Major shortcomings in Env. & CE exams

[Dleg]

Does anyone else wonder why the following three BIG topics aren't covered at all (apparently) on the PE exam for environmental or civil engineering?

- erosion control

- stormwater quality/BMP design

- onsite wastewater treatment systems

And related to all the above, the USDA soil textural classification system.

I have been beating my head against a wall for 8 years now running a regulatory/permitting program dealing with all of the above, constantly dealing with PEs who don't know how to do the above, and who often wield their license against me in frustration: "Why are you even reviewing my work? I'm a PE!" Even during the workshops for our new "Phase II" stormwater BMP design manuals, which we paid dearly for, many of the PEs here sent only their drafters and such because "Dleg, I've been designing sites for 20-something years. I hardly think I need to attend a site design workshop."

I thought it was just me, I mean, I am only a mechanical engineer by degree, and never had an actual college course on these subjects. Nevermind that I have eaten, lived, and breathed this stuff every day for the past 8 years. But then I finally got accepted by my state to sit for the PE Environmental exam, and I promptly figured out that these topics are not covered at all, as far as I can see, by any of the relevant PE exam subjects or maybe even (?) college classes.

With the NPDES Phase II rule fully kicked in, the first two should be hot topics indeed. The third, onsite wastewater treatment, is in my opinion (and the USEPA's) one of the biggest threats to public health around the country. I mean, who gives a crap if you can prove you know how to calculate some arcane process value for an activated sludge process, if you live in part of the majority of the US that has no sewer service and probably never will. Yet I saw nothing on the subject during my studying, and I rarely run into any engineer who seems to be knowledgable on the subject (though they all hate our out-of-date "prescriptive" on-site design regulations, and want to be exempt from them).

Also: imagine yourself living in a place that depends on tourism for its life blood, and the tourists only come because of the beaches, coral, and crystal clear water. Then imagine that this place is populated by an engineering community who, apparently with good reason, assume that "stormwater control" consists only of computing the correct size of concrete swale necessary to directly convey the runoff to the reef. WTF? No wonder they get pissed off when someone like me steps in and starts requiring change - it wasn't part of the curriculum or the PE, so this guy must be wrong.

Plus, I'm just bummed out because those are my areas of expertise, and it didn't help me at all on the exam!

Anyone else notice this? Are any of these subjects covered under different PE certifications that I'm not aware of? Anyone else been told you were "wrong" on these subjects because someone with a PE said so?

Just curious.

Dleg

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

**** yeah! Dleg, you are definitely a kindred spirit to me.

<Rant mode on>

My firm is doing a job for a new gym at a college in Vermont. Being the licensed environmental on staff, I was put in charge of preparing the stormwater discharge permit and erosion control permit for the project. The last of which I just nailed down today.

This has been a horrible job to start with. The architect acting as the prime and the client have been pushy, rude, and totally lack the understanding that this type of design takes a serious effort to prepare. And it's not like hydrology is an exact science anyway. They basically all think stormwater = catch basin.

I've been to a number of seminars myself. Most of them end up with old timer consultants just bitching and whining about the new rules. Just shut up and read the new regs, if you actually know what you are doing, it will add thousands to your fee. Although I've found potential clients find your proposed stormwater management fee to be outrageous. It takes time to do a full blwon drainage study.

I'm well versed in Phase II from both the stormwater discharge permit and the MS4 angle. The New York State guidance contains pretty much word for word revised ordinances I wrote for a town we were consulting with to comply with the MS4 regs. Stormwater is an exceptionally hot topic these days. If you know HydroCAD and can design a pond, you're a hot commodity.

Regarding on-site WW treatment practices. I too live in a tourist trap. Except they visit here for the foliage, maple syrup, and covered bridges. The vast majority of sites here are on septic. No coverage on the exam whatsoever.

<End rant>

What state are you in DLeg? What kind of stormwater design/erosion control practices are implemented there? Do you have the WQv all the way up to Qp100?

 

[Dleg]

Hey VTenviro,

I'm in the Mariana Islands, of all places. I've been working with contractors out of Mass. now for the past several years on our new stormwater design manuals and regs. Maybe you know them - Horsley & Witten, mainly Rich Claytor. I think he has a house in VT or NH. I can't remember what he told me. Anyway, good guys and very helpful. They've written manuals for other states, I think including the NY state erosion control manual, or at least they like it so much that we link to it (and Oregon's) in our manual rather than repeat the standard stuff. Our manual will be for both Guam and the Northern Marianas, which will make it unique as the only "multistate" standards out there. Or at least, so I have been told. It's probably very similar to yours, considering the link to NY and the east coast.

