Wireless Site Project Plans with Stolen PE Stamps?

With the push to apply for as many cell sites as possible in as short a period as possible, and for the least cost, we’re observing an alarming new situation: the use of Professional Engineer seals and signatures copied onto wireless project plans and related safety documents, all without the knowledge–much less the permission–of the professional engineer.

This is an issue that appears to be happening nationally. Unfortunately, the use of what I’ll call “Stolen Stamps and Signatures” [“SSS”] also known as Stamp Fraud is also not much of a surprise.

The industry pressure to get proposed wireless sites through the local government permitting process as quickly as possible for the fewest dollars seems to have incentivized some wireless industry members to engage in what is, in most states, a violation of law. Specifically, scanning PE stamps and signatures from one set of plans for a project location reviewed and approved by the PE, and than inserting the scanned seal and signature on multiple other project site plans.

Let’s be clear:

SSS endanger the public.  The public, and more directly the local governments that have police powers to protect the public, rely on the fact that an engineer’s PE seal and signature are an assurance of safety code compliance.

SSS are a violation of law in most states.  Most states have laws on the books that make the unauthorized use of a PE stamp an illegal act.  Expect to see stamp fraud referrals to local law enforcement and state PE boards.  Also expect to see planning companies shown to engage in stamp fraud to be disbarred from submitting additional wireless applications for a period of time or forever depending on who in the firm knew what and when.  Disbarment of a firm or person by a government entity can require the disclosure of that fact when a locally-disbarred person or firm bids on state, federal, or military contracts.

SSS costs a registered professional engineer income, and more importantly the loss of professional reputation.  If SSS is discovered by a PE, that PE is placed in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to accept the theft as a cost of doing business with their large clients and eat that cost of the lost work or dropping a dime with the state PE Board.  If the PE does eat it, however, the PE is likely endangering his or her own license by suborning the illegal use of the PE stamp.  I suspect many state PE boards will not look favorably on that intentional head-in-the-sand approach.  Moreover, some jurisdictions may also look at disbarring a particular PE as being unreliable to seal plans and safety documents for the intentional looking away.  As above, disbarment at one level can carry through to other governments and agencies.

SSS hurt the wireless providers. As the breadth of stamp fraud becomes clearer, expect that projects already approved that were submitted by now-known stamp thieves will be brought back for very close scrutiny.  Projects already approved under false pretenses may be subject to revocation, or at least a costly new review.

SSS is likely to change the local permitting process. I expect that as the breadth of this nauseous activity is determined with greater certainty, some or many jurisdictions will require that actual wet stamps and wet signatures be affixed to plans and other safety documents.  This will be a change from the current practice, now questioned, of allowing facsimile stamps and seals to be placed on plans and safety documents.

Our firm’s permitting team, working for many local governments, is coordinating our activities with local governments evaluating whether they have been unlawfully deceived by SSS/stamp fraud.

This is an big issue to follow, and I’ll post about it as events unfold.

Those are my opinions…what are yours?  Let me know via a direct contact message by CLICKING HERE.

Jonathan

Update: April 18, 2019.  The Florida Board of Professional Engineers asked for and received my permission to reprint this post in its official newsletter, the FBPE Connection.  This post, slighted edited by the FBPE, is reprinted in its April 2019 on-line news letter.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Attack of the Drones

It’s unusual for me to republish press releases, but this one caught my eye. -jlk
ATLANTA, March 30, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Solusia Air, LLC, an affiliate of Solusia Services, LLC, today announced it has been awarded an exemption from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to deploy unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to perform asset audits and safety inspections for wireless and utility infrastructure firms. Solusia Air began the application process in 2014, working with JDA Aviation Technology Solutions.

The UAS included in the exemption is the Aibot X6 UAS by Leica Geosystems. The FAA approval agrees that the combination of the Aibotix X6 Aircraft and Solusia Air’s training and flight safety procedures constitute a minimal risk and are in the interest of the public good.

“The FAA exemption means wireless and utility companies now have a more efficient, safer method for performing audits and safety inspections of infrastructure assets,” said Chris Moccia, CEO, Solusia Air. “Leica is a proven global leader in optics, lasers, GIS software, modeling and 3D spatial solutions and we are thrilled to be partnered with them in this innovative endeavor.”

aibot-uas-hexacopter-enUnder the FAA’s current interim policy, UAS operators who adhere to certain parameters are permitted to fly UAS commercially under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act until such time as the FAA fully implements the UAS regulatory structure.

