Tailings storage facility (TSF) design has long been based on deterministic limits. By extension, the TSF owner accepts a Probability of Failure (PF) associated with these deterministic limits which are assessed against industry norms with respect to investigation/analysis and design assumptions related to the operation of the facility. If the Probability of Failure of a design that is derived in this way is taken as the likelihood related to the tolerable risk limit, it follows that the same, or a lower PF, should be maintained during operations. Examples of operational controls include pond management and inspections/monitoring. Upset conditions arise when operational controls are not being implemented. Therefore, by comparing the calculated PF of the TSF complying with the design assumptions and the PF for the same TSF in an upset condition, the required PF of operational controls can be estimated. This concept assists the TSF owner in determining what is required to safely operate the facility and communicate the geotechnical risk to all stakeholders. By extension, scenarios where a TSF owner cannot achieve the required PF of operational controls can be addressed with: 1. Greater rigor applied to operational controls. 2. Addition of more operational controls. 3. A change to the design assumptions, where the timing of the project allows. This method provides a measured approach to risk management in the design and operational phases, without a TSF owner having to quantify an acceptable risk tolerance. Instead, the design is based upon widely accepted practice and industry/business accepted safety, economic and environmental risk levels. Subsequently, the design PF can be calculated and then applied as a benchmark for operations. This approach serves to reduce uncertainty through alignment of the design and operation phases. The concept is explored for three different tailings storage methods: upstream raised TSF, downstream raised TSF, and impoundment by mine waste dumps, to estimate how sensitive each storage method is to the type and effectiveness of operational controls implemented by the dam owner.
Geoprofessional Business Associations (GBA) Tailings Engineer-of-Record (EOR) Task Force published a Business Brief to inform and educate Member-Firms of the ever-increasing levels of risk associated with tailings dams.
Report and appendices to the report available on the bottom of this web page. Appendices are relatively technical.
ASDSO is a national non-profit organization serving state dam safety programs and the broader dam safety community to improve the condition and safety of dams through education and support for state dam safety programs. Largely focused on dams for flood protection, water supply, hydropower, irrigation.
This two-page flyer is for the general public. Approximately 14,000 dams in the United States are classified as high-hazard potential, meaning that their failure could result in loss of life. The most important steps you can take to protect yourself from dam failure are to know your risk. Dams present risks, but they also provide many benefits.
With the intention of trying to determine the causes of major tailings dam incidents, 221 case records have been collected. Examples are given of accidents and failures, together with some examples of effective remedial measures. This Bulletin is addressed to all those involved in the design, construction, operation and closure of tailings dams.
This bulletin provides references to publications written up until 1989 on tailings dams. It divides the references into the following categories: Tailings Sources; Deposition and Disposal Techniques; Safety and Failures; Stability of Tailings Embankments including Seismic Aspects; Material Properties and Evaluation; Legal Aspects; Site Selection and Investigation; Tailings Transportation; Drainage, Seepage and Groundwater; Decants, Water Management; Pollution Control and Environmental Aspects; Closure and Rehabilitation:Monitoring; Instrumentation; Vegetation; Reworking Existing Deposits; General.
Examples of data collected for dams after Hurricane Matthew in 2016 to help stakeholders better understand some of the potential benefits of post-event data collection at dams.
Presentation of lessons learned and explanation of practical methods of the care and treatment of dams. Primarily based on experiences of the US Bureau of Reclamation.
Geomechanical risk in mining is universally understood to depend on many apparently disparate factors acting together such as stress, stiffness, mine geometry, rock mass character, rock type, structure, excavation rate and volume, blasting, and seismicity. We have worked on many case studies over the years in both underground and open pit mines with the objective of discovering and documenting the correlation of such factors with the experience of geomechanical failure. Whether that failure is slope failure, strainbursting, fault slip-induced rockbursting, roof fall, or any other of many possible failure types, statistical correlations among the different classes of data can be found, and predictive rules for understanding geohazard based on their quantitative combination can be established and deployed in day-to-day operations. This data-driven approach requires application of methods and avoidance of pitfalls that can be standardised into a universally applicable workflow. We discuss the workflow and the pitfalls in analysis to be avoided through case study examples.