report - canada.ca · metasedimentary and amphibolitic rocks of volcanic and intrusive origin and...

June 21, 2013

NEMASKA LITHIUM INC.

Results of the Water Balance and Water Quality Models for the Whabouchi Lithium Mine

REPO

RT

Reference Number: 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

Distribution:

1 Electronic Copy - Nemaska Lithium, Inc. 1 Hard Copy - Nemaska Lithium, Inc. 2 Hard Copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

Submitted to: Nemaska Lithium Inc. 450, Gare-du-Palais Street Quebec G1K 3X2 Canada Attention: Guy Bourassa, President


June 21, 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000 i

Table of Contents

STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ i

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

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Geology and Mineralization ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Mine Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 MODEL DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Water Balance Model .......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Conceptual Design ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Water Balance Modules ................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.3 Administration Pond and Plant Pond............................................................................................................ 11

3.1.4 TWRP and Sedimentation Basin 1 ............................................................................................................... 11

3.1.5 Sedimentation Basin 2 ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.1.6 Climate and Runoff Modules ........................................................................................................................ 12

3.2 Water Quality Model .......................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Conceptual Model ........................................................................................................................................ 13

3.2.2 Water Quality Model Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................. 13

3.2.3 Input Water Chemistry and Water Quality Comparative Criteria .................................................................. 14

3.2.4 Explosives Use ............................................................................................................................................ 18

3.2.5 Model Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 18

4.0 MODEL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Water Balance Results ...................................................................................................................................... 19

4.1.1 During Operations ........................................................................................................................................ 19

4.1.1.1 Sedimentation Basin 1 Water Balance ..................................................................................................... 20


4.1.2 Closure and Post Closure Phases ............................................................................................................... 27


4.1.2.2 Pit Flooding ............................................................................................................................................... 28


June 21, 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000 ii

4.2 Water Quality Results ........................................................................................................................................ 30

4.2.1 Regulatory Compliance ................................................................................................................................ 31

4.2.2 Temporal Variation in Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 33

4.2.2.1 Sedimentation Basin 1 .............................................................................................................................. 33

4.2.2.2 Sedimentation Basin 2 .............................................................................................................................. 35

4.2.2.3 Open Pit .................................................................................................................................................... 36

4.2.3 Concentration Sensitivity and Parameters not Modelled .............................................................................. 37

5.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................. 39

5.1 Metal Leaching .................................................................................................................................................. 39

5.2 Explosive residue ............................................................................................................................................... 40

5.3 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................................... 40

6.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

6.1 Water Balance Model ........................................................................................................................................ 41

6.2 Water Quality Model .......................................................................................................................................... 42

7.0 REPORT AND MODEL LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 44

8.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 45

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 46

TABLES Table 1: Distribution of Annual Climate Data .............................................................................................................................. 3

Table 2: Water Balance Model Timesteps.................................................................................................................................. 8

Table 3: Components of the Water Balance Model .................................................................................................................... 9

Table 4: Water Balance Model Assumptions – Runoff Coefficients ......................................................................................... 13

Table 5: Proposed Water Quality Model Windows of Time 1 .................................................................................................... 14

Table 6: Ore Reserve and Water Quality Model Geologic Units .............................................................................................. 14

Table 7: Source Terms for the Input Parameters of the Water Quality Model .......................................................................... 15

Table 8: Input Water Chemistry ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Table 9: Proportions of Inflows to Sedimentation Basins - Average Precipitation .................................................................... 22

Table 10: Proportions of Inflow to Sedimentation Basins - 1 in 100 year Wet Precipitation ..................................................... 23

Table 11: Proportions of Inflows to Sedimentation Basins - 1 in 100 year Dry Precipitation .................................................... 24

Table 12: Proportions of Inflows to Sedimentation Basins and Open Pit After Closure and Post-Closure - Average Precipitation (1) ......................................................................................................................................................... 28


June 21, 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000 iii

Table 13: Summary of Predicted Exceedances to Water Quality Guidelines ........................................................................... 32

Table 14: Provincial and Federal Regulations pertaining to Monitoring Programs ................................................................... 40

FIGURES Figure 1: Whabouchi Project Location Map................................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Whabouchi Project Geologic Map ............................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Geologic Cross Section 400 East ................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 4: Whabouchi Mine Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 5: GoldSim Conceptual Model Schematic Diagram ...................................................................................................... 10

Figure 6: Rates of Inflows to Sedimentation Basin 1, Average Rainfall Scenario..................................................................... 20

Figure 7: Rates of Inflows to Sedimentation Basin 2, Average Rainfall Scenario..................................................................... 25

Figure 8: Pit Geometry through Time (Met-Chem Canada, 2012) ............................................................................................ 27

Figure 9: Stage Recovery Curve for the Whabouchi Pit Lake .................................................................................................. 29

Figure 10: Inflow Rates to the Open Pit during Operations and Flooding ................................................................................ 30

Figure 11: Manganese Concentration in Runoff from the TWRP during Operation Phase ...................................................... 34

Figure 12: Manganese Concentration in Seepage from the TWRP during Operation Phase ................................................... 35

Figure 13: Manganese Concentration in Pit Wall Runoff during Operation Phase ................................................................... 36

Figure 14: Manganese Concentration Evolution in Pit Lake during Filling and Post-Stabilization ............................................ 37

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Water Balance Model Input Description

APPENDIX B Water Balance Model Calendar Year

APPENDIX C Water Quality Model Description

APPENDIX D Water Balance Model Results

APPENDIX E Walter Quality Model Results


June 21, 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Nemaska Lithium Inc. (Nemaska Lithium) is in the process of permitting the proposed Whabouchi Lithium Mine (the Project) located 30 km east of the Nemaska community of the James Bay area of Quebec, Canada. In early 2013, Nemaska Lithium requested that Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) prepare an estimate of the likely discharge water chemistry from the proposed mine facilities as a component of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Project for submittal to the Quebec ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs (MDDEFP). The scope of work consists of a two-phase program: 1) construction of a revised water balance model (a preliminary water balance had been constructed by BBA Engineering (BBA, 2012a)) to quantify the flows of surface and groundwater through the different proposed facilities at the planned mine and mill complex; and 2) construction of a water quality model to simulate the mass load transported by each of the flows to estimate the final end of pipe discharge water chemistry during operations and following closure and decommissioning of the mine.

The report that follows is comprised of:

Section 2 -– a summary of background information used in the different models including data on the local climate, data on the geology and mineralization of the Whabouchi deposit, and the design of the planned mine and mill facilities;

Section 3 – a summary of the overall water balance and water quality model designs. Details of the model designs are included in a separate appendix;

Section 4 – a summary of results;

Section 5 – a discussion of results;

Section 6 – a conclusion;

Section 7 – recommendations; and

Section 8 – report and modelling limitations.



2.0 BACKGROUND The Project is located in the James Bay area of northern Quebec, approximately 300 km north northwest of the town of Chibougamau (Figure 1). The topography is relatively flat except where more resistant pegmatite dikes form a local ridge. Elevations range between a minimum of 275 m to 325 m above mean sea level (m amsl) in the area of the pegmatite floored ridge with an average elevation of 300 m amsl. Approximately 15% of the project area is covered by lakes or streams. Permafrost is absent at this latitude and overburden ranges from 0 m over the pegmatite ridge to 25 m in thickness over the bedrock lows (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).

Figure 1: Whabouchi Project Location Map



2.1 Climate The climate in the region is sub-arctic. This climate zone is characterized by long cold winters and short cool summers. Daily average temperate ranges from -23.5°C in February to +16.1°C in July. Breakup usually occurs in June and freeze up in early November.

A regional climate analysis was conducted by WESA Envir-Eau in 2012 (WESA Envir-Eau, 2012a). Results of the climate analysis indicated an average annual precipitation of 772 mm/year. A frequency analysis was conducted by Golder on the annual precipitation data, in order to characterize extreme precipitation values for 100 year wet and 100 year dry conditions at the Project site. Annual precipitation values were estimated using data from the Chapais (1971-1991) located 218 km from site and the data from Grande Riviere (1971-1991) located 260 km from site. The selected distributions were the Log Pearson 3 distribution. Annual precipitation for the 100 year wet conditions was 1,074 mm/year and for the 100 year dry conditions was 557 mm/year. Rainfall was distributed monthly based on combined distributions from the two stations for average, wet and dry conditions.

Lake evaporation was estimated at 335 mm and distributed based on temperature for months with an average temperature above 0°C. Temperature as summarized based on average monthly climate data from Nemaska Airport (Environment Canada, 2012). Table 1 summaries average annual climate data at the proposed mine site.

Table 1: Distribution of Annual Climate Data

Month Temperature Average Year Precipitation Lake Evaporation

(°C) (mm) % Annual (mm) % Annual January -22.2 37 5% 0.0 0% February -23.5 40 4% 0.0 0%

March -14.2 55 5% 0.0 0% April -0.9 75 5% 0.0 0% May 6.2 94 7% 31.8 10% June 12.8 90 10% 66.3 20% July 16.1 110 12% 83.1 25%

August 14.4 84 12% 74.3 22% September 10.6 71 14% 54.9 16%

October 4.8 47 11% 24.7 7% November -5.5 43 9% 0.0 0% December -16.9 28 6% 0.0 0%

Annual -1.5 772 5% 335.0 100% 2.2 Geology and Mineralization The Whabouchi spodumene pegmatite swarm (Figure 2) forms the core of a ridge approximately 40 m above the surrounding lowlands, between Lac du Spodumene and Lac des Montagnes. The ore zones are a series of sub-parallel, sub-vertical pegmatites having a general NE-SW orientation. They occur in a band of metasedimentary and amphibolitic rocks of volcanic and intrusive origin and have been localized in the layered amphibolites. The known extent of the Whabouchi pegmatites is approximately 1.3 km in length, up to 130 m in width, and an in excess of 300 m. Figure 2 is a geologic map of the Project.



Figure 2: Whabouchi Project Geologic Map

The ore in the Whabouchi deposit consists of the lithium-bearing silicate mineral spodumene (LiAl(Si2O6)). There is no reported sulphide minerals associated with the spodumene mineralization, although some sulphide was found to be present in bedrock hosting the pegmatite swarm (Lamont, 2013). The spodumene crystals in the pegmatite are generally light green in color and are medium to coarse grained with the largest spodumene grains up to 30 cm in length. Figure 3 is a cross section through the Whabouchi deposit showing the orientation of the pegmatite dike swarm.

The principal lithological units that comprise the deposit and are likely to report to the waste rock and tailings have been grouped into main rock types:

Gabbro;

Basalt;

Pegmatite; and

Spodumene-bearing pegmatite (ore).

Minor felsic porphyry dikes are also present in the deposit.



Figure 3: Geologic Cross Section 400 East



2.3 Mine Facilities The current mine plan for the Project calls for traditional truck and shovel open pit mining with spodumene ore processing at a planned onsite mill complex. Ore will be crushed and cycled through a two-stage processing stream consisting of Dense Media Separation (DMS) and flotation to produce a coarse and fine-grained spodumene concentrate, respectively. The mill is planned to maintain a two stream tailings circuit: a DMS tailings stream and a flotation tailings stream, both of which will be filtered and trucked for co-disposal with waste rock from the open pit to the Tailings and Waste Rock Pile (TWRP). The current estimates are a production of approximately 19.6 million tonnes (Mt) of ore; 56.7 Mt of waste rock and 15.6 Mt of tailings over a mine life of 23 years, which includes construction and rehabilitation. The spodumene concentrate will be shipped off-site for processing. Figure 4 is a diagram showing the propose facility design.

The facility is to consist of:

Administration building and shop facility;

Spodumene ore processing plant;

Open pit;

TWRP for co-disposal of waste rock from the open pit and filtered and dewater tailings from the processing plant1; and

A surface water management system consisting of:

in-pit sumps to capture groundwater seepage and wall runoff within the open pit;

channel(s) around the TWRP to capture runoff and seepage from the waste pile;

sedimentation basins 1) adjacent to the administration/shop facility (Administration Pond) to capture runoff from the office and maintenance facility, 2) adjacent to the plant (Plant Pond) to capture runoff from the processing facility; 3) below the TWRP (Sedimentation Basin 1) to capture runoff and seepage off the waste rock and tailings, and 4) below open pit (Sedimentation Basin 2) to receive dewatering water from the open pit;

ancillary channels and piping to transport water across the site; and

two water discharge points to the receiving environment, i.e., Stream C and Lac des Montagnes for Sedimentation Basin 1 and Sedimentation Basin 2, respectively.

1 Figure 3_ shows the TWRP from an early mine pan with two construction phases. The current mine plan assumes four construction phases of roughly equal dimension.



Figure 4: Whabouchi Mine Plan



3.0 MODEL DESIGN Two models were developed for the Project to assist in the evaluation of the proposed discharge water quality on a monthly basis over the life of the mine and under closure and post-closure conditions. The models were developed in sequence, first a water balance model to quantify flows across the Project and then a mass balance model using monitoring and geochemical data to estimate water quality for each of the components of the water balance model.

The models for the Whabouchi Lithium Mine were developed using the GoldSim Technology Group's software GoldSim™. GoldSim is a highly graphical program for carrying out dynamic, probabilistic simulations to support decision-making. GoldSim is especially well suited to simulating a dynamic, computationally intensive but well-defined networked model with uncertain inputs into the system, such as water or mass balance simulations.

3.1 Water Balance Model 3.1.1 Conceptual Design The water balance model assumed that the water management plan was developed to collect, monitor and treat (if required) all contact water from the mine site. Contact water in this context included water collected from the mine and plant facilities, the TWRP, the open pit, and the milling and mine infrastructures. Contact water 1) from the administration and shop area and 2) from the plant area will be collected in separate sedimentation ponds (i.e., Administration and Plant Ponds) and used for makeup water for the plant. Water from the TWRP will be collected and report to Sedimentation Basin 1 for discharge to Stream C. Pit dewatering water during operations will report to Sedimentation Basin 2 which will also discharge to Lac des Montagnes and outfalls from the pit once flooded will report to the wetlands adjacent to the pit. All other runoff would follow natural watershed, and drainage water outside of the mine facilities will be protected with berms (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).

The water balance model simulated drainage water flows for several mine facilities at discrete intervals of time under average, wet and dry precipitation conditions to match the climate conditions. Monthly time steps were utilized in GoldSim to account for the seasonal variation in discharge volumes and chemistries. Table 2 lists the discrete windows of time, based on the current mine plan, during which water flows were simulated.

Table 2: Water Balance Model Timesteps

Facility Operation Closure (filling)

Post-Closure (post-stabilization)

TWRP/ Sedimentation Basin 1

Monthly time steps years 1 to 19

Years 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 71 Year 76

Open Pit

Monthly time steps years 1 to 19

Years 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 71 Year 76

Sedimentation Basin 2(1)

Monthly time steps years 1 to 19 not modelled not modelled

Administration/Plant Ponds not modelled

(1) Sedimentation Basin 2 will be decommissioned after closure



3.1.2 Water Balance Modules The model was constructed using a top-down hierarchical structure. Each section of the model was assembled using individual components, or modules, each of which contained additional model details. The modules were grouped together according to the contributing watersheds. A brief summary of the primary model modules are provided in the following order:

Administration Pond and Plant Pond (Section 3.1.3);

Sedimentation Basin 1 and TWRP (Section 3.1.4);

Sedimentation Basin 2 and Open Pit (Section 3.1.5); and

Climate and Runoff (Section 3.1.6).

Figure 5 is a schematic diagram of the components of the water balance model including 1) individual objects and 2) flow paths between objects. Table 3 summarizes the different sources and avenues of loss of water for the two ponds and the two sedimentation basins. The following sections briefly describe different sources and avenues of loss of water for these four infrastructures. Appendix A outlines each facility’s inputs and assumptions used in the model.

Table 3: Components of the Water Balance Model

Model Component Facilities Sources of Water Losses of Water

Administration Pond Administration/ Maintenance

Direct precipitation Evaporation Runoff from admin/shop Makeup water for plant (1)

Plant Pond Plant Direct precipitation Evaporation Runoff from plant Makeup water for plant (1)

Sedimentation Basin 1

TWRP Direct precipitation Discharge to Sedimentation Basin 1 Tailings water from plant

Basin 1

Direct precipitation Evaporation Runoff from area

between TWRP and basin Discharge to Stream C

Discharge from TWRP


Open Pit Direct precipitation Evaporation

Runoff from pit walls Discharge to Sedimentation Basin 2

Groundwater inflow

Basin 2

Direct precipitation Evaporation Runoff from area

upgradient of basin Discharge to Lac des Montagnes Discharge from open pit

(1) It is assumed that neither the Administration nor the Plant Ponds discharge to surface water.



Figure 5: GoldSim Conceptual Model Schematic Diagram



3.1.3 Administration Pond and Plant Pond The Administration Pond is located to the south of the Administration and Mine Maintenance and will collect drainage from peripheral ditches from the surrounding graded areas. Water will be used as process water makeup to the Plant site (PR2) with no water discharged to the surrounding environment (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).

The Plant Pond located to the south of the Plant will collect drainage from peripheral ditches from the surrounding graded areas. Water will also be used as process water makeup to the Plant site (PR1) with no water discharged to the surrounding environment (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).

The process plant inputs consist of water from the Administration Pond and Plant Pond. Any required makeup water being is supplied from local groundwater sources (well(s)) (PR3). The process plant directs all its water losses to the TWRP (PR4) in tailing moisture content (10% following pressure filtration) and to the concentrate shipped off site (5% to 6% by belt filtration) (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).

3.1.4 TWRP and Sedimentation Basin 1 During operations, Sedimentation Basin 1 will receive runoff and infiltration from the TWRP, as well as direct precipitation and undisturbed surface runoff from the catchment area up gradient of the basin and within the surrounding ditch. Storage within the Sedimentation Basin 1 is managed by water decanted from a low level outlet when volume exceeds its target operational volume of 3,500 m3. However, total storage within the facility can reach 140,000 m3 during extreme events (Journeaux associés, 2012).

During operations, the TWRP will receive direct precipitation and moisture from the filtered tailings. Water loss from the facility will include the following:

Surface water runoff to surrounding ditches and diverted to the Sedimentation Basin 1 (RO4);

Infiltration that will be collected by surrounding ditches and diverted to the Sedimentation Basin 1 (S2); and

Water losses to the TWRP2.

Over the mine life, the TWRP will grow from the southeast to the northwest. A series of temporary diversion ditches will direct non-contact water away from the facility, and divert the contact water to the surrounding ditches for delivery to Sedimentation Basin 1. The TWRP watershed will cover an area of approximately 114.4 ha by the end of mine life (Journeaux associés, 2012). The TWRP and Sedimentation Basin 1 input parameters and modeling assumptions are presented in Appendix A.

2 “Water losses” in the TWRP will include uptake of water by the tailings and waste rock after placement



3.1.5 Sedimentation Basin 2 During operations, Sedimentation Basin 2 will receive discharge from the open pit sump pump, as well as undisturbed surface runoff and direct precipitation from the catchment area surrounding the basin. The open pit sump pump will collect groundwater infiltration, direct precipitation and wall rock surface runoff that are captured in the pit. Storage within the Sedimentation Basin 2 is managed by water decanted from a low level outlet when volume exceeds its target operational volume of 22,354 m3. However, total storage within the facility can reach 82,000 m3 during extreme events (Journeaux associés, 2012). The Sedimentation Basin 2 input parameters and modeling assumptions are presented in Appendix A.

The open pit will receive discharge from the direct precipitation, surface runoff and groundwater. Groundwater has been assumed to increase linearly with time between the three snap shots of estimated seepage provided (Richelieu Hydrogéologie, 2012). While the open pit fills during the post closure period, seepage is assumed to decrease with increasing water elevations, using the inverse seepage rates and pit elevations provided by Richelieu Hydogéologie (2012)) in the absence of actual pit filling rates.

3.1.6 Climate and Runoff Modules Climate Parameters The probability of extreme precipitation years occurring consecutively is low and the timing of such precipitation years is expected to result in unique water qualities depending on when they occur during the project. A s such, to bracket the range of site climate conditions that are expected to occur, the model was designed to run several iterations only allowing a single 1 in 100 year wet or dry annual event to occur once per iteration. For each model realization, each non-extreme precipitation year was assigned average model flows. Extreme precipitation years were evaluated for each operational year and every twentieth year during post closure. For discussion purposes, only the results pertaining to the wet and dry years were extracted from the model and presented in the summary tables in Appendix D. The climatic input parameters and modeling assumptions are presented in Table 1 and Appendix A.

