Appendix A (I-A) - Abridged Design Report for RSF A and X

Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report for
Rock Storage Facilities A and X
Kings Mountain Mining Project
Rev 03
ABRIDGED Report: Only the Pre-feasibility Engineering Design
Report for the RSF A and X (with Plates) is included. The RSF
design sheets are in Appendix A of Appendix C (Design Sheets); the
RSF (stability) calculation package is included in Appendix B of
Appendix G (Geotechnical Stability Report and Calculations). The
RSF characterization report has been excluded from this appendix
but may be made available upon request.
Effective Date: April 19, 2024
Report Date: April 19, 2024
ALBEMARLE"
Report Prepared for
Albemarle Corporation
4250 Congress Street
Charlotte, NC 28209
Report Prepared by
2:
��VVirk consulting
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
999 17th Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
SRK Project Number: USPR000576
Albemarle Document Number: KM60-EN-RP-9059
North Carolina Firm License Number: C-5030
Signed by Qualified Persons:
R. Breese Burnley, P.E. (#055362)
Reviewed by:
Joshua B. Sames, P.E.

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page ii
Executive Summary
SRK has prepared this Preliminary Engineering Design report for Rock Storage Facilities RSF-A and
RSF-X at the Kings Mountain Mining Project (Project). The Project is a lithium pegmatite deposit that
is currently being investigated for redevelopment by Albemarle Corporation (Albemarle) as part of a
prefeasibility-level analysis. Albemarle commissioned SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK) to develop
PFS-level designs for an expansion of the existing pit, waste rock management, water management,
and ancillary infrastructure to aid Albemarle in making informed decisions regarding advancement of
the Project.
RSF-A will be a permanent storage facility for non-potentially-acid-generating (non-PAG) waste rock
constructed west of South Creek and to the east-to-northeast of Tin Mine Road. RSF-A will mostly be
comprised of coarse rock sourced from the open pit. Albemarle also plans to use the facility to store
finer-grained materials comprising dense media separation (DMS) rejects, excavated sand from the
existing legacy tailings storage facility (Old TSF; Golder, 1975), waste rock from the existing tailings
storage facility(TSF)embankment, and minimal quantities of optional off-site fine material. RSF-A will
receive legacy tailings and waste rock removed to make way for the construction of another RSF(RSF-
X), and all materials destined for RSF-A will need to be comingled at a mix ratio that does not
negatively affect the strength governed by the coarse waste rock component.
RSF-X will be a temporary geomembrane-lined storage facility for potentially-acid-generating (PAG)
waste rock and will be constructed over the footprint of the existing legacy tailings storage facility(TSF)
adjacent to the existing South Creek Reservoir. Prior to construction of RSF-X, the existing tailings
from the existing impoundment and unsuitable subgrade soils will be removed. The RSF will then be
initially constructed with an engineered foundation subgrade constructed with coarse materials,at least
a portion of which will come from the existing TSF embankments. Following the completion of the
engineered foundation subgrade, the geomembrane-lined containment for RSF-X will be constructed
in two phases,with the first phase including the contact water management pond and the southwestern
half and the second phase completing the footprint to the northeast. RSF-X is considered temporary
because the PAG waste rock will be relocated to the bottom of the pit as part of site closure.
In support of the preliminary design of the proposed RSFs, Albemarle commissioned two phases of
site investigation and characterization in 2022 and 2023 to 2024. The 2022 site investigation was
designed to characterize the subsurface conditions through various disciplines, including geotechnical,
hydrogeology, geochemistry, geology, and mineral resources. The geotechnical investigations were
carried out from August to December 2022 and comprised a total of 51 boreholes, nine cone
penetration tests (CPT), and 20 geophysical lines.
The 2023 site investigation was completed between September and December 2023 and included
seven boreholes at the RSF-X facility and 10 boreholes at the RSF-A facility. DGI Geoscience
completed imaging of the borehole walls using an optical televiewer in the 10 boreholes at RSF-A. The
2023 to 2024 geotechnical investigation program also included a laboratory testing program performed
on selected bulk and split-spoon samples.
The geotechnical field investigations identified legacy and subsurface materials that were separated
into five primary categories: embankment, existing tailings, saprolite, partially weathered rock (PWR),
and bedrock (weathered and unweathered). The current understanding of the geotechnical units
across the proposed RSF-X and RSF-A facilities is based on the completed pre-feasibility
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page iii
characterization and indicates relatively diverse geotechnical conditions. A detailed description of the
site characterization phases and results is included in Appendix A. Preliminary design drawings are
included in Appendix B.
Slope stability analyses were prepared to support the current conceptual design of the RSFs and are
described in detail in the technical memorandum in Appendix C. The design concept at this stage of
the Project includes a relatively robust program of overexcavation beneath the RSF footprints
followed by replacement with suitable backfill based on the results of slope stability analysis and the
current understanding of the foundation characteristics. Additional analyses will be completed in later
stages of design and will incorporate the results of future characterization work deemed necessary at
the next phase of design.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Scope of Report.............................................................................. 1
1.1 Property Location................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Property History ..................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Project Overview.................................................................................................................................3
1.4 Project Layout.....................................................................................................................................4
1.5 Purpose and Scope of Report.............................................................................................................1
1.6 Reliance on Other Experts..................................................................................................................1
1.7 Proposed RSF Development..............................................................................................................2
2 Site Environment.......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Climate................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Temperature............................................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Evaporation .............................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Precipitation.............................................................................................................................6
2.1.4 Storm Frequency.....................................................................................................................7
2.1.5 Wind Patterns..........................................................................................................................9
2.2 Topography.........................................................................................................................................9
2.3 Bedrock Geology...............................................................................................................................10
2.4 Foundation Soils ...............................................................................................................................11
2.5 Groundwater .....................................................................................................................................12
2.5.1 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model ......................................................................................12
2.5.2 Site Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................13
2.6 Surface Water...................................................................................................................................14
3 Geotechnical Characterization ................................................................................. 16
4 Calculations and Engineering Design...................................................................... 18
4.1 RSF Hazard Classification ................................................................................................................18
4.2 Design Acceptance...........................................................................................................................18
4.3 Slope Stability Analyses....................................................................................................................19
4.4 Setback Distances ............................................................................................................................20
4.5 Runout Assessment..........................................................................................................................20
5 Design Description .................................................................................................... 23
5.1 RSF Design.......................................................................................................................................23
5.1.1 Topsoil Salvage and Unsuitable Soil Removal .....................................................................24
5.1.2 RSF Interior Base Design and Contact Water Management Ponds.....................................24
5.1.3 Stormwater Management......................................................................................................25
5.1.4 Closure..................................................................................................................................25
M B/F W/B B Ki ngsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page v
5.1.5 Technical Specifications and Construction Quality Assurance Plan.....................................26
5.2 Construction Guidelines....................................................................................................................26
5.2.1 Standard Operating Procedures ...........................................................................................26
5.2.2 Foundation Preparation.........................................................................................................29
5.2.3 Construction Methodology.....................................................................................................29
5.2.4 Material Quality .....................................................................................................................30
5.2.5 Advance Rates......................................................................................................................30
6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 32
7 References.................................................................................................................. 33
Disclaimer........................................................................................................................ 35
Copyright ......................................................................................................................... 35
List of Tables
Table 3-1: 2022 Laboratory Testing Summary Table.......................................................................................16
Table 3-2: 2023 to 2024 Laboratory Testing Summary....................................................................................17
Table4-1: Summary of WSRHC ......................................................................................................................18
Table 4-2: Kings Mountain RSF Slope Design Acceptability Criteria...............................................................19
Table 4-3: Summary of Modeled Runout Parameters (DAN-W)......................................................................22
Table 4-4: Summary of Modeled Runout Results (DAN-W).............................................................................22
Table 5-1: Engineering Drawing List ................................................................................................................23
Table 5-2: RSF Slope Design Recommendations............................................................................................24
List of Figures
Figure1-1: Location Map....................................................................................................................................2
Figure 1-2: Preliminary Kings Mountain Mining Project Site Map......................................................................1
Figure 1-3: Kings Mountain Proposed RSFs......................................................................................................3
Figure 1-4: RSF Proximity to Critical Infrastructure............................................................................................4
Figure 2-1: Average Monthly Evaporation..........................................................................................................6
Figure 2-2: Annual Precipitation .........................................................................................................................7
Figure 2-3: Excerpted Tables showing Site-Specific Study and Annual Return Intervals Results.....................8
Figure 2-4: Wind Rose Data in the Vicinity of Kings Mountain...........................................................................9
Figure 2-5: Current Surface Topography..........................................................................................................10
Figure 2-6: General Arrangement Showing Underlaying Bedrock Geology.....................................................11
Figure 2-7: Example Seismic Refraction Survey Results (P-Wave).................................................................12
Figure 2-8: Groundwater Level Contours .........................................................................................................13
M B/F W/B B Ki ngsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page vi
Figure 2-9: Existing Streamflow Network and Monitoring Points .....................................................................14
Figure 4-1: RSF Proximity to Critical Geographic Locations and Infrastructure...............................................20
Figure4-2: DAN-W Runout Model....................................................................................................................21
Figure 5-1: Example RSF Inspection Checklist................................................................................................28
Figure 5-2: Plot of Dump Crest Advance Rate versus Dump Height...............................................................31
Appendices
Appendix A: RSF-A and RSF-X Pre-feasibility Site Characterization Report (SRK, 2024)
Appendix B: Preliminary Design Drawing Set
Appendix C: Stability Calculation Package
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page vii
List of Abbreviations
The US System for weights and units has been used throughout the report for site specific data (unless
otherwise stated). Rock mass classification schemes may be referenced in their original metric units.
Abbreviation Unit or Term
° degree
°F degrees Fahrenheit
2D two-dimensional
ADS Advanced Drainage Systems
Albemarle Albemarle Corporation
amsl above mean sea level
AWA Applied Weather Associates
b s below ground surface
CMP corrugated metal pipe
CPT cone penetration test
CSIRO The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
CU consolidated-undrained
DAC design acce tance criteria
DEQ De artment of Environmental Quality
DMS dense media separation
DPI design and performance index
EGI engineering eolo index
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
Foote Foote Mineral Company
FoS factor of safety
ft foot
FTE FTE Drilling USA Inc.
GEOVision GEOVision Geophysical Services
Golder Golder Associates
gpm gallons per minute
HDPE high-density of eth lene
1-85 Interstate 85
Ib/ft3 pounds per cubic foot
ModCal modified California
Non-PAG non-potentially-acid-generating
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPI non-processing infrastructure
PAG otentiall acid generating
PCPE erforated corru ated polyethylene
PGA peak ground acceleration
PMP probable maximum precipitation
Project Kings Mountain Mining Project
QA/QC quality assurance/quality assurance/quality control
RSF rock storage facility
S shear
Schnabel Schnabel Engineering
SOP standard operating procedure
SPT standard penetration test
TARP tri er action response plan
Terracon Terracon Consultants, Inc.
TSF tailings storage facility
WHC waste dump and stockpile hazard class
WSB water storage basin
WSR waste dump and stockpile stability rating
WSRHC waste dump and stockpile stability rating and hazard classification
MB/F W/BB KingsMountain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 1
1 Introduction and Scope of Report
The Kings Mountain Mining Project (KMMP or Project) is a legacy open pit lithium mining operation
located in the city of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, in the southeastern United States. The Project
is a lithium pegmatite deposit that is currently being investigated for redevelopment by Albemarle
Corporation (Albemarle) as part of a prefeasibility-level analysis. Albemarle commissioned SRK
Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK) to develop prefeasibility-level designs for an expansion of the existing
pit, waste rock management, water management, and ancillary infrastructure to aid Albemarle in
making informed decisions regarding advancement of the Project. The scope of this report and the
preliminary design described herein is for proposed Rock Storage Facility (RSF)-A and RSF-X.
1.1 Property Location
Situated in Cleveland County, the mine is approximately 35 miles west of Charlotte, North Carolina.
Located amidst rolling hills of the Piedmont Plateau, the Project is in a predominantly rural setting
within the city of Kings Mountain. The mine site covers a significant land area, which includes both the
proposed extraction areas and associated processing infrastructure. Figure 1-1 shows the location
and extent of the mine.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 2
Gala+
cwq
aessemer city
� •y'�r,1irlB
044
w
'n. elur Ridge
A� Pd,fkridy
pntllrq, Eharchali
Oak Grove
. X`NMOunranfi
VICN
Sl..11iy Rd
£ings
Mountalri
CFawd
u "rs
ounisn
Mldpine I Mn,ain Stele
i ngs I Park
Mountain
A'CnQ31E Project
i � 5rd[e9Jllke
r dory
•hcviile L� South
MOuntdl nS
Statr park Mao-resville
_ er North CAf6lina
L•�
Gastonia
Charlotte
r$lartdnhurg ,
�a
Greerrdule ���� f:s�i
South Carolina
371 -—---
0 r 10 Is 2]
25
kites
Source: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.(ESRI),2023(modified by SRK)
Figure 1-1: Location Map
MB/F W/B B KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev0ldocx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 3
1.2 Property History
The following summary highlights the history of the site and is compiled from records available to SRK:
• Mining started in 1883 with the discovery of cassiterite, a tin-bearing mineral, within the
outcropping pegmatites.
