Privileged – Prepared for

the purposes of
obtaining legal advice

REPORT ON

DESIGN OF THE
WASTE ROCK DUMP WALL
AT THE
GOLD RIDGE MINE

Submitted to :

Blake Dawson Waldron

Level 40 Riverside Centre
Brisbane Qld 4001

DISTRIBUTION:
3 Copies - Blake Dawson Waldron
2 Copies - Golder Associates Pty Ltd

January 2000 99639008(2A)

 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -i-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

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

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................. 2
2.1 Waste Material Characteristics................................................................................... 2
2.2 Current Dump Construction ....................................................................................... 2
2.3 Stability Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 3
3.0 LIFE OF WASTE ROCK DUMP ................................................................................. 4
4.0 WASTE DUMP - EXTENDED AREA ........................................................................ 5
4.1 Location of Settlement Dam ...................................................................................... 5
4.2 Location of Waste Dump Wall................................................................................... 5
4.3 Wall Design Philosophy............................................................................................. 6
4.3.1 Cutoff Trench...................................................................................................... 7
4.3.2 Base Layer........................................................................................................... 7
4.3.3 Competent Waste ................................................................................................ 7
4.3.4 Clay Seal ............................................................................................................. 7
4.3.5 Topsoil ................................................................................................................ 8
4.3.6 Underdrainage..................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Compaction ................................................................................................................ 9
4.5 Wall Runoff Control................................................................................................... 9
4.6 Wall Construction .................................................................................................... 10
4.7 Crest Elevation ......................................................................................................... 10
5.0 WASTE DUMP CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 11
5.1 Dump Runoff Diversion during Construction.......................................................... 11
5.2 Final Dump Surface Runoff ..................................................................................... 12
5.3 Waste Dump Drainage ............................................................................................. 12
6.0 FINAL SETTLEMENT DAM .................................................................................... 14
6.1 Location.................................................................................................................... 14
6.2 Dam Sizing............................................................................................................... 14
6.3 Construction ............................................................................................................. 14
6.4 Spillway.................................................................................................................... 15

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - ii -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

7.0 PLANT AREA RUNOFF DIVERSION ..................................................................... 16

7.1 Sizing Runoff Trench ............................................................................................... 16
8.0 WALL STABILITY .................................................................................................... 17
8.1 Shear Strength .......................................................................................................... 17
8.2 Permeability ............................................................................................................. 17
8.3 Stability Analysis ..................................................................................................... 17
9.0 COMPACTION CONTROL....................................................................................... 19
9.1 Method Specification ............................................................................................... 21
9.2 Current Operations ................................................................................................... 21
10.0 OUTSTANDING ISSUES .......................................................................................... 22
11.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 23

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - iii -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Mine layout

Figure 2 Dump Schematic

DRAWINGS

9008-WD-1 Waste Dump – General Layout

9008-WD-2 Waste Dump Wall and Sediment Dam Layout
9008-WD-3 Waste Dump Wall – Section Details
9008-WD-4 Waste Dump Wall – Drainage Details
9008-WD-5 Waste Dump Wall – Construction Details
9008-WD-6 Waste Dump Wall – Construction Layout
9008-WD-7 Waste Dump Wall – Section

9008-SD-1 Waste Dump Sediment Dam – Layout and typical Sections

9008-SD-2 Waste Dump Sediment Dam – Section Details
9008-SD-3 Waste Dump Sediment Dam – Drainage Details
9008-SD-4 Waste Dump Sediment Dam – Decant Details

TABLES

Table 1 - Bill of Quantities for Waste Dump Wall

Table 2 - Bill of Quantities for Waste Dump Settlement Dam
Table 3 - Permeability Test Results

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - Bills of Quantities for Settlement Dam and Waste Dump wall
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - Wall Stability Analyses
Appendix D - “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -1-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The waste rock excavated from the open pits at the Gold Ridge mine (GRML) is hauled to a
valley to the east of the process plant, and immediately to the north east of the ROM pad
(Figure 1). GRML has designed a waste rock dump in this valley with a storage capacity of
5.1 Mm³ (Figure 2). This valley forms the headwaters of the Charinave River and is contained
between two ridges. The ridges are generally at an elevation in excess of 400 mRL, and the
mine access road runs along the north-western ridge.

Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) carried out a stability assessment of the waste dump in
June 1999 and concluded that it would not be stable under all potential long term conditions.
This analysis was reported in the Golder report 99631008(D) of July 1999. The report
recommended that an engineered wall be constructed across the lower end of the dump, to
contain the potentially unstable waste dump material. This wall would be constructed using
selected materials under a regime of high compaction control.

Golder were subsequently commissioned to carry out the design of the proposed wall and this
report outlines the design process, the design assumptions and the construction requirements.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -2-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

GRML currently produces about 2.5 Mtpa (million tonnes per year) of waste rock, and plans
to increase the mining rate within the coming years. The waste production rate is due to
increase to about 2.7 Mtpa within a year, and then up to 3.4 Mtpa at some future date.

2.1 Waste Material Characteristics

Three classifications of waste rock have been made by GRML:

1. Potentially acid forming (PAF),

2. Non acid forming (NAF), and

3. Acid consuming (AC).

The GRML strategy is to identify, selectively mine and to place AC material separately from
the PAF and NAF materials. However, as the AC material currently accounts for only about
2% of the total waste, GRML have adopted a strategy to selectively handle the NAF and PAF
materials, so that these materials can be used selectively in the construction of the waste
dump.

The waste rock is a combination of highly weathered clayey and highly fragmented material
(generally red in colour) and reasonably competent blasted rock (generally grey in colour).

2.2 Current Dump Construction

The construction method proposed by GRML for the waste rock dump is designed to control
any acid generating potential of the waste rock. The current dump construction is as follows
(Figure 3):

1. The waste is placed in approximately 1 m thick layers, and the surface of the layer is then
compacted.

2. The dump is being constructed in a series of down-slope steps to limit material haul.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -3-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

3. A temporary sediment control bund is constructed at the downstream toe of each step of
the waste dump, and is used to collect all dump runoff.

4. The waste dump is then constructed upslope from its downstream end, progressing in
benches using the “bottom-up” technique.

5. Clean runoff water from upstream and to the west of the dump area is diverted into a
canal that runs down the western side of the waste rock dump, and discharges into the
valley beyond the toe of the advancing dump.

2.3 Stability Analysis

Golder carried out a set of stability analyses for the full height waste dump, selecting a high
phreatic surface as being representative of potential conditions within the waste dump
material [report 99639008(D)]. These analyses indicated that the Factor of Safety (FOS) of
the full height waste dump under static conditions would be about 1.24. Localised slip failures
were found to have Factors of Safety ranging between 0.83 and 1.24.

2.4 Recommendations

Arising from the analyses presented in the July 1999 report, Golder recommended that a full
geotechnical engineering design be prepared for the downstream portion of the dump, based
on laboratory shear strength testing of the materials selected for the construction of the wall.

In some respects the design for the lower portion of this waste dump would be very similar to
the design of the tailings storage dam walls, consisting of well compacted selected fills,
provided with interception underdrainage to improve the overall stability under both static and
dynamic loading conditions.

This report is a presentation of the engineered design prepared by Golder for the waste dump
arising from these recommendations.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -4-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

3.0 LIFE OF WASTE ROCK DUMP

The waste rock dump design by GRML has a capacity of about 5.1 Mm³ at a final crest
elevation of 418 mRL. This is to be achieved by filling the valley with waste to an elevation
of 400 mRL, and then raising the eastern portion of the dump to an elevation of 418 mRL.
This would allow the runoff from the plant, crusher and workshop area to continue to be
diverted around the western side of the waste dump and into the valley below.

This dump provides capacity for about 8.4 Mt of waste rock, based on an average dry density
for the waste of 1.67 t/m³. The waste dump was calculated (May 1999) to have a total life of
about 2.8 years, at the planned rate of increasing mine production. At this time the waste
dump would have a remaining life of less than 2 years.

