AA TS 602 001 - Final Standard and Associated Specifications

December 2016 MINERAL RESIDUE FACILITIES AND WATER Version 4
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES STANDARD

For Current Versions of Technical Standards go to Eureka!
COPYRIGHT
1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

This Group Technical Standard defines the minimum requirements for Mineral Residue Facilities (MRFs)
management, water containment, and water diversion structures management in Anglo American,
throughout the life-cycle, from site selection and early studies, through design, operation and to post-closure.
2. SCOPE
This Standard relates to the siting, safe design, operation and closure of all mining and mineral process
wastes or by-products storage facilities and deposits, as well as water containment and diversion structures,
at either greenfield or brownfield projects and operations, including those that are either removed, relocated
or being reprocessed. This Standard also covers the requirements of the preparation and implementation of
Surface Flooding Risk Management Plans (SFRMPs).
This Standard applies to all tailings dams, water dams, and mineral waste dumps and stockpiles, either
temporary or permanent, as described in AA TS 602 101, that are found at Anglo American Group managed
businesses and operations, including contractors when involved in activities covered under this Standard.
The Standard also applies to diversion structures and workings necessary to protect Group employees,
property and infrastructure from surface flooding and potential inrush of water, snow, ice, and mudslides.
3. PLANNING AND DESIGN
3.1 Consequence Classification of Structures (CCS)
3.1.1 Operations shall complete a Consequence Classification of Structures (CCS) rating and evaluation
for all MRFs, using the matrix presented in Table 1 of AA TS 602 102. For facilities with multiple
adjacent or close-by containment structures / dams, CCS evaluations shall be completed for each
structure.
3.1.2 The CCS evaluation shall be completed by an interdisciplinary team, formally documented by the
Engineer of Record (EoR), and approved by the Head of Mineral Residue Facilities (MRF).
3.1.3 The CCS ratings shall be reviewed, and the rating updated based on the review, on an annual
basis, with changes to be approved by the Head of MRF.
3.1.4 For mineral residue facilities with a CCS rating of “Major”, or a rating of “High” due to potential
human or environmental impacts (on or off property), either a dam breach analysis and inundation
study (for containment facilities) or a run-out analysis (for dumps and stockpiles) shall be
undertaken to quantitatively estimate area of influence, Population at Risk (PAR), Potential Loss of
Life (PLL), and potential additional impacts per the CCS consequence types. The results of these
analyses, which shall be completed under both “Induced” and “Sunny day” failure scenarios, shall
inform and support the CCS ratings.
3.1.5 For structures with all other CCS ratings, the Head of MRF shall determine if a detailed dam breach
and inundation study, or run-out analysis, is necessary to be completed.
3.1.6 Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) and Emergency Preparedness Plans (EPPs) shall be
informed by inundation maps or impact area maps, from dam breach analyses and waste dumps
run-out analyses, , and incorporating stakeholders’ interests and concerns, in accordance with
Anglo American Social Way requirements.
3.2 Design Requirements for Mineral Residue and Water Containment Facilities
3.2.1 All MRFs and their appurtenant structures shall meet or exceed the minimum design criteria
detailed in Tables 2 and 3 of AA TS 602 102. Where differences in design criteria exist between
this Standard and local, regional, or national legislations or codes of practice, the more stringent
criteria shall apply.
3.2.2 Where two or more containment structures are associated with the same tailings storage facility or
water management reservoir, each structure shall be designed based on its own site-specific
conditions and its own CCS evaluation.
AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 1 of 7

COPYRIGHT
3.2.3 Where tailings storage facilities or water retaining dams have a fully enclosed layout (such as a ring
dike or closed perimeter dike), there shall only be one set of design criteria for the containment
structures, based on the highest CCS rating determined around the facility.
3.2.4 Where two facilities (containment structures or dumps / stockpiles) are adjacent to each-other,
within the area of inundation or run-out influence of one another, or share a common structure,
dam breach analyses, run-out analyses, and CCS ratings shall include potential impacts from one
facility onto the other.
3.2.5 Comprehensive alternative analyses for site selection, facility layout, disposal methods, operation
alternatives, and closure options shall be completed, documented, and evaluated at project design
stages, as per Investment Criteria by Stage (ICbS) requirements.
3.2.6 Designs shall suit facility and mine requirements, be cost-effective, have the lowest CCS and
lowest risk possible, incorporate social and environmental performance standards, minimise water
and energy use, and be designed for closure while considering minimum long term post-closure
liabilities and potential for useful land usage at the end of mine life.
3.2.7 Dewatered or filtered mineral residue deposition alternatives, or a hybrid of such methods, shall be
included in all mineral residue disposal option analyses from the onset, at least at Opportunity,
Concept, and Pre-Feasibility A stages, as per ICbS.
3.2.8 Where the Life of Mine (LOM) exceeds a MRF’s life, total and final capacity requirements and final
footprint of the MRF shall be estimated and considered when evaluating impacts and developing
an integrated mine plan.
3.2.9 Designs shall include the necessary infrastructure for each MRF, for their construction,
commissioning, operation and maintenance, as well as emergency ingress, egress and related
emergency support and communication equipment (for daytime and night-time unwanted events).
3.2.10 The Owner’s team for each design phase of a project shall include input from at least one
Competent Person with sufficient mineral residue knowledge to manage or co-manage the scope
of work required, and be accountable for meeting the requirements of this Standard.
3.2.11 The design team for each phase of a project shall be competent, fully cognizant of this Standard,
approved by the Owner’s team representative, and be capable of fulfilling the mineral residue
design requirements of the project.
3.2.12 The project team shall ensure that there is full design integration between the different plant,
mining and MRF discipline areas, as well as environmental, social and sustainable development
aspects and that battery limits and responsibilities are well defined.
3.2.13 Given the evolving and dynamic nature of mineral residue facilities and their designs, a formal
change management process shall be developed and adhered to in respect of material design,
construction, and operational issues for all MRFs.
3.3 Design Requirements for SFRMP and Associated Infrastructure
3.3.1 Each Operation shall have a SFRMP in place, prepared and signed off by a Hydrological or
Hydraulics Engineer (internal or external to the Group) and accepted by the General Manager (GM)
or designate, with technical content updated as deemed necessary by the responsible person, and
the emergency contacts updated annually.
3.3.2 The SFRMP and the design of associated infrastructure shall be based on sufficiently up-to-date
and reliable climatic and hydrologic data, as obtained from weather stations and instrumentation at
or near the site that have been calibrated and monitored regularly.
3.3.3 Each Operation shall have a map identifying all catchment and sub-catchment basins, with surface
runoff flow directions, overlaying a topographic map of the mining property which includes both
mine operation infrastructure and public infrastructure.
3.3.4 Storm events and resulting surface floods within the property boundaries shall be calculated for
various return period increments, up to and including the PMP (Probable Maximum Precipitation),
as outlined in Technical Specification AA TS 602 104.

COPYRIGHT
3.3.5 Inundation maps shall be prepared for each storm event noted in AA TS 602 104, and overlapped
or compounded (where necessary), with tailings and water dam breach analyses, snow
avalanches, ice jams build-ups, debris or mud flows.
3.3.6 The level of protection of Operational infrastructure from surface flooding shall be based on cost-
benefit analysis and the design storm events agreed and signed-off by the GM. Where the
employee loss of life due to surface flooding or inrush (into open pit, surface or underground mine
workings) is considered a potential outcome of an extreme unwanted event, the level of flood
protection selected shall be more stringent, commensurate with the gravity and catastrophic nature
of the estimated consequence.
3.3.7 Storm water management facilities shall be designed such that they maximize, where possible, the
capture and storage of surface runoff, as long as diversion and containment facilities are built for
that purpose, and retention of water from extreme rainfall events, snow melt and spring freshet
does not add undue risk to the operation.
3.3.8 The SFRMP shall reflect the current risk management and emergency response to floods across
the mine site, and shall identify any diversion structures that need to be constructed in the future to
achieve the level of risk accepted and signed-off by the GM.
3.3.9 Separation and segregation of process, impacted and non-impacted site water shall be evident in
design and operation, and maximized across the entire property (refer to the Water Management
Standard), including diversions around open pits and surface mine workings with sediment control
dams, polishing ponds, and energy dissipation structures being designed as per technical
specifications AA TS 602 102 and AA TS 602 103.
3.3.10 Concept development, design verification and preparation of the SFRMP shall be completed in
accordance with the technical specification AA TS 602 104.
IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT
3.4 Competent Person
3.4.1 Each Operation with at least one MRF having a CCS rating of “Major” or “High” shall have a
Competent Person assigned on site, in charge of the construction and/or operation of such facility.
A Competent Person may be shared by several facilities or operations, depending on the
complexity of the sites, distances, logistics, and the amount of work expected in that position.
3.4.2 The Competent Person shall implement and monitor the Standard and the Critical Controls at the
respective MRF to which they are assigned.
3.4.3 The Competent Person shall ensure proper completion, sign-off, and control of the required
documents, as noted in AA TS 602 103.
3.4.4 SFRMPs shall be prepared and signed off by an experienced Civil Engineer with Hydrology or
Hydraulics background (internal or external to the Group). For risks associated with snow
avalanches, ice build-up, debris flow, or natural slope failures/mudslides, the Head of MRF shall
appoint or confirm that a suitable specialist is engaged to prepare or assist with preparation of
relevant document sections and calculations, in these particular specialty areas.
3.5 Engineer of Record (EoR)
3.5.1 Each operation shall appoint an EoR for each MRF.
3.5.2 The EoR appointment letter shall clearly stipulate roles, responsibilities and authorities of both the
Operation and the EoR.
3.5.3 Where an MRF includes more than one dam or containment structure, the EoR shall be appointed
for the entire MRF, including appurtenant structures (such as spillways, water management
system, sedimentation ponds, pump-back systems, cyclone stations, etc.).
3.5.4 The EoR shall be the close advisor of the on-site mineral residue manager / superintendent for the
structure or facility for which the EoR has been appointed, and shall maintain close contact and
coordination with the delegated contact person(s) at Operational level.

