# When is a PE useless?



## jar546 (Feb 11, 2011)

Here is an example of what transpired during a septic inspection of an existing system for a vacant home that is not getting routine use and flow.



> Last week, I diaqnosed a Septic system to be ‘Unsatisfactory’ due to it’s inability to maintain functional flow to the Absorption field. I substantiated my conclusion with the following observations being noted in my report: The house was built in 1989 and the Septic system, conveyed to current Seller/Owner as being original by prior owner, has had a long service life. Design criteria, records and advanced technologies did not exist during the time of installation. Current Seller has no knowledge of prior owner pumping history and only stated that pumping was performed at the time of sale, 5 years ago. A Septic inspection was not performed at the time of purchase, 5 years ago. The house is a single story ranch with 3 bedrooms on the main level and a currently finished basement with foundation 60% above grade. Listing indicates the home has 3 bedrooms, however, one of the finished rooms in the basement has a full bedroom set with closet. The Septic tank is a 1000 gallon tank which can only serve a 3 bedroom home. The Septic tank was opened for initial assessment and appeared to have a normal operating level at the invert of the outlet pipe. Prior to hydraulic load testing, using an inspection mirror, solid waste material was observed resting on top of internal tank components (inlet/outlet baffles), which is an indicator that abnormally high solids/wastewater levels have occurred at times. This is commonly due to runback from the absorption field. A dark black organic waste film was observed around the edge of the tank manhole cover indicating abnormal backups occur. The Septic tank solids (scum & sludge layers) were measured and found to be negligible. The tank does not need pumping at this time.   A sewage grinder pump basin is installed sub-slab to service the bathroom in the basement which transfers waste slurry to the higher elevation of the building sewer pipe exiting the foundation. No additional system design provisions (ie., effluent filter or dual compartment tank) were observed to accommodate the burdensome waste stream of ground solids. The water flow rate was measured at 5 gpm. A Hydraulic water load test was terminated after 25 min. (125 gals.) due to the abnormally high wastewater level rising to the top of the tank manhole opening. A minimum design capacity of an absorption field for a 3 bedroom is approximately 350 gals. with a peak flow capacity well above that amount (ie., accommodate a large group gathering). There was 1 ½ feet of snow cover in the rear yard location. Four spots were shoveled to grade in the presumed absorption field area and 2 ½ foot probe holes were established as observation points. No confirmation was made that the field was in this area as there was no evidence of crushed stone at any probe sights. The location and size and condition of the field is a critical missing item needing further identification and evaluation. This requires electronic detection and invasive excavation to evaluate distribution boxes, piping, aggregate and soil for contamination or excessive organic loading.


Rather than getting a qualified septic contractor to determine the actual problem causing this backup, an "engineer" was hired.  This is an excerpt from his report:
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 780
View attachment 1493


View attachment 1493


/monthly_2011_02/PEseptic.jpg.8875351ef514300a472209c4fe7b85c8.jpg


----------



## rshuey (Feb 11, 2011)

wow. Hope that was free advice.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 11, 2011)

No, it was not.  I think my point here is that although a professional septic inspector who is also a certified SEO with the state made an educated decision based on standards and experience, there are still those out there who are clueless but sell themselves based on their title, even though they don't deliver the goods.

An option for the buyer is to purchase the home then file suit against the PE when the septic fails within the 1st week of occupancy.


----------



## north star (Feb 11, 2011)

** * * ** 

The term "caveat emptor" is becoming the routine, for everyone, ...about everything!



Perfoming due diligence on just about everything is becoming more and more critical.

IMO, it is less expensive to perform the due diligence "BEFORE", rather than to hire

a  %@*&^%$~  attorney to process something "AFTER".



** * * **


----------



## brudgers (Feb 11, 2011)

The PE reported what they were able to observe and rendered a professional opinion.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 11, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The PE reported what they were able to observe and rendered a professional opinion.


I don't buy it.  One of my good friends did the initial inspection and was scheduled to be there when the engineer was there so he can go over his findings.  The engineer got there, looked inside the now empty tank (useless) and said that he had to go because his wife had an appointment.  There was not inspection, just an observation on a system that is not being used with no water flow.  This is like a mechanic telling you your car is fine just by looking at it sitting in the parking lot and not moving.

My issue is that the PE after someone's name has clout and people should expect a higher level of investigation, inspection and methodology for reporting on a problem.  This was in my opinion, a scam and unprofessional.


----------



## Mule (Feb 11, 2011)

You've got your good ones and bad ones in every profession. This one appears to be on the not so good side......OR he had reason to be in a hurry! His wife might have been planning on getting pregnant and he wanted to be there!


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 11, 2011)

Yeah - that is pretty weak.  I know the limitations of my expertise.  As a consulting office, we do not do much actual measurement and testing.  When I do a Due Dilligence report, I either make sure everone knows I am doing mostly visual observations (although I do a lot of crawl space crawling and ceiling space seeing), or I hire the proper contractors such as a balancing contractor to actually measure system performance.  My engineering expertise is used to analyse all the data gathered and provide a professional judgment.


----------



## FredK (Feb 11, 2011)

Big deal.

Got a bar/restaurant on a 750 gal system over here.  Their engineer said they were only using less than 200 gallons a day by her calculations.  Of course they couldn't add a dishwasher and were supposed to be serving on paper plates.  Still waiting for the county to place a stop to it since they are in charge of septic designs/permits.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I don't buy it.  One of my good friends did the initial inspection and was scheduled to be there when the engineer was there so he can go over his findings.  The engineer got there, looked inside the now empty tank (useless) and said that he had to go because his wife had an appointment.  There was not inspection, just an observation on a system that is not being used with no water flow.  This is like a mechanic telling you your car is fine just by looking at it sitting in the parking lot and not moving.My issue is that the PE after someone's name has clout and people should expect a higher level of investigation, inspection and methodology for reporting on a problem.  This was in my opinion, a scam and unprofessional.


You don't know what the PE was hired to do - and I suspect that whoever hired him did not want to pay for all the things you think he ought to have done.

The PE basically said it looked like it was performing normally based on what he saw. He wasn't contracted to review the results of your friend's measurements.

Your friend speculated that an inspection wasn't done five years ago, a PE shouldn't do that. Your friend stands to turn the inspection into a construction project, a PE shouldn't do that either.

And it is unsurprising that your friend's findings suggest substantial work.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 12, 2011)

OK we will agree to disagree.  BTW, he was suppose to meet with the inspector to review findings but what we have here is a real estate agent who knows they can buy a report to save a sale.  Happens all the time.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> OK we will agree to disagree.  BTW, he was suppose to meet with the inspector to review findings but what we have here is a real estate agent who knows they can buy a report to save a sale.  Happens all the time.


Yep, if the buyer was really concerned they should have paid the engineer.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 12, 2011)

The seller paid the engineer to discount the inspector's report so the house can be sold.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> The seller paid the engineer to discount the inspector's report so the house can be sold.


The buyer probably wrote the offer based on the seller having an engineer evaluate the system - I did the same thing for a beam on the advice of my realtor when I bought my first house.

Engineer said, "Yep it's a beam and it is currently holding up the load which is imposed upon it, but that doesn't mean it will continue to hold the load up forever or even for a shorter time than that."

In your case the buyer should have required an engineer to evaluate the system for the purpose of accurately  estimating the remaining service life. That's different than the point in time observation that the Realtor suggested.

Keep in mind, that all Realtors work for the seller unless you specifically have a buyer's agent agreement.


----------



## jpranch (Feb 13, 2011)

Most of the engineers I work with really do a good job, have a conscience, and only work within their field of expertize. But rightfully so they only work to the extent of the clients contract. Architects are the same. Now having said that, I have 2 engineers that will sell their seals (and souls) for a klondike bar!


----------



## TimNY (Feb 13, 2011)

I think by having a license you are held to a higher ethical standard, which is to say the report should have indicate problems that were observed (if they were observed), even if they were not "ion the scope of his work", or the report should have ended with "Please note this report should not be used for determining the actual compliance of the sanitary system, as the undersigned did not attempt the inspections or testing necessary to make that determination"

In other words... don't mislead somebody with your stamp..  jmho


----------



## brudgers (Feb 13, 2011)

TimNY said:
			
		

> I think by having a license you are held to a higher ethical standard, which is to say the report should have indicate problems that were observed (if they were observed), even if they were not "ion the scope of his work", or the report should have ended with "Please note this report should not be used for determining the actual compliance of the sanitary system, as the undersigned did not attempt the inspections or testing necessary to make that determination"In other words... don't mislead somebody with your stamp..  jmho


The engineer did not observe any problems and that's what his report said.

The contractor found a number of _potential_ problems and recommended expensive fixes.

Which one has the ethical issue?


----------



## TimNY (Feb 13, 2011)

Water rising to the cover does not seem like a _potential_ problem.  Solids rising to the cover does not seem like a _potential_ problem.

The findings in the inspectors report indicate he is trained to perform the inspection and the findings seems reasonable.

I think the PE was either a) not qualified to perform the inspection or  b) failed to perform a proper inspection because of his financial arrangement or c) performed a proper inspection and failed to disclose the details.  You can think otherwise.

Perhaps I'm jaded because around here every PE that designs steel beams thinks he can do hydraulic calculations on a fire sprinkler system.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2011)

BTW, it is a PE from NY State.


----------



## jpranch (Feb 13, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The engineer did not observe any problems and that's what his report said.The contractor found a number of _potential_ problems and recommended expensive fixes.
> 
> *Which one has the ethical issue?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> The one who is self serving for financial gain.


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 13, 2011)

I agree with brudgers. It seems the engineer did what he was asked to do.

As for the buyer or seller paying for an engineer and getting the results they want ...

I have knowledge of professional engineers who spend all day doing a pre-purchase inspection and write a 40 page report. The reports state the obvious - the buildings were standing at the time. And are vague about the future - the engineers have no knowledge of what will happen in the future.

---

It must be nice to be able to foretell the future with certainty.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I agree with brudgers. It seems the engineer did what he was asked to do.As for the buyer or seller paying for an engineer and getting the results they want ...
> 
> I have knowledge of professional engineers who spend all day doing a pre-purchase inspection and write a 40 page report. The reports state the obvious - the buildings were standing at the time. And are vague about the future - the *engineers have no knowledge* of what will happen in the future.
> 
> ...


You said it best George.  Hence the problem.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Feb 13, 2011)

If I had knowledge of what will happen in the future I could make a much better living than I can as an architect & engineer!

Fortunately, here in Virginia the health dept. has kept good records of septic tank systems for several decades, and has very conservative criteria for sizing septic tanks and drainfields.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 13, 2011)

jpranch said:
			
		

> The one who is self serving for financial gain.


Jeff is paid to be out there, too.


----------



## TimNY (Feb 14, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> BTW, it is a PE from NY State.



View attachment 784

	

		
			
		

		
	
I think that says it all...
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 378


View attachment 378


/monthly_2011_02/homer-doh-square.jpg.e27883eeb4136beda5b3162a4a01d675.jpg


----------



## brudgers (Feb 14, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> BTW, it is a PE from NY State.


Licensed in your jurisdiction?


----------



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2011)

Good question.  He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 14, 2011)

It seems as though people are reading this report and thinking the author gave a passing grade; I don't see it that way.



> ...an indicator that abnormally high solids/wastewater levels have occurred at times.


Note reference to "abnormal" condition.





> ...indicating abnormal backups occur.


Again, note reference to "abnormal" condition.





> The water flow rate was measured at 5 gpm. A Hydraulic water load test was terminated after 25 min. (125 gals.) due to the abnormally high wastewater level rising to the top of the tank manhole opening. A minimum design capacity of an absorption field for a 3 bedroom is approximately 350 gals. with a peak flow capacity well above that amount


Note test flow was less than half of peak design capacity.





> The location and size and condition of the field is a critical missing item needing further identification and evaluation.


The author identifies that there is "critical missing" information needed for further evaluation.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 14, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Good question.  He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE


Just out of curiosity, why are you involved in this as an inspector?


----------



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2011)

I am not involved in this one.  My good friend is the original inspector who deemed the system unsatifactory and stated that further evaluation is needed to find the exact cause of this condition.  He is frustrated over the situation and wanted me to review the situation.  We both agree the engineer in this case was useless and my friend's recommendation for further evaluation was ignored.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 14, 2011)

AegisFPE said:
			
		

> It seems as though people are reading this report and thinking the author gave a passing grade; I don't see it that way.Note reference to "abnormal" condition.Again, note reference to "abnormal" condition.Note test flow was less than half of peak design capacity.The author identifies that there is "critical missing" information needed for further evaluation.


Agree by reading the report I would say the problem is in the drainfield and further evaluation would have to be conducted on the drainfield. The PE did is job.



> The location and size and condition of the field is a critical missing item needing further identification and evaluation. This requires electronic detection and invasive excavation to evaluate distribution boxes, piping, aggregate and soil for contamination or excessive organic loading.


 I bet your friend would be happy to contract with the engineer to do this for him.


----------



## Phil (Feb 14, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Good question.  He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE


Most State's allow you to look up professional licenses online - But I don't know about Dunder Miffin. Also, some states require engineering reports to be sealed.


----------



## TimNY (Feb 15, 2011)

Check license status here: http://www.op.nysed.gov/opsearches.htm

Check disciplinary actions here: http://www.op.nysed.gov/opd/rasearch.htm


----------



## Yankee (Feb 15, 2011)

I think the report is ok. One needs to know how to read them (or read between the lines) as AegisFPE points out. That's just an engineer wording thing.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 15, 2011)

Note:  This thread was not about how bad PEs are because we need them and I know a lot of great ones.  My intent in this was to show that, at least in this case, more stock is put into a report by a PE even though it is substandard and not as detailed or useful as the original inspection performed by a septic specialists.  In this case, the seller's agent is using a PE to discount the detailed report of the septic specialists to "trump" the report which shows obvious defects.  Rather than perform a detailed assessment of the situation, he made general comments based on a minimal observation of a system that is currently not in use.

Let's look at the facts:

1) _The PE states that "At the time of inspection, the septic tank was being pumped"_  First of all, the tank should have been pumped after the inspection, otherwise, you have no idea what the actual level is as it is being pumped as you first look at it.  Second, it is a vacant home that does not have any flow so how can you determine the actual operating level of the tank when there has been no flow to it?

2) _The PE states that he could not see the interior of the tank because of the depth of the access port below grade.  _Once again, this is BS because the pumper is pumping through the inlet inspection port rather than the septic tank lid.  You cannot see the interior of a tank until you remove the large lid.  The inlet inspection port should not be used for pumping.  The only purpose is to check for flow into the tank and observe the operating level.  He is too lazy to dig up or remove the lid.  This is another useless observation.

3) _The PE then states that there was no snow melt over the absorption area which would have indicated that the system was not functioning properly.  _Wow, what a genius except for the fact this is a vacant home and there is no flow, therefore there will be no snow melt.  It takes routine full time use of a system to get some snow melt and that does not always happen as often the absorption area gets backed up but does not break out to the surface.  This still causes the tank to back up and solids flow over the top of the baffles which allow solids to go to the absorption area and clog the holes in the pipes and the aggregate.

4) _The PE then concludes that the system is operating satisfactory.  _Again, how can that be when the tank was being pumped and there has been no water flow?  He then goes on to throw in all of those statements about no guarantees for this system.

In this instance, the seller's agent uses this to combat the legitimate inspection which then forces the buyer to purchase the home since the PE report trumps the septic inspector's report.  In my opinion, this PE is simply selling his title like a whore in a dark alley with no regard for the outcome.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 15, 2011)

PE comes out to the site, the tank is being pumped, the large lid is on, and there is snow over the field.

That's what his report says.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 15, 2011)

He stated the system was satisfactory.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 15, 2011)

> He stated the system was satisfactory.


No he said it was "Unsatisfactory" in the very begining of his report.



> Last week, I diaqnosed a Septic system to be ‘Unsatisfactory’ due to it’s inability to maintain functional flow to the Absorption field. I substantiated my conclusion with the following observations being noted in my report:


----------



## jar546 (Feb 15, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> No he said it was "Unsatisfactory" in the very begining of his report.


I think you are confused.  That language is from the inspector's report.

The language stating that it is satisfactory is in the PE's report which was a link provided on the original post.


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 15, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I think you are confused.