It is estimated that the capacity of the dump would be raised to about 9 Mm³, extending the
life to about 4.5 years, if the waste dump is raised to an elevation of about 420 mRL across
the whole of the valley instead of raising a portion of the waste dump above 418 mRL.
However, by filling the valley with waste the route through the valley for the plant stormwater
runoff would be covered by the waste. This would either require:

1. The installation of a culvert under the dump along the route of the bypass canal, to
maintain the rainwater runoff diversion route, or

2. The re-routing of the plant and dump runoff to the south east.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -5-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

4.0 WASTE DUMP - EXTENDED AREA

The area available in down valley for the waste dump was extended during 1999 by the
addition of a triangular section of ground. This has allowed the final toe of the waste dump to
be moved about 200 m downstream, with a consequential increase in the potential dump
storage capacity.

The waste dump requires a permanent runoff settlement dam at its lower end. The location of
this dam wall and the provision of sufficient stormwater capacity in its basin, has set the limit
for the position of the downstream toe of the waste dump wall. The proposed location of the
settlement dam and the waste dump lower face are shown in Drawings WD-1 and WD-2.

4.1 Location of Settlement Dam

The waste dump settlement dam has been located at the lowest extremity of the mining lease,
as far down the valley as possible (WD-2). The alignment selected for the settlement dam
wall presents a maximised storage capacity matched with an acceptable dam wall material
volume.

4.2 Location of Waste Dump Wall

The waste dump wall has been located about 140 m upstream of the settlement dam. Its
location and alignment has been limited by the following:

1. The need for a final and permanent runoff settlement dam required immediately
downstream of the dump wall and within the property.

2. Interference of the upstream toe of the dump with ongoing waste dumping operations,
which limits the crest elevation of the dump wall to 400 mRL, which is lower than the
final ridges surrounding the valley.

3. The requirement to maintain an overall 3:1 (18.4°) downstream face slope on the waste
dump wall, to facilitate rehabilitation. Inter berm slopes will be at a slope of 2.68:1
(20.5°).

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -6-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

4. Constructing a self-supporting upstream face for the waste dump wall at a slope of 1.5:1
(33.7°).

4.3 Wall Design Philosophy

The waste dump wall has been designed as a high integrity wall, which is to be constructed
under controlled conditions using selected fill materials. It has been designed to meet normal
water retaining dam design standards, with the intention of maintaining the moisture levels in
the waste dump materials and so limit the potential downstream effects arising from acid
generation in the waste dump. It will be provided with a low permeability liner on both the
upstream and downstream faces, to limit seepage from the waste dump and rainfall
infiltration.

As seepage under the wall is environmentally unacceptable, a cut-off trench is to be built

under the waste dump wall.

The design has followed the original concept for the construction of the waste dump
developed by GRML, namely with (Drawing WD-3):

• A wall built using selected NAF/PAF material,

• Underlain by a layer of AC/NAF waste, and

• A clay sheath to reduce the potential infiltration of water and to meet ANSTO
requirements.

The material quantities required to build this wall are shown in the Waste Dump Wall Bill of
Quantities (Appendix A).

This seepage into the wall has the potent to be slightly acidic from the waste dump and fresh
rainfall from outside the dump. Any such infiltration could lead to the generation of acid
flows from the PAF material within the wall, and the design aims to minimise this potential.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -7-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

4.3.1 Cutoff Trench

A 4 m deep cutoff trench is to be excavated along the crest alignment. It is then to be

backfilled with selected clay and compacted to 95% Standard compaction. The trench is to be
developed progressively as the waste dump wall is developed. Approximately 14,000 m³ of
clay will be required.

4.3.2 Base Layer

There is insufficient AC material to sheath the wall. The available AC material will thus only
be used to line the invert of the existing drainage line, which is about 340 m long and about
40 m wide. The lining will be 2 m thick (Drawing 9008-WD-3). The AC material will act to
neutralise water seeping through the waste in the wall, before it has an opportunity to enter the
underlying natural soils. About 30,000 m³ of AC waste will be required.

A 5 m thick layer of NAF will then be placed across the base of the waste dump wall,
requiring about 270,000 m³ of material.

4.3.3 Competent Waste

Approximately 1,350,000 m³ of competent NAF/PAF waste is required to build the waste

dump wall (Drawing 9008-WD-3). It is important that during the construction of the wall that
only suitable waste is directed to the wall construction. All other waste is to be placed in the
dump.