COPYRIGHT
3.5.5 The EoR shall be contracted by the Operation and report to the Competent Person on site, which
could be the mineral residue manager or person responsible for the construction and operation of
the MRFs.
3.5.6 For tailings facilities, fine residue facilities, and water-retaining dams, the EoR shall conduct an on-
site training workshop for key site and operations personnel at least once per year, to impart to site
personnel a full understanding of design requirements and key construction and operational
parameters to achieve those requirements.
3.5.7 Change management between two EoRs at any given facility shall include, as a minimum, a one
month overlap in service contracts to ensure outgoing EoR has sufficient time to transfer all
documentation and knowledge about the facility to the incoming EoR, to complete a smooth and
uninterrupted transition between the two firms.
3.6 Technical Review Panel (TRP)
3.6.1 Each Business Unit shall have an appointed independent TRP (TRP) for their MRFs.
3.6.2 The TRPs shall be appointed jointly by the Head of MRF and the BU. The Head of MRF shall
approve in writing the composition of the TRPs and their Terms of Reference (ToR), to ensure
independence, and proper technical specialty coverage related to the complexities of the
structure(s).
3.6.3 The TRP contract shall clearly stipulate TRP member roles, responsibilities and communication
authorities.
3.6.4 TRPs shall meet as often as the TRP deems necessary depending on project or operational
complexity, risk profile, or urgency of recommendations or issues at hand. The frequency of
meetings shall be at least annually for those BUs with Operations that have one or more MRF rated
as having a “Major” or “High” CCS rating.
3.6.5 TRP members shall be kept informed of the risk mitigation measures either delayed or
implemented based on the risk register, and incidents or non-compliance issues that may have
arisen in between reviews, or since the last TRP meeting.
3.6.6 The TRP shall report directly to the General Manager (GM) of the Operation, with copies of reports
submitted to the BU, and to the Head of MRF.
3.6.7 Change management within the membership of the TRP, when and as necessary, shall be based
on membership rotation - one member at a time, to ensure knowledge transfer to the new or
incoming TRP member by the Panel members that are already in place. Simultaneous replacement
of all TRP members shall be avoided.
3.7 Operational Phase Stewardship
3.7.1 The financial and human resources needed to support continued mineral residue facilities
management and governance shall be maintained. Operating and capital costs, and human
resource needs, are included in relevant business planning processes.
3.7.2 All plant, equipment and infrastructure used in the handling, deposition and management of mineral
residues shall be appropriately maintained, fit for purpose, and operated to ensure that each facility
is constructed and developed in accordance with the design and permit conditions.
3.7.3 Where a mine plan or mineral extraction process changes during the operational phase, the
impacts on the mineral residue properties, production rate, and facility operating plan shall be re-
evaluated and any new risks identified and appropriately managed. The design, equipment
selection and operating procedures shall be amended to suit the changes and, if necessary, the
authorities informed and permits revised.
3.7.4 All changes shall be documented and approved by the Competent Person and the EoR, adhering
to the formal change management process. The TRP shall be made aware of all changes deemed
material by the EoR or the Operation.

COPYRIGHT
3.7.5 Where changes in design or operational procedures are needed, they shall be completed,
approved and signed-off by the EoR. Documentation of such changes shall include consideration
of implications of the change for the full life-cycle of the facility in question, and shall be included in
the Annual Dam Safety Inspection report or the Annual Continuation report (see AA TS 602 103).
3.7.6 Performance monitoring systems shall be put in place to ensure that the facility is constructed and
operated in accordance with the design, operating manual, permit conditions and closure
objectives. Unexpected changes in environmental, operational or structural behaviour shall be
investigated and remedied as early as possible, involving the EoR, to proactively and effectively
manage change, and to minimize potential long term liabilities.
3.7.7 The safety and stability of all MRFs shall be reviewed according to the requirements set in AA TS
602 102, together with the results of the social targets and environmental compliance indicators to
be reported to the Head of MRF on an annual basis, as part of the annual request for information
on CCS ratings and risk levels.
3.7.8 The frequency of monitoring, inspection and surveillance of MRFs shall be consistent with the CCS
rating, and completed according to the requirements set in AA TS 602 102.
3.7.9 During the construction phase of a facility, which may extend through to the end of the operational
phase of the life-cycle, appropriate site supervision shall be in place to ensure that each facility is
built in accordance to design and permit conditions. A Competent Person shall be appointed to
supervise the construction of the facility, starting from the early phase of site preparation. This shall
extend into the commissioning phase where the design and the operating plan demand more
specialised management.
3.7.10 Where a Competent Person is not present on site in charge of the facility operation, a more
frequent involvement of the EoR (beyond set minimums in AA TS 602 102) is required to support
the site management team in conducting regular monitoring and surveillance of the facility, and this
shall be reflected in the EoR appointment letter for such Operations, until a Competent Person is in
place.
3.7.11 Quality Assurance tests and documentation during start-up and construction shall be signed off by
a Competent Person, representing the EoR. The EoR shall verify and confirm in writing that the
design criteria and design requirements are met, thereby satisfying design intent.
3.7.12 Where a MRF is operated by a third party contractor (outsourced operation), the contract
documents shall be reviewed for technical scope and content by the Head of MRF or a delegate,
with written approval provided prior to sign-off and execution of the contract. Legal and commercial
reviews of such contracts shall be undertaken at Operation and BU level.
3.7.13 SFRMPs shall be assigned an owner at the Operation level, responsible for the plan’s
management, updates and related employee training, as well as inspection of diversion channels
and structures at least twice a year, that is before and during the wet season.
3.8 Engagement and Communication
3.8.1 Engagement and communication shall be planned and undertaken at least annually with
community, regulators, and other stakeholders taking into account risks and actual and anticipated
changes such as demographics, regulations, and land use particularly downstream of MRFs, and
considering interests and concerns of stakeholders. The nature and extent of ongoing engagement
and communication will be directly related to the level of interest and concern, as well as
complexity of the MRF and actual and potential social and environmental risks.
3.9 Closure and Post-closure Phases Stewardship
3.9.1 Progressive rehabilitation shall be maximized and undertaken during the operational phase in
accordance with the closure plan, drawing down on closure funds and reducing post-operational
efforts, expenditures, and risks.

