• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

When is a PE useless?

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,051
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
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 780View attachment 1493

View attachment 1493

/monthly_2011_02/PEseptic.jpg.8875351ef514300a472209c4fe7b85c8.jpg
 
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.
 
* * * *

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".



* * * *
 
The PE reported what they were able to observe and rendered a professional opinion.
 
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.
 
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! :eek:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

---

It must be nice to be able to foretell the future with certainty.
You said it best George. Hence the problem. ;)
 
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.
 
Top