ANM Resolution 95 and ANM 175: Changes and impacts

1. Re-evaluation of drained stacks

Before (ANM Resolution 95): Drained piles not susceptible to liquefaction should be reassessed annually.
Now (ANM Resolution 175): The periodic reassessment will be as defined by the designer and/or technical responsible.

Impact: This change makes the periodicity of reassessment more flexible, allowing for a more personalized and technical approach according to the specificity of each project. This can reduce operational costs for entrepreneurs without compromising safety.

2. Hypothetical rupture study

Before: Not clearly specified.
Now: Introduction of the “Hypothetical Rupture Study” as a mandatory item in the PSB, which must be carried out by a legally qualified professional.

Impact: The formalization of this study improves forecasting and preparedness for potential incidents, increasing safety and emergency response capacity.

3. Construction methods of raising

Before: Not detailed.
Now: Clear definition of the construction methods of raising “upstream”, “downstream” and “centerline”.

Impact: Clarifying construction methods allows for standardization and better technical understanding, facilitating inspection and compliance with best engineering practices.

4. Exemption from review of the second part

Before: All dams should undergo a second-part review.
Now: Exemption from overhaul for dams with total removal of the dam and reservoir.

Impact: Reduction of bureaucracy and costs for dams that have already been completely removed, without compromising safety, as these structures no longer present a risk.

5. Sending data to the SIGBM

Before: Data update not specified.
Now: Whenever there is an update, the new conformation of the flood spot must be sent to the SIGBM in shapefile format or another defined by the ANM.

Impact: Better management and updating of dam safety information, facilitating inspection and rapid response to changes in dam structure.

6. Periodic Dam Safety Review (RPSB)

Before: Carried out by a contracted external multidisciplinary team, with competence in the various disciplines.
Now: Specification that the team cannot have been part of the team of the last RISR nor have any link with the legal entity that hired it.

Impact: It increases the impartiality and independence of reviews by ensuring a more objective assessment of dam safety.

7. Stability Condition Statement (DCE)

Before: Failure to send the DCE resulted in a sanction.
Now: Specification of sanctions if the minimum Safety Factors are not met when reported in the EIRs.

Impact: Greater rigor and clarity in penalties, encouraging compliance with safety standards more effectively.

8. Update of the PAEBM

Before: Reassessment of the PAEBM not specified.
Now: Failure to prepare the PAEBM within the deadlines will give rise to the immediate application of the sanction of embargo or suspension of activity.

Impact: Greater pressure for the preparation and maintenance of the PAEBM, ensuring that all projects are prepared for emergency situations.