Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
(OP)
Link
Quote:
At a joint hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on September 17, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified about the role of the EPA in the August 5 Gold King Mine blowout that resulted in a three-million gallon toxic spill into the Animas and San Juan rivers. Rep. Bruce Westerman, P.E., (R-AR), an NSPE member, asked McCarthy why a licensed professional engineer was not in responsible charge of the EPA’s project at Gold King Mine....





RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
Congress has addressed this in a very limited manner by requiring things like Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Control (SPCC) plans to be stamped, that is turning into a dog's breakfast in that people are hiring P.E.'s not licensed in the state where the facility exists to do the plans (the regulation was unclear) and state boards are getting up in arms over it (i.e., "if you practice engineering in my state you must have a license in my state").
The work on the Gold King mine made a mess. The work looks to be inept. Assigning a P.E. from Florida (flat land, high population density) to oversee a project at 13,000 ft ASL would have satisfied Mr. Westerman's requirement (as the EPA and most military bases interpret the regulations requiring P.E. oversight), but very likely would have had a higher risk.
I'm all for holding the EPA accountable, but I don't think that this dog is going to hunt.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
12-25-103. Exemptions.
(g) Individuals who are employed by and perform engineering services solely for a county, city
and county, or municipality;
(i) Individuals who are employed by and perform engineering services solely for the federal
government;
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
So that rules out the two "solely for the state" and "solely for the feds" exemptions.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
tailings pond may have been inundated by the mass flow that did occur
when the contractor chose to excavate a relatively small quantity of
rockfall/ debris/ miscellenous solids
( I'm guessing old mine timbers , shoring etc) in an old mine access
tunnel, without any comprehension of the volume of water that COULD be
stored behind such a naturally occurring "dam", and therefore without
any thought as to the likely pH , and dissolved metal content of that
water.
Its highly possible that any engineer from Colorado or Florida or
Maine or anywhere else could have failed to recognize the potential
unless he was an experienced mining engineer.
Having built half a dozen hydraulic plugs designed to hold back these
types of conditions, against substantial hydraulic heads, I'll
guarantee that had I been asked for advice during a 5 minute phone
call, I would have sounded the alarm bells.
Mining is what this was all about, not reclamation, or dam engineering.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
get involved in areas beyond our expertise, regardless of how attractive
the potential fees are. As a miner I understand the basics of structural,
civil, electrical etc but that is why I just engaged the services of an
experienced electrical engineer because I was starting to get sucked into
areas outside my core competency.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
https://www.hcn.org/articles/acid-mine-drainage-ex...
It sounds like the EPA was almost just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The plug that blew could potentially have blown out all on its own, in which case, there would have been no one holding the bag and liable for blame.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
would be real nice to see
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
disagree with each other and not risk getting locked up for our
opinions.
And perhaps I have strong opinions on matters like this which affect
the entire global mining industry rather than just A.reospace. WE both
acknowledge that AMD is a naturally occurring process which suggests
that as a problem it can never be completely solved , rather only
mitigated.
If we change your logic from a focus on "adding to the potential " to
simply disturbing. The EPA chose to disturb a localised environment
where a degree of stability and equilibrium had established itself over
the years.
It is perhaps notable that the local communities had fought against any
actions by the EPA or designation of any of the localities as needing
assistance from Superfund clean ups.
Perhaps they had examined the actions of these agencies on the other
side of the continental divide around the Summittville area and didn't
like what they saw.
This is the same EPA that implemented changes on the coal fired power
stations across the USA that has already cost industry billions of $$
on these mandated "improvements' which the industry continues to fight
in the courts with some succees since the EPA has not been able to
indentify more than a few millions in savings to society.
Thank god the courts are starting to apply common sense to issues that
affect society as a whole , the entire costs of which are paid by the
tax payer.
In a situation like this , a mining company would be held liable for
the costs of treating ALL the water they encountered, regardless of
how old the ollution was.
Society in general is being asked to absorb obscene costs while the
bureocrrcrats sit happliy issuing edits without any accountability.
Someone needs to go to jail over this , just to wake up every body
else.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
life of 100 years, and this is purely a function of the anticipated
life expectancy of concrete. I have worked on an R+D plug that was
called the "Millenium Plug" because it was being installed in around
the year 2000 and it was being engineered for a life span of 1000
years. So yes, depending on your definition of forever, barring the
liklihood of seismic activity in the Colorado area, I would have
expected the naturally formed plug to last indefinitely. Mining in the
area ceased decades ago. The water table and hydraulic head behind the
plug can be assumed to have stabilized years ago. Sure there would be
some seasonal changes as the flows thru the rock changed as the snow
melt and rainfall varied thru the seasons, but to what consequence??
If anything the thickness of the plug could be expected to increase
over the decades as the weak rock in the area of the adit portal
continued to deteriorate and add additional thickness to the plug.
Some things in life are still " If it aint broke , dont fix it" as
so many of the local inhabitants desired.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
interesting to any non-mining personnel who might hold environmental
views that are not supported by modern science. Acid mine drainage can
be controlled and if the attached are to be believed, reduced to 1-2%
of pre treatment levels. I guess the EPA never researched how it
should be done .
http://engineering.ubc.ca/news/ubc-engineers-devel...
http://www.squamishchief.com/news/local-news/brita...
