Not Stamping Engineering Drawings? 3

[sundale]

I am a structural engineer in a consulting engineering firm that specializes in oil and gas pipeline and facility design for large production companies. The brunt of our work is mechanical engineering and controls system engineering (piping and processes), but we also do structural, electrical and civil grading plans. My background is commercial buildings and am new to the oil and gas industry.

My ethical issue stems from the fact that I am the only P.E. who stamps the drawings when issued for construction to the client. All other disciplines do not stamp their work and it is usually checked by senior designers (draftsmen) who are quite good, but not licensed P.E.'s.

I have formally raised an issue with management up to the president of the firm (and is also a P.E.) and everybody opines that "Well, we have been doing this for years and we nor any other consulting firm stamps their engineering drawings is this industry".

My opinion is that it is f%cking crazy (and unethical and illegal) to issue final engineering drawings for a HIGHLY PRESSURIZED FLAMMABLE GAS that are not prepared under the responsible charge of a P.E. If there is an error in the design, the consequences would be expensive and perhaps lethal.

The law is quite clear. Preparing engineering drawings for a client constitutes the practice of engineering and all final engineering drawings prepared by a corporation shall bear the stamp and signature of the P.E. in responsible charge. We have NOBODY in official reponsible charge stamping the drawings we issue in these mechanical, electrical, process and civil disciplines.

I am required to report such issues to The Board if public safety is at risk, which I believe it perhaps is. My future at this firm is obviously limited if I do this and it is likely already been truncated by simply formally raising the issue. Namely, informal discussions and the formal letter was received poorly by management and the discussions so far have been "philosophical" as if laws, public safety and engineering ethics are open to interpretation. From my ethical perspective, I am debating whether I want to associate with firm with this sort of attitude, so my leaving would be mutually acceptable. The problem is that it's a small town and structural jobs are not plentiful and I have a family to support.

I would appreciate any sage advise anyone has to offer me in my quandary.

 

[StressGuy]

Certainly in Texas, I can guarantee that most of the piping, equipment, foundations, and structures that you see in any refinery or chemical plant does not have a PE stamp on any drawing. Most engineers operating in this area do not have PE's.

I've been a PE for several years and have only used my stamp on one occasion where our project was being done for a public utility.

In pretty much every other case, where the client is a refinery, chemical plant, etc. virtually nothing is PE stamped.

There's a difference between designing an office tower for some bank and designing an operating unit for a refinery. In our business, the ASME codes make it clear that the owner is the entity responsible for the design. Also, most reasonably sized companies have their own engineering divisions and they control the corporate standards that we typically adhere to. This effectively puts the operating companies in responsible charge.

The bank is probably going to be able to say what colors they want on the walls, but they are not going to put any technical controls or exert design control over a project like that the way we typically see it in our world.

Sundale, I question you claim that how we operate is unethical. Quite frankly, passing the exam and getting a rubber stamp for you desk does not make one more competent. Most of the best engineers I know and have worked with have never been licensed.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[stevenal]

Wannabee left out part b.

(b) For purposes of this section, “employees” also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts.

California has taken the industrial exemption to the extreme, so that even those in the business of engineering don't need to be licensed so long as their clientèle are listed in part a. California is not the best example of the industrial exemption.

Bobby, You have yet to answer the question. Which jurisdiction are you in?

 

[sundale]

First, I wish to apologize for angering anybody about this subject; that was not the intent at all.

However, purposely ignoring state licensure laws written to protect public safety seems a pretty questionable practice to me.

If an engineering firm intentionally does not follow the basic standard of care to issue final engineering drawings that are not in accordance with the reasonable statutory requirement to have the P.E. in responsible charge stamp the drawings, is this ethical or legal?

Is issuing complex engineering drawings entailing a pressurized flammable substance that are "designed by folks with a high school education that have never even read the ASME piping codes" legal or ethical?

Public safety is the number one requirement of a P.E. and the issue of simply following reasonable safety oriented engineering licensure laws is treated as unnecessary or at best optional in the oil and gas industry. Why is this?

Moreover, the production companies are rightfully very safety concious; this is potentially very dangerous stuff. Why would they accept engineering drawings prepared and checked by a non-degreed non-licensed designer in lieu of drawings checked and sealed by a P.E.?

