Metal and Nonmetal Dams, 49429-49432 [2010-19960]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
consolidated group to make an election
to accelerate the inclusion of deferred
COD income under section 108(i). The
likely recordkeepers are corporations
filing consolidated income tax returns
(electing members). The IRS and
Treasury Department believe that an
electing member’s election under
§ 1.108(i)–1(b)(3) reduces the member’s
overall reporting burden under section
108(i).
Estimated total annual reporting
burden: 0 hours.
Estimated average annual burden per
respondent: 0 hours.
Estimated number of respondents:
5,000.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a valid control
number assigned by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a
collection of information must be
retained as long as their contents may
become material in the administration
of any internal revenue law. Generally,
tax returns and tax return information
are confidential, as required by 26
U.S.C. 6103.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Background and Explanation of
Provisions
The temporary regulations published
in the Rules and Regulations section of
this issue of the Federal Register amend
the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR
parts 1 and 602) relating to section
108(i). The temporary regulations set
forth rules for applying section 108(i) to
C corporations. The text of those
temporary regulations also serves as the
text of these proposed regulations. The
preamble to the temporary regulations
explains the temporary regulations and
these proposed regulations.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice
of proposed rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action as defined
in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It
is hereby certified that these regulations
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This certification is based upon
the fact that these regulations merely
provide more specific guidance for the
timing of the inclusion of deferred COD
income that is otherwise includible
under the Code. Therefore, a Regulatory
Flexibility analysis under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to
section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice
of proposed rulemaking will be
submitted to the Chief Counsel for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
49429
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
§ 1.108(i)–1 Deferred discharge of
indebtedness income and deferred original
issue discount deductions of C
corporations.
Comments and Requests for a Public
Hearing
[The text of proposed § 1.108(i)–1 is
the same as the text of § 1.108(i)–1T
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register].
Par. 4. Section 1.108(i)–3 is added to
read as follows:
Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
written (a signed original and eight (8)
copies) or electronic comments that are
submitted timely to the IRS. In addition
to the specific requests for comments
made elsewhere in this preamble or the
preamble to the temporary regulations,
the IRS and Treasury Department
request comments on the clarity of the
proposed rules and how they can be
made easier to understand. All
comments will be available for public
inspection and copying. A public
hearing may be scheduled if requested
in writing by any person who timely
submits written comments. If a public
hearing is scheduled, notice of the date,
time, and place of the hearing will be
published in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendment to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 is amended by adding entries
in numerical order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.108(i)–0T also issued under 26
U.S.C. 108(i)(7). * * *
Section 1.108(i)–1T also issued under 26
U.S.C. 108(i)(7) and 1502. * * *
Section 1.108(i)–3T also issued under 26
U.S.C. 108(i)(7) and 1502. * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.108(i)–0 is added to
read as follows:
Definitions.
[The text of proposed § 1.108(i)–0 is
the same as the text of § 1.108(i)–0T
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register].
Par. 3. Section 1.108(i)–1 is added to
read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Rules for the deduction of OID.
[The text of proposed § 1.108(i)–3 is
the same as the text of § 1.108(i)–3T
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register].
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010–20059 Filed 8–11–10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
RIN 1219–AB70
The principal authors of these
proposed regulations are Robert M.
Rhyne and Rubin B. Ranat of the Office
of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate).
However, other personnel from the IRS
and Treasury Department participated
in their development.
§ 1.108(i)–0
§ 1.108(i)–3
Sfmt 4702
Metal and Nonmetal Dams
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
Dam failures at metal and
nonmetal mines have exposed miners to
life-threatening hazards. The Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) is reviewing its existing metal
and nonmetal standards for dams. The
Agency is concerned that some dams
pose hazards because they are not
designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to accepted dam safety
practices. MSHA is considering
approaches to better protect miners from
the hazards of dam failures and is
soliciting information to help determine
how best to proceed.
DATES: Comments must be received by
midnight Eastern Daylight Saving Time
on October 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be
identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB70’’ and
may be sent to MSHA by any of the
following methods:
(1) Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHAComments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219–
AB70’’ in the subject line of the message.
(3) Facsimile: 202–693–9441. Include
‘‘RIN 1219–AB70’’ in the subject line of
the message.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
49430
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939.
(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in
at the receptionist’s desk on the 21st
floor.
MSHA will post all comments on the
Internet without change, including any
personal information provided.
