Appendix M - Response to DWR Industrial Unit

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendices
a
PIEDMONT
LITHIUM
M
Appendix M: Division of
Water Resources — Industrial
Permitting Unit Comment #3

ROY COOPER
Governor
JOHN NICHOLSON
Interim Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
To: Mr. David Miller
State Mining Engineer
DEMLR
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Date: November 12, 2021
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
MEMORANDUM
From: Jeff Poupart os
Section Chief
Water Quality Permitting
Archdale Building, 9th Floor
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
j e ff.poupartnncdenr.gov
Delivery: David.millerkncdenr.gov, and via
inter -office mail
Subject: Request for Inclusion of DWR Items in Additional Information Request from Applicant
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc; Carolina Lithium Project — North Carolina Mining
Permit Application / Near Bessemer City in Gaston County
Dear Mr. Miller:
NCDEQ Department of Water Resources (DWR) Water Quality Permitting Section (WQPS)
appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Piedmont Lithium North Carolina Mining
Permit Application dated August 30, 2021. As you know, the WQPS, specifically the Industrial
Permitting Unit (IPU) reviews and provides guidance to applicant's seeking or needing coverage for
various industrial operations that generate industrial process wastewater.
Based upon a review of the Application as submitted at this time DWR WQPS requests additional
information be provided to ensure that the thorough review of the above permit application will
ensure the protection of water quality. Specific areas of concern are as follows:
1. Chemical Processing Wastewater: The Application in section C.3.d. reflects
industrial process wastewater from chemical operations will be discharged to a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POM with pretreatment. Your October 29
additional information letter to the applicant noted that the applicant needs to identify
the POTW and acceptance agreement. We would ask that potential daily volumes of
wastewater be requested in addition to the current request for submission of chemical
analysis or characterization of the wastewater. This is necessary for DWR to
D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NORTH CAROLINA
o^wrt t^r 0--Zl /� 919.707.9000

determine if the selected POTW has sufficient capacity for the pollutants under our
rules 15A NCAC 02H section .0900.
2. Individual NPDES Industrial Permit Coverage and Chemical Analysis: As
noted in item 3. of your October 29 letter there is no indication that the mine has
applied for or received a NPDES Stormwater permit. It is our understanding the
facility would like to request coverage under DEMLR NCG02 Stormwater General
permit. We would note that some industrial process waters potentially generated at
this mine site would not have coverage under this stormwater general permit
including: boiler blowdown, scrubber waste, cooling water. These wastewaters may
need to be discharged under the potential POTW Significant Industrial User Permit
or seek separate coverage to discharge through the NPDES program. Please have the
applicant provide information on other wastewaters generated and disposal methods.
OR Please have the applicant provide a list of all the wastewaters to be generated and
discharged at the facility and where they intend to discharge them (i.e. POTW, under
stormwater permit, seek an NPDES wastewater permit).
Waste Rock and Tailings Leaching: Appendix G of the application provides Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLF) analyses of both the waste rock and 'tailings'.
Based upon a review of the Application the `tailings' in this case are residuals from
chemical processing. The TCLP study provided does not characterize the waste rock or
`tailings' as either hazardous waste or not which is required. The Application also does not
include an analysis comparing study results (analysis of the waste rock and `tailings) to 15A
NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. As part of chemical processing `tailings'
routinely contain residual chemicals, such as acids and surfactants. Regardless of how these
materials are handled water flow can transport residual chemicals to surface and ground
water resulting in a potential impairment. We need sufficient data to determine if the
anticipated leachate discharge will exceed allowable discharge limits to either a
WOTUS or if they are also being discharged to the POTW. If they will be
discharged to the POTW, these wastewaters should be recognized and included in
the acceptance letter from the POTW. If the leachate from these residuals is to be
discharged directly to waters of the state, a comparison of the pollutant
concentrations to the assimilative dilution capacity of the receiving waters will need
to be determined. The data supplied does show that waste rock and `tailings' have
leached parameters that exceed surface water standards of 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for
metals such as Chromium III, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc and several
more that would cause concern and require monitoring in an NPDES permit. In
addition, the mercury laboratory detection limit specified is not sufficiently sensitive
to ensure compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0505(e)(4)(B). Please provided a
mercury analysis using EPA's low-level test method 1635E. The high levels of these
compounds, especially Chromium III being an order of magnitude higher than the
allowable North Carolina surface water standard. Lastly, Depending on how these
residuals are processed and stored, `tailings' being a residual from chemical
NORTH CAROLINAD EQ
��
oaa+�eo�or �im�m�m.i a�ai�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000
Page 2 of 4

processing may not be covered under a NCG02 Stormwater General Permit and may
require coverage under an individual industrial stormwater permit or direct or
indirect discharge permit.
