Towards Zero Harm

x

TOWARDS ZERO HARM – A COMPENDIUM OF PAPERS PREPARED FOR THE GLOBAL TAILINGS REVIEW

TOWARDS ZERO HARM – A COMPENDIUM OF PAPERS PREPARED FOR THE GLOBAL TAILINGS REVIEW

xi

‘confounding’ factors such as differences in facility age, the volume of material stored, or the level of seismic hazard. • Based on company commissioned modelling, hybrid, upstream, downstream and centreline facilities are more likely than other types of facilities to be associated with a higher consequence of facility failure. • Facilities with higher consequence of failure ratings were also more likely to report a stability issue. • Based on the data provided by companies, the uptake of filtered and in-situ dewatering of tailings across the wider industry has not significantly increased over recent decades. This is notwithstanding that dry-stack (and in-pit/natural landform facilities) report fewer past stability issues and are typically associated with lower consequence of failure ratings. • Current practice at most mining operations largely divorces the long-term closure and reclamation of tailings facilities from the operational dam construction, tailings deposition, and geotechnical dam safety considerations. This artificial division leads to higher life-cycle costs, reduced performance and increased risk. • Closing and reclaiming tailings facilities presents numerous challenges, especially if these challenges are overlooked during the initial design and construction of these mining landforms. • Landform design provides a framework for inclusion of all aspects of the life cycle of a tailings facility. This is a multidisciplinary process for building mining landforms, landscapes, and regions to meet agreed-upon land use goals and objectives. The process ideally begins with the initial designs of tailings landforms (or in the case of most existing sites, adopted midstream) and continues long after operations have ceased. • Tailings landforms are important features in the mine’s closure landscape that will last for millennia and will serve as a major component of mines enduring legacy. Mines, by working with their regulators and local communities, can help establish a positive mining legacy by returning lands for use by local communities in a timely manner. CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION G. McKenna, D. van Zyl

• To avoid future problems, industry should focus on: (a) reducing the volume of tailings and other waste produced from current operations; and (b) developing new projects with tailings elimination in mind from the outset. • Mining companies should work towards zero tailings impoundment by considering tailings to be a product that may have value for both mining and other industries. Companies should also contribute to the development of a resource-efficient circular minerals economy. • There are significant economic opportunities to re-process legacy tailings to extract materials of value. Governments can facilitate this by creating supportive policy settings. ADDRESSING THE ORGANISATIONAL WEAKNESSES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO DISASTER A. Hopkins • Accident analysis should always seek to identify the organisational causes of the accident. • Shareholders should hold boards accountable for the on-going management of major accident risks. • Boards should ensure that at least one of their members has expertise in the relevant major accident risks and is able to advise the board on the status of major accident risk management within the organisation and of the implications of board decisions for major accident risk. • Mining companies should have an executive responsible for major accident risk (an Accountable Executive) answering directly to the CEO. This executive should also have a direct reporting line to the board and should be held to account by the board. • Where a major part of an employee’s role is to ensure compliance with standards and procedures, as is the case for the responsible tailings facility engineer, the employee should have dual reporting lines: a primary line that culminates with the Accountable Executive and a secondary line to the local site manager. Any performance review should be carried out by a supervisor in the line reporting to the Accountable Executive. • Neither the Accountable Executive, nor staff in lines reporting to that position should be incentivised in relation to production, profit or cost reduction. This applies, in particular, to the Responsible Tailings Facility Engineer (RTFE). • For employees whose primary role is to contribute to production, albeit safely, any bonuses paid should have a component for safety or facility integrity. This should not be based on quantitative metrics but on qualitative judgements about the employee’s contribution to safety and operational integrity. It will be up to employees to make this case during performance reviews. • Companies should incentivise the reporting of issues relating to major accident risk. • Long term bonuses that vest after a period of years should be modified to take account of how well major accident risk is managed.

ADDRESSING LEGACY SITES K. Nash

• Legacy mines and the wastes associated with them remain a significant problem for governments, industry and communities. • This problem has been recognised for a long time, but only intermittent and limited progress has been made in addressing it. A stronger regulatory and governance response is required globally to achieve a stepwise change. • Closure and site remediation practice should aim to: (a) better protect public and environmental health and safety; and (b) establish conditions which maximise beneficial post-mining land use options in the longer term.