Above and beyond the tailings standards for all mines

More than half of the country’s coal mines are managed by pro-Russian separatist militia.

Credit: DmyTo/Shutterstock.

ICMM represents 27 of the largest mining companies, including several involved in previous tailings disasters. COO Aidan Davy tells us that the timeline for enforcement was "ambitious", explaining further that “this reflects the importance of this issue to our members, and was set so that companies could prioritise the conformance of facilities with higher potential consequences.

“The amount of difficulty in implementing these standards partly comes from the maturity and robustness of companies’ existing practices for tailings management. Demonstrating conformance will involve a significant effort for most companies.

“The transparency associated with our disclosure requirements will make it clear if companies are not in conformance, and what they intend to do to address this.”

The standards’ disclosure requirements mandate public disclosure of tailings safety information. This would include easy-to-understand explanations of a dam’s design and placement, as well as an outline of the consequences of a collapse.

Davy says that these policies would make it clear when companies do not conform, and ensure they show how they intend to fix issues.

ICMM has said that it will incorporate the standards into its member commitments. This alone will cover most of the largest mining companies, with assurance from third-party auditors.

Davy says: “We are developing a conformance protocol that integrates the standard into our existing member commitments. This will be a working document, to be used by companies or suitably-qualified independent third parties to evaluate tailings facility conditions against the standard’s requirements. Once the material is ready, it will be publicly available on our website for the benefit of the wider industry.

“The standard itself includes numerous requirements for independent oversight as an integral part of how companies manage their tailings facilities. For example, external and independent third parties will oversee the analysis of sites for new tailings facilities, how tailings storage is classified based on the consequences of failure, and the conduct of risk assessments. The standard allows for flexibility in how its goals are achieved, which is particularly important given the varied geographical contexts.”

The string of disasters has also brought greater attention to tailings monitoring technology. For instance, companies have investigated big-data methods of monitoring dam safety and looked to link datasets from multiple risk management tools. These would operate above the Global Standard’s outline, for operators looking for better mining practices.

The standards’ preamble clarifies that it does not cover all considerations. It reads: “Issues have arisen in the development of the standard that are difficult to translate into an auditable industry standard for operators.

“These issues are more appropriately addressed through national and/or state level regulatory authorities, or through multilateral agencies working with the industry.”

The preamble gives the example of finding the owners of ‘orphaned’ mines and dams. In these cases, the accountable party is unclear, or the mine owner lacks the ability to carry out a clean up. Global governments have issued different guidance documents on how to treat such scenarios, which, combined with differing property laws, made a global standard unfeasible.

Davy continues: “We all agreed that two other aspects were beyond the scope of the review: detailed design criteria for tailings facilities and the exclusion of certain technologies.

“Our sense was that detailed technical design criteria for tailings dams are already covered by organisations such as the International Commission on Large Dams.

“From the outset, we agreed that the review would not look to exclude certain technologies such as upstream tailings facilities from future use. While individual governments may decide to make that choice, it would be inappropriate for the Review panel to do so.”

While it does not address all issues, Davy says he believes that the standards improve the global benchmark for good tailings practice. This still leaves operators to design their own procedures in order to achieve best practice but soon, this too will have worldwide guidance.

Davy continues: “ICMM is in the process of developing a Good Practice Guide for Tailings Management for members and the wider mining and metals industry, intended to support the implementation of good governance and engineering practices for tailings management across the lifecycle, including a performance-based, risk-informed approach where appropriate.”