“This is exciting news for Solusia Air and Leica Geosystems,” said Bryan Baker, North American UAS Sales Manager and pilot for Leica Geosystems Inc. “The FAA is under a lot of pressure to streamline the approval process and finalize the regulatory structure for unmanned aircraft systems. This is the first step to getting companies through the process faster so that they can take advantage of this revolutionary technology.”

Solusia Air UAS services for wireless carriers and tower operators include high-definition photo and video inspection, asset audits, RF microwave path validation, intermodulation/interference identification, wildlife species identification, and safety assessments.

Utility companies can benefit from UAS inspections by obtaining high-definition photo and video data for inspection of substation infrastructure, IR inspections, 3D imaging and point cloud/photogrammetry of utility towers and transmission lines, and wind turbine inspections.

“Wireless infrastructure is in a continuous, dynamic lifecycle,” continued Moccia. “As new technologies are deployed to keep up with the growing demand for mobile data and high-speed connections, towers need to be audited to document and verify existing configurations and equipment inventories. With UAS solutions, this auditing process can now include timely online retrieval of data and images that customers need to make strategic planning, construction and maintenance decisions.”

About Solusia Air
Solusia Air, LLC is a professional services firm that utilizes UAS technologies to provide asset audits and safety inspections for wireless carriers, tower owners and utilities. Our services help reduce costs and save lives by reducing and even eliminating physical climbs, delivering a much safer, data-rich alternative that accurately captures HD photographic and video data of equipment and infrastructure. Our UAS are powered by proprietary, engineered technologies and processes that give customers innovative insights, advanced views of assets, and engineered technical analysis never before delivered or measured. The company is FAA compliant, fully insured, and meets all legal requirements to conduct commercial operations using UAS in the United States. To learn more, visit www.solusiaair.com.

SOURCE Solusia Air, LLC

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Three Cell Tower Climbers, Firefigher Die in Two Tower Incidents

The last twenty-four hours have seen two tower incidents resulting in at least three tower climber deaths, the subsequent death of a local firefighter, and two additional serious injuries.

The first fatal incident occurred last night in Bluetown, Texas, where a solo tower climber fell from a tower standing more than 1,000 fee tall.  The unidentified man died from head trauma.

The climber was found by local deputies at about 6 p.m.  local time last night.  He was found some 30 feet away from the tower. This suggests the climber fell from a great height.

More: http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1001913#.Uu2hw7QjTzV

The second fatal incident was a tower failure today in Clarksburg, West Virginia.  That failure took the lives of two tower workers.  Later, during the rescue, a local firefighter was injured during a secondary tower collapse.  That firefighter later died of his injuries.

Two tower workers on the ground in the Clarksburg tower failure were also injured.

More: http://www.wboy.com/story/24608973/two-dead-three

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3rd Party Engineers, T-Mobile & Local Jurisdictions

T-Mobile’s National External Affairs (“NEA”) Newsletter is a monthly online publication aimed at T-Mobile’s  outside siting professionals and others related to siting.  NEA was kind enough to add me to their subscriber list.

What follows below is an article appearing in the July 2013 issue of T-Mobile’s National External Affairs’ Siting Newsletter.  It describes T-Mobile’s view of 3rd party engineers retained by local jurisdictions primary to evaluate towers for structural integrity during upgrades.

While we on the government side might expect the article to be one sided and dismissive, I have to say that NEA’s presentation is thoughtful, considered, and very balanced.  As the article concludes, “It’s not just technical answers that will help achieve success, it is also building understanding from all sides of the equation.”  Well said, T-Mobile.

I encourage you to read the entire article below.  I reprint it here with T-Mobile’s prior written permission.

Siting from Different Perspectives:
3rd Party Engineers, T-Mobile & Local Jurisdictions

A growing number of jurisdictions are outsourcing wireless site engineering to third-party firms, especially when it comes to municipally owned water tanks. The practice creates challenges not only for T-Mobile but also the engineering firms themselves as they strive for a happy medium where wireless facilities can quickly and efficiently be deployed while satisfying municipal objectives surrounding safety and asset protection.

Municipalities turn to outside engineering firms for several reasons, including a feeling that their own staffers are ill-equipped to judge the assertions made by wireless carriers regarding siting. Budgetary constraints also restrict the time and resources municipal employees can dedicate to siting issues.

“They just want to make sure that they’re protected, that they’re protecting their assets, which is why they’re hiring these firms,” said Steve Carlson, partner delivery manager for real estate in T-Mobile’s Minneapolis market.

Minneapolis has a high percentage of wireless facilities installed on water tanks. T-Mobile’s modernization project in the market includes 162 water tank sites out of 698 total sites. It is common practice for cities in the market to require reviews of site applications by third-party engineers anytime a carrier wants to perform a new installation on a tank or conduct any kind of an upgrade.