Runoff Parameters Runoff in the water balance model is estimated according to catchment types. The following catchment types have been assumed:

Paved areas: a combination of gravel surfaces and infrastructures (e.g., the mill area and road surfaces);

Waste areas: areas where waste rock has been placed, or which have been prepared for placement;

Undisturbed areas: represent areas of undisturbed natural growth; and

Pit areas: represent the open pit footprint areas.

Table 4 lists the runoff coefficients (Rc) used for the various areas. The Rc account for losses due to evaporation, storage, and infiltration.



Table 4: Water Balance Model Assumptions – Runoff Coefficients Variable/Parameter Value

Rc Plant Site 0.6 Rc TWRP 0.46 Rc Basin 1.0 Rc Natural Ground(1) 0.7-0.3

(1) 0.7 during freshet and 0.3 for the remainder of the year

3.2 Water Quality Model 3.2.1 Conceptual Model Water quality at the proposed Whabouchi Lithium Mine site was modeled during mine operation, closure, and post-closure using GoldSim. The mass balance model was constructed within the water balance model to allow pumped and natural water flows to be incorporated within the water quality model. Background water qualities for site-specific surface water, rainwater and groundwater were incorporated into the water quality model to represent the natural flows detailed in the water balance. Geochemical testing results for mine waste material were used to determine mass loading rates for waste rock and tailings deposited in the TWRP, and waste rock and mineralized rock exposed in the open pit. Model construction is discussed in detail in Appendix C.

Water quality was simulated for specific windows of time during the 1) operational phase of the project for discharge from Sedimentation Basin 1, which will receive runoff and seepage from the TWRP, and discharge from Sedimentation Basin 2, which will receive the pit sump discharge, and during 2) post-closure for the proposed pit lake. The following is a discussion of the mass balance model and the simulated drainage water qualities.

The overall objectives of the water quality modeling were to identify any potential exceedances of the Quebec Directive 019 regulatory criteria for mine discharge water (MDDEP, 2012) and the Quebec surface water quality for the protection of aquatic life (MDDEFP, 2013b) criteria during the operation, closure and post-closure phases of the Project. In the event that a potential exceedance occurs, Golder has:

1) Identified when it occurred (e.g., during operations, wet, dry or average year, or post-closure); and

2) Identified where it occurred (e.g., discharge from Sedimentation Basin 1 or 2 and pit lake).

3.2.2 Water Quality Model Boundary Conditions The water quality model simulated drainage water quality for several mine facilities at discrete intervals of time under average, wet and dry precipitation conditions to match the climate conditions of the water balance model. Monthly time steps were utilized in GoldSim to account for the seasonal variation in discharge volumes and chemistries. Table 5 lists the discrete windows of time of the water quality model, based on the current mine plan, during which water qualities were simulated.



Table 5: Proposed Water Quality Model Windows of Time 1 Facility Operation Closure Post-Closure

TWRP/ Sedimentation Basin 1

Years 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 19 not modelled not modelled

Open Pit/ Sedimentation Basin 2

Years 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 19 Pit Lake Flooding Years 5 and 10,

Post-stabilization Administration/Plant not modelled

(1) Source: After Figure 16.15 to 16.23 in Met-Chem Canada, 2012.

The geochemical mass balance model utilized the results of the ore reserve model to quantify the tonnages of waste rock extracted and tailings processed and delivered to the TWRP, as well as the exposed geology in the open pit through the mine life. In order to reconcile the site geology with the ore reserve model tonnages, the site geology was simplified into units of waste rock and ore. Lamont (2013) concluded that the geochemical signature of the two mafic units (e.g., basalt and gabbro) were the same and could be grouped together as a single unit parsed along lines of Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) potential (e.g., Potentially Acid Generating (PAG) rock and non-Potentially Acid Generating (non-PAG) rock). In a similar fashion, the spodumene pegmatite and the barren pegmatite were geochemically very similar; particularly for spodumene pegmatite below the ore grade cut-off. Table 6 is a summary of the geologic units utilized in the ore reserve and water quality models.

Table 6: Ore Reserve and Water Quality Model Geologic Units

Geologic Units

Geochemical Subsets

Ore Reserve Model

Water Quality Model Units

Mixing Proportions (Pit Walls)

Mixing Proportions

(TWRP)

Tailings Tailings1 Tailings Tailings 0% 20%

Basalt PAG1

Waste Waste 80% 80%

Non-PAG1

Gabbro PAG1

Non-PAG1 Barren

Pegmatite Barren

Pegmatite1 Lithium

Pegmatite Lithium

Pegmatite Lithium

Pegmatite Lithium

Pegmatite2 20% 1 Humidity cell tests existed for these rock types 2Barren pegmatite was used as a proxy for lithium pegmatite because no kinetic data existed for lithium pegmatite 3.2.3 Input Water Chemistry and Water Quality Comparative Criteria Input to the mine water quality was based on information gathered from baseline water quality studies and geochemical analysis of potential mine waste. The different source materials for each of the mine facilities from which drainage chemistry was predicted to originate are listed in Table 7. Mass loads for each facility were estimated by mixing each of the contributing source chemistries in their relative proportions. Specific flow rates were coupled with baseline water chemistries to generate chemical loading rates. Baseline sources of chemical load included direct precipitation, undisturbed surface water runoff and groundwater infiltration. Contact waters from TWRP seepage and runoff, and from wall rock runoff in the open pit were predicted from geochemical testing results and using industry-standard practices, discussed in Appendix C.



Drainage water qualities from Sedimentation Basin 1 and Sedimentation Basin 2 were determined by adding all chemical loads received by the TWRP and the open pit operations sump, respectively, and dividing by the total water inflow to the respective receiving sedimentation basin. The water quality of the pit lake was similarly determined by adding all chemicals loads received by the pit sump and dividing by the total water inflow to the pit. Secondary, geochemical processes of adsorption and precipitation were not explicitly considered in the calculations, as such, some reported concentrations could potentially be oversaturated.

Table 7: Source Terms for the Input Parameters of the Water Quality Model

Mine Facility Input Source(s)


Direct Precipitation (Rainwater) Surface Water Tailings Water Tailings Loading Rates PAG Waste Rock Loading Rates Non-PAG Waste Rock Loading Rates


Direct Precipitation (Rainwater) Groundwater Surface Water Barren Pegmatite Loading Rates PAG Waste Rock Loading Rates Non-PAG Waste Rock Loading Rates

Pit Lake

Direct Precipitation (Rainwater) Groundwater Barren Pegmatite Loading Rates PAG Waste Rock Loading Rates Non-PAG Waste Rock Loading Rates

Table 8 presents the chemistries of the different input waters used for the model. The table includes average water quality chemical data derived from groundwater and surface water quality monitoring conducted by Nemaska Lithium, as well as average time-dependent kinetic testing leachate chemistries from the geochemical laboratory testing (Lamont, 2013). The average water quality estimates used half of the detection limits for concentrations reported as below the detection limits. The geochemical data was divided into the first flush or early-time data and steady-state or long-term data from humidity cell tests. The first flush data typically had elevated dissolved anion and cation concentrations derived from dissolution of readily solubilized secondary salts and from smaller grains of the crushed sample that release cations and anions due to the large surface areas. The steady state data represented release of dissolved ions derived from the long-term congruent and incongruent chemical reactions within the sample brought about by dissolution and oxidation of the rock. Appendix C includes a detailed discussion of input sources.



The Table 8 also includes the relevant water quality guidelines for comparison with the concentrations of parameters from the different input sources used in the water quality model. The guidelines include the following:

Quebec Mine Effluent Criteria:

Directive 019 – Acceptable Average Concentration (One-Month Arithmetic) (MDDEP, 2012); and

Directive 019 – Acceptable Maximum Concentration in a Grab Sample (MDDEP, 2012).

Quebec Surface Water Criteria:

Surface water quality for the protection of aquatic life – Acute toxicity (CVAA) (MDDEFP, 2013b); and

Surface water quality for the protection of aquatic life – Chronic effects (CVAC) (MDDEFP, 2013b).

The chronic effects criteria of the aquatic life guidelines were greater than the detection limits for beryllium in surface water and groundwater analyses and cadmium in groundwater analyses. Since the measured concentrations of beryllium and cadmium in surface and groundwater samples were all below the respective detection limits, it is impossible to know whether the actual concentrations were above or below the respective water quality guidelines.

June 2013 Table 8Mass Balance Input Parameters for the Whabouchi Lithium Mine Project Water Quality Model

1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

1 Golder Associates Ltd. O:\Final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000\Tables\Table 8 - Input Water Chemistry_21Jun13_saa .xlsx

First Flush Steady State First Flush Steady State First Flush Steady State First Flush Steady State

Modelled ParameterspH - - 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 pH units 6.1 5.4 7.3 6.3 7.1 6.5 7.1 6.8 6.9 6.1Alkalinity - - - - mg/L 34 4.0 31 1.0 8.4 1.3 7.9 3.8 6.0 1.4Acidity - - - - mg/L - - 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.9Hardness - - - - mg/L - 17 - - - - - - - -Sulfate - - 500 A 500 A mg/L 25 1.1 0.68 0.10 0.30 0.10 1.6 0.64 4.5 2.6Flouride - - 4 B 0.2 B mg/L - 0.05 0.044 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Nitrate - - - 2.9 mg/L - 0.042 - - - - - - - -Ammonium - - 2.0 - 26 C 0.38 - 1.9 C mg/L - - - - - - - - - -Aluminum - - 0.75 D 0.087 D mg/L 0.11 0.18 0.090 0.0080 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.033 0.030 0.0085Antimony - - 1.1 0.24 mg/L 0.0024 0.00056 0.00085 0.00024 0.0021 0.00038 0.00059 0.00020 0.00050 0.00031Silver - - 0.00013 E 0.0001 mg/L 0.000071 0.00005 0.0000050 0.0000050 - 0.0000050 - 0.0000050 - 0.0000080Arsenic 0.2 0.4 0.34 0.15 mg/L 0.00025 0.0005 0.00064 0.00032 0.0025 0.00026 0.00071 0.00062 0.00021 0.00028Barium - - 0.23 E 0.079 E mg/L 0.022 0.0034 0.00066 0.00017 0.00029 0.00013 0.00042 0.00038 0.00033 0.00025Beryllium - - 0.00037 E 0.000041 E mg/L 0.00025 0.00025 0.0023 0.00064 0.000023 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010Boron - - - - mg/L 0.0058 0.000125 0.000090 0.000011 0.0030 0.00026 0.0018 0.00025 0.0023 0.00035Bismuth - - 28 5 mg/L - 0.0025 0.00047 0.000066 0.00001 0.000008 0.0000050 0.0000050 0.0000050 0.0000050Cadmium - - 0.00042 E 0.000082 E mg/L 0.00010 0.00002 0.000033 0.000017 0.0000066 0.0000034 0.000011 0.0000015 0.0000071 0.0000025Calcium - - - - mg/L 9.1 1.5 8.2 0.42 1.2 0.60 2.0 1.7 3.3 1.0Chromium - - 0.48 E, III 0.023 E, III mg/L 0.00032 0.0003 0.0019 0.00025 0.00045 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025Cobalt - - 0.37 0.1 mg/L 0.0020 0.0003 0.000086 0.000037 0.0000063 0.000046 0.000037 0.000069 0.000084 0.0076Copper 0.3 0.6 0.0031 E 0.0024 E mg/L 0.0058 0.0005 0.0044 0.00083 0.0045 0.00032 0.00043 0.00047 0.00096 0.00091Iron 3 6 3.4 1.3 mg/L 1.1 0.18 0.020 0.0062 0.0024 0.0015 0.0090 0.0025 0.0062 0.017Lithium - - 0.91 0.44 mg/L 0.02 0.005 0.12 0.0030 0.12 0.0022 0.16 0.0070 0.11 0.0062Magnesium - - - - mg/L 0.73 0.35 0.64 0.0098 0.050 0.0080 0.43 0.17 0.63 0.16Manganese - - 1 E 0.47 E mg/L 0.084 0.013 0.051 0.030 0.0065 0.0087 0.0013 0.0022 0.0019 0.018Mercury - - 0.0016 0.00091 mg/L 0.00028 0.000005 0.000050 0.000033 0.000050 0.000032 0.000050 0.000050 0.000050 0.000034Molybdenum - - 29 3.2 mg/L 0.0030 0.0003 0.00097 0.000033 0.0016 0.000032 0.00057 0.000018 0.0011 0.00012Nickel 0.5 1 0.12 E 0.013 E mg/L 0.0064 0.00024 0.0032 0.00022 0.000088 0.000060 0.00014 0.00023 0.00029 0.0086Lead 0.2 0.4 0.011 E 0.00041 E mg/L 0.00025 0.00015 0.00018 0.000018 0.000045 0.000024 0.000013 0.000034 0.000040 0.000013Potassium - - - - mg/L 0.78 0.2 1.1 0.076 2.3 0.16 0.61 0.077 0.29 0.027Selenium - - 0.062 0.005 mg/L 0.00055 0.00054 0.00028 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050Sodium - - - - mg/L 19 0.74 7.2 0.080 1.9 0.062 1.2 0.063 1.2 0.062Tin - - 40 21 mg/L 0.00057 0.0005 0.0032 0.0012 0.0010 0.00011 0.0011 0.00031 0.00094 0.00011Strontium - - - - mg/L - - 0.014 0.00032 0.0021 0.00052 0.0022 0.0012 0.0035 0.0013Thallium - - 0.047 0.0072 mg/L 0.00050 0.0010 0.000058 0.000012 0.000085 0.000010 0.000028 0.000010 0.000021 0.000032Titanium - - - - mg/L - 0.0008 0.00026 0.000050 0.000050 0.000050 0.00038 0.00015 0.00020 0.000050Uranium - - 0.32 E 0.014 E mg/L 0.0021 0.0005 0.021 0.00024 0.14 0.0034 0.000080 0.000016 0.00017 0.000012Vanadium - - 0.11 0.012 mg/L 0.0012 0.0010 0.00029 0.000015 0.000048 0.000022 0.0018 0.00079 0.00079 0.000081Tungsten - - - - mg/L - - 0.00062 0.000015 0.0022 0.000015 0.00065 0.000026 0.00028 0.000015Yttrium - - - - mg/L - - 0.000012 0.0000020 0.000048 0.00000080 0.0000031 0.00000090 0.0000019 0.0000040Zinc 0.5 1 0.031 E 0.031 E mg/L 0.017 0.0055 0.0075 0.0016 0.0010 0.0024 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0044NOTE1A. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/directive019/1B. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp

A. Ce critère de qualité s'applique aux eaux dont la dureté est < 100 mg/L et dont la concentration en chlorures est < 5 mg/L.B. Ce critère de qualité a été calculé à partir de données de toxicité pour de faibles duretés (≤ 120 mg/L (CaCO3)).C. Ce critère varie en fonction du pH et de la température.D. Ce critère varie en fonction du pH.E. Ce critère varie en fonction de la dureté.F. Critère provisoire selon l’organisme d’où provient la valeur.G. Des objectifs d’ordre esthétiques sont disponibles pour certains paramètres.III. Chrome (III)

Criteria exceeds Critères de Qualité de L'eau de Surface (Protection de la Vie Aquatique) Effect Aigue (CVAA) XXXCriteria exceeds Critères de Qualité de L'eau de Surface (Protection de la Vie Aquatique) Effect Chronique (CVAC) XXX

Groundwater Surface waterModel Inputs

Acceptable Average Concentration (One-Month Arithmetic)

Acceptable Maximum Concentration in a

Grab SampleAcute Toxicity (CVAA) Chronic Effect (CVAC)

Units

Average

Tailings Barren Pegmatite (Ore) Waste Rock - NonPAG Waste Rock - PAGQuebec Directive 019 1A Quebec Surface Water Quality 1B



3.2.4 Explosives Use Explosives used at mine sites can be a source of nitrogen and sodium into drainage waters. Residue from emulsion explosives is a potential source of sodium, ammonium and nitrate to site waters. However, prediction of the release rates of nitrogen species from a mine site due to the use of ammonium nitrate based explosives is highly variable. According to Morin and Hutt (2009), many factors contribute to the release of nitrogen from blasting, the most important of which is the handling or mishandling of the explosives including spillage while loading the blast holes or blast inefficiency (e.g., undetonated or partially detonated blast holes). For this reason, predicted concentrations and nitrogen species released from blasting are estimates at best.

Nemaska Lithium will use 100% emulsions in the development and mining of the proposed Whabouchi Lithium Mine open pit. Blast design, including the rate of emulsion use, is described in Met-Chem Canada report (2012). Tonnages of emulsion used in each year of operations were calculated using the blast design and tonnages of waste and ore to be moved per year as indicated in the Mine Plan (Met-Chem Canada, 2012). Morin and Hutt (2009) reported nitrogen loss from blasting ranged from 1% to 6%. Residual loadings of sodium, ammonium and nitrate for the Project were calculated assuming a waste rate of 1%. The waste rate is expected to decrease with increasing emulsion used for blasting (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).

An additional assumption used in the model was that approximately 60% of the residual loadings will report to the TWRP and that the remaining 40% will reside in the open pit, eventually reporting to the open pit sump.

3.2.5 Model Assumptions A detailed discussion of the water quality model design including the assumptions used in constructing the model is included in Appendix C. This section summarizes the key assumptions used in the water quality model:

The water quality data used in the model are representative of their respective input sources.

The water quality model used dissolved concentrations. Total concentrations could be higher than the results presented here because of the contribution to chemical loading from suspended particulates in water which has not been modelled.

Measured water quality parameter values that were less than the analytical detection limit have been assumed to be half of the minimum detection limit for modeling purposes. This may result in elevated predicted concentrations for some parameters.

The modelled proportions of PAG and non-PAG waste rock, waste rock and tailings in the TWRP, and waste rock and pegmatite in the open pit are remaining unchanged within these facilities over the mine life.

There is complete mixing of dissolved constituent masses in the TWRP drainage, the open pit sump, the Sedimentation Basin 2, the Sedimentation Basin 1 and the proposed pit lake.

Surface runoff over the TWRP interacts at maximum with the upper 25 cm of material. All surface runoff and infiltration that interact with the TWRP are collected by Sedimentation Basin 1. The chemical interaction between waste and water are limited to this zone.

Groundwater seepage into the open pit is continuous.

Wall rock runoff within the open pit infiltrates the pit walls and bottom at maximum 1-m of wall rock thickness. The chemical interaction between rock and water are limited to this thickness of rock.



4.0 MODEL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Water Balance Results 4.1.1 During Operations The water balance model assessed the flow of water between the different mine facilities to Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2 for mining years 1 to 19 (operation phase) and for three climatic scenarios: average, 1 in 100 year wet, and 1 in 100 year dry. Model-predicted inflow and outflow volumes were prepared for each of the facilities shown in Figure 5:

Open Pit contact water sump;

Mill contact water;

Plant Pond;

Administration Pond;

Sedimentation Basin 1; and

Sedimentation Basin 2.

The results of the model are summarized in Appendix D, Tables D1, D2, and D3 for average, 1 in 100 year wet, and 1 in 100 year dry climate scenarios, respectively.

Total inflows to Sedimentation Basin 1 were predicted to increase from 298,000 m3/year in year 1 to 744,000 m3/year in year 19 under the average precipitation scenario as the TWRP footprint increased over the mine life. The increase was higher for 1 in 100 year wet (between 402,000 and 1,043,000 m3/year) and lower for 1 in 100 year dry (between 224,000 and 528,000 m3/year) scenarios. Total outflows from Sedimentation Basin 1 to Stream C ranged from 297,000 to 742,000 m3/year.

Sedimentation Basin 2 inflows were initially less than inflows to Sedimentation Basin 1 under similar climate models but increased significantly as the open pit footprint increased and the pit penetrated deeper beneath the water table. Inflows for average climate scenarios increased from 119,000 to 985,000 m3/year by year 19. The inflow rates for the wet and dry climate scenarios showed similar increases of between 159,000 and 1,077,000 m3/year for the 1 in 100 year wet case and between 92,000 and 919,000 m3/year for the 1 in 100 year dry model simulations. The outflows from Sedimentation Basin 2 to Lac des Montagnes ranged from 92,000 to 976,000 m3/year.