COPYRIGHT
3.9.2 All plant, equipment and infrastructure required in the decommissioning, rehabilitation, closure and
after-care of each facility shall be appropriately managed to ensure that the facility is closed in
accordance with the design and permit requirements.
3.9.3 Facility closure design criteria and requirements, including monitoring, inspection and surveillance,
shall meet, as a minimum, the requirements set in AA TS 602 102.
3.9.4 In situations where the Closure Plan is not prepared by the EoR, it shall be reviewed and approved
by the EoR for aspects related to the stability and safety of the MRF.
3.9.5 Surface flooding risk management in a post-closure condition shall be designed such that minimum
human intervention is necessary and diversion and containment structures have built-in
redundancies to withstand such extreme climatic events over long periods, in perpetuity.
3.9.6 All design, operation and closure documentation for each facility shall be stored appropriately,
readily accessible and available whenever required for up to 10 years after permanent closure of
the facility.
4. PERFORMANCE MONITORING
4.1 Each structure shall have its own set of assessments and reports, as per the requirements set in
AA TS 602 103; exceptions include where several small size structures are replicated across the
property, having the same CCS ratings, design criteria and operational processes.
4.2 Structures with a CCS rating of Insignificant, Minor, or Moderate shall review document
requirements with the Competent Person at the Operational level and the EoR.
4.3 Performance monitoring of quality Standard implementation shall be completed through set
governance processes and shall include, as a minimum, the following evaluations:
 Quality of design, construction, operation and closure of facilities;
 Quality of required technical documentation, including sign-off, as outlined in AA TS 602 103;
 Quality of design, implementation, reporting and verification of critical controls, as applicable
and relevant to each structure;
 Quality of monitoring, surveillance and governance processes;
 Appointment of the Competent Person;
 Appointment and proper engagement of EoR; and
 Appointment and proper engagement of TRP.
 Availability of quality documentation updated annually and implementation of SFRMP,
including semi-annual structural inspections, review of annual training material and training
workshop participation.
4.4 Required documents shall be made available for audits and inspections.
APPENDIX A: REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
Document Number Previous Number(s) Title

AA TS 000 001 New Document Master List of Definitions
AA TS 601 001 New Document Water Management Standard
AA TS 401 001 New Document Geotechnical Standard for Underground Excavations and
Slope Stability
AA TS 602 101 New Document Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management
Structures Standard - Standard Applicability
AA TS 602 102 New Document Classification, Design Criteria, and Surveillance
Requirements for Mineral Residue Facilities and Water
Management Structures, Specification

COPYRIGHT
AA TS 602 103 New Document Required Documents for Mineral Residue Facilities and
Water Management Structures, Specification
AA TS 602 104 New document Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan Development
and Implementation, Specification
APPENDIX B: RECORD OF AMENDMENTS
Issue 0 : GTS 18 New document, February 2011.

Versions 1,2 : GTS 18 Standard, minor references updated, October 2012.
Version 3 : GTS 18 Standard complete revision by Caius Priscu. Internal review and comments by:
T. Verbeek, M. Motselebane, P. Renner, D. Cameron, G. Mabula, C. Mapani,T. Gardner,
L. Pohl. External reviewers: K. Lyell - K. Lyell Consulting Engineer, South Africa; K.
Seddon – ATC Williams, Australia; A. Small – AMEC, Canada; H. McLeod – Klohn
Crippen Berger, Canada. Released in February 2014.
Version 4 : Revised Standard criteria by Caius Priscu and Todd Martin, new template format applied.
Content of GTS 15 Surface Flooding Standard (retired) and part of GTS 16 Inrushes
Standard (retired) was assimilated into the current standard and technical specification
AA TS 602 104, December 2016.

December 2016 Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management Version 1
Structures Standard – Standard Applicability,
Specification
COPYRIGHT
For Current Versions of Technical Standards go to Eureka
The purpose of this Technical Specification is to stipulate and clarify the structures and facilities to which the
Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management Structures Standard AA TS 602 001 (hereafter noted as “the
Standard”) is applicable, and those to which it is not applicable.
2. APPLICABILITY
The Standard applies to all dams and containment structures, temporary or permanent, that meet either of the
following criteria:
a) Their height is equal to or greater than 2.5 m (as measured vertically from lowest foundation level to
highest final approved crest elevation); or
b) Their maximum containment volume could be at any given time, including process and meteoric water,
equal to or greater than 25,000 cubic meters (liquid, solids, or a mix).
This Standard applies to all waste rock dumps, stockpiles, heap leach pads, slag, earthen materials or fill dumps,
temporary or permanent, which meet either of the following criteria:
a) Their height is equal to or greater than 5.0 m (as measured vertically from lowest foundation level to
highest final approved top platform or crest elevation); or
b) Their maximum volume could be, at any given time, equal to or greater than 50,000 cubic meters.
For structures that do not meet the criteria noted herein (i.e., of smaller size), the Mineral Residue Facilities
(MRF) team shall decide, together with the responsible Competent Person and the Engineer of Record (EoR),
on the minimum requirements applicable. This shall be based on sound engineering principles and on the
Consequence Classification of Structures (CCS) rating (as per AA TS 602 102), in an effort to minimize
associated risks. Structures of lesser size or CCS rating are by no means totally exempt from this Standard, and
professional judgement shall be applied.
The specific types of structures and facilities to which the Standard applies include the following:
a) Overburden stockpiles and waste rock dumps;
b) Spoils, discards, reject and processed kimberlite dumps;
c) Smelter waste, slag piles, and heap leach pads;
d) Stockpiles (low or high grade ore) and fill or earthen materials;
e) Gypsum and industrial mineral dumps and stockpiles;
f) Conventional slurry, thickened, paste, dry stack or filtered tailings (wet/dry deposition);
g) Co-disposed mineral residue (e.g. tailings and waste rock, fines and coarse discards, etc.);
h) Surface and underground backfill;
i) Sludge and sediment containment facilities from process, water treatment plants, or runoff;
j) Water retaining dams for fresh, contact, non-contact or impacted waters;
k) Containment structures for storm water, return water, sedimentation or polishing ponds;
l) Dams, dikes and embankment structures for water diversion and/or flood protection;
m) Appurtenant structures for water management in and around water storage and mineral residue facilities
(contour/drainage channels, spillways, gates, decant towers, discharge structures, energy dissipators);
and
n) Conveyance structures for water and/or slurry.

Specification
COPYRIGHT
Surface flooding issues for which this standard is applicable are as follows:
a) Surface flooding of property from runoff and extreme precipitation events in and around the property and
adjacent catchment basins;
b) Surface flooding risks associated with tailings and water dam breach analyses, snow avalanches, ice
jams build-ups, debris or mud flows;
c) Storm water management;
d) Inrush to mine openings and work areas
3. EXCLUSIONS
The following structures and facilities are excluded from the application of the Mineral Residue Facilities and
Water Management Structures Standard:
a) Seabed disposal of mineral residue;
b) Domestic, demolition and other industrial wastes including hydrocarbon-contaminated soils (Anglo SHE
Way);
c) Hazardous wastes / substances / chemicals (SHE Way);
d) Site selection and sizing of waste rock dumps and heap leach pads (AA TS 401 001 Geotechnical
Standard for Underground Excavations and Slope Stability;
e) Water security, water quality, water efficiency, water management and water treatment (Water
Management Standard, AA TS 601 001);
f) Surface and groundwater supply, management and resources (Water Management Standard, AA TS
601 001);
g) Responsible water usage and water savings strategies (Water Management Standard, AA TS 601 001);
and
h) Emergency planning, crisis manuals, government and community engagements (Anglo Social Way).

AA TS 401 001 New Document Geotechnical Standard for Underground
(Consolidation of AA GTS Excavations and Slope Stability
09 and 19)
AA TS 601 001 AA GTS 21 Water Management Standard
AA TS 602 001 AA GTS 18 Mineral Residue Facilities and Water
Management Structures Standard
AA TS 602 102 New Document (based on Classification, Design Criteria, and
GTS 18 appendix) Surveillance Requirements for Mineral
Residue Facilities and Water Management
Structures, Specification

Specification
COPYRIGHT
AA TS 602 103 New Document (based on Required Documents for Mineral Residue
GTS 18 appendix) Facilities and Water Management Structures,
Specification
AA TS 602 104 New Document Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan
Development and Implementation,
Specification
AA TS 601 001 AA GTS 21 Water Management Standard
SHE Way
Version 1 : New document format. Content based entirely on select technical requirements
extracted from GTS 18 Mineral Residue Management, Version 3, dated February 2014.
This update prepared by Caius Priscu and Todd Martin, December 2016.

December 2016 Classification, Design Criteria, and Surveillance Requirements for VERSION 1
Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management Structures
Specification
COPYRIGHT
The purpose of this technical specification is to provide required framework to be used for evaluating the
Consequence Classification of Structures (CCS) ratings, minimum design criteria requirements, and
minimum surveillance and inspection requirements for mineral residue facilities and water management
structures, stipulated within the Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management Structures Standard
(hereafter noted as “the Standard”).
2. CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES (CCS)

The Consequence Classification of Structures (CCS) framework is provided in Table 1. This framework shall
be used to evaluate the CCS rating for each and every mineral residue facility and water containment
structure in the Group that is subject to the Standard applicability, as presented in technical specification AA
TS 602 101.
3. MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS

Minimum design criteria requirements are outlined in Tables 2 and 3 as follows:
 Table 2 – containment facilities, tailings dams, and water retaining dams
 Table 3 – waste rock dumps, stockpiles, coarse residue deposits, and heap leach pads
4. MINIMUM SURVEILLANCE AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

Minimum requirements for surveillance and inspection are outlined in Tables 4 and 5 as follows:
 Table 4 – containment facilities, tailings dams, and water retaining dams
 Table 5 – waste rock dumps, stockpiles, coarse residue deposits, and heap leach pads

Specification
COPYRIGHT
TABLE 1: CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES (CCS)
ORMP RISK MATRIX -