We look forward to working with DEMLR staff and the applicant's team on this important project.
If you should have any questions or require clarification, feel to reach out to any of the following
Industrial Permitting Section team members.
David Hill
Environmental Specialist II
Industrial Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
NPDES Industrial Permitting Unit
Office: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Office: 919 707 3612
david.hillnncdenr.gov
Amirhossein (Amir) Rezaei Adaryani, Ph.D
Division of Water Resources / Permitting
Department of Environmental Quality
Office: Archdale Building, 9`' Floor (925Q/T)
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Office: 919-707-3704
Amir. adaryani&ncdenr.gov
N`JPTH ChA[1LiNAD EQ
�/Y
oew�a�rt or �im�m�r,i a�ai� i"
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000
Page 3 of 4

N`JATH ChApLiNAD � ��/Y
oew�a�rt or �im�m�r,i a�ai� i"
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000
Page 4 of 4

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendix M Response to DWR — Industrial Permitting Unit Comment #3
Response to Comment #3 (Waste Rock and Tailings Leaching) from Jeff Poupart — Section
Chief, Water Quality Permitting — via memorandum titled "Request for Inclusion of DWR
Items in Additional Information Request from Applicant Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc.;
Carolina Lithium Project — North Carolina Mining Permit Application/Near Bessemer City
in Gaston County" to Mr. David Miller (State Mining Engineer) dated November 12, 2021.
The specific regulatory comments addressed herein are provided below:
Summary of Responses:
The following responses provide answers to comments from Jeff Poupart regarding Appendix G
of the mine permit application submitted to DEMLR on August 30, 2021. For clarity, specific
portions of Comment #3 have been excerpted and addressed individually in the discussion below.
In addition, Tables 2-4 were extracted and revised from Summary of Waste Rock and Process
Tailings Geochemical Assessment and Addendum Report - Results of Humidity Cell Leaching
Tests (submitted as Appendix G of Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. Mine Permit Application,
dated August 30, 2021).' Appendix G referenced herein refers to that which was submitted in the
Mine Permit Application, dated August 30, 2021.
Comment 1:
Appendix G of the [August 30, 2021 mine] application provides Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) analyses of both the waste rock and 'tailings'. Based upon a review of the
Application the `tailings' in this case are residuals from chemical processing. The TCLP study
provided does not characterize the waste rock or `tailings' as either hazardous waste or not which
is required.
Response 1:
Appendix G compares the results of TCLP testing for both waste rock and concentrator plant
tailings to the EPA D list, and concludes that the TCLP results do not exceed the threshold values
for applicable parameters as included in the EPA D list. Therefore, the results included in
Appendix G confirm that the waste rock and tailings are not characterized as hazardous waste.
Comment 2:
The Application also does not include an analysis comparing study results (analysis of the waste
rock and `tailings) to 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards.
Response 2:
Tables 2-4 included herein are revised versions of Tables 2-4 included in the original submittal of
Appendix G, as part of "Addendum Report: Results of Humidity Cell Leaching Tests, Piedmont
Lithium Project", dated December 2019. The original tables included in the Addendum Report
section of Appendix G previously compared humidity cell test results for waste rock and tailings
to US EPA Drinking Water Standards and North Carolina Groundwater Standards. The revised
Marshall Miller & Associates. Summary of Waste Rock and Process Tailings Geochemical Assessment (August 2019) and
Addendum Report - Results of Humidity Cell Leaching Tests (December 2019) (submitted as Appendix G of Piedmont Lithium
Carolinas, Inc. Mine Permit Application, dated August 30, 2021).