However, there can be drawbacks for carriers when it comes to dealing with third-party engineering firms. Municipalities generally select the third-party engineering firm with which a carrier must deal, and that firm will bill all charges for time and materials to the carrier. In Minneapolis, the cost of each full review might be $3,000 to more than $10,000, Carlson said.

Often, municipalities provide no oversight of these engineering firms, some of which may run up what appear to be exorbitant bills for their reviews, said Lori LeBlanc, T-Mobile’s senior development manager in Minneapolis. “There’s no checks and balances put into place with regard to the city. It’s almost like an open-ended checkbook,” she said.

Indeed, some engineering firms appear to be taking advantage of the situation by requiring more reviews than needed. For example, T-Mobile has on occasion submitted duplicate plans from a previous installation that an engineering firm approved, only to have the same firm find issues with the new installation. “It’s always a three-review process one way or another,” Carlson said.

In addition to the financial impact, there is also an opportunity cost involved, not just for carriers, who suffer delays in deployment plans, but for local residents, who must wait for upgraded service. Individual site reviews in Minneapolis for T-Mobile modernization projects have taken from three months to more than a year.

Additionally, once a building plan is approved, a number of inspections might be instigated, all of which must be paid for by the carrier.

Further complicating matters is the fact that in Minneapolis, the three third-party engineering firms hired to conduct site reviews are vastly understaffed, with generally only one or two individuals at a firm available to perform all of its water tank reviews. This is especially egregious given the number of site upgrades currently being implemented by T-Mobile and other carriers.

“They did not staff up for the workload that they have. The cities, who are ultimately our landlords, don’t really understand that,” Carlson said.

A view from the other side

While carriers cite a number of issues in dealing with third-part engineering firms, it’s important to remember that those firms also face numerous challenges when it comes to conducting site reviews and granting approvals for wireless installations.

Paul J. Ford and Company was started in 1965. The employee-owned company, which is strictly focused on structural engineering, has offices in Columbus, Ohio; Orlando, Florida; and Atlanta, Georgia. It is registered in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Canada and Venezuela.

Some 40 people work in Paul J. Ford’s telecommunications unit, which has been kept busy lately with requests for site reviews related to LTE upgrades, said the company’s President Kevin Bauman.  He started with Paul J. Ford in 1976, working with the company’s tower business from the start.

Placing communications antennas on a water tank usually involves three parties with divergent interests, Bauman said.

“The municipality wants assurance from a design professional that there will be no negative impact upon their water tank due to the addition of the communication equipment.  The wireless carrier knows that mounting something as small as an antenna on something as large as a water tank should have a negligible impact on the water tanks structural stability.  The structural engineer understands that it isn’t logical to require a thorough and time-consuming structural analysis of the entire water tank for this type of installation, yet some due diligence is required if that company is going to assume the responsibility for the adequacy of the installation,” he said.

Bauman explained the process that engineers go through to ensure that structural integrity and conformance to building standards are fully considered when wireless facilities are planned for installation on water tanks.
“Generally we try to get as much structural information about the water tower as we possibly can. If the water tower is adequate as it now stands, it’s usually impossible to overstress it by adding communications antennas to it,” Bauman said.

However, if the building code has changed, then a thorough structural analysis of the water tank might reveal that the water tank is structurally deficient even though the cause has nothing to do with the addition of the communication antenna. Further, Bauman noted that in many areas of the country, seismic (earthquake) loads are the controlling design criteria and not wind loads or weight.

He contends that mobile carriers often “do not have a real good understanding of the type of things that we need and the type of things they need us to do.”

For one thing, carriers often provide third-party engineering firms with insufficient information and rarely have the original drawings for a site. Bauman said he has received photos of water tanks with no additional specs from carriers that need a site review.

“A structural engineer can’t create a set of drawings and place his/her professional engineers seal on a drawing, if even the most basic structural information about the water tank is unknown,” Bauman noted.

“Many times we get so little information, we back out of the project, and that makes everybody mad,” he said. “But if we lack adequate information we can’t perform the necessary due diligence to form a professional opinion.”
When it comes to water tanks, firms such as his often have a difficult time convincing municipalities that changes to a wireless deployment on a water tank can be so insignificant from a structural viewpoint that they do not require a whole lot of engineering work.

“It’s kind of a no-brainer, but municipalities don’t like to go along with that. They want to see reams of calculations to prove that everything’s okay,” Bauman said.

That’s not to say installing wireless communications equipment on a water tank is child’s play: There are actually lots of unique issues with which to contend.