The discussion that follows is intended to summarize flows and flow rates from elements in the water balance model that directly impact the chemistry of the water collecting in Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2. The reader is directed to Appendix D for additional information concerning the results of the water balance model.



4.1.1.1 Sedimentation Basin 1 Water Balance Flow of water to Sedimentation Basin 1 was dominated by discharge from the TWRP. Figure 6 is a plot of annual inflow rates (m3/year) for the average climate scenario.

Over the course of the operation phase of the mine, flows from the TWRP to Sedimentation Basin 1 increased in stages that matched the stepwise growth of the TWRP facility from 286,000 m3/year in year 1, 331,000 m3/year for years 2 to 6, 497,000 m3/year for years 7 to 11, 572,000 m3/year for years 12 to 15 and 718,000 m3/year for years 16 to 19. The model assumed that flows from the TWRP remained unchanged at 575,000 m3/year through the post-closure phase. The current mine plan assumes concurrent reclamation in the form of revegetation of approximately a third of the TWRP during operations (36%). The objective of the vegetation cover is to enhance runoff and decrease infiltration through the pile. However, since design parameters for the cover were not available at the time of this study, the model did not simulate a cover over the TWRP.

For the years 1 to 19 (operation phase), direct precipitation on Sedimentation Basin 1 remained unchanged (1,412 m3/year). For the same period, run-on increased marginally within each time step, from 14,000 m3/year in year 1 to 24,000 m3/year at the end of the mining operation.

Figure 6: Rates of Inflows to Sedimentation Basin 1, Average Rainfall Scenario



Variation in rainfall between the 1 in 100 year wet and dry scenarios showed very little change in the inflow rates compared with the average precipitation scenario. Appendix D (Tables D1, D2, and D3) lists the flow rates for the average, wet and dry scenarios, respectively. Tables 9, 10 and 11 summarize the proportions of the different inflows from the water balance model to Sedimentation Basin 1 for the average, 1 in 100 year wet, and 1 in 100 year dry climate scenarios, respectively.

Discharge from the TWRP under average precipitation constituted between 92% and 96% of the flows into Sedimentation Basin 1. Under 1 in 100 year wet conditions, run-on into the basin increased slightly and the contribution of inflow from the TWRP declined to between 90% and 95% of the inflow volume. Conversely, in the 1 in 100 year dry conditions, the reverse occurs and runon decreased and the TWRP flow increased to 95% to 97% inflow volumes.



Table 9: Proportions of Inflows to Sedimentation Basins - Average Precipitation (1) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Sedimentation Basin 1

Basin Precipitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin Runoff 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 Seepage From TWRP 59 64 64 64 64 64 57 57 57 57 57 55 55 54 54 52 52 52 52

Runoff From TWRP 36 31 31 31 31 31 39 39 39 39 39 42 42 41 41 45 45 45 45

Total Inflows 100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Sedimentation Basin 2 Pit Precipitation 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pit Groundwater 24 45 56 64 69 70 68 69 72 74 76 76 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 Pit Wall 65 49 40 32 27 27 30 29 26 24 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 Basin Precipitation 7 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Basin Runoff 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total From Pit 91 95 96 96 97 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

Total Inflows 100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

(1) Note the percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.



Table 10: Proportions of Inflow to Sedimentation Basins - 1 in 100 year Wet Precipitation (1) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 `4 15 16 17 18 19


Basin Precipitation 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin Runoff 6 6 6 6 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 Seepage from TWRP 56 60 60 60 60 60 55 55 55 55 55 53 53 53 53 51 51 51 51

Runoff from TWRP 37 33 33 33 33 33 40 40 40 40 40 42 42 42 42 44 44 44 44

Total Inflows 100 100 100 100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Sedimentation Basin 2 Pit Precipitation 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pit Groundwater 18 36 47 55 61 62 60 61 64 67 69 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 Pit Wall 68 55 47 39 34 34 37 36 33 30 29 29 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 Basin Precipitation 10 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Basin Runoff 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total From Pit 88 93 94 95 96 96 97 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

Total Inflows 100 100 100 100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

(1) Note the percentages have been rounded to nearest integer.



Table 11: Proportions of Inflows to Sedimentation Basins - 1 in 100 year Dry Precipitation (1)

Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


Basin Precipitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin Runoff 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Seepage from TWRP 62 69 68 68 68 68 59 59 59 59 59 56 56 56 56 52 52 52 52 Runoff from TWRP 35 28 28 28 28 28 38 38 38 38 38 41 41 41 41 45 45 45 45 Total Inflows 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Sedimentation Basin 2 Pit Precipitation 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pit Groundwater 31 54 64 71 76 77 75 76 78 80 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 83 Pit Wall 61 42 33 26 22 22 24 23 21 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 Basin Precipitation 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin Runoff 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total From Pit 94 96 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Discharge 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(1) Note the percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer



4.1.1.2 Sedimentation Basin 2 Water Balance Pumped discharge from the open pit was the primary source of water conveyed to Sedimentation Basin 2. Figure 7 is a plot of the flow rates (m3/year) of the different sources of water reporting to Sedimentation Basin 2 for the average rainfall climate model, including the individual flow components from the open pit, groundwater and pit wall runoff.

Figure 7: Rates of Inflows to Sedimentation Basin 2, Average Rainfall Scenario

The change in pit wall runoff and groundwater flow rates over time was a direct response to changes in the pit geometry. Figure 8 shows the shape of the Whabouchi open pit over the first two years of production (the starter pit), during development of the final push back, and the final pit elevation of 118 m amsl (final pit). Pit wall runoff remained at or near 150,000 m3/year during the time of the starter pit and rose to a value of near 294,000 m3/year once the final pit crest was established. The groundwater inflow rates rose steadily from 29,000 m3/year, at the onset of mining in the starter pit to 701,000 m3/year in year 11 while the pushback was developed and then flattened out to a final rate of 758,000 m3/year as the pushback was deepened.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

1 6 11 16 21

Flow

s (m

3 /yea

r)

Mine Life (years)Pit Precipitation Pit Groundwater inflows Pit Wall RunoffBasin Precipitation Basin Runoff

Final pit crest limitsFinal pit crest limitsFinal pit crest limits

Starter pit



The proportions of inflow into Sedimentation Basin 2 from the open pit increased from 91% in year 1 to 99% from year 8 to the end of mine life for the average precipitation scenario (Table 9). The proportions of pit wall runoff to groundwater flow, as components of the overall pit discharge, changed from primarily pit wall runoff in year 1 to primarily groundwater beginning in year 2 and with groundwater inflows increasing in importance through the end of mine life. Local sources of inflow to Sedimentation Basin 2, such as direct precipitation to the basin and local runoff, constituted nearly 10% of the total inflow to the basin in year 1 but rapidly declined to values less than 1%.

Under wetter climatic conditions (i.e., 1 in 100 year wet model simulations), inflows to Sedimentation Basin 2 sourced from precipitation increased in importance; although pit water remained the primary overall source of water to the basin (Table 10). Total inflows from the open pit increased from 88% in year 1 to 98% by year 8 and the proportions of pit wall runoff increased over groundwater inflow (e.g., pit wall runoff was the dominant inflow to the pit through year 3). Local sources of inflow to Sedimentation Basin 2 (i.e., direct precipitation on the basin and runon) represented 12% of the total inflows in year 1 but rapidly declined to 1% through year 19.

Under the 1 in 100 year dry precipitation scenario (Table 11), groundwater was a greater water source in proportion to pit wall runoff, and runoff and direct precipitation to Sedimentation Basin 2. Pit discharge constituted between 94% and 99% of the total flows to the basin, but groundwater increased from 31% in year 1 (pit wall runoff was 61% for year 1) to 83% by the end of mine life compared with proportions of 74% and 70% for the end of mine groundwater inflows for average and 1 in 100 year wet scenarios, respectively.



Figure 8: Pit Geometry through Time (Met-Chem Canada, 2012)

4.1.2 Closure and Post-Closure Phases Upon cessation of mining in the open pit at year 19 and suspension of ore processing in the mill, placement of waste rock and filtered tailings on the TWRP will cease and the open pit will begin to flood. Results from the water balance model for post-closure flows into Sedimentation Basin 1 and the open pit during flooding are attached in Appendix D, Table D1. Table D1 lists the flows for average precipitation only. Extreme precipitation years were evaluated for each operational year, but every twentieth year only during post closure phase due to the uncertainty of extrapolating the limited climatic data into the distant future (Section 3.1.6).

Year 2 Starter Pit

Year 9 Final Pit Perimeter

Year 19 Final Pit



4.1.2.1 Sedimentation Basin 1 Water Balance The flows to Sedimentation Basin 1 remained unchanged following cessation of mining and milling activities at the Project except for seepage volumes which decreased slightly because of the loss of residual process water in the tailings that had been accounted for within the model during operations. A vegetated cover is planned for progressive reclamation of the TWRP. The objective of the vegetation cover is to enhance runoff and decrease infiltration through the pile. However, for modeling purposes, since design parameters for the cover were not available at the time of this study, no changes to runoff or infiltration are considered in the post-closure phase.

Table 12 lists the proportions of the flows from the different components of the water balance for the average climate scenario after cessation of mining. Runoff (55%) and seepage (41%) from the TWRP remained the primary sources of inflow to Sedimentation Basin 1.

Table 12: Proportions of Inflows to Sedimentation Basins and Open Pit After Closure and Post-Closure - Average Precipitation (1)(2)

Year 19

Year 25

Year 35

Year 45

Year 55

Year 65

Year 71

Year 76

% % % % % % % %

Flows Into Sedimentation Basin 1 Basin Precipitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin Runoff 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Runoff from TWRP 52 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Seepage from TWRP 45 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 Total Discharge 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Flows Into Open Pit Pit Precipitation 0 14 29 45 61 79 90 90 Pit Groundwater 78 68 56 41 26 11 3 2 Pit Wall 22 17 15 14 13 10 8 8 Total Inflows To Pit 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(1)Years presented account for the pit filling periods and 5 years post closure (2) Note the percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer

4.1.2.2 Pit Flooding Figure 9 is a staged water volume recovery curve for the open pit from the water balance model. Once mining stopped, the pit was predicted to reach a steady state elevation of 288.5 m amsl in approximately 52 years. When fully flooded (Year 71), the model assumed that excess water from the pit lake, not accounted by surface evaporation, estimated at approximately 148,000 m3/year would discharge to the wetlands south-west of the pit (Met-Chem Canada, 2012).



Figure 9: Stage Recovery Curve for the Whabouchi Pit Lake

Groundwater seepage and pit wall runoff were the major inflows into the pit during the first years of pit flooding (78% and 22% in year five, respectively) because of: 1) the large hydraulic gradient between the natural groundwater elevation and the final draw down cone surrounding the open pit, and 2) the large surface area of the pit walls above the pit lake surface. With time, both sources of water to the pit lake declined and were replaced by direct precipitation (90%) as the principal contributor to the pit lake by the time the lake had reached the steady state elevation. Figure 10 is plot of flow rates for the different sources of water to the open pit during operations and following cessation of mining. Figure 10 also shows that the primary contributor to the surface discharge after the pit lake reached the final elevation was precipitation falling on the lake.

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

1 21 41 61 81 101

Pit V

olum

e (m

3 )

Mine Life (years)

Pit Volume

End of Mine Life

Final Pit Lake at 71 years



Figure 10: Inflow Rates to the Open Pit during Operations and Flooding

4.2 Water Quality Results The water quality model simulated drainage water qualities under average, 1 in 100 year wet and 1 in 100 year dry climate conditions in Sedimentation Basin 1 and Sedimentation Basin 2 during operations and in the proposed pit lake during closure and post-closure for average precipitation conditions. The results of the GoldSim water quality model reported as average annual concentrations are provided in Appendix E, Tables E1, E2, and E3 for Sedimentation Basin 1 and Sedimentation Basin 2 for discrete time steps for years 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 19 and the Open Pit for the half-filled and for the final pit lake 5 and 10 years post-stabilization. Simulated water qualities were compared to the same water quality guidelines as applied to the input water chemistry (Section 3.2.3 and Table 8) in order to highlight exceedances and parameters of concern.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71

Flow

s (m

3 /yea

r)

Mine Life (years)

Pit Precipitation Pit Groundwater Inflows Pit Wall Runoff

Operations Post Closure

Pit Water Elevation at Maximum (288.5m amsl)



4.2.1 Regulatory Compliance No predicted average annual concentrations exceeded the Directive 019 effluent criteria. However, the concentrations of select metals are predicted to exceed the surface water quality for the protection of aquatic life acute toxicity (CVAA) and/or chronic effects (CVAC) criteria. Table 13 lists the parameters with average annual concentrations that exceeded one or more of the acute toxicity or chronic effects criteria. During operations, ammonium, beryllium, and copper exceeded the acute toxicity criteria in Sedimentation Basins 1 and/or 2 and copper in the pit lake. Nitrate, ammonium, aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, copper, and uranium exceeded the chronic effects criteria in Sedimentation Basins 1 and/or 2 and aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, and copper in the pit lake. The data suggested:

Although the differences in predicted concentrations between the average, 1 in 100 year wet, and 1 in 100 year dry climate models were small, the lowest concentrations generally occurred in predictions from the 1 in 100 year wet climate scenario and the highest in predictions from the 1 in 100 year dry scenario. This is a consequence of the model design, where a fixed load was assumed to be mobilized for a given time window and as a consequence, greater site water flow (wet conditions) resulted in more dilute solutions while low site water flow (dry conditions) resulted in higher concentrations.

Where the predicted concentrations were greater than the respective criteria, the differences were small and generally less than an order of magnitude.

Many of the predicted concentrations were very low, near the detection limits (e.g., cadmium and beryllium). Concentrations reported as below the detection limit used half of the minimum detection limit for averaging and as a consequence, the actual concentration may be less than the model predicted concentrations.

Nitrate and ammonium concentrations were predicted to be elevated in the water of Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2. These elevated concentrations arose from the use of ammonium nitrate explosives in the mine (Section 3.2.4) but were based on assumptions that were highly sensitive to explosives management at site, rock fracturing characteristics and climate (precipitation and water management). The predicted nitrogen species (ammonium, nitrate and nitrite) concentrations varied with the production schedule, reaching a maximum concentration in Sedimentation Basin 1 around year 11 in parallel with the maximum tonnages mined and then, the concentrations declined as tonnages declined. Nitrogen species showed an overall decrease in time in water of Sedimentation Basin 2 because the increases in groundwater inflows to the pit compensated for the increased load of nitrogen from the blasted muck. Experience has shown that concentrations can vary substantially on a weekly basis and seasonally with changes in site conditions. The accuracy of these predictions may be low, since concentrations may vary by more than one order of magnitude.



Table 13: Summary of Predicted Exceedances to Water Quality Guidelines

Quebec Surface Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life

Predicted Exceedances Quebec Surface Water Quality for the Protection of Aquatic Life

Acute Toxicity (mg/L)

Chronic Effects (mg/L)

Acute Toxicity (mg/L)

Chronic Effects (mg/L)


Average

NH4+ (2.0 - 26)

Be (0.00037) Cu (0.0031)

NO3- (2.9)

NH4+ (0.38 - 1.9)

Al (0.087) Be (0.000041)(1)

Cu (0.0024) U (0.014)

NH4+ (93)

Be (0.0046) Cu (0.0091)

NO3- (406)

NH4+(93)

Al (0.21) Be (0.0046) Cu (0.0091) U (0.041) (2)

1-in-100 Year Wet

NH4+ (91)

Be (0.00467) Cu (0.0091)

NO3- (398)

NH4+ (91)

Al (0.21) Be (0.0046) Cu (0.0091) U (0.040) (2)

1-in-100 Year Dry

NH4+ (96)

Be (0.0047) Cu (0.0092)

NO3- (418)

NH4+ (96)

Al (0.21) Be (0.0047) Cu (0.0091) U (0.042) (2)


Average

Cu (0.0031)

NO3- (2.9)

NH4+ (0.38 - 1.9)

Be (0.000041)(1) Cd (0.000082)(1)

Cu (0.0024)

Cu (0.0048) NO3- (6.1)

NH4+ (1.4)

Al (0.095) Be (0.00021)

Cd (0.000083) Cu (0.0048)

1-in-100 Year Wet

Cu (0.0048) NO3-(5.9)

NH4+ (1.3)

Al (0.095) Be (0.00021) Cu (0.0048)

1-in-100 Year Dry

Cu (0.0049) NO3- (6.4)

NH4+ (1.5)

Al (0.096) Be (0.00021)

Cd (0.000083) Cu (0.0049)

Pit Lake

Lake Recovery

Cu (0.0031)

Al (0.087) Be (0.000041)(1) Cd (0.000082)(1)

Cu (0.0024)

Cu (0.005) Al (0.10) Be (0.00022)

Cd (0.000089) Cu(0.0052)

5 years Post- Stabilization

Cu (0.005) Al (0.10) Be (0.00021)

Cd (0.000085) Cu (0.005)

10 years Post- Stabilization

Cu (0.005) Al (0.095) Be (0.00021) Cu (0.0048)

(1) Water quality criteria exceeded the maximum detection limit for either groundwater or surface water analyses or both. (2) Uranium concentrations exceeded the chronic effects guidelines only from year 7.



4.2.2 Temporal Variation in Water Quality 4.2.2.1 Sedimentation Basin 1 Concentrations of dissolved parameters vary with time depending upon the source of the chemical load. Figures 11 and 12 are time series plots of the manganese concentrations in runoff and seepage from the TWRP, respectively, reporting to Sedimentation Basin 1 over the operation period of the Project for model simulations using average precipitation. Manganese was selected for the time series plots because manganese concentrations represents the chemical signature of runoff and seepage water from the TWRP which comprise between90% and 97% of the total flow to Sedimentation Basin 1 and represents the chemical signature of groundwater which comprises between 24% and 77% of the flows to Sedimentation Basin 2 (Table 8). Manganese concentrations met or were below the aquatic life water quality standards.

The manganese concentration remained nearly constant in the Sedimentation Basin 1 during operations, increasing only from 0.09 to 0.21 mg/L because the main source of flow and chemical load to Sedimentation Basin 1 were from the TWRP and both increased in parallel with time. The runoff from the TWRP increased as the area of the pile increased but since the chemical load derived from the surface of the pile also increased as the pile grew in size, the concentration of the leachate remained constant as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 also shows the fluctuation in monthly average manganese concentration for the 19 years of mine operation. Since the annual timestep of the water balance model began in November (Appendix B, Table B1), the initial average monthly manganese concentration was zero since the TWRP was frozen and runoff was zero. The first spike in manganese concentration occurred in spring with the freshet and the final spike occurred in late summer and early fall with the decrease in precipitation followed by freezeup and a new year.

In a similar fashion, the total seepage volume from the TWRP increased as the surface area increased. However, the concentration remained constant regardless of the flow volumes because the concentration of the leachate derived from interaction between the infiltrating water and the waste (waste rock and filtered tailings) used the results of the weighted average humidity cell leachate to simulate seepage water chemistry (Figure 12). Experience with leach pads has shown that the change in load discharging from a pad is not necessarily linear with tonnage but rather the rate declines overtime due to channelized flow of fluid through a pile that results in a funnel-like flow path whereby water and rock contact diminishes downward leaving “dry zones” at depth (Caldwell, 2013).

The seasonal variation in seepage water manganese concentration was the inverse of the runoff chemistry. The maximum manganese concentration in seepage was reached during the freshet of early spring when the large reservoir of manganese stored in the TWRP was release with the first flush. The post-freshet manganese concentration varied in response to the decrease in infiltration with decreasing precipitation.



Figure 11: Manganese Concentration in Runoff from the TWRP during Operation Phase

0

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

0.00035

0 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 110 121 132 143 154 165 176 187 198 209 220

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

Mine Life (Months)Manganese Concentration

Temporary Ditch 1 Temporary Ditch 3Temporary Ditch 2 Final FacilityConfiguration



Figure 12: Manganese Concentration in Seepage from the TWRP during Operation Phase

4.2.2.2 Sedimentation Basin 2 The concentrations of chemical species in water of Sedimentation Basin 2 showed little change over time; in some cases the concentration increased (e.g., manganese from 0.05 to 0.07 mg/L) or remained nearly unchanged (e.g., silver 0.002 to 0.003 mg/L). Figure 13 is a time series plot of manganese concentration derived from pit wall runoff during the operation phase of the mine.