• Subsequently, open pit mining for tin occurred sporadically between 1903 and 1937 (Horton,
2008).
• Between 1943 and 1945, under the sponsorship of the U.S. government, Solvay established
a processing plant and mined for spodumene from the outcropping pegmatites(Garrett,2004).
• In the early 1950s, Foote Mineral Company (Foote), a subsidiary of Newmont Mining
Corporation, purchased the property and began open pit mining (assumed at the beginning of
1955) and extracting lithium from the spodumene.
• In 1993, exploration and mining operations ceased when the open pit bottom reached
approximately 660 feet(ft) above mean sea level (amsl).
• In early 1994, an open pit lake started to form due to rebounding groundwater, and the pit lake
reached an elevation of 817 ft amsl (as of January 2023).
• During the groundwater recovery period (1994 to present), water was sporadically pumped
from the Kings Mountain pit lake to a nearby quarry (Martin Marietta) to support quarry
operation.
• Albemarle acquired the site in 2015, resuming exploration and mine development activities.
1.3 Project Overview
The Project ore deposit is a lithium-bearing rare-metal pegmatite intrusion that has penetrated along
the Kings Mountain shear zone, a regional structural feature known to host multiple lithium-bearing
pegmatites along its trend. The pegmatite field at Kings Mountain is approximately 1,500 ft wide at its
widest point in the legacy pit area and narrows to approximately 400 to 500 ft in width at its narrowest
point south of the legacy pit. The field has a lithium mineralization strike length of approximately 7,500
ft and is predominantly contained in the mineral spodumene.The spodumene pegmatite bodies exhibit
a texture-based variation in lithium grade, spodumene grain size, mineral alteration, and rock
hardness.
After dewatering the legacy pit, the lithium deposit is to be mined using conventional open pit mining
techniques. Blasting will fragment the ore and waste rock where it will be loaded and hauled to either
the processing facilities (ore) or the RSFs (overburden). The current plan includes mining in the
existing pit and expanding the pit to the southwest. Ore will be drilled, blasted, loaded, and transported
by haul truck to a new processing plant at a rate of approximately 2.98 million tons per annum of ore
(approximately 8,150 tons per day) and processed to produce 385 to 440 thousand tons per annum
of spodumene concentrate. The concentrate will be filtered to approximately 11 percent (%) moisture
by weight and transported off-site for further refinement into lithium hydroxide monohydrate at a
separate facility.
Tailings from the spodumene concentrate process will be filtered to approximately 10% to 15%
moisture content by weight and transported off-site to a nearby facility for disposal. A portion of the
waste rock with economic value as aggregate will also be transported off-site for sale.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 4
1.4 Project Layout
Figure 1-2 presents the Project layout, showing the relative locations of the major components of the
Project.The Project is bisected northeast to southwest by Interstate 85(1-85).The headwaters of Kings
Creek are located immediately northeast of the site, and the creek leaves the Project area at the
southern side of the Project area. The Phase 1 open pit outline is shown in the northeast area of the
Project along with the ultimate (Phase 4) pit extents. Haul roads are shown connecting the pit to the
RSFs: RSF-X, located south-centrally for potentially acid generating (PAG)waste, and RSF-A, located
in the southwest for non-PAG waste. The haul roads will also connect to the non-processing
infrastructure(NPI)(located in the northwest portion of the site)and the ore sorting area and stockpiles
(located on the east side of the Project, just north of 1-85). A bridge over 1-85 will connect the ore
stockpile area to the processing area, located immediately south of 1-85. South of the processing area,
Water Storage Basin (WSB)-1 will collect all contact water produced within the Project area before
being discharged from the site.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

PERIMETER
N POND 71
LAYDOWN
AREA
PERIMETER / ' '•�
POND 72
/•'' _ '�, %�'' PROPERTY
LINE
GROWTH MEDIA
/ - � '�•.% �. ❑
STORAGE
LAYDOWN
AREA
TRUCK MAINTENANCE /' �� ❑
SHOP MINE PIT
WAREHOUSE- �•
Opq
G�PG _EXISTING ROM PAD
NATURAL GAS FACILITY/LABORATORY \, �-•
� — ,
LINE RE-ROUTE 1
r,
o
--
READY LINE - ' HAUL ROAD 'S ❑o . '\ /,,/ /'' % /
CONCENTRATE �kk�_L , ;% /
RAIL LOADOUT ^
-�__ _„•' �'� �� � EXISTING
11
PROCESS
BOOSTER PUMP FACILITY '
� .. / / %•
�"- OVERBURDEN STORAGE
OVERBURDEN -- .--��' �'- -� _ - FACILITY 2 (OSF-2) � SED POND 1 �;,/ ,< 15 STOCKPILE r/
/ /
STORAGE
FACILITY 1 (OSF-1) WETLAND AREA RAIL CAR � � �, t� /'
SETBACK FUELING STATION /
❑ & INFRA STORAGE❑
SOUTH CREEK MUD POND#2 ❑ CRUSHING FACILITIE
CULVERT ❑ _
•-� �� GRADE TO DRAIN
4.
O
�- OSF-1 WATER - KING' S CREEK �✓ %
.��� /
MANAGEMENT PONDS
� CONCENTRATE TRUCK
- LOADING BUILDING
SOUTH CREEK _ = %
a
HAUL ROAD ,
d
PROPOSED ROCK
-- FILL CHECKDAM
�• �- �❑❑❑❑❑❑ � � ROCK
--� STORAGE v
•�•.— �� FACILITY X �
5 /
CONCENTRATOR
FACILITIES
� I � ❑�i�� ��� ��� �i� I I I ill I I I I I I� I I I I I I I ���� / /
�O'9\•„� ROCK WRC POND 51
6 STORAGE Z
\,\ FACILITY A OJ��
5 / / ❑i�
WATER STORAGE
/.
/ BASIN 1 (CURRENT
/
OUTLINE)
� WRC POND 61 -
EXISTING 230kV
loo, POWERLINE ALIGNMENT
OSF-3 WATER \
MANAGEMENT POND \
- WETLAND AREA
SETBACK
PROPOSED WATER
STORAGE
!- ---/ Iool EMBANKMENT
VERBURDEN STORAGE
/ FACILITY 3 (OSF-3) LAYDOW \ �� MAX WATER LEVEL
•� %' YARD ❑ PMP EVENT
PROPOSED TOE (845 FT AMSL)
Al
BUTTRESS
\ %❑
'lollIlool
,
230/24.9KV ELECTRICAL
PROPOSED _
SUBSTATION
SPILLWAY ❑
REVISIONS DESIGN: EL/JO REVIEWED:JO PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE: ISSUE:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:EL APPROVED:JO
OPEN PIT AND MINE FACILITY SIMPLIFIED SITE DATE:
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW 05/09/2023 srk consultingCOORDINATE SYSTEM:
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW- NEW SITE LAYOUT 07/24/2023 MAP EXHIBIT 6/19/2024
ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW- NEW MINE PLAN NC83F PREPARED FOR: SRK PROJECT NO.: REVISION:
3 08/24/2023
ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW-SURFACE WATER PROJECT: USPR576.800 7
0 250 500 1000 4 08/30/2023 KINGS MOUNTAIN
5 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW 08/30/2023 DRAWING NO.
J1 A L B E MARL E MINING PROJECT KINGS MOUNTAIN MINING PROJECT
g ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW 09/15/2023
FEET IF THE ABOVE BAR Operated by:7 RE-ISSUED FOR PERMITTING 06/19/2024 DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, FIGURE 1 -2
FILE NAME: Site Map_Rev 8_Simplified_Linked.dwg
THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED Albemarle-Lithium
C:\Users\elynn\SRK Consulting\NA USPR000576 Albemarle Corporation Kings Mountain 2022 Pre Feasibility Study-GIS\04 CAD\20240619_Simplified SiteMap\Site Map_Rev 8_Simplified_Linked.dwg

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 1
1.5 Purpose and Scope of Report
This preliminary design report summarizes the characterization, design, and slope stability work
completed by SRK for the proposed RSF-A and RSF-X.The purpose and scope of this report includes:
• Providing recommended slope design parameters for the RSF based on available
geotechnical data:
o Providing acceptance criteria for the pre-feasibility design
o Providing overall slope angles and recommended pre-feasibility-level design criteria for
the RSF
o Providing slope stability analysis with calculation of factors of safety (FoS) on the pre-
feasibility-level RSF designs
• Identifying additional information required to bring the Project to the next design phase
The stability and design work summarized in this report is supported by the following appendices:
• Appendix A: RSF-A and RSF-X Pre-feasibility Site Characterization Report
• Appendix B: Preliminary Design Drawing Set
• Appendix C: Stability Calculation Package
The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of
effort involved in SRK's services, based on:
• Information available at the time of preparation
• Data supplied by outside sources
• The assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report
This report is intended for use by Albemarle subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with
SRK.
1.6 Reliance on Other Experts
This report relies on data collected from the Kings Mountain pre-feasibility geotechnical investigation.
SRK's opinion contained herein is based on information and data provided to SRK by Albemarle
throughout the course of the investigations. SRK has relied upon the work of other consultants in the
Project areas in support of this design report, including the following:
• Cascade Drilling conducted the 2022 sonic and air rotary subsurface exploration drilling.
• FTE Drilling USA Inc. (FTE) conducted the 2023 sonic subsurface exploration drilling.
• Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted logging of the 2022 and 2023 subsurface
exploration drilling and also conducted a portion of the material property laboratory testing
(Terracon, 2023). Knight Piesold completed the rest of the laboratory testing. SRK relied on
geotechnical laboratory test results in the derivation of properties of the various materials.
• GEOVision Geophysical Services (GEOVision) conducted a seismic refraction geophysical
investigation to characterize the shear(S)wave velocity of sediments and underlying bedrock.
• Lettis Consultants International, Inc. computed peak horizontal ground accelerations (PGA)
for the Project based upon three design earthquakes (Lettis Consultants International, Inc.,
2022).
• ConeTec Inc. conducted cone penetration testing (CPT).
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 2
• Schnabel Engineering (Schnabel)(2011)engineered a design for removing the existing South
Creek reservoir dam for Foote.
• Golder Associates (Golder) (1975) conducted an investigation of the existing tailings dam in
1975 for Foote.
• Catalytic, Inc. (1975) prepared engineering drawings for Foote for the lithium carbonate plant.
• Albemarle provided the preliminary, interim, and final pre-feasibility designs for the Kings
Mountain RSF piles.
• SRK reviewed literature regarding the regional soil properties(Lambe, 1996, Lambe and Riad,
1990, and St. John, Sowers, and Weaver, 1969).
• Logan Drilling conducted the core drilling of the 2018 geotechnical core drillholes.
• Dahrouge Geological Consulting conducted the geotechnical core logging of the 2018
geotechnical core holes. SRK provided quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)for the 2018
geotechnical core drilling program. SRK reviewed the data (refer to the 2023 SRK factual
report) and relied on the collected data for this report (for bedrock properties).
• DGI Geoscience conducted the optical and acoustic televiewer logging of the 2018 and 2023
pre-feasibility drillholes.
1.7 Proposed RSF Development
In support of the proposed mining operations, Albemarle designed non-PAG and PAG RSFs for
temporary storage(overflow storage in the case of RSF-A)prior to pit backfilling.Two RSFs have been
proposed (Figure 1-3). This report covers the geotechnical design and stability of the two RSFs,
including:
• RSF-A will be a permanent non-PAG RSF constructed in the west-to-southwest area of South
Creek and to the east-to-northeast of Tin Mine Road. RSF-A will mostly be comprised of
coarse rock sourced from the open pit. SRK understands that Albemarle also plans to use the
facility to store finer-grained materials comprising dense media separation (DMS) rejects,
excavated sand from the existing legacy tailings storage facility (Old TSF; Golder, 1975),
waste rock from the existing tailings storage facility(TSF)embankment,and minimal quantities
of optional off-site fine material. Both the legacy tailings and waste rock are to be removed to
make way for the construction of RSF-X, but all materials destined for RSF-A will need to be
comingled at a mix ratio that does not negatively affect the strength governed by the coarse
waste rock component.
