You are on page 1of 20

Risk Assessment for Mine Closure.

Case Study: Tailings Facilities


Rodrigo Cdiz, Alexandra Belande, Luis Valenzuela Arcadis Chile

Risk Assessment Guideline for Mine Closure


To define main factors and
parameters to determine acceptability
criteria.
To establish a standard for risk
assessment considering the technical,
environmental, and social conditions.
Technical operation factors will be
analyzed for all mine life cycle, taking
into consideration potential impacts in
the closure phase.
The new legislation considers a closure
plan review every 5 years. The focus is
the review of the technical conditions
regarding the closure phase.

Risk Assessment
Diagram
Risk Assessment
Diagram
Mining Facilities with
Approved Closure Design
Risk identification
Risk Assessment
People

Natural Events

Technical
Factors
Control
Measures

Facility
Conditions

Control
Measures

Consequences

Probabilities

Environ_
ment

RisK Evaluation

Significant
Risk?
NO
End of the
Process

YES

Variables

Risk Treatment
Requires
New Measures

Components

Control
Measures

Mining Facilities
Focus in on the infrastructure which will remain once the
minerals explotation and processing is completed.
Cod.
UM
OP
TI
LW
WR
SD

Facilities
Underground Mine
Open Pit Mine
Tailings Dams
Leaching Wastes
Waste Rock Deposits
Slag Deposits

Risk Identification
Name of the
facility

Cod.

Risks (People and Environment)

T 1 Spilling of tailings caused by an earthquake.


T 2 Spilling of tailings caused by piping.
T 3 Overtopping caused by intense precipitation and/or flood.
Tailings Dams

T 4 Overtopping caused by avalanches.


T 5 Contamination of groundwater caused by seepage of acid
drainage rock.
T 6 Air contamination.

Study Case: People and environment risk for air contamination

Probabilities
Naturals Events

Facility Conditions

Earthquake
Precipitation

Wind

1
Very Low

Probabilities of Natural Events


2
3
4
5
Low
Moderate
High
Very High

Control
Measures
N1

Technical
Factors

Avalanches

Technical conditions for air contaminations risk

Factors
a
b

Existence of
erodible
particles
% surface
moisture

Technical factors value:

0,25

0,5

0,75

Not
present

Ocurr

Saturated
100%

Dry 0%

VFT = 50a + 50b

Final Value

100

Probability: Closure Measures


Index Effectiveness (MC1)
Closure measures effectiveness to control the risk will also depend on
facility conditions at the moment of closure. Therefore, the
methodology includes an index that represents the control level of the
risk.

Level of Effectiveness
in the Closure
Measure
Index of
Effectiveness of the
Closure Measure
Closure measure n1
Tailings Cobert

100%-81%

80%-61%

0.5

0.65

0.5

60%-21%
0.8

20%-0%
0.95

Index
MC1

0.5

Probability: Determining Facility Conditions (CI)


Mining Facility Conditions will be calculated with: CI= VFT x IMC1.
Finally, the resulting quantitative level will be converted to a qualitative value
through the use of ranges.

100

Natural
events

Technical
factors

X
MC1 Index
0,5

Probabilities
Facility
Conditions

Results of the CI
Formula

Value levels

80-100

VERY HIGH

60-79

HIGH

40-59

MODERATE

20-39

LOW

0-19

VERY LOW

50
Example:
- FACILITY
- RISK

: Tailings Dams
: Air contamination

Probability
Example:
- NATURAL EVENT : Wind.
- FACILITY
: Tailings Dams.
- RISK
: Air contamination.

Technical Conditions (with control measures)


Very High

Natural events

Very High

High
Medium
Low
Very low

High

Very high

Very high

probability

probability

Very high
probability

Very high
probability

High probability

High probability
High probability
Medium
probability

Medium

Medium

probability

probability

Medium

Low

Very low

High

Medium

probability

probability

Medium

Medium

Low

probability

probability

probability

Medium

Medium

Low

probability

probability

probability

Low probability

Low probability

High probability

Low probability

Very low
probability

Very low

Very low

probability

probability

Probability Air contamination: Medium Probability

Consequences
Mining Facilities with
Approved Closure Design
Risk identification
Risk Assessment

People

Natural Events

Technical
Factors
Control
Measures

Facility
Conditions

Control
Measures

Consequences

Probabilities

Environ_
ment

RisK Evaluation

Significant
Risk?
NO
End of the
Process

YES

Variables

Risk Treatment
Requires
New Measures

Components

Control
Measures

Consequences
Variables of People
1. Intensity
2. Proximity
3. Fragility
4. Damage to Health
5. Recoverability
6. Response Capacity

Consequences on People (Cp)


VALUES

Intensity

DESCRIPTION

VERY LOW
(1)

Intensity or
degree of
destruction

No Potential to
affect residential,
ceremonial,
recreational, or
productive zones.