“The tricky part about doing water tanks is that they have water in them,” Bauman said. It is tough to weld anything to the side of a water tank because the water inside acts as a giant heat sink, making it difficult to develop enough heat for a good weld. In addition, when installing equipment on top of a water tank, any exterior welding can impact the coating inside the tank that protects the water.

Carriers can sometimes attach antennas to water tanks using an epoxy, which can be successful with the right epoxy and environmental conditions. There are also magnetic mounts that can be used for mounting equipment atop a water tank.

“How a structural engineer ever proves to a municipality that the magnets are strong enough, I don’t know,” Bauman said, noting there are no numbers available to prove such a setup works. But numbers are exactly what municipalities want from their third-party engineering firms.

To conduct the necessary structural reviews and provide all of the information demanded by municipalities is a time-consuming endeavor. Bauman said most carriers underestimate the amount of effort involved in water tank site reviews.  “We probably turn down 70 percent of all water tank work because it’s just not worth it,” he added.

Smoothing the process

There is clearly room for improvement in relationships between carriers, municipalities and third-party engineering firms.

Understanding the pressures put upon third-party engineering firms is one way that mobile operators can build rapport with the outside engineers. Simplifying the process from the carrier side is also beneficial.

In the Minneapolis market, where T-Mobile has modernized 106 of 162 water tank sites, the market team has strived to make the third-party review process more efficient. For example, T-Mobile assigned one construction manager to handle all interactions with third-party engineers regarding water tank placements. That helped T-Mobile in terms of tracking projects and consistency in handling issues as they cropped up, though this has admittedly sped up the process only minimally.

However, there is still work to be done.  “In the future, how do we approach the cities for future projects?” asked LeBlanc.

T-Mobile hopes that initiating more conversations with all of the parties involved will lead to more creative solutions for streamlining the approval process for new wireless installations and site upgrades when third-party engineering firms are involved. It’s not just technical answers that will help achieve success, it is also building understanding from all sides of the equation.

Copyright © 2013 T-Mobile US, All rights reserved. The National External Affairs’ Siting Newsletter is a publication that highlights topics of interest to anyone wanting to know more about siting and T-Mobile’s work with communities. For more information, please contact us by telephone (425.383.8413) or by email at natextaffairs@t-mobile.com.
Our mailing address is: T-Mobile US,  12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A Disingenuous and Dangerous Stunt

Last night I watched a tower siting appeal hearing before the City Council of Albany, California.  During the hearing, a resident came up to the speakers podium. As part of his public comment, the resident attempted to make a comparison between cell site emissions and the emissions from a microwave oven.  To hammer home his point, he brought in and set up a special microwave oven  in the front row of the Council Chamber.

Trying to make a point attempting to compare cell tower emissions to those from a microwave oven, the resident told the City Council that he modified the microwave oven to bypass all of the safety mechanisms.  All microwave ovens come with at least two safety interlocks that immediately shut down the microwave oven if the door is opened during the cooking cycle.

The resident then proceeded to make his point by operating the microwave oven by cooking what he identified as a grilled cheese sandwich–with the microwave door open and the microwave cavity pointed at the City Council and staff.

albany.cheese(Screen capture from KALB TV at 0:57:47 into the meeting)

In my opinion, the resident’s ‘demonstration’ was a disingenuous  and dangerous stunt.  I have never seen such a stunt in 29 years of public service.

It is meaningless to attempt to compare the emissions from a 900 watt microwave oven emitting into a focused cavity resting on a chair in a meeting hall with a cell site professionally engineered to comply with federal standards (this is the disingenuous part).

While the microwave emissions may not (or may, for that matter) have exceeded the FCC’s/FDA’s standard beyond a measurable distance, no inquiry was made by the resident as to whether anyone nearby was using a pacemaker (this is the dangerous part).

Moreover, the use of an electrical extension cord to power an appliance (and to do so in a public meeting area) violates various electrical and other safety codes.

Had I been at the meeting in person, I would have stepped in to prevent or stop the stunt.

To pound the key points home:

  1. Don’t do what this resident did…don’t ever endanger the public trying to make a point;
  2. Don’t do what this resident did…don’t ever bypass safety interlocks intended to protect the public trying to make a point;
  3. Don’t do what this resident did…don’t ever violate safety codes trying to make a point;

Look, I’m all for the public expressing views at a public hearing.  I am, in fact, a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of public participation in the government process.

Heck, I can live with the disingenuous participation part since it is still a public viewpoint, and even disingenuous public viewpoints are important in an open public debate.

What I do not support, however, are expressions of public participation in the government process in ways that are dangerous and/or illegal.

That’s my opinion on this resident’s stunt.  What’s yours?

