 |
Re: PUC bridge inspection program too understaffed to move forward
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 10-07-2014 - 10:37
Speaking as one who's work was often subject to to CPUC and/or FRA oversight, I can add this:
Although very knowledgeable and perhaps fully qualified in some areas, PUC "inspectors" are typically not qualified to do the actual inspection or engineering work they are overseeing most of the time. The PUC simply does not have that kind of expertise - and doesn't need to have it. Moreover, each "inspector" is expected to deal with such a very broad spectrum of issues and technologies, that deep expertise isn't even possible in most of them.
Typically, their oversight is more focused on providing assurance that the professionals hired by the railroads and transit systems actually do know what the hell they are doing; that valid engineering processes are used, proper procedure are being followed, and that they actually are performing due diligence in all their work. They also were quite alert for "schlock attitudes" in those doing the work and their superiors. Those CPUC inspectors I dealt with always approached our work with an initial healthy skepticism, requiring us to prove and justify our decisions. And most CPUC inspectors certainly had sufficient scientific and procedural knowledge to do just that.
Any failure in this area is certain to provoke much deeper scrutiny and can include very severe penalties, including project shutdown, or even line closures. AS actually happened to BART in 1979 when the CPUC ordered its Trans Bay line closed; or previously when the CPUC delayed BART's opening; or even when the FRA shut down the NWP at the specific request of the CPUC. It is then up to the railroad, transit agency, or liable contractor to hire third party experts (LBL, SRI, etc) to independently provide that more detailed scrutiny. The CPUC itself cannot actually do that work, but it can and does mandate the hiring of independent third parties who can.
And speaking as one who's work was subject to such oversight; I would not have it any other way. Being in a public safety critical profession; I could thereby sleep at night. Peer review at all levels is vital. The more eyes watching over you the better!
OPB
Although very knowledgeable and perhaps fully qualified in some areas, PUC "inspectors" are typically not qualified to do the actual inspection or engineering work they are overseeing most of the time. The PUC simply does not have that kind of expertise - and doesn't need to have it. Moreover, each "inspector" is expected to deal with such a very broad spectrum of issues and technologies, that deep expertise isn't even possible in most of them.
Typically, their oversight is more focused on providing assurance that the professionals hired by the railroads and transit systems actually do know what the hell they are doing; that valid engineering processes are used, proper procedure are being followed, and that they actually are performing due diligence in all their work. They also were quite alert for "schlock attitudes" in those doing the work and their superiors. Those CPUC inspectors I dealt with always approached our work with an initial healthy skepticism, requiring us to prove and justify our decisions. And most CPUC inspectors certainly had sufficient scientific and procedural knowledge to do just that.
Any failure in this area is certain to provoke much deeper scrutiny and can include very severe penalties, including project shutdown, or even line closures. AS actually happened to BART in 1979 when the CPUC ordered its Trans Bay line closed; or previously when the CPUC delayed BART's opening; or even when the FRA shut down the NWP at the specific request of the CPUC. It is then up to the railroad, transit agency, or liable contractor to hire third party experts (LBL, SRI, etc) to independently provide that more detailed scrutiny. The CPUC itself cannot actually do that work, but it can and does mandate the hiring of independent third parties who can.
And speaking as one who's work was subject to such oversight; I would not have it any other way. Being in a public safety critical profession; I could thereby sleep at night. Peer review at all levels is vital. The more eyes watching over you the better!
OPB
