progressive and effective. Wasted effort and funds are not only ineffective but can result in frustration, disillusionment and the development of uncooperative or unprogressive attitudes. This is counterproductive in itself.

Need for proper regulations and adequate technology

At present there are a myriad of federal and state regulations directly or indirectly governing the safety and environmental suitability of mine and preparation plant waste dumps and impoundments. Principal among the federal regulations are those administered by MESA (formerly USBM), the EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Several of the states also have environmental and safety regulations which bear on the safety of mine and plant waste disposal. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut differentiation between the environmental and safety regulations. Often they overlap or are in conflict - one often creating a result which the other attempts to alleviate --sometimes with absurd if not serious results. Overlap and conflict in authority also results in confusion and conflict Within industry, as well as conflicts and confusion in the goals of “society," the industry, and regulatory agencies.

The mining industry, if it is to provide its fuel and mineral products in an effective, efficient, economical, safe and environmentally suitable manner, badly needs fewer diverse agencies and forces to which it must react.

Technology must not only exist but it must also be available in sufficient quantity and at the proper time and location to permit regulatory compliance by all. This will take well conceived and balanced regulations that specify objectives and guidelines and possessing a desirable level of flexibility. All of these ingredients are essential to successful regulation of a complex situation such as coal waste deposits. This may take time to achieve but it is necessary. Instant compliance is illusionary rather than real if not based on sound technology. Such compliance can, in many respects, be much worse than taking time to do things in a reasonable, logical, and sequential manner. Thus, cooperation, understanding, and time are all required if the desired coal waste disposal improvements are to be successful and progressive.

The technology problem is serious.

The present limited availability of adequate technology must be understood but not used as a basis for making no progress at all. Care must be taken to progress in the right direction and this takes time. Time therefore must be made available to do the job right in the first place and thus prevent the need for greater modifications later. Eminent hazards must be removed immediately in order to reduce the problem of loss of life and liability in the event of a serious accident or failure in the interim while the studies as to what is needed for long term stability are in progress. Development of proper and adequate technology is the essential ingredient to the successful achievement of the very necessary goals of safe and environmentally acceptable projects in coal mining waste disposal.

New federal legislation

There is a considerable array of pending legislation relating to the mine waste problem in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Since a great many important bills and amendments to existing laws are in process, they are not discussed here separately. Since they are in a state of flux until passed and signed into law, suffice to say for the purpose of this discussion that this legislation must be properly conceived and balanced or not only will it not achieve its objectives, but it could produce very serious, as well as, adverse results both with regards to safety and the economy of our country. It is imperative that all of us work for progressive rather than retrogressive or punitive legislation in this as in all fields.

One recently enacted law with important ramifications to the coal industry, but which may not be fully known or totally understood by the industry, is Public Law 92-367. This bill, which was passed in record time by both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and signed into law August 8, 1972, was enacted as a result of the Buffalo Creek coal-waste dam failure and in June, 1972, Rapid City flood and recreational dam failure. The Act pertains to "dams" which are defined as structures "more than twenty-five (25) feet in height, or having an impounding capacity of more than fifty (50) acre-feet." The principal thrust of this legislation relates to possible dam failures that could cause flooding downstream as contrasted to

the provisions of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 which pertain to risk of death or serious injury to miners and damage to mine property at the site. The provisions of the Federal Dam Safety Law, however, will pertain to any impoundment which comes within its size definition, regardless of the methods of construction, purpose of the waste deposit or material with which the embankment is constructed.

This could result in two federal agencies with different charges under their respective laws. Both agencies concerned with mine waste dams and impoundments but with different concerns-flooding vs. health and safety. This law has three main provisions: 1. An inventory of all structures filling the definition of a dam contained in the law,

2. Recommendations to Congress for an ongoing dam safety law to be made by June 1974, and

3. A review of the suitability of the existing dams in the United States.

Since this federal law will have an impact on the coal industry, and because the law contains provisions for detailed recommendations for ongoing control of dam safety by July 1974, the coal industry is well advised to become aware of the detailed provisions of this law quickly and to work with the Congress, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, MESA, and the responsible state agencies to assure workable and equable regulations. Closed circuit processing, dry waste disposal, or underground disposal of fine waste may remove some operations from the provisions of this law, but economics and other factors indicate that these solutions will not be applicable to most mining operations. Therefore, consideration is warranted by the coal industry to working to assure reasonable application of the law, as well as taking care to comply with the law.