Comments can be accessed
electronically at https://www.msha.gov
under the ‘‘Rules and Regs’’ link.
Comments may also be reviewed in
person at the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100
Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor.
MSHA maintains a list that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when the Agency publishes rulemaking
documents in the Federal Register. To
subscribe, go to https://www.msha.gov/
subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
MSHA, at silvey.patricia@dol.gov (Email), 202–693–9440 (Voice), or 202–
693–9441 (Fax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
I. Background
MSHA’s database contains
information on nearly 2000 dams at
metal and nonmetal mines. Mine
operators have constructed these
structures for various purposes, such as
disposing of tailings or mine waste,
processing minerals, treating or
supplying water, and controlling run-off
and sediment. Although many of these
dams are designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained according to
accepted dam safety practices, others
are not and dam failures and near
failures continue to occur.
Since 1990 to the present, MSHA
investigated dam failures at metal and
nonmetal mines in virtually every
region of the country and at small and
large operations. Failures or near
failures have occurred at copper,
phosphate, sand and gravel, trona,
gypsum, and limestone mines, among
others.
Failures have damaged property and
equipment, but no deaths or serious
injuries have occurred. Examples of
dam failures include:
• A 1990 failure of a 100-foot high
dam at a limestone mine in Puerto Rico
released over 10 million gallons of water
and tailings. The failure flooded eight
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
lanes of a major highway, depositing
tailings up to eight feet thick. The dam
failed about 2 a.m. when no miners
were present. The mine operator did not
use an engineer to design the dam;
several design and construction
deficiencies, such as poor compaction,
steep slopes, and absence of internal
drains, contributed to the failure.
• A 70-foot high tailings dam failed at
an andesite quarry in Wisconsin in
1992, tearing apart a railroad track and
leveling a power line at the mine. The
dam failed at 3 a.m. when no miners
were present. The dam was not
designed by an engineer. After a slope
failure in 1987, the mine operator
installed instruments in the dam to
monitor internal water pressures.
Pressures beyond a certain level would
lead to structural instability. In the 18
months before the 1992 failure,
however, the operator checked the
instruments only twice. A combination
of steep slopes and high internal water
pressure contributed to the failure.
• In 1997, a dam at an Arizona copper
mine released tailings for over a half
mile downstream and to depths of 30
feet. Four miners, one in a haul truck,
one in a bulldozer, and two in a pickup
truck, were carried down-slope with the
slide. One miner injured his back
running from the pickup but the others
were not injured. The dam was designed
by an engineer; however, the mine
operator’s rate of placement of waste
rock on top of the tailings created
pressures that contributed to the failure.
• In August 2002, a 450-foot section
of dam failed at a sand and gravel mine
in Georgia, sending a wave of water and
tailings through the shop area. The 30foot high dam failed shortly after 8 p.m.
The wave of water and tailings moved
a scraper, backhoe and front-end loader,
which were parked in the area. Three
miners, near the shop, saw the dam
failing and escaped in a pickup truck.
The dam, built without being designed
by an engineer, had a weak foundation,
among other deficiencies.
• In 2004, a dam failure at a sand and
gravel mine in California released over
200 million gallons of water and
tailings, inundating a hydraulic
excavator in an adjacent pit. The failure
occurred shortly after 6 p.m., at the start
of the maintenance shift. About 15
minutes before the failure, the excavator
operator had gone home and a bulldozer
operator had parked his machine on the
top of the dam. A miner who lubricated
the equipment was driving into the pit
when he noticed the rising water, halted
his truck, and backed up the access
road. The dam was not properly
designed. The investigation revealed
that the design of the dam failed to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
include an evaluation of the foundation
and embankment material strengths,
and stability analyses to verify that the
slopes of the dam would have adequate
factors of safety.
MSHA investigators have found that
design, construction, operation, or
maintenance deficiencies have
contributed to failures of dams at metal
and nonmetal mines and exposed
miners to hazards.
Since the early 1970’s, Congress has
enacted laws to create a national
program to reduce the risks of dam
failures. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is charged
with administering the national dam
safety program and has issued a series
of Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety
(Guidelines) (https://www.fema.gov/
library/viewRecord.do?id=1578).
