Complaint Filed Against EPA with Colorado Licensing Board

[knight1fox3]

From my NSPE email correspondence. Thought this was kind of interesting.

On September 21, Rep. Bruce Westerman, P.E. (R-AR), an NSPE member, filed an official complaint with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Professions and Occupations, regarding the August 5, 2015, Gold King Mine disaster.

EPA involved in the "practice of engineering"

In his press release, Westerman, a licensed professional engineer, said he believed the EPA had been involved in the "practice of engineering" as defined by Colorado law and were not competent or licensed to practice engineering.

"Because the EPA has not demonstrated a Colorado licensed professional engineer was engaged during the planning and design stages nor part of the Site Removal Team that was responsible for the Gold King Mine spill, the EPA was in direct violation of the Colorado statute, and should be subject to the same consequences any other entity in violation of this law would face," Westerman's complaint said.

"I believe the spill could have been prevented, or at the very least, significantly mitigated, if the EPA had followed the engineering practice laws established to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote the public welfare."

View Westerman's complaint and press release.

NSPE has played a critical role, working very closely with Westerman's office, as well as congressional committees, on this fundamental issue. NSPE urges EPA and all federal agencies to amend their requirements, mandating a licensed professional engineer perform all engineering services. NSPE further encourages the EPA to fully disclose all pertinent documents and provide definitive information about whether a licensed PE was in responsible charge of the project. NSPE will continue to provide updates to members as this matter progresses.

 

[bradlelf]

Bravo ... :appl:

 

[Road Guy]

For some reason the feds dont feel they have to deal with pesky license issues

 

[Supe]

They also have this tendency for their upper management to be immune to lawsuits/prosecution, even though they do just that to private corporations who have similar issues. I say its about damned time.

 

[Dleg]

I agree. I'm a fed and I'm also a PE. I don't see why anyone else should be any exception.

 

[kevo_55]

I'm working on a new VA hospital in Seattle. Granted I'm not a fed employee, but why sub out the work to my firm if they couldn't do the work themselves?

 

[Road Guy]

To transfer liability from them (us taxpayers) to you....

In some ways i get that governments are the owner and it doesn't make sense to charge one part of the government a fine to another part of the government,but this day in age they should do away with the grandfathering in of folks in high level positions that don't have a license.

 

[jeb6294]

For some reason the feds dont feel they have to deal with pesky license issues

I probably should stay out of this one. I've invoked the "we're the Government so we can do what we want" rule a few times myself. Although I've never changed the color of an entire river...that I know of.

 

[bradlelf]

I recently had a government reviewer (local not federal) that tried asking me to justify qualifications for designing a stormwater management BMP ... granted it was a complex system. I retorted that he had been in attendance at the agency sponsored training session that specifically covered this BMP; of which i was the technical speaker. I then asked for his qualifications to be able to review my plans and computations (he was not an engineer) ... the review is going much smoother now.

We have people with forestry degrees reviewing technical stormwater and E&S plans as employees of DEP/CCDs; of which I find amazing.

 

[NJmike PE]

We have people with forestry degrees reviewing technical stormwater and E&S plans as employees of DEP/CCDs; of which I find amazing.

True, this is a common issue within NJ. However it's also a difficult point to bring up without creating a pissing contest with the Agency and overall making for a tougher approval.

 

[Road Guy]

 

[Road Guy]

^- could also be a man in that photo

 

[knight1fox3]

^ nice recovery.

 

[Road Guy]

Usually not, but could be...,

 

[matt267 PE]

I might print that and tape it to the back of my clipboard.

 

[NJmike PE]

I might print that and tape it to the back of my clipboard.

how do you find thyme to hold a clipboard when you are hugging trees

 

[matt267 PE]

I might print that and tape it to the back of my clipboard.

how do you find time to hold a clipboard when you are hugging trees

I have ways of getting things done.

 

[engineergurl]

We have people with forestry degrees reviewing technical stormwater and E&S plans as employees of DEP/CCDs; of which I find amazing.

Really, why's that?

 

[bradlelf]

We have people with forestry degrees reviewing technical stormwater and E&S plans as employees of DEP/CCDs; of which I find amazing.

Really, why's that?

They do not have the technical background or knowledge to question design decisions; regulatory comments sure but nothing regarding the practice of engineering. What about this scenario ... which happen a few years back. The CCD reviewer tried to tell my client (in front of me) that they should install a SLCPP pipe through the pond embankment (instead of the RCP pipe and concrete cradle) that I designed and would (eventually) seal.

Now, how would one construct a plastic pipe outfall, through a clay core (8" compacted lifts) without gravel? The pipe would crush when compacted and from the weight of the 8' of fill over top of it. Obviously you cannot use gravel because it would convey water. Also the reviewer didnt understand that the pipe was in pressure flow for the higher level storms, so pressure rated gaskets were an issue.

These are the far fetched comments that are sometimes written in their comment letters.

Now had I merely followed their direction/comment and ultimately the embankment failed ... who would get sued? I dont think the defense that they told me to would hold up in court.

 

[matt267 PE]