02/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.15 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T07 25 0 06/03/2018 06/03/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.2 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T08 26 0 13/03/2018 13/03/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.17 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1315 T09 27 0 26/03/2018 26/03/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.17 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1316 T01 target L/S 10 28 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.07 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1316 T02 target L/S 5 29 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.09 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1316 T03 target L/S 2 30 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.11 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1316 T04 target L/S 1 31 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.13 <0.0005 <0.02RB01 1316 T05 target L/S 0.5 32 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 0.11 <0.0005 <0.02LEAF 1313 Blank DI Water 33 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02LEAF 1313 Blank Acid 34 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02LEAF 1313 Blank Base 35 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02LEAF 1316 Blank DI Water 36 0 23/01/2018 23/01/2018 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.02

Mercury in Eluate Nickel in Eluate

Table A1: Complete record of LEAF testing results

DescriptionSample

NoReplicate Date extracted Date analysed

Beryllium in Eluate Cadmium in Eluate Lead in Eluate Lithium in Eluate


0-1

APPENDIX 2

LABORATORY REPORTS

Envirolab Services Pty LtdABN 37 112 535 645

12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067

ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201

[email protected]

www.envirolab.com.au

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 183380

200 Adelaide Terrace, EAST PERTH, WA, 6004AddressRudi SeebachAttentionRamboll Australia Pty LtdClient

Client Details

16/01/2018Date completed instructions received16/01/2018Date samples receivedSoilNumber of SamplesAlbemarle LEAF TESTsYour Reference

Sample Details

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Analysis Details

Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing.

NATA Accreditation Number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

27/03/2018Date of Issue29/03/2018Date results requested by

Report Details

David Springer, General Manager

Authorised By

Simon Mills, Group R&D Manager

Results Approved By

Revision No: R00

183380Envirolab Reference: Page | 1 of 20

Client Reference: Albemarle LEAF TESTs

<0.02<0.02<0.02<0.02<0.02mg/LNickel in Eluate

<0.0005<0.0005<0.0005<0.0005<0.0005mg/LMercury in Eluate

0.240.270.270.390.37mg/LLithium in Eluate

<0.03<0.03<0.03<0.03<0.03mg/LLead in Eluate

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01mg/LCadmium in Eluate

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01mg/LBeryllium in Eluate

02/02/201830/01/201830/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date analysed

02/02/201830/01/201830/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date extracted

Soil - Talings Eluate Analysis





Type of sample

RB01 1314 T06RB01 1314 T05RB01 1314 T04RB01 1314 T03RB01 1314 T02UNITSYour Reference

183380-15183380-14183380-13183380-12183380-11Our Reference

Metals in Eluates

<0.020.60.3<0.02<0.02mg/LNickel in Eluate




<0.010.030.02<0.01<0.01mg/LCadmium in Eluate

<0.012.40.04<0.01<0.01mg/LBeryllium in Eluate

23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date analysed

23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date extracted






Type of sample

RB01 1314 T01RB01 1313 T09 target pH 2.0

RB01 1313 T08 target pH 4.0


RB01 1313 T06 target pH natural

UNITSYour Reference

183380-10183380-9183380-8183380-7183380-6Our Reference

Metals in Eluates



0.080.050.02<0.01<0.01mg/LLithium in Eluate




23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date analysed

23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date extracted






Type of sample



RB01 1313 T03 target pH 10.5

RB01 1313 T02 target pH 12


UNITSYour Reference

183380-5183380-4183380-3183380-2183380-1Our Reference

Metals in Eluates

Envirolab Reference: 183380

R00Revision No:

Page | 2 of 20








23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201826/03/201813/03/2018-Date analysed

23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201826/03/201813/03/2018-Date extracted






Type of sample

RB01 1316 T03 target L/S 2



RB01 1315 T09RB01 1315 T08UNITSYour Reference

183380-30183380-29183380-28183380-27183380-26Our Reference

Metals in Eluates







06/03/201819/02/201805/02/201830/01/201825/01/2018-Date analysed

06/03/201819/02/201805/02/201830/01/201825/01/2018-Date extracted






Type of sample


183380-25183380-24183380-23183380-22183380-21Our Reference

Metals in Eluates







25/01/201825/01/201808/02/201807/02/201802/02/2018-Date analysed

25/01/201825/01/201808/02/201807/02/201802/02/2018-Date extracted






Type of sample


183380-20183380-19183380-18183380-17183380-16Our Reference

Metals in Eluates


R00Revision No:

Page | 3 of 20


<0.02mg/LNickel in Eluate

<0.0005mg/LMercury in Eluate

<0.01mg/LLithium in Eluate

<0.03mg/LLead in Eluate

<0.01mg/LCadmium in Eluate

<0.01mg/LBeryllium in Eluate

23/01/2018-Date analysed

23/01/2018-Date extracted

EluateType of sample

LEAF 1316 Blank DI Water

UNITSYour Reference

183380-36Our Reference

Metals in Eluates



<0.01<0.01<0.010.110.13mg/LLithium in Eluate




23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date analysed

23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018-Date extracted

EluateEluateEluateSoil - Talings Eluate Analysis


Type of sample

LEAF 1313 Blank Base

LEAF 1313 Blank Acid


RB01 1316 T05 target L/S 0.5


UNITSYour Reference

183380-35183380-34183380-33183380-32183380-31Our Reference

Metals in Eluates


R00Revision No:

Page | 4 of 20


[NT]21oC21oC21oC21oCo CAverage Temperature

[NT]18.7g18.7g18.7g18.7g%(w/w)Moisture

[NT]24hrs24hrs24hrs24hrshrs/daysExtraction Time

<113,00016,0002,6001,900µS/cmFinal EC

5.22.04.15.57.6pH unitsFinal pH

[NT]-16ml--mLVolume/Normality Base

[NT]10ml9mL1.2mL-mLVolume/Normality Acid

[NT]190ml184ml DI200ml DI200ml DImLVolume/Type water used

[NT]<0.3mm<0.3mm<0.3mm<0.3mmmmParticle Size used

[NT]20g Dry20g Dry20g Dry20g DrygMass Used

22/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared

EluateSoil - Talings Eluate Analysis




Type of sample





RB01 1313 T06 target pH natural

UNITSYour Reference

183380-33183380-9183380-8183380-7183380-6Our Reference

SW846-1313 LEAF pH variation

21oC21oC21oC21oC21oCo CAverage Temperature

18.7g18.7g18.7g18.7g18.7g%(w/w)Moisture

24hrs24hrs24hrs24hrs24hrshrs/daysExtraction Time

2,2003,1005,6008,10034,000µS/cmFinal EC

8.19.010.412.513.0pH unitsFinal pH

1ml3ml8.6ml15ml47mlmLVolume/Normality Base

0.3ml0.6ml1.0ml--mLVolume/Normality Acid

198.7ml DI196.4ml DI190ml DI185ml DI153ml DImLVolume/Type water used

<0.3mm<0.3mm<0.3mm<0.3mm<0.3mmmmParticle Size used

20g Dry20g Dry20g Dry20g Dry20g DrygMass Used

22/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared






Type of sample



RB01 1313 T03 target pH 10.5



UNITSYour Reference

183380-5183380-4183380-3183380-2183380-1Our Reference



R00Revision No:

Page | 5 of 20


[NT][NT]o CAverage Temperature

[NT][NT]%(w/w)Moisture

[NT][NT]hrs/daysExtraction Time

23,00015,000µS/cmFinal EC

13.02.0pH unitsFinal pH

[NT][NT]mLVolume/Normality Base

[NT][NT]mLVolume/Normality Acid

[NT][NT]mLVolume/Type water used

[NT][NT]mmParticle Size used

[NT][NT]gMass Used

22/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared

EluateEluateType of sample

LEAF 1313 Blank Base

LEAF 1313 Blank Acid

UNITSYour Reference

183380-35183380-34Our Reference



R00Revision No:

Page | 6 of 20


21202121o CAverage Temperature

3142,8263141,570mLPercolation Volume (approx.)

13.25117.7513.2565.5hrsPercolation Time

2,1002,1002,2002,200µS/cmFraction EC

6.97.27.27.1pH unitsFractional pH

18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%%(w/w)Moisture

772g (Wet)772g (Wet)772g (Wet)772g (Wet)gMass Used

48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mmmm D x mm H Packed Column Bed Dimensions

<2.36mm<2.36mm<2.36mm<2.36mmmmParticle Size used

07/02/201806/02/201830/01/201829/01/2018-Date prepared





Type of sample

RB01 1314 T09RB01 1314 T08RB01 1314 T07RB01 1314 T06UNITSYour Reference

183380-18183380-17183380-16183380-15Our Reference

SW846-1314 LEAF

2021222121o CAverage Temperature

314314314188126mLPercolation Volume (approx.)

13.2513.2513.257.755.25hrsPercolation Time

2,3002,2002,3002,3002,400µS/cmFraction EC

7.46.87.47.26.5pH unitsFractional pH

18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%%(w/w)Moisture

772g (Wet)772g (Wet)772g (Wet)772g (Wet)772g (Wet)gMass Used

48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mm48mm x 300mmmm D x mm H Packed Column Bed Dimensions


26/01/201825/01/201823/01/201822/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared






Type of sample


183380-14183380-13183380-12183380-11183380-10Our Reference

SW846-1314 LEAF


R00Revision No:

Page | 7 of 20


7.37.67.77.2pH unitsElutriate Final pH

8906309501,100µS/cmElutriate Final EC

26/03/201812/03/201805/03/201819/02/2018--Elutriate Exchange Time/Day

477mls477mls477mls477mlsmLElutriate Volume Used

DI WaterDI WaterDI WaterDI Water--Elutriate Liquid Type

18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%%(w/w)Moisture

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

mm D x mm H Geometry and Dimensions 3D or 1D

391g Wet391g Wet391g Wet391g WetgMass Used

Client SuppliedClient SuppliedClient SuppliedClient Supplied--Material Description

22/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared





Type of sample

RB01 1315 T09RB01 1315 T08RB01 1315 T07RB01 1315 T06UNITSYour Reference

183380-27183380-26183380-25183380-24Our Reference

SW846-1315 LEAF Monolith

6.97.36.86.86.7pH unitsElutriate Final pH

1,2009401,9002,100530µS/cmElutriate Final EC

05/02/201829/01/201824/01/201823/01/201822/01/2018--Elutriate Exchange Time/Day

477mls477mls477mls477mls477mlsmLElutriate Volume Used

DI WaterDI WaterDI WaterDI WaterDI Water--Elutriate Liquid Type

18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%%(w/w)Moisture

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

1D 80mm x H 45mm

mm D x mm H Geometry and Dimensions 3D or 1D

391g Wet391g Wet391g Wet391g Wet391g WetgMass Used

Client SuppliedClient SuppliedClient SuppliedClient SuppliedClient Supplied--Material Description

22/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared






Type of sample


183380-23183380-22183380-21183380-20183380-19Our Reference

SW846-1315 LEAF Monolith


R00Revision No:

Page | 8 of 20


21oCo CAverage Temperature

7.4pH unitsFinal pH

<1µS/cmFinal EC

[NT]hrs/daysExtraction Time

[NT]%(w/w)Moisture

Di Water--Elutriate Fluid

[NT]mLElutriate Volume Used

[NT]gMass Used

[NT]mL/g-dryTarget Liquid/Solid Ratio

[NT]mmParticle Size used

DI Water BLK--Solid Material Description

22/01/2018-Date prepared

EluateType of sample


UNITSYour Reference

183380-36Our Reference

SW846-1316 LEAF Liq/Solid variation

21oC21oC21oC21oC21oCo CAverage Temperature

INSUFF7.47.87.98.0pH unitsFinal pH

INSUFF2,6002,5002,4002,700µS/cmFinal EC

24Hrs24Hrs24Hrs24Hrs24Hrshrs/daysExtraction Time

18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%18.7%%(w/w)Moisture

DI WaterDI WaterDI WaterDI WaterDI Water--Elutriate Fluid

200ml200ml200ml200ml200mlmLElutriate Volume Used

400g Dry200g Dry100g Dry40g Dry20g DrygMass Used

0.512510mL/g-dryTarget Liquid/Solid Ratio


Client SuppliedClient SuppliedClient SuppliedClient SuppliedClient Supplied--Solid Material Description

22/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/201822/01/2018-Date prepared






Type of sample

RB01 1316 T05 target L/S 0.5





UNITSYour Reference

183380-32183380-31183380-30183380-29183380-28Our Reference

SW846-1316 LEAF Liq/Solid variation


R00Revision No:

Page | 9 of 20


Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS. Metals-021 CV-AAS

Determination of various metals by ICP-AES. Metals-020 ICP-AES

Leaching Environment Assessment Framework (LEAF) methods of leaching using USEPA methods SW846 1313, 1314, 1315 or 1316. All eluates are filtered through 0.45um prior to analysis unless otherwise noted. Please note the 1315 is not currently designed for Organic Analyses, however, the method is being used for SVOCs in the US at present.