The Guidelines address, among other
things, practices and procedures for the
design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of all types of dams. In the
Guidelines, FEMA recommends that
dams:
• Be designed by a competent
engineer;
• Be constructed under the general
supervision of a competent engineer
knowledgeable about dam construction;
• Be inspected and monitored at
frequent intervals by a person trained to
recognize unusual conditions; be
inspected by a competent engineer with
knowledge of dam safety at a frequency
consistent with the dam’s hazard
potential; and
• Have an emergency action plan, if
dams are classified as having high or
significant hazard potential in the event
of failure.
Every two years, MSHA reports on the
status of its dam safety program to
FEMA, which then sends Congress an
evaluation of each Federal agency’s
program and how it complies with the
Guidelines. FEMA has recommended, in
biennial reports to Congress and in
meetings of the Interagency Committee
on Dam Safety, that MSHA promulgate
standards to encompass all aspects of
design, construction, and inspection for
dams at metal and nonmetal mines.
The existing requirements for dams at
metal and nonmetal mines, 30 CFR
56.20010 and 57.20010, are derived
from the Metal and Nonmetallic Mine
Safety Act of 1966. The standards state:
‘‘If failure of a water or silt retaining
dam will create a hazard, it shall be of
substantial construction and inspected
at regular intervals.’’ The standards
promulgated for coal mines under the
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety
Act of 1969 were similar, but specified
that the mine operator inspect the dams
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
at least once per week and record
inspection findings.
The requirements for coal mines were
revised in 1975 after the Buffalo Creek
dam failure. For dams which can
present a hazard or are of a certain size,
the existing standards require a coal
mine operator to:
• Have a registered professional
engineer certify the dam’s design;
• Develop plans for the design,
construction, maintenance, and
abandonment of the dam and have the
plans approved by MSHA;
• Have a qualified person inspect the
dam weekly;
• Have instrumentation monitored
weekly;
• Correct any hazardous conditions
and make required notifications; and
• Submit an annual report with a
registered, professional engineer’s
certification that construction,
operation, and maintenance of the dam
have been in accordance with approved
plans.
II. Key Issues on Which Comment Is
Requested
MSHA is asking interested parties to
comment on measures to assure that
mine operators design, construct,
operate and maintain dams to protect
miners against the hazards of a dam
failure.
MSHA seeks comments on the
questions below. If a commenter refers
to a particular dam as an example,
please identify the mine, or provide the
number of miners and the mine’s
commodity. Also, include the dam’s
storage capacity, height, and hazard
potential and characterize its
complexity. Provide enough detail with
the comments that the Agency can
understand the issues raised and give
them the fullest consideration.
Comments should include alternatives,
rationales, benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility,
impact on small mines, and supporting
data. Please include any information
that supports your conclusions and
recommendations: Experiences, data,
analyses, studies and articles, and
standard professional practices.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
General Questions
1. MSHA is seeking information
concerning current dam safety practices
at metal and nonmetal mines. What
measures do mine operators currently
take to design, construct, operate, and
maintain safe and effective dams? What
measures do mine operators currently
take to safely abandon their dams? For
mine operators with dams, please
provide your experiences.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
2. MSHA is required to inspect every
mine in its entirety, which includes
dams of all sizes and hazard potential.
A common approach for dam safety is
to have tiered requirements based on a
dam’s size and hazard potential. How
should MSHA determine safety
requirements based on a dam’s size and
hazard potential? Please include
specific recommendations and explain
your reasoning.
3. What non-Federal authority
regulates the safety of dams at metal and
nonmetal mines in your state, territory,
or local jurisdiction? Please discuss the
specific requirements, including the
principles that they address. If possible,
please provide information about
relevant non-federal dam safety
requirements through a hyperlink or
other means.
4. What records should be kept of
activities related to the safety of dams?
Please be specific and include your
rationale. What records should be
provided to miners if hazardous
conditions are found?
Design and Construction of Dams
MSHA’s existing standards do not
include specific requirements for design
of dams. MSHA found that inadequate
design contributed to some of the metal
and nonmetal dam failures. In
responding to the following questions,
please discuss how any requirements
should vary according to the size or
hazard potential of a dam, and why.
5. How should mine operators assure
that dams are safely and effectively
designed? Please suggest requirements
that MSHA should consider for safe
design of dams. Please be specific and
include your rationale.
6. Please suggest requirements for
review of dam designs by mine
operators and MSHA and include your
rationale for specific recommendations
and alternatives.
7. With new standards, operators may
need to evaluate and upgrade existing
dams. Please elaborate on how the
safety of existing dams should be
addressed.