Water pumped from the open pit was the primary source of water delivered to Sedimentation Basin 2 (88% to 100%) and groundwater was the primary source of manganese to the pit. Like the runoff from the TWRP, the manganese load derived from the pit wall increased as the pit was deepened; however, the runoff volume also increased with increasing wall area. The shape illustrated by Figure 13 matches the phases in pit wall flows shown previously in Figure 8; early flows derived from the starter pit with later flows derived from the final pit. Since the pit wall areas included the floor of the pit, the flows remained constant once the final crest was defined but the incremental increase in wall area declined as the pit was deepened, hence the asymptotic increase in manganese concentration after year 8.

The concentration of manganese in groundwater was assumed to remain constant during mining (at 0.08 mg/L, per Table 8), pit wall runoff diluted the manganese load derived from the groundwater inflow but the dilution effect diminished over time as the groundwater flow outstripped the pit wall runoff volumes.

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 110 121 132 143 154 165 176 187 198 209 220

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

Mine Life (Months)Manganese Concentration

Temporary Ditch 1 Temporary Ditch 3Temporary Ditch 2 Final FacilityConfiguration



Figure 13: Manganese Concentration in Pit Wall Runoff during Operation Phase

Figure 13 also shows the seasonal variation in the pit wall average manganese concentration. Like Figure 11, manganese concentration showed a spring peak derived from the freshet followed by a second peak late in the summer or early fall associated with the decreasing precipitation falling on the pit walls.

4.2.2.3 Open Pit Figure 14 is a plot of the average monthly manganese concentration immediately following secession of mining through 10 years post-stabilization. Initially, the inflows are dominated by groundwater (roughly 78%) and pit wall runoff (22%), with time however, the proportions of groundwater inflow and pit wall runoff declined as direct precipitation increased.

In general, post-lake stabilization concentrations in the pit lake declined because the primary source of water was direct precipitation falling on the lake surface once groundwater infiltration reached a steady-state condition. As expected, the concentrations of all parameters were highest while the pit lake flooded, the load being derived from groundwater and pit wall surface runoff.

0

0.0000005

0.000001

0.0000015

0.000002

0.0000025

0.000003

0.0000035

0 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 110 121 132 143 154 165 176 187 198 209 220

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

Mine Life (Months) Manganese Concentration

Starter Pit Final Pit Crest Limits



Figure 14: Manganese Concentration Evolution in Pit Lake during Filling and Post-Stabilization

4.2.3 Concentration Sensitivity and Parameters not Modelled GoldSim is a mass balance modeling routine and geochemical controls on water quality were not simulated within GoldSim such as: attenuation or mobilization of species through precipitation and dissolution of mineral phases, or through sorption and desorption on and from mineral surfaces. These processes are generally governed by pH and redox conditions in solution, which in turn may be affected by equilibrium with atmospheric gases that are beyond the capabilities of GoldSim mass balance modeling. Other parameters are controlled by physical and environmental processes. This section discusses parameters identified in the Directive 019 guidance document and other elements that are not directly modeled in GoldSim but may be of environmental interest.

Suspended solids were not modelled but likely to be present and could be higher than Directive 019 limit of 15 mg/L average monthly concentration. Experience elsewhere suggests that site contact water often requires capture and attenuation of suspended solids (treatment or settling pond) prior to discharge to the environment which is included in the operational and post-closure Whabouchi mine design.

Concentrations used in the GoldSim models were dissolved concentrations or averages of dissolved concentrations. Total concentrations were not modelled. Total concentrations are derived from analyses of unfiltered water samples that include particulates and colloid suspension. If suspended solids are present, they can impart a chemical load to water quality and result in higher total parameter concentrations.



The concentrations of ammonia and nitrate were modeled but are highly influenced by management of explosives, blasting practices, rock fracturing properties and weather. Based on experience elsewhere, wet mines (or wet climate areas) and softer rock tends to release more ammonia and nitrate. The values predicted are a best estimate but concentrations could potentially vary substantially from these. It will be important for Nemaska Lithium to monitor explosives use and ammonia and nitrate concentrations in the open pit, waste pile drainage and both sedimentation basins.

Oil and grease are regulated under Directive 019. It is typically associated with mining equipment malfunctions or accidents. Organic compounds were not modeled but consideration should be given to monitoring for organic contaminants and if necessary, managing contact waters from areas of that mine that have a higher potential for spill separately from the other sources (such as, but not limited to the mill, maintenance shop, sections of the pit sump), and away from the final effluent discharge points.

The pH was not included the GoldSim model because it is controlled by factors outside of the GoldSim modeling routine. Although, the range of pH values of the source waters reported in Appendix E, Tables E1 to E3 are circum-neutral, it is important to note that a portion of the waste rock was classified as potentially acid-generating (PAG) and leachable based on results of static testing. These tests showed the acid generation potential was dictated by the sulphur content of rock: samples where consistently PAG when their sulphur content was above the 3% threshold value recommended under Directive 019. Kinetic tests run for 46 weeks did not develop acidic conditions during the testing period, nor were any signs of oxidation observed (such as increasing conductivity or sulphate content). Notwithstanding this, the possibility may not be completely dismissed that oxidation and acidic drainage develop in PAG rock after a longer period of exposure. The chemistry input data used in this model did not include or reflect the onset of acidic conditions. Should ARD develop within the parts of the TWRP or areas of the open pit walls, concentrations of dissolved metals could be higher than those predicted under neutral pH conditions.

Toxicity is a biological impact criteria defined in Directive 019 as the end-of-pipe acute lethal concentration determined by testing of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and daphnia (Daphnia magna) and is beyond the capabilities of GoldSim modeling. Toxicity is an empirical measurement conducted during regular sampling and measurements at the proposed mine site. Monitoring will be required to verify that effluents are non-toxic.



5.0 DISCUSSION The water quality model identified several parameters that had predicted concentrations above one or more of the Quebec surface water criteria for the protection of aquatic life. This section discusses the origin of the different exceedances and recommendations concerning monitoring of potential surface and groundwater effluent.

5.1 Metal Leaching Aluminum concentrations were elevated in effluent from Sedimentation Basin 1 and the pit lake. In Sedimentation Basin 1, where the primary source of load to the basin was released from waste rock (80%) and tailings (20%) contained in the TWRP, the elevated aluminum concentrations were derived primarily from runoff (first flush) from tailings. The concentrations in seepage from the tailings and runoff and seepage from waste rock were low. Groundwater (77 to 2%) and runoff (22 to 8%) were the primary sources of load into the open pit during filling with groundwater the overwhelming source of aluminum.

Copper concentrations were elevated compared to both the acute toxicity and chronic effects guidelines in Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2 and in the pit lake. In Sedimentation Basin 1, the primary source of copper, as with aluminum, was runoff controlled by the first flush chemistry of the tailings. In the case of Sedimentation Basin 2, where first pit wall runoff (65% to 22%) and then groundwater inflows (24% to 77%) controlled the chemical load, while pit wall runoff appeared to control the early pit lake discharge chemistry and groundwater the later chemistry. The change in copper concentration at year 7 coincided with the enlarged pit footprint suggesting wall rock (and floor) of the pit controlled the chemistry early in the mine life but once the footprint was fixed for the final pit limit, increases in copper concentration in the pit discharge was controlled by increasing groundwater inflows (and loads). Like aluminum, copper concentrations in the open pit during filling were controlled primarily by groundwater inflow. Copper concentrations in runoff derived from the pegmatite were elevated, however since the pegmatite constituted only a small proportion of the pit wall and copper concentration in the mafic rocks was low, the pit wall runoff provided only small proportion of the final load to the filling pit. The decline in copper concentration with time reflected the increasing proportion of direct precipitation falling on the lake surface (up to 90% by steady state elevation).

Uranium occurred in elevated concentrations in year 7 in effluent from Sedimentation Basin 1. The primary source of the dissolved uranium was surface runoff from the TWRP in contact with tailings. The changes in concentrations of uranium in Sedimentation Basin 1 effluent reflected the stepped development and enlarged footprint of the TWRP shown in Figure 6. The first appearance of uranium late in the mine life allows sufficient time for application of adoptive management alternative strategies to prevent and/or mitigate the uranium release.

The elevated concentrations of beryllium and cadmium were problematical. The chronic effects guideline for beryllium was below the detect limits for both surface and groundwater analyses and the chronic effects guideline for cadmium was below the groundwater detection limit rendering the use of any of these analysis uncertain. Further, almost 90% of all of the beryllium geochemical analyses (100% in the mafic igneous waste rock) and 67% of the cadmium geochemical analyses (80% in the waste rock samples) were below the respective minimum detection limits. The water quality model used half of the minimum detection limit for analyses reported as below the detection limit, an industry standard



assumption for the design of the water quality model (Appendix C) and for analyzing the results of water chemical and geochemical data. However, in light of the uncertainty surrounding the use of an assumed concentration where so many of the analyses were reported below the detection limits, the predicted discharge water chemistry from Sedimentation Basin 1 (where waste rock constitutes 80% of the TWRP) and from Sedimentation Basin 2 and the pit lake (where groundwater constituted 83% and 90%, respectively of the load), the results reported in Table 13 and Appendix E should be considered as preliminary.

5.2 Explosive Residue Concentrations of nitrogen species ammonium and nitrate exceeded either or both the surface water aquatic life acute toxicity or chronic effects guidelines for effluent from Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2 as a result of the use of ammonium nitrate-basted explosives. The current Whabouchi mine plan calls for the use of emulsion, a form of ammonium nitrate explosive that has lower ammonium concentrations and easier handling characteristics than standard ammonium nitrate-fertilizer (ANFO) explosives (e.g., less spillage and better containment in the blast hole). The predicted ammonium and nitrate concentrations were based on a standard formula that considered the mining rate, a general emulsion formula, a standard spillage rate, and a distribution of residual blasting product between the pit and the TWRP (Appendix C) and were therefore an estimate. The actual ammonium and nitrate concentrations may differ from those reported in Table 13 or in Appendix E and are likely to change over the mine life as experience with the blasting characteristic of the rock increases and blast efficiency improves. For comparision, ammonia concentrations reported at the Diavik Mine between 2006 and 2007 (Cameron et al, 2007) were generally less than 5 mg/L with short-lived spikes as high as 25 mg/L in the pit discharge water which is higher than the concentrations predicted for mine water pumped from the Whabouchi pit to Sedimentatin Basin 2. Ammonia and nitrate concentrations reached as high as over 60 mg/L in short-lived spikes in runoff from inpit waste rock.

5.3 Monitoring Golder recommends that Nemaska Lithium monitor the mine contact waters as outlined in the ESIA (Nemaska Lithium, 2013) for the appearance of acid rock drainage, metal leaching, and blasting residue, during the life of the mine. These monitoring activities will allow Nemaska Lithium to identify potential issues of environmental interest and to apply adaptive management strategies for waste and water as necessary. Table 14 lists some of the provincial and federal regulations that address groundwater and surface water monitoring programs.

Table 14: Provincial and Federal Regulations pertaining to Monitoring Programs Monitoring Regulations

Groundwater

Directive 019 (MDDEFP, 2012) following guidelines outlined in Guide d’échantillonnage à des fins d’analyses environnementales : Cahier 3 – Échantillonnage des eaux souterraines (MDDEFP, 2011) to confirm compliance with:

Provincial: Directive 019 (MDDEFP, 2012) and

Federal: Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) (2013).

Effluent and Surface Water

Provincial: Directive 019 sur l’industrie minière (MDDEFP, 2012) and

Federal: Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations (MMER, 2013).



6.0 CONCLUSION The current mine plan consists of four separate facilities: the administration building and maintenance shop; the mill, the open pit, and the filtered tailings and waste rock pile (TWRP). Tailings from spodumene processing will be dewatered, and the tailings along with the contained residual process solution (10%) will be trucked to the TWRP for co-disposal with waste rock; there is no standalone tailings storage facility. Each of the four facilities is planned to include a down-gradient sedimentation pond to capture discharge for onsite use or for discharge to Lac des Montagnes or Stream C. Runoff water captured by the Administration Pond and Plant Pond along with water from off-site wells will be used for process water in the plant. The Administration and Plant Ponds are expected to consist of closed systems and consequently, were excluded from the water balance model. Sedimentation Basin 1 is planned to receive discharge from the TWRP (e.g., seepage and runoff water), as well as direct precipitation falling on the basin and un-impacted surface runon from the small up-gradient area between the basin and the TWRP. Sedimentation Basin 2 will receive pit dewatering water from sumps in the bottom of the open pit (e.g., pit wall runoff, direct precipitation, and groundwater seepage) as well as direct precipitation on the basin and un-impacted surface runoff from the small area up-gradient of the basin.

6.1 Water Balance Model The water balance remodel assessed the flow of water between the different mine facilities to Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2 for mining years 1 to 19 and for three climatic scenarios: average, 1 in 100 year wet, and 1 in 100 year dry. Total inflows to Sedimentation Basin 1 increased from 298,000 m3/year in year 1 to 744,000 m3/year in year 19 under the average precipitation scenario as the TWRP footprint increased over the mine life. The increase was higher for 1 in 100 year wet (between 402,000 and 1,043,000 m3/year) and lower for 1 in 100 year dry (between 244,000 and 528,000 m3/year) scenarios. Total outflows from Sedimentation Basin 1 to Stream C ranged from 297,000 to 742,000 m3/year. Discharge from the TWRP was the dominant source of flow to Sedimentation Basin 1, making up between 87% and 95% of the flow under the 1 in 100 year wet scenario; 97% of the flow for the 1 in 100 year dry scenario, and the average precipitation scenario was between 95% and 97%. Concurrent reclamation is planned for the TWRP during operations with revegetation over the benches and top surfaces (approximately 36% of the total TWRP area) and as a consequence, the proportions of runoff to seepage may increase, although the total flows to Sedimentation Basin 1 should remain the same.

Sedimentation Basin 2 inflows were initially less than inflows to Sedimentation Basin 1 under similar climate models but increased significantly as the open pit footprint increased and the pit penetrated deeper beneath the water table. Inflows for average climate scenarios increased from 119,000 m3/year to 985,000 m3/year by year 19. The inflow rates for the wet and dry climate scenarios showed similar increases of between 159,000 and 1,077,000 m3/year for the 1 in 100 year wet case and between 92,000 and 919,000 m3/year for the 1 in 100 year dry model simulation. The outflows from Sedimentation Basin 2 to Lac des Montagnes ranged from 92,000 to 976,000 m3/year. The dominant source of water discharging to Sedimentation Basin 2 was pump discharge from the open pit which ranged from 89% to 99% (average precipitation), 86% to 99% (1 in 100 year wet) and 92% to 100% (1 in 100 year dry). Upon cessation of mining, Sedimentation Basin 2 will be reclaimed and any subsequent outfalls from the pit will discharge to the adjacent wetlands.



Following cessation of mining, discharge from the TWRP will be captured by perimeter ditches and delivered to a sedimentation basin for discharge to Stream C. The model assumed that Sedimentation Basin 1 would be maintained in operation and was predicted to continue with a slight decrease in seepage water rates as mineral processing and tailings delivery to the TWRP ended. The water balance model simulated flows for 7 time steps (years 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 71 during pit lake filling and year 76 for post-stabilization) for the average precipitation climate scenario. Flows from the open pit sump to Sedimentation Basin 2 ceased when mining ceased and the pit wall runoff, direct precipitation, and groundwater seepage would begin to fill the pit. The pit was predicted to reach a steady state elevation of 288.5 m amsl in year 71, roughly 52 years following cessation of mining at which time the pit was predicted to discharge with estimated outfalls of 148,000 m3/year. The proportions of inflow to the pit during filling between groundwater seepage, pit wall runoff, and direct precipitation varied as the pit filled: groundwater seepage decreased (78% in year 19 to 3% by year 71), pit wall runoff also decreased (33% in year 19 to 8% by year 71) and direct precipitation on the pit lake increased (0% in year 19 to 90% in year 71).

6.2 Water Quality Model Water quality was modeled for mine years 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 19 of the operation phase of the proposed Project for 1) discharge from Sedimentation Basin 1, and 2) discharge from Sedimentation Basin 2. Drainage discharge water quality for Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2 was predicted under average, 1 in 100 year wet and 1 in 100 year dry precipitation conditions. Water quality was also simulated for the pit lake after cessation of mining, during pit flooding and post-closure once fully flooded (year 5 post-stabilization and year 10 post-stabilization) for the average precipitation scenario only.

The Whabouchi deposit is a lithium pegmatite and unlike typical hydrothermal deposits, has no sulphide-rich hydrothermal halo. The mineral to be mined is spodumene, an alumino-silicate mineral. The only sulphide mineralization present in the deposit is found in trace amounts of disseminated pyrite in otherwise barren basalts and gabbros of the country rock. Leachate derived from mined and processed pegmatite ore and basaltic and gabbroic waste rock therefore is little different than normal runoff from the undisturbed surrounding bedrock.

Metal concentrations are predicted to be generally low and within the respective guidelines. Discharge from Sedimentation Basin 1, whose leachate chemistry is dominated by leaching from tailings and waste rock of the TWRP, is predicted to meet the Directive 019 effluent criteria for the parameters modeled but be above the surface water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life acute toxicity for copper and above the chronic effects criteria for aluminum, copper, and uranium.

Sedimentation Basin 2 leachate chemistry is controlled by groundwater chemistry and the chemistry of the pit wall runoff from the open pit. Sedimentation Basin 2 leachate is also predicted to meet the Directive 019 effluent criteria but to exceed the surface water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life acute toxicity in copper and the chronic effects criteria in aluminum and copper.

Ammonia and nitrate are expected to be present in Sedimentation Basin 1 and 2 waters from washing of blasting residues in waste rock and in the open pit. Predictions are based on experience at other mine sites; they suggest that concentrations could exceed the surface water quality criteria for chronic effects or acute toxicity in the Sedimentation Basins. However, explosives management at the source, rock competence and climate (wet or dry conditions) are important control factors that can affect the concentration of ammonia and nitrate.



Explosive waste control measures should be put in place to minimize the concentration of ammonia and nitrate in mine contact waters.

The chemistry of the pit lake of the flooded open pit was similar to the chemistry of Sedimentation Basin 2. The chemistry of the pit lake is dominated by the chemistry of the groundwater, leachate from pit wall runoff and, particularly in the later years, direct precipitation. Water of the pit lake is predicted to meet Directive 019 effluent criteria but exceed some of the surface water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life - acute toxicity for copper and the chronic effects criteria in aluminum and, copper.

The concentrations of beryllium and/or cadmium are predicted to exceed the acute toxicity and/or chronic effects guidelines in effluent from Sedimentation Basins 1 and 2 and/or the pit lake however due to (1) the assumed concentrations of ½ the minimum detection limit given the very low concentration of both parameters in the samples (e.g.,100% of the mafic waste rock samples had beryllium concentrations less than the detection limit) and (2) the high detection limits for these parameters used for groundwater and surface water analyses (e.g., the chronic effects criteria were below the detection limits in the water analyses), these exceedances are considered preliminary.

State TSS was not modeled and pH assumes no acidic drainage develops.

Comparison of the predicted concentrations of parameters that exceeded either the acute toxicity or chronic effects criteria indicated that:

The predicted concentrations were low and generally, within an order of magnitude of the respective criteria; and

The predicted concentrations were near the detection limits where the analytical uncertainty is higher and the analytical results may be less reliable.



7.0 REPORT AND MODEL LIMITATIONS Water quality modelling requires the use of many assumptions due to the uncertainty related to determining the physical and geochemical characteristics of a complex system and to the dynamic nature of mine construction and operation. The prediction of water quality is based on several inputs (e.g., surface flows, groundwater seepage, baseline water quality, and geochemical properties of mine wastes exposed), all of which have inherent variability and uncertainty. Given the uncertainty, it is not the purpose of water quality modeling to forecast or predict exact concentrations of parameters. Rather, water quality modeling is a tool to aid in the assessment of likely water compositions and sensitivities associated with various input parameters. It allows the development of monitoring programs, water management plans, and mitigation strategies, including treatment design. The results of a water quality model can be interpreted to indicate the magnitude and direction of change (in concentrations, water volumes) in a system from pre-disturbance to development. Water quality results predicted herein are based on current understanding of the Project water and waste management plans. The model predictions provide a reasonable estimate, generally within an order of magnitude, of the expected water quality in Sedimentation Basin 1, Sedimentation Basin 2 and the proposed pit lake.