ADAPTED FOR MINERAL RESIDUE CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES (CCS) RATING FOR MINERAL RESIDUE AND WATER CONTAINMENT FACILITIES NOTES 1 and 2
(Where an unwanted event has more than one ‘Consequence Type’, choose the ‘Consequence Type’ with the highest rating)
AND WATER CONTAINMENT Applies to tailings and water retaining dams, and containment facilities with H > 2.5 m or V > 25,000 m 3
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Applies to waste rock dumps, stockpiles and heap leach pads with H > 5 m or V > 50,000 m3
Consequence Type 1 - Insignificant 2 - Minor 3 - Moderate 4 - High 5 - Major

No disruption to operation. Brief disruption to operation. Partial shutdown of operation. Partial loss of operation.
Substantial or total loss of operation.
Financial
See NOTE 3 Losses < 0.01% of Annual Revenue & Total 0.01% < Losses < 0.1% of Annual Revenue & 0.1% < Losses < 1.0 % of Annual Revenue & 1.0 % < Losses < 5.0 % of Annual Revenue &
Losses > 5.0% of Annual Revenue & Total Assets
Assets Total Assets Total Assets Total Assets
Employee Safety & Health Numerous permanent disabilities or multiple
First aid case Medical treatment case Lost time injury Permanent disability or single fatality
(on property) fatalities
Human PAR (Population at Risk) -

None Temporary only 10 or fewer 100 or fewer Greater than 100
Impacts Public, off property
PLL (Potential Loss of Life) -

None PLL highly improbable PLL is possible but not expected 1 to 10 Greater than 10
Public, off property
Exposure to health hazards/ agents (over the Exposure to health hazards/ agents (significantly
Exposure to health hazard resulting in symptoms Exposure to health hazards/ agents (significantly
Exposure to health hazard resulting in temporary OEL) resulting in reversible impact on health over the OEL) resulting in irreversible impact on
Occupational Health requiring medical intervention and full recovery (no over the OEL) resulting in irreversible impact on
discomfort (with lost time) or permanent change with no health with loss of quality of life of a numerous
lost time) health with loss of quality of life or single fatality
disability or loss of quality of life group/population or multiple fatalities
Lasting weeks; reduced area (< 5 km 2); no Lasting months; impact on an extended area (< Lasting years; impact on sub-basin or area < 20 Permanent impact; affects a whole basin or region
Lasting days or less; limited to small area (< 1
environmentally sensitive species/ habitat); no 10 km2); area with some environmental km2; environmentally sensitive environment / > 20 km2; highly sensitive environment
km2); receptor of low significance / sensitivity
Environmental aspects significant loss or deterioration of habitat; sensitivity (scarce / valuable environment); receptor (endangered species / habitats); (endangered species, wetlands, protected
(industrial area); no long term losses (less than a
restoration or compensation in kind is highly restoration or compensation in kind is highly restoration or compensation in kind is possible habitats); restoration or compensation in kind
Environment week)
possible possible but impractical impossible
&
Very high economic losses to the region, Extreme losses affecting major or critical public
Infrastructure
Public and private Losses to recreational facilities, seasonal High economic losses to the region, impacting affecting important public infrastructure or infrastructures (highways, bridges, railways, power
Low economic losses to the region; area
infrastructure (excluding workplaces and infrequently used transportation public infrastructure, transportation and services (e.g., highways, power lines, railways, lines, water supply mains, large commercial and
contains limited or no infrastructure.
mine site) routes. commercial facilities. water supply, commercial and industrial areas, industrial areas, storage facilities of dangerous
storage facilities of dangerous substances) substances)
Some impacts on local population, mostly Major widespread social impacts. Community
Ongoing social issues. Isolated complaints from Significant social impacts. Organized community
Social / Communities Minor disturbance of culture / social structures repairable. Single stakeholder complaint in reaction affecting business continuity. “License to
community members/ stakeholders protests threatening continuity of operations
reporting period operate” under jeopardy
Limited impact; concern / complaints from certain Local impact; local / regional public concern,
Minor impact; awareness / concern from specific Suspected reputational damage; local / regional / Noticeable reputational damage; national /
Reputation groups / organizations (e.g. NGOs) within local adverse publicity localized within regional and
individuals national public concern and reactions international public attention and repercussions
communities. neighbouring communities.
NOTE 1: When CCS evaluations are undertaken, both "Sunny day" and "Induced" failure modes shall be included in the dam breach and inundation studies.
NOTE 2: CCS ratings shall be evaluated irrespective of the probability of occurrence of an unwanted event, i.e. Likelihood column of the Risk matrix is completely ignored. Consider the maximum reasonable potential consequence of the selected unwanted event, irrespective of its probability of occurrence.
NOTE 3: This matrix refers to the ORMP matrix values. For BU or Group level financial impact values, please refer to AA_RD_02_22 IRM RISK MATRICES document. Financial consequences include all potential financial losses, from government fines and clean-up costs, to reconstruction, legal costs, and community compensations.
LEGEND: PAR (Population at Risk) = Total number of people from within the public (outside mine property) who would be directly exposed to water, tailings, debris flow or waste rock runout, assuming they took no action to evacuate.
PAR shall be used solely for estimating the CCS and not for estimating actual potential loss of life from an unwanted event. Impacts from potential surface water or groundwater contamination on
population to be included (such as potential impacts on drinking water sources, etc.)
PLL (Potential Loss of Life) = Incremental number of people from among the PAR (defined above) that would potentially lose their life in case of an unwanted event taking place, even after emergency response and preparedness plans have been in place and activated.
Incremental number is defined as the additional potential loss of life caused by a dam breach / structural failure / loss of containment / surface or groundwater contamination compared to the same climatic event occurring without the dam breach or structural/containment failure or loss.

Specification
COPYRIGHT
TABLE 2: MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONTAINMENT FACILITIES, TAILINGS AND WATER RETAINING DAMS
CCS RATING FOR CONTAINMENT FACILITIES
Applies to containment structures, tailings & water retaining dams with:
H > 2.5 m or V > 25,000 m3
AREA PARAMETERS Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Observations
IDF – Inflow Design Flood 1:10,000
1:100 1:500 1:1,000 1:5,000
(for operating facilities) or PMF Flood events consider AEP (annual exceedance probability) on top of normal operating water levels.
The rainfall event with the most detrimental effect for the specific facility is to be used (e.g., 12, 24, 48 or
Flood Design
EDF – Environmental Design Flood (for

72 hours). For certain geographic regions, rainfall events calculated for 7, 30 and 60 days or longer may
operating facilities) – “no spill” or “zero 1:10 1:50 1:100 1:200 1:200
Levels 1
need to be verified as well. Where applicable, an equivalent inflow from minimum 1:10 year snowpack
discharge” climatic event requirements
must be added.
IDF – Inflow Design Flood (for operating
facilities) for contour / diversion channels, 1:10 1:10 1:20 1:20 1:50 For well-defined ring dikes or fully closed containment facilities, the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood)
contact or non-contact waters would refer to direct precipitation and PMP (Probable Maximum Precipitation) assuming no other
amount of water enters the facility (from runoff, avalanches, topographic highs, or similar, etc.); i.e. the
IDF - Inflow Design Flood 1:10,000 or 1:10,000 1:10,000 catchment basin is the facility itself. NOTE: PMP and PMF have no associated AEP value.
1:500 1:1,000
(for closed facilities) PMF or PMF or PMF
EDGM value to be justified using FMEA risk analysis, based on societal norms and acceptable risk
Design
Levels
quake
Earth-
levels. In regions with significant and /or complex tectonic and seismic activities, deterministic
EDGM – Earthquake (EQ) Design Ground 1:10,000 or 1:10,000 1:10,000
1:500 1:1,000 approaches may be used to derive MCE (Maximum Credible Earthquake) or selection of design criteria,
Motion (for operating or closed facilities) MCE or MCE or MCE
in which case it would need to be justified based on technical evaluations, societal norms and
acceptable risk levels. NOTE: MCE has no associated AEP value.
Static3 FoS > 1.3 (operating) & 1.5 (closed) Includes end-of-construction condition before filling (for new structures)
Analyses – Safety
Slope Stability
Pseudo-static FoS > 1.1 (operating) & 1.2 (closed) Includes end-of-construction condition before filling (for new structures)
Factors 2
Dynamic Includes end-of-construction condition before filling (for new structures).