Page 1 of 5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendix M Response to DWR — Industrial Permitting Unit Comment #3
tables now include comparison of results of the humidity cell testing of waste rock and tailings to
US EPA Drinking Water Standards, North Carolina Groundwater Standards (15A NCAC 02L
.0202), and Surface Water and Wetland Standards (15A NCAC 02B). The tables also now include
results of baseline surface water and groundwater monitoring conducted by HDR and previously
submitted as Appendix F of the Mine Permit Application, dated August 30, 2021. The tables
include notations comparing baseline data to regulatory standards, and humidity cell data to
baseline data and regulatory standards.
Humidity cell tests are designed to simulate geological weathering processes at laboratory scale.
The tests provide insight with regard to the leachate generation and the primary rates of reaction
under aerobic conditions. Humidity cell tests simulate long-term weathering reactions and provide
a means for predicting the potential for acidic discharge or movement of metals through a material.
Humidity cell testing is considered by some researchers to be the most reliable characterization
method for estimating leachate quality of mined materials.2 The testing simulates the process of
surface water and shallow groundwater moving through the material on a cyclical basis over time,
similar to actual field conditions. In this case, the humidity cell tests were run from Week 0 to
Week 20. The humidity cell results are considered to be more representative of the anticipated
leachate discharge in this case, as compared to the TCLP results.
Comparison of the results from the humidity cell tests to the drinking water, groundwater, and
surface water and wetland standards does not indicate exceedances, with two relatively minor
exceptions. There is a slight exceedance of the chronic surface water standard for Copper (Cu)
in Week 0 (week of peak concentration) of the humidity cell results for the Tailings 4 sample
(Table 4). The chronic surface water standard is 2.7 pg/L and the Week 0 concentration is 3 pg/L.
The Copper concentration quickly drops below 2.7 pg/L in Week 1, below 1 pg/L by Week 3, and
is very low or Non -Detect (<0.2 pg/L) from Week 4 all the way through to the final week of the
humidity cell test (Week 20). The quick decrease in concentration suggests that the slight
exceedance in Week 0 is not expected to be a pervasive problem. The second minor deviation of
humidity cell results from regulatory standards is associated with pH, where the minimum pH from
the Tailings 4 sample is 6.34 Standard Units (SU), slightly below the EPA Drinking Water and
North Carolina Groundwater standard pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 (Table 4). However, it is not
uncommon to have pH in groundwater less than 6.5 SU in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina.
The 6.34 pH value is within the North Carolina surface water pH range standards of 6 to 9.
Comparison of baseline groundwater quality data to regulatory standards indicates that naturally -
occurring groundwater concentrations in the project area sometimes exceed North Carolina
groundwater and US EPA drinking water standards for Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium
III (Cr III), Lead (Pb), Selenium (Se), and Manganese (Mg). Again, it is not uncommon for these
naturally -occurring constituents to exceed groundwater quality criteria in the Piedmont Region of
North Carolina.
2 Maest, A. S., and Nordstrom, D. K., 2017, "A geochemical examination of humidity cell tests", Applied Geochemistry 81, pg 109-
131.
Page 2 of 5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendix M Response to DWR — Industrial Permitting Unit Comment #3
Comment 3:
As part of chemical processing `tailings' routinely contain residual chemicals, such as acids and
surfactants. Regardless of how these materials are handled water flow can transport residual
chemicals to surface and ground water resulting in a potential impairment. We need sufficient
data to determine if the anticipated leachate discharge will exceed allowable discharge limits to
either a WOTUS or if they are also being discharged to the POTW. If they will be discharged to
the POTW, these wastewaters should be recognized and included in the acceptance letter from
the POTW. If the leachate from these residuals is to be discharged directly to waters of the state,
a comparison of the pollutant concentrations to the assimilative dilution capacity of the receiving
waters will need to be determined.
Response 3:
The tailings will be co -mingled with the waste rock in the waste rock disposal areas. Discharges
associated with the waste rock disposal areas will be collected in ponds and subject to NPDES
monitoring prior to discharge to the receiving waters. Humidity cell test results summarized in
Appendix G and included in the attached revised Tables 2-4, are compared to EPA drinking water
standards, North Carolina Groundwater standards, and North Carolina surface water standards.