Proposed new federal coal mine health & safety regulations

Following the Buffalo Creek experience, the federal regulations pertaining to refuse piles and retaining dams as published in the Federal Register, Saturday, May 22, 1972, in Volume 36, Number 100, Part II, referring to surface coal mines and surface work areas of underground coal mines, were critically reviewed by nearly everyone involved with coal-waste disposal. Al

though almost everyone found fault with the existing regulations, there was no unanimity as to what the faults were or how they should be corrected. The public, the environmentalists. the owners and operators, and regulatory agencies all had differing views based on their own experience and objectives.

In the Fall of 1972, the U.S. Bureau of Mines published tentative modifications to the regulations: 77.214 Refuse piles: general. 77.215 Refuse piles; construction requirements, and 77.216 Retaining dams; construction: inspection: records. Hearings were held and many comments were received. These comments have since been studied and new regulations prepared for reconsideration; hearings are scheduled for early in 1974. When the regulations are published, time (45. days) will be allowed for review and

comments.

This review period will provide MESA an opportunity to present its proposed regulations to the industry. along with the rationale and reasoning behind each requirement. This will also afford industry and the public an opportunity to air its anticipated problems as they relate to compliance and any proposed modifications which would make the regulations more effective. It is essential to both MESA and industry to seek the most effective and efficient way to achieve the safety goals that must be met. A positive and cooperative attitude will allay fears of all concerned with the problems, and contribute to aiding MESA and industry to place responsibility for safe operations in proper and reasonable perspective. Public interest has to include reasonable consideration for economy as well as improved safety. The most essential ingredients are time and availability of technology for economical and effective development of safe coal waste deposits.

Compromises will undoubtedly be required because of "real world" considerations. These must be worked out realistically and with the understanding that pressures are real on the industry and MESA to reach different goals in some aspects. Because of the diversity of attitudes and pressures, indications from recent "white paper" type spectaculars, directing criticism and charges at both industry and MESA. it is probable that, no matter how well the job is done, everyone concerned with

working out the final regulations will be subjected to criticism: some will surely come from those having a "special interest." This can not be allowed to lessen the need to negotiate reasonable regulations, but it should indicate an even greater than usual need for objectivity in order to not only develop the best possible regulations for all concerned but also to allay fears of collusion between industry and the government. This matter of criticism is important to all concerned, not only for reasons of public relations which are especially important in these times of critical issues and significant changes, but also to reduce adverse pressures that can hamper implementation of rational safety measures in the future.

Existing and new state regulations

Mine dump and impoundment safety regulations have been and are being developed in many states. There is no set pattern for the regulations - some are simply safety regulations while others are administered by the water resources, environmental or even other and possible completely unrelated and thusly unexpected agencies.

With a great diversity of state agency requirements to meet as well as Federal regulations the industry Shodit work to bring them all into reasonable concurrence to avoid conflicting objectives. Otherwise, compliance will be unreasonably difficult and costly.

State officials should want to work with industry in this matter, because they too recognize that they need to keep all of the public interests in mind.

If the cost of implementing regulations is not fully understood by the state officials, the industry will have to work with them in an objective manner to assure them that economy is one of the public interest objectives.

Probable points of concern with new regulations

Aside from the need for any regulations at all, the most important points of concern to the industry will probably be time allowed for compliance no matter what it is, the need for certification and what must be certified, standards and criteria to be met, and how it all can be accomplished. Each of these is a valid concern with differing pressures

on the regulators and the regulated in each case.

No doubt, any new regulations proposed will require negotiations and modifications to make them more effective and economical to enforce as well as to comply with. The matter of "time for compliance" is extremely important to all concerned. To many, the time for compliance is long past and to them there is not only "no" excuse to allow additional time following the effective date of regulations, but there is to them, also, no excuse for the regulations to have been so long in preparation.