These are very strange concepts to me and I would appreciate any answers with specific statutory references in lieu of the "Grandma always did it that way" retort. Retorts are good too however!

Passing the P.E. is the minimum bar to practice engineering. It does not mean you are a great engineer, it only means that you are likely not a horrible engineer. I am in agreement there are many unlicensed engineers who are quite good and that holding P.E. license only demonstrates you passed the minimum requirements. Holding a P.E. license does, however, require that one follows all engineering licensure laws, which was the genesis of my starting this thread.

 

[civilperson]

No PE stamp is required or wanted in refinery work. The firm that employs you has a contract with the refinery and provides error and omission insurance if required.

 

[SylvestreW]

"No PE stamp is required or wanted in refinery work. The firm that employs you has a contract with the refinery and provides error and omission insurance if required."

On a personal note, that seems to me a rather poor level of practice. I'm quite surprised to see some of the responses in this thread.
Sure, regulations make things exempt but to simply say "it's exempt so there's no worry" doesn't, to me, appear to be the best way to protect the public - especially given the other comments about "high school graduates designing..."

And no matter what regulations exist, what distinguishes an engineer (again, to me), is that he/she will consider the "human" impact of their design since his/her neck is on the line.

my $0.02

 

[StressGuy]

For better or worse, a refinery is not "the public" the way an office building is. A refinery is a restricted access area. And, again, the codes make it clear that the refinery owner is the entity who is responsible for the facility.

Sundale actually hit the point without realizing it - a refinery is a dangerous place, make no mistake. That is why the owner companies and the engineering firms that serve them have developed decades of institutional knowledge in the form of internal standards that have grown as the various dangers have been uncovered.

That knowledge and experience passed on are far more important to the safety of those affected than whether or not you can put a rubber stamp on it. Passing the PE didn't unlock some special powers that made me more qualified to do my job. But, working with experienced people who know this business and the dangers involved most certainly has.

To suggest that only someone with a stamp in their desk drawer cares about the safety and human impact of their work is simply arrogance.

In any case, the engineer is required only to practice in areas that they have the education and experience to be competent in. I think a case could be made for Sundale that, with a background in commercial buildings, practicing structural design in a oil production environment could be considered practicing outside of your area. Even as I, though a mechanical engineer, would be way outside my area trying to do an HVAC system for a building.

Quite frankly, Sundale, being new to this business, I can't see how you can be in a position to stamp anything yet. Your work should be checked by someone with more experience in this field.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[BJC]

JAE
If you check the rules and regs for electricans in most states a "signing supervisor" can sign off on the design of many buidlings used by the public. Schools and Hospitals take an engineer, but not so a church, a grocery store or a strip mall. The criteria is usually something like a buidlign with an 800 amp or less service.
The regs are not in the engineering rules but in building regs and plan checking.

 

[JAE]

....BJC .... ok - I think you are talking electrical here and I come from a structural view....where a church, grocery store, etc. needs the structural PE seal. I've never heard of a grocery store getting an electrical system without a PE seal, though.

 

[BJC]

JAE
Your right but I think in many cases its the owner or their insurance company. The criteria is service size. A 400 amp service for a 7-11 may not require a PE. A 2000 amp service for a mega-store yes, most state require it.

 

[kchayfie]

From my viewpoint outside the US and only familiar with PE regulations as discussed on this website, if an industry is exempt the PE licensing laws don't apply so asking if its legal is like citing the laws on murder and then asking if its legal for a farmer to kill his cattle. If its is ethical is a different question: PE licensing codes were developed to protect the public; the oil industry has developed its own codes over time to protect its own workers. Why should it be more ethical to use one system of protection over another? It like saying you need to join the union of painters and decorators instead of the union of decorators and painters.

 

[stevenal]

Sundale does not directly work in industry, he works for a consulting firm that has industrial clients. The industrial exemption goes not generally extend to consultants. (CA is an exception)

Lots of arm waving here, and outside noise (like insurance; liability; codes; inspectors; whether non-PEs care about safety; whether a PE is qualified to do his job based on a few lines in a forum; etc.) Can anyone cite the law(s) that exempts sundale's colleagues from the stamping requirements? Please educate me. I'm an EE a long way from the industry in question.