As discussed above, the humidity cell results do not exceed regulatory standards, with two minor
exceptions. The humidity cell test results provide insight with regard to the leachate generation
and the primary rates of reaction under aerobic conditions. Humidity cell tests are used to simulate
long-term weathering reactions and to provide a means for predicting the potential for acidic
discharge or metals migration from a site. The humidity cell results are considered to be more
representative of the anticipated leachate discharge in this case, as compared to the TCLP
results. The discharge from the waste rock areas will not go to a POTW.
Comment 4:
The data supplied does show that waste rock and `tailings' have leached parameters that exceed
surface water standards of 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for metals such as Chromium III, Cadmium,
Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc and several more that would cause concern and require monitoring in
an NPDES permit.
Response 4:
The exceedances listed in the comment above are associated with comparison of TCLP results
to 15A NCAC 02B .0211 surface water standards. TCLP test results, in this case, are not
anticipated to be representative of leachate discharge. TCLP testing is a relatively aggressive,
rigorous leaching test approved by the EPA to characterize hazardous waste as defined by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The TCLP leaching procedure is not used to
regulate mining wastes3. The TCLP test is described by the US EPA as4:
3 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2004, "Arizona Mining Guidance Manual BADCT, Aquifer Protection
Program, Publication # TB 04-01, Phoenix, Arizona.
° U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), TCLP Questions, as presented in 'Resolution Tailings Geochemistry Update,
June 2016, Duke HydroChem, duke-hvdrochem-tailings-characterization-20160608.pdf (resolutionmineeis.us)
Page 3 of 5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendix M Response to DWR — Industrial Permitting Unit Comment #3
"The test [TCLP] was designed to model a theoretical scenario in which a waste is
mismanaged by placing it in an unlined landfill containing municipal solid waste. The acetic
acid solution in Method 1311 is designed to simulate the result of rainwater infiltrating the
landfill, reacting with the municipal solid waste, and then leaching through the waste being
tested. The numerical limits for the RCRA toxicity characteristic (40 CFR 261.24) were
derived using the same scenario and were set at levels that would prevent the
groundwater under the landfill from posing a threat to human health and the environment."
As discussed above, the TCLP results presented in Appendix G indicate that the waste rock and
tailings are not hazardous waste. The TCLP tests involve water with a pH of 5. As indicated by
the Acid Base Account (ABA) analysis results presented in Appendix G, the waste rock and
tailings discussed in that report are not expected to yield acidic conditions. A more appropriate,
yet still potentially conservative, test to be compared to surface water standards and other
regulatory standards is the humidity cell test. Humidity cell testing and associated results are
described in Appendix G — "Addendum Report: Results of Humidity Cell Leaching Tests,
Piedmont Lithium Project". The comparison of humidity cell test results to drinking water,
groundwater, and surface water standards is provided in the revised Tables 2-4 attached to this
document. Examination of data in the tables indicates that the humidity cell test results do not
exceed regulatory standards, with two minor exceptions (described above).
Comment 5:
In addition, the mercury laboratory detection limit specified is not sufficiently sensitive to ensure
compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0505(e)(4)(8). Please provided a mercury analysis using EPA's
low-level test method 1635E.
Response 5:
Test results for Mercury (Hg) provided in laboratory results indicate that the detection limit value
for Mercury is <0.01 pg/L (see Appendix A of the report titled "Addendum Report: Results of
Humidity Cell Leaching Tests, Piedmont Lithium Project" which is included in Appendix G of the
Mine Permit Application, dated August 30, 2021). This value, <0.01 pg/L (including a "less than"
symbol), indicates that all test results do not exceed the surface water standard for Mercury of
0.012 pg/L. The specific detection limit for the Mercury analyses conducted is 0.008 pg/L, but the
number was rounded and presented as <0.01 pg/L in the laboratory results.
Comment 6:
The high levels of these compounds, especially Chromium III being an order of magnitude higher
than the allowable North Carolina surface water standard.
Response 6:
The exceedances mentioned in the comment above are associated with comparison of TCLP
results to surface water standards. As discussed above, humidity cell test results are considered
more representative of anticipated leachate conditions in this case, as compared to TCLP results.
Page 4 of 5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendix M Response to DWR — Industrial Permitting Unit Comment #3
Comparison of humidity cell test results to drinking water, groundwater, and surface water
standards is provided in attached Tables 2-4. The data comparison indicates that the humidity
cell test results do not exceed regulatory standards, with two minor exceptions as discussed
above.
Comment 7:
Lastly, depending on how these residuals are processed and stored, `tailings' being a residual
from chemical processing may not be covered under a NCG02 Stormwater General Permit and
may require coverage under an individual industrial stormwater permit or direct or indirect
discharge permit. "
Response 7:
Given the analyses presented herein, comparison of the results from the humidity cell tests to the
drinking water, groundwater, and surface water and wetland standards does not indicate
exceedances, with two relatively minor exceptions (Cu and pH) as discussed in Response 2
above.
The chronic surface water standard for Copper is 2.7 pg/L and the humidicty cell test Week 0
concentration is 3 pg/L. The Copper concentration quickly drops below 2.7 pg/L in Week 1, below
1 pg/L by Week 3, and is very low or Non -Detect (<0.2 pg/L) from Week 4 all the way through to
the final week of the humidity cell test (Week 20). The quick decrease in concentration suggests
that the slight exceedance in Week 0 is not expected to be a pervasive problem.
The minimum pH from the Tailings 4 sample is 6.34 (Table 4), is slightly below the EPA Drinking
Water and North Carolina Groundwater standard pH range of 6.5 to 8.5, but is within the North
Carolina surface water pH range standard of 6 to 9. The minimum pH from the Tailings 4 sample
is also within the pH analytical monitoring requirement of 6-9 under the NCG02 General Permit
(Table 8) for effluent limitations for wastewater discharges.
As the tailings will be co -mingled with the waste rock in the waste rock disposal areas, stormwater
runoff from the waste rock disposal area will be monitored per the NCG02 General Permit
requirements.
Page 5 of 5

Piedmont Lithium
Summary of Humidity Cell Leaching Results Through Week 20
Waste Rock 205-7
Table 2
iHkLLNNLLE
SOCI ES"
Parameter
USEPA
Drinking Water
Standard
North Carolina
Ground Water
Standard
15A NCAC 02B.0211 Surface
Water STD
15A NCAC 02B.0211 Surface
Water STD @ 25mg/I Hardness
Baseline Groundwater (HDR)
Baseline Surface Water (HDR)
Leachate
Concentration Range
Week of Peak
Concentration
Final Week
Concentration
Range IAverage
Range Average
(Units: µg/L)
Hg
2
1
0.012
0.3
ND (<O.20) - 0.33 0.11
ND (<0.2) µg/Lthroughout
ND (<0.01) ND (<0.01) 15 I ND (<0.01)
ND (<0.05) µg/L throughout
ND (<O.2) 0.2 0 ND (<O.2)
Ag
100*
20
0.06
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.4) - ND (<5.0)
As
10
10
Acute 340, Chronic 150
ND (<10.0:)::-:221 7.43
ND (<10.0) µg/Lthroughout
B
300 H.A.
700
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) 4
1
ND (<2)
Ba
2,000
700
No Standard
ND (<5.0) 485 9.19
8 - 170 17.64
0.22 - 0.7
0
0.22
Be
4
Acute 65, Chronic 6.5
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) 0.008
3
ND (<0.007)
Bi
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) µg/L throughout
Cd
5
2
Acute .51, Chronic .15
ND (<1.0) 1.3 0.51
NA
ND (<0.003) 0.015
5
0.009
Co
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.004) 0.025
15
ND (<0.004)
Cr III
100
10
Acute 180, Chronic 24
ND (<5.0) 328 5.86
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.08) µg/L throughout
Cu
1,300 A.L.
1,000
Acute 3.6, Chronic 2.7
NA
NA
ND (<O.2) 0.5
0
0.15
MO
No Standard
NA
NA
0.95 12.4
5
9.11
Ni
100 H.A.
100
Acute 140, Chronic 16
NA
NA
ND (<O.1) 0.2
1
0.1
Pb
15 A.L.
15
Acute 14, Chronic .54
ND (<5.0) 39.9 3.24
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.01) 0.06
1
0.03
Sb
6
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.9) µg/Lthroughout
Se
50
20
Chronic 5.0
ND (<10.0) 26.7 5.18
ND (<0.5) - ND (10)
ND (<0.04) 0.15
0
ND (<0.04)
Sn
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.06) 0.25
0
ND (<0.06)
Sr
25,000 H.A.
No Standard
NA
NA
3.63 6.24
0
3.82
Ti
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.05) 0.24
0
0.20
Th
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<O.1) 0.9
1
ND (<O.1)
TI
2
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.005) 0.023
0
ND (<0.005)
U
30
No Standard
NA
NA
0.031 - 0.272
20
0.272
V
No Standard
NA
NA
0.3 1.99
0
0.40
W
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.02) 0.19
0
ND (<0.02)
Y
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.002) 0.008
0
0.004
Zr
Al
50 - 200*
No Standard
No Standard
NA
(Units: mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
ND (<2) µg/Lthroughout
0.057 0.111 0 0.067
Fe
0.3*
0.3
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) 0.007
0
ND (<0.007)
K
No Standard
NA
NA
0.13 1.8
0
0.130
Li
No Standard
0.0305 1.37 0.23031
0.0064 0.0459 0.01673
0.0139 0.317
0
0.0095
Mg
No Standard
NA
NA
0.177 0.242
15
0.190
Mn
0.05*
0.05
No Standard
ND (<0.005) 0.0655 0.01269
0.0065 0.161 0.04678
0.00110 0.00524
2
0.00340
Na
No Standard
NA
NA
0.16 2.28
0
0.16
P
No Standard
NA
ND (<0.00005) 0.00025 0.000051
ND (<0.003) 0.016
20
0.016
Si
No Standard
NA
NA
0.38 0.47
1
0.43
Zn
5*
1.00
Acute 36, Chronic 36
NA
NA
ND (<0.002) mg/L throughout
SO4
250*
250
No Standard
ND (<0.001) 0.0194 0.00294
ND (<0.001) 0.0039 0.00208
ND (<O.2) 0.5 0 ND (<O.2)
Acidity
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) mg/Lthroughout
Alkalinity
pH
6.5-8.5
1 6.5-8.5
No Standard
1 6.0-9..0
1
0.0358 3.33 0.10306
(Units: pH in Standard Units, EC in µS/cm)ir
5.87 - 11.97
0.01235 0.0351 0.02515
1 NA
9 22 0 11
6.98 8.01 0 7.15
EC
I No Standard
I
NA
I NA
20 44 0 22
* Secondary Standard
H.A. Health Advisory
A.L. Action Level
Page 1 of 1

Piedmont Lithium
Summary of Humidity Cell Leaching Results Through Week 20
Waste Rock 212-6
Table 3
iHkLLNNLLE
SOCI ES"
Parameter
USEPA
Drinking Water
Standard
North Carolina
Ground Water
Standard
15A NCAC 02B.0211
Surface Water STD
15A NCAC 02B.0211 Surface
Water STD @ 25mg/I Hardness
Baseline Groundwater (HDR)
Baseline Surface Water (HDR)
Leachate
Concentration Range
Week of Peak
Concentration
Final Week
Concentration
Range I Average
Range Average
(Units: µg/L)
Hg
2
1
0.012
0.06
Acute 340, Chronic 150
0.3
ND (<O.20) - 0.33 1 0.11
ND (<0.2) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.4) - ND (<5.0)
ND (<0.01) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.05) µg/L throughout
0.3 1.1 0 0.3
Ag
100*
20
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
As
10
10
ND (<10.0) - 221
7.43
ND (<10.0) µg/Lthroughout
B
300 H.A.
700
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) - 4
1
ND (<2)
Ba
2,000
700
No Standard
ND (<5.0) - 485 9.19
8 - 170 17.64
0.61 - 3.38
0
0.61
Be
4
Acute 65, Chronic 6.5
Acute .51, Chronic .15
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) 0.013
3
ND (<0.007)
Bi
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) 0.008
1
ND (<0.007)
Cd
5
2
ND (<1.0) - 1.3 0.51
NA
ND (<5.0) - 328 5.86
NA
NA
ND (<5.0) µg/Lthroughout
ND (<0.003) 0.010
0.013 0.048
ND (<0.08) 0.19
3
0
20
ND (<0.003)
0.030
0.19
Co
No Standard
Cr
100
10
Acute 180, Chronic 24
Cu
1,300 A.L.