With a problem as vast as the existing coal-waste problem. one or two years or even more will be required to get the job done in many cases. A year or more will probably be required to get the first studies completed. Because some of the operations are very extensive, the cost of studies will also be high, and funding will be required.

Even more time and funds will be required to correct deficiencies. Time is also an important element in the effectiveness and economy of the solution to any problems. An example: if time is too short, corrective measures may be very expensive because they require extensive alterations by construction contract rather than through changed disposal practice and gradual improvement as a part of the ongoing disposal operations or, possibly the work must be done by unqualified personnel with doubtful to possibly unexceptable results. Yet, if too much time is allowed or taken, the interim hazards may persist for too long and another catastrophic failure could occur.

Some risk is involved if the job is done either too rapidly or too slowly. The public interest will be best served if the time allowed is long enough to permit rational and economical compliance but fast enough to minimize the probability of interim trouble. How long this may be is a function of each project's character. Therefore, some local flexibility in administering the regulations is necessary, absolutely.

The matter of certification of "safety" has often come up both with regard to mine waste safety and regular water dam safety. This is a very serious legal problem. To what can a company certify? To what can an engineer certify? What can the legal ramifications be? It is the author's conviction that engineers,

owners and operators can certify to what they have done but not necessarily to what they have accomplished. We can certify that records are correct, that actions have been taken, and the like, but how can we certify as to the performance of a large heterogeneous mass of material known only from samples taken from a few probe holes and with no assurance that they are representative of the whole mass? We can and must certify as to what we have done and as to our use of currently available technology, etc.; but based on all of this we can only have a qualified opinion as to the result achieved. We know and control our own actions and those of the people for which we are responsible. However, we can only study and interpret the physical and geotechnical conditions of coal waste dumps and impoundments using current methods, techniques and practice. This technology has been continuously improving over the years. It will improve in the future. We can accelerate improvement by research and innovation and we must do so where we do not have all of the knowledge needed. But we are in no position to make unqualified certification of the performance of any major structure, especially one that was not designed in the first place or constructed with quality control. It is improbable that we will ever be able to certify as "safe" large numbers of complex structures without quality control over construction.

When the major metals and nonmetals operations are also included, the author estimates that there are in excess of 15,000 major dumps, hydraulic fills, and impoundments in the United States that will have to be reviewed in the next few years for compliance with new federal laws and regulations. If all of these must be certified "safe" this could result in massive liability and legal problems. To consider that large numbers of dams can be evaluated without error in judgment is extremely optimistic; therefore, the "certification" of the safety of existing dams must be approached very, very carefully.

Since the safety of dams is critically important to the public welfare and since it demands considerable expertise and judgment, it is necessary for the public to accept reasonable expectations, otherwise the liability for the reviews could be greater than any engineer, agency, or firm can incur, or equally undesirable, excessively con

servative exploration and investigations will be required to minimize liability. It is equally important not to act irresponsibly in either direction because an overly conservative analysis could incur expenses for corrective actions that are unnecessary. This cost-liability sensitivity makes the certification of the suitability of structures a serious matter. This consideration indicates: 1) that it is essential that not only reliable, but adequately trained and experienced professionals be selected to carry out this type of work, and 2) that the laws in various states must be researched to determine what the legal implications of "certification" are and what it may mean if a dam is certified to be suitable and the structure subsequently fails in part or in total?

Standards and criteria will also probably be a matter of concern to everyone, but such should not be specifically called out in regulations. Although these should be in different documents, they should be considered jointly in concept if not in detail. It is probable that publication of the regulations will precede the publication of standards and criteria so the details will not be known, but the concepts should be discussed at the same time the regulations are discussed.

One of the greatest challenges to the industry are regulations that are too rigid or those which specify techniques or materials rather than objectives. These type of regulations make good engineering impossible because they often predetermine the solution-applicable or not-right or wrong. Unfortunately, most such regulations are not always applicable. Consider the specification of maximum steepness of slopes. Some regulations specify maximum slope steepness as flat as 11 percent based on soil science (agriculture) criteria for use of mowing machines. Presumably this requirement is based on using grass as the erosion stabilization agent even though grass is not specified.

This is an absurd basis for a regulation, because grasses need not be mow. ed and grass is not the only viable erosion protection agent for slopes.