If by WQv you mean the water quality volume, then we set that at 1.5 inch of precipitation, which we have determined through some research done by the University of Guam to be the "90% rainfall event" meaning that 90% of all precipitation events over a year are less than 1.5 inches. Our rainfall depths are outrageous, so we just set our flood protection criteria to the 25 year - 24 hour storm (Qp-25), which is something like 16 inches. But in many places, because the islands are relatively small and have good relief, you don't have to deal with the flood control or bank erosion criteria because you just bypass straight to the ocean. Only the WQv and Rev (recharge criteria - do you have that?) come into play. (I dread the day I have to hold one of these guys to the downstream analysis requirement for the Qp-25)

Don't tell me about grumpy old consultants who fight what should be their bread and butter. I just don't get it, except that I think some of them are just worried that they can't keep up with the newer guys?

You'd think that it would be easy to "sell" our program out here where the benefits are so obvious, but I guess money always talks loudest. Plus we always have crazy proposals coming around (had one today) where some magic powder from somewhere in Asia can be thrown in the drainage and clean up all our water quality problems. Who wants to build BMPs when you can just do that?

 

[Guest]

Ooohhh .. kindred spirits indeed.

I am a state regulator in Florida - RCRA permitting (operating TSDs and corrective action at hazardous waste sites). I have a broad range of responsibilities. I have even served as an expert witness in administrative court proceedings, one of which pertained to MS-4, Phase II stormwater basin determinations ... :true:

Dleg, I think the answer to your question, in part, stems from the typical curriculm offered in an Environmental Engineering program. I received a BS in Environmental Engineering and as I recall the three most emphasized classes were:

Basic Turd Tumbling

Intermediate Turd Tumbling

Advanced Turd Tumbling

Unless you are able to break away from the old mindset, I don't think you will see much change. '.02'

JR

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

Basic Turd Tumbling

Absolute fucking classic! :rotfl:

And Dleg - you guys get a lotta rain.

Our WQv storm is 0.9", and our Qp100 is only about 6".

Your ponds must take up half the island!

 

[Dleg]

jregieng:

Another regulator! My sympathies! I also do RCRA-D solid waste facilities permitting (we have ONE MSWLF), groundwater stuff, water quality standards/401 certifications, and whatever else they want me to do. We're a very small "state", and for technical staff it's basically me, a marine biologist, and a couple people on loan from EPA (RCRA-C and CERCLA stuff) and USPHS for our drinking water program. I'm really pushing to be allowed to work on haz waste and remediation projects so I can round out my experience.

Thanks for the run-down of what I missed in college by choosing to stay mechie (I tried to change to civil, but the "counselor" I was required to see to do so talked me out of it. What a genious.) Turd tumbling! Classic!

Maybe later I'll post a hilarious picture of the current state of our 3-year old, $12M landfill, and you too can feel sympathy for me.

VTEnviro:

yes, sometimes the ponds are ridiculous, but most of our islands are really permeable limestone, so they sometimes end up smaller than you might think. The biggest challenge is going to be getting these guys to start heeding the pre-treatment standards prior to infiltration, though. I reviewed a plan from a Hawaiian firm the other day that took all the runoff from the parking and vehicle wash-down area of our emergency ops center, and drained it straight into a "true" dry well. They were really doubtfull when I told them that wasn't a good practice, and they should consider a different BMP.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

I tend to like a grass channel or at least a filter strip prior to discharging into my pond. I also always design a forebay into it to prevent resuspension of sediments.

The interesting one we used on our last project is called a "bioretention area". It's essentially a series of plantings that are tolerant of lots of water and being partially submerged at times. The plantings sit on top of a select fill material that drains particularly well. It's essentially an infiltrative practice combined with some phytoremediation. And its good in a tight area.

You are lucky your soils are permeable. Everything here comes up as hydrologic soil group C, with ledge encountered at like 18" and a seasonal groundwater table of 14". Infiltrative practices are generally out.

I'm betting your standards are very similar to ours. It's all federally driven anyway. The nice thing is that NH is still not quite on the ball yet, and all you need to do is attenuate the 25 year storm.

None of these wacky setups with an orifice for water quality, another for the 1-year storm, etc...

 

[Dleg]

Yeah, our manuals contractor was really pushing the bioretention BMPs. The only problem for us the filtering media. We don't have any compost available, nor any suitable site soils - all clays and silts (usually just a veneer over the limestone). Our manufactured sand is all made out of crushed limestone, so it tends to cement up if you use it alone. Our manual contractor was going to be developing a spec for a substitute media using our local materials, but that's one of the final things I am waiting for, and I haven't seen it. He was thinking about some combination of the lime sand, site soils, and maybe just ground up coconut husks or other chipped woody material, though we are aware that is not ideal for planting purposes, and we are trying to encourage composting operations.

Cool stuff, though. If you came in to my office with a design like that, you'd sail right out with a permit.

And yeah, you should have seen the classroom (including me) during the excercize where we designed a retention basin with orifices for each of the different criteria volumes. :wtf: :blink:

I think I'm going to have to figure that one out myself and hold some more mini-workshops.

Dleg.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

I've found that stormwater design is one of those things where it just clicks one day.

Suddenly a light bulb goes on over your head, and it's not that bad anymore.

As for the bioretention stuff, we use a few inches of wood chip mulch (easy to come by in a well forested state) over a sandy, well draining planting soil.

