I gotta vent.

So where does the line get drawn between the "no political discussion" rule and me factually describing my day at work?
Guess we'll find out if the thread gets locked.

So
I'm a field technician for a fuel tank service company- we handle everything from gas stations to backup generators at hospitals and telecomm facilities. In the most basic form, my job is to keep hydrocarbons from entering the groundwater, or into the air in vapor form to save the dolphins & orphans etc from the evils of pollution.
My other job is to work as a liaison between the federal state & local gov and the owner of the facilities because wading through the clusterF. That is Title 23 of the EPA along with ten thousand other pages of regulations is too technical for anyone that isn't specialized in the field to handle. So I guess there's the silver lining- I make a living because the laws are so convoluted.

Today's rage:
Each fuel tank buried underground has a sump and piping inside that will contain the leak should a fuel line burst or fail. These sumps must have an electronic sensor that will detect said leak.
A few decades ago, a sensor was developed that could tell the difference between water that came in through a leaky lid (very common) and fuel.
That sensor was then mandated across much of the state as a standard technology.
Every 12 months, these sensors must be tested and verified to work properly.

Shortly thereafter, we learned the hard way that when you test these in fuel, they quit working and the client has to pay 500$+ each plus up to 600$ for a permit to replace them.
Most county inspectors agreed it was stupid flaw and allowed these sensors to be tested in water alone and the annual job became far less costly and time consuming.
These inspectors have largely retired and now these new kids are being hired with zero field experience who show up and tell me how I'm doing the job wrong because they misread some fine print while back at their cubicle.

Today, the best analogy is
You take your car in to get the smog check done and I'm the mechanic- I'm not allowed to let you leave my shop if your car isn't safe. The gov inspector just showed up and said your car cannot be on public roads unless it is proven that the airbag functions properly and the only approved test method is to drive it into a brick wall at 100mph.
I've since destroyed four of your cars on your dime and can't let you leave until you have a "certified" safe car.

This is all for a telecom company today. If you wanna know why your phone & internet bill is so high, Its because I've spent twelve hours on this company's dime destroying sensors in hopes that the next one will clear out of alarm and I can say it functions properly.

 

I don't really understand your job and I'm not going to pretend to, but I concur, that is stupid.

 

Haha half my problem is even explaining why I'm so mad.
By federal law, I am forbidden from leaving these sensors broken without replacing them.
Also by law I am forbidden from disobeying an inspectors orders, which today meant I am forbidden from replacing these sensors without effectively destroying them.

Its a vicious cycle and were all paying this asshat with tax money and were all paying my client in utility bills. Its not right man.

 

I don't think the Feds will ever understand logic.

 

I'm mad that I could put my career in jeopardy by calling out the names and job titles of these appointed people who cause so much damage.

I've got another one.

Doing a similar test at a private airport which had a tank type and configuration that specifically exempted it from a pressure test (which shuts the tank and all fuelling operations down for 6+ hours)
For years these tests are skipped, as they should have been until this inspector shows up, demands it be done because they have ultimate say over the written rule in the end.

This person refuses to put demands like this in writing.

What happened that day was several very important and wealthy people landed on their private jets and several more lined up on the runway waiting for fuel.
That airport came to a standstill as we did a test that wasn't required. You think making a yellow cab park and wait on you is expensive? Strap a pilot and empty jet engines on it and multiply by ten jets.
This inspector also left halfway through the test with a "good luck, submit the test results tomorrow morning"

 

Hahaha see I'm scared of the too!
But its not particularly political when its firsthand experience!
Right? I give it ten min before some asshat comes in here and rants about bush or Obama and locks my rant thread down.... In which case I'll have another rant thread to start haha

 

^ Rant...ception?

 

I think all the rules and regulations the Govt. has in place are wonderful. I admire all the hard working men and women who serve us in the Govt.

 

While I agree that the regulations and testing procedures are ridiculous, the 'kids' as you called them, aren't technically incorrect. This is a matter of legislation that was passed without realizing the impacts it would have due to the way the sensors are supposed to be tested. Additionally, because an inspector kept allowing these sensors to only be tested in water, there was never any outcry to change legislation because none of the end users ever got hit with the annual $1,000 bill that the 'approved' testing method would incur. Now that you get someone coming in, reading all the fine print and enforcing these regulations to the letter, feathers are beginning to get ruffled.

So let me ask this, these sensors are tested and proved to work to detect water. What happens if there is a fuel leak and one of the water tested sensors fails?