Proximity of the
mining facilities
Proximity to human site
or human
activities.

LOW
(2)
Potential to
affect one of
following;
residential,
ceremonial,
recreational, or
productive
zones.

Mining facility
located away from
human sites or
activities.

MEDIUM
(3)

HIGH
(4)
Potential to
Potential to affect affect three of
two of following; following;
residential,
residential,
ceremonial,
ceremonial,
recreational, or
recreational, or
productive zones. productive
zones.

VERY HIGH
(5)
Potential to
affect all of
following;
residential,
ceremonial,
recreational,
or productive
zones.

Mining facility
located near
human sites or
activities.

Mining facility
located within
human sites or
activities.

Variable Consequences on People - Results


Intensity

Proximity

Fragility

Damage to
Health

Recoverability

Response
Capacity

Index

11

Consequences People: Closure Measures


Index Effectiveness (IMC2)
The consequences on people could be decreased depending on the
control measures and its effectiveness.
Level of Effectiveness
in the Closure
Measure
Index of
Effectiveness of the
Closure Measure
Tailings coverage

100%-81%

80%-61%

60%-21%

20%-0%

0.5

0.65

0.8

0.95

IMC2

0.5

0.5

Consequences on People (SCp)

We use the following formula SCp= SCp x IMC2 to define the level of
consequences on people taking into account the characterisitics of people and
the effectiveness index. Finally, the resulting quantitative level will be converted
to a qualitative value through the use of ranges.

Results of
formula SCp

Characteristics
SCp = 11
Level of Consequences

25 30

VERY HIGH

20 24

HIGH

15 19

MODERATE

10 14

LOW

59

People
MC2=Index
IMC2
0,5

5,5

VERY LOW

Consequences on people of the risk air contamination is very low

Consequences to the Environment


The components that characterize the environment that could be affected during the
period of post closure are:

Air
Soil
Surface water
Groundwater
Flora and fauna
Protected areas

5 variables
for each one

Extension
Duration
Reversibility
Intensity
Environmental Relevance

Consequences - Environmental Components (SCma)


Variables
Environmental

Applicable
(Yes/No)

Extension
(E)

Duration
(D)

Reversibility
(Rev)

Intensity
(I)

Env. Relevance
(Rel)

TOTAL

YES

12

components
Air Quality
Soil
(Edaphology)

YES

Surface water

NO

Groundwater

NO

Flora and Fauna

NO

Closure Measures Index Consequences to the Environment (IMC3)


Level of Effectiveness in
the Closure Measure
Index of Effectiveness of

100%-81%

80%-61%

60%-21%

20%-0%

0.5

0.65

0.8

0.95

IMC3

the Closure Measure

Tailings coverage

0.5

0,5

Consequences on Environment (SCma)


The following formula, SCma= SCma x IMC3, is used to define the level
of consequences on environment taking into account the
characteristics of environment and the effectiveness index. Finally, the
resulting quantitative level will be converted to a qualitative value
through the use of ranges.
Results of
formula SCma

Level of
Consequences

21 25

VERY HIGH

17 - 20

HIGH

13 - 16

MODERATE

9 - 12

LOW

5-8

VERY LOW

Components
SCma
= 12
Environment
MC3=Index
IMC3
0,5

Consequences on Environment of the risk air contamination is very low

Risk Assessment
Risk Evaluation
- Results Diagram
Mining Facilities with
Approved Closure Design
Risk identification
Risk Assessment
People

Natural Events

Technical
Factors
Control
Measures

Facility
Conditions

Control
Measures

Consequences

Probabilities

Environ_
ment

RisK Evaluation
Significant
Risk?
NO
End of the
Process

YES

Variables

Risk Treatment
Requires
New Measures

Components

Control
Measures

Risk Significance Level

The SERNAGEOMIN, as an organism of the Chilean State has chosen


a conservative criteria for decision-making.
Environment

Probability of
occurrence of an
event

Very high
Very high

Very high

High

Very high

Medium

High

Low
Very low

Severity
of consequences
Consequences
High
Medium
Low

People

Very low

Very high

High

High

Medio

High

High

Medio

Medio

High

Medio

Medio

Low

High

Medio

Medio

Low

Low

Medio

Medio

Low

SIGNIFICANT RISK

Case Study :
- FACILITY : Tailings Dams
- RISK
: Air Contamination
- RESULT :
Low Risk for the people
Low Risk for the environment

NONLow
SIGNIFICANT RISKLow

Conclusion
1. This new guideline provide a well defined methodology for a
periodical review of risk assessment of closure works that did
not exist before.
2. This methodology establishes conservative criteria.
3. Focus is on the control by the government of relevant
variables.
4. This Guideline is a contribution to the actual ongoing process in
the Chilean mining industry.
5. The next challenge for the mining industry and the Government
will be to enrich this methodology with new technical
contributions/ information that may appear during its use over
the following years.

You might also like