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
Well, possibly, but more likely, they would have had to remove the existing plug to do so and drain the shaft, which is kind of what they did.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
Canada had a bit of a catastrophe a few years ago when the entire mine
flooded from 1650 feet below surface right up to surface. Yes it cost
a few dollars but they were able to drill 1650 foot long holes from
surface right down into the area that had failed and were able to pump
enough concrete into the area that failed so it sealed up the leaking
area so they were able to regain access to the workings and re-
establish underground activities. If they were able to it dealing with
the hydrostatic heads associated with 1650 feet of water, plus be able
to poke the holes right into the desired area, over a distance of 1650
feet, I am damn sure I could've done the same thing just by finding a
location perhaps 200 feet above the plug and then pour enough concrete
to establish a permanent plug. Might have only be dealing with
hydrostatic heads of 50-100 feet. Gotta say it IR , with all due
respect, I don't tell aerospace engineers how to design stuff , nor
tell pilots how to fly planes. You might want to stick to your area of
competancy. This is how the uninformed general public develop
incorrect opinions based on incorrect suggestions.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
I'd bet a dollar that's what all the oil guys said after the Deep Horizon blowout. So, you're basically claiming to know which plugs are in danger of blowing out, rather than just double plugging every existing plug, regardless of whether it's necessary or not. I don't recall anywhere where I attempted to steer any design, or claim that I could do something that other supposed experts clearly failed at doing. I'm simply trying to understand what's happening, and I find it disingenuous for someone to say, "Trust me, I know how to do these things correctly," and yet, the industry as a whole appears to not share the same level of apparent competency.
Your Cigar Lake example has had a number of setbacks, and the 2008 outflow was not because they were trying to plug; they were trying to remove water ("de-water") so they could actually begin production, which they didn't start until 7 years after their initial projected start date, and 4 years of schedule slip can probably be attributed to the two outflow incidents.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
industry I have no knowledge about and it occurred under a few thousand
feet of water, rather than under rock, which is something I do know
something about. And the mining industry in general has more than
enough competancy to design and install these plugs wherever required.
The only thing lacking is the financial resources or the political
will to do something about it. The examples at Brittania beach clearly
demonstrate what can be done once the funding is obtained. And indeed,
any competent mining engineer with experience of these things could
make predictions as to which plugs are vunerable, and which are stable,
after taking a few basic measurements at or around the site. Perhaps
the EPA has a database of such measurements but if you review the
youtube videos of the recent congressional hearing, it seems unlikely.
What are the quoted numbers again..... something 16,000 employees
within the EPA and less than a dozen civil engineers?? I've probably
got the exact numbers wrong , but you get the idea.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
But in its response, the EPA can either say, "We didn't have a licensed engineer involved because we're exempt, but we had competent people involved to ensure an equal level of safety."
Or, they can says, "We are exempt so we had people out there that just didn't have a clue."
From a licensing standpoint, either response may be acceptable.
From a liability standpoint, it would be prudent to go the first route, rather than the second. And sounds like they are not.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
This issue has nothing to do with engineering. Yes, Bruce Westerman has a BS, Biological/Agricultural Engineering, whatever that is. Most states including Colorado probably do not recognize that as a PE discipline or as a requisite for a PE. He has no education or training in mining, water, etc. Probably would not know what a rock is if it hit him in the head.
From his bio, this knuckle dragger is most likely damaged as a result of playing 5 years of college football. Anyway, the point is that Westerman is an extreme right wing science denier who is taking this opportunity to take a cheap shot at a government agency. If given the opportunity, one can be certain from his other views is that he would vote to eliminate the EPA altogether. He is a science denier, climate change denier, national forest pillager, and one who believes life begins at conception and ends at birth. He is an embarrassment to the engineering profession.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-g...
http://web.alternet.org/environment/two-gop-bills-...
http://helenair.com/news/local/daines-pushes-for-f...
https://westerman.house.gov/media-center/press-rel...
In 2011, Westerman voted for dress codes and the establishment of state standards for biblical instruction in public schools.
This is a nothing more than a grandstanding political cheapshot, not an engineering issue. He should be sanctioned by the professional engineering authorities for using his professional engineering credentials to bolster his claims.
RE: Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute?
Professional engineers may gain a greater oversight role at chemical facilities and others that handle hazardous materials if a proposed rule increasing safety requirements is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Consistent with NSPE's past requests, the EPA proposes requiring the use of PEs in its risk management programs. This action is in response to catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the US, including an explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013, that killed 15 people.
In March, the EPA asked for comment on a proposed rule that would require PEs on the audit teams involved in third-party certifications. The aim of the proposed requirement is to ensure the involvement of "competent auditors that also have an ethical obligation to perform unbiased work" in the interest of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
NSPE is working with state societies to demonstrate the strength and solidarity of PEs on this issue. NSPE and state societies in Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have submitted comments to the EPA.
The Society stated in its comment that the EPA's proposal to require a PE as a third-party auditor or a member of the audit team is appropriate, given the PE's unparalleled commitment to the public health, safety, and welfare, as well as demonstrated expertise and dedication to compliance with safety rules. At minimum, a PE should serve on the audit team, but preferably as the lead.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC