54
5 What the Public Wants; Public Reactions
their conclusions. However, during the discussion several questions came up dealing
with:
• The scant space given to management in the panel conclusions—due to time and
scope limitation, following the replies given.
• How to prevent investigations from “missing” critical geotechnical/geological
features? Are Factors of safety too aggressively selected? This will remain
the responsibility of the proponents/owners following the replies given.
CDA responded to the Mount Polley (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britishcolumbia/mount-polley-mining-fears-1.4235913#_blank) failure by strengthening a number of statements and definitions (also on factor of safety, a
point we have raised in a recent paper, when looking to the long term fate
of dams (http://www.riskope.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Risk-assessmentof-the-long-term-performance-of-closed-tailings.pdf#_blank). They recognized
however that flexibility has to remain and that “one definition fits all” does not
work.
• How to stop misrepresenting reality to the public (https://www.riskope.com/
wp-content/uploads/Can-We-Stop-Misrepresenting-Reality-to-the-Public.pdf).
The question was bearing on the wording of the mandate itself. “Path to zero
failure” gives the public the illusion that the goal is reachable, whereas it is not.
No industry in this world has ever reached such a goal. Very strictly regulated
industries, such as commercial aviation, are carefully formulating finite goals in
recognition of this. For example, in the United States the FAA aimed at reducing
the commercial air carrier fatalities per 100 million persons on board by 24% over
a 9-year period (2010–2018) reaching no more than 6.2 in 2018. NB: that is 6.2 ×
10
−8 , a value at least two orders of magnitude below the credibility threshold
(10
−5 –10
−6 ) many industries accept.
A reply stated that there is a hiatus between “risk management” and “safety”
approaches. The reason is that safety management strives for “zero fatalities”. In a
private discussion afterwards we stressed the fact that the “zero fatalities” is certainly
a honourable goal and that, while it works well as a slogan, it is a simplification of
a complex reality. It keeps key personnel accountable and alert, but is certainly not
a scientifically acceptable statement.
We again heard participants using the term “risk” as synonymous for a number
of other technical words, and thus we again stressed the need for a proper glossary
that specialists should use to avoid misunderstandings.
Finally, there was a specific request for clarity on defining tolerance to
risk and enhancing understanding of complex consequences. It is obvious
that this question cannot find a reply as long as common practice Probability Impact Graphs (PIGs) risk matrix and other fallacious methodologies are
used in the mining (and other) industries, as pointed out in one of our 2012
papers (http://www.riskope.com/wp-content/uploads/Is-it-true-that-PIGs-fly-whenevaluating-risks-of-tailings-management-systems.pdf#_blank).
5 What the Public Wants; Public Reactions
their conclusions. However, during the discussion several questions came up dealing
with:
• The scant space given to management in the panel conclusions—due to time and
scope limitation, following the replies given.
• How to prevent investigations from “missing” critical geotechnical/geological
features? Are Factors of safety too aggressively selected? This will remain
the responsibility of the proponents/owners following the replies given.
CDA responded to the Mount Polley (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britishcolumbia/mount-polley-mining-fears-1.4235913#_blank) failure by strengthening a number of statements and definitions (also on factor of safety, a
point we have raised in a recent paper, when looking to the long term fate
of dams (http://www.riskope.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Risk-assessmentof-the-long-term-performance-of-closed-tailings.pdf#_blank). They recognized
however that flexibility has to remain and that “one definition fits all” does not
work.
• How to stop misrepresenting reality to the public (https://www.riskope.com/
wp-content/uploads/Can-We-Stop-Misrepresenting-Reality-to-the-Public.pdf).
The question was bearing on the wording of the mandate itself. “Path to zero
failure” gives the public the illusion that the goal is reachable, whereas it is not.
No industry in this world has ever reached such a goal. Very strictly regulated
industries, such as commercial aviation, are carefully formulating finite goals in
recognition of this. For example, in the United States the FAA aimed at reducing
the commercial air carrier fatalities per 100 million persons on board by 24% over
a 9-year period (2010–2018) reaching no more than 6.2 in 2018. NB: that is 6.2 ×
10
−8 , a value at least two orders of magnitude below the credibility threshold
(10
−5 –10
−6 ) many industries accept.
A reply stated that there is a hiatus between “risk management” and “safety”
approaches. The reason is that safety management strives for “zero fatalities”. In a
private discussion afterwards we stressed the fact that the “zero fatalities” is certainly
a honourable goal and that, while it works well as a slogan, it is a simplification of
a complex reality. It keeps key personnel accountable and alert, but is certainly not
a scientifically acceptable statement.
We again heard participants using the term “risk” as synonymous for a number
of other technical words, and thus we again stressed the need for a proper glossary
that specialists should use to avoid misunderstandings.
Finally, there was a specific request for clarity on defining tolerance to
risk and enhancing understanding of complex consequences. It is obvious
that this question cannot find a reply as long as common practice Probability Impact Graphs (PIGs) risk matrix and other fallacious methodologies are
used in the mining (and other) industries, as pointed out in one of our 2012
papers (http://www.riskope.com/wp-content/uploads/Is-it-true-that-PIGs-fly-whenevaluating-risks-of-tailings-management-systems.pdf#_blank).