INORG-125Methodology SummaryMethod ID


R00Revision No:

Page | 10 of 20


104118[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES

0.01mg/LLithium in Eluate


0.03mg/LLead in Eluate


0.01mg/LCadmium in Eluate


0.01mg/LBeryllium in Eluate

25/01/201830/01/2018[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]-Date analysed

25/01/201830/01/2018[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]-Date extracted

183380-20LCS-W3RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Metals in Eluates

991040<0.02<0.0219[NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES

0.02mg/LNickel in Eluate

1181070<0.0005<0.000519[NT]Metals-021 CV-AAS0.0005mg/LMercury in Eluate

969960.160.1719[NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES


971020<0.03<0.0319[NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES


1011060<0.01<0.0119[NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES


87950<0.01<0.0119[NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES


23/01/201825/01/201825/01/201825/01/201819[NT]-Date analysed

23/01/201825/01/201825/01/201825/01/201819[NT]-Date extracted



941030<0.02<0.021<0.02Metals-020 ICP-AES


1121130<0.0005<0.00051<0.0005Metals-021 CV-AAS0.0005mg/LMercury in Eluate

83970<0.01<0.011<0.01Metals-020 ICP-AES


921000<0.03<0.031<0.03Metals-020 ICP-AES


971030<0.01<0.011<0.01Metals-020 ICP-AES


83860<0.01<0.011<0.01Metals-020 ICP-AES


23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018123/01/2018-Date analysed

23/01/201823/01/201823/01/201823/01/2018123/01/2018-Date extracted




R00Revision No:

Page | 11 of 20


[NT]113[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]Metals-020 ICP-AES


[NT]98[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]Metals-021 CV-AAS0.0005mg/LMercury in Eluate









[NT]05/02/2018[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]-Date analysed

[NT]05/02/2018[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]-Date extracted

[NT]LCS-W5RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description



















105104[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]Metals-021 CV-AAS0.0005mg/LMercury in Eluate




R00Revision No:

Page | 12 of 20













































R00Revision No:

Page | 13 of 20






































R00Revision No:

Page | 14 of 20


















R00Revision No:

Page | 15 of 20


[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]22/01/2018-Date prepared

[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: SW846-1313 LEAF pH variation


R00Revision No:

Page | 16 of 20


[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]22/01/2018-Date prepared

[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: SW846-1316 LEAF Liq/Solid variation


R00Revision No:

Page | 17 of 20


Not ReportedNRNational Environmental Protection MeasureNEPMNot specifiedNSLaboratory Control SampleLCSRelative Percent DifferenceRPDGreater than>Less than<Practical Quantitation LimitPQLInsufficient sample for this testINSTest not requiredNANot testedNT

Result Definitions

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that Thermotolerant Coliform, Faecal Enterococci, & E.Coli levels are less than1cfu/100mL. The recommended maximums are taken from "Australian Drinking Water Guidelines", published by NHMRC & ARMC2011.

Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds whichare similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Surrogate Spike

This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortifiedwith analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

LCS (LaboratoryControl Sample)

A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spikeis to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferencesexist.

Matrix Spike

This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selectedshould be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Duplicate

This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as forsamples.

Blank

Quality Control Definitions


R00Revision No:

Page | 18 of 20


Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity of the analysis whererecommended technical holding times may have been breached.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis hasproceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as soon aspracticable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, thesample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics (+/-50% surrogates)and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics and speciated phenols is acceptable.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted during sampleextraction.

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency to meetor exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix spike recoveries forthe batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria


R00Revision No:

Page | 19 of 20


INSUFF = Insufficient liquid could be seperated from the 2:1 S/L leachate for pH and EC analysis.

Report Comments


R00Revision No:

Page | 20 of 20


APPENDIX 3 – XSTP Lithium Hydroxide Tailings Characteristics

Xstract – Excellence from the outset

XstractGroup.com

Level 2, 50 St Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6000 | PO Box Z5426, PERTH WA 6831

T +61 8 9327 9500 | F +61 8 9481 8700 | Xstract Mining Consultants Pty Ltd | ABN 62 129 791 279

16 April 2018

Ref: XSTP17047

Rudi Seebach

Senior Environmental Scientist

Environment & Health

Ramboll Environ Australia Pty Ltd

Level 2, 200 Adelaide Terrace,

East Perth WA 6004,

Australia

Dear Rudi

Re: Lithium Tailings Characterisation, Dry Stacked Tailings –

Laboratory Testing Results

Ramboll Environ Australia Pty Ltd (“Ramboll”) is undertaking environmental consultancy for

Albemarle Australia Pty Ltd (“Albermarle”) on plans to build a Lithium Processing Facility located

in Kemerton, Western Australia.

As part of the characterisation of the proposed tailings there are geotechnical testing

requirements that Ramboll requested Xstract’s assistance with; specifically in sampling

methodology, test scheduling, and management of the testing laboratory. Ramboll

commissioned Xstract via a subcontractor agreement and work order in October 2017. No

factual or interpretive reporting of the results was commissioned. This letter presents the

results of the laboratory testing undertaken.

The proposed tailings storage facility comprises a conceptual design for dry stacking of the

tailings in dedicated cells at the Cleanaway Waste Management Ltd (“Cleanaway”) Class 3

landfill site at Banksia Road, Crooked Brook, in the shire of Dardanup.

Tailings samples were collected from an existing plant in China processing the same ore by

Ramboll. Xstract, with the assistance of Ramboll, arranged the export of approximately 200 kg

of tailings samples by sea from China to Trilab Pty Ltd’s (“Trilab”) laboratory in Brisbane,

Australia, for testing. Export of the samples was originally planned by air freight but due to

complications with China’s customs authorities, samples were dispatched via sea freight. Extra

testing of the samples at the port were required to confirm; that the composition of the tailings

samples were as described, that there were no valuable minerals in the tailings and that the

tailings were not a hazardous substance.

Trilab subsampled and transported a small volume of the tailings material to the University of

Western Australia’s geotechnical laboratory to undertake monotonic and cyclic simple shear

testing, a very specialised test only undertaken at a limited number of laboratories globally.

In addition to the 200 kg of tailings samples exported by Xstract, Ramboll also exported some

smaller samples by air freight for environmental testing.

navarke

EXT-ALB-REP-0006_0

Lithium Tailings Characterisation, Dry Stacked Tailings – Laboratory Testing Results | Ramboll Environ

Australia Pty Ltd

16 April 2018 2

Geotechnical laboratory testing was undertaken on a combination of the remainder of the

environmental samples (after completion of the environmental testing by Ramboll) and the 200

kg of samples exported by Xstract. Test selection was completed after a period of consultation

to confirm the specific testing requirements with Albermarle and the proposed facility

operator/owner, Cleanaway.

A single round of testing was completed on the environmental samples and two additional

rounds of testing were completed on the 200 kg sample (excluding simple shear testing where

only a single round of testing was completed as directed by Albemarle). After completion of

this testing the remainder of the samples are being stored, at no additional charge, for 3 months

by Trilab. It is understood that Ramboll will be commissioning Trilab directly to store the

samples for a further 12 months.

The laboratory testing completed is presented in Table 1 and the laboratory test results

certificates are presented in Appendix A.


Australia Pty Ltd

16 April 2018 3

Table 1 – Completed Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Testing Standard (Where Applicable) Quantity

Moisture Content AS1289 2.1.1 (Loss on Drying - Water

content via mass loss at 105 C) 3

Particle Size Distribution with

Hydrometer AS1289 3.6.2 3

Atterberg Limits (4 point, including

Linear Shrinkage) AS1289 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1 3

MMDD / OMC - Compaction AS1289 5.2.1 3

Consolidation testing (7 stage full

consolidation) - Oedometer AS1289 6.6.1 3

Emerson Class - (piping potential) AS1289.3.8.1 3

Triaxial Testing - UU (unconsolidated,

undrained) - (elastic properties) -

multi stage

AS1289.6.4.1 3

Triaxial Testing - CU (consolidated,

undrained) - (elastic properties) -

multi stage

AS1289.6.4.2 3

Simple Shear (CIU, CAU monotonic

test)

Non-standard test (UWA test

procedure) 1

Simple Shear (CIU, CAU cyclic test) Non-standard test (UWA test

procedure) 1

Direct Shear (Drained and Undrained

Shear Strength) AS 1289.6.3.1 3

Hydraulic Conductivity - Falling Head AS 1289.6.7.2 (R2013) 3

Hydraulic Conductivity - Constant

Head AS 1289.6.7.3:2016 3

Specific Conductance – electrical AS 1289.4.4.1 3

Natural pH AS 1289 3.8.1, 4.3.1 3

Specific Gravity (Sg) AS1289 3.5.1 3

Aerated Bulk Density AS1141.4 Bulk Density –

Uncompacted& Compacted 3

Packed Bulk Density AS1141.4 Bulk Density –

Uncompacted& Compacted 3


Australia Pty Ltd

16 April 2018 4

Should you require any further assistance with the project please do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned with any queries.

Yours sincerely

Seb Norris

Principal Consultant – Geotechnical

Xstract Mining Consultants Pty Ltd

Telephone: +61 433 350 057

Fax: +61 8 9481 8700

Email: [email protected]

Attachment: Appendix A – Laboratory Test Results Certificates


XstractGroup.com



Attachment A:

Laboratory Test Results Certificates


XstractGroup.com



Moisture Content

AS1289 2.1.1 (Loss on Drying - Water content via mass loss at 105 C)

Brisbane346A Bilsen Road, GeebungQLD 4034 Ph: +61 7 3265 5656

Perth2 Kimmer Place, Queens Park WA 6107 Ph: +61 8 9258 8323Soil Rock Calibration

chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.

Workorder No.Address Report Date

Project

Sample No. 18020002

Date Tested 5/02/2018

Client IDLithium

Tailings Dry Stack

Depth (m) Not Supplied

Moisture (%) 23.0

ClassificationCLAY / SILT -

grey

Pocket Penetrometer (kPa)

-

Sample No.

Date Tested

Client ID

Depth (m)

Moisture (%)

Classification


NOTES/REMARKS:

Sample/s supplied by the client Page 1 of 1 REP02902

Laboratory No. 9926

VISUAL CLASSIFICATION TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 2.1.1, AS1726 Tables 9 & 10


Level 6 545 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000

18020002-VC

06/02/2018

Lithium Tailings Dry Stack

0003771

Trilab Pty Ltd ABN 25 065 630 506 Reference should be made to Trilab's “Standard Terms and Conditions of Business” for further details.

The results of calibrations and tests performed apply only to the specific instrument or sample at the time of test unless otherwise clearly stated.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. The results of the tests, calibrations, and/or measurements included in

this document are traceable to Australian/National Standards.

Tested at Trilab Brisbane Laboratory.

Authorised Signatory

C. Channon

ACCURATE QUALITY RESULTS FOR TOMORROW'S ENGINEERING



chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Project

Sample No. 18020625 18020626

Date Tested 26/02/2018 26/02/2018

Client ID

Lithium Tailings Dry

Stack - Batch 2


Stack - Batch 3

Depth (m) Not Supplied Not Supplied

Moisture (%) 26.1 26.2

ClassificationSILT - pale

greySILT - pale

grey


- -

Sample No.

Date Tested

Client ID

Depth (m)

Moisture (%)

Classification


NOTES/REMARKS:


Laboratory No. 9926

VISUAL CLASSIFICATION TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 2.1.1, AS1726 Tables 9 & 10



18020625-VC

01/03/2018


0003883







C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Particle Size Distribution with Hydrometer

AS1289 3.6.2



chrisc 5758

Client Report No.

Workorder No.Address Test Date

Report Date

Project

Client ID Lithium Tailings Dry Stack Depth (m)Sieve Size Passing

(mm) %

150.0

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

9.5

6.7

4.75

2.36

1.18

0.600

0.425 100

0.300 99

0.150 94

0.075 92

0.057 77

0.045 67

0.034 59

0.024 49

0.018 45

0.013 40

0.0096 32

0.0069 27

0.0049 21

0.004 19

0.0035 16

0.0029 15

0.0025 13

0.0014 9

NOTES/REMARKS: -Moisture Content 23% -2.36mm Soil Particle Density(t/m3) 2.56Sample/s supplied by the client Page 1 of 1 REP03904

Laboratory No. 9926


Not Supplied



0003771

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.6.3, 3.5.1 & 2.1.1

18020002-G

13/2/2018

5/2/18-13/2/18

The results of calibrations and tests performed apply only to the specific instrument or sample at the time of test unless otherwise clearly stated. Reference should be made to Trilab's “Standard Terms and Conditions of Business” for further details.

Trilab Pty Ltd ABN 25 065 630 506


T. Lockhart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Pas

sin

g (%

)

Particle Size (mm)





C. Channon




chrisc 5758

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Client ID Lithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 2 Depth (m)Sieve Size Passing

(mm) %

150.0

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

9.5

6.7

4.75

2.36

1.18 100

0.600 99

0.425 99

0.300 98

0.150 93

0.075 76

0.065 65

0.047 59

0.033 54

0.024 46

0.018 37

0.013 33

0.0095 27

0.0069 20

0.0049 17

0.004 13

0.0035 12

0.0029 10

0.0025 9

0.0014 6

NOTES/REMARKS: -Moisture Content 26.1% -2.36mm Soil Particle Density(t/m3) 2.55Sample/s supplied by the client Page 1 of 1 REP03904

Laboratory No. 9926


Not Supplied



0003883


18020625-G

8/3/2018

26/2/18-8/3/18




T. Lockhart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Pas

sin

g (%

)

Particle Size (mm)





C. Channon




chrisc 5758

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Client ID Lithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 3 Depth (m)Sieve Size Passing

(mm) %

150.0

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

9.5

6.7

4.75

2.36

1.18

0.600

0.425

0.300 100

0.150 94

0.075 77

0.061 69

0.044 63

0.032 55

0.023 47

0.018 39

0.013 33

0.0094 29

0.0068 21

0.0049 16

0.004 12

0.0035 10

0.0029 8

0.0025 7

0.0014 5

NOTES/REMARKS: -Moisture Content 23.5% -2.36mm Soil Particle Density(t/m3) 2.53Sample/s supplied by the client Page 1 of 1 REP03904

Laboratory No. 9926


Not Supplied



0003883


18020626-G

8/3/2018

26/2/18-8/3/18




T. Lockhart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Pas

sin

g (%

)

Particle Size (mm)





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Atterberg Limits (4 point, including Linear Shrinkage)

AS1289 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1



chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

18020002

Test Date 6/02/2018


Stack

Not Supplied

35

30

Plasticity Index (%) 5

Linear Shrinkage (%) 2.0 *

Moisture Content (%) 23.0

Test Date

Plasticity Index (%)

Linear Shrinkage (%)

Moisture Content (%)

NOTES/REMARKS: The samples were tested in a natural state, wet sieved and in a 125-250mm mould.

Sample/s supplied by the client * Cracking occurred + Curling occurred Page 1 of 1 REP00102

Laboratory No. 9926

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 2.1.1, 3.9.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1



18020002-AL

14/02/2018

06/02/2018

0003771


Depth (m)



Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Sample No.

Client ID

Depth (m)

Client ID

Sample No.

Plastic Limit (%)

Liquid Limit (%)


T. Lockhart





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Project

18020625 18020626

Test Date 12/03/2018 12/03/2018


Stack - Batch 2


Stack - Batch 3

Not Supplied Not Supplied

36 36

29 29

Plasticity Index (%) 7 7

Linear Shrinkage (%) 1.0 1.0

Moisture Content (%) 26.1 26.2

Test Date

Plasticity Index (%)

Linear Shrinkage (%)


NOTES/REMARKS: The samples were tested in a natural state, wet sieved and in a 125-250mm mould.

Sample/s supplied by the client * Cracking occurred + Curling occurred Page 1 of 1 REP00102

Laboratory No. 9926


Depth (m)



Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Sample No.

Client ID

Depth (m)

Client ID

Sample No.

Plastic Limit (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 2.1.1, 3.9.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1



18020625-AL

15/03/2018

0003883


T. Lockhart





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



MMDD / OMC - Compaction

AS1289 5.2.1



chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Client ID Depth (m) Not Supplied

Description SILT - grey

17.00 29.00

1.30 1.70

NOTES/REMARKS:

Sample/s supplied by the client % Voids based on assumed SG of 2.48 Page 1 of 1 REP01304

Laboratory No. 9926


MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 5.2.1 & AS 1289.2.1.1



18020002-MDD

6/02/2018

5/02/2018


0003771

Maximum Dry Density (t/m3)



0/19

23.2


1.51

Percentage of Oversize/Sieve Size (mm)

Optimum Moisture Content (%)


T. Lockhart

1.300

1.350

1.400

1.450

1.500

1.550

1.600

1.650

1.700

17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0

Dry

Den

sity

(t/

m3 )


Test Data MDD at OMC Cubic Spline Interpolation 0% Air Voids 2% Air Voids 4% Air Voids





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project


Description SILT - grey

18.00 30.00

1.30 1.60

NOTES/REMARKS:


Laboratory No. 9926




0/19

23.6


1.50



Lithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 2




18020625-MDD

1/03/2018

28/02/2018


0003883


T. Lockhart

1.300

1.350

1.400

1.450

1.500

1.550

1.600

18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0

Dry

Den

sity

(t/

m3 )







C. Channon




chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project


Description SILT- grey

19.00 30.00

1.30 1.60

NOTES/REMARKS:


Laboratory No. 9926




0/19

24.1


1.50







18020626-MDD

1/03/2018

28/02/2018


0003883


T. Lockhart

1.300

1.350

1.400

1.450

1.500

1.550

1.600

19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0

Dry

Den

sity

(t/

m3 )







C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Consolidation testing (7 stage full consolidation) –

Oedometer

AS1289 6.6.1



chrisc 1919

Client: Report No.:

Workorder No.Address: Test Date:

Report Date:

Project:

Client Id.: Depth (m):

Description:

0.6

1

0

5

Wet Density (t/m3): 1.71 Initial Moisture (%): 23.9 Test Condition:

Particle Density (t/m3): 2.56 Initial Voids Ratio: 0.852 Initial Degree of Saturation (%): 71.9

Sample supplied by the client Remarks:Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry

Desity at Optimum Moisture Content

Inundated on load

OEDOMETER TEST REPORTTest Method: AS1289.6.6.1, 3.5.1

18020002-OED

13/02/2018

12/03/2018

Not Supplied

SILT- grey




3771


Trilab Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 2

ABN 25 065 630 506

REP03102


Reference should be made to Trilab's “Standard Terms and Conditions of Business” for further details.

Laboratory Number 9926

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.80

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.84

0.85

0.86

1 10 100 1000

% C

on

solid

atio

n

Vo

id R

atio

Applied Pressure (kPa)

Void Ratio

% Consolidation

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. The results of the tests, calibrations, and/or measurements included

in this document are traceable to Australian/National Standards.



C. Channon



Client: Report No.:


Report Date:

Project:


Description:

Stage Cc k

(m/s) t50 t90

1 0.007 4.0E-09 0.20 72.18

2 0.018 7.1E-09 0.24 98.00

3 0.028 2.5E-09 0.36 45.09

4 0.030 1.3E-09 0.13 43.78

5 0.035 5.7E-10 0.42 32.40

6 0.037 2.1E-10 177.31 11.40

7 0.013 6.3E-10 190.50 48.60

8 0.051 5.2E-09 138.96 102.82

9 0.002 1.2E-11 191.17 12.85

10 0.046 5.2E-10 0.03 43.96

11 0.076 5.4E-10 0.02 55.29

Remarks: Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Desity at Optimum Moisture Content Page 2 of 2

(kPa)

TEST RESULTS


Xstract Mining Consultants Pty Ltd 18020002-OED

3771Level 6 545 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000

13/02/2018

12/03/2018


102-201

201-100

100-51

51-102

26-51

0.003

0.038

0.032

6-12

12-26

0.1

0.4

0.9

1.451-102

0.180

SILT- grey

Load Cv (m2/yr) % ConsolidationCa x 10

-3Mv (kPa

-1x10

-3)

0.235

0.176

Not Supplied

3.27

0.68

0.64

1.03

0.98

2.09

0.09

1.1

1.9

1.9

1.3

0.097

0.057

0.060

0.21

0.11

0.24

2.84

0.041

0.164

Trilab Pty Ltd

102-201

201-401

401-801


ABN 25 065 630 506

REP03102




4.0

2.0

2.7





C. Channon



chrisc 1919

Client: Report No.:


Report Date:

Project:


Description:

0.6

1

0

5



Sample supplied by the client Remarks:Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum

Dry Desity at Optimum Moisture Content

ABN 25 065 630 506

REP03102




Trilab Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 2


18020625-OED

2/03/2018

10/04/2018

Not Supplied

SILT- grey




3883


Inundated on load

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0.75

0.77

0.79

0.81

0.83

0.85

0.87

1 10 100 1000

% C

on

solid

atio

n

Vo

id R

atio


Void Ratio

% Consolidation





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:


Report Date:

Project:


Description:

Stage Cc k

(m/s) t50 t90

1 0.006 8.5E-10 0.31 17.56

2 0.004 5.0E-10 0.10 34.10

3 0.020 9.4E-10 0.25 23.52

4 0.033 2.1E-09 0.08 62.74

5 0.046 9.7E-10 0.08 40.83

6 0.046 6.0E-10 98.72 25.22

7 0.021 2.4E-09 122.11 116.31

8 0.072 3.9E-09 307.31 53.52

9 0.006 1.4E-10 187.96 41.83

10 0.054 6.5E-10 0.03 47.00

11 0.105 2.6E-09 0.03 188.91

Remarks:


ABN 25 065 630 506

REP03102




4.5

1.9

2.8

Trilab Pty Ltd

100-200

200-400

400-801

Not Supplied

6.55

0.28

0.54

0.87

1.43

2.04

0.09

0.7

1.8

1.8

1.0

0.109

0.076

0.077

0.16

0.07

0.25

2.88

0.068

0.235

6-12

12-25

0.1

0.2

0.5

1.051-99

0.156

SILT- grey


-3Mv (kPa

-1x10

-3)

0.047

0.129

99-199

199-99

99-51

51-100

25-51

0.011

0.045

0.044

(kPa)

TEST RESULTS




2/03/2018

10/04/2018


Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Desity at Optimum Moisture Content Page 2 of 2





C. Channon



chrisc 1919

Client: Report No.:


Report Date:

Project:


Description:

0.6

1

0

5



Undisturbed sample supplied by the client Remarks:Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum

Dry Desity at Optimum Moisture Content

ABN 25 065 630 506

REP03102




Trilab Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 2


18020626-OED

2/03/2018

9/04/2018

Not Supplied

SILT- grey




3883


Inundated on load

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.76

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.80

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.84

0.85

1 10 100 1000

% C

on

solid

atio

n

Vo

id R

atio


Void Ratio

% Consolidation





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:


Report Date:

Project:


Description:

Stage Cc k

(m/s) t50 t90

1 0.004 1.3E-09 0.21 73.32

2 0.008 1.7E-09 0.20 114.37

3 0.024 1.5E-09 4.09 59.72

4 0.037 8.8E-10 0.07 45.85

5 0.044 4.9E-10 125.05 21.64

6 0.008 4.1E-10 162.57 50.10

7 0.053 2.8E-09 191.43 52.44

8 0.007 2.0E-10 148.62 57.45

9 0.037 4.3E-10 0.03 45.66

10 0.098 5.7E-10 0.01 44.86

Remarks:


ABN 25 065 630 506

REP03102




1.9

3.5

Trilab Pty Ltd

200-400

400-800

Not Supplied

0.53

1.05

1.11

1.80

0.12

0.12

1.2

1.3

0.5

0.3

0.062

0.074

0.027

0.10

0.23

2.96

5.50

0.172

0.011

12.5-25

25-51

0.1

0.2

0.6

1.2100-200

0.056

SILT- grey


-3Mv (kPa

-1x10

-3)

0.049

0.079

200-100

100-51

51-100

100-200

51-100

0.030

0.041

(kPa)

TEST RESULTS




2/03/2018

9/04/2018


Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Desity at Optimum Moisture Content Page 2 of 2





C. Channon


XstractGroup.com



Emerson Class - (piping potential)

AS1289.3.8.1



chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Sample No. 18020002 - - - - - -

Client IDLithium

Tailings Dry Stack

- - - - - -

Depth (m) Not Supplied - - - - - -

Description SILT - grey - - - - - -

Emerson Class Number

4 - - - - - -

Sample No. - - - - - - -

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -

Description - - - - - - -


- - - - - - -

Sample No. - - - - - - -

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -



- - - - - - -

NOTES/REMARKS:

Sample/s supplied by the client Tested with Distilled water at 22°C Page 1 of 1 REP00402

Laboratory No. 9926


EMERSON CLASS NUMBER TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.8.1



18020002-EM

13/02/2018

06/02/2018

3771




T. Lockhart





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Sample No. 18020625 18020626 - - - - -

Client IDLithium

Tailings Dry Stack - Batch


Stack - Batch - - - - -

Depth (m) Not Supplied Not Supplied - - - - -

DescriptionSILTY - pale

greySILT - pale

grey- - - - -


4 4 - - - - -

Sample No. - - - - - - -

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -



- - - - - - -

Sample No. - - - - - - -

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -



- - - - - - -

NOTES/REMARKS:

Sample/s supplied by the client Tested with Distilled water at 21.5°C Page 1 of 1 REP00402

Laboratory No. 9926




EMERSON CLASS NUMBER TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.8.1



18020625-EM

07/03/2018

06/03/2018

3883


T. Lockhart





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Triaxial Testing - UU (unconsolidated, undrained) - (elastic

properties) - multi stage

AS1289.6.4.1


Perth2 Kimmer Place, Queens Park WA 6107 Ph: +61 8 9258 8323Soil Rock Calibrationchrisc 1919

Client Report No.

Address Test Date

Report Date

Project

Client ID Depth (m)Description Sample Type

Interpretation between stages

Cohesion C (kPa)

Angle of Shear Resistance Ф (0)

MOISTURE CONTENTS Initial 23.7 % Final 23.7 % Failure Criteria Maximum Deviator Stress

StrainInitial Height 99.3 mm

Initial Diameter 46.9 mm 1036 kPa 4.66 %

Wet Density 1.72 t/m3

Dry Density 1.39 t/m3

Rate of Strain 0.504 % / min

Notes/Remarks:Graph not to scale Page 1 of 3 REP2601

Laboratory No. 9926

Sample Detailss3

FAILURE DETAILSPrincipal Stresses

SAMPLE & TEST DETAILS

CLAYEY SILT- grey Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Standard Maximum Dry Density at Optimum Moisture Content

250 kPa

Deviator Stresss1

250 kPa 1286 kPa

Confining Pressure



TRIAXIAL TEST REPORTTest Method: AS1289.6.4.1

Not Supplied

18020002- UU

27/02/2018

14/02/2018





0003771Workorder No.


T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Sh

ear

Str

ess

kP

a

Normal Stress kPa

Mohr Circle Diagram

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. The results of the tests, calibrations, and/or measurements included in this

document are traceable to Australian/National Standards.



C. Channon




Client Report No.


Laboratory No. 9926 The results of calibrations and tests performed apply only to the specific instrument or sample at the time of test unless otherwise clearly stated.

Reference should be made to Trilab's “Standard Terms and Conditions of Business” for further details.Trilab Pty Ltd ABN 25 065 630 506


18020002- UUXstract Mining Consultants Pty Ltd


T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s k

Pa

Strain %

Stress/Strain Diagram





C. Channon




Client Report No.

Notes/Remarks: Photo not to scaleGraph not to scale Page 3 of 3 REP2601



18020002- UU




T. Lockhart





C. Channon




Client Report No.

Address Test Date

Report Date

Project



Cohesion C (kPa)









Laboratory No. 9926

Sample Detailss3

250 kPa

Deviator Stresss1

250 kPa 1280 kPa

Confining Pressure



CLAYEY SILT- yellow Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Density at Optimum Moisture Content




Not Supplied

18020625- UU

16/03/2018

15/02/2018







T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Sh

ear

Str

ess

kP

a

Normal Stress kPa

Mohr Circle Diagram





C. Channon




Client Report No.







T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s k

Pa

Strain %






C. Channon




Client Report No.




18020625- UU




T. Lockhart





C. Channon




Client Report No.

Address Test Date

Report Date

Project



Cohesion C (kPa)









Laboratory No. 9926

Sample Detailss3



CLAYEY SILT- yellow Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Density at Optimum Moisture Content

250 kPa

Deviator Stresss1

250 kPa 1317 kPa

Confining Pressure




Not Supplied

18020626- UU

16/03/2018

15/02/2018







T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Sh

ear

Str

ess

kP

a

Normal Stress kPa

Mohr Circle Diagram





C. Channon




Client Report No.







T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s k

Pa

Strain %






C. Channon




Client Report No.




18020626- UU




T. Lockhart





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Triaxial Testing - CU (consolidated, undrained) - (elastic

properties) - multi stage

AS1289.6.4.2



chrisc 1919

Client: Report No.:

Address Test Date:

Report Date:

Project:


Description:

Initial Height: 99.5 mm Initial Moisture Content: 23.7 % Rate of Strain: 0.004 %/min

Initial Diameter: 47.7 mm Final Moisture Content: 33.4 % B Response: 98 %

L/D Ratio: 2.1 : 1 Wet Density: 1.71 t/m3

Dry Density: 1.39 t/m3

Sample Type: Single Individual Specimen remoulded to a target density of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Density at Optimum Moisture Content

Strain

s'1 / s'3

250 kPa 750 kPa 500 kPa 496 kPa 594 kPa 5.027 2.64 %

Interpretation between stages :

Cohesion C' (kPa) :

Angle of Shear Resistance Ф' (Degrees) :

Failure Criteria: Peak Principal Stress Ratio

Remarks:

Sample/s supplied by the client

TEST RESULTS

FAILURE ENVELOPES

Trilab Pty LtdABN 25 065 630 506




REP03001

Page 1 of 6

764 kPa 152 kPa

Principal Effective Stresses

s'1

Deviator Stress

s'3

612 kPa


FAILURE DETAILS


Confining

Pressure

Back

Pressure Initial Pore

Failure

PoreEffective Pressure

27/02/2018


Not Supplied

CLAYEY SILT- grey


18020002 - CU

15/02/2018


Level 6 545 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 40000003771Workorder No.


T. Lockhart





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:


Cohesion C' (kPa) :



Remarks:

Sample/s supplied by the client Note: Graph not to scale




Page 2 of 6

REP03001


Xstract Mining Consultants Pty Ltd 18020002 - CU



T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

0 200 400 600 800

Shea

r St

ress

(kP

a)

Principal Stress (kPa)

Mohr Circle Diagram





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:





Page 3 of 6

REP03001





T. Lockhart

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Por

e P

ress

ure

kPa

Dev

iato

r St

ress

kP

a

Strain %

Stress/Strain & Pore Pressure/Strain Diagram

_____ Shear Stress

_ _ _ _ Pore Pressure





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:





Page 4 of 6

REP03001





T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

t =

(s' 1

- s

' 3)/

2 k

Pa

s = (s'1 + s'3)/2 kPa

MIT Method - Effective Stress Path





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:








Page 5 of 6

REP03001


T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

q =

(s' 1

- s

' 3)

kP

a

p =(s'1 + 2s'3)/3 kPa

Cambridge Method - Effective Stress Path





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:

Sample/s supplied by the client Note: Photo not to scale

Trilab Pty Ltd




ABN 25 065 630 506



REP03001

Page 6 of 6


T. Lockhart





C. Channon



chrisc 1919

Client: Report No.:

Address Test Date:

Report Date:

Project:


Description:






Strain

s'1 / s'3



Cohesion C' (kPa) :



Remarks:


TEST RESULTS

FAILURE ENVELOPES





REP03001

Page 1 of 6

903 kPa 184 kPa


s'1

Deviator Stress

s'3

719 kPa


FAILURE DETAILS


Confining

Pressure

Back


Failure


16/03/2018


Not Supplied

SILT- grey


18020625 - CU

5/03/2018




T. Lockhart





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:


Cohesion C' (kPa) :



Remarks:





Page 2 of 6

REP03001





T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Shea

r St

ress

(kP

a)


Mohr Circle Diagram





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:





Page 3 of 6

REP03001





T. Lockhart

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Por

e P

ress

ure

kPa

Dev

iato

r St

ress

kP

a

Strain %


_____ Shear Stress






C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:





Page 4 of 6

REP03001





T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

t =

(s' 1

- s

' 3)/

2 k

Pa

s = (s'1 + s'3)/2 kPa






C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:








Page 5 of 6

REP03001


T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

q =

(s' 1

- s

' 3)

kP

a

p =(s'1 + 2s'3)/3 kPa






C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:


Trilab Pty Ltd




ABN 25 065 630 506



REP03001

Page 6 of 6


T. Lockhart





C. Channon



chrisc 1919

Client: Report No.:

Address Test Date:

Report Date:

Project:


Description:






Strain

s'1 / s'3



Cohesion C' (kPa) :



Remarks:



18020626 - CU

8/03/2018




FAILURE DETAILS


Confining

Pressure

Back


Failure


16/03/2018


Not Supplied

SILT- grey

Page 1 of 6

740 kPa 158 kPa


s'1

Deviator Stress

s'3

582 kPa

REP03001





TEST RESULTS

FAILURE ENVELOPES


T. Lockhart





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:


Cohesion C' (kPa) :



Remarks:








Page 2 of 6

REP03001


T. Lockhart

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Shea

r St

ress

(kP

a)


Mohr Circle Diagram





C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:




Page 3 of 6

REP03001






T. Lockhart

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Por

e P

ress

ure

kPa

Dev

iato

r St

ress

kP

a

Strain %


_____ Shear Stress






C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:





Page 4 of 6

REP03001





T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

t =

(s' 1

- s

' 3)/

2 k

Pa

s = (s'1 + s'3)/2 kPa






C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:



Page 5 of 6

REP03001







T. Lockhart

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

q =

(s' 1

- s

' 3)

kP

a

p =(s'1 + 2s'3)/3 kPa






C. Channon



Client: Report No.:

Remarks:




REP03001

Page 6 of 6

ABN 25 065 630 506Trilab Pty Ltd





T. Lockhart





C. Channon


XstractGroup.com



Simple Shear (CIU, CAU monotonic test)

Non-standard test (UWA test procedure)

LITHIUM TAILINGS DRY STACK PROJECT:LABORATORY TESTING GEO: N/A

Centre for Offshore Foundation SystemsThe University of Western Australia

XSTRACT_LITHIUM TAILINGS DRY STACK PROJECT: SIMPLE SHEAR TEST XSTR-SS01

Reconstituted at around 92% of MMDD , Sandy Clayey SILTSConsolidation: s'v = 250 kPa, s'h = 125 kPa (K = 0.5), Displacement rate = 0.1 mm/min

Figure: A01

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30 40

Str

ess,

(kP

a)

Shear strain, γ (%)

s'hs'v

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30 40

Str

ess

(kP

a)


sv-ubp

Du

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 10 20 30

Str

ess

rati

o (τ

xy/σ

' v)


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 10 20 30 40

She

ar s

tres

s, τ x

y(k

Pa)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 5 10 15 20

Axi

al (ε a

) &

vol

umet

ric

(εv)

stra

in

(%)

Time (h)

ea

ev

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20

Eff

ecti

ve s

tres

s, σ

' (kP

a)

Time (h)

σ'h

σ'v

LITHIUM TAILINGS DRY STACK PROJECT:LABORATORY TESTING GEO: N/A


XSTRACT_LITHIUM TAILINGS DRY STACK PROJECT: SIMPLE SHEAR TEST XSTR-SS01

Reconstituted at around 92% of MMDD , Sandy Clayey SILTS

Consolidation: s'v = 250 kPa, s'h = 125 kPa (K = 0.5), Displacement rate = 0.1 mm/min

XSTR-SS01

XSTR-SS01


XstractGroup.com



Simple Shear (CIU, CAU cyclic test)

Non-standard test (UWA test procedure)

VINCENT PROJECT:

LABORATORY TESTING


XSTRACT_LITHIUM TAILINGS DRY STACK: SIMPLE SHEAR TEST XSTR-SS02 Sample No. Reconstituted at around 92% of MMDD , Depth: , Sandy Clayey SILTSConsolidation: σ'v = 250 kPa, σ'h = 125 kPa (K = 0.5), Cyclic test: τcyc = ± 30.44 kPa

Figure: A01 (a)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-20 -10 0 10 20

She

ar s

tres

s, τ x

y(k

Pa)


-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 100 200 300

She

ar s

tres

s, τ x

y(k

Pa)

Cycle Number

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20

Eff

ecti

ve s

tres

s, σ

' (kP

a)

Time (h)

σ'h

σ'v

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20Axi

al (ε

a) &

vol

umet

ric (ε

v) s

train

(%)

Time (h)

ea

ev

VINCENT PROJECT:

LABORATORY TESTING


XSTRACT_LITHIUM TAILINGS DRY STACK: SIMPLE SHEAR TEST XSTR-SS02 Sample No. Reconstituted at around 92% of MMDD , Depth: , Sandy Clayey SILTSConsolidation: σ'v = 250 kPa, σ'h = 125 kPa (K = 0.5), Cyclic test: τcyc = ± 30.44 kPa

Figure: A01 (b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Cycle Number

sv-ubp

Du

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250

Str

ess,

(kP

a)

Cycle Number

s'hs'v

0123456789

10

0 100 200 300

She

ar S

trai

n, γ

(%)

Cycle Number160

180

200

220

240

260

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 10 20 30

Por

e P

ress

ure,

Δu

(kP

a)

Str

ess

(kP

a)


Post-Cyclic Monotonic Shearing

τxy

Du

VINCENT PROJECT:

LABORATORY TESTING


XSTR-SS02

XSTR-SS02


XstractGroup.com



Direct Shear (Drained and Undrained Shear Strength)

AS 1289.6.3.1



col 1960

Client Report No.

Workorder NoAddress Test Date

Report Date

Project

Client IDDescription Sample Type

Notes/Remarks: Remoulded at 92 % of MDD.Note: Area correction based on square sample equation.

Graph not to scale Sample/s supplied by the client Page 1 of 4 REP07301


DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289.6.2.2 / KH2 based on K.H. Head Vol. 2

Not SuppliedDepth (m)




18020002- DS


Single individual soil specimen - Remoulded.

CLAYEY SILT - grey


14/02/2018

16/02/2018

0003771


C. Channon

250.3 kPa

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Relative Displacement (mm)

Shear Stress/Displacement Plot

250.3 kPa

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Ver

tica

l Dis

pla

cem

ent

(mm

)


Vertical Displacement/Relative Displacement Plot



Tested at Trilab Brisbane Laboratory




Client Report No.

Failure Criteria

- - R2

Specimen Condition Corrected Shear Stress (kPa)

Specimen Dimensions (mm)

Rate of Strain (mm/min)Initial Moisture Content (%)Initial Wet Density(t/m3)



Laboratory No. 9926

-

23.2

100*100



250.3

Shear Angle (o)

215.5

Normal Stress (kPa)

Cohesion (kPa)

Stage 1

1.71

0.008

Inundated

18020002- DS

DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT

Residual @ 10.5 , , , mm Displacement

Test Method: AS 1289.6.2.2 / KH2 based on K.H. Head Vol. 2



C. Channon

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Residual - Normal Stress vs Shear Stress







Client Report No.

Failure Criteria

- - R2

Specimen Condition

Specimen Dimensions (mm)




Laboratory No. 9926

Stage 1

Cohesion (kPa)

0.00823.2


Peak



Shear Angle (o)

100*100

1.71

226.8250.3

Inundated Normal Stress (kPa) Corrected Shear Stress (kPa)

-


18020002- DS



C. Channon

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Peak - Normal Stress vs Shear Stress







Client Report No.

Notes/Remarks:

Photo not to scale Sample/s supplied by the client Page 4 of 4 REP07301





18020002- DS


C. Channon







col 1960

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project


Notes/Remarks: Remoulded at 92% of MDD.Note: Area correction based on square sample equation.


Laboratory No. 9926

2/03/2018

6/03/2018

0003883


SILT - pale grey/brown








18020625- DS



C. Channon

250.3 kPa

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)



250.3 kPa

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Ver

tica

l Dis

pla

cem

ent

(mm

)









Client Report No.

Failure Criteria

- - R2

Specimen Condition Corrected Shear Stress (kPa)Specimen Dimensions (mm)




Laboratory No. 9926

18020625- DS


Residual @ 9 , , , mm Displacement



1.71

0.008

Inundated

193.2Normal Stress (kPa)

Cohesion (kPa)

Stage 1

Shear Angle (o) -

24.0

100*100



250.3


C. Channon

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)








Client Report No.

Failure Criteria

- - R2

Specimen ConditionSpecimen Dimensions (mm)




Laboratory No. 9926

18020625- DS



202.7250.3Inundated Normal Stress (kPa) Corrected Shear Stress (kPa)

-


Peak



Shear Angle (o)

100*100

1.71

Stage 1

Cohesion (kPa)

0.00824.0


C. Channon

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)








Client Report No.

Notes/Remarks:


Laboratory No. 9926

18020625- DS






C. Channon







col 1960

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project










18020626- DS



SILT - pale grey/brown


2/03/2018

6/03/2018

0003883


C. Channon

250 kPa

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)



250 kPa

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Ver

tica

l Dis

pla

cem

ent

(mm

)









Client Report No.

Failure Criteria

- - R2

Specimen Condition Corrected Shear Stress (kPa)Specimen Dimensions (mm)




Laboratory No. 9926

-

24.2

100*100



250.0

Shear Angle (o)

183.1Normal Stress (kPa)

Cohesion (kPa)

Stage 1

1.71

0.008

Inundated

18020626- DS


Residual @ 9 , , , mm Displacement




C. Channon

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)








Client Report No.

Failure Criteria

- - R2

Specimen ConditionSpecimen Dimensions (mm)




Laboratory No. 9926

Stage 1

Cohesion (kPa)

0.00824.2


Peak



Shear Angle (o)

100*100

1.71

190.6250.0Inundated Normal Stress (kPa) Corrected Shear Stress (kPa)

-


18020626- DS



C. Channon

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Sh

ear

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Normal Stress (kPa)








Client Report No.

Notes/Remarks:






18020626- DS


C. Channon






XstractGroup.com



Hydraulic Conductivity - Falling Head

AS 1289.6.7.2 (R2013)



chrisc 1919

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project


Compaction Method AS1289.5.1.1 - Standard Compaction

Maximum Dry Density (t/m3) Hydraulic Gradient

Optimum Moisture Content (%) Surcharge (kPa)

Placement Moisture Content (%) Head Pressure Applied (kPa)

Moisture Ratio (%) Water Type

Placement Wet Density (t/m3) Percentage Material Retained/Sieve Size (mm)

Density Ratio (%)

Remarks: The above specimen was remoulded to a target of 92% of Modified Maximum Dry Density and at Optimum Moisture Content.

Sample/s supplied by client REP06301

18020002-FHPT

14/02/2018

Not SuppliedLithium Tailings Dry Stack Depth (m)

0003771

SILT - grey

99.3

PERMEABILITY BY FALLING HEAD TEST REPORTTest Method AS 1289 6.7.2, 5.1.1 , KH2 (Based on K H Head (1988) Manual of Laboratory Testing,10.7)

9.4

3.0

10.79

RESULTS OF TESTING

1.51

23.2

23.0



Remoulded Soil Specimen


23/02/2018

0 % /9.5 mm

De-Ionized

1.71


Laboratory No. 9926

PERMEABILITY k(20) =

Page: 1 of 1

1.1 x 10

92.1


(m/sec)-07


T. Lockhart

5.000E-08

1.000E-07

1.500E-07

2.000E-07

2.500E-07

3.000E-07

3.500E-07

4.000E-07

4.500E-07

5.000E-07

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

k20

(m

/sec

)

Elapsed Time of Test (mins)

Permeability





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project


Compaction Method AS1289.5.2.1 - Modified Compaction






Density Ratio (%)



0 % /9.5 mm

De-Ionized

1.71


Laboratory No. 9926


Page: 1 of 1

8.2 x 10

91.7


(m/sec)-08

SILT - pale grey

101.8


9.5

2.9

10.79

RESULTS OF TESTING

1.50

23.6

24.0





19/03/2018

18020625-FHPT

5/03/2018

Not SuppliedLithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 2 Depth (m)

0003883


T. Lockhart

2.000E-08

7.000E-08

1.200E-07

1.700E-07

2.200E-07

2.700E-07

3.200E-07

3.700E-07

4.200E-07

4.700E-07

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

k20

(m

/sec

)


Permeability





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project








Density Ratio (%)



0 % /9.5 mm

De-Ionized

1.71


Laboratory No. 9926


Page: 1 of 1

1.7 x 10

91.6


(m/sec)-07

SILT - pale grey

102.2


9.4

3.0

10.79

RESULTS OF TESTING

1.50

24.1

24.6





16/03/2018

18020626-FHPT

5/03/2018

Not SuppliedLithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 3 Depth (m)

0003883


T. Lockhart

5.000E-08

1.000E-07

1.500E-07

2.000E-07

2.500E-07

3.000E-07

3.500E-07

4.000E-07

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

k20

(m

/sec

)


Permeability





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Hydraulic Conductivity - Constant Head

AS 1289.6.7.3:2016



chrisc 1919

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project


Compaction Method AS1289.5.1.1 - Standard Compaction

Maximum Dry Density (t/m3) Confining Pressure

Optimum Moisture Content (%) Back Pressure

Placement Moisture Content (%) Effective Stress Applied (kPa)



Density Ratio (%) Sample Height and Diameter (mm)



0 % / 4.75 mm

91.8



Laboratory No. 9926

59.3 / 47.5 mm


Page: 1 of 1

3.6 x 10 (m/sec)-09

1.71

PERMEABILITY BY CONSTANT HEAD TEST REPORTTest Method AS 1289 6.7.3, 5.1.1 , KH2 (Based on K H Head (1988) Manual of Laboratory Testing,10.7)

150

50

100

RESULTS OF TESTING

1.51

23.2

23.0





18/02/2018

0003771

27/02/2018

18020002-CHP


De-Ionized

Depth (m) Not SuppliedSILT - grey

99.3

1.000E-09

2.000E-09

3.000E-09

4.000E-09

5.000E-09

6.000E-09

7.000E-09

8.000E-09

9.000E-09

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

k20

(m

/sec

)


Permeability





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project











18020625-CHP


De-Ionized

Depth (m) Not SuppliedSILT - grey

102.1


150

50

100

RESULTS OF TESTING

1.50

23.6

24.1





2/03/2018

0003883

16/03/2018

0 % / 4.75 mm

91.6



Laboratory No. 9926

59.6 / 48 mm


Page: 1 of 1

1.4 x 10 (m/sec)-07

1.71


T. Lockhart


T. Lockhart

5.000E-08

1.000E-07

1.500E-07

2.000E-07

2.500E-07

3.000E-07

3.500E-07

4.000E-07

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

k20

(m

/sec

)


Permeability





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project











0 % / 4.75 mm

91.5



Laboratory No. 9926

59.6 / 48.1 mm


Page: 1 of 1

1.0 x 10 (m/sec)-07

1.71


150

50

100

RESULTS OF TESTING

1.50

24.1

24.2





6/03/2018

0003883

19/03/2018

18020626-CHP


De-Ionized

Depth (m) Not SuppliedSILT- grey

100.4


T. Lockhart


T. Lockhart

5.000E-08

1.000E-07

1.500E-07

2.000E-07

2.500E-07

3.000E-07

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

k20

(m

/sec

)


Permeability





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Specific Conductance – electrical

AS 1289.4.4.1

Client: Source:

Project: Report No:

Job No: Lab No:

Test Procedure: AS1289 4.2.1

AS1289 4.3.1

AS 1289 4.4.1

AS 1012.20

RMS T123 pH value of a soil (electrometric method)

RMS T185 Resistivity of sands and granular road construction materials

RMS T200 Chloride content of roadbase

RMS T1010 Quantitative determination of chlorides in soil

RMS T1011 Quantitative determination of sulphates in soil

BS1377(1990 pt.3) Water soluble sulphate content

APHA 4500 H+B pH

APHA 4500 SO4 2-B Sulphate

APHA 4500 CI-B Chloride

APHA 2510 & 2520-B Electrical Conductivity

TAI B117 Sulphides Present (This service Not Covered by NATA Accreditation)

Sampling:

Authorised Signatory:

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14874

Trilab Pty Ltd 18020002/ Lithium Tailings Dry Stack Batch 1

SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES REPORT

Preparation:

Silty CLAY346A Bilsen Road, Geebung Qls 4034Address:

B46913-SCP

B46913

UnknownDate Sampled:

B18189

Soil Chemical Tests - Determination of a sulfate content of a natural soil and the sulfate content of the groundwater - Normal Method

Sampled by Client

Material Assessment

Sample Description:

3 Watt DriveBathurst NSW 2795

Sulphur Peroxide (%) -

-

Chloride ion content (ppm)

Brad Morris

pH -

Sulphate content (%)

-

(Resisitivity) Density ratio (RD) 90

Macquarie Geotechnical

Soil Chemical Tests - Determination of the pH value of a soil - Electrometric method

Soil Chemical Tests - Determination of the electrical resistivity of a soil - Method for sands and granular material

Sulphate content (ppm)

Prepared in accordance with the test method

-

Sulphides Present -

Chloride and sulphate

Date:

13/04/2018

(Resisitivity) Density index (ID) -

Chloride ion content (%) -

Electrical Conductivity (uS/cm) -

Mean Resistivity Ω.m 18

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document are traceable to Australian/national standards. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

Report Form:SCP Issue 2 - Revision G - Issue Date 01/08/17 Page1of1

Client: Source:

Project: Report No:

Job No: Lab No:


AS1289 4.3.1

AS 1289 4.4.1

AS 1012.20







APHA 4500 H+B pH





Sampling:



Trilab Pty Ltd 18020625 / Lithium Tailings Dry Stack Batch 2


Preparation:


B46914-SCP

B46914


B18189


Sampled by Client

Material Assessment

Sample Description:



-


Brad Morris

pH -


-







-

Sulphides Present -


Date:

13/04/2018







Client: Source:

Project: Report No:

Job No: Lab No:


AS1289 4.3.1

AS 1289 4.4.1

AS 1012.20







APHA 4500 H+B pH





Sampling:



Trilab Pty Ltd 18020626 / Lithium Tailings Dry Stack Batch 3


Preparation:


B46915-SCP

B46915


B18189


Sampled by Client

Material Assessment

Sample Description:



-


Brad Morris

pH -


-







-

Sulphides Present -


Date:

13/04/2018








XstractGroup.com



Natural pH

AS 1289 3.8.1, 4.3.1



chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Sample No. 18020002

Client IDLithium

Tailings Dry Stack

- - - - - -


Description SILT- grey - - - - - -


- - - - - - -

pH 7.7 - - - - - -

Conductivity (mS/cm) *

- - - - - - -

Salinity (ppK) * - - - - - - -

Sample No.

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -



- - - - - -

pH - - - - - -


- - - - - -

Salinity (ppK) * - - - - - -

NOTES/REMARKS:

Sample/s supplied by the client Tested with Distilled water at 21.5°C At 5:1 Water/Soil Ratio REP00502

Laboratory No. 9926

EMERSON CLASS NUMBER AND pH TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.8.1, 4.3.1



18020002-EMPH

15/02/2018

14/02/2018

0003771




Page 1 of 1


T. Lockhart





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Sample No. 18020625 18020626

Client ID


Stack - Batch 2


Stack - Batch 3

- - - - -


Description -- -- - - - - -


- - - - - - -

pH 7.8 7.7 - - - - -


- - - - - - -

Salinity (ppK) * - - - - - - -

Sample No.

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -



- - - - - -

pH - - - - - -


- - - - - -

Salinity (ppK) * - - - - - -

NOTES/REMARKS:

Sample/s supplied by the client Tested with Distilled water at 22.5°C At 5:1 Water/Soil Ratio Page 1 of 1 REP00502

Laboratory No. 9926

EMERSON CLASS NUMBER AND pH TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.8.1, 4.3.1



18020625-EMPH

15/03/2018

13/03/2018

0003883





T. Lockhart





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Specific Gravity (Sg)

AS1289 3.5.1



chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Project

Sample No. 18020002

Test Date 5/02/2018

Client IDLithium

Tailings Dry Stack

- - - - - -


Soil Particle Density (t/m³) (-2.36mm)

2.56

Soil Particle Density (t/m³) (+2.36mm)

-

Total Soil Particle Density (t/m³)

-

Sample No.

Test Date

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -




NOTES/REMARKS:


Laboratory No. 9926


SOIL PARTICLE DENSITY TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.5.1



18020002-SG

09/02/2018

0003771




T. Lockhart





C. Channon




chrisc 1919

James

Client Report No.


Project

Sample No. 18020625 18020626

Test Date 26/02/2018 26/02/2018

Client ID


Stack - Batch 2


Stack - Batch 3

- - - - -



2.55 2.53


- -


- -

Sample No.

Test Date

Client ID - - - - - - -

Depth (m) - - - - - - -




NOTES/REMARKS: Sample/s supplied by the client Page 1 of 1 REP04603

Laboratory No. 9926


SOIL PARTICLE DENSITY TEST REPORTTest Method: AS 1289 3.5.1



18020625-SG

08/03/2018

0003883




T. Lockhart





C. Channon



XstractGroup.com



Aerated Bulk Density and Packed Bulk Density

AS1141.4 Bulk Density – Uncompacted & Compacted



Client Report No.

WorkOrder No.Address Test Date

Report Date

Project

Client ID

AS 1141.4 Bulk Density of Aggregates Uncompacted Bulk Density t/m3

x Compacted Bulk Density t/m3

x Moisture Condition

x Nominal Size mm

Remarks


3771



AGGREGATE TEST REPORT


5/02/2018

12/03/2018

18020002-AGG

Lithium Tailings Dry Stack Depth (m) Not Supplied

TEST RESULTS

Laboratory No. 9926

1.09

1.21

0

0.075



Page1 of 1





C. Channon




Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Client ID




x Nominal Size mm

Remarks




28/02/2018

18020625-AGG



1.09


Page1 of 1

Lithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 2 Depth (m) Not Supplied

TEST RESULTS

Laboratory No. 9926

1.20

0

.075mm

27/02/2018-28/02/2018






C. Channon




Client Report No.


Report Date

Project

Client ID




x Nominal Size mm

Remarks




28/02/2018

18020626-AGG



1.09


Page1 of 1

Lithium Tailings Dry Stack - Batch 3 Depth (m) Not Supplied

TEST RESULTS

Laboratory No. 9926

1.20

0

.075mm

27/02/2018-28/02/2018






C. Channon



APPENDIX 4 – EGS Certificate of Analysis

CLIENT DETAILS

Comments

Unit 4/5 Renewable Chase Bibra Lake 6163 Western Australia

Telephone: 61 8 9434 9862 Email: [email protected]

Certificate of Analysis

Date 29 November 2019 EGS Reference EGS/2019/155

Contact Marie Belanger

Client Albemarle Lithium Pty Ltd

Address PO Box 7423 Cloister Square PO Perth WA 6850

Telephone +61 0488 785 067

Email [email protected]

Order Ref.

Samples Li-tailings and process liquor

Date received 28 October 2019

Date reported 29 November 2019

The tailings were dried in a fan oven at 60oC to constant weight. Reported element concentrations are as in the dry tailings. The tailings were not further processed (e.g. homogenization, grinding) but were sampled as 3 discrete aliquots in order to elucidate the inherent variation in composition. The process liquor was received as a partially filled 25L HDPE carboy. It was cloudy in appearance and there was a small amount of fine precipitate on the floor of the carboy. The liquor was filtered through a 0.45m filter membrane prior to analysis. All concentrations were obtained by ICP-OES and ICP-MS using an Agilent® 5110 and an Agilent® 7800 spectrometer, respectively. Calibration was performed using NIST-traceable single element (ICP-OES) and multi-element (ICP-MS) standard solutions (Choice Analytical).

Environmental Geochemistry Services

A company owned by ABN: 14 607 875 776 EIGG International Pty Ltd Page : 2 of 5

Order Ref : MB-1

Client : Albemarle Lithium

Results

Concentration of major and trace elements in tailings. Values in ppm.

Tailings 1 #1 Tailings 1 #2 Tailings 1 #3

Ag - Al * 79,780 85,190 93,142 As 27.3 27.4 27.3 B 9.00 9.10 9.10

Ba - 5.00 5.00 Be - 129 124 Bi - 3.70 3.60 Ca 70,690 74,696 79,825 Cd - 4.00 3.90 Ce - 1.70 1.60 Co - 2.30 2.40 Cr - 20.0 18.8 Cs - 201 196 Cu - 5.80 6.50 Fe 6594 6397 7362 K 3102 3188 3472 La < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Li 2364 2515 2674

Mg 1766 1832 1950 Mn - 451 426 Mo - < 1.0 3.80 Na 1714 1791 1931 Nb - 33.9 28.4 Ni - 9.40 9.10 P 1052 1114 1119

Pb - 2.60 2.60 S 36,331 37,194 36,982

Sb - 27.7 26.8 Sc - < 1.00 < 1.00 Se - < 1.00 2.10 Si 228,083 231,052 - Sn - 80.7 79.8 Sr 89.7 100 110 Ta - 49.9 40.5 Th - 1.90 1.60 Ti - 425 428 Tl - 5.50 5.70 U - 29.0 25.0 V 9.22 9.25 18.5 W - 24.0 24.0 Zn 108 54.3 63.3

A company owned by ABN: 14 607 875 776 EIGG International Pty Ltd Page : 3 of 5

Order Ref : MB-1


Results [cont.] * Aluminium concentration determined by LiBO4 fusion and ICP-OES. Values in ppm.

A company owned by ABN: 14 607 875 776 EIGG International Pty Ltd

Page : 4 of 5

Order Ref : MB-1


Tailings 1 #4 Tailings 1 #5

Al * 92, 526 93, 765

Results [cont.] Concentrations of major and trace elements in the process liquor. Values in mg/L.


Page : 5 of 5

Order Ref : MB-1


Process Liquor ICP-OES ICP-MS

Liquor #1 Liquor #2 Liquor #3 Ag < 0.2 < 0.2 - Al 0.172 0.162 0.096 As < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 B 13.1 13.1 19.9

Ba < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Be < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Bi - - < 0.01 Ca 675 709 432 Cd < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Ce < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Co < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Cr < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Cs - - < 0.01 Cu < 0.2 < 0.2 0.071 Fe < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.05 K 0.41 - La - - < 0.01 Li 1.76 1.77 1.64

Mg 327 346 - Mn 0.019 0.019 0.021 Mo < 0.2 < 0.2 0.010 Na 1.28 - Nb - - < 0.01 Ni < 0.2 < 0.2 0.036 P 0.106 0.096 -

Pb < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 S 892 1022 -

Sb - - 0.025 Sc < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.04 Se < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Si 7.05 7.16 - Sn < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Sr 4.04 4.09 3.24 Ta - - < 0.01 Th - - < 0.01 Ti - - 0.464 Tl - - < 0.01 U - - 0.012 V < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 W < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01 Zn < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.01

EGS P-103 pLi-metaborate fusion (silicate rock

Methods Employed

Analytical techniques employed by EGS are based upon published internationally recognized methods and procedures. In each case where in-house modifications and variations are employed by EGS, the results have been shown to be equivalent, or superior, to those produced by the original method. Solid (powdered) samples are reported on an “as received” basis, unless drying/moisture determination is requested by the client. Analytical parameters, such as blank values, are recorded together with QC data for each batch of analyses. Information on individual analytical methods and relevant parameters [e.g. instrumental and whole method precision, Limit of Reporting (LOR), Reference standards) is available to clients from EGS on request.

EGS P-101: 4-acid whole rock EGS P-103: Li-metaborate fusion (silicate rock)

EGS A-101: ICP-OES EGS A-102: ICP-MS

Dr Ron Watkins BSc., MSc., PhD, CGeol, FGS Managing Director, Chief Scientist


Signatory

General Comments


APPENDIX 5 – Albemarle Tailings Chemical Analysis Data

Albemarle Corporation Confidential

Table 1. Chemical analysis data

Analysis description Laboratory Comments Procedure ID Results Reference

pH using a 1:5 soil water extraction

ALS Environmental average 3 samples EA002: pH 1:5 pH 7.7 -

(EA002) (soils)

EC using a 1:5 soil water extraction

ALS Environmental average 3 samples EA010: EC 1:5 EC 2263 uS/cm -

(EA010) (soils)

Total Sulfur ALS Environmental average 3 samples

Total sulphur by LECO 3.58% In house

(ED042T)

Total Carbon ALS Environmental average 3 samples Total Carbon 0.89% In house

(EP003TC)

Sulfate sulfur (HCl digestible SO4)

ALS Environmental average 3 samples sulphate as SO42- 114,300 ppm Chemical analysis in-house

procedure based on Day (1991) and Lawrence (1995) (ED040)

Actual acidity

ALS Environmental average 2 samples pH KCl (23A) pH 7.9

In-house procedure based on Sobek et al (1978) and subject to

modifications (e.g. Lawrence and Wang, 1997; AMIRA, 2002)

(EA033-A) Titrable actual acidity (23F)

<2 mole H+ /t

sulfidic - titrable actual acidity (s-23F)

<0.02 % pyrite S

Potential acidity ALS Environmental average 2 samples Chromium reducible sulfur (22B) 0.020% S

(EA033-B) (1 sample below detection limits -

i.e. <0.005 %S / <10 mole H+ /t) acidity - Chromium

reducible sulfur (a-22B) 12 mole H+ /t

Acid neutralization capacity (ANC)

ALS Environmental average 3 samples acid neutralising capacity (19A2)

7.52% CaCO3

(EA033-C) acidity - acid neutralising capacity (a-19A2) 1500 mole H+ /t

sulfidic - acid neutralising capacity (s-19A2) 2.41% pyrite S

Acid Base Accounting

average 3 samples ANC fineness factor 1.5

average 3 samples Net acidity (sulfur units) <0.02% S

ALS Environmental average 3 samples Net acidity (acidity units) <10 mole H+ /t

(EA033-E) average 3 samples Liming Rate <1 kg CaCO3 / t

average 2 samples Net acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units)

0.02% S

(1 sample below detection limits - i.e. <0.02 %S / <10 mole H+ /t and

<1 kg CaCO3/t

Net acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) 12 mole H+ /t

Liming Rate excluding

ANC 1 kg CaCO3/t

Net acid generation (NAG) pH and titrations to pH 4.5 and pH7

ALS Environmental average 3 samples Miller 1998 pH (OX) 10.1

In-house procedure based on Miller et al (1997) and AMIRA (2002) (EA011) NAG (pH4.5) < 0.1

NAG (pH7.0) < 0.1


Issue Date: 31/03/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0178 Page 34 of 34

APPENDIX 2: IN-PIT TSF RISK ASSESSMENT


Page | 1

Yilgarn Operations C In-pit TSF Project Risk Assessment Report

Introduction

MRL propose a short-term (2020-2024) Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) to dispose of tailings from Kemerton in the Yilgarn Iron Pty Ltd (YIPL) Koolyanobbing Range C deposit (C Pit), “the Project”. This facility will be utilised while a longer term tailings disposal solution is developed.

Albemarle Lithium Pty Ltd are the proponents for the Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide Plant (the Plant) is located 137km south of Perth and is currently under construction with an expected commissioning in the first quarter, 2021. Once in operation, the Kemerton Plant will process spodumene concentrate delivered from Talison Lithium Pty Ltd’s Greenbushes Mine (Greenbushes). The Plant will produce a Lithium Hydroxide and generate about 100,000 tonnes of residue (or tails) per annum.

A local disposal facility for the Plant tailings has not been finalised.

Lithium tailings are the residue produced from secondary processing of spodumene concentrate (approximately 6% Li2O), through pyro metallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes, to produce lithium hydroxide monohydrate. Lithium hydroxide monohydrate is used in the manufacture of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, industrial lubricants and dyes. Lithium processing tailings are an inert, non-toxic material comprised of alumina-silicates, approximately 15% gypsum, residual salts, trace elements and oxides from spodumene ore, and approximately 24% water.

C Pit has been sterilised and partially backfilled with waste rock from nearby Koolyanobbing Range E Deposit (E pit). The C Pit has capacity of approximately 4 million cubic metres to 30m below crest. Tailings will be deposited on top of “NAF” waste rock materials above 338m AHD. The base of the facility will be 1m higher than pre-mining groundwater levels.

On completion of the tailings deposition into C Pit, the material will be capped as soon as practicable. The capping layer will be designed to facilitate water shedding, preventing surface ponding and percolation through the tails and reducing erosion. This is important to prevent any oversaturation of the tails and possible slumping or dissolution of minerals and achieving a long-term stable landform.

This Risk Assessment addresses the risks identified for the Project and will assess the following considerations:

• The C Pit receiving environment • The tailing material’s chemical and physical characteristics • Handling and storage • Exposure pathways and environmental receptors • Mitigation and Residual Risk

The risk analysis can be found in Table 6 of this document.

TSF Design & Deposition Methodology

Side Tipping Road Trains will be used to transport tailings material from the Kemerton Lithium Hydroxide Plant to the C Pit. The trucks will tip the tailings within the pit and dozers will then push the tailings into place.

Following is a summary of the TSF preparation and tailings deposition methodology:

• Waste rock will be pushed into the pit from existing bench at 364m AHD until a base level of 338m AHD is achieved

• The base will track rolled; • Approximately 460k BCM of tailings will be side tipped on the bench at 364m AHD and pushed in by

dozer to complete the filling of the void to 364m AHD. • A 2m thick layer of waste rock will be placed and track rolled, creating a new base for tails deposition


Page | 2

• An infiltration basin will be constructed at 364m AHD by placing a windrow (3.5m high, base width 9.0m wide) of waste rock at the base of the new surface.