I'm just glad they let us do a physical design, as opposed to having to figure out plant uptake rates!

 

[Guest]

I've found that stormwater design is one of those things where it just clicks one day.
Suddenly a light bulb goes on over your head, and it's not that bad anymore.

Hmmm ...

You need to come to Florida if you have lightbulb clicks about stormwater management. Non-point source stormwater pollution into the Everglades is a little problem we could use a some help on ...

Actually, in Florida every lake is a stormwater collector because of the limited relief in topography. :true: This becomes magnified when you are dealing with a large ecosystem like the Everglades or even smaller "ecotourism" areas that receive waters from urbanized areas.

In my experience, the larger issue doesn't revolve around the stormwater collection/treatment but actually the residuals left behind in the sediment. I have dealt with several hazardous waste sites where the contaminated sediments were a major issue - not a lot of guidance out there for "clean" criteria. It is interesting, to say the least.

Just before the exam, I sat in a contractor pre-qualification meeting for a $10M Lake dredging project. Good stuff. As development grows and there is a NEED to protect resources, the rules (or BMPs) will be updated accordingly. '.02'

Regards,

JR

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

That's the great part about civil site and environmental engineering. It varies geographically a whole lot.

We've got plenty of topography here, but the big issue here in stormwater, erosion control, underground utilities, and site work in general, is winter construction.

We have to file separate erosion control plans for winter and non-winter construction, and all of our sewer and water lines have insulation over the pipe so they don't freeze. We have all sorts of notes about winter, and frost, and heaving, etc.

I may be a complete dork, but when I travel to different areas of the country, I think about stuff like that. Basically, what's the big design challenge here?

 

[Dleg]

I think about that stuff when I travel, too. Mostly I just get envious when I drive around and see "decent" stormwater systems on most sites, and "good" erosion control practices. I sometimes take pictures and bring it back here to show our political-minded permits manager and his inspection staff, sort of to say "hey look at this, I'm not making this stuff up! Other people are doing this around the country!"

 

[Guest]

I sometimes take pictures and bring it back here to show our political-minded permits manager and his inspection staff, sort of to say "hey look at this, I'm not making this stuff up!  Other people are doing this around the country!"

And I thought regulators only took pictures to prove they actually visited sites from time to time. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:jk:

JR

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

I think about that stuff when I travel, too. Mostly I just get envious when I drive around and see "decent" stormwater systems on most sites, and "good" erosion control practices.

Yeah, like when I see a site with that doesn't have ledge at 6", when the plans call for an 8' deep pond. :angry: :hung:

 

[Slugger926]

Does anyone else wonder why the following three BIG topics aren't covered at all (apparently) on the PE exam for environmental or civil engineering?
- erosion control

- stormwater quality/BMP design

- onsite wastewater treatment systems

And related to all the above, the USDA soil textural classification system.

I have been beating my head against a wall for 8 years now running a regulatory/permitting program dealing with all of the above, constantly dealing with PEs who don't know how to do the above, and who often wield their license against me in frustration: "Why are you even reviewing my work? I'm a PE!" Even during the workshops for our new "Phase II" stormwater BMP design manuals, which we paid dearly for, many of the PEs here sent only their drafters and such because "Dleg, I've been designing sites for 20-something years. I hardly think I need to attend a site design workshop."

I thought it was just me, I mean, I am only a mechanical engineer by degree, and never had an actual college course on these subjects. Nevermind that I have eaten, lived, and breathed this stuff every day for the past 8 years. But then I finally got accepted by my state to sit for the PE Environmental exam, and I promptly figured out that these topics are not covered at all, as far as I can see, by any of the relevant PE exam subjects or maybe even (?) college classes.

With the NPDES Phase II rule fully kicked in, the first two should be hot topics indeed. The third, onsite wastewater treatment, is in my opinion (and the USEPA's) one of the biggest threats to public health around the country. I mean, who gives a crap if you can prove you know how to calculate some arcane process value for an activated sludge process, if you live in part of the majority of the US that has no sewer service and probably never will. Yet I saw nothing on the subject during my studying, and I rarely run into any engineer who seems to be knowledgable on the subject (though they all hate our out-of-date "prescriptive" on-site design regulations, and want to be exempt from them).

Also: imagine yourself living in a place that depends on tourism for its life blood, and the tourists only come because of the beaches, coral, and crystal clear water. Then imagine that this place is populated by an engineering community who, apparently with good reason, assume that "stormwater control" consists only of computing the correct size of concrete swale necessary to directly convey the runoff to the reef. WTF? No wonder they get pissed off when someone like me steps in and starts requiring change - it wasn't part of the curriculum or the PE, so this guy must be wrong.

Plus, I'm just bummed out because those are my areas of expertise, and it didn't help me at all on the exam!

Anyone else notice this? Are any of these subjects covered under different PE certifications that I'm not aware of? Anyone else been told you were "wrong" on these subjects because someone with a PE said so?

Just curious.

Dleg

I just ran across this thread looking for a different Saipan thread. Those topics are covered in the Agricultural engineering exam.