# Practice of Engineering



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is acceptable to allow professional geologists to offer opinions, interpretations, etc. for what could be considering engineering calculations/design ??

I have come across this with some colleagues and the spectre has been raised again. I was asked if I could estimate the quantity of sediment that would be removed in a channel dredge project. Before I could answer, a geologist (P.G.) proceeded to tell me how you would calculate said volume. 

I responded by saying, "O' Contraire mon Frere ... geologists can't provide calculations for the volume of sediment removal -- that's practicing engineering without a license." Said geologist was aghast and taken aback - even chastised me a tad.

I responded again by saying, "Look .. I don't need to know how *OLD* the sediment is, I just need to know something about the properties."

So I began asking questions with the following responses:

1. Soil grain size distribution ?? :blink:

2. Atterberg limits ?? :blink:

3. Water content ?? :blink:

4. Chemical characterization ?? :blink:

Hmmmmm ....

The question and exchange I listed above is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I was wondering if anyone else has examples or situations that might be *GRAY AREA* regarding the practice of engineering. Just curious.

JR


----------



## singlespeed (Nov 15, 2006)

Perhaps the geologist spoke out of turn...but was the explanation of the calculation of said volume correct?


----------



## benbo (Nov 15, 2006)

I don't think giving an opinion in a conversation constitutes practicing engineering. Tha janitor can give me his opinion, but it is up to the responsible engineer to decide whether to use it in a design.


----------



## EdinNO (Nov 15, 2006)

Isn't it "*Au* contraire mon frere"? 

I have a dislike for any "profession" or any technical, sales, etc... type person homing in on the engineering profession. I have seen so many people- thechnicians, sales people, technical recruiters, customer service people, etc... with just a tad bit of information all of a sudden think they know something about engineering. Often, they are the same people who have cocky, snide remarks to say about engineers. It irritates the heck out of me.

I don't think the trench calc requires an engineer though, in that context. It may be up to the engineer to make the final decision, though.

Ed


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 15, 2006)

> I don't think giving an opinion in a conversation constitutes practicing engineering. Tha janitor can give me his opinion, but it is up to the responsible engineer to decide whether to use it in a design.


I concur.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> Perhaps the geologist spoke out of turn...but was the explanation of the calculation of said volume correct?


The explanation was - the channel is like a rectangle, so that means V = length * width * height

My response: orly

I asked if there had been a bathymetric survey competed ...

Response: :blink:

Hence the ooey gooey sarcasm.

JR


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> I don't think giving an opinion in a conversation constitutes practicing engineering.  Tha janitor can give me his opinion, but it is up to the responsible engineer to decide whether to use it in a design.


benbo --

Agreed - we can all air opinions as we see fit - short of offering those opinons in the form of a certification. 

I have redacted most of the subject discussion because I wanted to limit this thread to "general" terms. Perhaps what I should have added was that this calculation was being offered in terms of design for a specific sediment dredge project.

I have run into this situation before - I was just curious what others thought.

JR


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 15, 2006)

I took an engineering geology class my last quarter as an elective, thought it would be a cakewalk, that shit was very complicated I literally had to beg for a C to graduate...for the final the Prof. (a PE, PG, and RLS) had worked as a surveyor and engineer for coal mines before teaching.... anyways for the final exam he brought in about 20 types of rocks, and we had to tell him what type they were, if they would be a good foundation material, good for building materials (concrete/asphaly,etc), it was unreal.....

some of those guys might now what they are talking about, some of them might not, I know folks with PE's that dont know shit about design either B)


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> Isn't it "*Au* contraire mon frere"?


That's my southern, redneck vocabulary coming out 

If anything, I was surprised that someone would provide such a hum-drum answer without considering the pertinent design parameters. :angry:

And really, I don't want to beat a dead horse, I was just curious if others had run into similar situations.

JR


----------



## gatormech_e (Nov 15, 2006)

i don't have a holier than thou complex about being an engineer, but it irritates me also. and i think the reason that ppl so casually offer up that opinion is because you can be a 'sanitation engineer', 'domestic engineer' and so on.

the title is thrown around so carelessly...

i don't get to call myself a doctor or lawyer, do i?


----------



## singlespeed (Nov 15, 2006)

I wasn't there and the geologist, from your description, doesn't appear to be competent in the area of interest, but....

An engineering *title *won't make me any more competent. The PE license, if and when I actually earn it, won't make me any more competent either.

*The effort expended to get there will.* And the effort to maintain that competency over the next 10, 15, or 20 years will say something as well.

In short, a title can be deceiving - you never know what hidden talents people may have.

