Tailings Dams From the Perspective of Conventional Dam Engineering

MACIEJ B. SZYMANSKI, AGRA, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT: The design approach and safety requirements for tailings dams are often adapted from the practice of conventional dam engineering. Although this is unavoidable and, in some respects, certainly advantageous as the wealth of experience is accounted for, many design and other safety evaluation aspects relevant to tailings dams are either irrelevant to conventional dams, or significantly different. Most conspicuous of such aspects are discussed herein, with the purpose of emphasising that the use of conventional dam guidelines and practices for evaluating the safety of tailings dams may lead to errors or omis s ions. RESUME: Les mthodes de conception et les exigences en matire de scurit relatives aux barrages de rsidus miniers sont souvent adaptes des pratiques conventionnelles dingnierie des barrages. Bien que cela soit invitable, et mme, dans certains cas, carrment avantageux, tant donn que lon tient compte dune longue et solide exprience, de nombreux aspects de la conception et de lvaluation de la scurit des barrages de rsidus miniers ne sappliquent tout simplement pas aux barrages traditionnels ou sont foncirement diffrents. Les plus importants de ces aspects sont prsents ci-aprs, dans le but de souligner le fait que lu tilisation de lignes directrices et de pratiques dvaluation de la scurit des barrages traditionnels pour les barrages de rsidus miniers peut donner lieu des erreurs ou des omissions.

INTRODUCTION

It often happens that a guideline intended for conventional dams (eg., hydroelectric, water supply, flood control or irrigation dams) is used for evaluating the safety of tailings dam. On one project, minimum freeboard for an upstream tailings dam was specified based on recommendations stated in a guideline intended for conventional dams, rather than minimum allowable width of tailings beach which, in that case, clearly represented the governing criterion. Another relevant case is described in the ensuing in more detail. In 1996, the author was retained by a provincial ministry to review the proposed flood design criterion for an existing tailings dam containing acid generating tailings. A 12-year production phase was specified and the tailings deposit was to be permanently flooded upon mine closure. The consultant selected a 1,000-year flood for the design of a diversion dam tailings dam spillway system. As stated by the consultant, this selection was made based on the Canadian Dam Safety Association Guidelines (CDSA 1995) (which were intended for conventional dams). According to the proposal, the design flood was to apply to both the mine production and closure phases. It followed that the probability of exceedance of the design flood during production phase was 1.2%, which could be judged acceptable, while for the 200-year long closure phase assumed by the consultant, this probability was 18%, which was not acceptable. The consultant also argued that the clean up of released tailings, which would be carried out in the case of dam failure, could easily be accomplished and thus the proposed flood criterion was acceptable. In the authors opinion, four errors were made, all resulting from the use of a guideline developed for conventional dams. Firstly, the same flood was selected for both the production and closure phases, for which the consequences of potential dam failure were correctly assumed the same

(the CDSA Guidelines do not contain any provisions that would allow for taking into consideration various durations of dam operating phases, that is, design intervals of various lengths). Secondly, the consultants interpretation of the CDSA consequence classification resulted in selecting a design flood which was too small, at least for the closure phase (it is not likely that the CDSA consequence classification was intended to apply to the situation where a tailings mass, capable of generating significant toxicity in the long term, enters a major river system as a result of dam failure). Thirdly, the selected length of design interval with respect to closure phase (200 years) was not adequate (the CDSA Guidelines do not address designing for a dam closure phase). Fourthly, considering the clean up factor, being a potential economic loss to the owner, for the purpose of specifying the required margin of dam safety should be avoided as this could lead to having substandard tailings dams on the account of low clean up costs (although the CDSA Guidelines allow for incorporating potential losses to the owner into the economic consequences of dam failure, this is not a common approach and could hardly be rationalised in respect to tailings dams). One of the thoughts that had led to writing a book on tailings dams safety (Szymanski 1999) was that differences between tailings and conventional dams were very substantial and, as such, should not be overlooked when applying the methods or safety requirements of conventional dam engineering to tailings dams. Hence, it was argued that having a dam safety evaluation program developed specifically for tailings dams was necessary, if only to reduce the chance for potential errors or omissions that might occur when relying on conventional dam engineering practice. The above discussion is not intended to negate the merits of using the CDSA and similar conventional dam