• RSF-X will be a temporary geomembrane-lined PAG RSF constructed over the footprint of the
existing legacy TSF (Golder, 1975) and adjacent to South Creek reservoir. Prior to
construction of RSF-X, the existing tailings from the existing impoundment and unsuitable
subgrade soils will be removed. The RSF will then be initially constructed with an engineered
foundation subgrade constructed with coarse materials contained within the existing
embankments. Following the completion of the engineered foundation subgrade, the
geomembrane-lined containment for RSF-X will be constructed in two phases, with the first
phase including the contact water management pond and the southwestern half and the
second phase completing the footprint to the northeast. The RSF is considered temporary
because the PAG waste rock will be relocated to the bottom of the pit as part of site closure.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 3
•rrrl rrr a •.r1J •.r. •:rrr
7-9ti mate Pit
Outline
a
•. 2:33
RSF-X
,11,1
RSF-A
2283
Plunge
•1 e
Azimuth 000
Looking down
r,
a
r 5DU 1000 500 2000
Ir .rrr
Source:SRK,2024
Figure 1-3: Kings Mountain Proposed RSFs
The RSF facilities are proposed to extend to maximum slope heights between 260 ft (RSF-X) and
350 ft(RSF-A)from lowest slope toe elevation to the highest elevation. Both RSFs will be constructed
in benches with an overall maximum slope angle of 2.51-1:1V(horizontal:vertical).
RSF-X (containing PAG) is proposed to be located adjacent to the South Creek reservoir, roads, and
wetlands. RSF-X is located close to Kings Creek (within approximately 115 ft), South Creek (within
approximately 145 ft), and railroad infrastructure(within approximately 50 ft). RSF-X also comes within
approximately 830 ft of 1-85.
RSF-A is proposed to be located directly adjacent to wetlands. RSF-X is also within close proximity of
South Creek(within approximately 85 ft),the Albemarle property line(within approximately 185 ft), Tin
Mine Road (approximately 275 ft), and nearby inhabited housing (within approximately 230 ft). Note
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSJ and RSJ—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 4
that berms and trees will be constructed as a buffer zone along the Albemarle property line adjacent
to RSF-A. Figure 1-4 shows infrastructure and environmental features adjacent to the RSFs.
•1111 ♦' 111 o r11 , '11 r � :11
Property Line 1
Wetlands 1r .
Creeks �l
Rail Infrastructure
Select Phase Pit Outline
?15
High Consequence areas
adjacent to WRD stockpiles t
Moderate Consequence areas { r
adjacent to WRD stockpiles
Yea 5
-ultimat Pit
1
RSF-X '
RSF-A
2283
73D5
111
0
f -:r / 11 Irn 11 ull
Source:SRK,2024
Figure 1-4: RSF Proximity to Critical Infrastructure
MB/F W/B B KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 5
2 Site Environment
2.1 Climate
The Project is situated within the Koppen-Geiger Cfa climate classification (Kottek, 2006), which
describes a continental type of climate without a dry season.Temperatures during the warmest months
are above 72 degrees Fahrenheit(°F), and temperatures in the coldest months are between 27°F and
65°F. Average monthly precipitation varies between 3 and 5 inches. Average annual precipitation is
42 inches, with an even distribution of rainfall throughout the year and an average annual snowfall of
4 inches. Southwestern North Carolina is prone to thunderstorms during the summer and ice storms
during the winter.
2.1.1 Temperature
The climate of the Project vicinity is humid subtropical with hot summers and mild winters.The monthly
temperature ranges from a minimum of around YF in January to a maximum of around 104°F in
August,with an average temperature of around 60°F. Legacy data show that temperatures in the area
have been increasing, with an average rise of 0.3°F per decade since 1970, or roughly 1.7°F from
1895 to 2020. Climate change is expected to further contribute to this warming trend, potentially
impacting surface water conditions, such as increased evaporation rates and altered streamflow
patterns. Predictive climate models suggest further warming in the future, potentially resulting in more
frequent and severe heatwaves and droughts.
2.1.2 Evaporation
Evaporation rates at the Project vary based on temperature, humidity levels, wind speed, and solar
radiation. Legacy data show that evaporation rates are highest in summer, averaging around 6 to
7 inches per month, and lowest in winter, with around 2 to 3 inches per month (Figure 2-1). Overall,
average annual evaporation ranges from 55 to 65 inches. Evaporation impacts surface water
availability by contributing to water loss from lakes, rivers, and streams. Factors such as vegetation
cover, land use practices, and soil moisture levels influence evaporation variability. Climate models
predict that evaporation rates will continue to increase in the future due to warming temperatures and
changes in precipitation patterns.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 6
s
7 —�
�6
5
o
m 4
W
t 3
L
O
1
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Clemson Univ Chesnee 7 WSW Chapel Hill 2 W — — —Average GoldSim
Figure 2-1: Average Monthly Evaporation
2.1.3 Precipitation
Precipitation totals at the Project vary throughout the year. Based on the last 30 years, the area
typically receives between 41 to 55 inches of rainfall annually (Figure 2-2), with precipitation being
distributed relatively evenly throughout the year without a clear wet or dry season. The region is
susceptible to extreme precipitation events, such as tropical storms and hurricanes, which can bring
heavy rainfall and cause flooding.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 7
Distribution of Precipitation
li P.0
70
w 10 —
t
60
9 e ■a 0 50
g e aa0
0 4 m
_
Ei
20
a 0 2 ¢`
g 10
0
January February March April May June July August 5epte ber W.ber November oe-ember Annual Total
2.5V 5% 5%40% s 10%-25% ■25%-50% ■Medjan ■SM-75% .75%-90% 90%-95% 95%-97-5%
Annual Precipitation
80
RI
t 60
e 50
Y 46
13
3a
20
a Jo-
0
'9s 1131 193s iW 1945 1950 i9ss 1910 ills 1970 197, IM0 ales 1990 199, z000 2co-s 2010 2015 2020
Figure 2-2: Annual Precipitation
2.1.4 Storm Frequency
Storms encountered at the Project vary in frequency and intensity throughout the year. For example,
a 100-year, 24-hour storm event produces, on average, 7.96 inches of precipitation (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2023). The region experiences thunderstorms, tropical
storms, and hurricanes, which can bring heavy rainfall and high winds. Thunderstorms, which are the
most common type of storm in the area, see peak activity in July and August. Factors such as
temperature, humidity, wind patterns, and topography influence storm occurrence. These storms can
impact surface water availability and quality by causing flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. Climate
change could increase the frequency and intensity of storms in the future, posing higher risks of
flooding and erosion.
Applied Weather Associates (AWA) completed the Site-Specific Probable Maximum Precipitation
Study for Kings Mountain Mining Operations, North Carolina(AWA,2022)for the Kings Mountain basin
in North Carolina. AWA utilized a storm-based approach to derive the site-specific probable maximum
precipitation (PMP) depths to update the PMP depths originally developed in hydrometeorological
reports developed by the National Weather Service. Figure 2-3 shows Tables 10.4 and 10.5 excerpted
from AWA (2022), which show the results of the site-specific study with annual return intervals to
1:10,000 years and beyond.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X-Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 8
Tji hie 10.4: Kings Nionnlnin hawin AF1'fur 6-. 24-.rind 77-!lour f NIP
Kings !Mountain AEP
Estimate PM P(in) AEP ARl
6hr 28.5 2.51-9 39.829.769
24hr 32.4 1.09'7 9.144,104
72hr 32.4 3.g '7 2,544,551
Table 10.5: [zing*Meuutain basin uvti-oll frequeslc,y analymi5 for 6-- 24-, and 72-hour
' tfiftuaimeV An 6-hour 24-hour 72-hour
IAEP AO 50% 5% 95% 50% 5% 95% 50% 5% 95%
1.01 0.99010 9.9` 1.0 0.9 1.1 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.6
2 o_500On 501 2.3 2.1 2.5 3A 9.4 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.5
5 0.2D000 2.01 3.2 2.9 3.4 4A 4.4 5.1 5.7 5.2 6.1
10 {7.1mo0 1.01 5.9 5.5 4.1 5.5 5.1 6.0 6.6 6.1 7.1
25 o.0400a 4.0' 4.7 4.3 5A 6.6 6.1 7.2 7.9 7.3 8.5
5o 0.02040 2.0' 5.3 4.9 5.8 715 GA a_2 8.9 8.2 9.7
100 0_U1o00 1.01 5.0 5.5 6.7 8.4 7.7 9.2 9.9 9.1 10.9
200 oxD500 5.01 6.8 6.2 7.6 9.3 .9.5 10.4 11.0 10.1 12.3
500 GAD200 2.01 7A 7.1 a in.6 9.6 12.1 12.6 11.4 14.3
1,000 0.00100 1.0', 8.7 7.9 10A 11.7 10A 135 13.9 12.4 16.0
5,6ao 0.00621) 2.0-1 10.9 9.5 13.1 14,4 12.5 17.2 17.1 Mg 20.4
10,000 0.00010 1.01 11.9 10.3 14.5 .15.7 13.5 19.1 18.6 16.0 22.6
100.DOO aA0001 1.0'' 15_9 13A 20.5 20.4 16.9 26.5 24.2 20.0 31.3
IN0.000 0.000001 1.0-` 20.5 16.3 28.3 26.2 20.7 36.1 31.0 24,5 42.7
14,000,OOo 0.0000001 1.0' 26.2 19.9 38.7 31A 25.0 49S 39.1 29.7 57A
100,000,000 n.00000001 1_o, 33A 24.0 52.5 41.4 29.9 65.5 48.9 3SA 77.6
1,000,Oc0,Oco O.OUo000o01 1.01 41.4 29.6 70.7 51,2 15.1 97.4 60.6 41.9 1U3.5
IO,OnU,000,L}UO U.UUaUc00d01 1.01 51.4 33,9 94.7 63.1 41.5 116.1 14.1 49.2 137.5
Source:AWA,2022
Figure 2-3: Excerpted Tables showing Site-Specific Study and Annual Return Intervals
Results
AWA (2022) also included a site-specific climate change assessment to "understand and quantify
whether the climate change projections related to temperature, moisture, and precipitation are
expected to change significantly in the future (through 2100), and whether those changes would
warrant a change to the currently derived PMP depths." The results of the study indicate "an increase
in precipitation and temperature in the future" with "the most likely outcome regarding precipitation
over the basin going forward is that the mean annual and seasonal amount will increase, but the
individual extreme events will stay within the range of uncertainty currently calculated" (AWA, 2022).
The site-specific water balance prepared to inform water management requirements across the site
considers the results of the site-specific climate study and is described in detail in SRK's Technical
Report 2022 Prefeasibility Study, Surface Water: Water Balance Development(SRK, 2023a).
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 9
2.1.5 Wind Patterns
Wind rose data were obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)Air Quality Portal
available online at https://airquality.climate.ncsu.edu/wind/. Figure 2-4 presents wind rose data for the
Shelby Municipal Airport, located about 13 miles west of Kings Mountain, and for the Gastonia
Municipal Airport, located about 13 miles east of Kings Mountain. The data for both sites indicate the
predominant wind direction is out of the north and northeast, with a good portion of the winds out of
the south and southwest.
W:, I..r,F 1i,r KAKH j G l,:rii .1j _ ® 6Vir-d r:sc KI 111.) ti4,ill:y.NC _
N
rrr
W
.sx L= .r.. ...
[w,.w:,.a,.I
392'N YOOWN'+Ti y GrmWi:wY ecT mPhl •. ...
61
menroY 1m,0 myi laLiaaoM �V W'� �'
...i:•• imy: N:r:L' -... ■2*e6inph f is q ■,Sy pnrn ���JJJ���`
�59n Trnph royr5 mph *r mph --
Source: DEQ Air Quality Portal, https://airquality.climate.ncsu.edu/wind/
Figure 2-4: Wind Rose Data in the Vicinity of Kings Mountain
2.2 Topography
Topography is relatively uniform, with an average elevation of 1,007 ft, and is characterized by
expansive low-relief and shallow rolling hills, subtly carved by narrow rivers and streams (Figure 2-5).
Vegetation is dominated by shrubbery and mature hardwood forest, including red maple, American
beech, and oak. Regional bedrock exposure is limited to rocky knobs, reaching elevations of 1,624 ft.
Relief demonstrates a subtle elevation transition to predominant low shrubbery and pine.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 10
i -
I1
7p.'
t(
'.0091
RSF-X
'A
- RSF-A $+ a
R-14i
ft�l l�i� i
r ,
t.
NA]'
WR
Source:SRK,2024
Note:2-ft contours are shown on current topography. Pre-feasibility design RSF locations are shown for reference.
Figure 2-5: Current Surface Topography
2.3 Bedrock Geology
The RSFs are underlain by a variety of rock types, primarily foliated metamorphic lithologies (meta-
sedimentary and meta-volcanic) including schists, marble, and phyllite (some of which have been
intruded by spodumene pegmatite). A more-detailed description of the substrate geologic units has
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 11
been provided in the 2023 SRK Factual Report for Kings Mountain. Figure 2-6 shows the site general
arrangement showing the underlying bedrock geology.
LITHOLOGIES:
0 Upper Mica Schist
— Amphibole Gneiss-Schist
— Spodumene Pegmatite
Shear Schist 1�
Mica Schist
Po Mica Schist
0 Chlorite Schist
i
— Silica Mica Schist B
— Schist Marble
— Marble
0 Phyllite
sed
I` Year Pit Extents
RSF-A RSF-X
—� Plunge+90
EF — Azimuth 000
Looking dowiff n
• 00 —_0 500 1000 1500
Source:SRK,2024
Note: For clarity,surface overburden/soils and existing RSF/TSF are not shown.
Figure 2-6: General Arrangement Showing Underlaying Bedrock Geology
2.4 Foundation Soils
Current topography in conjunction with pre-mine topography below the existing Old TSF(Golder, 1975,
reproduction of 1969 Foote topography map)was used to define the basal surface prior to placement
of tailings and waste rock material. The test pits and borings from the Golder (1975) and Schnabel
(2011) studies (in conjunction with the 2022 geotechnical investigations) were used to define the
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 12
foundation soil profile below the proposed RSF footprints. The foundations soils below the RSFs
comprise overburden and saprolite (or residual soil)overlying weathered bedrock (Figure 2-7).
284 SE NW
274
N 260 Overburden
L rrJi
rr r
Q)
250 Saprolite
o ................................................................................................
.-
cu 240
a�
w 230
220
210
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Position (meters)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
P-Wave Velocity (m/s)
Source:GEOVision,2023
Figure 2-7: Example Seismic Refraction Survey Results (P-Wave)
2.5 Groundwater
2.5.1 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model
The conceptual hydrogeological model subdivides the groundwater system around the site into two
main components, including surficial deposits and bedrock.
Surficial deposits are made up of a mix of overburden rock, saprolite, and weathered bedrock. These
units have relatively higher hydraulic conductivities than the deeper bedrock. Groundwater inflow to
the pit through the surficial deposits is believed to be substantial in the current condition and is
expected to be a major contributor during the initial stages of mining. This depressurization of the RSF
foundation units into the pit is expected to increase consolidation of surficial soils (RSF foundation
soils) and improve the stability during the short-term operations. However, the relative contribution to
RSF foundation outflow and pore pressure is expected to decrease rapidly in time, as the surficial units
(overburden, saprolite, and weathered bedrock) become dewatered through pit excavation and in-pit
sump dewatering. At this point, the modeled water level will reach a relatively steady-state condition
during operations.
In contrast, the underlying bedrock groundwater system is expected to be the less-important
component in terms of RSF performance and stability. This system is understood as bedrock units
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 13
with low hydraulic conductivity decreasing with depth and low groundwater storage parameters
decreasing. The main flow pathways in this system occur through fracturing and weathering of the
bedrock, which is more pronounced in the upper parts of the system, just underneath the surficial
deposits.
2.5.2 Site Groundwater Conditions
The Prefeasibility Study Hydrogeologic Characterization Kings Mountain Project report (SRK, 2023)
describes the groundwater conditions for the site. During the 2022 site characterization program, six
monitoring wells were installed near the proposed RSFs (Figure 2-8). Wells SNKM22-432 (TSFM-6)
and SNKM22-434 (TSFM-4) are located in the existing TSF, and the available readings show the
groundwater level at 59 and 34 ft below ground surface (bgs). For Borehole SNKM22-406 (MW-RSF-
1-1), the groundwater level is recorded at 27.2 ft bgs. Wells SNKM-375 (KMMW21-4) and SNKM22-
400 (KMMW21-6 Shallow) were installed in the lower ground of the property, where the groundwater
level is recorded at 52 and 64 ft bgs, respectively. Well SNKM22-398 (MW-TSF-1-2) indicates
groundwater is at 10 ft bgs; this is probably influenced by the proximity of the South Creek reservoir
(see Figure 2-8).
920
kr9DD y`v
s.
0
�920 °
8dp �-o
ss,-
�949 0
�o
969 RT
aea
98
RT 401
.tee
9a
O_
800
x
82 91K%Me24
•
as
22-3H8 � SR M ■
R 362
RT W
-385
91 KAkT1S1T
0�
- _ SRKM22435
SR 22-= * '
o ry
/
�K
SNXM22-4M
O
Source:SRK,2023
Figure 2-8: Groundwater Level Contours
M B/F W/B B KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X-Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 14
2.6 Surface Water
SRK's Surface Water Management Report, Kings Mountain Mining Project, North Carolina (SRK,
2023d) describes surface water hydrology and stormwater control system design at the site in detail,
and the following sections are incorporated from that report.
The natural drainage network in the vicinity of the Project is heavily influenced by legacy and active
mining activities. The contributing watersheds to the Project area are roughly defined by Battleground
Avenue to the north, Tin Mine Road to the west, Church Road to the south and east, and Cardio Hill
(a legacy RSF) to the northeast. The drainage network consists of two main drainages and several
constructed water bodies, as shown on Figure 2-9.
T
-
y
V.
Pa
too
i
'-KF�75W-8 bnwnstream
of Weir ir3•
c:r=
Source:SRK,2023d
Figure 2-9: Existing Streamflow Network and Monitoring Points
Kings Creek passes through the Project area from northeast to southwest. Upgradient of the Project,
Kings Creek is intercepted by the Martin Marietta Quarry Pit. Water intercepted by the Martin Marietta
Quarry Pit is pumped out on a regular basis and discharged into Kings Creek. The pumping system
was recently upgraded to a capacity of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm).
As Kings Creek enters the Project area, it is routed under the current Albemarle research building in a
620-ft-long, 4-ft-diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert. After exiting the culvert, Kings Creek
MB/F W/B B KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 15
flows to the southwest and joins with flows from the South Creek reservoir before crossing under 1-85
in three, 7-ft-wide by 10-ft-high concrete box culverts. Flowing south, Kings Creek joins with flows from
WSB-1 before flowing off the Project area to the southwest.
South Creek begins northwest of the Project area in an area of residential neighborhoods. The creek
flows generally southwards as it passes the existing Foote mineral tailings impoundment before
entering the South Creek reservoir, formed as part of the legacy mining activities in the area. Runoff
from the legacy tailings impoundment does not discharge directly to South Creek, but meteoric water
infiltrating into and through the tailings likely reports to South Creek and the South Creek reservoir.
The recently upgraded spillway from the South Creek reservoir consists of two 32-inch-diameter high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) culverts through the embankment. The culverts flow into a rock down-
chute that joins Kings Creek.
The Kings Creek pit lake is formed in the legacy Kings Mountain pit and does not currently contribute
surface water flows to the stream network. The current pit lake elevation is approximately 800 ft amsl
and would need to rise at least 50 ft before overflowing from the pit into Kings Creek.
There are several small, manmade ponds in the Project area that generally contribute to the Kings
Creek drainage system. The most notable of these ponds is Pond #1, a legacy water management
structure used by the existing industrial activities to manage stormwater runoff from the Project area.
Pond #1 collects water from the site and infrequently discharges through a culvert under the railroad
spur into Kings Creek.
WSB-1 is formed by the legacy Foote chem tailings impoundment south of 1-85. Post-mining, the
embankment was breached down to an elevation of approximately 820 ft amsl, and flows exiting WSB-
1 flow freely over a rock spillway,joining with Kings Creek approximately 1,500 ft downstream of the
lake. The area below the confluence of Kings Creek and WSB-1 outflow is currently blocked by a
beaver dam,forming a large marshy area in the drainage and resulting in localized flooding.Albemarle
is currently exploring options to relocate the beavers and allow flows in Kings Creek to be confined to
the original stream channel under normal flow conditions.
Streamflow at the Project site is continuously monitored at the two locations. Monitoring Point KMSW-
3 is a legacy concrete and steel plate weir designated as Weir#3 located on Kings Creek below the
confluence with South Creek and upstream of the culvert crossing under 1-85. Monitoring Point KMSW-
8 is located at the outlet of the South Creek reservoir, just upstream of the confluence with Kings
Creek.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 16
3 Geotechnical Characterization
The 2022 site investigation was designed to characterize the subsurface conditions through various
disciplines, including geotechnical, hydrogeology, geochemistry, geology, and mineral resources. The
geotechnical investigations were carried out from August to December 2022 and comprised a total of
51 boreholes, nine CPTs,and 20 geophysical lines. Sampling consisted of standard penetration testing
(SPT), modified California (ModCal), and disturbed materials.
Laboratory testing was completed on selected bulk and split-spoon samples from the 2022 site
investigation in Terracon's Charlotte geotechnical testing laboratory. Table 3-1 summarizes the type
and number of laboratory tests for material characterization. Appendix A includes the results of the
laboratory testing.
Table 3-1: 2022 Laboratory Testing Summary Table
Test Procedure Quantity
Moisture content ASTM D2216 79
Atterberg limits ASTM D4318 75
Sieve analysis ASTM D6913 72
Hydrometer ASTM D7928 15
Unit weight ASTM D7263 6
Standard proctor ASTM D698/D1557 2
Flexible wall permeability ASTM D 5084-90 METHOD C 1
Consolidated-undrained (CU)triaxial test ASTM D4767 5
Consolidation ASTM 2435 2
Unconfined compression(rock) ASTM D 7012 2
The 2023 site investigation was completed between September and December 2023 and included
seven boreholes at the RSF-X facility and 10 boreholes at the RSF-A facility. Final borehole depths
range from 50 to 190 ft bgs. The boreholes were drilled using two sonic drill rigs: one truck-mounted
and the other track-mounted. Continuous sampling was performed during drilling by either collecting
the bagged sonic samples in between penetration resistance tests or by collecting hammer-driven
split-spoon ModCal and SPT samples every 5 to 10 ft during drilling. DGI Geoscience completed
imaging of the borehole walls using an optical televiewer in the 10 boreholes at RSF-A.
The 2023 geotechnical investigation program included a laboratory testing program performed on
selected bulk and split-spoon samples.The testing program was conducted at Terracon's geotechnical
testing laboratory in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the Knight Piesold geotechnical laboratory in
Denver, Colorado. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the requested and completed laboratory tests for
the material characterization at the RSF-X and RSF-A projected locations up to March 15, 2024.
Appendix A includes the results of the laboratory testing.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 17
Table 3-2: 2023 to 2024 Laboratory Testing Summary
Test Procedure Quantity
Moisture content ASTM D2216 61
Atterberg limits ASTM D4318 52
Sieve analysis ASTM D6913 66
Hydrometer ASTM D7928 11
Specific gravity ASTM D854 14
Permeability ASTM D5084 1
Unconfined compression in rock ASTM D7012 8
Rock unit weight ASTM D7012 8
Point load test ASTM D5731 4
SRK's report titled Rock Storage Facilities RSF-A and RSF-X, Pre-feasibility Site Characterization
Report(SRK, 2024) (included in Appendix A) describes the details and conclusions of the 2022 and
2023 to 2024 site characterization and laboratory testing programs in detail.
MB/FW/BB KingsMountain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 18
4 Calculations and Engineering Design
4.1 RSF Hazard Classification
A semi-qualitative waste dump and stockpile stability rating and hazard classification (WSRHC) using
guidance provided by Hawley, Cunning, and The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO)(2017)was completed for the RSFs.The WSRHC evaluates 22 key factors that
affect the stability of the RSFs and assigns a relative hazard rating. These factors are assigned a
numerical rating and the sum to the waste dump and stockpile stability rating (WSR). The maximum
possible WSR is 100; higher ratings indicate a more stable configuration. The WSRHC and associated
WSR are utilized to establish appropriate stockpile operation and monitoring guidelines for the RSFs
at the Project. Table 4-1 summarizes the hazard ratings.
Table 4-1: Summary of WSRHC
Index RSF-X(PAG) Rating RSF-A(NAG) Rating
Engineering geology index(EGI) 23.5 20.5
Design and performance index(DPI) 24 24.5
Waste dump and stockpile hazard rating 47.5 45
Waste dump and stockpile hazard class (WHC) III: moderate hazard III: moderate hazard
The results indicate that RSF-A and RSF-X are considered WHC III with an instability hazard of
moderate mazard. According to Hawley, Cunning, and CSIRO (2017), the following level of effort for
design and construction is recommended for a moderate hazard dump:
• Investigation and characterization: comprehensive desktop studies to establish initial stability
rating and hazard classification; detailed site reconnaissance to confirm assumptions from
desktop studies; detailing mapping and subsurface investigations, likely including test
pitting/trenching and limited drilling and sampling; in situ instrumentation and testing and
laboratory testing to verify foundation and fill material properties; initiation of comprehensive
baseline environmental monitoring; condemnation drilling.
• Analysis and design: comprehensive stability analyses, including consideration of runout
potential; qualitative risk assessment;design moderately constrained by stability and potential
impacts; design optimization and impact mitigation studies; design constructed by
experienced geotechnical specialist with peer review.
• Construction and operation: moderate site preparation, which may include underdrainage and
diversions; limited foundation instrumentation to verify performance; runout/rollout mitigation
measures, if required; moderately constrained construction sequence of fill quality and
placement as necessary; loading/advance rate restrictions; standard instrumentation and
visual monitoring with well-defined trigger action response plans (TARP); periodic (minimum
annual) inspections by experienced geotechnical specialist.
4.2 Design Acceptance
SRK utilized design acceptance criteria (DAC) based upon internationally accepted practice as well
as upon acceptance criteria guidance presented in the mine waste dump and stockpile design
publication (Hawley, Cunning, and CSIRO, 2017); Table 4-2 summarizes the DAC. The selected DAC
are based on the expected failure consequence on impact to adjacent infrastructure and environmental
features, as shown on Figure 1-4. The results of the WSRHC generally supports the adopted DAC.
MB/F W/B B KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 19
Table 4-2: Kings Mountain RSF Slope Design Acceptability Criteria
Minimum FoS/Strength Minimum Maximum
RSF Slope Consequence Reduction Factor(SRF) FoS/SRF Probability of
Static Pseudo-Static Failure P FoS<_1
RSF-A(north and Moderate Greater than (>) 1.3 >1.1 Less than (<)5%
west slope Consequence
RSF-X(all slopes), High >1.5 >1.15 <5%
RSF-A east sloe Consequence
Source:SRK,2023,modified after Hawley,Cunning,and CSIRO,2017
The recommended criteria are based on confidence levels in the understanding of site conditions,
material parameters and the consequences of instability.The acceptance criteria list is only a guideline
and must be considered in terms of the specific economical and safety risk profiles.
4.3 Slope Stability Analyses
With consideration to the foundation conditions and expected slope performance, the following
instability mechanisms were considered throughout the analyses and design work:
• Deep-seated, overall slope instability through a significant volume of the waste rock materials
• Deep-seated, overall slope instability through a significant volume of the waste rock materials
and sliding along/through a weaker underlying foundation layers or existing
tailings/embankment material
Shallow slope face instabilities may be expected throughout construction as material settles and
should be managed in accordance with the implemented standard operating procedures.
Based on the current understanding of the subsurface under both RSFs, it is the second case where
failure occurs through a weaker foundation layer that has guided the stability analyses for these
facilities, as described in detail in Appendix C.The results of the stability analyses were used to iterate
the design and site preparation details necessary to achieve stable configurations. As shown in the
stability calculation package in Appendix C, the modeled failure surfaces extended into foundation
soils (i.e., overburden and saprolite) at the toe but do not extend deeper into the weathered bedrock.
The design case for RSF-A and RSF-X includes removal of the weak saprolite below the toe of the
proposed facility, over the shear key extents to depths of between 10 and 20 feet(on average)and to
a maximum depths of up to 30 ft deep at RSF-A(in localized areas along the southern perimeter)and
approximately 20 to 25 ft (in localized areas along the southern perimeter and below prior existing
native grades)at RSF-X. With the proposed removal of unsuitable material, stability analyses result in
acceptable static factors of safety for facility overall slopes of 2.5HAV, as is currently planned.
The stability runs consider a strength function conservatively capped at a shear value of 2,000 psf,
which is based on analysis of available literature and preliminary site-specific laboratory test data.
Sensitivity runs using reported drained strength envelopes on saprolite from literature values (c=250
psf, phi=26 degrees), were also performed and are included in the stability report, but these are
considered unconservative, particularly at higher confining pressures.
Further laboratory analysis at higher confining stresses should be completed during future design
phases to assess the behavior of the saprolite once the initial collapse has occurred and the material
behaves in a more strain-hardening manner. This may reduce the estimated depth and volumes of
unsuitable soil removal.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev0ldocx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 20
In addition, the waste material loading schedule should be further evaluated with regard to identifying
potentially weaker or finer-grained materials that could be deposited within the proposed dumps and
the expected co-mingling relationships based on expected material volumes in the detailed mine plan.
4.4 Setback Distances
As discussed, the stability analyses results indicate that failure of significant volume is not expected to
contribute to a consequential runout. Therefore, the results of the stability analyses indicate that the
proposed setback distances to infrastructure and environmental features are appropriate for a larger
event. Figure 4-1 shows the utilized setback distances.The analysis results are based on the assumed
geotechnical design strengths that will need to be further defined with future field investigation results.
However, experience gained from other operations indicates that disruptive runout events may occur
from the near slope across several dump benches. Section 4.5 describes a runout assessment based
on a local scale failure event.
Property Line �+
Wetlands � � +
I Creeks f
Raillnfrastructure � {
[phone]
th
1
awn::
zzaa
��•r.4 1
Looking di!:�poA_
500 1001, A 500i+i 1
} _� c� 1 1 1 1 1'•1
Source:SRK,2023
Figure 4-1: RSF Proximity to Critical Geographic Locations and Infrastructure
4.5 Runout Assessment
The run-of-mine waste rock material used for construction will contain predominantly large-sized
rockfill estimated to consist of approximately 50.3% boulders by mass (Austin Powder Company,
2023). Given SRK's experience, this type of material does not have the material properties that would
allow a significant runout. Given the above considerations, a failure with a significant volume is not
expected to contribute to a consequential runout event that can adversely impact structure
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 21
performance. However, it is acknowledged that there is still the potential for runout (however small)
should an unlikely stability/runout event occur.
As part of mitigatory measures, SRK incorporated an overall maximum allowable 2.5H:1V(22-degree
(°)) slope with a benched profile for ultimate RSF configuration. Additionally, a two-dimensional (21D)
runout analysis was carried out using the software package DAN-W (Hungr Geotechnical Research
Inc. (Hungr), 2010)for modeled scenarios utilizing the maximum allowable slope.
The runout scenarios were modeled to evaluate the sensitivity of an event, such as a larger slump
associated with layers of poor-quality rock end-dumped close to an active face.A failure volume based
on a multi-platform event from the upper platforms was modeled using DAN-W, as shown on
Figure 4-2. The runout distances represent simulated lengths beyond the toe of the RSF. The
distances are not representative of the actual slumped materials within the dump itself, which in most
cases would represent the greater movement during a dump instability event across several benches.
Pre-Failure—Modeled RSF Section
Frictional run-out representative of a slump event
Modelled multi-bench failure volume
(FoS greater than 1.2 for LEM pseudo-static analysis)
Modeled Runout—Modeled RSF Section
Modelled Run-Out
Frictional run-out representative of a slump event
14°
Source:SRK,2023
Figure 4-2: DAN-W Runout Model
The runout was modeled using frictional behavior parameters due to the unconfined sliding surface
and expected characteristics of the coarse, granular, free-draining backfill rock. The waste rock
parameters are based on empirical work carried out by Golder and Hungr (1994). Table 4-3 presents
the modeled runout parameters.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 22
Table 4-3: Summary of Modeled Runout Parameters (DAN-W)
(°)
Type Mobilization/ (pounds Unit Weight Friction Angle Pore Pressure
yp per
Substrate Criterion cubic foot Ib/ft3 Internal Dynamic' Coefficient2
Waste rock Frictional 135 37 32 or 34 0, 0.1, or 0.2
Saprolite Frictional 110 32 24 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3
Source:SRK,2023
'Dynamic friction angle was lowered as part of sensitivity assessment of model to input parameters; dynamic friction angle is
expected to be less than internal friction angle.
'Pore pressure coefficients were increased as part of sensitivity assessment of model input parameters;materials are expected
to be free draining.
Results from DAN-W models were expressed in terms of horizontal runout distance (feet) from the
original RSF toe position. A sensitivity analysis was completed on the assumed porewater pressure
coefficient and frictional parameters within the models (Table 4-3). The results are representative of a
slumping event with a resulting Fahrboschung of approximately 14°, representing the angle from failure
scarp to runout toe. Figure 4-2 shows DAN-W model results, and Table 4-4 summarizes complete
DAN-W model results and sensitivity analysis.
Table 4-4: Summary of Modeled Runout Results (DAN-W)
Horizontal Runout Distance Beyond Design RSF Toe(ft)
Dynamic Friction Angle
34°Waste Rock, 32°Waste Rock,
24°Saprolite 24°Saprolite
Pore 0 waste rock, 0 saprolite >1 6
pressure 0.1 waste rock, 0.2 saprolite 9 13
coefficient 0.2 waste rock, 0.3 saprolite 15 33
Source:SRK,2023
Horizontal runout distance results in Table 4-4 indicate a maximum runout of 33.4 ft under the
conditions modeled as part of the sensitivity analysis. The modeled runout is less than the smallest
slope height portion of RSF-X that is located near existing administration buildings directly to the east
(Figure 4-1).
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 23
5 Design Description
To support evaluation and mine permitting for the Project, SRK developed prefeasibility or preliminary
designs for RSF-A and RSF-X to aid Albemarle in making informed decisions regarding advancement
of the Project. Appendix B includes the conceptual design drawing set of the proposed RSFs and
appurtenant facilities, as well as plans, sections, and details for the following components:
1. Over-excavation of unsuitable soils and, where required, replacement with compacted
granular general fill.
2. Construction of a system of underdrains for RSF-A and overliner drains for RSF-X.
3. Construction of contact water pond for RSF-X and placement of geomembrane liner, split into
two phases to include the contact water pond and west half of the pad for Phase 1 followed
by completion of the pad for phase 2 (refer to Drawing 400 in Appendix B).
4. Placement of a minimum 3-ft-thick protective overliner layer with no particle larger than
3 inches, which may be generated through processing waste rock from the legacy TSF
embankment or another approved source.
5. Construction of perimeter stormwater control system and access roads.
6. Controlled comingling of materials destined to RSF-A to achieve a stable mixture and prevent
the formation of lenses of weak material within the total mass.
7. Controlled loading for both RSFs to spread load over as wide an area as possible and prevent
rapid loading in smaller areas and the potential generation of excess porewater pressures in
the subgrade.
8. Engineering drawings were prepared under the direct supervision of R. Breese Burnley (P.E.
No. 055362), a Professional Engineer currently registered in the state of North Carolina;
Table 5-1 provides the drawing list for these plans.
Table 5-1: Engineering Drawing List
Drawing Number Title
100 Location Map and Drawing Index
200 Existing and Proposed Site Facilities
300 RSF-A Final Configuration Grading Plan and Sections
400 RSF-Final Configuration Grading Plan and Sections
500 Rock Storage Facility Details
Note: Refer to Appendix B.
The following sections provide additional detail and guidance for RSF construction.
5.1 RSF Design
Table 5-2 summarizes the RSF design criteria. To prevent damage to the property or to critical on-site
infrastructure, setback distances have been recommended. In addition to the slope design criteria
presented in Table 5-2,the toe of the RSFs will be located on flat to gently sloping topography between
50 and 150, with base grading modifications where required to improved overall slope stability. RSF-X
is located across the legacy TSF,which requires removal.The topography in this area will be regraded
to a gentle slope following excavation of the existing tailings and unsuitable subgrade material, and a
slight upward slope along the southern third will be created to improve stability along the liner interface
while providing for routing of overliner drainage to the contact water pond in the southwest corner of
the RSF (refer to the design drawings in Appendix B).
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 24
Table 5-2: RSF Slope Design Recommendations
RSF Bench Maximum Lift Dump Face Maximum Overall
Height(ft) Slope Angle(°) Slope Angle(°)
RSF-A Lower five 30 36 22 (2.5H:1 V)
Upper 30 36 26 (2.5H:1 V)
RSF-X All 30 36 20 (2.5HIV)
Source:SRK,2023
In addition, the following geotechnical design requirements are established:
• Soft and saturated materials within the footprints will be removed prior to construction; this
specifically includes legacy tailings and soft subsurface soils, such as the upper weakest
layers of saprolite, where dumps are to be constructed. If the excavation of unsuitable soils
results in excavations below design grade, approved general fill will be placed in loose lifts of
specified thicknesses and compacted in accordance with technical specifications developed
for each particular fill source to bring the surface back up to design grade.
• Engineered subgrade foundations will need to be constructed prior to construction of the
overlying dump platforms.
• Vertical advance rates may need to be limited on an annual basis to prevent the generation of
excess porewater pressures in the foundation and subgrade. Loading restrictions should be
determined following additional characterization and detailed analyses carried out for the next
phase of design.
• Waste rock located at the slope face and across the initial platforms will need to be free-
draining, coarse, and durable.
5.1.1 Topsoil Salvage and Unsuitable Soil Removal
Prior to construction, the RSFs' footprints will be cleared and grubbed of existing vegetation. Organic
topsoil and growth media will be stripped and hauled to a designated stockpile where it will be stored
for reuse during the Project closure phase. Unsuitable soils across the site, and in particular along the
southern edge of RSF-A and under the legacy tailings at RSF-X, will be removed and hauled to a
designated stockpile where it will also be stored for reuse during facility closure. Based on information
obtained during site characterization activities, the depth of required removal of unsuitable soils is
highly variable across the site and will require direct oversight of a geotechnical engineer during
construction to ensure all potential unstable soils are removed and replaced. Where unsuitable soils
are removed below design grade, waste rock or other suitable fill material (potentially generated
through cut-and-fill operations within the pit base)will be used to backfill the excavations in compacted
layers up to design grade. Placement and compaction will be achieved in accordance with technical
specifications tailored to each specific material type.
5.1.2 RSF Interior Base Design and Contact Water Management Ponds
The overburden, residual soil, and saprolite at the base of the RSFs' interiors will be excavated to an
average depth of about 10 ft(except as noted above along the southern boundary of RSF-A and under
the legacy tailings at RSF-X)and shaped to the final design lines and grades. Based on available site
characterization and laboratory test data, relatively low permeability saprolitic soils are likely to be
present throughout the RSFs'footprints, and it is expected that moisture conditioning and compaction
of in situ soils during base preparation will provide a relatively low-permeability surface capable of
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 25
inhibiting vertical migration of fluids and promoting lateral flow to the RSF base drain systems
described below. Where possible, fine-grained saprolitic soils removed to achieve design grades will
be stockpiled for later use in facility closure.
Following base grading and compaction, a base drain system will be installed over the prepared RSF
base to collect and remove infiltrating meteoric water and any collected seepage from upwelling
groundwater. This base drain system will consist of a series of various sizes of perforated corrugated
polyethylene (PCPE) collection pipes (Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) N-12 or approved
equivalent) placed along the existing and regraded natural flow lines and covered with drain rock or
sand to provide a preferential flow path for migrating liquids (refer to Drawing 300 in Appendix B). The
base drain system will route fluids to a seepage and contact water collection sump at the southeastern
corner of the RSF-A footprint.Two drainpipes will exit the sump base and be routed under the southern
embankment and into the contact water pond at the southeast corner of the RSF. The pipeline will be
installed with multiple water stops to prevent seepage flow along the pipeline.
The waste rock placed in the RSFs is anticipated to be very coarse.All drains will be covered with filter
sand material specifically designed to minimize the migration of fines into the drain media. Crusher
pilot testing will be performed as part of facility construction to develop grain size distribution
relationships for each component of the interior sideslope design to facilitate Terzaghi filter calculations
(1950)and ensure that the different material types will be both internally stable and compatible for use
in a layered sand filter design. If on-site materials cannot be processed to meet the necessary
specifications, Albemarle may need to source one or more components of the layered sand filter from
an outside vendor.
The same approach to unsuitable material removal will apply to RSF-X except that the legacy tailings
will also be removed. Once a non-yielding foundation is established, an 80-mil double-sided textured
liner will be constructed over the Phase 1 and contact water management pond footprints, and the
overliner drainage system and protection layer will be installed. The system will be constructed in a
similar manner as described for RSF-A except that this system will be constructed over the
geomembrane liner and designed to provide for full containment of meteoric water contacting the PAG
waste rock to be placed in RSF-X for temporary storage. Collected contacted water will be routed
through the proposed on-site water treatment plant prior to discharge into WSB-1 for eventual release
into Kings Creek.
5.1.3 Stormwater Management
Stormwater management at the RSF sites is relatively simple in layout and includes a perimeter
stormwater management channel at the toe of the RSF slopes that will route collected runoff flows into
each RSF's contact water management pond. Stormwater management controls for areas external to
the actual RSF areas are described in the report Archdale Surface Water Management Report, Kings
Mountain Mining Project(SRK, 2024a).
5.1.4 Closure
RSF closure is described in more detail in SRK's preliminary closure plan (SRK, 2024)and is currently
anticipated to include ongoing closure and reclamation of RSF-A exterior slopes followed by placement
of a minimum of 2 ft of growth media in loose lifts and revegetated with an approved seed mix. Best
management practices will be implemented to prevent erosion until vegetation is successfully
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 26
established. Stormwater berms and channels will be installed as necessary to control stormwater flows
off of the closed surface and safely route them into the perimeter stormwater management system;
riprap lining or channel erosion protection products will be utilized where necessary. RSF-X is a
temporary facility, and at closure the PAG waste rock will be relocated to the open pit, the liner will be
shredded and disposed of in an approved municipal waste landfill, and the original lined footprint will
be covered with a minimum of 12 inches of growth media and revegetated with an approved seed mix.
5.1.5 Technical Specifications and Construction Quality Assurance Plan
The detailed design of the RSFs will include preparation of a thorough set of technical specifications
to guide construction in accordance with the approved design and a detailed construction quality
assurance plan to detail required field and laboratory procedures that must be followed to ensure
compliance with the technical specifications and approved detailed design.
5.2 Construction Guidelines
5.2.1 Standard Operating Procedures
The operation of the RSFs must be consistent with the design basis and assumptions stated above.
Operational guidelines or standard operating procedures(SOP)should be developed using the design
basis.
SOPS for the construction should be implemented to improve safety for operating staff who are tasked
with building the dumps. The SOPs should be implemented prior to construction and approved by the
Kings Mountain geotechnical team. The mine engineering team should consider the following when
developing short-term dumping plans:
• Opportunities for multiple dumping locations and providing sufficient length of the dump crest
in each area to an acceptance crest stability condition.
• Utilizing topographic variations and features to help control dump stability during construction.
• Completion of required surface water diversion and drainage features prior to establishment
of the initial dump platforms.
The following other operational aspects should be considered:
• Provide survey control to maintain dumps are per design limit.
• Where practical, maintain traffic flow so that loaded trucks travel driver side along the crest,
giving the operator an opportunity to visually inspect the condition of the crest.
• Materials should be dumped short of the crest to be pushed over the edge by the dozer.
• Lift heights should be managed to reduce any rapid loading and impact to underlying
overburden and saprolite foundation materials.
• Continually inspect the condition of the dump site for abnormal or hazardous conditions.
Hazardous conditions would include:
o Excessive surface cracking
o Safety berms not staying in place
o Ongoing surface build-up to maintain a level platform
o Bulging of the dump face
o Slope toe or foundation creep
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 27
Figure 5-1 provides an example of an RSF inspection checklist that can be adapted for Kings
Mountain.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 28
Waste Dump(i.e,Phase 1 Dump): completed by: Date Completed:
Date of Last Inspection:
INSPECTION CHECKLIST:(indicate the location of abnormalities or potential hazards on an attached drawing) Dump Face(continued)
Diversion Ditches
Free cf debris/sediment build-up: Yes No lSijEns
of over-to Yes No
Rip-Rap/armouring in place: Yes No Discharge point dear: Yes No
Signs of erosion on base or sides: Yes No
Comments/Actions Required/Recommended: Dump Foundation
Coarse material at base and into yes No Bulging at the toe: Yes NO
gullies: If y Dump Foundation
es,bulging is in:
Seepage From toe Region: Yes No moterirrl material
II yes,water is: clear dirty Rock noise: Yes NO
Haulroads Comments/Actions Required/Recommended:
Required sign age in-place: Yes !Vv Run-away lanes in place and access
Runningwidth adequate: Yes NO Iclear Yes No
Shoulder herms adequate: Yes No Reck rollout protection berms
Road drainage adequate: Yes Nv adequate: Yes NO
Comments/Actions Required/Recommended: Photos taken d uri ng inspection: Yes No
Additional Comments:
Dump Platform include comments from dump erscm
Required sign age in place: Yes No Free standing water or snow build-up: Yes NO
Cracking on platform surface: Yes No
Settlement of platform: Yes No Water inflow at dump-original ground yes NO Status of action items recommended from the last inspection:
If ym,is settlement: Ever uneven contact:
Weak materials on platform: Yes No JPAG lift construction: Yes No
Comments/Actions Required/Recommended:
Summary of activities since last inspection(include comments on material quality,dumping rates,and compliance to design):
Dump Crest
Safety berm in place along entire Cracking at the crest: Yes No
length: Yes NO Subsidences atthecrest: Yes No
Positive lup)gradient to berm: Yes No I Rock noise: Yes NO
Comments/Actions Reg uired/Recommended:
Summary of recommended actions from this inspection.
Recommendation: Priority: Responsibility: Date:
Dump Face
Steep slope below crest: Yes No Fill tening or spreading towards the Yes No
cracking on the face: Yes No toe:
Bulging an the fate: Yes No Build-up of fine material on the fare: Yes No
Seepage from the face: Yes No
If yes,water is: deer dirty Build-up of snow or the face: Yes No
Comments/Actions Required/Recommended: ¢opy to the mine manager and the engineering manager)
Source:SRK,2023
Figure 5-1: Example RSF Inspection Checklist
M B/F W/B B KingsMountain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 29
5.2.2 Foundation Preparation
The following guidelines are provided to support the foundation preparation activities:
• Boundaries should be laid out for clearing and topsoil salvage for the dump footprint. The mine
services team/operations team should select and oversee contractors used for timber salvage
and clearing. All areas will be cleared of timber and vegetation on an as required basis.
• The mine services team/operations team should select and oversee contractors used for
construction of the foundation subgrade. The geotechnical team should inspect the
construction and review the conformance to design prior to covering with waste rock.
• Foundation preparation will need to be carefully managed should this occur downslope of
dump deposition during a phased construction sequence. In these situations, dumping may
need to be stopped and inspected/monitored at a higher frequency.
• Following the clearing/grubbing/stripping, the proposed RSF-X footprint will undergo cut-and-
fill regrading to achieve and overall slope of 15' to 20' (20' maximum) sloping to the
southwest, with a portion of the pad backsloped towards drainage trench locations to improve
slope stability. Subgrade will be prepared in accordance with the lines and grades shown on
the drawings, including regrading and compaction with select engineered materials. The
detailed design and engineering specifications will be developed during the next phase of
design.
After clearing and base preparation, the geotechnical team will inspect the final foundation footprints.
The geotechnical team should map and record the surficial materials and evaluate whether the
topography and foundation conditions vary from those used in design (in particular noting any areas
that are steeper than design or with weak foundation materials); this is important for the saprolite
materials along the southern edge of RSF-A and directly underlying the legacy tailings at RSF-X,which
may have layers of softer materials within the upper 30 to 40 ft of saprolite under the legacy tailings.
In light of findings from the inspection, the design will be reviewed and modified by the engineer, and
a site foundation inspection report should be prepared.
Surface water diversion systems and sediment control structures should be in place prior to
commencing material handling and placement.
5.2.3 Construction Methodology
RSF-A will be constructed over gently sloping terrain (5° to 15°). RSF-X will be constructed over the
legacy TSF embankment. The topography in this area will be regraded to a gentle slope following
excavation of the existing tailings at the legacy TSF (regrading plan will provided in a separate
memorandum). There may be some shallow slumping as the rock materials are initially placed over
areas of soft or yielding subgrade foundation; this can be considered a hazard to mine operations
during the construction.
To reduce the potential for slope instability, bottom-up construction methods are recommended for the
RSFs near to the property line. During initial construction at both RSFs, the perimeter of the facility
must be constructed using good-quality waste rock first.
RSFs are to be constructed in flat and level lifts of maximum 30-ft thickness and dumped at a 1 AH:1 V
lift face angle (generally angle of repose for waste rock). There should be no areas of an RSF where
adjacent lifts are more than two lift thickness difference. Where practicable, construction should follow
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 30
a dump-and-push method, where the load is dumped onto the lift and dozer-pushed to form the crest.
This method ensures that dumping is carried out with a spotter for reversing haul trucks and the lifts
are constructed on well graded material.
5.2.4 Material Quality
The quality of waste rock materials should be managed during RSF construction and especially during
the initial lift placement. Geotechnically trained personnel should regularly characterize the materials
that are being excavated from the pit and hauled to the RSFs, including any concentration and rapid
advancement with weaker rock.
The RSFs are not designed for storage of organics and topsoil materials. Should the mine plan require
topsoil mining, additional specific temporary dump areas should be designed. It is understood that
waste rock from the pit development will be prioritized toward TSF construction. This practice is
generally acceptable; however, near the final limits of the RSF, good-quality material should be
sourced to allow for any final slope grading to meet closure requirements, if required.
SRK understands that Albemarle plans to use RSF-A to also store finer-grained materials comprising
DMS rejects, excavated sand from the existing Old TSF (Golder, 1975), and minimal quantities of
optional off-site fine material. The materials will need to be comingled at a mix ratio that does not
negatively affect the strength governed by the coarse waste rock component. Additional
characterization and pilot study may be required to establish the most-effective mix ratios once full-
scale mining and waste rock and other material generation begins to ensure the generation of a stable
comingled material.
5.2.5 Advance Rates
The RSF headings are not extensively large, and advance rates will need to be carefully managed
through the spreading of material across the crest widths. There may be circumstances where
concentrated material placement occurs over a short duration. The advance rates will need to be
regularly managed and inspected by mine operations. It is understood that the RSFs are to be
constructed across the 8.5-year mine life; however, the detailed mine plan will need to be further
developed to evaluate loading rate restrictions.
It will be important to distribute the waste material relatively evenly along the available active dump
crest length. Equal load distribution across the entire active dump crest reduces the potential for slope
instability by reducing the pressure applied to the foundation materials and the resulting pore pressure
increases.