On the other hand, we all run into our share of "idiots" too  And though it is always tempting, I try to resist the urge to embarrass such people in public. You never know who you might end up working for :true:


----------



## benbo (Nov 15, 2006)

We don't want to get overly strict. We just want to follow the rules. By these overly strict rules, anyone still waiting for their test results this December would not be able to give an engineering opinion because it would be "practicing engineering." Additionally, if I happenened to tell a buddy "take vitamin C to avoid colds" I could be accused of practicing medicine without a license. As long as we are clear and honest about our credentials, people can take our opinions with a grain of whatever.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> And though it is always tempting, I try to resist the urge to embarrass such people in public. You never know who you might end up working for :true:


Very good point - I have a REALLY hard time resisting my urges sometimes. :tone:

Good points about competency as well - couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

JR


----------



## MattC (Nov 15, 2006)

Rampant in the environmental field. Geologists were mostly able to grandfather in without passing the 4 hour GRIT and 4 hour PG. Then many states let them sign off on cleanup involving rish based remediation objectives and transport modeling that most are completely unqualified to do.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> Rampant in the environmental field.  Geologists were mostly able to grandfather in without passing the 4 hour GRIT and 4 hour PG.  Then many states let them sign off on cleanup involving rish based remediation objectives and transport modeling that most are completely unqualified to do.


Don't get me started on that !!!!!!!!!!!! ld timer:

Most of my work is reviewing risk-based corrective action workplans, designs, and fate &amp; transport modeling. :+1: I see lots of things of disturbing things h43r: h43r: - never a dull moment with all of the tall tales I get :lie:

But, it's like the guy from EPA told me today - "I like the way you are thinking, but this isn't Burger King :BK: You don't get to have it your way." :true:

Regards,

JR


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2006)

I agree that the environmental field is overrun with people who stray too far into engineering. Even where I am, we have an RG who recently designed and installed a hazardous waste incinerator (EPA order, so we didn't have much say). One of my own lawyers (government) routinely makes engineering decisions during settlements on our cases, which we then have re-negotiate after I point out the fatal engineering/science flaws. Then we have a whole host of "environmental consultants" ranging from a lawyer who runs a hazardous waste shipping company (good consultant, actually), a biologist who does everything (very poorly and _viciously_ mean), and several "local" guys with no qualifications whatsoever than political connections and no aversion to offering bribes.

The environmental engineering field needs to stick up for itself better than it is doing now. We don't even have a professional society, am I correct? (What's the "American Academy of Environmental Engineers" all about?)


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2006)

Oh! I almost forgot to complain about lawyers on the opposing side, trying to argue engineering or science. Real quote from a lawyer who was opposing a proposed revision to our water quality standards, because he felt it would have adverse effects on his client's business (it would prohibit dredging in sensitive areas during the annual coral spawn):

?if there are acceptable levels of fecal chloroform [sic] at our beaches for human recreation, are there not acceptable levels of turbidity for natural materials for coral reproduction??

:rotflmao

_Why can't you young people do something about all that fecal choloform in my water! _ ld timer:

(in my defense, this came from our marine biologist. I do not intend to practice marine biology without a license. Or a PhD. Or whatever those guys have)


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> _Why can't you young people do something about all that fecal choloform in my water! _ ld timer:


Damn ... that sounds like a shitty problem ! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I have a person in my office that calls KMnO4 Potassium Paramangate or purple kool-aid. :rotflmao

Too many jokes, not enough time! :lol2x:

JR


----------



## udpolo15 (Nov 15, 2006)

I don't see what developing risk based ROs or fate and transport modeling have to do with being an environmental engineer. I would say a majority of risk assessors and a fair number of modelers don't have engineering backgrounds

as somone said below, a title is only a title.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

> I don't see what developing risk based ROs or fate and transport modeling have to do with being an environmental engineer.? I would say a majority of risk assessors and a fair number of modelers don't have engineering backgrounds
> as somone said below, a title is only a title.


On those terms I certainly agree. In fact, I happen to be an engineer who really wanted to be a hydrogeolgist that got stuck with engineering. :true: It happens, but I cannot say I have any regrets :thumbsup: I would point out that there are ASTM standards applicable to Risk-Based Corrective Action and my state has promulgated laws and rules that include these standards. :study At some point - someone must certify the design based on said standards. In my state, remedial action plans must be submitted by an independent, registered engineer. Note: Does not say geologist :read:

I will take a step back though, because I did start this thread stating that my comments are tongue-in-cheek but I suppose they border on downright caddy. :lol2x: I hold the same level of concern with work submitted by *ANY* licensed professional. It just turns out, in my experience, the environmental market has a fair share of geologists pushing out work based on their title alone - no statement as to the qualifications for commissioning such work.

I was just searching out to see if others had similar experiences since I am left to wonder from time to time.

Regards,

JR


----------



## McEngr (Nov 16, 2006)

> ...I was just searching out to see if others had similar experiences since I am left to wonder from time to time...


After being baffled with "BS" from the environmental field (I'm structural), I still can't figure out how you haven't passed the PE, JR.

I hope you nailed that puppy. You seem like a cool, intelligent cat. :beerchug

By the way, what does "ORLY" mean?

McEngr


----------



## civilsurvey (Nov 16, 2006)

orly = oh Really? ThaT iS LeEt SpeaCk!


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2006)

> > ...I was just searching out to see if others had similar experiences since I am left to wonder from time to time...?
> 
> 
> After being baffled with "BS" from the environmental field (I'm structural), I still can't figure out how you haven't passed the PE, JR.
> ...


McEngr --

Many thanks for the praise!! 