Ultimately, the validity of a model is determined by the accuracy, quality and quantity of input data. If input data is lacking, or of poor quality, large amounts of uncertainty can be introduced into the model which can lead to unrealistic results. This uncertainty is not easily calculated or expressed. The data and approach used to estimate future water quality are currently believed to provide a reasonable approximation of the system as currently understood, within the context of the assumptions used in the model. Care was taken to incorporate known processes as understood during model development.

However, in natural systems and complex man-made systems, observed conditions, particularly on a daily basis, will almost certainly vary with respect to estimated conditions. Changes in Project site conditions, input data, or assumptions regarding Project site conditions will necessarily result in changes to water quality predictions. Ultimately, even the best of models cannot compare with operational monitoring data. Once the Project is operational, monitoring of water quality and periodic re-assessment of effects predictions and/or remedial measures will be required to validate the model input and results.



REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2007. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Weathering of

Solid Materials Using a Humidity Cell. ASTM D5744 – 12.

Environment Canada, 2012. National Climate Data and Information Archive. Available at URL: http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/monthlydata_e.html?timeframe=3&Prov=QUE&StationID=6057&mlyRange=1964-01-017C1972-12-01&Year=1965&cmdB2=Go. Accessed February 2013.

BBA Engineering (BBA), 2012a. Feasibility Study, Whabouchi Mine, Nemaska, Quebec. June 2012.

Cameron, A, Corkery, D., MacDonald, Forsyth, B., and Gong, T., 2007, An investigation of Ammonium Nitrate Loss to Mine Discharge Water at Diavik Diamond Mines, September 3 – 4, 2007, EXPLO Conference 2007. Wollogong, NSW, Australia.

Journeaux associés), 2012. Site Drainage, Water Balance, Material Quantities Required for Construction of Drainage Structures, Stability of the Reject Pile and Sedimentation Basin Dikes. Feasibility study Whabouchi Mine Nemaska, Quebec. Report No L-11-1452-1. June 2012.

The International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP), 2009. Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide. Available at: http://www.inap.com.au/GARDGuide.htm

Lamont Inc., 2013, Geochemical Characterization of Waste Rock Ore and Tailings, Whabouchi Project, James Bay Area, Quebec, Canada. Project 11-010. March 2013.

Leblanc, Isabelle, 2013. Personal Communication. Email: RE: Pegmatite Contact Surfaces. 8 March 2013.

Met-Chem Canada, Inc., 2012. Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Whabouchi Lithium Deposit and Hydromet Plant. NI 43-101 Technical Report. November 2012.

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec (MDDEFP), 2013a. Politique de protection des sols et de rehabilitation des terrains contaminés. Annexe 2: Les critères génériques pour les sols et pour les eaux souterraines. Grille des critères applicables aux cas de contamination des eaux souterraines (http://www.mddefp.gouv.qc.ca/sol/terrains/politique /annexe_2_grille_eaux.htm).

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec (MDDEFP), 2013b. Critères de qualité de l’eau de surface. (http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/ eau/criteres_eau/index.asp).

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec (MDDEP), 2012. Directive 019 sur l’Industrie Minière. Mars 2012 (http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/ directive019/).

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, 2011 (révision 2012). Guide d’échantillonnage à des fins d’analyses environnementales : cahier 3 – Échantillonnage des eaux souterraines, Centre d’expertise en analyse environnementale du Québec, 62 pages. Consulted 28 January 2013.

http://www.ceaeq.gouv.qc.ca/documents/publications/echantillonnage/eaux_soutC3.pdf.



Morin, Kevin A., and Hutt, Nora M, 2009, Mine-Water Leaching of Nitrogen Species from Explosive Residues, in GeoHalifax.

Nemaska Lithium, 2013. Whabouchi Project, Development and Operation of a Spodumene Deposit in the James Bay Territory, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), March 2014.

Richelieu Hydrogeologie, Inc, 2012, Nemaska Lithium,– Propriété Whabouchi. Projet d’exploitation d’une mine à ciel ouvert. Ėtude hydrolgéologique sur l’impact du projet, April 2012.

WESA Envir-Eau, 2012a. Étude hydrologique, Project Whabouchi, Nemaska Lithium. Report No. HB10015-00-03. April 2012.

WESA Envir-Eau, 2012b. Étude hydrogéologique, Project Whabouchi, Nemaska Lithium. Report No. HB10015-00-01. May 2012.


June 21, 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

APPENDIX A Water Balance Model Input Description

APPENDIX A Water Balance Input Descriptions

June 21, 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000 1/7

Table A1: Model Input Description - Open Pit Variable/Parameter Value Description Assumptions/Comments

Pit Area a

Yr 0 102,000 m2

Yr 1 122,000 m2

Yr 2-5 162,000 m2

Yr 6 223,000 m2

Yr 7-19 310,000 m2

Catchment Area reporting to the Open Pit

All of the area is subjected to an open pit runoff coefficient.

Pit Seepage b

Yr 0 0 m3/day (280 m)

Yr 5 860 m3/day(237.5 m)

Yr 10 1910 m3/day(167.5 m)

Yr 18 2075 m3/day(117.5 m)

Seepage water that reports to the Pit

Seepage is assumed to increase linearly between reported years, and to continue throughout the winter. After Mine Year 19, during pit filling, seepage rate decreases linearly when pit lake water levels increases.

Maximum Daily Dewatering Pump Rate 4000 m3/d

Rate estimated to maintain low water volumes in pit for all scenarios.

a (BBA 2012b) b (WESA Envir-Eau 2012a)



Table A2: Model Input Description - Mill and Process Plant Variable/Parameter Valueb Description Assumptions/Comments

Production rate 3000 TPD (dry density)a

TPD of dry density entering the mill (3,096 TPD with 97% solids)

Model assumes a continuous rate with 100% availability.

Water in ore 3% a Moisture content of ore entering the process plant

Total fresh water requirements 8 TPHa

Water from the underground well system

Assumed to be continuously available; will be satisfied from the Plant and Administrative Ponds, and groundwater wells.

Plant and Administrative Basins supply capacity 2 TPH a

Water recycled from the Administrative and Plant Ponds

Average value; availability to depend on precipitation volume.

Concentrate production 27 TPH a

% Solids in concentrate 95 % Solidsa Lithium concentrate shipped off site

Water in concentrate assumed as a loss.

Tailings production 110 TPH a

% Solids in tailings 90 % Solidsa Tailings at time of disposal to the TWRP

Water in tailings is considered to be directed to the TWRP.

a Met-Chem 2012 b TPD means tonnes per day, while TPH means tonnes per hour.



Table A3: Model Input Description - Filtered Tailings & Waste Rock Pile (TWRP)a

Variable/Parameter Value Description Assumptions/Comments

Undisturbed catchment area of TWRPb

Yr 0 303,529 m2

Yr 6 572,658 m2

Yr 11 695,099 m2

Yr 15 931,790 m2

Areas surrounding the TWRP and reporting to Sedimentation Basin 1

Area does not include areas between temporary diversion ditches and TWRP.

Bedrock hydraulic conductivitya 1 x 10 -8

The lower range of hydraulic conductivity of the surrounding bedrock

The hydraulic conductivity was used to estimate water losses into the surrounding groundwater system under the TWRP.

Water retention 1%

Assumed percentage of infiltrated water by volume retained in rock piles until capping.

a WESA Envir-Eau 2012a b Mine plan



Table A4: Model Input Description-Sedimentation Basin 1 Variable/Parameter Value Description Assumptions/Comments

Watershed area (natural ground)

Yr 1 126,646m2

Yr 7 170,019m2

Yr 12 178,590m2

Yr 14 217,406m2

Area north of the pond

Watershed areas based on mine layout; includes the area between the TWRP and its surrounding ditches.

Storage elevation curve Lookup Tables

Used to determine the pond water surface area for evaporation and direct precipitation calculations

Storage elevation curves assumed a square sump with 2:1 side slopes below the decant structure. Above the decant structure, the pond increased linearly to the ponds maximum operating volume.

Maximum pond volumeb 140,000 m3

The maximum pond volume based on a minimum freeboard requirement of 1.0 m

It is assumed the pond starts empty at the beginning of the model simulation.

Pond volume below decant structure b,c 22,354 m3

The volume of water below the decant structure

-

Culvert elevation (decant structure)a 277.0 m asl

The elevation after which water will spill from the decant structure to Des Montagnes Lake

-

Maximum operating levelb 281.0 m asl


-

Dam crest elevationb 282.0 m aslc The elevation of the berm crest -

a Met-Chem 2012 b BBA 2012b c Mine plan



Table A5: Model Input Description-Sedimentation Basin 2 Variable/Parameter Value Description Assumptions/Comments

Watershed Area ( undisturbed) 41,178 m2 a

Area surrounding Sedimentation Basin 2 up to the dam crest

Watershed areas based on mine layout and assumed undisturbed for runoff calculation.

Storage Elevation Curve Lookup Tables

Used to determine the ponds water surface area for the evaporation and direct precipitation calculation

Storage elevation curves assumed a square sump with 2:1 side slopes below the decant structure. Above the decant structure, the pond increased linearly to the ponds maximum operating volume.

Maximum Pond Volume 82,000 m3 a


It is assumed the pond start empty at the beginning of the model simulation.

Pond Volume below decant structure 3,500 m3 a The volume of water below

the decant structure -

Culvert Elevation (decant structure) 277.0 m asl a

The elevation after which water will spill from the decant structure to Des Montagnes Lake

-

Maximum Operating Levelc 281.0 m asl a


-

Dam Crest Elevationc 282.0 m asl a The elevation of the berm crest -

a BBA 2012b



Table A6: Model Input Description- Plant Basin and Pump Station Variable/Parameter Value Description Assumptions/Comments

Watershed area a

(Plant Site) 75,000 m2 a Watershed area report to the Plant Basin -

Maximum volumea 7,800 m3 a 54 day retention time under “normal” conditions

Basin design, based on extreme 1:100-year return condition. It is assumed the pond start empty at the beginning of the model simulation

Pond areaa 3,900m2 a Pond water surface that is used to calculate the evaporation losses

Pond area is assumed to remain constant.

a BBA 2012b



Table A7: Model Input Description- Administration Basin Variable/Parameter Value Description Assumptions/Comments

Watershed area (Plant Site)a 25,000 m2 a

Watershed area report to the Administration Basin

-

Maximum volumea 2,500 m3 a 53 day retention time under “normal” conditions

Basin design based on extreme 1:100-year return condition. It is assumed the pond is empty at the beginning of the model simulation.

Pond areaa 900 m2 a Pond water surface that is used to calculate the evaporation losses

Pond area is assumed to remain constant.

a BBA 2012b

o:\final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-r-rev0-4000\appendices\appendix a\appendix a _water balance input descriptions 21jun_13.docx



APPENDIX B Water Balance Model Calendar Year

APPENDIX B Whabouchi Lithium Mine Water Management Plan


Table B1: Model Simulation Calendar – Hydrologic Years

Mine Year Month Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct.

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 4 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 5 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 7 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 9 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 10 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 11 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 12 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 13 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 14 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 15 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 16 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 17 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 18 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 19 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227

1. November 1 of Mine Year X to October 31 of Mine year X+1; with a Simulation Time Step of 1 Month

o:\final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-r-rev0-4000\appendices\appendix b\appendix b_model calendar year 21jun_13.docx



APPENDIX C Water Quality Model Description

APPENDIX C Water Quality Model Input Paramters and Model Design


1.1 Water Quality Input Parameters The following is a detailed discussion of the mass balance input parameters used in the Whabouchi Lithium

Mine mass balance model. Input parameters for groundwater, surface water, rainwater and mine waste contact

water are discussed. Input parameter values are provided in Table C1.

1.1.1 Groundwater Quality Groundwater monitoring well locations are included in Figure C1. Water quality data for samples collected from

monitoring wells PO1R to PO5R, PO7R to PO9R, PO14R, PO16R, PO17R1, PO18R1, POS1 and PO6S were

used to calculate an average groundwater quality input for the mass balance model (Nemaska Lithium, 2012).

These were selected due to their proximity to the open pit. The open pit will be the only mine facility that is

expected to receive infiltration from natural groundwater (Flow S1 in the GoldSim Conceptual Model; Figure 4 in

the Report).

Groundwater quality input values are presented in Table C1. The pH values of all samples from monitoring wells

ranged from near neutral to slightly alkaline (5.0 to 8.5). Modelled parameters did not exceed

Directive 019 effluent criteria (MDDEP, 2012). However, aluminum, beryllium, cadmium and copper,

concentrations in groundwater exceeded the Quebec chronic effects surface water criteria for the protection of

aquatic life; copper in groundwater exceeded the acute toxicity Quebec surface water criteria for the protection

of aquatic life (MDDEFP, 2013a). The average pH was below both the chronic effects and acute toxicity surface

water criteria.

1.1.2 Surface Water Quality Surface water sample collection points are shown on Figure C1. Water quality data for surface water samples

collected from Spodumene Lake, Lakes 1 to 3, Nemiscau River and Streams B to C were used to calculate an

average surface water quality input for the mass balance model (Nemaska Lithium, 2012). These locations are

all within the mine property and considered representative of the surface runoff that will flow to Sedimentation

Basin 1 and Sedimentation Basin 2. Ditches and berms constructed throughout the property prevent

undisturbed surface runoff from contacting disturbed materials in the TWRP or the open pit.

The pH values of samples collected from surface water collection points ranged from acidic to near neutral

(4.7 to 6.8). Modelled parameters did not exceed Directive 019 effluent criteria. However, aluminum and

beryllium co ncentrations in surface water exceeded the Quebec chronic effects surface water criteria. The

average pH was below both the chronic effects and the acute toxicity surface water criteria .

June 2013 Table C-1 Mass Balance Input Parameters for the Whabouchi Lithium Mine Project Water Quality Model

1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

Geologic Materials

Acceptable Average Concentration (One‐Month Arithmetic)



Minimum Detection Limit

AverageMinimum Detection

LimitAverage


First Flush ‐ Average

Steady‐State Average







Modelled ParametersAlkalinity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 34 <1 4.0 <2 31 1.0 8.4 1.3 7.9 3.8 6.0 1.4Acidity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ <2 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.9Hardness ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Sulfate ‐ ‐ 500 A 500 A mg/L <0.5 25 <1 1.1 <0.2 0.68 0.10 0.30 0.10 1.6 0.64 4.5 2.6Flouride ‐ ‐ 4 B 0.2 B mg/L ‐ ‐ <0.1 0.05 <0.06 0.044 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Nitrate ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.9 mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.042 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Ammonium ‐ ‐ 2.0 ‐ 26 C 0.38 ‐ 1.9 C mg/L ‐ ‐ <0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Aluminum ‐ ‐ 0.75 D 0.087 D mg/L <0.01 0.11 ‐ 0.18 <0.01 0.090 0.0080 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.033 0.030 0.0085Antimony ‐ ‐ 1.1 0.24 mg/L <0.001 0.0024 <0.001 0.00056 <0.0002 0.00085 0.00024 0.0021 0.00038 0.00059 0.00020 0.00050 0.00031Silver ‐ ‐ 0.00013 E 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 0.000071 <0.0001 0.00005 <0.00001 0.0000050 0.0000050 ‐ 0.0000050 ‐ 0.0000050 ‐ 0.0000080Arsenic 0.2 0.4 0.34 0.15 mg/L <0.0001 0.00025 <0.0001 0.0005 <0.0002 0.00064 0.00032 0.0025 0.00026 0.00071 0.00062 0.00021 0.00028Barium ‐ ‐ 0.23 E 0.079 E mg/L <0.002 0.022 <0.002 0.0034 ‐ 0.00066 0.00017 0.00029 0.00013 0.00042 0.00038 0.00033 0.00025Beryllium ‐ ‐ 0.00037 E 0.000041 E mg/L <0.0005 0.00025 <0.0005 0.00025 <0.00002 0.0023 0.00064 0.000023 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010Boron ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 0.0058 <0.005 0.000125 <0.00001 0.000090 0.000011 0.0030 0.00026 0.0018 0.00025 0.0023 0.00035Bismuth ‐ ‐ 28 5 mg/L <0.005 ‐ <0.00025 0.0025 <0.0002 0.00047 0.000066 0.00001 0.000008 0.0000050 0.0000050 0.0000050 0.0000050Cadmium ‐ ‐ 0.00042 E 0.000082 E mg/L <0.0002 0.00010 <0.00003 0.00002 <0.000003 0.000033 0.000017 0.0000066 0.0000034 0.000011 0.0000015 0.0000071 0.0000025Calcium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 9.1 <2 1.5 ‐ 8.2 0.42 1.2 0.60 2.0 1.7 3.3 1.0Chromium ‐ ‐ 0.48 E, III 0.023 E, III mg/L <0.0005 0.00032 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.0005 0.0019 0.00025 0.00045 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025Cobalt ‐ ‐ 0.37 0.1 mg/L <0.0005 0.0020 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.000002 0.000086 0.000037 0.0000063 0.000046 0.000037 0.000069 0.000084 0.0076Copper 0.3 0.6 0.0031 E 0.0024 E mg/L <0.0005 0.0058 <0.0002 0.0005 <0.0005 0.0044 0.00083 0.0045 0.00032 0.00043 0.00047 0.00096 0.00091Iron 3 6 3.4 1.3 mg/L <0.1 1.1 <0.1 0.18 <0.003 0.020 0.0062 0.0024 0.0015 0.0090 0.0025 0.0062 0.017Lithium ‐ ‐ 0.91 0.44 mg/L <0.001 0.02 <0.01 0.005 ‐ 0.12 0.0030 0.12 0.0022 0.16 0.0070 0.11 0.0062Magnesium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 0.73 <0.05 0.35 ‐ 0.64 0.0098 0.050 0.0080 0.43 0.17 0.63 0.16Manganese ‐ ‐ 1 E 0.47 E mg/L <0.005 0.084 ‐ 0.013 ‐ 0.051 0.030 0.0065 0.0087 0.0013 0.0022 0.0019 0.018Mercury ‐ ‐ 0.0016 0.00091 mg/L <0.0001 0.00028 <0.00001 0.000005 <0.0001 0.000050 0.000033 0.000050 0.000032 0.000050 0.000050 0.000050 0.000034Molybdenum ‐ ‐ 29 3.2 mg/L <0.0005 0.0030 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.00001 0.00097 0.000033 0.0016 0.000032 0.00057 0.000018 0.0011 0.00012Nickel 0.5 1 0.12 E 0.013 E mg/L <0.001 0.0064 <0.0002 0.00024 <0.00001 0.0032 0.00022 0.000088 0.000060 0.00014 0.00023 0.00029 0.0086Lead 0.2 0.4 0.011 E 0.00041 E mg/L <0.0001 0.00025 <0.0001 0.00015 <0.00002 0.00018 0.000018 0.000045 0.000024 0.000013 0.000034 0.000040 0.000013Potassium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L <0.5 0.78 <0.05 0.2 ‐ 1.1 0.076 2.3 0.16 0.61 0.077 0.29 0.027Selenium ‐ ‐ 0.062 0.005 mg/L <0.001 0.00055 <0.001 0.00054 <0.001 0.00028 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050Sodium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 19 <2 0.74 ‐ 7.2 0.080 1.9 0.062 1.2 0.063 1.2 0.062Tin ‐ ‐ 40 21 mg/L <0.001 0.00057 <0.001 0.0005 ‐ 0.0032 0.0012 0.0010 0.00011 0.0011 0.00031 0.00094 0.00011Strontium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.014 0.00032 0.0021 0.00052 0.0022 0.0012 0.0035 0.0013Thallium ‐ ‐ 0.047 0.0072 mg/L <0.001 0.00050 <0.002 0.0010 <0.00002 0.000058 0.000012 0.000085 0.000010 0.000028 0.000010 0.000021 0.000032Titanium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ <0.001 0.0008 <0.0001 0.00026 0.000050 0.000050 0.000050 0.00038 0.00015 0.00020 0.000050Uranium ‐ ‐ 0.32 E 0.014 E mg/L <0.001 0.0021 <0.001 0.0005 <0.000001 0.021 0.00024 0.14 0.0034 0.000080 0.000016 0.00017 0.000012Vanadium ‐ ‐ 0.11 0.012 mg/L <0.001 0.0012 <0.002 0.0010 <0.00003 0.00029 0.000015 0.000048 0.000022 0.0018 0.00079 0.00079 0.000081Tungsten ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ <0.00003 0.00062 0.000015 0.0022 0.000015 0.00065 0.000026 0.00028 0.000015Yttrium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ <0.000001 0.000012 0.0000020 0.000048 0.00000080 0.0000031 0.00000090 0.0000019 0.0000040Zinc 0.5 1 0.031 E 0.031 E mg/L <0.005 0.017 <0.0007 0.0055 <0.002 0.0075 0.0016 0.0010 0.0024 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0044NOTE1A. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/directive019/1B. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp

A. Ce critère de qualité s'applique aux eaux dont la dureté est < 100 mg/L et dont la concentration en chlorures est < 5 mg/L.B. Ce critère de qualité a été calculé à partir de données de toxicité pour de faibles duretés (≤ 120 mg/L (CaCO3)).C. Ce critère varie en fonction du pH et de la température.D. Ce critère varie en fonction du pH.E. Ce critère varie en fonction de la dureté.

