212
14 Risk Assessment for the Twenty-First Century
14.6.1 How to Perform a Residual Risk Assessment?
• First an a priori risk assessment is needed. It should detail and update evaluations
of potential failure modes during the system life cycle. Defining the system is a
fundamental step which requires lots of attention at inception.
• Understanding the multidimensional consequences and the system’s failure/success criteria definition is of paramount importance. For example, tailings
dam’s failure oftentimes means different things to different stakeholders. e.g.,
engineer or regulators. A glossary has to be defined. Indeed, what constitutes a
success from an engineering point of view might be of limited interest or value to
other stakeholders (Oboni and Oboni 2018).
• The a priori risk assessment is used for RIDM on mitigation. Once mitigations
are decided (and implemented) an a priori residual risk assessment is prepared.
The residual risk assessment’s risk register quantitatively integrates the data with
mitigation leading to calculate the residual risks.
BENEFIT/VALUE: as scalable, drillable and convergent risk assessments are
produced, no data will ever be lost or wasted. The risk register will be more detailed in
areas that are better known, and uncertainties will be transparently conveyed in areas
that are less known. The risk register will be ready to grow with the project/operation
and will already support a priori decision making for mitigations.
14.6.2 Who Has to Perform Residual Risk Assessment?
Summarizing the words of the ICMM (ICMM website) and UNEP (Roche et al.
2017): Reduce risk of dam failure by providing independent expert oversight; …
monitoring and independent, third party review; … multiple, independent checks are
required; … the adoption of regulations that require regular independent auditing;
… independently reviewed and frequently updated risk assessments. Independence,
updatability, risk assessments are key for the future.
The UNEP report cited at the very beginning of this book (Roche et al. 2017) also
identifies a common practice that has to stop. The developer or design-engineers
self-risk assessment has to stop as it is fraught with conflict of interest and inevitable
biases. An independent risk assessor must become the new norm. The report identifies
this requirement in distinct ways. For example, by stating:
Establish independent waste review boards to conduct and publish independent technical
reviews prior to, during construction or modification, and throughout the lifespan of tailings
storage facilities.
This of course must include an independent risk assessment at every step.
The report then adds:
14 Risk Assessment for the Twenty-First Century
14.6.1 How to Perform a Residual Risk Assessment?
• First an a priori risk assessment is needed. It should detail and update evaluations
of potential failure modes during the system life cycle. Defining the system is a
fundamental step which requires lots of attention at inception.
• Understanding the multidimensional consequences and the system’s failure/success criteria definition is of paramount importance. For example, tailings
dam’s failure oftentimes means different things to different stakeholders. e.g.,
engineer or regulators. A glossary has to be defined. Indeed, what constitutes a
success from an engineering point of view might be of limited interest or value to
other stakeholders (Oboni and Oboni 2018).
• The a priori risk assessment is used for RIDM on mitigation. Once mitigations
are decided (and implemented) an a priori residual risk assessment is prepared.
The residual risk assessment’s risk register quantitatively integrates the data with
mitigation leading to calculate the residual risks.
BENEFIT/VALUE: as scalable, drillable and convergent risk assessments are
produced, no data will ever be lost or wasted. The risk register will be more detailed in
areas that are better known, and uncertainties will be transparently conveyed in areas
that are less known. The risk register will be ready to grow with the project/operation
and will already support a priori decision making for mitigations.
14.6.2 Who Has to Perform Residual Risk Assessment?
Summarizing the words of the ICMM (ICMM website) and UNEP (Roche et al.
2017): Reduce risk of dam failure by providing independent expert oversight; …
monitoring and independent, third party review; … multiple, independent checks are
required; … the adoption of regulations that require regular independent auditing;
… independently reviewed and frequently updated risk assessments. Independence,
updatability, risk assessments are key for the future.
The UNEP report cited at the very beginning of this book (Roche et al. 2017) also
identifies a common practice that has to stop. The developer or design-engineers
self-risk assessment has to stop as it is fraught with conflict of interest and inevitable
biases. An independent risk assessor must become the new norm. The report identifies
this requirement in distinct ways. For example, by stating:
Establish independent waste review boards to conduct and publish independent technical
reviews prior to, during construction or modification, and throughout the lifespan of tailings
storage facilities.
This of course must include an independent risk assessment at every step.
The report then adds: