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.

 

[GTstartup]

Pretty much the same thing for equipment and piping in the power industry. I don't think I've ever seen a drawing, of a turbine, for example, or it's auxiliary equipment with a PE stamp on it.

Civil Structural and maybe electrical, yes, but not mechanical

 

[IRstuff]

As a general rule, such structures fall under the industrial exemption in California, which also covers consultants under such conditions when they are hired by industrial exempt companies.

However, they'd need to be PEs to offer such services to the general public to begin with.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[sundale]

Thanks for the replies and commentaries folks. This has been a very spirited and interesting discussion.

The consulting engineers practicing in the oil and gas industry standard procedure is to NOT require a PE to be in responsible charge of a final set of drawings delivered to a separate industrial client. A non-licensed designer and or engineer doing this engineering work without a PE in responsibe charge (i.e. who stamps their work) is simply "how it is done".

The following reasons for this practice have been offered by the various "pro-no stamp" folks:

1. It is "Standard practice". No argument there.
2. Years and years of experience are entailed with the engineers, code writers, operators, etc. in this industry I agree with this statement but this is also true for most any engineering discipline or industry, not just oil and gas.
3. The operators/owners are really in control because they can ignore your designs, thus they are effectively in responsible charge. I would point out that the client can and often does ignore the consulting engineer's design in any engineering discipline, not just oil and gas.
4. A refinery is not a "public" facility and has limited access. This is quite true, but the same could be said for most any manufacturing facility, police station, private residence, etc.
5. A PE stamp is no guarantee of a safe design. 100% Agreed. A PE formally looking over the designers work certainly does not detract from design's safety though.
6. ASME codes put the operator, not the consulting engineer, in charge of safety so the engineer is essentially relieved of his responsible charge.
7. Oil and gas facilities are dangerous.

These are all valid points (some more than others...) and I would like to thank all the "pro-no stamp" folks in the oil and gas consulting engineering world for their input here despite some of the vindictive wording and inferences (GSTeng excepted)

On the other hand, most states licensure laws prescribe the following:
1. A consulting engineer providing consulting engineering services to an arm's length client does not meet the practice of engineering exemptions.
2. Anybody performing the practice of engineering to public or private clients has to follow state laws regulating the profession.
3. Final engineering drawings issued to a client entailed with the practice of engineering shall be stamped by the PE in responsible charge.
4. A PE is expected to both know and follow all engineering licensing laws

These licensure laws are pretty clear and sensible to me.

What I have heard in this forum and seen first hand is that the vast majority of consulting engineers in various engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, structural, etc.) working in the oil and gas industry are essentially practicing engineering in violation of these licensure laws by not stamping their work. "Licensure laws? We don't need no stinkin' licensure laws"

Is this legal? I personally don't think so but if everybody is going 80mph in a 55mph highway, then there is the "letter of the law" and there is the "de facto law".

Is this ethical? Dipped in sh*t if I know anymore. Intentionally letting unlicensed draftsmen or engineers practice engineering is not good I think, but it is what is done and the oil and gas industry does have a tremendously good safety record when considering what it entails.

What I do not understand is the absolute resistance to simply stamping the drawings like the law says to do. What's the major problem with this concept? If you follow the licensure laws, you stand a much better chance of avoiding the following nasty issues like:
1. Getting discipinary action from your board if it should learn of one's licensure violation, via omission. The licensure boards of most states are comprised of engineers not practicing in the oil and gas industry and would probably simply interpret the law as it is written.
2. Violation of licensure statutory requirements constitutes negligence per se. This exposes one to more professional liability as you are already 'partially guilty" right from the start in the event of a civil tort for a design error. In reality, however, the production companies have so much money that they likely would not even bother to sue you if you muffed a design.
3. Performing engineering outside the law will likley invalidate your professional liability insurance in the event of a tort ("uninsurable act"). Again, probably unlikely given the deep pockets of the client.
4. Most contracts with a client state the engineer (contractor) will abide by all laws pertaining the service. Not following the law sets you up for breech of contract issues.

I am in total agreement with GSTeng that taking this to my licensing board will create much ire. Moreover, as "everybody is not stamping their work", it is quite likely a fool's errand. The state licensing board has a great deal of power but so does the oil and gas industry and I am not sure I want to get in the middle of that!

 

[stevenal]

Seems were down to the definition of the "public." I consider refinery workers to be members of the public that just happen to also be members of the subset group known as refinery workers. I believe my obligation to protect the health and safety of the public extends to them as well. If we start whittling away all the sub groups, this obligation will be meaningless. Before you all jump on me for this, I realize different codes and standards apply to facilities that are more open to the public than refineries are. No dispute. The engineering laws I've seen do not mention the codes, though.

 

[IRstuff]

Is this legal?

6747. Exemption for industries
(a) This chapter, except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering, shall not apply to the performance of engineering work by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other industrial corporation, or by employees of that corporation, provided that work is in connection with, or incidental to, the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates.
(b) For purposes of this section, “employees” also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts.

from California's 2007 PE Act:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[sundale]

California does clearly and expressly have the industrial exemption extend to the industry entity AND its consulting engineer. California is different than most states on a number of levels...

The vast majority of other states do NOT have this exemption applying to a consulting engineer performing the practice of engineering for professional services rendered to a separate client.

 

[civilperson]

Sundale's vast majority is less than sixteen states.

 

[JStephen]

IE, only 16 states require consulting engineers to be licensed to do consulting work for industrial clients?

 

[sundale]

Is civilperson stating that the industrial exemption applies to consulting engineers performing the practice of engineering for their industrial clients for 50-15=35 states?

We know CA is clearly one of these states but that TX, OH, and OK do NOT extend this practice exemption to the consulting engineer with an industrial client.

What are the other 34 states that allow one to perform engineering for an industrial client without preparing drawings under the responsible charge of a licensed PE (i.e. wet stamped)?

 

[StressGuy]

I would be curious to know more about the history of why things are the way they are in this industry. Really, Texas has been licensing engineers since long before I was even born and people have been designing refining as chemical facilities for as long as well.

This is clearly not a new issue as neither this type of engineering work nor engineering licensing are new things. I would expect that the matter of why we don't stamp anything was debated and resolved back in the days of yore as well. It would be useful to have access to that history.

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]

I was surprised to read in PE Magazine today that Texas formed its engineering board following a natural gas leak and explosion that killed hundreds. The leak was attributed to faulty engineering. According to the bold text in stressguy's post above this is now part of the industrial exemption making the board powerless to influence the very industry that caused them to form. How quickly we forget.

 

[GregLocock]

You are making the assumption that once the nanny state takes over regulating something it will never hand over the regulation to another body, whether real or informal.


To my mind there are three levels of regulation of a design. I'll use vehicle safety as an example.

1) Thou shalt... include seat belts (for example). Or you must use a safety cell with a static crush strength of 20 kN with an intrusion of no more than 55mm (etc etc)

2) You must meet certain standards of outcomes, but the methods by which you achieve those results are up to you. eg crash testing. No more than X points of head injury criterion in a defined event

3) Adam Smith. If you want extra safety you pay for it. If a manufactiurer offers safety for 'free' then that is a competitive advantage.

For safety, by and large, Adam Smith didn't work... and still doesn't. People fit different tires to their cars rather than the ones that were tested. People won't, by and large, pay much extra for VDC.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[stevenal]

Is the opposite assumption any more valid? The special interests looking for the exemption to cover their industry are not looking for re-regulation, they want less.

 

[StressGuy]

I think stevenal is probably talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_School_explosion

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.

 

[bilosellhi]

I understand your situation. Several, the majority of Civil Engineering consulting firms, are so tied to making their bottom line, that placing you as the engineer in charge by you sealing the construction drawings has become the norm.

I am a civil engineer and ex-county engineer that recently took a job in a small town in AZ. I have 18 years experience and was hired, un-beknownced to me, to seal construction plans that were done by engineers-in-training from Iowa, where their main office was. They were using Iowa standards and criteria that did not apply in AZ. I was expected to seal the plans and coordinate with contractors that were bidding the work that involved commercial and industrial developments. I notified the company principals that I would not place my seal on this work until my comments and concerns were addressed. I was fired for this.

I am currently searching for employment and will be notifying the AZ State Board of Technical Registration of what occurred once I become employed and change my registration status.

I urge all of you to turn these people in.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Uh, bilosellhi, if you have a duty to report said alleged miscreants, why do you choose to delay doing so?



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[EddyC]

bilosellhi,

The board will want some kind of tangible proof that rubber stamping is going on. An allegation by a former employee may come across as "sour grapes". If the allegation is accepted and the violators disciplined, you may find your name out there for all prospective employers to see. I really wonder if all these prospective employers will view you in a good light after that.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

I 2nd the motion that you get the job first.