To date essentially two types of waste have been observed coming from the pit developments,
differentiate by colour. There is a red wet and very clayey material and a grey sandier
material. The clay material is generally too wet and of too low a strength to use as a wall
building material. Laboratory testing has indicated that the sandier grey material is suitable
for the construction of the waste dump wall.

4.3.4 Clay Seal

The upstream and downstream faces of the dump are to be covered with a approximately 5 m
thick sealing layer of natural clay. The clay will also provide the growing medium for the

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -8-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

revegetation of the downstream face of the waste dump wall. Approximately 590,000 m³ of
clay will be required.

4.3.5 Topsoil

While a topsoil layer has been designated in the drawings, this could be incorporated into the
clay sealing layer. The thickness of the topsoil layer is to be no less than 150 mm and
approximately 22,500 m³ will be required.

4.3.6 Underdrainage

There is a potential for seepage to pass from the body waste of the waste dump and into the
wall, even with the provision of the clay seal layer. As this seepage could build up within the
wall to create an elevated phreatic surface, which could deleteriously effect the stability of the
wall, seepage interception and collection drains have been included under the upstream
portion of the wall, at the base of the wall (Drawing WD-2).

A vertical cut-off drain through the height of the wall, as provided for the settlement dams,
has not been included. It is not considered to be necessary for this wall, as it is containing
waste rock and is not a large source of water. Thus the expected seepage flows should be low
and the cut-off drain is not considered necessary.

The underdrains are to be placed as low as possible in the dump, as they are also designed to
intercept natural flows emanating from the valley slopes under the wall (Drawing WD-4,
Detail C). Due to the undulating nature of the valley, we suggest that the drains are installed
in the AC/NAF base layers once a uniform layer thickness of about 1.0 m has been
established.

The drain outlets (Drawing WD-4, Detail E) are to be taken into a sump at the downstream
toe of the wall, so that the flow rates and the quality of the seepage water can be monitored
(Drawing WD-4, Detail F). Should the quality of this water not meet release criteria, then it
would be possible to pump this water to a suitable treatment plant prior to release. Note that
the drain outlets are to be laid as best suits between the collection point and the sump, so as a
continual fall is maintained.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 -9-
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

4.4 Compaction

The wall building waste materials are to be placed in lifts not more than 500 mm thick and
compacted to achieve at least 95% Standard density throughout the placed depth. Should the
compaction equipment used not be able to achieve the degree of compaction required with a
500 mm layer, then the layer thickness is to be reduced until consistent compaction can be
achieved.

The moisture contents of the waste materials tested to date have generally been at or slightly
below the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). In selecting the waste to be used in the
construction of the wall, the moisture content of the material in situ should be one of the
criteria considered. However, the site operating conditions have to be recognised and some
lee-way with the waste moisture content should be allowed on the judgement of the
supervising engineer.

The natural clay cover is to be placed in layers of not more than 300 mm thickness and
compacted to 95% Standard density, at a moisture content –1 to +3% the Optimum moisture
content.

4.5 Wall Runoff Control

The downstream face of the wall has been provided with 5 runoff control berms, constructed
at a wall slope of 2.68:1 (Drawing WD-3).

The berms will collect the runoff (Drawing WD-4, Detail D) and divert it laterally into
permanent surface runoff drains down the junction of the wall and the valley
(Drawing WD-4). This drain is to be constructed progressively as the wall is built, so that it is
ready to accept runoff from the face of the wall as each berm is reached.

During the construction of the waste dump wall surface runoff from the waste dump will also
flow down the runoff drains. The direction of this runoff on closure will depend on the shape
and extend of the final surface of the waste dump.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 10 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

4.6 Wall Construction

The construction of the wall should commence with the removal of all vegetation from the
footprint of the wall, followed by the removal and stockpiling of the topsoil layers, and any
other unsuitable soils in the foundation area. The topsoil is required to provide the growing
medium for the dump, and a site should be developed to hold this material.

The cut-off trench needs to be excavated and backfilled with compacted natural clays over the
lower section of the waste dump wall, before the first AC/NAF layers are placed.

Once the cutoff trench has been started and the drainage line invert covered with AC material,
the bottom NAF layer can be placed. It is not necessary to place the whole layer ahead of the
construction of the wall, but only sufficient to allow wall construction to proceed
(Drawing WD-5).

The wall is to built in a series of cells, each 25 m wide and 5 m high, built in 500 mm thick
layers (Drawing WD-5). The face slope of the cell is to be about 1.5:1 (H:V) and the cells are
to be advanced so the overall slope of the advancing face is 3:1.

A proposed wall construction sequencing is shown at four stages of construction in section

(Drawing WD-5) and plan (Drawing WD-6). Each stage shown is at the elevation of a
downstream face runoff berm. Note that this drawing is indicative only and that it is probable
that conditions on site will require changes to the sequence described.

4.7 Crest Elevation

The wall has been designed to reach a crest elevation of 400 mRL, the same elevation as the
original GRML waste dump design. If the dump is built to a lower elevation, or if for any
other reason the wall is not to be taken to its full height, then it could be stopped off at any
lower elevation as required. At this stage the final capping sequence should be placed.

However, if the dump is to be taken higher than 400 mRL, to say the crest of the ridges at
about 425 mRL, then a waste containment wall could be built on top of the waste dump, as an
extension of the waste dump wall, using a similar construction plan (Drawing WD-7).

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 11 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

5.0 WASTE DUMP CONSTRUCTION

The waste dump is to be developed in 5 m lifts in parallel with the development of the wall,
with an overall face slope of 3:1. At all times the bottom most layer of the waste dump should
be at the same elevation as the top upstream layer of the wall. This will result in a valley
being left between the dump and the wall, which is intended to collect and control runoff from
the waste dump (Drawing WD-5).

When the next 5 m lift of the wall has been placed, the runoff collection valley is to be closed
rapidly, and the next valley constructed, by advancing the next lowest layer of the dump.

5.1 Dump Runoff Diversion during Construction

In developing the construction sequence for the wall, the over-riding limitation has been to
provide a continual flow path for the runoff from the waste dump. Currently this runoff is
collected in the temporary settlement dam and then allowed to overflow down the valley.
Once the wall is under construction, an alternative flow route has to be provided.

One way to provide this flow path is to install a decant pipe through the base of the wall and
provide a decant inlet structure up the upstream face of the wall. However, the logistics of
getting this pipe to site and installed in the base of the wall have ruled against this system.

An alternative, as outlined above, is to construct the dump and the wall in a sequence that
provides a collection drain along the upstream face of the wall. This water is then to be
diverted past the wall, down one of its sides, either in a trench or through a portion of the wall
left lower than the surrounding cells.

It is proposed to divert the dump runoff down the western side of the wall, where the wall
construction sequencing will leave the level of the base waste (AC and NAF) one block lower
than the general waste, to provide this trench (Drawing WD-4, Detail G). This runoff is to be
diverted into the permanent surface runoff drain as soon as it is reached (Drawing WD-6).

Alternatively a series of trenches could be excavated into the hillside to carry this water past
the wall construction and into the permanent surface runoff drain.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 12 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

5.2 Final Dump Surface Runoff

The direction for the dump surface runoff will depend on the final elevation of the dump.

• If the dump is to be finished at an elevation below 400 mRL, then all runoff is to be
directed initially towards the wall and down the permanent surface drains. This is not a
preferred option, as these will have to be rather large drains, requiring the procurement of
a volume of large rocks to act as energy dissipaters.

• It the dump is taken above 400 mRL, then some of the waste dump surface drainage
would flow towards the plant and be added to the plant runoff stream to the east. The
balance of the waste dump surface runoff would continue to flow towards the waste dump
wall.

5.3 Waste Dump Drainage

The aim of the waste dump wall is to allow the waste to remain in a near saturated condition,
so as to minimise the risk of generating acid seepage. However, during construction of the
wall it will not be possible to retain all the water in the waste, so seepage flows from the
waste dump will have to be handled. The current central perforated drain pipe system is to be
extended through the waste dump wall and into the sump on the downstream toe (Drawing
9008-WD-2).

The section of the waste dump drain pipe through the waste dump wall is to solid, so that its
flow can be differentiated from the waste dump wall seepage flows (Drawing 9008-WD-4).
The pipe is to have a valve at its entry into the sump, so that some control can be exercised
over its flow once the waste dump wall has been built.