guidelines for evaluating the safety of tailings dams. It is intended as a warning, and a rationale underlying fundamental requirement of tailings dam engineering: specific experience in tailings dams is necessary when applying conventional dam engineering practice. In the following discussions, the attention is focused on some most remarkable tailings dam safety aspects, which are either irrelevant to conventional dams and therefore not addressed in technical publications intended for such dams, or significantly different so that the use of conventional dam engineering practice would not be appropriate. 2 SPECIFICS OF TAILINGS DAMS

taminated and/or process water is necessary. Nevertheless, stored tailings may represent a key factor when analysing the consequences of hypothetical dam failure, examining potential for contaminant generation, determining seepage losses or loads on the upstream face of dam, etc. 3 TAILINGS DAM OPERATING PHASES

In general, four tailings dam operating phases can be distinguished: Phase 1 production (incorporates dam construction, may incorporate a start-up phase and retrofitting dam for closure) Phase 2 transition (may incorporate retrofitting dam for closure) Phase 3 long term treatment (may incorporate retrofitting dam for closure) Phase 4 closure (during this operating phase, tailings dam is no longer operated) Phase 2 involves the collection and treatment of residual (eg., cyanide) contamination, while Phase 3 primarily refers to the collection and treatment of actively generated contamination, typically acid mine drainage (AMD). During Phase 4, the release of contamination associated with tailings deposit and/or dam materials is negligible. Each of these four phases has a distinct set of operating attributes directly relevant to tailings dam safety (Szymanski 1999). For conventional dams, three phases can be identified, which may be termed construction, operation (or production) and abandonment, where the last phase may also include a pre-abandonment or transition period (as discussed in ICOLD 1987). Neither of these phases can fully be compared to any of the four tailings dam operating phases in terms of design and other safety evaluation requirements. Selected examples supporting this view are discussed in the three following sections. 4 PRODUCTION PHASE

Tailings dam engineering has been strongly influenced by the methods of conventional dam engineering. This is understandable since the basic engineering methods, such as dam stability, seepage or foundation analyses are largely similar (although even in this regard some concepts and details may differ, as discussed in Section 8). Nonetheless, tailings dam engineering has evolved into a distinct discipline, of which many aspects are specific to tailings dams only. It has also become a rather complex discipline, chiefly because of the need to design for the containment/control of actual or potential contamination and the long closure phase. The most discernible differences between tailings and conventional dams result from the following characteristics of tailings dams: tailings dams are usually constructed during the entire mine production phase, large changes in dam operating regime typically occur during the production phase, post-production (often more than one) dam operating phases exist, including the long closure phase during which tailings dam must remain as safe as during the production phase (long after profit making ceases), design intervals (ie., time periods during which neither the consequences of hypothetical dam failure nor dam operating conditions are subject to significant changes) may vary widely, say, from 1 year (time between consecutive stage-raises of tailings dam) to more than 500 years (closure phase), containment/control of actual or potential contamination. These characteristics directly relate to tailings dam safety aspects which are not relevant to conventional dams. From another perspective, there are basically three types of tailings dams: low permeability, pervious and highly pervious (Section 6.2). Although these characteristics do not represent a clear-cut difference in comparison with conventional dams, it is only a low permeability tailings dam that works, in principle, similar to a modern conventional embankment-type dam from the physical stability standpoint. Yet, the majority of existing tailings dams fall into the two remaining categories. It is worth noting that the traditional difference between tailings and conventional dams, being the requirement to contain solids as a primary function of tailings dam, has not explicitly been mentioned. Although this obviously represents a difference, it is not as essential as the other characteristics where the containment of con-

Staged or continuous construction over the entire production phase represents the most characteristic feature of typical tailings dam that is not characteristic of conventional dams. There are some important consequences of this fact. Firstly, dam operating regime significantly varies during the production phase (most notably, hydraulic head as well as stresses in dam and dam foundation increase). As a result, the performance of tailings dam under normal loads cannot be fully evaluated prior to the end of production phase. Secondly, consequences of potential dam failure often increase, even if there are no changes to the downstream (or upstream) properties, environment, etc. Thirdly, improvements to dam configuration are often, albeit not always, practically possible and easily achievable, and may be implemented in response to dam performance observations or new input data (change in regulatory requirements, construction observations, etc.). It follows that one must not expect to have tailings dams safety in respect to the production phase adequately addressed in publications intended for conventional dams.