III. Chrome (III)


Tailings Barren Pegmatite (Ore) Waste Rock ‐ NonPAG Waste Rock ‐ PAGSurface water

Model Inputs

Quebec Directive 019 1A

Units

GroundwaterQuebec Surface Water Quality 1B

O:\Final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000\Appendices\Appendix C\Appendix C-Table C1_ Mass Balance Input Parameters_21Jun13_saa Golder Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX C Water Quality Model Input Parameters and Model Design

June 2013 Reference No. 1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000 3/14

Figure C1: Groundwater Monitoring Well and Surface Water Sample Collection Locations at the Project Site (According to WESA Envir-Eau, 2012a)



1.1.3 Direct Precipitation (Rainwater) Water Quality The rainwater chemistry input was based on Hem (1985). Direct precipitation will affect all mine facilities

assessed in the water quality model. Hem (1985) suggests concentrations in milligrams per litre (mg/L) for the

following select parameters: calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulphate and nitrate.

The pH values for rainwater were not available. Parameter concentrations did not exceed Directive 019 effluent

criteria nor the Quebec surface water criteria.

1.1.4 Mine Waste Contact Waters A total of six humidity cell tests were conducted on samples of waste rock, ore zone rock and tailings material by

Lamont (2013). Results were used to predict the mass loading rates released to contact waters once wastes are

exposed to natural weathering conditions. Four of the humidity cells were comprised of composite samples of

gabbro and basalt waste rock including one each of:

Potentially acid generating (PAG) gabbro

Non-potentially acid generating (non-PAG) gabbro;

PAG basalt; and

Non-PAG basalt.

Of the remaining humidity cells, one consisted of barren pegmatite and one of tailings material. The

geochemistry of the six humidity cell test samples is discussed in detail in Lamont (2013). Based on the results

reported in Lamont (2013), the gabbro and basalt waste rock are considered geochemically identical and thus a

composite sample was considered representative of the mafic waste rock that would be deposited in the TWRP,

and exposed in the open pit. To better assess the impact of PAG material within the TWRP and the open pit, the

results of the humidity cell tests used in the model were averaged for the following sample pairs:

PAG gabbro and PAG basalt; and

Non-PAG gabbro and non-PAG basalt.

A test sample of mineralized pegmatite was not available for humidity cell testing; for this reason, the barren

pegmatite sample is considered representative of both the barren rock and the mineralized rock that will be

exposed in the open pit.

Application of humidity test cell data is discussed in numerous references, such as INAP (2009), MEND (2009),

Morin and Hutt (1997) and Maest et al. (2005). Industry standard processes were adhered to in constructing the

Whabouchi Lithium Mine mass balance. The humidity cell leachate water chemistry was evaluated using the

following equation (Equation 1) to estimate the mass loading rates (in mg/kg/week), or leaching rates, of

dissolved chemicals from humidity cell materials:



Equation 1:

Weekly leaching rate (mgleached mass/kgrock/week) =

mg/L(measured leachate concentration) � L(litres of lixiviant applied each week) /m(mass of sample)

Humidity cell conditions can differ from those expected in the field as they are meant to accelerate leaching

conditions that may otherwise occur in months to years. To account for this, scaling factors are applied to mass

loading calculations. Two scaling factors were applied to mass loading calculations in the Whabouchi Lithium

Mine mass balance model in order to correct for differences in weathering rates anticipated to be observed at the

Project location and those observed in the laboratory-controlled humidity test cell(s):

A channelization factor (10%) was applied to all rock sources (including tailings) to reflect the formation of

preferred infiltration pathways in the humidity test cell (ASTM, 2007); and

A grain size factor (10%) was applied to waste rock and barren pegmatite loading rates to reflect the

expected larger grain size range and heterogeneity of waste rock grain sizes deposited in the TWRP

and exposed in the open pit compared to the relatively homogenous grain size in the humidity test cell

(MEND, 2009).

A scaling factor effectively reduces the mass loadings from each source material by a pre-determined factor of

10%. Note that in order to produce reasonable water quality results the channelization factor was applied twice.

Water quality results were considered reasonable within the context of model inputs, including the order of

magnitude of these inputs. Application of these scaling factors is an industry standard practice when using a

mass loading rate calculated from humidity cell test results. The method of using mass loading rates assumes

that the water and rock reaction rates are controlled by the mass of material present rather than the contact

surface between the water and the rock, a more likely factor in controlling reaction rates at the water-rock

interface.

1.1.5 Composite Waste Rock Samples Gabbro and basalt waste rock samples were submitted for static geochemical analysis, including Acid-Base

Accounting (ABA) tests by Lamont (2013). Acid-Base Accounting consists of a series of analyses and

calculations used to estimate the potential for mineral weathering to produce acidic drainage and

ABA characteristics are used to identify potentially acid-generating (PAG) or not potentially acid-generating

(Non-PAG) materials (MEND, 2009). The results of these analyses, discussed in detail in Lamont (2013),

indicated that approximately 80% of the gabbro and basalt waste rock is Non-PAG and that the remaining

20% is PAG. This proportion was used in combination with the proposed Mine Plan (Met-Chem, 2012) and the

open pit block model (pers. comm., Leblanc, 2013) to determine the relative tonnages of Non-PAG and

PAG waste rock reporting the TWRP during the mine life, as well as the relative exposed surface areas of waste

rock in the open pit.



1.1.6 Contact Water Guideline Exceedances Contact water qualities were established for Non-PAG and PAG waste rock, tailings material and barren

pegmatite using the humidity test cell data directly, i.e., in mg/L. The purpose of this was to establish context for

water quality model results for the various mine facilities. Waste rock contact water qualities did not exceed

Directive 019 effluent criteria nor the Quebec surface water and groundwater criteria. However, aluminum,

beryllium, copper and uranium concentrations in the tailings contact waters exceeded the chronic effects surface

water criteria, and beryllium and copper concentrations exceeded the acute toxicity surface water criteria.

Concentrations of aluminum, copper and uranium in the (barren) pegmatite contact waters exceeded the chronic

surface water criteria, and concentrations of copper exceeded the acute surface water criteria. The average pH

of the tailings and PAG waste rock were slightly below chronic effects and acute toxicity surface water criteria.

1.2 Water Quality Predictions Drainage water qualities were determined by summing all chemical loads received by each of the Sedimentation

Basins during operations, and the pit lake during post-closure and subsequently dividing those loads by the total

inflow to the respective receiving facility. Table C2 through Table C6 summarise the input sources and

additional factors used to calculate the chemical source loads reporting to each facility, as well as describe the

inflow volume used to calculate the drainage water quality of Sedimentation Basin 1, Sedimentation Basin 2 and

the pit lake. The contents of each table are discussed in further detail in the proceeding text.

Chemical loads (mg/unit time) delivered to the sedimentation basins and the open pit from were estimated either

from concentrations (e.g., surface water and groundwater) or from derived release rates from humidity test cells

(mg/kg/week) (Equation 1). Equations 2, 3, and 4 are the basic formulas used in constructing the mass balance

model for sources reported as mg/L and mg/kg/week, respectively.

Equation 2: (Surface water, groundwater and direct precipitation)

mg/week(chemical load) = mg/L(parameter concentration) � L/ week(flow rate)

Equation 3: (TWRP Seepage)

mg/week(chemical load) = mg/L(parameter concentration) � L/ week(flow rate) � %(proportion rock or tailings)

Equation 4: (TWRP and open pit surface runoff)

mg/week(chemical load) =

mg/kg/week(humidity cell release rate) � m2(facility area) � m(material depth/thickness) � %(proportion tailings or rock) � kg/m3

(material density)



Table C2: Summary of Mass Balance Parameters: Operations - Sedimentation Basins 1 Mine Facility Mass Input Source Calculation Factor(s)


Direct Precipitation (Rainwater) (mg/L)

Precipitation (m3/d; Appendix D)

Surface Water (mg/L) Undisturbed Surface Water Runoff (m3/d; Appendix D)

Tailings Water (mg/L) Infiltration into TWRP (m3/d; Appendix D)

PAG Waste Rock Water (mg/L)

Infiltration into TWRP (m3/d; Appendix D); Proportion PAG Waste Rock (%; Table C5)

Non-PAG Waste Rock Water (mg/L)

Infiltration into TWRP (m3/d; Appendix D); Proportion Non-PAG Waste Rock (%; Table C5)

Tailings loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization Scaling Factor; Proportion Tailings in TWRP (%; Table C5); Tailings Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Reaction Depth (m; Table C5); TWRP Annual Surface Area (m2; Appendix D)

PAG Waste Rock loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion PAG Waste Rock, Proportion Waste Rock in TWRP (%; Table C5); Waste Rock Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Reaction Depth (m; Table C5); TWRP Annual Surface Area (m2; Appendix D)

Non-PAG Waste Rock loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion Non-PAG Waste Rock, Proportion Waste Rock in TWRP (%; Table C5); Waste Rock Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Reaction Depth (m; Table C5); TWRP Annual Surface Area (m2; Appendix D)



Table C3: Summary of Mass Balance Parameters: Operations - Sedimentation Basins 2 Mine Facility Mass Input Source Calculation Factor(s)




Surface Water (mg/L) Undisturbed Surface Water Runoff (m3/d; Appendix D)

Groundwater Seepage (m3/d; Appendix D)

Barren Pegmatite loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization and Grain Size Scaling Factors (%; Table C4); Pegmatite Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Wall Rock Reaction Crust (m; Table C5); Wall Rock Surface Area (m2; Table C6)

PAG Waste Rock

Channelisation and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion PAG Waste Rock (%; Table C5); Waste Rock Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Wall Rock Reaction Crust (m; Table C5); Wall Rock Surface Area (m2; Table C6)

Non-PAG Waste Rock Channelisation and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion PAG Waste Rock (%; Table C5); Waste Rock Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Wall Rock Reaction Crust (m; Table C5); Wall Rock Surface Area (m2; Table C6)



Table C4: Summary of Mass Balance Parameters: Post-Closure - Pit Lake Mine Facility Input Source Additional Factor(s)

Pit Lake



Groundwater Seepage (m3/d; Appendix D)

Barren Pegmatite loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion Exposed Ore Rock (%; Table C5); Pegmatite Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Wall Rock Reaction Crust, First Flush Ring Height and Water Level Elevation Circumference (m; Table C5); Wall Rock Surface Area (m2; Table C6);

PAG Waste Rock loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion PAG Waste Rock, Proportion Exposed Waste Rock (%; Table C5); Pegmatite Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Wall Rock Reaction Crust, First Flush Ring Height and Water Level Elevation Circumference (m; Table C5); Wall Rock Surface Area (m2; Table C6);

Non-PAG Waste Rock loading rates (mg/kg/week)

Channelization and Grain Size Scaling Factors, Proportion Non-PAG Waste Rock, Proportion Exposed Waste Rock (%; Table C5); Pegmatite Density (g/cm3; Table C5); Wall Rock Reaction Crust, First Flush Ring Height and Water Level Elevation Circumference (m; Table C5); Wall Rock Surface Area (m2; Table C6);



Table C5: Summary of Mass Balance Calculation Factors Description Value Unit Note Source

Channelization Factor 10 % Scaling Factor

ASTM (2007)

Grain Size Factor 10 % Scaling Factor

MEND (2009)

Proportion Non-PAG Waste Rock

80 % - Lamont (2013)

Proportion PAG Waste Rock 20 % - Lamont (2013)

Tailings Density 1.80 g/cm3 - Met-Chem (2012)

Waste Rock Density (Blasted Rock)

1.72 g/cm3 Based on density of basalt Glover (1989)

Pegmatite Density (Blasted Rock)

1.55 g/cm3 Based on density of granite Glover (1989)

Proportion Tailings in TWRP 20 % Based on Mine Plan Met-Chem (2012)

Proportion Waste Rock in TWRP

80 % Based on Mine Plan Met-Chem (2012)

Proportion Exposed Pegmatite in Open Pit

20 % Based on block model pers. comm., I. Leblanc (2013)

Proportion Exposed Waste Rock in Open Pit

80 % Based on block model pers. comm., I. Leblanc (2013)

Reaction Depth - Tailings 0.25 m Maximum depth of infiltration from surface runoff (TWRP)

-

Reaction Depth – Waste Rock

0.15 m Maximum depth of infiltration from surface runoff (TWRP)

-

Wall Rock Reaction Crust 1 m Maximum depth of infiltration from wall rock runoff (Open Pit)

-



Table C6: Exposed Rock Surface Area in the Open Pit 1

Mine Year Exposed Mineralised Rock Surface Area (m2)

Exposed Waste Rock Surface Area (m2)

1 40102.00 118401.00

2 52267.98 148272.02

3 60954.91 183207.22

4 56499.56 203749.47

5 55175.44 223054.19

6 68417.23 269911.90

7 75258.82 325605.84

8 81773.79 369597.34

9 88775.91 388164.40

10 91236.00 407384.00

11 88898.59 434635.13

12 86662.66 455574.40

13 82066.23 478293.83

14 78945.27 504716.54

15 73764.23 532061.46

16 72632.90 557933.76

17 72632.90 576610.79

18 98835.58 585383.17

1. Source: pers. comm., I. Leblanc (2013).



1.2.1 Operations: Sedimentation Basin 1 During operations, Sedimentation Basin 1 will receive runoff and infiltration from the TWRP, as well as

undisturbed surface runoff and direct precipitation from the catchment area surrounding the basin. Loads from

undisturbed surface runoff and direct precipitation were calculated using the appropriate input chemistries and

the undisturbed surface runoff and precipitation flow rates, respectively. Average input chemistries were used in

for the input chemistries.

Runoff loadings from the TWRP were estimated from waste rock and tailings humidity test cell data. Average, first flush mass loading rates were used in runoff loading calculations. F irst flush data encompasses the first five weeks of humidity cell testing, during which time water and rock interactions occur at the rock surface and readily solubilized salts are dissolved. First flush data is used to simulate short-term chemical release rates from weathering. Based on the current Mine Plan (Met-Chem, 2012), it is assumed that the TWRP will contain approximately 80% waste rock and 20% tailings at any given time. A volume of reactive material was determined from the annual TWRP Surface Area for waste rock and an assumed Reaction Depth of 0.15 m for waste rock and 0.25 m for tailings.

Infiltration loadings from the TWRP were calculated using different methods than for the runoff loadings. The scaling factors applied to the waste rock and tailings mass loading rates were sufficient to account for the effects of real-time weathering actions from TWRP runoff, but over estimated the loadings attributed to infiltration as it moves through the deposited material. Experience in heap leach pads has shown that overtime channelized flow of fluid through a heap results in a funnel-like flow path whereby water and rock contact diminished downward leaving “dry zones” at depth (Caldwell, 2013). Thus, in the case of the heap leach pad, only a portion of the pile was active and by analog, only a portion of the TWRP would be active rather than the entire pile. For this reason, average, steady state or long-term humidity cell waste rock and tailings leachate chemistry was used to describe infiltration water quality from the TWRP. Steady state data is the average of the last five weeks of humidity cell testing leachate chemistries, during which time water and rock interactions may penetrate rock surfaces and stable secondary mineral assemblages are dissolved. Steady-state data is used to simulate long-term weathering.

1.2.2 Operations: Sedimentation Basin 2 During operations, Sedimentation Basin 2 will receive discharge from the open pit sump pump, as well as

undisturbed surface runoff and direct precipitation from the catchment area surrounding the basin. The open pit

sump pump will collect groundwater infiltration, direct precipitation and wall rock surface runoff that are captured

in the open pit. Loads from undisturbed surface runoff, direct precipitation and groundwater infiltration are

calculated from the appropriate input chemistries and the undisturbed surface runoff, precipitation and

groundwater infiltration flow rates, respectively.

Wall rock runoff loads were estimated from average waste rock and barren pegmatite steady state humidity cell

loading rates, which is representative of the lithologies exposed on the open pit walls with the exception of for

the mineralized pegmatite, for which there was no kinetic test data available. I n this component of the water

quality model, steady-state data was used to estimate wall rock runoff chemistry because it was assumed that

the wall rock will be previously degraded by excavation activities and that the water and rock interactions would

penetrate the wall rock surfaces, allowing dissolution of stable secondary mineral assemblages.



Wall rock runoff loads were mixed in proportions according to the surface areas of exposed waste rock and

barren pegmatite on the open pit walls (Table C5). It is assumed that the wall rock runoff interacts with not only

the immediate surface of the open pit wall, but infiltrates a 1-meter section of rock behind the wall rock surface

(i.e., the Wall Rock Reaction Crust). The annual surface areas of exposed waste rock and mineralised rock,

presented in Table C6, were used in combination with the wall rock reaction crust thickness to estimate a volume

of reactive rock.

1.2.3 Post-Closure: Pit Lake During post-closure, mass loads affecting the open pit lake will include wall rock surface runoff, first flush water

(upon flooding), direct precipitation and groundwater seepage. Loads from direct precipitation and groundwater

infiltration are calculated from the average input chemistries and the precipitation and groundwater infiltration

flow rates, respectively. Wall rock runoff loads were calculated using the same method as described in

Section 1.2.2.

First flush water represents the chemical load resulting from the interaction of pit lake water with all materials in

the “ring” near the surface of the pit lake where the rising water first inundates wall rock. Average, first flush

humidity loading rates for waste rock and barren pegmatite was used to estimate the first flush water mass

loads. The use of first flush humidity cell data is necessary to simulate the high volume of dissolved constituents

expected from the extended contact period with broken rock at the interface between the rising lake surface and

the remaining exposed wall rock. The resulting loads were mixed based on the exposed surface areas predicted

in the open pit; 80% of the exposed wall rock comprised waste rock and 20% comprised mineralised material

(represented by barren pegmatite). A volume of reactive rock was estimated using the perimeter of the pit lake

(i.e., the Water Level Elevation Circumference) at specific model intervals, the wall rock reaction crust thickness

(1-m), and the difference in height between the rising pit lake elevation(s) (i.e., the First Flush Ring Height).



REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2007. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Weathering of

Solid Materials Using a Humidity Cell. ASTM D5744 – 12.

Caldwell, J., 2013, Heap Leach Pads, EduMine Professional Development and Training for Mining, Online Course, April 2013.

Glover, Thomas J. Pocket Reference. (2nd Edition). Littleton, Colorado: Sequoia Publishing, Inc.

Hem, John D., 1985. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. (3rd ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254.

The International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP), 2009. Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide. Available at: http://www.inap.com.au/GARDGuide.htm.

Lamont Inc, 2013 (Lamont 2013). Geochemical Characterisation of Waste Rock Ore and Tailings, Whabouchi Project, James Bay Area, Quebec, Canada. Project 11-010. March 2013.

Leblanc, Isabelle, 2013. Personal Communication. Email: RE: Pegmatite Contact Surfaces. 8 March 2013.

Maest, Ann S., Kuipers, James R., Travers, Constance L. and Atkins, David A., 2005. Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties and State-of-the-Art. Kuipers & Associates and Buka Environmental, Butte (MT).

Mine Effluent Neutral Drainage (MEND), 2009. Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic

Geologic Materials. MEND Report 1.20.1.

Met-Chem Canada, Inc., 2012. Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Whabouchi Lithium Deposit and Hydromet Plant. NI 43-101 Technical Report. November 2012.

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec (MDDEFP), 2013a. Critères de qualité de l’eau de surface. (http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/ eau/criteres_eau/index.asp).

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec (MDDEP), 2012. Directive 019 sur l’Industrie Minière. Mars 2012 (http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/

directive019/).