8. MSHA’s existing standards for
dams at metal and nonmetal mines do
not address whether a dam is
constructed as designed. What measures
are necessary to ensure that mine
operators construct dams as designed?
9. How should MSHA verify that
dams have been constructed as
designed? Please explain your rationale.
Operation and Maintenance of Dams
MSHA’s existing standards do not
contain specific requirements
addressing the operation and
maintenance of dams.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49431
10. What should a mine operator do
to operate and maintain a safe dam?
How should MSHA verify that dams are
safely operated and maintained? Please
be specific.
MSHA’s existing standards require
dams to be inspected at regular intervals
if failure would create a hazard.
Inspections can identify hazardous
conditions, allowing a mine operator to
take corrective action to prevent a
failure. The Agency will be referring to
two types of inspections in this
document, ‘‘routine’’ and ‘‘detailed.’’
Mine operators should perform
frequent, routine dam inspections,
which may include monitoring
instrumentation, to identify unusual
conditions and signs of instability.
Personnel with more specialized
knowledge of dam safety should
conduct detailed inspections to identify
less obvious problems and evaluate the
safety of the dam. Detailed inspections,
occurring less often, would include an
examination of the dam and a review of
the routine inspections and monitoring
data. The Guidelines recommend that
inspection personnel be qualified for
their level of responsibility and trained
in inspection procedures.
11. What measures should mine
operators take to assure that dams are
adequately inspected for unusual
conditions and signs of instability?
12. How often are routine inspections
of dams conducted? How often should
they be conducted? What determines
the frequency? Who conducts the
routine inspections? Please be specific
and include your rationale.
13. Instruments, such as weirs,
provide information on the performance
of a dam. How frequently should mine
operators monitor dam instrumentation?
Please provide your rationale.
14. What information should be
documented during routine dam
inspections? Please provide your
rationale.
15. Does a competent engineer inspect
your mine’s dam? If so, at what
frequency? Please explain the rationale
for these inspections and what is
evaluated.
16. How often should detailed
inspections be conducted? Please
include your rationale.
17. What information and findings
should be documented during detailed
dam inspections? Please be specific and
include your rationale.
18. How should MSHA verify that
mine operators conduct routine and
detailed inspections? Please explain
how your suggestion would work.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
49432
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Qualifications of Personnel
A mine operator is responsible for the
design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of dams. For an effective
dam safety program, an operator must
use personnel who are knowledgeable
about dam safety.
19. What qualifications do mine
operators currently require of persons
who design, inspect, operate, and
manage dams? In what capacities are
engineers used? Please be specific in
your response.
20. The Guidelines recommend that
dams be designed by competent
engineers. What specific qualifications
or credentials should persons who
design dams possess? Please include
your rationale.
21. The Guidelines recommend that a
dam be constructed under the general
supervision of a competent engineer
knowledgeable about dam construction.
What specific qualifications or
credentials should a person have who
verifies that a dam is being constructed
as designed? Please provide your
rationale.
22. What training should personnel
receive who perform frequent, routine
inspections and who monitor
instrumentation at dams? In your
response, please suggest course content
and the frequency of the training,
including the rationale for your
recommendations.
23. What qualifications or credentials
should be required of persons who
perform detailed inspections to evaluate
the safety of a dam? Please be specific
and include your rationale.
Abandonment of Dams
24. Some regulatory authorities
require that dam owners obtain
approval of a plan to cap, breach, or
otherwise safely abandon dams. What
actions should mine operators take to
safely abandon dams? Please include
specific suggestions and rationale.
25. How can MSHA verify that a mine
operator has safely abandoned a dam?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Economic Impact
MSHA seeks information to assist the
Agency in deriving the costs and
benefits of any regulatory changes for
dams at metal and nonmetal mines. In
answering the following questions,
please indicate the dam’s storage
capacity, height, and hazard potential
and characterize the complexity of each
dam referenced. Also, please include
the state where each dam is located, and
the number of employees at the mine.
26. What are the costs of designing a
new dam? Please provide details such as
hours, rates of pay, job titles, and any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
contractual services necessary. How
often is the design of an existing dam
changed? What are the costs of a
redesign?
27. What are the costs of constructing
a dam? Please provide details based on:
Size of dam; labor costs, including
hours, rates of pay, job titles; costs of
equipment and materials; and any
contractual services necessary.
28. Please describe the oversight you
provide during dam construction to
assure it complies with the design plan.