You're right, I was!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 15, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I think you are confused. That language is from the inspector's report.The language stating that it is satisfactory is in the PE's report which was a link provided on the original post.


Thanks for the clarification. :agree The Septic contractors report is more thorough and professional than the engineers. Tell him to be careful he might be charged with praticing engineering without a liscense. No wait the septic contractor was factual the engineer is the one who had no clue and was praticing writing a septic inspection report.


----------



## Phil (Feb 15, 2011)

Since the sewer contractor's report was written before the engineer's, I think it would br reasonable to ask the engineer to respond to the contractor's report. As it stands, the engineer did not dispute any of the contractor's findings.

In most cases, the engineer needs to be registered (licensed) in the state where the property is located. Since Jar mentioned that the engineer is from New York, I assume the property is not in New York. If the property is in Pennsylvania, the engineer should be registered in Pennsylvania. There are some exceptions for things like federal property.


----------



## jpranch (Feb 15, 2011)

I have been thinking about the thread topic. " When is a PE useless"? Well... I can tell you through experience that it is useless when the "PE" is dead cold and in the ground and his son is using his fathers seal. Seen this 3 times over many years.


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 6, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Good question.  He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE


I don't put stamps on my work. I don't put my number on my work.

My name always appears just below my signature. That is enough to make my insurer happy.

---

Jar you are unhappy with the professionals work. But you are not the one paying for it. You have no standing. No reason to demand better of the fellow.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 7, 2011)

> I don't put my number on my work.


Without a number I can't verify you are liscensed to pratice engineering in my state.. So your name and signature on your work is just that a name and a signature.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I don't put stamps on my work. I don't put my number on my work.My name always appears just below my signature. That is enough to make my insurer happy.
> 
> ---
> 
> Jar you are unhappy with the professionals work. But you are not the one paying for it. You have no standing. No reason to demand better of the fellow.


I'm curious what states allow the practice of engineering, and the preparation of construction documents without a seal. In what states are you licensed to practice, GH Roberts?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I'm curious what states allow the practice of engineering, and the preparation of construction documents without a seal. In what states are you licensed to practice, GH Roberts?


The letter regarding the septic system was not a construction document. Commonly a seal is only required on documents filed for public record - though state law varies.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2011)

Note that my post responded to the contention by GH Roberts : "I don't put stamps on my work, I don't put my number on my work".

Note also that before the words "and construction documents" were the words "practice of engineering".

And yes, states vary. That's why I asked the question.

Lastly, Ch 37 of the Pennsylvania Code requires final documents prepared for a client to be sealed. Reports are included in the definition of documents.


----------



## peach (Mar 7, 2011)

my experience.. usually always..


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 7, 2011)

See, and I thought this was going to be about how *P*hysical *E*ducation wasn't any good.


----------



## beach (Mar 7, 2011)

When they are still breathing?


----------



## TimNY (Mar 7, 2011)

Not that I don't trust insurance companies or anything.. But I can foresee that in the event of a claim the insurance company will state that since you did not use the stamp nor the number it was a personal opinion; you were not acting in a capacity of a licensed professional; your professional liability policy will not cover the problem.

But, not all insurance companies are evil.  I think.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2011)

TimNY said:
			
		

> Not that I don't trust insurance companies or anything.. But I can foresee that in the event of a claim the insurance company will state that since you did not use the stamp nor the number it was a personal opinion; you were not acting in a capacity of a licensed professional; your professional liability policy will not cover the problem.But, not all insurance companies are evil.  I think.


My guess is that not using one's seal increases one's liability exposure because it can be construed as knowing one did not use the proper standard of care.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> My guess is that not using one's seal increases one's liability exposure because it can be construed as knowing one did not use the proper standard of care.


That makes sense to me


----------



## north star (Mar 9, 2011)

*& & & &*



> *But, not all insurance companies are evil. I think.* :smile:


Please submit the name of one that is not.One of the current or former Forum members had an excellent "tag line"...

*"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away!"*

*& & & &*


----------



## Mark K (Mar 10, 2011)

In California and I believe most states a professional engineer needs to stamp and sign all engineering reports.  The report on the septic tank appears to be an engineering report thus the lack of a stamp and signature would constitute a violation of state licensing law.


----------