 

[StressGuy]

Here's the full text of section from the Texas code:

§ 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity
(a) This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the fulltime
employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with:
(1) reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public
and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or
(2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of
products manufactured by the entity.
(b) A person who claims an exemption under this section and who is determined to have directly or indirectly represented the person as
legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering or who is determined to have violated Section 1001.301 may not claim an
exemption until the 10th anniversary of the date the person made that representation.
(c) This exemption does not prohibit:
(1) a licensed professional engineer who intends to incorporate manufactured products into a fixed work, system, or facility that
is being designed by the licensee on public property or the property of others from requiring the manufacturer to have plans or
specifications signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer; or
(2) the Board from requiring, by rule, that certain manufactured products delivered to or used by the public must be designed and
sealed by a licensed professional engineer, if necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(d) For purposes of this section, “products manufactured by the entity” also includes computer software, firmware, hardware,
semiconductor devices, and the production, exploration, and transportation of oil and gas and related products.


Now, I suppose you can argue that engineering firms are independent of the operating companies and therefore not covered by this provision. However, again, the ASME codes make it clear that the owner/operator is the one ultimately responsible for the design of the facility. Further, since we design facilities to the client design standards, that effectively puts them in control as well.

At any time, a client is free to ignore the advice we give and take their own course of action. That is the nature of the relationship between engineering firms and operating companies. It would be helpful if the Texas code were as explicitly clear as the California code.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[joebk]

Sorry for the long post, here goes.

I am a PE in Ohio and I can only relate what I have found through some past research concerning Ohio law. For reference the applicable code is ORC 4733 and is available online. Please note that I am not in the oil/refinery or construction/HVAC business.

According to the OH regulations there does not appear to be ANY industry that is specifically exempt from the law. So (in Ohio) the law applies regardless of industry or public/private work. The law does explicitly require licensure for public work for projects in excess of $5K.

To me however the law is really ambiguous about when it is required to have a PE (unless it is a public work). the letter of the law states...

"(D) "The practice of engineering" includes any professional service, such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, or inspection of construction or operation for the purpose of assuring compliance with drawings or specifications in connection with any public or privately owned public utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects in the proper rendering of which the qualifications of section 4733.11 of the Revised Code are required to protect the public welfare or to safeguard life, health, or property."

Section 4733.11 spells out what is required to obtain a PE license in Ohio (exams, degree, testing, etc). The trick IMO is to determine when the qualifications required to obtain a PE are required to protect public safety/health/etc when it is not otherwise well defined. I would guess that lawyers could argue this until the earth crashes into the sun.

Exemptions listed in the Ohio code (according to ORC 4733.18);

1) An employee or a subordinate of a person registered under this chapter or an employee of a person holding temporary registration under division (A) of this section, provided the employee's or subordinate's duties do not include responsible charge of engineering or surveying work

2) Officers and employees of the government of the United States while engaged within this state in the practice of engineering or surveying, for that government

3) An engineer engaged solely as an officer of a privately owned public utility

4) This chapter does not require registration for the purpose of practicing professional engineering, or professional surveying by an individual, firm, or corporation on property owned or leased by that individual, firm, or corporation unless the same involves the public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health, or property, or for the performance of engineering or surveying which relates solely to the design or fabrication of manufactured products.

5) Nothing in this chapter prevents persons other than engineers from preparing plans, drawings, specifications, or data, from filing applications for building permits, or from
obtaining those permits for buildings or structures that are exempted from the requirements of sections 3781.06 to 3781.18 and 3791.04 of the Revised Code, that are subject to the requirements of section 3781.181 [3781.18.1] of the Revised Code, that are erected as one-, two-, or three-family units or structures within the meaning of the term "industrialized unit" as provided in section 3781.06 of the Revised Code.

6) Nothing in this chapter prevents persons other than engineers from preparing drawings or data, from filing applications for building permits, or from obtaining those
permits for the installation of replacement equipment or systems that are similar in type or capacity to the equipment or systems being replaced, and for any improvement, alteration, repair, painting, decorating, or other modification of any buildings or structures subject to sections 3781.06 to 3781.18 and 3791.04 of the Revised Code where the building official determines that no plans or specifications are required for approval.

So in OH section 4 covers what is commonly referred to as the "industrial exemption".

So is the PE or licensure for the corporation required in this case? Hell if I know for sure, I am not a lawyer. If you want my opinion (I doubt many do from past experience - ask my wife) if this was in Ohio I would tend to think this would require the firm and/or the engineers in responsible charge to be licensed.

IMO the furniture/rain alarm/clock radio comments are nonsense, get real people. Product liability, negligence, and the real possibility of costly litigation (and all the legal mumbo jumbo involved) covers a majority of issues like this (except the crazy referent to furniture).

 

[EddyC]

One of my past employers had one of his "engineers" design steam powerplant piping for a local utility. The drawings were not stamped since it was to be built without a permit. Many months later, the utility requested that the drawings be PE stamped. The boss gave the drawings to me for review & stamping. I asked the original "engineer" to turn his calculations over to me for review. He told me that his "calculations" were done on the back of a napkin that he threw out immediately afterwards. Ask yourself if you really want "engineers" like this in the USA?

 

[BobbyNewmark]

"Bobby, You have yet to answer the question. Which jurisdiction are you in?"

Oklahoma, USA, which tends to have overbearing laws in general. (E.g., you have to have a license to sell a coffin.)

"IMO the furniture/rain alarm/clock radio comments are nonsense, get real people."

No, the engineering laws clearly apply to all sorts of ridiculous things. They are commonly ignored because the tort laws don't give PE violatees a cash jackpot, but that will not stop someone with an ax to grind from destroying you and your business. For example, some environmental crusaders who decide that a plant needs to be shut down and its designers hounded out of the business.

 

[JStephen]

I sent an informal inquiry in to the Texas board on a couple of items. Their take is that a contract employee can fall under an industrial exemption just as an employee would. But a consulting engineer or consulting company working for that client can't claim that exemption. That has been run by the attorney general, so I assume it has come up before.

Second item was whether a PE needs to seal work done when the work itself is exempt from PE requirements. Their position is "no", and there is currently a proposed bill that clarifies that.

 

[StressGuy]

JStepehen - Do you know if that opinion of the Texas Attorney General has been posted somewhere?

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[GSTeng]

Sundale,

To return to your original questions. I have been in the O&G industry my whole career an I have seen some customers request stamped drawings but almost all O&G companies have no need for the PE stamp. I asked about it and the explanation I got was that if the equipment or building that is being designed is not intended for public use it does not need a PE stamp. All O&G facilities (excluding offices) are not intended for public use so therefore don't need a PE stamp, via this explanation.

All the O&G construction I have seen has been done under federal standards like ASME and DOT which state very clearly the requirements for wall thicknesses and welding and many, many very detail procedures and work practices. It is the responsibility of the operating company to insure these codes are followed and they do so with inspectors that are fluent in the codes. These codes were written by engineers and huge societies that specialize in each specific area of the process (i.e. welding, pressure vessels...) and with the input of many years of experience and knowledge into the documents. To suggest that the knowledge of one individual (with possibly no industry experience) with a PE stamp would provide any added protection to public safety (in a place that is inacessible to the public) over an above these codes and regulations is ridiculous.

If you are not satisfied with this try taking up the ladder and to the proper authorities or the board but I bet you will end up making a lot of enemies and getting no where with your endeavor. If you still feel it is unethical leave your current job, but I would not try to go to any other O&G related firms since you will have the same ethics problems there too.

I am not trying to be rude, but you might want to go back to commercial buildings, since your issue is not with your current employer but with the industry in general and that is not something that is easily changed.

 

[JStephen]

My question was stated thus:
"Under Section 1001.057, "Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity", one of the categories exempted is “other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity”. Can this be extended to consultants doing work for the business entity? Example: Refinery A hires Acme Engineering Inc. for engineering services. Can the entirety of the work (or any of the work) done by Acme Engineering for the refinery be considered exempt?"

The answer in part:
"The Board has interpreted, with Attorney General legal counsel assistance, that this statute applies to contract personnel who are hired by the company (Refinery A in your example), not consultants under contract. So, the work done by Acme Engineering Inc. is not exempt and therefore would require the firm to be registered with this Board and have at least one full time licensed professional engineer."

Evidently, this is not a formal Attorney General opinion (in researching them, ALL AG opionions since 1939 are online in TX).

 

[EddyC]

I'm glad I don't work in a refinery. For all I know, the high pressure piping could have been designed by someone's cousin Vinny. I'm not sure that I could count on the refinery to check & verify "Vinny's" work.