How much does it cost per year per dam
for oversight and quality control? What
special knowledge, qualifications, or
credentials do you require of those who
provide oversight?
29. How often do you add height to
an existing dam or modify it in some
other way? Who supervises the design
and construction of these modifications,
for example, a professional engineer,
competent engineer, contractor, etc?
Please be specific and provide rationale
for your answer. How much does it
cost? Please provide details such as
labor costs, including hours, rates of
pay, job titles, and costs of equipment
and materials and any contractual
services necessary.
30. How much does it cost per year
per dam for routine inspections? If you
incur separate costs for monitoring
instrumentation, how much is that cost?
How often do you have a detailed
inspection conducted? How much does
it cost per year for these inspections?
31. Does the state or local jurisdiction
in which you operate require you to use
a professional engineer? If so, when is
a professional engineer specifically
required? (If you have dams in more
than one state please identify which
states require a professional engineer
and which do not).
32. What are the costs associated with
training personnel who conduct
frequent, routine inspections and
monitor instrumentation at dams?
33. What costs are involved in
capping, breaching, or otherwise
properly abandoning a dam? Please
provide details of your experience and
what was involved when you properly
abandoned a dam. Describe any impact
of a properly abandoned dam.
34. What are the costs to a mine
operator if a dam fails? Please
characterize other impacts such as loss
of life, environmental damage, etc.
35. Do you have insurance against a
dam failure? If so, please specify cost
and coverage. Does the insurance carrier
require the use of a professional
engineer for specific dam activities? If a
professional engineer is not required,
does the insurance carrier give a
discount if one is used? Does your
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
insurance company have any other
requirements related to dam safety?
36. What quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits for the
downstream community are involved
when a dam is properly designed and
constructed? In addition, MSHA
welcomes comments on other relevant
indirect costs and benefits.
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010–19960 Filed 8–12–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 222
[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0013]
RIN 1810–AB11
Impact Aid Programs
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Secretary proposes to
amend the regulations governing the
Impact Aid Discretionary Construction
Program, which is authorized under
section 8007(b) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA). Through this program,
the Department provides competitive
grants for emergency repairs and
modernization of school facilities to
certain eligible local educational
agencies (LEAs) that receive Impact Aid
formula funds. The proposed
regulations amend a provision regarding
the submission of applications for these
Federal funds, which the Department
believes will improve the
administration and distribution of funds
under this program. The proposed
regulations would apply to the grant
competitions after the competition for
fiscal year (FY) 2009 funds.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before September 13, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time, in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49429-49432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19960]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
RIN 1219-AB70
Metal and Nonmetal Dams
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Dam failures at metal and nonmetal mines have exposed miners
to life-threatening hazards. The Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) is reviewing its existing metal and nonmetal standards for dams.
The Agency is concerned that some dams pose hazards because they are
not designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to accepted dam
safety practices. MSHA is considering approaches to better protect
miners from the hazards of dam failures and is soliciting information
to help determine how best to proceed.
DATES: Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Daylight Saving
Time on October 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified with ``RIN 1219-AB70'' and may
be sent to MSHA by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHA-Comments@dol.gov. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB70'' in the subject line of the message.
(3) Facsimile: 202-693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB70'' in the
subject line of the message.
[[Page 49430]]
(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st
floor.
MSHA will post all comments on the Internet without change,
including any personal information provided. Comments can be accessed
electronically at https://www.msha.gov under the ``Rules and Regs''
link. Comments may also be reviewed in person at the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room
2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the
21st floor.
MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the
Federal Register. To subscribe, go to https://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
silvey.patricia@dol.gov (E-mail), 202-693-9440 (Voice), or 202-693-9441
(Fax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
MSHA's database contains information on nearly 2000 dams at metal
and nonmetal mines. Mine operators have constructed these structures
for various purposes, such as disposing of tailings or mine waste,
processing minerals, treating or supplying water, and controlling run-
off and sediment. Although many of these dams are designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained according to accepted dam safety
practices, others are not and dam failures and near failures continue
to occur.
Since 1990 to the present, MSHA investigated dam failures at metal
and nonmetal mines in virtually every region of the country and at
small and large operations. Failures or near failures have occurred at
copper, phosphate, sand and gravel, trona, gypsum, and limestone mines,
among others.