There are natural springs under the waste dump and waste dump wall footprints. The
underdrainage will also be used to intercept and remove this water, to prevent a pressure
water build-up within the waste dump.

The waste dump underdrainage flows are to be collected so that its quality can be assessed
prior to its release, as there is the potential for it to contain acid contamination from the
potentially acid generating wastes. However, this is impractical under the circumstances of

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 13 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

the dump construction, so the dump underdrainage flows will have to be continued through
the wall and into the sump at the downstream toe of the wall

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 14 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

6.0 FINAL SETTLEMENT DAM

The final settlement dam is approximately 20 m high and has been designed to handle the
Design Storm runoff from the total waste dump area. This is a conservative assumption,
which assumes that no rehabilitation of the waste dump will be undertaken and established
before the settlement dam is completed.

6.1 Location

The settlement dam has been located to provide a storage capacity of 35,000 m³ to spillway
level as close to the mine boundary as possible. The valley falls away quite sharply beyond
the toe of the dam wall, soon reaching a waterfall. A number of wall positions were
investigated, before the current position was selected: One that provides the least fill
requirement (Figure SD-1).

6.2 Dam Sizing

The Design Storm for Gold Ridge is a 1 in 10 year 2 hour storm, which has a rainfall intensity
of 64 mm/hr. This will result in about 36,000 m³ of runoff from the approximately 40 ha
dump, using a conservative 70% runoff factor.

The capacity of the settlement dam to spillway level is 33,500 m³. This capacity could be
increased by the volume of borrow excavated from the basin to construct the dam wall.

6.3 Construction

The design of the settlement dam follows the design of previous settlement dams provided for
the Namachamata and Valehaichichi pit areas.

The wall will requires about 28,000 m³ of selected and compacted fill (Table 2 - Bill of
Quantities). It has been designed with an upstream clay zone, separated from the selected fill
downstream zone (Drawings SD-1 & SD-2) by a sand seepage interception filter
(Drawing SD-3). To maximise the usage of materials borrowed from the settlement dam
basin, it is probable that the differentiation between the upstream and downstream zones will
be eliminated.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 15 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

Two 400 mm diameter decant outlet pipes have been included, to allow the removal of settled
water from the dam. Under normal conditions little or no water should be held in the dam, so
as to provide capacity for the storm events. The downstream face of the dam has one runoff
control berm, which diverts runoff into catch drains down each side of the wall
(Drawing SD-3).

The dam has a rock toe (Drawing SD-1, Plan and SD-2, Zoning Diagram).

6.4 Spillway

The spillway details follow the previous designs used at GRML, utilising a concrete inlet
anchor and a rock filled Gabion outlet structure (Drawing SD-3). It has been located through
the southern abutment, but this may not be the best location for it. It is suggested that further
survey, and an inspection of both abutments and the downstream conditions, be carried out
before the spillway location is fixed.

Material excavated from the spillway can be used for the construction of the dam wall, or may
be used for cover of the waste dump wall.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 16 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

7.0 PLANT AREA RUNOFF DIVERSION

While the wall is under construction it will still be possible to maintain the current plant area
runoff diversion channel. It will have to be extended though so that it discharges either
beyond the settlement dam or into another valley.

However, once the wall exceeds an elevation of about 385 mRL, it will cover the outlet of this
drain and an alternative drain will be needed to cater for this runoff.

One alternative is to install a pipeline along the trench route and to bury this pipeline under
the dump and wall. However, the cost of the pipeline may preclude this option.

Alternatively the drain direction could be changed so that this runoff is directed to the south
east, as shown diagrammatically on Drawing WD-1. Installation of this drain will allow the
waste dump to be raised across the valley to a height well above 400 mRL, so increasing the
life and potential of this site.

Further investigation is required to test the potential of this alternative route and to determine
the work required to commission it.

