13 Tolerance and Acceptability
187
When discussing human acceptability a distinction will be made between locationbased risks and societal risks. Location-based risks derive from the annualized likelihood of a person being killed at a given location as a direct result of an accident
associated with hazardous activities undertaken there. Societal risks represent the
likelihood of a group of people who are not directly engaged in an activity involving a hazardous substance being killed in an accident arising out of that activity.
Location-based risk is an expression of the risk that someone who lives or works in
a place where a hazardous activity takes place is exposed to. Societal risk is quite
different from location-based risk: it looks at the consequences of mishaps from the
very broad point of view of an entire society, possibly physically and emotionally
removed from the mishap itself; as such, it is of interest mainly to public administrators (Geerts et al. 2016).
The determination of the acceptable risk level generally differs depending on whether
a phenomenon is natural or man-made, or a private or a public (societal) issue.
Acceptable risk and corporate commitment (https://www.riskope.com/2010/06/
08/bp-crisis-rational-analysis-what-bp-did-not-perform/) are inextricably linked. A
company that is able to demonstrate its commitment to the public through the application of a strong tailings governance framework will stand a better chance of having
its proposed tailings plans accepted by the public and maintain its SLO. A company
that is able to demonstrate its commitment to its own employees will more likely
develop a lower risk proposal. A company that is able to demonstrate its commitment
to the regulatory authorities and the public will find the permitting process much easier to navigate. A company that has done all these things will also stand an excellent
chance of not experiencing a catastrophic dam failure.
The ideal outcome is to have all parties agree, based on informed opinions, that
the risks, and their mitigating measures, for a proposed mine plan are acceptable.
Informed opinions are only possible when all parties, particularly the public, have
been provided with:
• the opportunity to participate in a meaningful communication and engagement
process which clearly states what mitigations will be implemented, by whom and
when, with a clear roadmap and accountability;
• the consequence rating of the proposed dam, including the results of a dam breach
and inundation study and an unbiased risk assessment;
• information that supports the selection of the deposition method and site location;
• information that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the owner is committed to the management of the dam and its critical risks through the establishment
of a comprehensive management framework and assurance program; and
• information that demonstrates that the government has established and will be
committed to an effective compliance and enforcement regime.
187
When discussing human acceptability a distinction will be made between locationbased risks and societal risks. Location-based risks derive from the annualized likelihood of a person being killed at a given location as a direct result of an accident
associated with hazardous activities undertaken there. Societal risks represent the
likelihood of a group of people who are not directly engaged in an activity involving a hazardous substance being killed in an accident arising out of that activity.
Location-based risk is an expression of the risk that someone who lives or works in
a place where a hazardous activity takes place is exposed to. Societal risk is quite
different from location-based risk: it looks at the consequences of mishaps from the
very broad point of view of an entire society, possibly physically and emotionally
removed from the mishap itself; as such, it is of interest mainly to public administrators (Geerts et al. 2016).
The determination of the acceptable risk level generally differs depending on whether
a phenomenon is natural or man-made, or a private or a public (societal) issue.
Acceptable risk and corporate commitment (https://www.riskope.com/2010/06/
08/bp-crisis-rational-analysis-what-bp-did-not-perform/) are inextricably linked. A
company that is able to demonstrate its commitment to the public through the application of a strong tailings governance framework will stand a better chance of having
its proposed tailings plans accepted by the public and maintain its SLO. A company
that is able to demonstrate its commitment to its own employees will more likely
develop a lower risk proposal. A company that is able to demonstrate its commitment
to the regulatory authorities and the public will find the permitting process much easier to navigate. A company that has done all these things will also stand an excellent
chance of not experiencing a catastrophic dam failure.
The ideal outcome is to have all parties agree, based on informed opinions, that
the risks, and their mitigating measures, for a proposed mine plan are acceptable.
Informed opinions are only possible when all parties, particularly the public, have
been provided with:
• the opportunity to participate in a meaningful communication and engagement
process which clearly states what mitigations will be implemented, by whom and
when, with a clear roadmap and accountability;
• the consequence rating of the proposed dam, including the results of a dam breach
and inundation study and an unbiased risk assessment;
• information that supports the selection of the deposition method and site location;
• information that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the owner is committed to the management of the dam and its critical risks through the establishment
of a comprehensive management framework and assurance program; and
• information that demonstrates that the government has established and will be
committed to an effective compliance and enforcement regime.