Failures have damaged property and equipment, but no deaths or
serious injuries have occurred. Examples of dam failures include:
A 1990 failure of a 100-foot high dam at a limestone mine
in Puerto Rico released over 10 million gallons of water and tailings.
The failure flooded eight lanes of a major highway, depositing tailings
up to eight feet thick. The dam failed about 2 a.m. when no miners were
present. The mine operator did not use an engineer to design the dam;
several design and construction deficiencies, such as poor compaction,
steep slopes, and absence of internal drains, contributed to the
failure.
A 70-foot high tailings dam failed at an andesite quarry
in Wisconsin in 1992, tearing apart a railroad track and leveling a
power line at the mine. The dam failed at 3 a.m. when no miners were
present. The dam was not designed by an engineer. After a slope failure
in 1987, the mine operator installed instruments in the dam to monitor
internal water pressures. Pressures beyond a certain level would lead
to structural instability. In the 18 months before the 1992 failure,
however, the operator checked the instruments only twice. A combination
of steep slopes and high internal water pressure contributed to the
failure.
In 1997, a dam at an Arizona copper mine released tailings
for over a half mile downstream and to depths of 30 feet. Four miners,
one in a haul truck, one in a bulldozer, and two in a pickup truck,
were carried down-slope with the slide. One miner injured his back
running from the pickup but the others were not injured. The dam was
designed by an engineer; however, the mine operator's rate of placement
of waste rock on top of the tailings created pressures that contributed
to the failure.
In August 2002, a 450-foot section of dam failed at a sand
and gravel mine in Georgia, sending a wave of water and tailings
through the shop area. The 30-foot high dam failed shortly after 8 p.m.
The wave of water and tailings moved a scraper, backhoe and front-end
loader, which were parked in the area. Three miners, near the shop, saw
the dam failing and escaped in a pickup truck. The dam, built without
being designed by an engineer, had a weak foundation, among other
deficiencies.
In 2004, a dam failure at a sand and gravel mine in
California released over 200 million gallons of water and tailings,
inundating a hydraulic excavator in an adjacent pit. The failure
occurred shortly after 6 p.m., at the start of the maintenance shift.
About 15 minutes before the failure, the excavator operator had gone
home and a bulldozer operator had parked his machine on the top of the
dam. A miner who lubricated the equipment was driving into the pit when
he noticed the rising water, halted his truck, and backed up the access
road. The dam was not properly designed. The investigation revealed
that the design of the dam failed to include an evaluation of the
foundation and embankment material strengths, and stability analyses to
verify that the slopes of the dam would have adequate factors of
safety.
MSHA investigators have found that design, construction, operation,
or maintenance deficiencies have contributed to failures of dams at
metal and nonmetal mines and exposed miners to hazards.
Since the early 1970's, Congress has enacted laws to create a
national program to reduce the risks of dam failures. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is charged with administering the
national dam safety program and has issued a series of Federal
Guidelines for Dam Safety (Guidelines) (https://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1578).
The Guidelines address, among other things, practices and
procedures for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
all types of dams. In the Guidelines, FEMA recommends that dams:
Be designed by a competent engineer;
Be constructed under the general supervision of a
competent engineer knowledgeable about dam construction;
Be inspected and monitored at frequent intervals by a
person trained to recognize unusual conditions; be inspected by a
competent engineer with knowledge of dam safety at a frequency
consistent with the dam's hazard potential; and
Have an emergency action plan, if dams are classified as
having high or significant hazard potential in the event of failure.
Every two years, MSHA reports on the status of its dam safety
program to FEMA, which then sends Congress an evaluation of each
Federal agency's program and how it complies with the Guidelines. FEMA
has recommended, in biennial reports to Congress and in meetings of the
Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, that MSHA promulgate standards to
encompass all aspects of design, construction, and inspection for dams
at metal and nonmetal mines.
The existing requirements for dams at metal and nonmetal mines, 30
CFR 56.20010 and 57.20010, are derived from the Metal and Nonmetallic
Mine Safety Act of 1966. The standards state: ``If failure of a water
or silt retaining dam will create a hazard, it shall be of substantial
construction and inspected at regular intervals.'' The standards
promulgated for coal mines under the Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969 were similar, but specified that the mine operator
inspect the dams
[[Page 49431]]
at least once per week and record inspection findings.