7.1 Sizing Runoff Trench

The area above and around the dump has a catchment area of about 23 Ha. The current
diversion trench has a 2 m wide base, side slopes at 1:1, is about 1.5 m deep and falls at a
gradient of 2%. The Design Storm results in a peak flow in the trench of 12.6 m³/sec, resulting
in a trench water flow depth of 1.3 m. For all other rainfall conditions the peak flow rate is
well less than 12.6 m³/sec.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 17 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

8.0 WALL STABILITY

The slopes of the waste dump wall have not been determined by any stability considerations,
rather they have been selected to match rehabilitation requirements (downstream) and
practicality (upstream). However, a stability analysis of the wall has been undertaken to
demonstrate that the wall section selected will perform its function with a sufficient Factor of
Safety.

8.1 Shear Strength

Samples of the AC and PAF material were sent to the Golder Brisbane geotechnical
laboratory for shear strength testing. The results of these tests indicated that both materials,
compacted to 95% of Standard compaction and at optimum moisture content, are frictional
with a high angle of friction:

• AC material Friction angle of 40° and 0 kPa cohesion

• PAF material Friction angle of 50° and 29 kPa cohesion

8.2 Permeability

Samples of the AC, the NAF and the PAF wastes were tested for permeability, compacted to
100% Standard density. The results of these tests are (Appendix B):

Table 3 – Permeability Test Results

WASTE PERMEABILITY
m/sec
AC 1.1x10-10
Suitable PAF 1.9x10-10
Clayey PAF 7.0x10-10

8.3 Stability Analysis

Conventional stability analyses were carried out for a typical water dam wall design for the
dump wall, using the shear strengths determined in the laboratory (Appendix B). The Factor
of Safety of the wall is well in excess of 2.00 for the downstream wall profile selected (3:1

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 18 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

slope), and 1.5 for the upstream wall (at 1.5:1). These results are shown graphically in
Appendix C.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 19 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

9.0 COMPACTION CONTROL

In general, based on limited field testing and field observation, the compaction of the PAF
waste rock is not satisfactory. Only the top shallow layer of waste rock is reaching the
required 85% degree of saturation and an adequate engineering strength (>90% dry density
ratio). Field testing of the upper 200 mm of the 1 m deep layers has shown that:

1. The upper layers of red coloured clayey waste rock is reaching the degree of saturation
(93%) prescribed for the control of acid generation, due to its high inherent moisture
content, but it is not being compacted sufficiently to reach an adequate engineering
specification (79%). It is thus likely that its shear strength is well below the requirements
for dump stability.

2. The upper layers of grey waste rock is not being compacted sufficiently to reach the
required degree of saturation (78%), but is reaching a satisfactory engineering degree of
compaction (94%).

3. Upper layers of a red clayey/grey waste rock mixture is reaching a satisfactory degree of
saturation (87%), but has a lower than required engineering degree of compaction (85%).

Golder has carried out limited density testing through a complete 1 m thick layer. These tests
have shown that the density falls from the surface down, being well under specifications from
about half way down. We have carried out DCP testing in conjunction with the insitu density
measurements, but these tests have been inconclusive, with very low reaction readings
through the full layer.

These tests confirm the need to use thinner layers in the construction for the wall, select the
materials carefully and carry out stricter density control.

Compaction of the waste dump with the current layer thickness and compaction machinery
could be improved by reducing the moisture content of the waste rock. However, this is
certainly not possible here and alternative methods have to be used. Material of this nature
requires the imposition of heavy static or pad-foot vibratory rollers (>20 tonne) to reach full
compaction through its entire layer thickness. This cannot be imparted by lightweight road
construction equipment, landfill compactors or conventional static compactors.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 20 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

To meet the design compaction requirements, the placement and compaction methodology of
the waste rock needs to be changed, as outlined below:

1. If the current rollers are to be used, then the waste rock needs to be placed in thinner
layers. These layers should be not more than 300 mm thick.

2. If heavier conventional padfoot vibratory rollers (15 to 20 t mass) are used, then the layer
thickness could be increased to 500 mm;

3. If the landfill compactor is used, then the layer thickness for the red clay should be no
more than 200 mm and 300 mm for the grey waste rock (subject to the results of field
trials).

4. If an impact roller is used on the grey waste rock only, then the full 1 m thick layers could
be used .

Once laboratory shear strength and permeability testing has been completed on samples of
these waste rocks, then Golder would submit a testing program to GRML to determine the
number of compactor passes required to optimise the layer compaction required to meet the
engineering specification.

Golder is investigating the efficacy of the current compaction regime with a view to providing
GRML with a simple methodology for compaction control. This investigation is aimed at
determining the compaction achieved through the placed layer, rather than only the first
200 mm as reported above. The following compaction control methods, all of which need to
be correlated periodically against a laboratory density test of the material, may be used to
control the material compaction:

1. Sand Replacement – this is the basic density measurement tool. A hole is dug into the
material and the excavated material is weighed, dried and re-weighed. Special sand is
poured into the hole, using a special funnel arrangement, and the volume of the excavated
hole is determined by measuring the mass of the sand that flowed through the funnel.
These measurements allow the dry density of the compacted material to be determined.

This is a slow test and has been largely replaced by other methods.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 21 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

2. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) – a hand held rod which is hammered into the
ground, with the measurement of the number of blows recorded. The number of blows
per 100 mm is a measure of the resistance, ie the density, of the material. This is the
simplest instrument to use in the field to measure relative density, but it does need to be
regularly checked using field and laboratory density determinations.

To date a field trial using the DCP has not proved to be totally reliable, but further tests
have been scheduled to attempt to correlate field density to the hammer blow count.

3. Nuclear Density Device – this instrument uses a nuclear source to measure the density of
the layers tested, down to a maximum depth of 250 mm. This is an easy test to carry out,
but requires the purchase of the instrument (about $10,000), the training of the operator,
correct handling and storage, and regular calibration with laboratory prepared density
tests.

9.1 Method Specification

When enough confidence has been established in the efficiency of the compaction equipment
and the compaction methodology through a field test trial or daily measurement of the
relationship between compacted density and machine passes, and the material is relatively
uniform throughout its source, then a method specification can be developed. A method
specification reduces the frequency of field testing to periodic audits.

A method specification specifies the layer thickness, the material moisture content and the
number of compaction passes required from a specified compaction machine. The compaction
machine is fully specified, including its type, weight, the type of compaction cleats and the
frequency of vibration.

9.2 Current Operations

Until sufficient field tests have been conducted to show the relationship between number of
compactor passes required to achieve the required compaction level and the depth of layer
that achieves compaction, the nuclear device method is recommended.

This device should be used at least once per day per completed layer, and at least every two
days the full depth of the layers should be checked.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 22 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

10.0 OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The main issue that needs to be resolved is the final height to which the dump is to be
constructed, as there are a number of issues that hang off this decision, including:

1. The final capacity of the dump.

2. The final height of the wall.

3. The need to raise the wall above the 400 mRL elevation.

4. The final surface drainage direction off the surface of the dump and plant area.

5. The sizing and design of the stormwater drains down the sides of the wall.

We suggest that GRML give these issues some consideration and that, if it will assist to
clarify the options, Golder make a presentation of these issues and the possible solutions to
the management on site, at some convenient date.

Golder Associates
 Privileged – Prepared for
January 2000 - 23 -
the purposes of
99639008(2A) obtaining legal advice

11.0 CONCLUSION

A wall to contain the waste dump material has been designed to near water dam criteria. By
carefully selecting and compacting the waste, a wall with a very high Factor of Safety can be
achieved.

This wall will allow the storage capacity of the valley to be maximised, but this will require a
major change to the surface drainage collected from the plant area and the surface of the
waste dump.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD1

M J Gowan
Principal

\\NTSERVER1\DATA\Overseas.99\99639008\Corout2\99008r2a4.doc

1
IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Your attention is drawn to the document - “Important Information about your Geotechnical
Engineering Report”, included in Appendix D. This document has been prepared by the ASFE (Professional Firms Practising in
the Geosciences), of which Golder Associates Pty Ltd is a member. The statements presented in this document are intended to
advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be and to present you with recommendations on how to
minimise the risks associated with the groundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of
responsibility accepted by Golder, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities
each assumes in so doing.

Golder Associates
 APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Construction Bills of Quantities

Golder Associates
 APPENDIX B

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

Golder Associates
 APPENDIX C

Appendix C

Stability Analysis Results

Golder Associates
 APPENDIX D

Appendix D
“Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”

Golder Associates
 FIGURES

Golder Associates
DRAWINGS

Golder Associates