I believe the correct line of action would be a push to change the regulations. Pissed off end uses getting hit for $1,000 every year for testing would be a great group of people to get behind you and support this change. I hate to say it, but by not enforcing the seemingly silly regulation and testing procedures when they were first set forth, the problem was not solved, just set aside to be dealt with at a later time.

 

I hate to say it this way, but to be honest, I would have a problem doing that job. I would simply say " I am done." And find a new career field, or a different job. Life is too short to stress over some things.

If you are forbidden by a specific law from leaving a sensor broken without replacing them, then that is what you do. you follow the law. If an inspector has a problem with you following a law, then I would be telling said inspector to go speak to the lawyers and politicians who created the law.

 

I work in the financial industry (mortgages) and I know completely where you are coming from. When the crisis hit it was less than a handful of banks (all big name banks) and lawmakers that have no practical knowledge of what goes into approving a mortgage came down hard across the industry because a few banks had poor business practices and now require us to have copious amounts of paperwork and unrealistic reporting standards. It turned getting mortgages completed in 30 days to 45-60 days and the changes in no way help the borrowers or change qualification requirements...if anything make it more expensive for them. Salaries for the extra work don't get delivered by magical unicorns.

 

I'm in Chino right now, if we were hiring right now, I would say come over and see me this week and I will get you a job that's even more confusing

 

the last time I got a mortgage I had an entry of $960.00 dollars in my savings account statement and they needed to know where that money came from.

 

Not a bad angle on the problem, but
The rules say "must be certified annually according to manufacturers guidelines"
Which say in giant bold letters

And elsewhere it says sensor may fail if exposed to fuel. The seasoned inspectors read this as reason enough not to do it. And even if this fuel detecting thing fails, it still goes off as a "liquid alarm" in actual fuel.

Fine print, easy enough to argue that it should be done until you actually get field experience and understand that this job can be done in 45 minutes
Or 9 hours.
My company charges flat rate and is losing their ass on my overtime as I sit and watch these sensors soak in white gas trying to clear the alarms. All while the inspector decided halfway through it was taking too long and left

 

sub'd for a good rant that's actually interesting.. and I'd have to say I agree with both the OP and Pugga. It's ridiculous that you'd (Spencer) have to serve this vicious cycle that only eventually costs the taxpayers and business owners stupid amounts of money for no reason BUT what it should drive is a change in the policy AND the technology. I obviously don't know the mechanics or science behind how these sensors work, but assuming that they haven't been changed (design-wise) in the last 30+ years sense they were first put in place, then they should follow the rest of technology and have a major overhaul! That being said.. they could be like these stupid "auto shut-off" table saws where the ONLY way to make the thing work is to effectively destroy it and to test that you again.. have to destroy it

 

Days like this I get angry about the man and the injustice

But then I laugh because screwit. I'm one of the few people qualified with two dozen certifications able to do this job and environmental regulations will only get more stringent and spill across the nation from California.
As mad as I get about the principle of the matter, I can't ever be mad as the accountants of our clients that are held at financial gunpoint- they HAVE TO pay a contractor in our field to handle this crap. Fines for noncompliance often run 10,000$ per day per violation.
Its terrible. But it pays the bills I guess?
Someday I'll be president and make at least this part of infrastructure life simpler.

 

damn... sounds like I got into the wrong field haha

 

So where does it say they must be tested in fuel then? If the regulation or testing procedure says it must be tested using the manufacturer's guidelines, then I'd say there isn't an issue unless the manufacturer specifically states that their sensor needs to be tested in fuel. Since I'm assuming they do not, you should try to prove to the new inspector why you are doing things correctly, or go over his head. Whatever you do, I'd make sure your ass was good and covered although I'm getting the impression that it's not according to the letter of the current testing procedure or regulation. It's not up to me to take a side, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

From the outside looking in, not knowing the details of your work or the testing practices, I equate it to choosing not to follow a newly enstated obscure and meaningless law. Eventually, someone is going to enforce that law, in your case it's the new generation of inspectors.

 

A " few " banks , lol

 

See it's all BS non specific vague language. It doesn't really say do or do not. Funny that they recognized the vague language enough and implemented the "ultimately up to the discretion of the on site inspector" language.

It says its capable of detecting fuel, and it says "avoid fuel or prolonged alarms may occur"
But doesn't say dont put it in fuel.
Nor does it say do it.

There's about three thousand of these exact issues that I could throw out and argue and tomorrow find a thousand more.

If anyone wants to feel the confusion look up title 23 of the EPA
Or any CARB document. It gets almost comical sometimes trying to translate legal vomit into real world judgment calls.

But, I'm a patient man who can Wade through it and that means job security like you wouldn't believe small trade off.