Chapter 14
Risk Assessment for the Twenty-First
Century
This chapter delves with the methodological details of modern risk assessments in
compliance with the “specs” defined in Part I, and in particular Chap. 6.
In response to government and public expectations (see Part I) there is an increasing requirement for the assessment of alternate deposition methods for the purpose
of reducing site-specific risks and impacts. As stated in the Australian Government
Tailings Management publication (AG TMH 2016):
Regulators nowadays expect all TSF design submissions to demonstrate beyond reasonable
doubt that sustainable outcomes will be achieved during operations and after closure by the
application of leading practice risk-based design that:
• Fully assesses the risks associated with tailings storage at a particular site;
• Compares the suitability of all available tailings storage methods, in particular those that
involve tailings dewatering and/or eliminate the requirement for the damming of surplus
water within the TSF;
• Demonstrates that the tailings storage method selected will manage all risks to within
acceptable levels and as low as reasonably practicable (ICOLD 2013).
We might add that leading practice risk-based design also:
• considers closure requirements and its associated risks;
• enables the public to participate in a collaborative manner in the examination of
alternate deposition methods and their related risk management strategies.
Because of their sizes, their societal importance and the potentially catastrophic consequences of their failure, it is essential to assess the risks generated by large dams
rigorously (Brown 2017). Their management should be proactive at all stages of
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
F. Oboni and C. Oboni, Tailings Dam Management for the Twenty-First Century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19447-5_14
199
Risk Assessment for the Twenty-First
Century
This chapter delves with the methodological details of modern risk assessments in
compliance with the “specs” defined in Part I, and in particular Chap. 6.
In response to government and public expectations (see Part I) there is an increasing requirement for the assessment of alternate deposition methods for the purpose
of reducing site-specific risks and impacts. As stated in the Australian Government
Tailings Management publication (AG TMH 2016):
Regulators nowadays expect all TSF design submissions to demonstrate beyond reasonable
doubt that sustainable outcomes will be achieved during operations and after closure by the
application of leading practice risk-based design that:
• Fully assesses the risks associated with tailings storage at a particular site;
• Compares the suitability of all available tailings storage methods, in particular those that
involve tailings dewatering and/or eliminate the requirement for the damming of surplus
water within the TSF;
• Demonstrates that the tailings storage method selected will manage all risks to within
acceptable levels and as low as reasonably practicable (ICOLD 2013).
We might add that leading practice risk-based design also:
• considers closure requirements and its associated risks;
• enables the public to participate in a collaborative manner in the examination of
alternate deposition methods and their related risk management strategies.
Because of their sizes, their societal importance and the potentially catastrophic consequences of their failure, it is essential to assess the risks generated by large dams
rigorously (Brown 2017). Their management should be proactive at all stages of
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
F. Oboni and C. Oboni, Tailings Dam Management for the Twenty-First Century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19447-5_14
199