1,000
Acute 3.6, Chronic 2.7
NA
NA
ND (<0.2) - 2
15
ND (<O.2)
Mo
No Standard
NA
NA
1.61 - 20.5
3
5.36
Ni
100 H.A.
100
Acute 140, Chronic 16
NA
NA
ND (<0.1) - 0.6
0
0.1
Pb
15 A.L.
15
Acute 14, Chronic .54
ND (<5.0) - 39.9 3.24
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.01) - 0.13
1
0.01
Sb
6
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.9) µg/L throughout
Se
50
20
Chronic 5.0
ND (<10.0) - 26.7 5.18
ND (<0.5) - ND (10)
ND (<0.04) 0.42
0
ND (<0.04)
Sn
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.06) 0.2
3
ND (<0.06)
Sr
25,000 H.A.
No Standard
NA
NA
8.32 - 15.7
0
9.27
Ti
No Standard
NA
NA
0.08 0.38
1
0.08
Th
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.1) - 0.3
2
ND (<O.1)
TI
2
No Standard
NA
NA
0.011 - 0.069
0
0.011
U
30
No Standard
NA
NA
0.015 3.47
5
0.204
V
No Standard
NA
NA
0.14 0.59
0
0.20
W
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.02) - 0.19
1
ND (<0.02)
Y
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.002) - 0.014
20
0.014
Zr
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) µg/L throughout
(Units::-92
Al
50 - 200*
No Standard
NA
NA
0.059 0.094
10
0.061
Fe
0.3*
0.3
No Standard
NA
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) 0.008
0.424 7.89
1
0
ND (<0.007)
K
No Standard
NA
0.424
Li
No Standard
0.0305 - 1.37 0.23031
0.0064 - 0.0459 0.01673
0.0171 0.589
0
0.0171
Mg
No Standard
NA
NA
0.422 0.784
5
0.422
Mn
0.05*
0.05
No Standard
ND (<0.005) - 0.0655 0.01269
0.0065 - 0.161 0.04678
0.00227 0.00637
3
0.00321
Na
No Standard
NA
NA
0.08 2.13
0
0.09
P
No Standard
NA
ND (<0.00005) - 0.00025 0.000051
ND (<0.003) 0.012
20
0.012
Si
No Standard
NA
NA
0.52 - 0.66
5
0.55
Zn
5*
1.00
Acute 36, Chronic 36
NA
NA
ND (<0.002) mg/L throughout
SO4
250*
250
No Standard
ND (<0.001) - 0.0194 0.00294
ND (<0.001) - 0.0039 0.00208
1.9 6.2 1 0 2.4
Acidity
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) mg/L throughout
Alkalinity
No Standard
0.0358 - 3.33 0.10306
0.01235 - 0.0351 0.02515
10 24 0 11
pH 6.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
6.0-9..0
its: pH in Standard Units, EC in µS/cmi
5.87 - 11.97 NA
NA NA
7.07 7.77 0 7.10
EEC
No Standard
27 82 0 31
* Secondary Standard
H.A. Health Advisory
A.L. Action Level
Page 1 of 1

Piedmont Lithium
Summary of Humidity Cell Leaching Results Through Week 20
Tailings 4 Leachate
Table 4
iHkLLNNLLE
SOCI ES"
Parameter
USEPA
Drinking Water
Standard
North Carolina
Ground Water
Standard
15A NCAC 02B.0211 Surface
Water STD
15A NCAC 02B.0211 Surface
Water STD @ 25mg/I Hardness
Baseline Groundwater (HDR)
Baseline Surface Water (HDR)
Leachate
Concentration Range
Week of Peak
Concentration
Final Week
Concentration
Range IAverage
Range I Average
(Units: µg/L)
Hg
Ag
As
2
1
20
0.012
0.06
0.3
ND (<O.20) - 0.33 1 0.11
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
ND (<0.2) µg/Lthroughout
ND (<0.01) 0.01 5 ND (<0.01)
ND (<0.05) µg/L throughout
0.4 1.3 1 0.4
100*
ND (<0.4) - ND (<5.0)