FoS > 1.1 (operating or closed)
(post-earthquake) Assume full dynamic analysis with post-liquefaction conditions.
Required for certain situations where low consolidation levels are attained in tailings / slimes / sand
Static liquefaction potential FoS > 1.3 (operating or closed) deposition, or where high rate of rise is used. Laboratory or in situ piezocone testing (or similar) required
to support the evaluation.
Full or partial rapid drawdown FoS > 1.2 (operating) & 1.3 (closed) Where frequent drawdown conditions exist, higher safety factors may be required.
1 Freeboard requirements above the IDF or EDF pond levels to be determined on a facility-specific basis.
2 Minimum Factors of Safety (FoS) to be evaluated considering both drained and undrained shear strength. Undrained shear strength analyses are required for all upstream tailings dams designs, with geotechnical parameters supported by
laboratory testing and/or piezocone in situ testing. Minimum FoS shall be at least 1.3 considering undrained shear strengths, and 1.5 considering drained shear strengths (both strength cases applicable for operating and closed facilities).

Specification
COPYRIGHT
TABLE 3: MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WASTE ROCK DUMPS, STOCKPILES, COARSE RESIDUE DEPOSITS AND HEAP LEACH PADS
CCS RATING FOR WASTE DUMPS, STOCKPILES, COARSE

RESIDUE DUMPS AND HLPs
Applies to structures with H > 5.0 m or V > 50,000 m3
AREA PARAMETERS Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Observations

Flood events consider AEP (annual exceedance probability). The rainfall event with the most
IDF – Inflow Design Flood detrimental effect for the specific facility is to be used (e.g., minimum for 12, 24, 48 or 72
Management Design
(operating or closed facilities) for hours). For certain geographic regions, rainfall events calculated for 7, 30 and 60 days or
longer may need to be verified as well. Where applicable, an equivalent inflow from
Surface Water
contour / diversion / perimeter 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

channels around the dump, for minimum 1:10 year snowpack must be added. For sediment control ponds, see Table 2.
Levels
contact or non-contact waters

The EoR shall consider designing water, snow and ice management structures including
rock drains, water control structures and energy dissipators, pore pressure relief zones, flow-
through or drainage zones, groundwater relief or catchment wells and snow/ice thawing
Additional surface water, diversion workings.
drainage, surface impact water,
As determined by EoR
groundwater, sediment control, Time-dependent behaviour of the fill material (such as rock breakage and degradation,
debris, snow and ice controls internal blinding effects, geochemical activity or combustion) shall be taken into
considerations at all design levels.
Earthquake
EDGM value to be justified using FMEA analyses. In regions with significant and /or complex
1:10,000 or
1:10,000 or
1:10,000 or
Design
Levels
EDGM – Earthquake Design

1:1,000
tectonic and seismic activities, deterministic approaches may be used to derive MCE
1:500
MCE
MCE
MCE
Ground Motion (for operating or (Maximum Credible Earthquake) or selection of design criteria, which would need to be
closed facilities) justified based on technical evaluations, societal norms and acceptable risk levels.
NOTE: MCE has no associated AEP value.
The degree of uncertainty in the available information, engineering parameters, site and
foundation characterization, operating and QA practices in the field, hydro-geochemical
Analyses – Safety
Static (dump face / shallow

FoS > 1.0 (operating) & 1.1 (closed) processes and environmental constrains need be taken into account when deciding on
Slope Stability
stability)
safety factors beyond minimum requirements. The higher the CCS rating, the more
Factors
restrictive the requirements.
Considerations must also be given to potential settlements and allowable deformations

Static (overall / global stability) FoS > 1.3 (operating) & 1.5 (closed) (short term and long term) of the dump / stockpile, required equipment and personnel
access, and future closure activities.
Seismic (pseudo-static or Where pseudo-static analyses yield a FoS of 1.1 or less, and the CCS of the structure is
FoS > 1.1 (operating) & 1.2 (closed)
dynamic analyses) High or Major, a full dynamic stress-deformation analysis is required.

Specification
COPYRIGHT
TABLE 4: MINIMUM REQUIRED FREQUENCY FOR SURVEILLANCE AND INSPECTION OF CONTAINMENT FACILITIES, TAILINGS AND WATER RETRAINING
DAMS
MINIMUM INSPECTION FREQUENCIES BASED ON CCS RATING FOR
CONTAINMENT FACILITIES, TAILINGS AND WATER RETAINING DAMS
Applies to all dams, dikes and embankments with H > 2.5 m or V > 25,000 m 3
RESPONSIBLE SURVEILLANCE Formal EoR BU T&S
Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Observations
LEVEL TASK Report Presence Presence Presence
Routine visual Visual walk-around or drive along facilities, looking

site inspection Every two for abnormal conditions. Short version checklist
Quarterly Monthly Weekly Daily No No No No
(short version weeks and photos to be used. No formal report required
inspection forms) beside the checklist.
Routine visual This frequency or more often, as dictated by
monitoring instrumentation monitoring reading frequency. See Clause
Twice per Every two Every two
Operations
inspection (long Quarterly Monthly Long version checklist (with photos) to be No 4.4.10 in No No
year months weeks
version inspection completed. Monitoring data to be collected and Standard
forms) provided to EoR for interpretation.
As required As required Formal report to be prepared by EoR. Report to be
Quarterly As required
by by Yes Yes reviewed and approved by BU Champion and Yes Yes Optional Optional
inspections by legislation
legislation legislation submitted to regulators, as per local legislation.
Annual DSI report, to be completed by EoR and to

Annual Dam include results and interpretation of findings in
Safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes routine inspections and quarterly reports. Shall Yes Yes Yes Optional
Inspections include interpretation and impact of monitoring data
and trends.
TRP members may decide to meet more frequent,
as they deem necessary. Several MRFs within a
As deemed
Technical Review BU may be reviewed in the same session. TRPs
As deemed As deemed necessary by
Panel (TRP) for Every two may request further detailed dam safety reviews by
BU
necessary by necessary Annually Annually Yes Yes Yes T&S, or

mineral residue years external engineering firms, depending on design or
the TRP by the TRP requested by
facilities operational changes, major climatic changes (after
the BU
a major flood or earthquake), or as requested by
the EoR.
Mineral Residue Every five Every four

Projects
Group
Facilities team or years or as years or as T&S dam safety inspections or audits may take
T&S
Every three Every two

designate – site deemed deemed Annually place at the same time as the TRP meetings or Yes Yes Yes Yes
years years
visits and/or necessary by necessary ABAS audits. T&S to determine timing.
audits T&S by T&S

Specification
COPYRIGHT
TABLE 5: MINIMUM REQUIRED FREQUENCY FOR SURVEILLANCE AND INSPECTION OF WASTE ROCK DUMPS, STOCKPILES, COARSE RESIDUE DEPOSITS
AND HEAP LEACH PADS
MINIMUM INSPECTION FREQUENCIES BASED ON CCS RATING FOR
CONTAINMENT FACILITIES, TAILINGS AND WATER RETAINING DAMS
Applies to all dams, dikes and embankments with H > 2.5 m or V > 25,000 m 3
RESPONSIBLE SURVEILLANCE Formal EoR BU T&S
Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Observations
LEVEL TASK Report Presence Presence Presence
Routine visual Visual walk-around or drive along facilities, looking

site inspection Every two for abnormal conditions. Short version checklist
Quarterly Monthly Weekly Daily No No No No
(short version weeks and photos to be used. No formal report required
inspection forms) beside the checklist.
Routine visual This frequency or more often, as dictated by
monitoring instrumentation monitoring reading frequency. See Clause
Twice per Every two Every two
Operations
inspection (long Quarterly Monthly Long version checklist (with photos) to be No 4.4.10 in No No
year months weeks
version inspection completed. Monitoring data to be collected and Standard
forms) provided to EoR for interpretation.
As required As required Formal report to be prepared by EoR. Report to be
Quarterly As required
by by Yes Yes reviewed and approved by BU Champion and Yes Yes Optional Optional
inspections by legislation
legislation legislation submitted to regulators, as per local legislation.
Annual DSI report, to be completed by EoR and to

Annual Dam include results and interpretation of findings in
Safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes routine inspections and quarterly reports. Shall Yes Yes Yes Optional
Inspections include interpretation and impact of monitoring data
and trends.
TRP members may decide to meet more frequent,
as they deem necessary. Several MRFs within a
As deemed
Technical Review BU may be reviewed in the same session. TRPs
As deemed As deemed necessary by
Panel (TRP) for Every two may request further detailed dam safety reviews by
BU
necessary by necessary Annually Annually Yes Yes Yes T&S, or

mineral residue years external engineering firms, depending on design or
the TRP by the TRP requested by
facilities operational changes, major climatic changes (after
the BU
a major flood or earthquake), or as requested by
the EoR.
Mineral Residue Every five Every four

Projects
Group
Facilities team or years or as years or as T&S dam safety inspections or audits may take
T&S
Every three Every two

designate – site deemed deemed Annually place at the same time as the TRP meetings or Yes Yes Yes Yes
years years
visits and/or necessary by necessary ABAS audits. T&S to determine timing.
audits T&S by T&S

Specification
COPYRIGHT

AA TS 602 101 AA GTS 18 (appendix) Mineral Residue Facilities and Water
Management Structures Standard – Standard
Applicability, Specification
AA TS 602 103 AA GTS 18 (appendix) Required Documents for Mineral Residue
Facilities and Water Management Structures,
Specification
AA TS 602 104 AA GTS 15 Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan
Specification
This update prepared by Caius Priscu and Todd Martin, October 2016.