The requirements for coal mines were revised in 1975 after the
Buffalo Creek dam failure. For dams which can present a hazard or are
of a certain size, the existing standards require a coal mine operator
to:
Have a registered professional engineer certify the dam's
design;
Develop plans for the design, construction, maintenance,
and abandonment of the dam and have the plans approved by MSHA;
Have a qualified person inspect the dam weekly;
Have instrumentation monitored weekly;
Correct any hazardous conditions and make required
notifications; and
Submit an annual report with a registered, professional
engineer's certification that construction, operation, and maintenance
of the dam have been in accordance with approved plans.
II. Key Issues on Which Comment Is Requested
MSHA is asking interested parties to comment on measures to assure
that mine operators design, construct, operate and maintain dams to
protect miners against the hazards of a dam failure.
MSHA seeks comments on the questions below. If a commenter refers
to a particular dam as an example, please identify the mine, or provide
the number of miners and the mine's commodity. Also, include the dam's
storage capacity, height, and hazard potential and characterize its
complexity. Provide enough detail with the comments that the Agency can
understand the issues raised and give them the fullest consideration.
Comments should include alternatives, rationales, benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility, impact on small mines, and
supporting data. Please include any information that supports your
conclusions and recommendations: Experiences, data, analyses, studies
and articles, and standard professional practices.
General Questions
1. MSHA is seeking information concerning current dam safety
practices at metal and nonmetal mines. What measures do mine operators
currently take to design, construct, operate, and maintain safe and
effective dams? What measures do mine operators currently take to
safely abandon their dams? For mine operators with dams, please provide
your experiences.
2. MSHA is required to inspect every mine in its entirety, which
includes dams of all sizes and hazard potential. A common approach for
dam safety is to have tiered requirements based on a dam's size and
hazard potential. How should MSHA determine safety requirements based
on a dam's size and hazard potential? Please include specific
recommendations and explain your reasoning.
3. What non-Federal authority regulates the safety of dams at metal
and nonmetal mines in your state, territory, or local jurisdiction?
Please discuss the specific requirements, including the principles that
they address. If possible, please provide information about relevant
non-federal dam safety requirements through a hyperlink or other means.
4. What records should be kept of activities related to the safety
of dams? Please be specific and include your rationale. What records
should be provided to miners if hazardous conditions are found?
Design and Construction of Dams
MSHA's existing standards do not include specific requirements for
design of dams. MSHA found that inadequate design contributed to some
of the metal and nonmetal dam failures. In responding to the following
questions, please discuss how any requirements should vary according to
the size or hazard potential of a dam, and why.
5. How should mine operators assure that dams are safely and
effectively designed? Please suggest requirements that MSHA should
consider for safe design of dams. Please be specific and include your
rationale.
6. Please suggest requirements for review of dam designs by mine
operators and MSHA and include your rationale for specific
recommendations and alternatives.
7. With new standards, operators may need to evaluate and upgrade
existing dams. Please elaborate on how the safety of existing dams
should be addressed.
8. MSHA's existing standards for dams at metal and nonmetal mines
do not address whether a dam is constructed as designed. What measures
are necessary to ensure that mine operators construct dams as designed?
9. How should MSHA verify that dams have been constructed as
designed? Please explain your rationale.
Operation and Maintenance of Dams
MSHA's existing standards do not contain specific requirements
addressing the operation and maintenance of dams.
10. What should a mine operator do to operate and maintain a safe
dam? How should MSHA verify that dams are safely operated and
maintained? Please be specific.
MSHA's existing standards require dams to be inspected at regular
intervals if failure would create a hazard. Inspections can identify
hazardous conditions, allowing a mine operator to take corrective
action to prevent a failure. The Agency will be referring to two types
of inspections in this document, ``routine'' and ``detailed.'' Mine
operators should perform frequent, routine dam inspections, which may
include monitoring instrumentation, to identify unusual conditions and
signs of instability. Personnel with more specialized knowledge of dam
safety should conduct detailed inspections to identify less obvious
problems and evaluate the safety of the dam. Detailed inspections,
occurring less often, would include an examination of the dam and a
review of the routine inspections and monitoring data. The Guidelines
recommend that inspection personnel be qualified for their level of
responsibility and trained in inspection procedures.
11. What measures should mine operators take to assure that dams
are adequately inspected for unusual conditions and signs of
instability?
12. How often are routine inspections of dams conducted? How often
should they be conducted? What determines the frequency? Who conducts
the routine inspections? Please be specific and include your rationale.
13. Instruments, such as weirs, provide information on the
performance of a dam. How frequently should mine operators monitor dam
instrumentation? Please provide your rationale.