• Tailings will then be deposited in 500mm layers and compacted (track rolled) until tailings deposition is completed at 382m AHD

• Batter slopes of the deposited tails will not exceed 18 degrees. • At 382m AHD the entire tailings mound will be capped with 1m layer of waste rock and slightly sloped

to be water shedding • The new capped surface will be compacted, and will be at approximately 383m AHD.

FIGURE 1: CURRENT PLAN VIEW AND PROFILE OF C PIT BEFORE TAILINGS DEPOSITION


Page | 3

FIGURE 2: CROSS SECTION OF C PIT ON COMPLETION OF TAILINGS DEPOSITION

Risk Assessment Criteria

The Risks of the C In-pit TSF Project were assessed using the MRL / YIPL Likelihood & Consequence Criteria and Scales in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Risks that high or critical are reassessed after appropriate mitigations are proposed reduce the risk consequence as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

TABLE 1: LIKELIHOOD CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING THE PROBABILITY OF AN INCIDENT OCCURRING AND RESULTING IN DEFINED CONSEQUENCE, AND RESULTING RISK RANKING


Page | 4

Table 2: Consequence criteria


Page | 5

Conceptual Site Model (Source – Receptor – Pathway)

Utilising the NEPM 1999 Assessment of Contaminated sites Guideline for Site Characterisation (Schedule B2 amended 2013), a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed to show the source and pathways of exposure related to C Pit tailings deposition impact on the surrounding environment, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

FIGURE 3: C IN-PIT TSF ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS AND IMPACTS ON RECEPTORS

The primary release mechanisms of contamination from lithium tailings deposition into C Pit identified:

• Dust & volatile emissions to air during deposition into the In-pit TSF • Leaching to ground water from release of moisture during consolidation of the tailings or from

rainfall percolation • Contaminated rainfall runoff to surface water and lakes

The Receptor sites identified:

• Mine workers in the vicinity or working at C Pit • Terrestrial biota in the vicinity of the C Pit

Potential Exposure Pathways considered to Receptor sites:

• Direct contact and ingestion of tailings dust by people and terrestrial biota • Direct contact with tailings leachate by people and terrestrial biota • Direct contact with tailings contaminated surface water by people or terrestrial biota

The following are considerations of contamination from tailings and the identified exposure pathways:

• Generation of Dust. The lithium tailings are very fine and will have inherent water content of approximately 24%. Because of the rapid drying properties of the tails, dusting is expected to be an issue. Tailings deposition in C Pit will be below the surrounding topography, sheltered from strong winds. The most plausible exposure pathway is to personnel, working in the vicinity of the tailings.


Page | 6

Management measures such as, sealed cabs in vehicles, personal protective equipment and/or water cart spraying will be required during tailings deposition into C Pit.

• Leaching to groundwater. The tailings are “dry stacked” and will be deposited above existing and projected ground water levels so will not be in direct contact with the ground water. The only mechanism of leachate is from rainwater percolation through the tails and discharge to the groundwater. The risks of generating a leachate containing metals only occurs below pH4 (Ramboll 2018). No plausible opportunity will exist for generation of acidic leachant and the groundwater is hypersaline with no foreseeable beneficial use, so there is no plausible pathway to receptors.

• Contamination of surface water by rainfall runoff after contact with tailings. The TSF is contained within the C Pit so no interaction with surface water flows is possible.

Summary of Conceptual Site Model

The main Receptor identified with a plausible pathway, are mine personnel working in the C Pit during tailings deposition. Any potential for dust from the TSF to deposit on terrestrial biota close to the pit is very low. Implementation of YIPL Dust Management Plan and standard mining practices will address the safety issues associated with exposure to any tailings dust.

Tailings deposition is “dry stacked” and will be compacted in 500mm lifts. Water management controls will divert any water from percolating into tailings therefore minimising any opportunity of leachate formation. Any excess water (liquor or incidental rainwater) will be diverted to a collection sump for infiltration and evaporation.


Page | 7

FIGURE 4: C IN-PIT TSF ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS


Page | 8

Summary of Risk Assessment

The risk assessment shows that the risks are associated with dust during tailings deposition and handling. The risk of environmental impacts from the Project, given the receiving environment, is LOW.

TSF Design and the YIPL Environmental Management System procedures will be sufficient to address any worker exposure by controlling dust.

Management Commitments arising from the Risk Assessment:

• The design of the In-pit tailings handling and storage process will address safety issues associated with road train access into the pit, stacking of the tailings and drainage within the pit;

• Tailings deposition within the C Pit will be at 338m AHD, ie above the pre-mining groundwater level • The tailings will be capped as soon as practicable on completion of deposition, with 1m thick layer of

NAF waste rock; • The YIPL Dust Management Plan will be implemented to minimise tailings dust impact on personnel

and the surrounding environment; and • Visual monitoring of tailings dust impact on surrounding vegetation will be undertaken, and dust

control measures increased or modified as required.


Page | 9

Table 5: C In-pit TSF Risk Assessment Findings







Separation of the tailings material into solid and liquid layers, and causing the material to stick to the trays and not tip out at the destination, and with runoff of the tailings liquor into the pit

This is largely a safety concern if material holds up in the trays and needs machinery to scrape it out. The environmental impact of the tailings liquor seeping into the ground are minimal as the pit groundwater is already hypersaline and there is no contaminants in the liquor

C 1 L4 • No action required C 1 L4

Tailings dust emissions during transport from Kemerton plant to C Pit

Tailings will air dry in transit and cause dust problems en route if not covered A 1 M11

• Trucks and trailers to have covers – no tailings to be transported uncovered

• This will be written into the transportation contract E 1 L1

Increased noise and / or odour from tailings handling and deposition at C Pit

There are no communities close by, and tailings handling at the pit is not likely to have significantly different impact on the workforce compared to other pit activities

D 1 L2 • No action required D 1 L2

Driving of mobile plant & vehicles on the tailings material may be a safety issue due to ground stability conditions

High or Unseasonal rainfall may cause the tailings to fluidise and spread within the pit and not drain quickly – safety issue for vehicles. Tipped tailings that have not been moved may create a surface hazard for vehicles after rainfall

C 1 L4

• TSF design has compaction of tailings every 500mm, and coarse material sheeting for wet weather to maintain a stable base for movement of vehicles.

• Design report allows for sheeting with coarse competent waste rock for dozer / vehicle trafficability in wet weather

E 1 L1

Rainwater percolating through the tailings material may leach tailings liquor / salts into ground water

Groundwater in Koolyanobbing Project Area is highly saline to saline in quality, therefore the impact of any rainwater leachate is considered minor. Leach results show that under neutral conditions there is no dissolution of COC’s

B 1 M7

• Tailings will be compacted to reduce voids • The TSF design includes a sump with 3.6ML capacity for

collection of tailings liquor drainage and rainfall runoff at 364m AHD for dust suppression use, or left to evaporate, or seep into groundwater without contacting encapsulated tailings

C 1 L4

A 100-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) peak rainfall event (72 hour duration) occurs and erodes the tailings and contaminates the groundwater

100 year ARI event for 72 hours will cause approximately 45ML of water in the C Pit catchment area Such a large rainfall event is likely to cause widespread erosion of the pit and tailings. This volume would exceed the short term capacity of the infiltration basin. These conditions would impact on the operations but based on the geo-chemistry of the tailings is not expected to result in any leaching of contaminants The underlying aquifer is highly saline so the environmental impact is considered minor

D 1 L2

• After a large rainfall event, YIPL will inspect pit walls and tailings for erosion, as well as the infiltration basin (sump). Rectification works will be undertaken, the infiltration basin will be re-instated, and eroded surfaces will be repaired to make safe

• Post closure the slope angles on the cap material will be

low (<5%) to prevent surface water erosion

E 1 L1


Page | 10







Groundwater may rise higher than the projected recovery level and cause the tailings to be in contact with the hypersaline water and then leach metals

Groundwater recovery level may rise above projected rebound level due to extreme rainfall event. Tailings may come into contact with groundwater or tailings leachate will enter the groundwater and impact on future land use / groundwater requirement Geochemical test work indicates the tailing material is unlikely to leach any COC’s The regional groundwater quality is hypersaline, and there are no environmental receptors close by

D 1 L2 • Base of C Pit will be filled in to 338m AHD, which is 1m

higher than pre-mining regional groundwater level

D 1 L2

Uncapped stored tailings may create a dust problem

The tailings could dry out prior to capping, and may cause excessive dust emissions within the confines of the pit B 1 M7

• If dust generation becomes excessive from uncapped tailings, then capping to commence on unconsolidated material to reduce dust emissions. YIPL will also investigate suitability of dust suppression polymers

• YIPL will implement its Dust Management Plan during

tailings deposition into C Pit

E 1 L1

C Pit wall failure may cause PAF contact with tailings, which may generate acid water seepage into tailings and releasing contaminants into the groundwater C Pit wall failure may cause injury to personnel in the vicinity

C Pit wall rock is slightly alkaline and has less than 0.1% sulphidic material C Pit walls are stable, there has not been any wall failure since C Pit closure in 2017 The tailings material are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 Moles H+/Tonne) Groundwater is hypersaline.

C 1 L4

• No action required to manage the environmental risk - ALARP

• YIPL has operating procedures in place for mining

personnel working in pits and near high walls

D 1 L2

Waste rock for sheeting and capping may contain potential acid forming material, which may acidify rainwater and leach metals out of the tailings

According to Geochemical characterisation of the pit rock, there is 1% PAF with a low risk of acidic, metalliferous or saline drainage The tailings material are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 Moles H+/Tonne) Leach test work shown no leaching of COC’s

D 1 L2 • ALARP

D 1 L2

Insufficient NAF material within C Pit for sheeting and capping of the tailings at closure

Testing of backfilled rock from E pit finds PAF content greater than 1% The tailings material are alkaline with a high acid neutralising capacity (1,500 Moles H+/Tonne) Leach test work shows no leaching of COC’s

C 1 L4

• Undertake testwork to confirm NAF material in surrounding waste dumps

• Any areas identified as PAF to be avoided for capping

D 1 L2


Capping over the tailings may erode if the surface slope is too high, resulting in release of tailings dust into the environment B 1 M7

• The tailings cap surface will be compacted with slope of not exceeding 5 degrees

• Survey control to be used to ensure final compliance to design

D 1 L2


Page | 11








Tailings differential consolidation & settlement across the C Pit causes localised sinking of the cap layer and increased rainfall percolation through the encapsulated tailings with possible contamination of groundwater

C 2 M8

• After capping of the tailings, YIPL will undertake annual survey pickups of the C Pit to determine if there is differential settlement of the tailings. If no subsidence detected then the monitoring will stop at 3 years, otherwise the cap layer will be reshaped and monitoring will recommence

D 2 L5

YIPL Operations are placed in Care and Maintenance before Albemarle finalises a local TSF facility

YIPL must stop operations at Koolyanobbing and therefore stop receiving tailings to C Pit C 2 M8

• Should early, unplanned or permanent closure occur prior to completion of tailings deposition, the tailings will be capped, access will be restricted and warning signs will be erected. Existing abandonment bunds will be re-established and or repaired in line with current mine closure plan

• A Care and Maintenance plan will be developed that

includes annual inspections to assess TSF structural integrity, access restriction and signage

A 2 L3

Koolyanobbing Range C In-Pit Tailings Storage Facility...Report Reference: ENV -TS-RP-0178...

Documents

Transcript of Koolyanobbing Range C In-Pit Tailings Storage Facility...Report Reference: ENV -TS-RP-0178...