Palma, G, Poole, A, Portas, R & Sanders, J 2026, 'A tailings closure design origin story: from reactions to resilience', in AB Fourie, G Boggs, J Heyes & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2026: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_144
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2615_144_Poole/)
Abstract: Tailings are a byproduct of mining, consisting of the uneconomic fraction of rock or soil left over at the end of processing. Risks and challenges associated with tailings storage facility operations and closure, as well as the potential for significant human and/or environmental incidents, such as the Baia Mare cyanide spill (Romania) and the Córrego do Feijão mine dam failure (Brumadinho, Brazil) are a focal point for the industry. 
The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) was developed following the 2019 Brumadinho disaster and provides an industry guideline for safe management of tailings and tailings storage facilities (TSFs) through their life cycle, from design and construction to post-closure. It provides a framework for safe TSF management to achieve zero harm, but flexibility for operators to best achieve this considering the varied TSF contexts (locations, jurisdictions and commodities). 
This paper explores the origin and outcomes of TSF closure design development, including the evolution of purpose, drivers and processes in TSF closure design – from being ‘reaction only’ (e.g. regulatory alignment, changes to reserves and the need for understanding sudden closure costs) to an approach developing resilience in design. Reaction-only design can result in closure geometries that meet minimum requirements but may not prioritise longer-term sustainability, cost reductions and reduced residual risk, as well as social and interdisciplinary aspects. 
This paper presents 4 case studies illustrating how tailings closure designs can evolve from a largely reactive, requirement-driven starting point to a more resilient, interdisciplinary approach. Rather than focusing solely on demonstrating conformance, the case studies highlight practical steps – building the knowledge base, testing options and applying risk- and data-informed decision tools – to improve confidence in closure outcomes, reduce residual risk and unnecessary conservatism, and better align closure designs with longerterm environmental, operational and community objectives.