14. What information should be documented during routine dam
inspections? Please provide your rationale.
15. Does a competent engineer inspect your mine's dam? If so, at
what frequency? Please explain the rationale for these inspections and
what is evaluated.
16. How often should detailed inspections be conducted? Please
include your rationale.
17. What information and findings should be documented during
detailed dam inspections? Please be specific and include your
rationale.
18. How should MSHA verify that mine operators conduct routine and
detailed inspections? Please explain how your suggestion would work.
[[Page 49432]]
Qualifications of Personnel
A mine operator is responsible for the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of dams. For an effective dam safety
program, an operator must use personnel who are knowledgeable about dam
safety.
19. What qualifications do mine operators currently require of
persons who design, inspect, operate, and manage dams? In what
capacities are engineers used? Please be specific in your response.
20. The Guidelines recommend that dams be designed by competent
engineers. What specific qualifications or credentials should persons
who design dams possess? Please include your rationale.
21. The Guidelines recommend that a dam be constructed under the
general supervision of a competent engineer knowledgeable about dam
construction. What specific qualifications or credentials should a
person have who verifies that a dam is being constructed as designed?
Please provide your rationale.
22. What training should personnel receive who perform frequent,
routine inspections and who monitor instrumentation at dams? In your
response, please suggest course content and the frequency of the
training, including the rationale for your recommendations.
23. What qualifications or credentials should be required of
persons who perform detailed inspections to evaluate the safety of a
dam? Please be specific and include your rationale.
Abandonment of Dams
24. Some regulatory authorities require that dam owners obtain
approval of a plan to cap, breach, or otherwise safely abandon dams.
What actions should mine operators take to safely abandon dams? Please
include specific suggestions and rationale.
25. How can MSHA verify that a mine operator has safely abandoned a
dam?
Economic Impact
MSHA seeks information to assist the Agency in deriving the costs
and benefits of any regulatory changes for dams at metal and nonmetal
mines. In answering the following questions, please indicate the dam's
storage capacity, height, and hazard potential and characterize the
complexity of each dam referenced. Also, please include the state where
each dam is located, and the number of employees at the mine.
26. What are the costs of designing a new dam? Please provide
details such as hours, rates of pay, job titles, and any contractual
services necessary. How often is the design of an existing dam changed?
What are the costs of a redesign?
27. What are the costs of constructing a dam? Please provide
details based on: Size of dam; labor costs, including hours, rates of
pay, job titles; costs of equipment and materials; and any contractual
services necessary.
28. Please describe the oversight you provide during dam
construction to assure it complies with the design plan. How much does
it cost per year per dam for oversight and quality control? What
special knowledge, qualifications, or credentials do you require of
those who provide oversight?
29. How often do you add height to an existing dam or modify it in
some other way? Who supervises the design and construction of these
modifications, for example, a professional engineer, competent
engineer, contractor, etc? Please be specific and provide rationale for
your answer. How much does it cost? Please provide details such as
labor costs, including hours, rates of pay, job titles, and costs of
equipment and materials and any contractual services necessary.
30. How much does it cost per year per dam for routine inspections?
If you incur separate costs for monitoring instrumentation, how much is
that cost? How often do you have a detailed inspection conducted? How
much does it cost per year for these inspections?
31. Does the state or local jurisdiction in which you operate
require you to use a professional engineer? If so, when is a
professional engineer specifically required? (If you have dams in more
than one state please identify which states require a professional
engineer and which do not).
32. What are the costs associated with training personnel who
conduct frequent, routine inspections and monitor instrumentation at
dams?
33. What costs are involved in capping, breaching, or otherwise
properly abandoning a dam? Please provide details of your experience
and what was involved when you properly abandoned a dam. Describe any
impact of a properly abandoned dam.
34. What are the costs to a mine operator if a dam fails? Please
characterize other impacts such as loss of life, environmental damage,
etc.
35. Do you have insurance against a dam failure? If so, please
specify cost and coverage. Does the insurance carrier require the use
of a professional engineer for specific dam activities? If a
professional engineer is not required, does the insurance carrier give
a discount if one is used? Does your insurance company have any other
requirements related to dam safety?
36. What quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs and benefits for
the downstream community are involved when a dam is properly designed
and constructed? In addition, MSHA welcomes comments on other relevant
indirect costs and benefits.
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-19960 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P