December 2016 Required Documents for Mineral Residue Facilities and VERSION 1
COPYRIGHT
The purpose of this technical specification is to list the 25 documents required for mineral residue and water
containment structures referenced in the Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management Structures
Standard AA TS 602 001, hereafter referred to as “the Standard”. The Surface Flooding Risk Management
Plan (SFRMP) is required on an Operation-specific rather than structure-specific basis, so is not included in
the listed documents herein – refer instead to AA TS 602 104.
2. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
The following list of 25 required documents is mandatory for facilities covered by the Standard (refer to AA
TS 602 101) and having a Major or a High CCS rating (refer to AA TS 602 102). In some instances, the
contents of one listed document may be included in another, in which case separate documents are not
required; cross-referencing between the listed 25 shall then suffice.
Structures with an Insignificant, Minor or Moderate CCS rating require only select few key documents, as
agreed between the Mineral Residue Facilities (MRF) discipline in T&S and the Operation. Guidance is
provided in the Self-assessment evaluation spreadsheet for the Standard implementation.
Each structure shall have its own set of assessments and reports; exceptions include where several small size
structures are replicated across the property, having the same CCS ratings, design criteria and operational
processes. Documents without proper sign-offs are not considered complete.
The only two documents requiring approval by the MRF discipline in T&S are the CCS rating evaluation report
(Document No. 2) and the composition and appointment of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) (Document No.
12).
Table 2.1: Required documents for Mineral Residue Facilities and Water Management Structures
Doc. Approved by /
Title Prepared By Details and clarifications
N° Accepted by
1. EIA (Environmental EoR/Project Ops / As per The latest version submitted to the local Government department responsible
Impact Assessment) Engineering Anglo American for environmental approvals shall be provided.
report team Project Way/
Environmental For cases where no EIA was required by the regulatory authorities, the
Way / Social Environmental Management Plan (EMP – Document No. 16) or equivalent
Way shall be provided.
2. CCS (Consequence EoR/Ops Head of MRF The CCS report shall be reviewed and approved by the Head of MRF (or
Classification of discipline, T&S delegate). All AA mineral residue facilities shall follow the same CCS rating
Structure) report system (see AA TS 602 102) for consistency.
CCS classification shall follow the adjusted ORMP risk matrix and definitions
as included in AA TS 602 102 (Insignificant, Minor, Moderate, High, and
Major). The CCS report shall be reviewed (and updated, if necessary) annually
to ensure upstream or downstream conditions within the potential areas of
influence did not change, therefore impacting the CCS rating from previous
year.
3. Design criteria EoR Ops Design criteria must meet minimum requirements as outlined in AA TS 602
memorandum 102, and minimum requirements for the applicable local legislation. The most
stringent criteria shall apply. Design criteria must be up to date, and used as
part of the key controls at the operation.
4. Design report(s) EoR Ops The design report documentation shall be up to date, and fully reflective of the
current design/construction of the facility. Design addenda reports shall clearly

COPYRIGHT
Doc. Approved by /
N° Accepted by
reference the preceding design documentation. Design reports shall include all
supporting design assumptions, design and operating parameters, and
geotechnical analyses, including stability and seepage analyses as a
minimum. Design reports shall include, or make reference to supporting
reports, outlining site investigation/characterization aspects, including as a
minimum: geological, geotechnical, geochemical, hydrology, hydrogeology,
seismicity, mineral residue geotechnical and geochemical characterization,
and climate.
5. Short term deposition EoR/Ops Ops The short term deposition plan, usually covering a 6 months to maximum 3
plan years outlook, shall match the EIA/permit in place, as well as the Master Plan
(see item #6).
6. Master deposition EoR/Ops Ops This document shall demonstrate how mineral residue deposition over the Life
plan (based on LOM) of Mine (LOM) would fit within the property boundaries and topographic
restrictions, and be safely stored and operated within the approved design and
permitted context, while maintaining the overall closure plan objectives,
philosophy and method. The final projected outline or layout in a post-closure
condition must be shown as well.
7. Detailed engineering EoR Ops Must include construction specifications and detailed engineering drawings,
reports & construction including plan views and cross-sections. Must be reflected within the permit
drawings and the OMS manual. The status of specifications and drawings (design,
issued-for-tender, and issued-for-construction) shall be indicated.
8. Construction and as- EoR/Ops Ops Must include construction or deposition reports, changes from design or permit
built reports requirements, as-built drawings annotated with changes from design, QC
(Quality Control) documents, and QA (Quality Assurance) documents. Must
clearly show any deviations from design drawings or concepts. Must be
updated either annually, or with any new dam lift or waste dump lift
completion, or as often as required by local legislation – whichever
requirement is the most stringent. Reports shall include statement of
confirmation from the designer/EoR that construction satisfied design intent.
9. Internal inspection Ops Ops Must reflect routine visual inspections carried out internally, at a frequency
reports specified in AA TS 602 102.
10. Quarterly reviews (or Ops/EoR Ops The reports must include a site visit by the EoR accompanied by the Ops
semi-annual) representative. Must include a compilation and evaluation of internal
inspection reports (during the period prior) as well as a compilation of any
monitoring data. Reports must be prepared at a frequency specified in AA TS
602 102.
11. Annual Dam Safety EoR GM The DSI report shall be completed annually by the EoR and shall include (as a
Inspection (DSI) minimum) a detailed site visit of facilities, photographic record, review of
Report structural condition of the facility, verification of compliance with the design
criteria and permit requirements, confirmation of operations taking place in line
with the OMS manual, evaluation of instrumentation readings and
effectiveness of the monitoring system, overall evaluation of the structural and
environmental performance of the containment structures and water
management structures, and recommendations for action items to implement
investigations, re-design work or remedial measures. A review with the Ops
and BU representatives of the facility risk matrix shall be included. The report
shall either reference Document No. 15 (noted in this table) or append the
most recent stability analyses and confirm these to be sufficiently up to date as
to be representative.
12. TRP (Technical TRP GM/T&S TRP reports must include as a minimum: a site visit report and photographic
Review Panel) record (where site visits are required); reviews and analyses of topics tabled
Reports for Mineral and discussed or tasks at hand included in the scope of work or identified in
Residue Facilities

COPYRIGHT
Doc. Approved by /
N° Accepted by
the field. A report shall be issued pursuant to each TRP meeting, whether on
site, or if reviews were conducted remotely”.
13. T&S review/ audit MRF Ops A site visit report shall be provided, with a focus on key risks and
report Discipline, recommendations for mitigations of those risks.
T&S
14. Water balance EoR/Ops Ops A water balance of the facility shall to be included as part of the site-wide
water balance, and shall to be updated at least once a year. The water
balance shall include both a schematic chart showing flow inputs and
outputs/losses, as well as a report with backup documentation (data used).
15. Stability and seepage EoR Ops These reports shall be updated on a regular basis at key milestones, or
analyses report depending on the rate of rise of the facility, during any performance reviews,
(updates / changes in geometry, or following an incident or major climatic event.
continuation reports)
16. EMP (Environmental EoR/Ops Ops/S&SD An EMP report shall be prepared and updated as deemed necessary by the
Management Ops/BU in agreement with local legislative requirements and in line with the
Program) report current permits and community requirements. The EMP shall outline as a
minimum the approved limits for water quality (surface and groundwater), air
and noise emissions and other potential environmental impacts, environmental
monitoring plans, sampling, laboratory testing, instrumentation, certificates for
instrumentation calibration and quality assurance processes. The EMP shall
also contain a risk matrix related to key risks from an environmental
perspective and corresponding mitigation measures, unless already included
in document No. 21, noted below.
17. OMS (Operation, EoR/Ops Ops This is a key document that outlines procedures for the safe operation,
Maintenance and maintenance and surveillance of tailings facilities, water management facilities
Surveillance) manual and mineral residue dumps and stockpiles over the life of the mine and
through closure. The OMS manual should be available upon commissioning,
providing clear and concise framework for actions at site and operation level.
The level of detail in the OMS manual should reflect site requirements and
provide a solid base for demonstrating due diligence. An OMS manual shall be
prepared by the EoR, incorporating input from the Ops and BU. OMS manuals
shall be reviewed and updated (as required) no less frequently than annually.