Morin, Kevin A. and Hutt, Nora M., 1997. Environmental Geochemistry of Minesite Drainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies. (1st ed.). Vancouver (BC): MDAG Publishing.

Nemaska Lithium, 2012. Project Whabouchi, Développement et Exploitation D’un Gisement de Spodumène : Étude des Impacts Sur L’Environnement et Le Milieu Social (ÉIEMS). 21 Décembre 2012.

WESA Envir-Eau, 2012a. Étude Hydrologique, Project Whabouchi, Nemaska Lithium. Report No. HB10015-00-03. 24 April 2012.

o:\final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-r-rev0-4000\appendices\appendix c\appendix c-wq input parameters_21june13.docx

June 2013 Table C-1 Mass Balance Input Parameters for the Whabouchi Lithium Mine Project Water Quality Model

1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

Geologic Materials

Acceptable Average Concentration (One‐Month Arithmetic)




AverageMinimum Detection

LimitAverage










Modelled ParametersAlkalinity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 34 <1 4.0 <2 31 1.0 8.4 1.3 7.9 3.8 6.0 1.4Acidity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ <2 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.9Hardness ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Sulfate ‐ ‐ 500 A 500 A mg/L <0.5 25 <1 1.1 <0.2 0.68 0.10 0.30 0.10 1.6 0.64 4.5 2.6Flouride ‐ ‐ 4 B 0.2 B mg/L ‐ ‐ <0.1 0.05 <0.06 0.044 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Nitrate ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.9 mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.042 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Ammonium ‐ ‐ 2.0 ‐ 26 C 0.38 ‐ 1.9 C mg/L ‐ ‐ <0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Aluminum ‐ ‐ 0.75 D 0.087 D mg/L <0.01 0.11 ‐ 0.18 <0.01 0.090 0.0080 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.033 0.030 0.0085Antimony ‐ ‐ 1.1 0.24 mg/L <0.001 0.0024 <0.001 0.00056 <0.0002 0.00085 0.00024 0.0021 0.00038 0.00059 0.00020 0.00050 0.00031Silver ‐ ‐ 0.00013 E 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 0.000071 <0.0001 0.00005 <0.00001 0.0000050 0.0000050 ‐ 0.0000050 ‐ 0.0000050 ‐ 0.0000080Arsenic 0.2 0.4 0.34 0.15 mg/L <0.0001 0.00025 <0.0001 0.0005 <0.0002 0.00064 0.00032 0.0025 0.00026 0.00071 0.00062 0.00021 0.00028Barium ‐ ‐ 0.23 E 0.079 E mg/L <0.002 0.022 <0.002 0.0034 ‐ 0.00066 0.00017 0.00029 0.00013 0.00042 0.00038 0.00033 0.00025Beryllium ‐ ‐ 0.00037 E 0.000041 E mg/L <0.0005 0.00025 <0.0005 0.00025 <0.00002 0.0023 0.00064 0.000023 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010Boron ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 0.0058 <0.005 0.000125 <0.00001 0.000090 0.000011 0.0030 0.00026 0.0018 0.00025 0.0023 0.00035Bismuth ‐ ‐ 28 5 mg/L <0.005 ‐ <0.00025 0.0025 <0.0002 0.00047 0.000066 0.00001 0.000008 0.0000050 0.0000050 0.0000050 0.0000050Cadmium ‐ ‐ 0.00042 E 0.000082 E mg/L <0.0002 0.00010 <0.00003 0.00002 <0.000003 0.000033 0.000017 0.0000066 0.0000034 0.000011 0.0000015 0.0000071 0.0000025Calcium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 9.1 <2 1.5 ‐ 8.2 0.42 1.2 0.60 2.0 1.7 3.3 1.0Chromium ‐ ‐ 0.48 E, III 0.023 E, III mg/L <0.0005 0.00032 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.0005 0.0019 0.00025 0.00045 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025Cobalt ‐ ‐ 0.37 0.1 mg/L <0.0005 0.0020 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.000002 0.000086 0.000037 0.0000063 0.000046 0.000037 0.000069 0.000084 0.0076Copper 0.3 0.6 0.0031 E 0.0024 E mg/L <0.0005 0.0058 <0.0002 0.0005 <0.0005 0.0044 0.00083 0.0045 0.00032 0.00043 0.00047 0.00096 0.00091Iron 3 6 3.4 1.3 mg/L <0.1 1.1 <0.1 0.18 <0.003 0.020 0.0062 0.0024 0.0015 0.0090 0.0025 0.0062 0.017Lithium ‐ ‐ 0.91 0.44 mg/L <0.001 0.02 <0.01 0.005 ‐ 0.12 0.0030 0.12 0.0022 0.16 0.0070 0.11 0.0062Magnesium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 0.73 <0.05 0.35 ‐ 0.64 0.0098 0.050 0.0080 0.43 0.17 0.63 0.16Manganese ‐ ‐ 1 E 0.47 E mg/L <0.005 0.084 ‐ 0.013 ‐ 0.051 0.030 0.0065 0.0087 0.0013 0.0022 0.0019 0.018Mercury ‐ ‐ 0.0016 0.00091 mg/L <0.0001 0.00028 <0.00001 0.000005 <0.0001 0.000050 0.000033 0.000050 0.000032 0.000050 0.000050 0.000050 0.000034Molybdenum ‐ ‐ 29 3.2 mg/L <0.0005 0.0030 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.00001 0.00097 0.000033 0.0016 0.000032 0.00057 0.000018 0.0011 0.00012Nickel 0.5 1 0.12 E 0.013 E mg/L <0.001 0.0064 <0.0002 0.00024 <0.00001 0.0032 0.00022 0.000088 0.000060 0.00014 0.00023 0.00029 0.0086Lead 0.2 0.4 0.011 E 0.00041 E mg/L <0.0001 0.00025 <0.0001 0.00015 <0.00002 0.00018 0.000018 0.000045 0.000024 0.000013 0.000034 0.000040 0.000013Potassium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L <0.5 0.78 <0.05 0.2 ‐ 1.1 0.076 2.3 0.16 0.61 0.077 0.29 0.027Selenium ‐ ‐ 0.062 0.005 mg/L <0.001 0.00055 <0.001 0.00054 <0.001 0.00028 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050Sodium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ 19 <2 0.74 ‐ 7.2 0.080 1.9 0.062 1.2 0.063 1.2 0.062Tin ‐ ‐ 40 21 mg/L <0.001 0.00057 <0.001 0.0005 ‐ 0.0032 0.0012 0.0010 0.00011 0.0011 0.00031 0.00094 0.00011Strontium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.014 0.00032 0.0021 0.00052 0.0022 0.0012 0.0035 0.0013Thallium ‐ ‐ 0.047 0.0072 mg/L <0.001 0.00050 <0.002 0.0010 <0.00002 0.000058 0.000012 0.000085 0.000010 0.000028 0.000010 0.000021 0.000032Titanium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ <0.001 0.0008 <0.0001 0.00026 0.000050 0.000050 0.000050 0.00038 0.00015 0.00020 0.000050Uranium ‐ ‐ 0.32 E 0.014 E mg/L <0.001 0.0021 <0.001 0.0005 <0.000001 0.021 0.00024 0.14 0.0034 0.000080 0.000016 0.00017 0.000012Vanadium ‐ ‐ 0.11 0.012 mg/L <0.001 0.0012 <0.002 0.0010 <0.00003 0.00029 0.000015 0.000048 0.000022 0.0018 0.00079 0.00079 0.000081Tungsten ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ <0.00003 0.00062 0.000015 0.0022 0.000015 0.00065 0.000026 0.00028 0.000015Yttrium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ <0.000001 0.000012 0.0000020 0.000048 0.00000080 0.0000031 0.00000090 0.0000019 0.0000040Zinc 0.5 1 0.031 E 0.031 E mg/L <0.005 0.017 <0.0007 0.0055 <0.002 0.0075 0.0016 0.0010 0.0024 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0044NOTE1A. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/directive019/1B. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp


III. Chrome (III)


Tailings Barren Pegmatite (Ore) Waste Rock ‐ NonPAG Waste Rock ‐ PAGSurface water

Model Inputs

Quebec Directive 019 1A

Units

GroundwaterQuebec Surface Water Quality 1B

O:\Final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000\Appendices\Appendix C\Appendix C-Table C1_ Mass Balance Input Parameters_21Jun13_saa Golder Associates Ltd.



APPENDIX D Water Balance Model Results

June 2013 Appendix DWater Balance Model Predicted Flows

1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

O:\Final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000\Appendices\Appendix D\Appendix D_Water Balance Results_21June13.xlsx Golder Associates Ltd.

Table D1: Water Balance Model Predicted Flows – Average Precipitation (m3/year)Flows Into Sediment Basin 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13Basin precipitation 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412Basin runoff 14,311 15,013 15,715 16,417 17,118 17,820 18,522 18,943 19,138 19,332 19,526 19,720 21,023Seepage from TWRS 174,614 222,681 222,681 222,681 222,681 222,681 292,701 292,701 292,701 292,701 292,701 324,557 324,557Runoff from TWRS 108,068 108,068 108,068 108,068 108,068 108,068 203,889 203,889 203,889 203,889 203,889 247,483 247,483Total Inflows 298,406 347,175 347,877 348,578 349,280 349,982 516,525 516,946 517,140 517,334 517,528 593,172 594,475Evaporation 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253Discharge to Lac des Montagnes 297,152 345,921 346,623 347,325 348,027 348,729 515,271 515,692 515,886 516,081 516,275 591,919 593,221Total Outflows 298,406 347,175 347,877 348,578 349,280 349,982 516,525 516,946 517,140 517,334 517,528 593,172 594,475Flows Into Open PitPit precipitation 2,327 2,327 2,327 2,327 2,327 2,327 2,357 2,563 2,641 2,719 2,784 2,806 2,828Pit Groundwater inflow 28,794 91,617 154,440 217,263 280,086 349,270 425,973 502,675 579,378 656,080 701,080 708,614 716,147Pit wall runoff 77,547 100,066 110,755 110,755 110,755 136,947 190,576 213,639 213,569 213,499 213,440 213,421 213,401Total Inflows 108,667 194,010 267,522 330,345 393,168 488,544 618,906 718,878 795,588 872,298 917,305 924,840 932,376Evaporation (Pit ) 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,030 1,182 1,239 1,297 1,345 1,361 1,377Contact water pumped from the open pit to Sediment Basin 2 107,660 193,002 266,514 329,337 392,160 487,537 617,876 717,696 794,349 871,002 915,960 923,479 930,998Pit overflows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Outflows 108,667 194,010 267,522 330,345 393,168 488,544 618,906 718,878 795,588 872,298 917,305 924,840 932,376Flows Into Sediment Basin 2Basin precipitation 8,498 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668Basin runoff 2,115 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064Contact water pumped from the open pit to Sediment Basin 2 107,660 193,002 266,514 329,337 392,160 487,537 617,876 717,696 794,349 871,002 915,960 923,479 930,998Total Inflows 118,273 203,735 277,247 340,070 402,893 498,269 628,608 728,428 805,081 881,734 926,692 934,211 941,730Evaporation (Basin) 7,671 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692Discharge to Lac des Montagne's 91,748 196,042 269,554 332,377 395,200 490,577 620,916 720,736 797,389 874,042 919,000 926,519 934,038Total Outflows 99,419 203,735 277,247 340,070 402,893 498,269 628,608 728,428 805,081 881,734 926,692 934,211 941,730


1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000


Table D2: Water Balance Model Predicted Flows - 1 in 100 Year Wet (m3/year)Flows Into Sediment Basin 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13Basin precipitation 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512Basin runoff 25,480 26,728 27,977 29,225 30,473 31,721 32,969 33,696 34,042 34,387 34,732 35,078 37,481Seepage from TWRS 223,786 271,853 271,853 271,853 271,853 271,853 385,471 385,471 385,471 385,471 385,471 437,163 437,163Runoff from TWRS 149,955 149,955 149,955 149,955 149,955 149,955 282,916 282,916 282,916 282,916 282,916 343,407 343,407Total Inflows 401,733 451,048 452,296 453,545 454,793 456,041 703,869 704,595 704,941 705,286 705,631 818,159 820,562Evaporation 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253Discharge to Lac des Montagnes 400,480 449,795 451,043 452,291 453,539 454,788 702,615 703,342 703,687 704,033 704,378 816,905 819,309Total Outflows 401,733 451,048 452,296 453,545 454,793 456,041 703,869 704,595 704,941 705,286 705,631 818,159 820,562Flows Into Open PitPit precipitation 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,792 4,514 4,870 5,428 5,737 5,820 5,906Pit Groundwater inflow 28,794 91,617 154,440 217,263 280,086 349,270 425,973 502,675 579,378 656,080 701,080 708,614 716,147Pit wall runoff 107,598 138,840 153,684 153,684 153,684 190,009 263,947 295,583 295,263 294,761 294,482 294,408 294,330Total Inflows 139,620 233,685 311,352 374,175 436,998 542,508 693,712 802,773 879,511 956,269 1,001,300 1,008,842 1,016,383Evaporation (Pit ) 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,306 1,693 1,889 2,214 2,396 2,444 2,494Contact water pumped from the open pit to Sediment Basin 2 138,613 232,678 310,345 373,168 435,991 541,501 692,406 801,080 877,622 954,055 998,904 1,006,398 1,013,890Total Outflows 139,620 233,685 311,352 374,175 436,998 542,508 693,712 802,773 879,511 956,269 1,001,300 1,008,842 1,016,383Flows Into Sediment Basin 2Basin precipitation 15,149 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414Basin runoff 3,751 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671Contact water pumped from the open pit to Sediment Basin 2 138,613 232,678 310,345 373,168 435,991 541,501 692,406 801,080 877,622 954,055 998,904 1,006,398 1,013,890Total Inflows 157,512 251,763 329,430 392,253 455,076 560,586 711,491 820,165 896,707 973,140 1,017,990 1,025,483 1,032,975Evaporation (Basin) 7,671 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692Discharge to Lac des Montagnes 130,987 244,071 321,738 384,561 447,384 552,894 703,799 812,473 889,015 965,448 1,010,298 1,017,791 1,025,283Total Outflows 138,658 251,763 329,430 392,253 455,076 560,586 711,491 820,165 896,707 973,140 1,017,990 1,025,483 1,032,975

Table D3: Water Balance Model Predicted Flows - 1 in 100 Year Dry Precipitation (m3/year)Flows Into Sediment Basin 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13Basin precipitation 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 713Basin runoff 7,220 7,574 7,929 8,283 8,638 8,992 9,347 9,565 9,663 9,761 9,859 9,957 10,594Seepage from TWRS 138,883 186,950 186,950 186,950 186,950 186,950 225,287 225,287 225,287 225,287 225,287 242,729 242,729Runoff from TWRS 77,631 77,631 77,631 77,631 77,631 77,631 146,463 146,463 146,463 146,463 146,463 177,779 177,779Total Inflows 224,447 272,868 273,222 273,577 273,931 274,286 381,811 382,029 382,127 382,225 382,323 431,179 431,815Evaporation 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253Discharge to Lac des Montagnes 223,193 271,614 271,969 272,323 272,678 273,032 380,557 380,775 380,873 380,971 381,070 429,925 430,562Total Outflows 224,447 272,868 273,222 273,577 273,931 274,286 381,811 382,029 382,127 382,225 382,323 431,179 431,815Flows Into Open PitPit precipitation 1,671 1,671 1,671 1,671 1,671 1,671 1,671 1,671 1,680 1,723 1,746 1,751 1,755Pit Groundwater inflow 28,794 91,617 154,440 217,263 280,086 349,270 425,973 502,675 579,378 656,080 701,080 708,614 716,147Pit wall runoff 55,706 71,884 79,561 79,561 79,561 98,378 136,922 153,620 153,612 153,573 153,552 153,548 153,545Total Inflows 86,171 165,172 235,672 298,495 361,318 449,319 564,566 657,966 734,670 811,377 856,379 863,913 871,446Evaporation (Pit ) 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,016 1,060 1,084 1,088 1,093Contact water pumped from the open pit to Sediment Basin 2 85,164 164,164 234,665 297,487 360,311 448,312 563,559 656,959 733,654 810,317 855,295 862,824 870,354Total Outflows 86,171 165,172 235,672 298,495 361,318 449,319 564,566 657,966 734,670 811,377 856,379 863,913 871,446Flows Into Sediment Basin 2Basin precipitation 4,277 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378Basin runoff 1,073 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043Contact water pumped from the open pit to Sediment Basin 2 85,164 164,164 234,665 297,487 360,311 448,312 563,559 656,959 733,654 810,317 855,295 862,824 870,354Total Inflows 90,513 169,585 240,085 302,908 365,731 453,732 568,979 662,379 739,074 815,737 860,715 868,244 875,774Evaporation (Basin) 7,671 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692Discharge to Lac des Montagnes 63,988 161,892 232,392 295,215 358,038 446,040 561,287 654,687 731,382 808,045 853,023 860,552 868,082Total Outflows 71,659 169,585 240,085 302,908 365,731 453,732 568,979 662,379 739,074 815,737 860,715 868,244 875,774


1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000


Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 25 Year 35 Year 45 Year 55 Year65 Year71 Year761,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,412

23,221 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204 24,204324,557 324,557 386,137 386,137 386,137 386,137 243,281 243,281 243,281 243,281 243,281 243,281 243,281247,483 247,483 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755 331,755596,673 597,656 743,508 743,508 743,508 743,508 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652

1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253595,420 596,403 742,254 742,254 742,254 742,254 599,399 599,399 599,399 599,399 599,399 599,399 599,399596,673 597,656 743,508 743,508 743,508 743,508 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652 600,652

2,850 2,872 2,893 2,915 2,937 2,948 101,943 151,829 180,184 193,207 209,917 218,532 218,836723,680 731,213 738,747 746,280 753,813 757,894 485,820 288,821 162,939 83,934 29,744 6,121 5,174213,381 213,362 213,342 213,322 213,303 213,293 124,197 79,300 53,781 42,060 27,021 19,267 18,994939,911 947,447 954,982 962,517 970,053 974,135 711,960 519,950 396,903 319,200 266,682 243,920 243,004

1,394 1,410 1,427 1,443 1,459 1,467 44,579 66,156 78,899 84,173 91,702 95,393 95,419938,517 946,036 953,555 961,075 968,594 972,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,271 147,580939,911 947,447 954,982 962,517 970,053 974,135 44,579 66,156 78,899 84,173 91,702 175,664 242,999

8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,668 8,615 8,615 8,615 8,615 8,615 8,615 8,6152,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080

938,517 946,036 953,555 961,075 968,594 972,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0949,249 956,768 964,288 971,807 979,326 983,400 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695

7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,671 7,671 7,671 7,671 7,671 7,671 7,671941,557 949,076 956,595 964,114 971,633 975,707 3,025 3,025 3,025 3,025 3,025 3,025 3,025949,249 956,768 964,288 971,807 979,326 983,400 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695 10,695


1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000


Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 192,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512 2,512

41,391 43,043 43,043 43,043 43,043 43,043437,163 437,163 537,087 537,087 537,087 537,087343,407 343,407 460,342 460,342 460,342 460,342824,472 826,124 1,042,983 1,042,983 1,042,983 1,042,983

1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253823,219 824,870 1,041,730 1,041,730 1,041,730 1,041,730824,472 826,124 1,042,983 1,042,983 1,042,983 1,042,983

5,993 6,079 6,165 6,246 6,320 6,352723,680 731,213 738,747 746,280 753,813 757,894294,253 294,175 294,097 294,025 293,958 293,930

1,023,925 1,031,467 1,039,009 1,046,551 1,054,091 1,058,1752,544 2,594 2,644 2,691 2,735 2,753

1,021,381 1,028,873 1,036,365 1,043,860 1,051,357 1,055,4221,023,925 1,031,467 1,039,009 1,046,550 1,054,091 1,058,175

15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,414 15,4143,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671 3,671

1,021,381 1,028,873 1,036,365 1,043,860 1,051,357 1,055,4221,040,467 1,047,959 1,055,450 1,062,945 1,070,442 1,074,507

7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,6921,032,775 1,040,266 1,047,758 1,055,253 1,062,750 1,066,8151,040,467 1,047,959 1,055,450 1,062,945 1,070,442 1,074,507

Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19713 713 713 713 713 713

11,704 12,224 12,224 12,224 12,224 12,224242,729 242,729 276,447 276,447 276,447 276,447177,779 177,779 238,315 238,315 238,315 238,315432,925 433,445 527,698 527,698 527,698 527,698

1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,253431,672 432,192 526,445 526,445 526,445 526,445432,925 433,445 527,698 527,698 527,698 527,698

1,759 1,763 1,768 1,772 1,776 1,778723,680 731,213 738,747 746,280 753,813 757,894153,541 153,537 153,533 153,529 153,526 153,524878,980 886,514 894,047 901,581 909,115 913,196

1,097 1,101 1,105 1,110 1,114 1,116877,883 885,413 892,942 900,471 908,001 912,079878,980 886,514 894,047 901,581 909,115 913,196

4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,378 4,3781,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043 1,043

877,883 885,413 892,942 900,471 908,001 912,079883,303 890,833 898,362 905,891 913,421 917,499 575,036 575,036 575,036

7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692 7,692875,611 883,140 890,670 898,199 905,729 909,807883,303 890,833 898,362 905,891 913,421 917,499



APPENDIX E Walter Quality Model Results

June 2013 Appendix EWater Quality Model Results

1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000

O:\Final\2013\1222\13-1222-0008\1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000\Appendices\Appendix E\Appendix E_WQ Model Results_21Jun13.xlsx Golder Associates Ltd.