Consider, for instance, conducting technical inspections of dam by a team of experts. A 5-year frequency for carrying out such inspections may be recommended for conventional dams (eg., ICOLD 1987). When inspecting a tailings dam, in many cases the team would not be able to recognise the dam that they inspected 5 years earlier. Often, it would be now a much larger dam, possibly having a different decant arrangement and/or pond location, or some new saddle or internal dams constructed during the 5 -year period. Thus a very significant dam safety gap could develop. Owing to the dynamics of tailings dam operation during production phase, safety inspection requirements will typically be different and often more stringent for a tailings dam than a conventional dam, even if both dams are comparable, for instance, classified in the same hazard category (as discussed in Section 9). When considering project economics, tailings dam designs for the production phase may be developed to allow for applying more stringent criteria later, when the consequences of potential dam failure increase or the dam is retrofitted for closure. For example, one might use different probabilistic flood and/or earthquake design criteria recognising that the duration of production phase is much shorter than the duration of closure phase. Different emergency discharge facilities may also be designed for various stages of the production phase, and closure. Conventional dam engineering practice provides little insights into these types of design considerations. One of the consequences of the dynamics of tailings dam operation during production phase is the potential for developing a false sense of security when observing satisfactory dam performance over the years. Operating personnel may see it as an assurance that the dam will also be safe in future (when the hydraulic head and resulting gradients, as well as stresses in dam structure and foundations increase). This situation, which actually happens, would not be relevant to conventional dams. Another consequence of the dynamics of tailings dam operation is the necessity for the design engineers input all throughout the production phase. Improvements to dam safety are often recommended by the engineer, who also develops detailed designs for stage-raises of the dam. In the case of conventional dams, the design engineers input may end shortly after the initial filling, that is, at the time when the dam is handed over to the operator. 5 PHASES 2 AND 3

for operating errors will typically be less during Phases 2 and 3, as compared with Phase 1. 6 CLOSURE PHASE

6.1 Tailings vs. Conventional Dams From the design philosophy perspective, the closure phase (Phase 4) represents the most significant difference between tailings and conventional dams. It applies to tailings dams only. A conventional dam engineer would likely be shocked when learning that he is to design a dam that will have to last for 1,000 years following, say, the demolition of power generation plant. On the other hand, requirements pertaining to the conventional dam abandonment phase, which involves dam demolition (ICOLD 1987), are not relevant to tailings dams. Therefore, conventional dam engineering cannot really provide specific design and other safety evaluation guidelines that could be applied with confidence to Phase 4. [ The critical importance of this phase relates not only to the fact that it is the longest tailings dam operating phase but, also, the m ost vulnerable in some respects. Carrying out monitoring, maintenance and safety inspections for hundreds of years will be necessary for many tailings dams. In the case of tailings dam that presents a life hazard, ongoing dam surveillance program may also have to be implemented in the long term. These requirements need be accounted for since day one, that is, at the initial design stage. ] 6.2 Tailings Dam Types Various classifications of tailings dams may be used for different purposes. The most known is the classification based on the method of construction, which distinguishes upstream, downstream and centreline tailings dams. This, it seems, represents a somewhat older albeit still useful viewpoint, which primarily accounts for dam construction costs, operating effort and physical stability of dam. The usefulness of this classification is perhaps best demo nstrated by distinguishing upstream dams which, according to the general consensus currently in place, should not be constructed in moderate to highly seismic areas, at least not by the conventional technique involving the use of loose (uncompacted) tailings. When addressing potential environmental impacts, being the most essential safety concern for the majority tailings dams, classifying dams as those which: c ontain process related contamination only, contain/comprise materials that generate, or may generate contamination in future, a combination of thereof, and do not contain/generate contamination now, and will not generate contamination in future, could be more useful. Based on this classification, dam design and other safety evaluation requirements could be specified, for instance, the r equirements for seepage collection and allowable seepage losses with appropriate design safety factors, evaluation of downstream environment in conjunction with dam inspections, dam instrumentation, etc. Considering tailings dam closure phase, during which actual contamination is not (any longer) an issue and potential contamination, if any, is prevented (by whatever means), it seems that classifying tailings dams as:

Phases 2 and 3 are characteristic of tailings dams only, and no experience specific to these phases is available from conventional dam engineering. During either of these two phases, the dam physical operating regime under normal loads is reasonably constant, which is similar to conventional dams except for the presence of on-site personnel and equipment. However, the rate of release of the contamination stored in tailings deposit and/or tailings pond, dam structure, or underlying strata will decrease with time (in some cases, it may temporarily increase). Some design and operating/inspection requirements relevant to Phases 2 and 3, for instance, emergency spillway design or frequency of dam inspections, may have to be more stringent as compared with Phase 1, recognising that the response to potential problems could be less efficient. On the other hand, potential

A highly pervious (typically, rockfill dam with upstream filter zones and tailings deposit serving as a semipervious element) B pervious (eg., dam constructed entirely of tailings or other semi-pervious materials) C low permeability (eg., embankment type, earthfill or rockfill dam with a low permeability core and grout curtain) would be particularly useful. The location of phreatic surface (degree of dam saturation) and the location of reservoir/aquifer form the base of this classification. There is little experience available from modern conventional dam engineering that could be applied to some specific aspects of the design and other safety evaluations of Type A and B dams. This classification allows for identifying a general preference as to the type of tailings dam from the closure phase standpoint, which relates to long term physical stability, consequences of hypothetical failure, and care and maintenance effort. When addressing the physical stability of dam, it is useful to consider natural slopes known to perform well over centuries. A typical Type C dam will contain a reservoir or, at least, an aquifer situated directly against the dam during the long closure phase, which is in sharp contrast to natural slopes. A typical Type B dam can be designed and constructed to become similar to a natural slope, however, this type of dam is susceptible to both (static or seismic) liquefaction if constructed of loose materials, as well as failure by overtopping. A Type A dam will typically be less susceptible to either liquefaction or failure by overtopping (unless dam watershed and the resulting flows are relatively large). Although natural slopes comparable to Type A dams do not really exist, it could be argued that a properly designed and compacted dam constructed of good quality rockfill, having wide filter zones and tailings pond permanently located away from the dam, could perform well in the long term, and perhaps better than some scree slopes. Thus it could be argued that, in general, the least desirable are Type C dams, while Type A dams would be best when considering long term physical stability. The same could be argued in most cases when considering the consequences of hypothetical failure of dam. It also needs be said that dam monitoring, maintenance and inspection requirements would often be more d emanding for the Type C, B and A dams, in this order, with all other factors being equal. 6.3 Looking Into the Future A tailings dam must be designed to last a very long time, long after the mine operation and profit making cease. On the contrary, a conventional dam is assumed to last only during the production phase and the following preabandonment period. Although it is plausible that operating a conventional dam could generate benefits for hundreds of years, the fact is that making such an allowance is neither necessary nor practised (a design interval in the order of 100 years typically is assumed for a conventional dam, after which the dam would be demolished). On the contrary, a tailings dam must last for hundreds of years and, in this regard, there is no choice.

A consequence of this fact is that the number of tailings dams will increase with time, while the number of conventional dams will remain essentially the same (assuming that the current technological status quo as well as prevailing societal values continue unchanged, which will not, however, accounting for future, unknown technological developments and/or societal values is not practically possible). Steven G. Vick in a recent discussion with the author pointed out the critical importance of this increase when commenting on the water cover option (implementation of which requires one or more Type C dams). Therefore, special effort needs be made to design tailings dams which would be most safe, and least demanding in terms of care and maintenance during Phase 4. In practice, however, project economics and/or some short or long term design objectives (eg., containment of cyanide contamination, or prevention/control of AMD) as well as site-specific conditions (eg., site seismicity or the availability of construction materials) often necessitate the construction of least desirable Type C dam. At present, it is far from clear what costs and commitments could be considered reasonable to over-rule such design necessities, and construct tailings dams that would be safer and less demanding in the very long term. It can reasonably be assumed that we are in a transition period, during which we still design and operate traditional tailings dams. This situation, however, will not likely last long into the future, and other tailings disposal options and/or uses will be found. Early efforts to i mprove on tailings dams and impoundments involved the thickened discharge and sub-aerial deposition techniques (Lighthall 1987). Tailings also are used for (hydraulic or paste) backfill which allows for having smaller tailings dams, and other than the traditional methods of tailings disposal are more and more often used (eg., deposition of filtered tailings). One can expect that more pressures will appear at the initial mine design stage to find other than the conventional impoundment tailings disposal methods. Again, these design philosophy considerations are specific to tailings dams, and not relevant to typical conventional dams. 7 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF DAMS

Both tailings and conventional dam engineering are partly based on the empirical method. This is perhaps best seen when considering upstream tailings dams (Vick 1992), however, other tailings as well as conventional dams also are designed based in part on past observations. A significant shortcoming of the experimental method can be summarised by making four observations: In general, the size of dams has significantly increased over the years, and the satisfactory performance of existing lower dams with reference to some design parameters, must not be taken as an assurance that those parameters would also be adequate for a high, possibly unprecedented dam. The dam and/or dam site conditions may vary from site to site to such a degree that specific experience relating to some dam performance aspects, which might not even be identified at the design stage, could be unavailable.

 The time period over which dam performance observations have been made is very short as compared with tailings dam closure phase and thus largely inadequate, although some insights in the regard have been generated (eg., Penman & Milligan 1993). Hence, tailings dam closure designs need always be questioned, critically examined and carefully weighted, regardless of past experience and the level of sophistication employed in engineering analyses. The required margins of dam safety have changed very significantly in recent years, particularly in respect to managing contamination and associated environmental impacts. The potential for AMD generation may serve as an excellent example in this regard. As recently as 25 years ago, many tailings dams were designed and constructed without much attention paid to the AMD issue. Therefore, relevant design-performance experience is significantly limited. The first two of these observations apply, more or less equally, to both tailings and conventional dams. The two remaining observations primarily apply to tailings dams. The third observation raises a number of specific design questions. For instance: is the well established from past observations factor of safety of 1.5 widely used in (tailings and conventional) dam stability analyses also adequate with respect to the long closure phase? Or, can the use of widely accepted filter design criteria be taken as an assurance that a filter zone would not be plugged over the next 1,000 years? The fourth observation raises similar questions. For instance: can we really make reasonable design predictions on AMD generation, say, in terms of expected quality of site waters over hundreds of years? Such questions primarily apply to tailings dams, and one must not expect to find relevant answers from conventional dam engineering practice. 8 ENGINEERING ANALYSES

term hydrologic event with relatively high probability of occurrence will result in a larger volume accumulated in tailings pond. For example, a 120-day event with annual probability of occurrence of 0.05 may result in a larger runoff volume accumulated in tailings pond than a PMF associated with, say, 4-day PMP, even if a treatment plant continuously operates during the 120-day period. It follows that the concept of PMF needs not be appropriate for tailings dam design. This concept has been adapted from conventional dam engineering, where peak flows rather than storage volumes typically represent the critical design aspect (ie., spillway capacity). Similar comments may apply to a tailings dam where the tailings pond discharge facility (eg., decant tower or pump barge) has a relatively small capacity. This serves as an example of differences in the design approaches pertinent to tailings and conventional dams. There are other, rather numerous aspects of engineering analyses specific to tailings dams that are not well addressed, or not addressed at all in technical publications on conventional dams. Undrained strength analysis which is often used for stability evaluations of upstream tailings dams, a safety factor (see Section 7), dam structure deformations where a tailings dam will be subject to numerous earthquakes during Phase 4, loads on the upstream face of dam, or contaminant loading analysis may serve as few exa mples. 9 DAM SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM

For conventional dams, safety inspection program may be recommended, for instance, as summarised in Table 1 (from National Research Council (U.S.) 1983).

Table 1. Typical safety inspection program for conventional dams INSPECTION TYPE FREQUENCY PERSONNEL Informal Observations ongoing dam operators Maintenance Inspection semi-annual annual engineer/supervisor Technical Inspection 5 years or less* team of experts * For dams that have not been properly inspected for some years, or new or reconstructed dams, initial semi-annual inspections would be prudent.

As pointed out in Section 2, basic methods of analysis used in conventional and tailings dam engineering are largely similar. Nevertheless, even in this regard there are some significant differences. Perhaps the most illustrative of such differences are the hydrologic analyses. Since most tailings dam watersheds are relatively small and heavily disturbed, data available from gauged watersheds are often of limited value, and a site specific hydrologic model needs be constructed. This is particularly difficult at the initial design stage, when flow measurements available for model calibration are limited or not existing, and the meteorological database used for model construction is poor and/or extrapolated from monitoring station(s) situated in different settings. In frequent cases, extreme flood volume rather than peak flow represents the critical aspect of tailings dam design, which has to do with preventing the release of contaminated pond water. The concept of probable maximum flood (PMF), that may result from probable maximum precipitation (PMP), PMP combined with snowmelt or snowmelt, has been used to determine the design storage capacity for tailings dams. Although a PMF event will result in large runoff volume, in many instances a long

For tailings dams, safety inspection program recommended by the author (Szymanski 1999) can be summarised as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Recommended safety inspection program for tailings dams INSPECTION TYPE FREQUENCY PERSONNEL Dam Surveillance (DS) ongoing (Phase 1*) dam operators Dam Safety Inspection (DSI) annual (Phase 1**) engineer Dam Safety Review (DSR) 5 15 years*** team of experts * For other phases, DS effort may have to be less, depending on the presence of on-site personnel. ** For other phases, the frequency of DSIs may be less or more, depending on the presence of on-site personnel, consequence classification of dam, and the phase. For dams constructed on a continuous basis, this frequency may have to be increased during Phase 1. *** For dams raised in stages every 5 years or less (Phase 1), a DSR should generally be conducted in conjunction with designing for each stage-raise. The lower range of frequencies would typically apply to Phase 4 and, in some cases, Phase 3.

Disregarding the different Inspection Type terminology, the safety inspection programs summarised in Tables 1 and 2 are strikingly similar, at least with respect to the production phase (Phase 1). Thus one might conclude that a safety inspection program specific to tailings dams is not needed, and using conventional dam engineering practice for this purpose would be adequate. This, however, is not the case, and using Table 1 could result in specifying an inadequate safety inspection program for tailings dam. What counts here is the rationale underlying specific dam safety inspection requirements, which needs be understood and explicitly accounted for in each case. In general, because a conventional dam under normal loads works, in principle, as a steady-state structure in contrast to typical tailings dams during Phase 1, safety inspection requirements adequate for tailings and conventional dams may be significantly different. Consider, for instance, a DSR, which might be thought of as an equivalent of Technical Inspection. If a tailings dam is raised, say, every 3 years and conventional dam engineering practice were to be used, DSRs could be carried out either on a semi-annual basis following each stage-raise, or not carried out at all, depending on the interpretation of Table 1. Neither of these interpretations would be reasonable since, in this case, a DSR should be conducted in conjunction with designing for each stagerise of dam, that is, every 3 years. The rationale for semiannual frequency of Technical Inspections following the construction phase (see note to Table 1) relates to a period of time immediately following the initial filling, when hydraulic head as well as stresses in dam structure and foundations reach their final, highest levels under normal load conditions. The concept of initial filling, however, does not apply to typical tailings dams. Conducting a DSR shortly after the initial construction of tailings dam would be highly recommended for projects where dam designs were not subject to an independent review prior to construction, especially for tailings dams classified in higher consequence category(ies). Reading the accounts of some recent tailings dam failures, the author kept wondering if conducting such a DSR would not allow for recognising a specific weakness of dam, thus providing a second chance to prevent failure. [ It is of interest to note that the dam inspection program followed by Ontario Hydro comprises: (i) routine inspections (Informal Observations), (ii) general inspections (Maintenance Inspections), (iii) comprehensive inspections (Technical Inspections), as well as (iv) design review inspections that are meant to be carried out for each dam once only (Bechai 1990). Although a DSR recommended in the preceding paragraph could be seen as an equivalent of component (iv), the underlying rationale is different. ] Of particular importance to defining the scope of DSR for a tailings dam are the requirements pertaining to future stage-raises and/or operating phases, with reference to past variations in dam operating regime. These types of considerations are not relevant to conventional dams. It is only during Phases 2, 3 and 4 that a typical tailings dam becomes a steady-state structure. Nevertheless, still it is significantly different from conventional dams. For instance, during Phase 4 tailings dams are no longer operated, and conducting a DSR every 5 years or less could be argued excessive in many cases.

A DSI, might be thought of as an equivalent of Maintenance Inspection. However, in many instances the scope of DSI for tailings dam will have to be more extensive. It will often involve the examination of some design and/or construction aspects, such as tailings pond management criteria, tailings deposition plan, water balance, tailings dam construction technique or the degree of seepage contamination, and these aspects may also dictate appropriate frequency of DSIs. For example, this frequency may have to be increased during Phase 1 for tailings dams constructed on a continuos basis. The relatively intensive scope of DSI would be necessary for many tailings dams, designed to prevent the development of a dam safety gap discussed in Section 4. DS might be thought of as an equivalent of Informal Observations, and this would largely be correct with respect to Phase 1. However, during other tailings dam operating phases when the on-site personnel are not present (eg., during Phase 4) or present on an intermittent basis (eg., in conjunction with treatment plant operation and maintenance during Phase 2 or 3), the ongoing safety inspection requirements become specific to tailings dams. These and similar considerations indicate that a dam safety inspection program considered adequate for a conventional dam needs not be adequate for a tailings dam regardless of the operating phase, even if both dams are classified in the same hazard category. 10 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The differences between tailings and conventional dams have long been recognised. Some twenty years ago, Earle J. Klohn wrote (Klohn 1980): safe and economical tailings dams can be built by applying the engineering knowledge and experience presently available from conventional water storage dam designs, suitably modified to satisfy the special requirements of the mining industry.. The discussions presented herein emphasise how extensive those suitable modifications must be. In the introduction to this paper, a case is described in which the CDSA Guidelines were used for tailings dam design. Those guidelines were recently revised (CDA 1999), and the new revision explicitly incorporates tailings dams. Thus tailings dams are now recognised by the Canadian Dam Association on an equal footing with conventional dams, and this represents a very significant progress. Nonetheless, a more pragmatic question appears: had the revised guidelines been used, would the errors pointed out in the introduction have been avoided? The probable answer is no, at least with respect to some issues (for instance, the issue of selecting a design event for production vs. closure phase, or the issue of minimum allowable tailings beach width vs. freeboard mentioned at the beginning of this paper). Therefore, the preceding discussions also indicate that incorporating tailings dams into the 1999 revision of CDA Guidelines needs be seen as a first step only. Further revision is necessary in respect to tailings dams, wherein the technical publications which specifically address the safety of tailings dams (eg., ICOLD 1989 and several other ICOLD bulletins, or USCOLD 1994) need be referenced and accounted for.

REFERENCES
Bechai, M. 1990. Dam Maintenance and Economics. Technical University of Nova Scotia Seminar on Dams & Dykes Safety, Inspections and Rehabilitation.. 1 0-11 May. Toronto. Canadian Dam Safety Association (CDSA) 1995. Dam Safety Guidelines. Edmonton. Canadian Dam Association (CDA) 1999. Dam Safety Guidelines. Edmonton. International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) 1987. Dam Safety Guid elines. Bulletin 59. Paris. International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) 1989. Tailings Dam Safety. Guidelines. Bulletin 74. Paris. Klohn, E.J. 1980. The Development of Current Tailings Dam Design and Construction Methods. Colorado School of Mines Seminar on Design and Construction of Tailings Dams . 6-7 N ovember. Denver. Lighthall, P.C. 1987. Innovative Tailings Disposal in Canada. International Journal of Surface Mining 1: 7 -12 Penman, A.D.M. & Milligan V. 1993. Longevity of Embankments Dams A Critical Review. International Workshop on Dam Safety Evaluation . 26-28 April. Grindelwald. Szymanski, M.B. 1999. Evaluation of Safety of Tailings Dams. Vancouver: Bitech Publishers Ltd. United States Committee on Large Dams (USCOLD) 1994. Tailings Dam Incidents. Denver. Vick, S.G. 1992. Stability Evaluation During Staged Constru ction. Discussion. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 118(8): 1283-1288.