6
1 Introduction
The hazard landscape must be clearly defined in order to avoid misunderstandings
and confusion.
The terms “lowest”, “reasonable” and “sustainable” must be discussed. Indeed, as
zero risk does not exist, and risk is a function of two parameters—i.e., the likelihood
of failure p f and related consequences C—it may well be that rational and sustainable
risk mitigation be the result of a pair (p f , C) where possibly only one is at its lowest
value, or together they represent indeed the best possible compromise. Thus, it is at
that stage that risks have to be compared with corporate and societal tolerances. A
risk below tolerance is defined as tolerable, whereas a risk above tolerance is defined
as intolerable. Later (Chap. 13) we will also discuss terms such as acceptable and
societal.
Finally, while the design process will address recognized natural hazards, it must
be acknowledged that additional design risks may exist due to gaps in the knowledge
base supporting current technical standards leading to a hazard not being recognized.
Variations in the degree of professional experience, judgment and conduct may also
be factors.
We define as hazard scenarios any malfunctioning (or deviations from the intended
level of performance) of the system or any of its elements “as is”. System “as is” means
with the present level of mitigation and controls and with the quality of investigations,
design and maintenance which becomes apparent during the preparation of the study.
Thus design choices such as Factors of Safety (FoS), and the effects of length and
number/density of reconnaissance boreholes are included in the probability of failure
of each element as described later, but do not constitute an hazard as defined above.
The same occurs for management, maintenance and monitoring. However deviations
from the intended level of care in management, maintenance and monitoring are
considered to be hazards.
Bad management can be considered a hazard like another and should be included
in any risk approach. However, as we will discuss later, the hiccups of “business
as usual” of any kind are not to be considered as hazards or risks in order to avoid
paralysis by analysis. Uncertainties are discussed as needed through this book (see
also Sect. 7.4).
Management risks can arise because of low corporate commitment, economic feasibility pressures, and insufficient resources provided to support dam design and the
implementation of management systems. Regulatory risks may be introduced as part
of the permit approval process and through inadequate compliance and enforcement
activities.
Another way of looking at how a tailings facility can be exposed to further risks
is to consider the dynamics within each major participant. The term “regulatory
capture” has been used by the Auditor General of British Columbia (BC AG 2016)
to describe the situation where the regulator, created to act in the public interest, may
1 Introduction
The hazard landscape must be clearly defined in order to avoid misunderstandings
and confusion.
The terms “lowest”, “reasonable” and “sustainable” must be discussed. Indeed, as
zero risk does not exist, and risk is a function of two parameters—i.e., the likelihood
of failure p f and related consequences C—it may well be that rational and sustainable
risk mitigation be the result of a pair (p f , C) where possibly only one is at its lowest
value, or together they represent indeed the best possible compromise. Thus, it is at
that stage that risks have to be compared with corporate and societal tolerances. A
risk below tolerance is defined as tolerable, whereas a risk above tolerance is defined
as intolerable. Later (Chap. 13) we will also discuss terms such as acceptable and
societal.
Finally, while the design process will address recognized natural hazards, it must
be acknowledged that additional design risks may exist due to gaps in the knowledge
base supporting current technical standards leading to a hazard not being recognized.
Variations in the degree of professional experience, judgment and conduct may also
be factors.
We define as hazard scenarios any malfunctioning (or deviations from the intended
level of performance) of the system or any of its elements “as is”. System “as is” means
with the present level of mitigation and controls and with the quality of investigations,
design and maintenance which becomes apparent during the preparation of the study.
Thus design choices such as Factors of Safety (FoS), and the effects of length and
number/density of reconnaissance boreholes are included in the probability of failure
of each element as described later, but do not constitute an hazard as defined above.
The same occurs for management, maintenance and monitoring. However deviations
from the intended level of care in management, maintenance and monitoring are
considered to be hazards.
Bad management can be considered a hazard like another and should be included
in any risk approach. However, as we will discuss later, the hiccups of “business
as usual” of any kind are not to be considered as hazards or risks in order to avoid
paralysis by analysis. Uncertainties are discussed as needed through this book (see
also Sect. 7.4).
Management risks can arise because of low corporate commitment, economic feasibility pressures, and insufficient resources provided to support dam design and the
implementation of management systems. Regulatory risks may be introduced as part
of the permit approval process and through inadequate compliance and enforcement
activities.
Another way of looking at how a tailings facility can be exposed to further risks
is to consider the dynamics within each major participant. The term “regulatory
capture” has been used by the Auditor General of British Columbia (BC AG 2016)
to describe the situation where the regulator, created to act in the public interest, may