10
10
Acute 340, Chronic 150
ND (<10.0) 221
7.43
ND (<10.0) µg/L throughout
B
300 H.A.
700
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) 9
1
ND (<2)
Ba
2,000
700
No Standard
ND (<5.0) 485 9.19
8 - 170 17.64
0.25 2.76
3
0.92
Be
4
Acute 65, Chronic 6.5
NA
NA
0.009 0.034
20
0.034
Bi
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) 0.017
0
ND (<0.007)
Cd
5
2
Acute .51, Chronic .15
ND (<1.0) 1.3 0.51
NA
ND (<0.003) 0.032
1
0.009
Co
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.004) 0.027
0
ND (<0.004)
Cr
100
10
Acute 180, Chronic 24
ND (<5.0) 328 5.86
ND (<5.0) µg/Lthroughout
0.13 0.66
2
ND (<0.08)
Cu
1,300 A.L.
1,000
Acute 3.6, Chronic 2.7
NA
NA
ND (<0.2) 3
0
ND (<O.2)
MO
No Standard
NA
NA
0.24 26.5
5
0.31
Ni
100 H.A.
100
Acute 140, Chronic 16
NA
NA
ND (<0.1) 0.3
0
ND (<O.1)
Pb
15 A.L.
15
Acute 14, Chronic .54
ND (<5.0) 39.9 3.24
ND (<5.0) µg/L throughout
0.01 0.16
1
0.04
Sb
6
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.9) 1.1
2
ND (<0.9)
Se
50
20
Chronic 5.0
ND (<10.0) 26.7 5.18
ND (<0.5) - ND (10)
ND (<0.04) 0.05
0
ND (<0.04)
Sn
No Standard
NA
NA
0.11 0.43
0
0.13
Sr
25,000 H.A.
No Standard
NA
NA
1.59 11.9
2
2.03
i
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.05) 0.19
1
ND (<0.05)
h
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.01) 0.1
2
ND (<0.01)
I
2
No Standard
NA
NA
0.012 0.048
1
0.006
U
30
No Standard
NA
NA
0.083 12.2
1
0.046
V
No Standard
NA
NA
0.16 0.47
1
0.16
W
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.02) 0.25
1
ND (<0.02)
Y
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.002) 0.011
5
0.003
Zr
Al
50 - 200*
No Standard
No Standard
NA
MMME(U-its- mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
ND (<2) µg/L throughout
0.016 0.55 0 0.007
Fe
0.3*
0.3
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<0.007) mg/Lthroughout
K
No Standard
NA
NA
0.077 1.12
1
0.119
Li
No Standard
0.0305 1.37 0.23031
0.0064 - 0.0459 0.01673
0.0093 0.135
2
0.0118
Mg
No Standard
NA
NA
0.043 0.448
2
0.043
Mn
0.05*
0.05
No Standard
ND (<0.005) 0.0655 0.01269
0.0065 - 0.161 0.04678
0.0005 0.0219
20
0.0219
Na
No Standard
NA
NA
0.07 5.35
1
0.11
P
No Standard
NA
ND (<0.00005) - 0.00025 0.000051
0.034 0.131
20
0.131
Si
No Standard
NA
NA
0.47 1.76
2
0.68
Zn
5*
1.00
Acute 36, Chronic 36
NA
NA
ND (<0.002) 0.004
0
0.003
SO4
250*
250
No Standard
ND (<0.001) 0.0194 0.00294
ND (<0.001) - 0.0039 0.00208
ND (<0.2) 1.4
0
ND (<O.2)
Acidity
No Standard
NA
NA
ND (<2) 2
15
ND (<2)
Alkalinity
fpH
6.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
No Standard
6.0-9..0
0.0358 3.33 0.10306
(Units: pH in Standard Units, EC in µS/cm)
5.87 - 11.97
0.01235 - 0.0351 0.02515
NA
2 21
6.34 7.27
2
5
2
6.34
C
No Standard
NA
NA
4 42
1
5
* Secondary Standard
H.A. Health Advisory
A.L. Action Level
Page 1 of 1