Figure 5-2 provides a case study stability chart for dump height versus advance rate for short-term
mine planning guidance (Hawley, Cunning, and CSIRO, 2017). The actual stability relationship
between advance rate and dump height is site-specific and can be determined from the geotechnical
inspections. The monitoring data line labeled guideline should be used a starting upper-bound for
advance rates.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev0ldocx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 31
24
22
20 st
1
3 18
E 16 \
m
V
G
A
14 ,
a
m 12
U
U
m 10
m
o ♦ L 3WER BO[INJ OF MOST FAILURES
s 8 `
E
b A GUIDELINE
4
2 ■
0
10 100
Maximum Dumping Height(m)
*Coal Mines-Stable Dumps ■Coal Mines-Failed Dumps s Metal Mines-Stable Dumps
x Metal Mines-Failed Dumps s Diamond Mines-Stable Dumps
Source: Hawley,Cunning,and CSIRO,2017
Figure 5-2: Plot of Dump Crest Advance Rate versus Dump Height
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 32
6 Conclusions
SRK completed a number of stability and sensitivity analyses of the proposed final RSF configurations
and utilized the current understanding of material properties and site conditions to iterate design
configurations for RSFs at the Project. Factors of safety for each of the final cross-sections were
determined to be within established design criteria, as described in the slope stability calculation
package (Appendix C). However, additional analyses and data collection to define the shear strength
parameters of the foundation materials are required at the next phase of design to limit the potential
for slope instabilities.
Based upon SRK's review of runout potential, the occurrence of a runout event under the conditions
described in this report is considered a low probability. The results of the stability analyses indicate
that the proposed setback distances to infrastructure and environmental features are appropriate for
a larger event. However, the expected stability and runout potential from a dump platform scale event
will need to be confirmed with further field investigation and foundation characterization work,
particularly where adverse impacts to South Creek Reservoir are considered feasible.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 33
7 References
Note that missing references will be provided upon revision.
Applied Weather Associates (AWA) (2022). Site-Specific Probable Maximum Precipitation Study for
Kings Mountain Mining Operations, North Carolina, Applied Weather Associates, September 2021,
KM60-EN-RP-9431.
Austin Powder Company, 2023. Please provide this reference.
Catalytic, Inc., 1975. Lithium Carbonate Plant—Section 2100 (Catalytic Job No. KM-74-1). `Approved
for Construction' engineering drawings prepared for Foote Mineral Company, by Catalytic, Inc.
(Engineering Department, Philadelphia PA), Kings Mountain, North Carolina, 1975.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), 2023. Please provide this reference.
Garrett, D. E., 2004. Handbook of lithium and natural calcium chloride. Elsevier.
GEOVision Geophysical Services (GEOVision), 2023. Seismic Investigation - Kings Mountain Mine.
Prepared for SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc., No. 22027-01 Rev 0. January 13, 2023.
Golder Associates (Golder), 1975. Report on Investigation of Tailings Dam for Foote Mineral
Company, prepared for Foote Mineral Company, by Golder, Gass Associates, Inc., Kings Mountain,
N.C., March 1975.
Golder and Hungr Geotechnical Research Inc. (Hungr), 1994. Run-out Characteristics of debris From
Dump Failure in Mountainous Terrain Stage 2L Analysis, Modelling and Prediction. Report Prepared
for Department of Supplement and Services. Project No. 932-1493. 1994.
Google Earth, 2023. Please provide this reference.
Hawley, M., Cunning, J., and The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO), 2017. Guidelines for mine waste dump and stockpile design. Clayton South, VIC: CSIRO
Publishing.
Horton, J.W., Jr., 2008. Geologic Map of the Kings Mountain and Grover Quadrangles, Cleveland and
Gaston Counties, North Carolina, and Cherokee and York Counites, South Carolina: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2981, 1 sheet, 1:24000 scale, 2008, with 15 p. pamphlet.
Hungr, 2010. DAN-W, Release 10. Dynamic Analysis of Landslides.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., and Rubel, F., 2006. World Map of the Koppen-Geiger
climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z., 15, 259-263. DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.
Lambe, P. C., 1996. Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation, Chapter 19 - Residual Soils. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
Lambe, P., and Riad, A., 1990. Determination of shear strength for design cut slopes in partly
weathered bedrock and saprolite.
Lettis Consultants International, Inc., 2022. Preliminary Soil Design PGA Values for the Kings
Mountain Mine Development. Memorandum prepared for SRK Consulting regarding Kings Mountain,
April 7, 2022.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 34
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2023. National Center for Environmental
Information, Station ID: GHCND:USC00317846 Shelby 2NW, from their website at
www.ncei.noaa.gov
Schnabel Engineering (Schnabel), 2011. Foote Mineral Reservoir Dam Removal Design Report,
prepared for Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (on behalf of Chemetall Foote Corporation), by Schnabel
Engineering South, PC, Kings Mountain, N.C., July 6, 2011.
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK), 2023. Factual Report, prepared for Albemarle Corporation, by SRK
Consulting (U.S.), Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, March 2023.
SRK, 2024. Rock Storage Facilities RSF-A and RSF-X Pre-feasibility Site Characterization Report -
Kings Mountain Mining Project, prepared for Albemarle Corporation, by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.,
Kings Mountain, North Carolina, April 2024.
SRK, 2024a. Technical Report Archdale Tailings Storage Facility Water Quality Predictions. 2022
Prefeasibility Study, Kings Mountain Mining Project, prepared for Albemarle Corporation, by SRK
Consulting (U.S.) Inc., March 28, 2024.
St John, B. J., Sowers, G. F., and Weaver, 1969. Slickensides in residual soils and their engineering
significance. Proc. 7th Int. Conf Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, 591-597.
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), 2023. Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared for
Albemarle Corporation, by Terracon Consultants, Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, March 30,
2023.
Terzaghi, K., 1950. Mechanisms of landslides, in Paige, S.C., ed., Application of engineering geology
to engineering practice (Berkley volume): Geological Society of America, p. 83-123.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
Pre-feasibility Engineering Design Report, RSF-A and RSF-X—Kings Mountain Mining Project Page 35
Disclaimer
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK)has prepared this document for Albemarle Corporation (Albemarle),
our client. Any use or decisions by which a third party makes of this document are the responsibility of
such third parties. In no circumstance does SRK accept any consequential liability arising from
commercial decisions or actions resulting from the use of this report by a third party.
The opinions expressed in this document have been based on the information available to SRK at the
time of preparation. SRK has exercised all due care in reviewing information supplied by others for
use on this project. While SRK has compared key supplied data with expected values, the accuracy
of the results and conclusions from the review are entirely reliant on the accuracy and completeness
of the supplied data. SRK does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in the supplied
information, except to the extent that SRK was hired to verify the data.
Copyright
This report is protected by copyright vested in SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. It may not be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever to any person without the written permission
of the copyright holder, SRK.
MB/F W/BB KingsMou ntain_RSFAXDesign_Report_USPR000576_Rev03.docx April 2024

SRK Consulting(U.S.), Inc.
RSF-X and RSF-A Site Characterization Report—Kings Mountain Appendices
Plates
CC/TH H/RBB Report.docx April 2024

1080 1080
1060 1060
1040 1040
N
1020 PROPOSED ROCK 1020
r p
1000 STORAGE FACILITY _ 1 1000
980 TSFM-6 TSFM-3 Cn 9 TSF -12 980
N-field -field ~ ° N-field Id 00
960 00000 L M � Occcc ro 960
ILL OrNM�LO U- a 2 � OrNMVw OrC 14Ln ' co
940 � C O C � j' ' � PI LL a. TSFM-14 � 940
� o • N-field c� �
Z 920 PI-LL— • OrNM�Ln ~ ° 920
10 900 •PI LL
• Estimated Limits of 900
NP—NP
880 • • Saprolite Removal
NP P 880
N
860 •• NP NP • 13 33— ••••• SP
• IF 860
•
w r
W 840 M. ? �'NP-NP . M? ?� �1 - ' ? • 0 840
J 820 • ?M 9 ? 38 = _ - 10' to • ? ? ? ? ? ° 820
800
780 —�— � 31— ?� ? ? • 780
760 � ? ? � � —? . '— � .a.? 760
740 • 740
720 - 720
0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
STATION (FT.)
LEGEND
N-field Refusal
N-field
P
PI LL
I LL
A s SM d WASTE ROCK
_
NP NP SM ML SM
M
NP NP ML d s ML
PI LL d SM
SP �' d ° d SM - ML
SM d ° ML -
d
d d _
° d
°
ML d s d ° d� d GW-GM
ML
d °
d d
° d
°
SIP
d d
?'NP-,NP?- ?_ . _?_?-? ° ML
1 29
ML I CH s SSIPN P NP -- 7 - ML ° ML
TAILINGS SLIME — Sw
� p PWR
UNWEATHERED ° d
BEDROCK sd d ° ML
CL O ° °
° ML
000o d d
?-?-? -noun ? 10 '
�oQo
0 o to CL ?
■?
ML - - - - - �? --WEATHERED� • -?-?-? °
? 9 38 — ?—? ? ? BEDROCK
mum
PVWQ.?—?—? ? ?
WEATHERED
BEDROCK rr�� l
�J o C / O
ML
7 31
�oQo / PWR oQo�
>00 C 7 31
?
UNWEATHERED ?—?
0o�C BEDROCK
TSFM-6 / SNKM22-432 TSFM-3 / SNKM22-389 TSFM-12 / SNKM22-378 TSFM-14 / SNKM22-436
SOIL CATEGORY
REVISIONS DESIGN:XXX REVIEWED:XXX PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE: ISSUE: DRAFT
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:AA APPROVED:XXX ; C k consulting
DATE:
COORDINATE SYSTEM: Y RSF-X - SATBILITY SECTION 1 04/05/2024
OVERBURDEN PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SYSTEM PREPARED FOR:
SRK PROJECT NO.: REVISION:
PROJECT: USPR000576 A
WEATHERED BEDROCK KINGS MOUNTAIN MINE ALBERMARLE DRAWING NO.
SAPROLITE
� r IF THE ABOVE BAR .�� A L B E M A R L E Operated by:
DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, Albemarle-Lithium KINGS MOUNTAIN
FILE NAME: RSF-X-SECTION C-I.dwg THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED
C:\Users\SRK CONSULTING\OneDrive-SRK Consulting\0800_TSF\040_Drafting\Task-600_RSF-A_RSF-X_Haul-Rds\Working\AA\LE\RSF-X-SECTION C-I.dwg

1140 1140
1120 1120
1100 1100
1080 1060 _ PROPOSED ROCK 1080
1060
1040 '0 � co STORAGE FACILITY 1040
a N - a O'
M
1020 � � �, CR — a. � — 2M CO LO
M r 1020
• 1 000 r 00 r fn - cn - r C co C 2023 GC-001 M
w o �, �- o o �' �? N N- field 1000
980 T FM-11 U. � - y RD - 98O
Urn LL a)
M M � 2023 GC-0 3 M o r M H D
N-field � O O o N-fie d
960 N OrNM�Lf! OWN �� CPT4 LL a� N 4 N N 960
940 r qt(tsf) qt(tsf) qt(tsf) N O o00o N p 94O
CD CD CDO o00
C N PI LL
ONV(00 000 ON7t00 ON'tCO 920
920 LL a)U) l • PI-LL- �� PI-ILL PI LL
q
H O ?
900 High plasticity clay NP NP Estimated Limits of 4
below old fill
880 Saprolite Removal • 880
860 �— — 0 NP • 25-48 860
840 - -�_� _ 6 42 840
— ?Lu - -
820 —� ,1 — — 18 52 9 36 820
800 30' - - - - , 800
780 � � � ?.- . _? ? 780
760 - - - 6 29 760
— � ,4 53
740 _ . _? 740
720 — — . 720
I I
0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21 +00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00
STATION (FT.)
PI LL
LEGEND
SM
N-field Refusal P 1 LL ?nmmiii? ? 11111111111IM111? ? ? Mm�? Nw�?
N-field
SM -TAILINGS
ME SM L_IIVIL_
-TAILINGS SLIME ML
-ML ?
PI - LL ? ? R--? _? 00-0P1 LL ML 25 48
SM ML PWR -
ML
MLP0 6 42
_ ° ° ° PWR
SP
- a d
RAI
5 31
NP NP SM
SM
ML
0 NP
° 1
A ° POORLY GRADED SAND ML 9 36
O� WEATHERED
p p BEDROCK ° ,s° 0 N P
POORLY MIL
—
O O a GRSANDD ML ..� -WEATHERE
��?-? -
Q Q BEDROCK
° ° PWR GC-001 / SNKM23-502
RAVELLY—
�/ COBBLES GM
\/ \/ 18 -52 SW— CH
CL-ML
oQ<:D WON-
CL-ML
- 6 29 - -
WEATHERED CL
0 0 11 MH -? BEPROC.
?—emu?—nun?unumiI? ? - - PWR - -
gHYLLITTC METASLITSTO E THERE
BEDROCKMUDSIONE
, O
AMPHIBOLE GNEISS / j
SCHIST UNWEATHERED ? ?