I think I have paid my dues + interest when it comes to this exam. December will bring the news -- good, bad, or otherwise. I will continue to rayers: in hopes that my preparation this time gave me that +1 point that I need to pass. :+1:

Also -- I didn't know what O RLY was either. Until I looked it up and realized that space was crucial to the phoenetic pronounciation for "O' Really" 

JR


----------



## cement (Nov 16, 2006)

I love that orly almost as much as I love the :???:

but then I'm just a big teddy bear.

Not to get off topic, but there is a PG that I get great advice from on some narly soil problems involving ground nails, tieback anchors and mse walls that are over optimum but our structural guy refuses to give us the right spec! ld timer:

Now this PG has some PEs working for him, but sometimes you get good advice from someone without a license! :true:


----------



## cement (Nov 16, 2006)

> sometimes you get good advice from someone without a license!


which is what i'd tell anyone that would listen to me prior to July 3rd, 2006


----------



## Tark62 (Jul 6, 2007)

jregieng said:


> Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is acceptable to allow professional geologists to offer opinions, interpretations, etc. for what could be considering engineering calculations/design ??
> I have come across this with some colleagues and the spectre has been raised again. I was asked if I could estimate the quantity of sediment that would be removed in a channel dredge project. Before I could answer, a geologist (P.G.) proceeded to tell me how you would calculate said volume.
> 
> I responded by saying, "O' Contraire mon Frere ... geologists can't provide calculations for the volume of sediment removal -- that's practicing engineering without a license." Said geologist was aghast and taken aback - even chastised me a tad.


I realize this is an old thread, but I am new here and thought I might have some insight as a dual-licensed PG/PE.

State laws vary, but in general, PGs have legal authority to evaluate the physical and chemical properties of earth materials, such as soil, rock, or groundwater. In this case, the issue was apparently the volume or mass of sediment in a channel. Volume and mass are physical properties, and sediment is an earth material, so I see no problem if a PG handled that part of the project. Here in California, PGs routinely prepare site assessments which include estimates of volume or mass (e.g. amounts of contaminated soil at an environmental project, or unsuitable fill at a geotechnical project).

Now, if a PG doesn't have an understanding of the engineering properties of soil, then that particular PG might not be well qualified to recognize and address all of the issues associated with this project (e.g. bank volume vs. loose volume). But the same would be true of a PE.

In fact, if you wanted the most accurate possible estimate of the volume of sediment in a channel, then your best choice probably wouldn't be either a PE or a PG. You would probably want a licensed surveyor -- a PLS -- to evaluate the channel. They have legal authority to measure areas and volumes too, and they're really good at it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2007)

Tark62 --

All of your points are spot-on and I appreciate your contribution to comparing/contrasting professional duties for PEs/PGs. I did not include all of the pertinent issues in the orginal thread statement in order to maintain some anonymity for the project. If those details were presented and the context of the response also included, then you would indubitably share my incredulity. :true:

I noticed that you qualified your response of the practice of geology to include materials that were of earthen materials (soil, sediment, rock, water). What if the medium were a waste material - would the P.G. still have standing to certify documents as it related to the treatment and disposal of that material? This is an issue that is often raised and debated to some degree in my little corner of the world.

I again thank you for your responses and would like to extend an invitation to participate on some of the other forums 

Regards,

JR


----------



## Tark62 (Jul 6, 2007)

jregieng said:


> What if the medium were a waste material - would the P.G. still have standing to certify documents as it related to the treatment and disposal of that material?


In California, waste management issues at factories, landfills, municipal water treatment plants, etc. are normally handled by PEs. But if wastes from these operations affected soil or groundwater, then a PG could enter the picture. In California, PGs commonly manage waste soil or wastewater generated during environmental remediation projects.

There are limits to what a PG can do. For example, PGs often oversee all aspects of routine remedial excavations, including confirmatory sampling, treatment or disposal of waste soil, and preparation of closure reports. But if a remedial excavation required a grading or shoring plan, or threatened a neighboring structure, then input from a Civil (or Geotechnical) PE would be required. As another example, PGs often prepare monitoring reports for sites with groundwater treatment systems, including summaries of routine treatment system operation. However, a Civil PE would be needed for the permitting, design, installation, or modification of the treatment system .

Note that California probably empowers PGs to a greater degree than most other states. California has a relatively long history of geologist licensure; geologists were first licensed at the local level in the 1950s, and have been licensed at the state level since about 1970. Also, PGs in California commonly take more exams than the two 4-hour ASBOG FG/PG exams required in most other states. I've taken 16 hours of geology exams in California myself, and it's theoretically possible to take as many as 25 hours for all of the available certifications in general geology, engineering geology, hydrogeology, and geophysics.

California is a geologically active state, and things like mining, oil production, and water supply are all major economic issues. Because of these factors, I suspect that geologists here may have a higher professional profile and status than they do in other states.


----------



## vmi2000 (Jul 10, 2007)

I have had very similiar conversations, currently I work for a local government and we are and have been accepting engineering drawings, plans, and calculations from a Certified Landscape Architect??? Go figure, I questioned it but it really didn't go anywhere internally.


----------