Possibly worse are requirements such as those for clay blankets on fills presumably to restrict air flow to the inside of the pile in order to inhibit combustion. Does red dog have to be covered? This type of regulation requires that the country side be denuded to provide

clay to cover the refuse bank regardless of availability of superior and/or less expensive solutions. What makes this type of requirement so bad, however, is that (1) covering an embankment that is moving-even slowly-with clay will become ineffective over a period of time because it could not perform as envisioned after it once cracks and (2) if cracked it will constitute a wasted effort or resource, or (3) even worse, is the case, where the clay blanket could inhibit seepage and directly cause embankment instability.

Therefore, because there is no way to solve all problems with simple solutions either effectively or economically the industry must insist on objectives rather than method requirements for effectiveness as well as economy.

This leaves the practical question of how to study all of the coal waste structures that will have to be studied to meet expected regulation requirements and how to make needed improvements to bring them up to an acceptable standard. This will take time, funds, and personnel. The time requirements will have to be assessed and a program developed and presented to MESA for approval. Funds will be required immediately for engineering services whether the work is done by staff or outside consultants and arrangements may have to be made for budgeting subsequent structural improvements. If staff is to be used for this work they will probably have to be diverted from other work and specialists may be needed to augment staff at least where training or experience is lacking in specialized technology. In any case, the manpower needs and capabilities must be assessed correctly if schedules and optimal solutions are to be achieved. Although time and funding are grave problems, the problem likely to be the most frustrating will be the shortage of qualified personnel. If this is not recognized and then taken care of early, it is likely to be recognized later with attendent loss of time and greater expenditure of funds.

Corrective measures will depend on the condition of the waste dump or impoundment, on the time available, and ingenuity applied to solving the problems. The corrective actions will be better optimized by proper use of time, funds and personnel for needed investigations.

Because life is getting more complex, the necessity for specialization in order

to achieve effective mastery of a technology has been growing. The technology that is needed for environmental purposes is, in many cases, the same as is needed for safety except that some very unusual specialists may be needed for special environmental problems. For safety which is the principal concern of this paper, the technology needed to supplement the mining engineer is borrowed principally from the civil engineering and geological engineering fields. Specialized branches of civil engineering that are principally needed include soil mechanics, earth and rock-fill dam, engineering, hydrology, and hydraulic structures engineering. Economics dictate the need to use specialists not only to obtain effective solutions, but also to achieve economical construction solutions at a reasonable engineering cost regardless of whether the work is done by staff or consultants.

Selecting and hiring consultants

Because most coal companies do not have the specialists that will be needed for the study of their dumps and impoundments on staff, it will be neces

sary for them to hire additional staff or outside consultants. Because a high degree of capability and specialization is required and because experienced personnel and consultants with a proven track record for success in this field are few, the demand for consultants will be high for at least a couple of years. From the number of engineers or organizations that have or will offer to take on work in this field to fill the void that exists now, the shortage will not be evident at first, but it will become increasingly apparent with time. Care must be exercised by the coal industry to obtain professional services that will assure not only that company objectives are met, but that commitments for compliance with the regulatory requirements and the company's need for efficiency and economy are considered in the final design. For complex situations, only the experienced firm can serve to meet the needs.

Because the capabilities and effectiveness of each engineer and/or engineering firm are different, and because it is hard to evaluate these qualities, selection of the proper engineering firm for complex work is difficult.

To effectively select a professional

engineering firm that can provide the services most needed by a company, several engineering societies have set up guidelines which aid in the selection of engineering firms. Most of these organizations are national in scope, but have state affiliations. Most prominent of these organizations and their literature pertinent to selection and hiring of engineers are:

1. American Society of Civil Engineers - Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 45 "Consulting Engineering-A Guide for the Engagement of Engineering Services," ASCE, United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N.Y., 10017.

2. Consulting Engineering Council-"Guide to Selection of an Engineer in Private Practice." Guide to selection and negotiation procedures, adopted by the Coordinating Committee on Relations of Engineers in Private Practice with Government. CEC/US, 1155 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

3. National Society of Professional Engineers-"Guide for Professional Engineers' Services," NSPE, 2029 K. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006.