• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

When is a PE useless?

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.
Click to expand...
Note reference to "abnormal" condition.
...indicating abnormal backups occur.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The author identifies that there is "critical missing" information needed for further evaluation.
 
jar546 said:
Good question. He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, why are you involved in this as an inspector?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I bet your friend would be happy to contract with the engineer to do this for him.
 
jar546 said:
Good question. He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
He stated the system was satisfactory.
Click to expand...
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:
Click to expand...
 
mtlogcabin said:
No he said it was "Unsatisfactory" in the very begining of his report.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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. :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
jar546 said:
Good question. He did not stamp the letter or put his number on it, just his name and PE
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top