Grab SampleAcute Toxicity (CVAA) Chronic Effect (CVAC) Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry

ParameterspH* - - 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 pH units 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5Alkalinity (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150Acidity (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6Hardness (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17Sulphate, SO42- - - 500 A 500 A mg/L 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.6Fluoride, F- - - 4 B 0.2 B mg/L 0.068 0.068 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.069 0.093 0.093 0.094 0.088 0.088 0.089 0.088 0.088 0.089 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11Nitrate, NO3- - - - 2.9 mg/L 154 151 157 215 211 221 268 262 274 354 347 365 406 398 418 333 327 344 281 275 290 95 94 99Ammonium, NH4+ - - 2.0 - 26 C 0.38 - 1.9 C mg/L 35 35 36 49 48 51 61 60 63 81 80 84 93 91 96 76 75 79 64 63 66 22 21 23Aluminum, Al - - 0.75 D 0.087 D mg/L 0.089 0.089 0.091 0.090 0.090 0.091 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21Antimony, Sb - - 1.1 0.24 mg/L 0.00091 0.00090 0.00093 0.00091 0.00090 0.00093 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020Silver, Ag - - 0.00013 E 0.0001 mg/L 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.000011 0.000010 0.000012 0.000013 0.000012 0.000011 0.000011 0.000011 0.000011 0.000011 0.000011 0.000012 0.000012 0.000012 0.000013 0.000013 0.000013 0.000014 0.000014 0.000014Arsenic, As 0.2 0.4 0.34 0.15 mg/L 0.0010 0.00099 0.0010 0.0010 0.00099 0.0010 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018Barium, Ba - - 0.23 E 0.079 E mg/L 0.00084 0.00082 0.00086 0.00085 0.00085 0.00086 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0017 0.0017 0.0016Beryllium, Be - - 0.00037 E 0.000041 E mg/L 0.0019 0.0018 0.0019 0.0019 0.0018 0.0019 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0046 0.0046 0.0047Boron, B - - - - mg/L 0.00039 0.00039 0.00040 0.00040 0.00040 0.00040 0.00063 0.00063 0.00064 0.00063 0.00065 0.00065 0.00063 0.00063 0.00065 0.00074 0.00074 0.00076 0.00075 0.00075 0.00076 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010Bismuth, Bi - - 28 5 mg/L 0.00050 0.00049 0.00051 0.00050 0.00049 0.00051 0.00077 0.00076 0.00078 0.00076 0.00075 0.00076 0.00076 0.00075 0.00076 0.00087 0.00087 0.00088 0.00087 0.00087 0.00088 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011Cadmium, Cd - - 0.00042 E 0.000082 E mg/L 0.000034 0.000033 0.000034 0.000034 0.000033 0.000034 0.000052 0.000051 0.000052 0.000051 0.000050 0.000051 0.000051 0.000050 0.000051 0.000058 0.000058 0.000059 0.000058 0.000058 0.000059 0.000074 0.000074 0.000074Calcium, Ca - - - - mg/L 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.9 11 11 11 11 11 12 11 11 12 13 13 14 13 13 14 17 17 18Chromium, Cr - - 0.48 E, III 0.023 E, III mg/L 0.0015 0.0015 0.0016 0.0015 0.0015 0.0016 0.0026 0.0025 0.0026 0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0030 0.0030 0.003 0.0030 0.0030 0.003 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039Cobalt, Co - - 0.37 0.1 mg/L 0.00095 0.00094 0.00096 0.00095 0.00094 0.00095 0.00096 0.00094 0.00096 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00077 0.00077 0.00077 0.00074 0.00074 0.00074Copper, Cu 0.3 0.6 0.0031 E 0.0024 E mg/L 0.0037 0.0037 0.0038 0.0037 0.0037 0.0038 0.0061 0.0060 0.0062 0.0060 0.0060 0.0061 0.0060 0.0060 0.0061 0.0071 0.0070 0.0072 0.0071 0.0070 0.0072 0.0091 0.0091 0.0092Iron, Fe 3 6 3.4 1.3 mg/L 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.047 0.047 0.047Lithium, Li - - 0.91 0.44 mg/L 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.30Magnesium, Mg - - - - mg/L 0.59 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.60 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5Manganese, Mn - - 1 E 0.47 E mg/L 0.053 0.052 0.054 0.053 0.052 0.054 0.079 0.078 0.080 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.11 0.11 0.11Mercury, Hg - - 0.0016 0.00091 mg/L 0.000084 0.000083 0.000085 0.000084 0.000083 0.000085 0.00011 0.00011 0.00012 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015Molybdenum, Mo - - 29 3.2 mg/L 0.00078 0.00077 0.00080 0.00078 0.00077 0.00080 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0017 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017 0.0016 0.0017 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022Nickel, Ni 0.5 1 0.12 E 0.013 E mg/L 0.0033 0.0032 0.0033 0.0033 0.0032 0.0033 0.0049 0.0049 0.0050 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0069 0.0069 0.0068Lead, Pb 0.2 0.4 0.011 E 0.00041 E mg/L 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00015 0.00024 0.00024 0.00025 0.00024 0.00024 0.00025 0.00024 0.00024 0.00025 0.00028 0.00028 0.00029 0.00028 0.00028 0.00029 0.00037 0.00037 0.00037Potassium, K - - - - mg/L 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.88 0.87 0.91 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.4Selenium, Se - - 0.062 0.005 mg/L 0.00082 0.00081 0.00083 0.00082 0.00081 0.00083 0.0010 0.00099 0.0010 0.00091 0.00091 0.00091 0.00091 0.00091 0.00091 0.00097 0.0010 0.00097 0.00097 0.0010 0.00091 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011Sodium, Na - - - - mg/L 17 17 17 22 21 23 30 29 31 37 36 38 41 40 42 37 36 38 33 32 34 22 22 23Tin, Sn - - 40 21 mg/L 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.028 0.027 0.028Strontium, Sr - - - - mg/L 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0048 0.0048 0.0049 0.0047 0.0047 0.0048 0.0047 0.0047 0.0048 0.0055 0.0055 0.0056 0.0055 0.0055 0.0056 0.0071 0.0070 0.0071Thallium, Th - - 0.047 0.0072 mg/L 0.000074 0.000074 0.000075 0.000075 0.000075 0.000076 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014Titanium, Ti - - - - mg/L 0.00034 0.00034 0.00034 0.00034 0.00035 0.00035 0.00052 0.00052 0.00052 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00058 0.00058 0.00058 0.00058 0.00058 0.00058 0.00073 0.00073 0.00073Uranium, U - - 0.32 E 0.014 E mg/L 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.025 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.031 0.030 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.032 0.041 0.040 0.042Vanadium, V - - 0.11 0.012 mg/L 0.00081 0.00081 0.00082 0.00081 0.00081 0.00082 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015Tungsten, W - - - - mg/L 0.00052 0.00050 0.00053 0.00052 0.00050 0.00053 0.00091 0.00090 0.00093 0.00092 0.00091 0.00095 0.00092 0.00091 0.00095 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015Yttrium, Y - - - - mg/L 0.0000099 0.0000097 0.000010 0.0000099 0.0000097 0.000010 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 0.000019 0.000019 0.000019 0.000019 0.000019 0.000019 0.000025 0.000024 0.000025Zinc, Zn 0.5 1 0.031 E 0.031 E mg/L 0.0075 0.0075 0.0077 0.0075 0.0075 0.0077 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.016 0.016 0.016NOTE* pH not modeled.1A. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/directive019/1B. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp


III. Chrome (III)


Sedimentation Basin 1 - Operations

Mine Year 2 Mine Year 4 Mine Year 7Quebec Directive 019 1A Quebec Surface Water Quality 1B Mine Year 11 Mine Year 13 Mine Year 15 Mine Year 19

Units

Mine Year 9


1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000




Grab SampleAcute Toxicity (CVAA) Chronic Effect (CVAC) Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry Average Wet Dry

ParameterspH* - - 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 pH units 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8 5.4 - 7.8Alkalinity (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60 2 - 60Acidity (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6Hardness (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50Sulphate, SO42- - - 500 A 500 A mg/L 14 13 14 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21Fluoride, F- - - 4 B 0.2 B mg/L 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.000082 0.000082 0.000082 0.000077 0.000077 0.000077 0.000077 0.000077 0.000077 0.000076 0.000076 0.000076 0.000076 0.000076 0.000076Nitrate, NO3- - - - 2.9 mg/L 6.1 5.9 6.4 4.3 4.2 4.4 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.48 0.47 0.48Ammonium, NH4+ - - 2.0 - 26 C 0.38 - 1.9 C mg/L 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.11 0.11 0.11Aluminum, Al - - 0.75 D 0.087 D mg/L 0.064 0.061 0.066 0.086 0.084 0.087 0.090 0.090 0.091 0.092 0.091 0.093 0.095 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.096Antimony, Sb - - 1.1 0.24 mg/L 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020Silver, Ag - - 0.00013 E 0.0001 mg/L 0.000039 0.000037 0.000040 0.000053 0.000052 0.000054 0.000056 0.000055 0.000056 0.000057 0.000056 0.000057 0.000058 0.000058 0.000059 0.000058 0.000058 0.000059 0.000059 0.000058 0.000059 0.000059 0.000058 0.000059Arsenic, As 0.2 0.4 0.34 0.15 mg/L 0.00014 0.00013 0.00014 0.00018 0.00018 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020Barium, Ba - - 0.23 E 0.079 E mg/L 0.012 0.011 0.012 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018Beryllium, Be - - 0.00037 E 0.000041 E mg/L 0.00014 0.00013 0.00014 0.00019 0.00018 0.00019 0.00020 0.00019 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00021 0.00020 0.00021 0.00021 0.00020 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021Boron, B - - - - mg/L 0.000020 0.000020 0.000020 0.000011 0.000010 0.000011 0.0000048 0.0000048 0.0000048 0.0000040 0.0000040 0.0000040 0.0000038 0.0000038 0.0000038 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037 0.0000037Bismuth, Bi - - 28 5 mg/L 0.0031 0.0030 0.0033 0.0043 0.0042 0.0044 0.0045 0.0045 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0048 0.0047 0.0047 0.0048 0.0048 0.0047 0.0048 0.0048 0.0047 0.0048Cadmium, Cd - - 0.00042 E 0.000082 E mg/L 0.000054 0.000052 0.000056 0.000074 0.000073 0.000076 0.000079 0.000078 0.000079 0.000080 0.000079 0.000081 0.000082 0.000082 0.000083 0.000082 0.000082 0.000083 0.000082 0.000082 0.000083 0.000083 0.000082 0.000083Calcium, Ca - - - - mg/L 5.0 4.8 5.2 6.8 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6Chromium, Cr - - 0.48 E, III 0.023 E, III mg/L 0.00018 0.00017 0.00018 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00025 0.00025 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00027 0.00026 0.00027 0.00027 0.00026 0.00027 0.00027 0.00026 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027Cobalt, Co - - 0.37 0.1 mg/L 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016Copper, Cu 0.3 0.6 0.0031 E 0.0024 E mg/L 0.0032 0.0030 0.0033 0.0043 0.0043 0.0044 0.0046 0.0045 0.0046 0.0047 0.0046 0.0047 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0049Iron, Fe 3 6 3.4 1.3 mg/L 0.62 0.60 0.65 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95Lithium, Li - - 0.91 0.44 mg/L 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017Magnesium, Mg - - - - mg/L 0.41 0.39 0.42 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.61Manganese, Mn - - 1 E 0.47 E mg/L 0.046 0.044 0.047 0.062 0.061 0.063 0.066 0.065 0.066 0.067 0.067 0.068 0.069 0.068 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.070 0.070 0.069 0.070Mercury, Hg - - 0.0016 0.00091 mg/L 0.00015 0.00015 0.00016 0.00021 0.00020 0.00021 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023Molybdenum, Mo - - 29 3.2 mg/L 0.0016 0.0016 0.0017 0.0022 0.0022 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025 0.0025 0.0024 0.0025 0.0025 0.0024 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025Nickel, Ni 0.5 1 0.12 E 0.013 E mg/L 0.0034 0.0033 0.0036 0.0047 0.0046 0.0048 0.0050 0.0049 0.0050 0.0051 0.0050 0.0051 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0053 0.0052 0.0052 0.0053 0.0053 0.0052 0.0053Lead, Pb 0.2 0.4 0.011 E 0.00041 E mg/L 0.00014 0.00013 0.00014 0.00019 0.00018 0.00019 0.00020 0.00019 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00021 0.00021 0.00020 0.00021 0.00021 0.00020 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021Potassium, K - - - - mg/L 0.43 0.41 0.45 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.65Selenium, Se - - 0.062 0.005 mg/L 0.00030 0.00029 0.00031 0.00041 0.00040 0.00042 0.00043 0.00043 0.00044 0.00044 0.00044 0.00044 0.00045 0.00045 0.00045 0.00045 0.00045 0.00046 0.00045 0.00045 0.00046 0.00046 0.00045 0.00046Sodium, Na - - - - mg/L 11 10 11 15 14 15 15 15 15 16 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16Tin, Sn - - 40 21 mg/L 0.0000040 0.0000040 0.0000040 0.0000020 0.0000020 0.0000020 0.0000010 0.0000010 0.0000010 0.00000088 0.00000088 0.00000088 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083 0.00000083Strontium, Sr - - - - mg/L 0.00031 0.00030 0.00032 0.00042 0.00042 0.00043 0.00045 0.00044 0.00045 0.00046 0.00045 0.00046 0.00047 0.00046 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047Thallium, Th - - 0.047 0.0072 mg/L 0.00028 0.00027 0.00029 0.00038 0.00037 0.00038 0.00039 0.00039 0.00040 0.00040 0.00040 0.00040 0.00041 0.00041 0.00041 0.00041 0.00041 0.00042 0.00041 0.00041 0.00042 0.00042 0.00041 0.00042Titanium, Ti - - - - mg/L 0.0000067 0.0000067 0.0000068 0.0000032 0.0000031 0.0000032 0.0000016 0.0000016 0.0000016 0.0000014 0.0000014 0.0000014 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.0000012 0.0000012 0.0000012Uranium, U - - 0.32 E 0.014 E mg/L 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0016 0.0015 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017Vanadium, V - - 0.11 0.012 mg/L 0.00065 0.00063 0.00068 0.00089 0.00087 0.00090 0.00094 0.00093 0.00095 0.00096 0.00095 0.00096 0.00098 0.00097 0.00099 0.00098 0.00098 0.00099 0.00098 0.00098 0.00099 0.00099 0.00098 0.00099Tungsten, W - - - - mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Yttrium, Y - - - - mg/L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zinc, Zn 0.5 1 0.031 E 0.031 E mg/L 0.0094 0.0091 0.0098 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014NOTE* pH not modeled.1A. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/directive019/1B. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp


III. Chrome (III)


Mine Year 11 Mine Year 13 Mine Year 15 Mine Year 19

Sedimentation Basin 2 - Operations

Units

Mine Year 2 Mine Year 4 Mine Year 7 Mine Year 9Quebec Directive 019 1A Quebec Surface Water Quality 1B


1312220008-001-R-Rev0-4000


Lake Recovery (Half-Filled)

Year 5 Post-Stabilization

Year 10 Post-Stabilization



Grab SampleAcute Toxicity (CVAA) Chronic Effect (CVAC) Average Average Average

Parameters pH* - - 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 pH units 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5 5.4 - 8.5Alkalinity (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150 2.2 - 150Acidity (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 2 - 6 2 - 6 2 - 6Hardness (as CaCO3) - - - - mg/L 50 50 50Sulphate, SO4

2- - - 500 A 500 A mg/L 23 22 21

Fluoride, F- - - 4 B 0.2 B mg/L 0.0000093 0.0000089 0.0000084Nitrate, NO3

- - - - 2.9 mg/L 0.026 0.026 0.026Ammonium, NH4

+ - - 2.0 - 26 C 0.38 - 1.9 C mg/L 0 0 0

Aluminum, Al - - 0.75 D 0.087 D mg/L 0.10 0.10 0.095Antimony, Sb - - 1.1 0.24 mg/L 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020Silver, Ag - - 0.00013 E 0.0001 mg/L 0.000063 0.000060 0.000059Arsenic, As 0.2 0.4 0.34 0.15 mg/L 0.00022 0.00021 0.00020Barium, Ba - - 0.23 E 0.079 E mg/L 0.019 0.018 0.018Beryllium, Be - - 0.00037 E 0.000041 E mg/L 0.00022 0.00021 0.00021Boron, B - - - - mg/L 0 0 0Bismuth, Bi - - 28 5 mg/L 0.0051 0.0049 0.0048Cadmium, Cd - - 0.00042 E 0.000082 E mg/L 0.000089 0.000085 0.000082Calcium, Ca - - - - mg/L 8.1 7.8 7.5Chromium, Cr - - 0.48 E, III 0.023 E, III mg/L 0.00029 0.00027 0.00027Cobalt, Co - - 0.37 0.1 mg/L 0.0017 0.0017 0.0016Copper, Cu 0.3 0.6 0.0031 E 0.0024 E mg/L 0.0052 0.0050 0.0048Iron, Fe 3 6 3.4 1.3 mg/L 1.0 1.0 0.94Lithium, Li - - 0.91 0.44 mg/L 0.018 0.017 0.017Magnesium, Mg - - - - mg/L 0.66 0.63 0.61Manganese, Mn - - 1 E 0.47 E mg/L 0.075 0.071 0.069Mercury, Hg - - 0.0016 0.00091 mg/L 0.00025 0.00024 0.00023Molybdenum, Mo - - 29 3.2 mg/L 0.0027 0.0025 0.0025Nickel, Ni 0.5 1 0.12 E 0.013 E mg/L 0.0057 0.0054 0.0052Lead, Pb 0.2 0.4 0.011 E 0.00041 E mg/L 0.00022 0.00021 0.00021Potassium, K - - - - mg/L 0.70 0.67 0.65Selenium, Se - - 0.062 0.005 mg/L 0.00049 0.00047 0.00045Sodium, Na - - - - mg/L 17 16 16Tin, Sn - - 40 21 mg/L 0.00000061 0.00000058 0.00000054Strontium, Sr - - - - mg/L 0.00051 0.00049 0.00047Thallium, Th - - 0.047 0.0072 mg/L 0.00045 0.00043 0.00041Titanium, Ti - - - - mg/L 0 0 0Uranium, U - - 0.32 E 0.014 E mg/L 0.0019 0.0018 0.0017Vanadium, V - - 0.11 0.012 mg/L 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010Tungsten, W - - - - mg/L 0.00000018 0.00000017 0.00000016Yttrium, Y - - - - mg/L 0 0 0Zinc, Zn 0.5 1 0.031 E 0.031 E mg/L 0.015 0.015 0.014NOTE* pH not modeled.1A. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_ind/directive019/1B. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Gouvernement du Québec , 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp


III. Chrome (III)


UnitsPit Lake Water Quality - Post

Closure

Quebec Directive 019 1A Quebec Surface Water Quality 1B

Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia, V5C 6C6 Canada T: +1 (604) 296 4200

report - canada.ca · metasedimentary and amphibolitic rocks of volcanic and intrusive origin and...

Documents