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....
Arthur Schwartz answered a similar question in PE Magazine, still sitting in my in-box when I posted the question above. Guess the answer is no due to federal supremacy. NSPE members can see his response at [link]http://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/september-2015/project-insurance-federalism-surveyors-and-design[/url]
The licensing issue itself may not make a lot of difference.
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.
Sorry for being late to the party, but wanted to add my 2 cents.
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.
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.
NSPE, State Societies Push for PEs on EPA Risk Management Teams
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.