BEDROCK C ? WEATHERED BEDROCK
O UNWEATHERED ' ?-mmm?ti
BEDROCK
TSFM-15 / SNKM22-404 TSFM-11 / SNKM22-377 WRD1 -9 / SNKM23-489 GC-003 / SNKM23-498
G C-003 / SNKM22-391
SOIL CATEGORY
REVISIONS DESIGN:XXX REVIEWED:XXX PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE: ISSUE: DRAFT
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:AA APPROVED:XXX k consulting
DATE:
COORDINATE SYSTEM: RSF—A — SATBILITY SECTION BX 04/02/2024
OVERBURDEN j PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SYSTEM PREPARED FOR:
SRK PROJECT NO.: REVISION:
PROJECT: USPR000576 A
WEATHERED BEDROCK KINGS MOUNTAIN MINE ALBERMARLE DRAWING NO.
SAPROLITE
� r .�
IF THE ABOVE BAR k A L B E M A R L E Operated by:
DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, Albemarle-Lithium KINGS MOUNTAIN C
FILE NAME: RSF-X-SECTION C-I.dwg THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED
C:\Users\SRK CONSULTING\OneDrive-SRK Consulting\0800_TSF\040_Drafting\Task-600_RSF-A_RSF-X_Haul-Rds\Working\AA\LE\RSF-X-SECTION C-I.dwg

1260 1260
1240 1240
1220 1220
1200 1200
1180 1180
1160 1160
1140 1140
1120 1120
1100 PROPOSED ROCK STORAGE FACILITY 1100
1080 — 1080
1060
ILL 1040
1040 1040
z 1020 T F-11 1020
O 1000 W D-9 -field _ (1�0Q00
980 N.field coo NM�� u_ 980
960 N - In � 960
rn o a1 v S U_ a) r— O
N-field
` 0 T N �
> 940 o 1 O orNMqS PI LL' 940
W 920 e • ,4 62MAW 920
J .. 37 900
900 '�
W 0 r M�u� PI LL � w„ • —
70-46
880 Estimated Limits of • 2 880
PI-LL— 14_40
860 • Saprolite Removal —:_ "' � . 860
840 27=65=_ _ 840
2
• 42 69 •°
820 „ 49,•_ . _ — `. .�////// 820
9-32
800 20' to 30• ,9 3, �� MIN 800
780 ,7 37 /' 780
73-29
760 9 CIPll{ .us�., _ 760
740 740
720 IR 720
I
0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21 +00
STATION (FT.)
P 1 LL Residual - ML
000000 LEGEND
10 46 _ S _ L
Sidual - IVIH
N-field Refusal
00 N-field
ML 14 40
7
MH
2 .36
�11 L
42 69
_ � . _ . PI LL 0z
ML
— --..
MH MININN /Z M// WR Residual - ML
9 32
_ PWR 10 31 27
Marble Schist 65 — - - MH
j 11 40 - - -
PWR 17 37 P I LL
BeeAR1s'F2030 O O - ? `?
_ '? `? `?
13 29 Q Residual - SM
,a„� PWR O Sa rolite - SM
/ 14 52 - p
MH -
Silica Mica Schist
O O - 6 --- 37- PWR
/ PWR w Dixon Marble
O C `? C Hornblende Schist
a 9+•Miet�� ? — O —
WRD-9 / SNKM22-397 ANNNN—� ?
TSF-2 / SNKM23-552 TSF-7 / SNKM23-556 TSF- 1 1 / SNKM23-565
SOIL CATEGORY
REVISIONS DESIGN:XXX REVIEWED:XXX PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE: ISSUE: DRAFT
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:AA APPROVED:XXX � k
consulting
DATE:
COORDINATE SYSTEM: Y RSF-A - STABILITY SECTION BX ATE: 2024
OVERBURDEN j PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SYSTEM PREPARED FOR:
SRK PROJECT NO.: REVISION:
PROJECT: USPR000576 A
SAPROLITE WEATHERED BEDROCK KINGS MOUNTAIN MINE ALBERMARLE DRAWING NO.
�r IF THE ABOVE BAR _\ A L B E M A R L E Operated by:
DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, Albemarle-Lithium KINGS MOUNTAIN BX
FILEAME:N RSF-A-SECTION BX.dwg THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED
C:\Users\SRK CONSULTING\OneDrive-SRK Consulting\0800_TSF\040_Drafting\Task-600_RSF-A_RSF-X_Haul-Rds\Working\AA\RSF-A\RSF-A-SECTION BX.dwg

1260 - 1260
1240 - 1240
1220 1220
1200 1200
1180 1180
1160 1160
1140 1140
1120 PROJECTED TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY 1120
1100 1100
1080 1080
z 1060 - 1060
O_
Q
1040 1040
w 1020 1020
J
Lu 1000 TSF-$ CO, 1000
980 01- z
ield -field- 980
960 U OONM ?M �NMleM LL m
� o I�� o 0 960
940 940
PI LL
920 - --__, RES IDAM L — _ - -
-
_
—Z'
92 0
IMRL Spm -sM4 52
ML —
900 3 — 900
CHS
880 RR0
860 860
0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00
STATION (FT.)
PI LL
— Aeilldah■9I�A— 5- —
14 52 Saprolite-SM
- 6 . 37. � - - - - - -
RESIDUAL MLHornblende Schist
- - -- ML -
ML _
PWR -
Tk��t7 __
TSF-8 / SNKM23-564 TSF- 1 1 / SNKM23-565
LEGEND
N-field Refusal
N-field
SOIL CATEGORY
REVISIONS DESIGN:XXX REVIEWED:XXX PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE: ISSUE: DRAFT
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:AA APPROVED:XXX =*=w swk consultingDATE:
COORDINATE SYSTEM: RSF-A - STABILITY SECTION BX 04/02/2024
OVERBURDEN PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SYSTEM PREPARED FOR:
SRK PROJECT NO.: REVISION:
PROJECT: USPR000576 A
WEATHERED BEDROCK KINGS MOUNTAIN MINE ALBERMARLE DRAWING NO.
SAPROLITE
� r IF THE ABOVE BAR AALBEMARLE Operated by:
DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, Albemarle-Lithium KINGS MOUNTAIN PLATE 3
FILE NAME: RSF-A-SECTION B.dwg THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED
C:\Users\LORENA\OneDrive-SRK Consulting\0800_TSF\040—Drafting\Task-600—RSF-A—RSF-X_Haul-Rds\Working\AA\RSF-A\RSF-A-SECTION B.dwg

1260 — 1260
1240 1240
1220 _ 1220
1200 1200
1180 1180
1160 1160
1140 PROJECTED TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY 1140
1120 — - - - 1120
1100 1100
1080 1080
1060 00 N-field
1060
z 1040 M � O NM�� 1040
1020 Co 0 1020
1000 - 1000
980 PI LL -field 980
r
r
w ,2 41 LL N ONO O
960 OrNM�tA 960
J 0
W 940 9 34 ~ O 940
` LL PI
920 920
,4 52
900 6 37� = 900
880 880
860 860
840 840
820 820
0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
STATION (FT.)
PI LL
Resid jai -SM
12 41 P1 LL
L Sapro ite-SP Residual -SM
am=
wow 9 3� 14 52 SM
Sa rolite- SM
PWR
-6 37 = PWR
Mica chist
PWR
r4i �
� h
_ Hornblende Schist
O1 Mica chist
q0�'T
O O -
TSF-3 / SNKM23-545 TSF- 1 1 / SNKM23-565
LEGEND
N-field Refusal
N-field
SOIL CATEGORY
REVISIONS DESIGN:XXX REVIEWED:XXX PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE: ISSUE: DRAFT
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:AA APPROVED:XXX =140= swk consultingDATE:
COORDINATE SYSTEM: RSF-A - STABILITY SECTION BX 04/02/2024
OVERBURDEN PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SYSTEM PREPARED FOR:
SRK PROJECT NO.: REVISION:
PROJECT: USPR000576 /4
WEATHERED BEDROCK KINGS MOUNTAIN MINE ALBERMARLE DRAWING NO.
SAPROLITE
� r IF THE ABOVE BAR AALBEMARLE Operated by:
DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, Albemarle-Lithium KINGS MOUNTAIN PLATE 2
FILE NAME: RSF-A-SECTION A.dwg THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED
C:\Users\LORENA\OneDrive-SRK Consulting\0800—TSF\040—Drafting\Task-600—RSF-A—RSF-X—Haul-Rds\Working\AA\RSF-A\RSF-A-SECTION A.dwg

1291000.00 1292000.00 1293000.00 1294000.00 1295000.00 1296000.00 1297000.00 1298000.00 1299000.00
I I I I I I I I I I I iy��I�� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I' i' I f l J I I I I I I I ✓ � I ' I I�l/:( I I '
o -- l r X
rs�.r '3 ....• "�]` r' 1 41 N 1 0
N *44
. I _ -i' ''v !"TRH o
o - o
ll ...1 �I� C - •� -
;i
-M 1 O TS -18 4 •{ �.
�. ti
SW-1 PAG-5 WRD1-12 -
t '. SW-2 SW-5r, rH
ci - 2023 GC-002 Y/ o
o TSFM-2
o � o
TSFM-CPT3
r'• /�^n �\ 1 •1 2023 GC-001 ,y O TSFM-4
- W Di-11 f_
�. TP-4
_ _ - ..
2023 GC-003 SFM-3 O TSFM•13
TSFM-8 TSFM-CPT1
TSFM-CPT2 H
TSFM-1 TSFM-6 BHT'
_ -
�.♦� TSF- B\
_ BH-7 \1�
o TSFM-17 2022o
o
0
TSF-10 TSFM-5 TSFM-C T4 Planned ID Final ID
r BH-3
TSFM-1 SNKM22-421
— TSFr gFry g h III �I F OTSFM-14 TSFM-2 SNKM22-380
TSFM-3 SNKM22-389
TSFM-4 SNKM22-434 =
TSFM-16 \ TSFM-5 SNKM22-426
TSFM-6 SNKM22-432
TP-5 y TSFM-+5 Planned ID Final ID TSFM-7 SNKM22-427
2023 GC-003 SNKM23-498 TSFM-8 SNKM22-369 g
2Q23 0.p0� SNKM23.502 TSFM-9 SNKM22-373 0
•'? TSF-2 0' 2023 CSC-002 SNKM23-504 TSFM-10 SNKM22-374
- ? j•
WRD1-10 5NKM23-480 TSFM-11 SNKM22-377 S
T
I TSF-8 WRa1.9 SNKM); ARI) TSFM 12 SNKM22-378 -
TP-1
To TP-3 WRD1-11 SNKM23-492 TSFM-13 SNKM22-381 -
_ TSF� '• -
2 WRp1.12 SNKM23^4W TSFM-14 SNKM22-436 -
ISI•2 SNKM23''�W TSFM-15 SNKM22-404
TSF-3 SNKM23 '145 TSFM-16 SNKM22-395 J
WRD-g TSF-4 SNKM23 ',69 TSFM-17 SNKM22-408 0
o TSF-5 SNKM23-542 TSFM-18 SNKM22-391 � o
T5F f SNICM7a 5?l?l TSFM-CPT1 CPTKM22-368
I'•d_I ?N I<Mr.{ 'h6 TSFM-CPT2 CPTKM22-372
rsr-8 SNKM23-564 TSFM-CPT3 CPTKM22-376
ICI �1 SNKM2'x ',iX TSFM-CPT4 CPTKM22-370
I5I-10 5NKM23-531 TSFM-CPT5 CPTKM22-371
rSF-11 SNI{M23-56; WRD-9 SNKM22-397
I. I I1lor I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1
1291000.00 1292000.00 1293000.00 1294000.00 1295000.00 1296000.00 1297000.00 1298000.00 1299000.00
LEGEND REVISIONS DESIGN: REVIEWED:AA PREPARED BY: DRAWING TITLE:
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN:LE/EL APPROVED:AA mow srk consulting ROCK STORAGE FACILITY(RSF)CROSS SECTION
O Boreholes 2022 0 300 600 COORDINATE SYSTEM: PLAN VIEW
Boreholes 2023 NAD83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANES.US FOOT PROJECT:
DATE: REVISION: DRAWING NO.:
Boreholes Golder FEET I KINGS MOUNTAIN MINE A CPT IF THE ABOVE BAR Ak ALBEMARLE operated by. 8/3/2024 B
FIGURE 1
DOES NOT MEASURE 1 INCH, Albemarle-Lithium SRK PROJECT NO.:
FILE NAME:PIanta.dwg THE DRAWING SCALE IS ALTERED USPR0576.800
C:\Users\SRK CONSULTING\OneDrive-SRK Consulting\0800_TSF\040_Drafting\Task-600_RSF-A_RSF-X_Haul-Rds\Working\HA\LE\Planta.dwg