COPYRIGHT
Doc. Approved by /
N° Accepted by
18. ERP (Emergency EoR/Ops Ops/GM An ERP manual shall be prepared jointly by the EoR, and Ops/BU, including
Response Plan) Sustainability/Environmental and HSE Managers at Ops levels, and shall be
approved, as a minimum, by the GM, the Operations Manager, and the SHE
Manager. And the Superintendent of the facility. The ERP shall outline key
(internal emergency emergency roles and responsibilities of the staff, in order of action priority, as
plan of actions) well as required notifications, communication directory, contact information,
and action items to be undertaken. The contacts within the ERP’s
communication directory shall be updated at least twice a year. For Major and
High CCS-rated structures, ERPs shall be based on the potential failure
modes identified for the structures (see Document No. 21), and as reviewed by
the TRP. TARPs (Trigger Action Response Plans) shall identify trigger levels
either in instrumentation, measured parameters or visual observations, for
which certain pre-defined actions are to be initiated. Areas of influence upon
which ERPs are based shall consider sunny day and induced failure scenarios
for dam breach analyses, slope instability run-out and debris flows, or
avalanche simulations, and are to be determine for structures and residues
deposited in either wet or dry conditions.
19. EPP (Emergency EoR/Ops Ops/GM/GSA An EPP manual shall be prepared jointly by the EoR/Ops/BU, under the
Preparedness Plan) guidance and direction of the Social Performance team, including input from
Sustainability/Environmental, Community Relations, Public Relations and HSE
Managers at Ops levels, and shall be approved by the GM, the Head of
(external emergency Engineering/Discipline, S&SD and Communications departments. The
plan of action, also notification contacts within the EPP shall be verified and updated (where
known at times as required) at least twice a year. Local and regional agencies shall be involved in
Crisis Manual) the process and provide input into the document.
For a Major CCS rated structure, or a structure with a rating of High due to
Human Impact criteria or Environmental criteria, EPPs shall be based on the
inundation/runout maps, derived from detailed dam breach analysis and
inundation studies. Live drills/simulations shall be carried out at least once
every 5 years, or as recommended by the TRP. For CCS ratings of Moderate
and below, an EPP is not required, unless the TRP and/or the Ops/BU
recommends it. A TARP document shall be included with every EPP.
20. Closure Plan EoR / Ops A facility-specific closure plan shall be prepared and kept up to date, and
Specialist revised if mine planning and/or mineral residue deposition plans change. The
engineering closure plan shall be in consistent with the long term deposition planning (Item
firm/Ops n° 6). If specialist mine closure consultants are used for closure plan
development, EoR input must be provided. The level of detail of the Closure
Plan and corresponding financial closure liabilities shall be evaluated to a
detail level dictated by the local regulatory framework in each country. The
Anglo American Closure Toolbox shall be used as a guiding document in
preparing Closure Plans.
21. Risk Assessment EoR/Ops Ops The Risk Assessment (RA) report shall be prepared for each mineral residue
report facility and water retaining dam. FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analyses)
methodologies (or equivalent) shall be used for all Major and High
consequence rated structures. Tailings dam RAs must be reviewed by the EoR
for completeness as part of the annual DSI reporting (item n°11). TARPS
(Trigger Action Response Plans) shall be developed and updated by EoR in
agreement with the Operation and BU Champion. Risk registers for each
structure/facility shall be submitted annually to the Head of MRF, in the
required format.
22. Confirmatory letters Ops/BU Ops/T&S Confirmatory letters of appointment shall be prepared and executed (signed)
of appointment to ensure an EoR, a contractor or operator (where applicable), and a Mineral
Residue TRP have been dully appointed and their scope of work, contract
duration, responsibilities, and authorities are clearly defined.

COPYRIGHT
Doc. Approved by /
N° Accepted by
23. Permit compliance Operation Ops Every Operation shall prepare a summary report outlining compliance (or non-
report summary Contractor/ compliance) status with all permit requirements related to the MRF(s) and its
Ops appurtenant structures (spillways, settling, polishing ponds, etc.). This report
shall be prepared by the Ops, together with the Operating Contractor (where
applicable) and reviewed by EoR and BU (Sustainable Development and Head
of Engineering representatives). Where non-compliance is noted, it shall be
mentioned why, what happened, consequences and any additional risks, who
was informed, actions to be implemented, by whom and by when and any
associated budgets allocated to rectify the non-compliance situation.
24. Applicable local Ops/BU Ops/BU This document shall be a compilation of current local regulations applicable to
legislation the design, operation and closure of the facility. Related laws and regulations
shall be included.
25. Incident register EoR/Ops Ops/GM/BU An up to date incident register shall be kept at all facilities, updated with a
description of the incident(s) as they occur. It shall include a description of the
/BU incident, the extent (accident or failure), photographic record, and technical
reasons behind the occurrence as reflected based on design criteria and/or
regulatory requirements and/or governance practice or irregularities.
Rehabilitation measures, activities, audits and review reports and drawings
shall be included to ensure technical aspects have been addressed and are
properly controlled.
Incidents (accidents or failures) must be reported, as an absolute minimum, to

the GM of the Ops, the EoR and the MRF team, as per AA policies and
procedures, depending on the incident level and complexity.


AA TS 602 102 AA GTS 18 (appendix) Classification, Design Criteria, and

Surveillance Requirements for Mineral
AA TS 602 104 AA GTS 15 (Retired) Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan

AA GTS 16 (Retired)
Specification

COPYRIGHT
This update prepared by Caius Priscu and Todd Martin, October 2016.

December 2016 Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan Development and VERSION 1
Implementation, Specification
COPYRIGHT
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this specification is to provide minimum requirements and define the framework to be used
for the development and implementation of the Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan (SFRMP) at each
Operation, as stipulated in AA TS 602 001.
CONTENTS
1. Establish the site surface flooding context

2. Characterization of surface flooding risk
3. Develop Surface Flooding Risk Management Plan (SFRMP)
4. Implementation and monitoring
5. SFRMP review, updating, and change management
6. Emergency preparedness and response
1. ESTABLISH THE SITE SURFACE FLOODING CONTEXT

1.1 Prepare maps delineating all catchment and sub-catchment basins that report to or overlap the
mining property, indicating surface runoff flow directions, topography, geomorphology, land uses,
runoff characteristics, and mine property boundaries.
1.2 Characterize site climate, hydrology, topography and runoff characteristics, and define flood events
for each catchment basin covering a range of return periods and event durations. Return periods
shall span as a minimum the following: 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1,000
years, 5,000 years, and 10,000 years. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) events shall also be
estimated. Event durations shall span a sufficient range to fully capture flooding risks and identify
the most critical event duration, specific to the site context and local climate conditions, for a given
return period (or PMF) event.
1.3 Identify and characterize potential flood hazard sources within and around the property, such as
creeks, rivers, lakes, ocean, tailings and water retaining dams, water reservoirs, snow avalanche
tracks, debris flows, mudslides, flash flooding, river ice-jams, in-rush to open pit and underground
workings, and other flood-related geo-hazards relevant to the terrain, climate, and mine site context
and setting.
1.4 Develop intensity-duration-frequency rainfall curves (hyetographs) to derive extreme storm runoff
hydrographs. Include snowmelt and rain-on-snow events under applicable climatic settings.
1.5 Identify on-site and off-site people, facilities and infrastructure at potential risk under flooding.
Where applicable, flood risk is to be evaluated for the following sources of exposure:
 Mining areas (open pits, openings to underground workings – shafts, portals, vent raises,
unsealed exploration boreholes)
 Roads, railways, bridges, culverts
 Emergency access and egress roads
 Process plant facilities, crusher, conveyors, yards, office buildings
 Mineral residue facilities (tailings facilities, fine residue deposits, coarse residue deposits, waste
rock dumps, heap leach pads)
 Water retaining dams
 Water supply and water treatment facilities
 Utilities (pipelines, power lines)
 Pipeline corridors (ore, tailings, recycled water, etc.)
 Employees (on site)

COPYRIGHT
 Communities (off site)

 Off-site infrastructure
 Runoff diversion and collection works
 Environmentally / culturally sensitive areas
 First aid and emergency areas
 Fresh / potable water sources
 Hazardous / non-hazardous waste and chemicals storage facilities
2. CHARACTERIZATION OF SURFACE FLOODING RISK

2.1 Prepare flood inundation maps, inclusive of mine and surrounding infrastructure, and areas with
potential life at risk (on-site and off-site), considering various return period events and event
durations, generated from pertinent flooding hazard sources.
2.2 Based on the flood inundation maps, prepare a matrix indicating flood event return period (with
annual probability) versus consequences, considering affected infrastructure. Consequences
considered and costed, shall include, as a minimum:
 Temporary business interruption for duration of submergence and of post-event recovery
 Permanent structural damage requiring reconstruction
 Loss of equipment; carried away by the flow of water or buried under sediment
 Loss of power supply
 Release of polluted water to river systems or environmentally sensitive land, with associated
breach of law, and
 Reputational damage
2.3 Where potential loss of life or injuries to employees or the public could occur, particularly due to
drowning (from water, mud flow, surface or underground in-rush events, or other flood-related geo-
hazards), flood protection workings shall be designed to the most stringent criteria.
2.4 A formal and comprehensive risk analysis and evaluation shall be conducted for the applicable flood
risk exposures identified in the section above. Determine, with the current controls in place, whether
the possible flooding related to these exposures poses an acceptable risk, or whether risk
reduction/mitigation is required, on an exposure-specific basis.
3. DEVELOP SURFACE FLOODING RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN (SFRMP)

3.1 Evaluate flood protection and flood mitigation works across the entire property for the various
storm/flood events and for various return periods.
3.2 Cost estimates shall be completed for implementing infrastructure protection and mitigation works
for each of the flood events across the property.
3.3 Design criteria for the various specific flood protection workings shall be selected following a cost-
benefit analysis; that is the cost incurred to construct and maintain the diversion works versus the
reduction of damage costs (mining infrastructure, production stoppage, etc, as noted in 2.2) for the
same flood event. Transform annual exceedance probability of the flood event to cumulative
probability considering the life of mine (LOM) or remaining risk exposure. For closure flooding risks,
cumulative probabilities will consider the extended closure timeframe and corresponding duration of
risk exposure. Transformation from annual to cumulative flood event probabilities shall be estimated
as follows:
𝑝[𝑓]𝑖 = 1 − (1 − 𝑝0 )𝑖
where:

COPYRIGHT
p[f]i = probability of flood event occurring in i years

= probability that flood of a given return period is equalled or exceeded in i years
p0 = probability of flood occurrence in any one year
= reciprocal of the flood event return period
i = remaining mine life (in years), or mine closure period
= duration of exposure to flooding risk
3.4 Determine design criteria that define acceptable flooding risk (or protection level) for each vulnerable
asset. Different design criteria (or return period events) may be found appropriate for flood
protection/mitigation of various infrastructure or operation areas, considering vulnerability-specific
consequences.
3.5 Document the site context, surface flooding risk, and the risk management plan in a Surface
Flooding Risk Management Plan (SFRMP) report. Alternatively, these could be incorporated into
the Operation’s overall Water Management Plan.
3.6 Design criteria and flood protection levels shall be signed off by the GM.
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

4.1 Surface flooding risk reduction / mitigation measures shall be designed by person(s) competent in
hydrology and hydraulics engineering. Designs for constructed works shall include statement of
design criteria, construction quality assurance/quality control plan, detailed specifications and
construction drawings, and a monitoring and maintenance plan. As-built reports shall be prepared
documenting the constructed works and achievement of design intent.
4.2 A monitoring system shall be in place, to track / check: a) The climatic conditions which might
precede an extreme storm event; b) The integrity and maintenance of water containment structures
e.g. pipelines and flood mitigation controls; and c) That tailings and water dams representing
potential flood hazards are performing in accordance with their design and Operation, Maintenance
and Surveillance (OMS) manuals, in accordance with AA TS 602 001.
4.3 For monitoring the state of water containment structures and flood mitigation controls: a) Routine
inspections shall be conducted to ensure that structures e.g. pipes, reservoirs, berms, trenches,
dam walls, bridges, tunnels, are in a good condition, and b) A maintenance and inspection program
shall be in place, associated with monitoring the condition of the structures. Threshold levels shall
be set for the monitored parameters, where applicable, which would “trigger an alarm” if exceeded,
to enable early detection of potential risks.
4.4 Routine quarterly inspections shall be carried out, and they shall be planned and scheduled at
critical times, three of the four inspections each taking place before, during and after the rainy / wet
seasons, depending on site-specific climatic conditions.

COPYRIGHT
5. SFRMP REVIEW, UPDATING, AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT

5.1 Each SFRMP shall have an owner, responsible for its content, reviews, updates, implementation,
communication, and related training.
5.2 A change management process shall be in place to identify the risks associated with changes in the
plan, and to ensure that the SFRMP adapts to incorporate additional controls to manage the “new”
or “changed” risks. The process shall define the magnitude of change required to trigger a review
and update of the SFRMP.
5.3 The following updates of the SFRMP shall be completed:
5.3.1 Climate data and site hydrology – frequency of updates determined by the Competent Person
5.3.2 Changes in site infrastructure (construction, removal, expansions) – inundation maps reviewed
annually and updated, as required
5.3.3 SFRMP updates – no less frequent than once every three years.
6. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

6.1 Emergency response plans specific to identified flooding risks shall be prepared to define on-site
actions and mitigations to be undertaken if severe flood events occur, and shall be incorporated into
the overall site emergency response plan.
6.2 Emergency response plans shall include both water and tailings floods, as well as debris flows and
related geo-hazards noted in Section 1.3.
6.3 The emergency response plan is to be triggered when warning systems, embedded within Trigger
Action Response Plans (TARPs) for surface flooding risks, indicate an unsafe situation based on
pre-determined indicators. The warning systems shall be linked to the threshold values for the
monitored parameters. Typically there will be a series of response levels and escalation within the
TARPs, from first response to final evacuation.
6.4 Where there is potential surface flooding impact off-site, an emergency preparedness plan
associated with surface flooding risks outside property boundaries shall be developed and
embedded into the overall site emergency preparedness plan defining off-site notifications,
communications, and actions. Relevant external parties shall also be included in the simulation
exercises to ensure they are familiar with requirements. The plan shall include all actions and
communication chains associated with warning, first response and evacuation phases of an
emergency situation, as well as a repair and recovery plan to restore site operational status as
quickly as possible.
6.5 Mock runs of the emergency response plan shall be carried out every year for high risk sites and
every two years for moderate risk sites so that responsible and affected parties understand the
various responses for various trigger levels, and knows the escape routes.

Surface Flooding
AA GTS 15 (retired)
Inrush
AA GTS 16 (retired)

COPYRIGHT

AA TS 602 102 AA GTS 18 (appendix) Classification, Design Criteria, and

Surveillance Requirements for Mineral
AA TS 602 103 AA GTS 18 (appendix) Required Documents for Mineral Residue

Facilities and Water Management Structures,
Specification
Version 1 : New document prepared in part based on excerpts of GTS 15 Surface Flooding and GTS
16 Inrush technical standards (now both retired). Prepared by Caius Priscu and Todd
Martin, December 2016.

AA TS 602 001 - Final Standard and Associated Specifications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AA TS 602 001 - Final Standard and Associated Specifications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 2016 MINERAL RESIDUE FACILITIES AND WATER Version 4

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES STANDARD

1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 1 of 7

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 2 of 7

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 3 of 7

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 4 of 7

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 5 of 7

Document Number Previous Number(s) Title

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX B: RECORD OF AMENDMENTS

Issue 0 : GTS 18 New document, February 2011.

AA TS 602 001 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 7 of 7

1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

AA TS 602 101 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 1 of 3

APPENDIX A: REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

Document Number Previous Number(s) Title

AA TS 602 101 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 2 of 3

AA TS 602 101 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 3 of 3

1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

2. CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES (CCS)

3. MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS

4. MINIMUM SURVEILLANCE AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 1 of 7

TABLE 1: CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES (CCS)

ORMP RISK MATRIX -

Consequence Type 1 - Insignificant 2 - Minor 3 - Moderate 4 - High 5 - Major

Human PAR (Population at Risk) -

PLL (Potential Loss of Life) -

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 2 of 7

EDF – Environmental Design Flood (for

Dynamic Includes end-of-construction condition before filling (for new structures).

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 3 of 7

CCS RATING FOR WASTE DUMPS, STOCKPILES, COARSE

AREA PARAMETERS Insignificant Minor Moderate High Major Observations

contour / diversion / perimeter 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

contact or non-contact waters

EDGM – Earthquake Design

Static (dump face / shallow

restrictive the requirements.

Considerations must also be given to potential settlements and allowable deformations

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 4 of 7

Routine visual Visual walk-around or drive along facilities, looking

Annual DSI report, to be completed by EoR and to

necessary by necessary Annually Annually Yes Yes Yes T&S, or

Mineral Residue Every five Every four

Every three Every two

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 5 of 7

Routine visual Visual walk-around or drive along facilities, looking

Annual DSI report, to be completed by EoR and to

necessary by necessary Annually Annually Yes Yes Yes T&S, or

Mineral Residue Every five Every four

Every three Every two

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX A: REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

Document Number Previous Number(s) Title

AA TS 602 102 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 7 of 7

1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

AA TS 602 103 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 1 of 6

AA TS 602 103 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 2 of 6

AA TS 602 103 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 3 of 6

AA TS 602 103 INTERNAL APPROVED Page 4 of 6

Incidents (accidents or failures) must be reported, as an absolute minimum, to