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

SRT OF OK NW 2 TXT WLE DRVNG N CA

AB 1536, which is effective today, January 1, 2013, changes California law to allow some texting while driving.  Texting is allowed if your phone can be used by voice commands, such as using Apple’s iPhone Siri feature.  She has powerful friends in Sacramento!

It will be interesting to see how this change to the prior law, which made texting while driving illegal, plays out.

Here is the test of the newly revised California vehicular texting law, effective today:

textdriving8gTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 23123.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 23123.5.

(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.

(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device.

(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Reminder: “Cell Tower Deaths” Premiers on PBS Frontline Today

As a reminder, PBS Frontline in conjunction with ProPublica will present “Cell Tower Deaths” premiering TODAY/TONIGHT on PBS stations. The PBS Frontline page is here: (CLICK HERE).

No, this story is NOT about radio frequency emissions concerns. Rather, it focuses on the risk of building and servicing cell towers.

According to PBS:

The smartphone revolution comes with a hidden cost. A joint investigation by FRONTLINE and ProPublica explores the hazardous work of independent contractors who are building and servicing America’s expanding cellular infrastructure. While some tower climbers say they are under pressure to cut corners, layers of subcontracting make it difficult for safety inspectors to determine fault when a tower worker is killed or injured.

Why are tower workers 10-times more likely to die than construction workers (as claimed by PBS)?

You’ll see one reason in my February 2012 post titled, “Is Tower Building a Dirty Job?

Take a look at the clip. About 36 second in to the Dirty Jobs clip you’ll see the owner of a tower construction company attach his safety belt hook to a tower section not yet bolted to the rest of the tower.

In my opinion, what you see at that moment is an amazing deadly lack of judgment, especially for the owner of a tower construction company. Even if he’s double tied-off to the tower, were the free-floating tower section were to fly off or drop, he would be split in two (metaphorically, if not in reality). I wonder if his poor judgment is a model for his employees? I certainly hope not. I’ll bet his Workers Comp insurance carrier hopes not, as well.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Cell Tower Deaths on PBS Frontline 5/22/12

PBS Frontline in conjunction with ProPublica will present “Cell Tower Deaths” premiering on May 22, 2012 on PBS stations. No, this story is NOT about radio frequency emissions concerns. Rather, it focuses on the risk of building and servicing cell towers. Those risks are significant.

According to PBS:

The smartphone revolution comes with a hidden cost. A joint investigation by FRONTLINE and ProPublica explores the hazardous work of independent contractors who are building and servicing America’s expanding cellular infrastructure. While some tower climbers say they are under pressure to cut corners, layers of subcontracting make it difficult for safety inspectors to determine fault when a tower worker is killed or injured.

Why are tower workers 10-times more likely to die than regular construction workers (as claimed by PBS)?

You’ll see one reason in my February 2012 post titled, “Is Tower Building a Dirty Job?

Take a look at the clip. About 36 second in to the Dirty Jobs clip you’ll see the owner of a tower construction company attach his safety belt hook to a tower section not yet bolted to the rest of the tower.

In my opinion, what you see at that moment is an amazing deadly lack of judgment, especially for the owner of a tower construction company. Even if he’s double tied-off to the tower, were the free-floating tower section were to fly off or drop, he would be split in two (metaphorically, if not in reality). I wonder if his poor judgment is a model for his employees? I certainly hope not. I’ll bet his Workers Comp insurance carrier hopes not, as well.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Is Tower Building a Dirty Job?

Apparently, tower building is a Dirty Job, according to Mike Rowe of Discovery Channel’s “Dirty Jobs.”   I happen to love the show, and I love towers, so what’s not to love about this?

The February 7th show has Mike joining the Great Plains Towers crew as they build a new stick.   No doubt this will be an interesting segment.

Here’s a question for you: Why are the tower bolts inserted upwards through the holes, with the nuts and washers on the top?  There is a VERY good reason for this, and you are taught the reason on the very first tower you assemble, or come to inspect.

Here’s another question from the clip, above: Why did Kevin Reski, the owner of Great Plains Towers  attach one of his safety belt hooks to a tower segment that had not yet secured by any bolts?  I really doubt there’s a very good reason for this.

Jonathan

PS: The tallest stick I’ve built was 251 feet AGL back in 1982.  It was for Storer Cable in Mission Viejo, California. That was tall enough for me, thank you very much.

PPS: Mike is well known for Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs and the Deadest Catch, and for the hysterical YouTube clips of Mike on QVC in the early 90’s (don’t drink while watching these unless you want to mop the floor after).  His personal web site is a fun pun: http://www.mikeroweworks.com.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail