Is the EPA subject to Colorado statute? 8

[stevenal]

Link

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....

 

[zdas04]

I'm licensed in Colorado and I'm not sure that Representative Westerman's interpretation of the statute is accurate. When he says

A licensed professional engineer should be in responsible charge of all projects that constitute the practice of engineering

I think he is a bit out of line. As we all know, there is almost no construction activity that does not constitute the practice of engineering. When I build a gathering system in Colorado (and I've built several), there is no requirement that I stamp the project or even that I have a P.E. The board has interpreted that language as "holding yourself out to the public" not simply doing a project for a company (or even the government).

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

 

[IRstuff]

Colorado law explicitly exempts federal and municipal projects, so this witch hunt is moot. There's no guarantee that a Colorado PE wouldn't have done equally badly, since their PE act doesn't appear to require licensure for toxic material remediation.

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: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[cvg]

An experienced dam engineer that could evaluate the tailings impoundment for stability would have easily known it was not safe (licensed in Colorado, or not). An engineer should have done an inspection and reviewed the contractor work plan.

 

[MintJulep]

Administrator McCarthy did however say that it was a joint state/federal project.

So that rules out the two "solely for the state" and "solely for the feds" exemptions.

 

[miningman]

If I'm not mistaken, it was not a tailings dam that let go.. a small
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.

 

[zdas04]

Now if the Mr. Westerman had been raising a stink about the project not having involved a mining engineer, I'd have been on his side. But the way he is pitching it, an EE with a P.E. would have satisfied him.

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

 

[miningman]

Which just goes to demonstrate again why we as professionals should not
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.

 

[IRstuff]

This seems like a reasonable discussion about the situation:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/acid-mine-drainage-explainer-animas-pollution-epa-gold-king

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: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[miningman]

IR, so the EPA was just in the wrong place at the wrong time??? Exactly how is this situation different from a situation where an established mining company... large or small...takes ownership 0f an old mining claim or district with a view to exploring for ore that has not yet been mined or even discovered??? Said company will be held liable for any and all historical required clean up and reclamation. And similarly it will likely be the EPA and similar agencies that will be insisting the loudest that the company incurs expense to deal with these old historical problems AND will lead the legal prosecution for any failure or delay in rehab work. The EPA should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Of course fines are moot because its just tax money going from one agency to another but jail time for the most senior people ... just like applies to mining companies management
would be real nice to see

 

[IRstuff]

The difference is the EPA neither created or added to what was already there. A mining company would be drilling or excavating new areas, thereby adding to the potential for additional acid drainage. It's the act of mining that exacerbates what would have been a slow, and natural, process, since it's the very removal of material that allows more water to enter faster.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[miningman]

IR, it is just as well we live in a civilised society where we can
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.

 

[IRstuff]

So, you're saying that the plug would have held forever, then? If merely "disturbing" it causes that much damage, it probably would have happened anyway, seems to me.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[miningman]

Well the plugs that I engineer and construct are based on an expected
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.

 

[IRstuff]

OK, fair enough; I didn't get any indication that the plug in question was actually engineered, more like it occurred as some sort of rockfall or mudslide.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[miningman]

I dont want to hijack this thread, but the attached might be
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-...usand-year-plug-clean-canadas-most-toxic-mine

http://www.squamishchief.com/news/local-news/britannia-creek-in-the-pink-salmon-that-is-1.1107814

 

[IRstuff]

"I guess the EPA never researched how it should be done ."

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: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[miningman]

Well no, once again, not really . Cigar Lake uranium mine in Northern
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.

 

[IRstuff]

" 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. "

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: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[miningman]

Cant speak to the Deep Horizon incident... it occurred within an
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.