Engineers Q & A

Colorado.gov

State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors

Engineers Q & A

The following items are excerpts from the minutes of the Colorado Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors. They are provided in this format to afford a central and simple location to search for the Board's position on various engineering topics and are intended to be informative. The circumstances are specific to the particular engineering situation that the Board reviewed and care should be taken in extrapolating the position of the Board for other conditions. NOTE: A full copy of the Board's minutes can be found on this web page.

To search on a particular engineering subject, click on the "Edit" drop down list on the tile bar, then click on "Find", and type in the word(s) you are looking for. Try to use a word(s) that would be specific to the subject matter you are looking for, i.e., forensic, responsible charge.

Date:	January 13, 2012
Subject:	Board Opinion - SPCC Plan Self-Certification's Impact on Engineering
Board Action:	The Board reviewed a fact sheet recently released by the EPA concerning whether or not the preparation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans require a PE to be in responsible charge. After discussion, the Board provided guidance and directed Staff to prepare the following statement as representative of its position: The Board reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fact Sheet concerning streamlined requirements for Tier I and II qualified facilities and the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule to determine if Colorado would require a PE to certify SPCC Plans. A PE may or may not be required depending on special circumstances that may be involved and/or if there are duties that fall into the definition of the practice of engineering – see 12-25-102(10)(a), C.R.S. and Board Rule 2.2. For example, the larger functions of analysis and evaluation may require a PE, whereas general inspections and observation could be handled by trained individuals.

Date Received:	March 18, 2011
Subject:	Request for Board Opinion – CDOT & Stormwater Management Plans
Board Action:	The following representatives from the Colorado Department of Transportation appeared before the AES Board on April 8, 2011 for clarification on engineering drawings and engineering certifications as they relate to Stormwater Management plans (SWMPs): Scott McDaniel, P.E., and Director of Staff Services, Tony Gross, Resident Engineer, Neil Lacey, P.E., Resource for Construction Design, and Susie Smith, Landscape Architect. They had two questions essentially. The Board responded to the CDOT representatives as follows: Do stormwater management plans (SWMPs) and Erosion/Sediment Control plans that do not contain engineering information or engineering features have to be signed and sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer? No. The Board does not consider this the practice of engineering and therefore the plans do not require the signature and seal of a P.E. Grading and erosion control plans are considered the practice of engineering, however, and common sense should be exercised. For example, if excavation is required next to a bridge footer for the SWMP for some reason, engineering would be required. Can a licensed P.E. sign the Colorado Department of Health and Environment Stormwater Construction Permit as a part of their duty without being in conflict with Board Rule 5.2.2 Certification Defined? Yes. Because the SWMP is not the practice of engineering, the permit does not have to be signed and sealed and is not an engineering certification as defined by Board Rule. Therefore, it is not a conflict for a licensed P.E. to sign the permit and not be in direct responsible charge of the preparation of the SWMP.

Date Received:	September 11, 2008
Subject:	Request for Board Opinion – Regional Transportation District (RTD)
Board Action:	The Board reviewed RTD’s request to use half-size electronic seals and signatures on its FasTracks West Corridor Light Rail Transit project. It was the opinion of the Board that the sealing specifications outlined in Board Rule 5.1.1 indicate that whether the seal is of the crimp type, rubber stamp type, and/or computer-generated type (electronic), the seal shall be of the design and size outlined in the rule, therefore, any plans generated for approval must contain a full size seal.

Subject:	Report of Investigation
Board Action:	The Board reviewed the Report of Investigation submitted by the Office of Investigations regarding an inquiry into a possible license law violation. Sandra Scanlon moved to dismiss this case. However, she further moved that it is the Board’s position that although in-channel improvement is a developing field, the basic theories and principles of engineering apply. Therefore, projects in the future, such as the one at issue in this case, should involve the considerations listed below. The plans, specifications, and calculations should contain the following: Existing or proposed topography. Exact dimensions and proposed elevations/distances for any of the improvements. Methods of water control and erosion control during construction or any type of construction phasing. The plan view for improvements should have dimensions for any improvements, and horizontal control, ties to any landmarks, property lines, or to something. Calculations should contain the following: Structure calculations. Stability analysis. Seepage analysis. Backwater calculations. Analysis of sequent depths and hydraulic jump movement tendencies for smaller or larger flows. Calculations for smaller or larger flows other than the design flow. The technical specifications should include the following: Stability analysis. Backfill. Water control. Erosion control Un-grouted rock/riprap or landscaping (even though the construction of the project requires all of these). Some of the above should be required for the development of contract documents for projects. Material specifications for the earthwork should be provided and provisions made for quality control (testing). The basis for filing for a water right of, for example, 1800-cfs, should not be arbitrary. Computations should be done to justify this number. Billy Harris seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
Date Received:	April 6, 2007
Subject:	Request for Board Opinion – Calvin D. Miller, PE #39929
Board Action:	The Board reviewed a request for opinion regarding rules for sealing technical reports that were authored by a PE. It was the consensus of the Board to direct Mr. Miller to refer to Board Rule 5.1.2(d) and 5.1.5 and inform him that any reports based upon engineering calculations and principles do need to be signed by someone in responsible charge.

Date Received:	March 2, 2007
Subject:	Request for Board Opinion on the Responsibility of an Engineer of Record – Daniel E. Centa, PE #22604
Board Action:	The Board reviewed a request for Board opinion on whether it is appropriate for an Engineer of Record to make revisions to the record drawings to correct errors and make adjustments to account for existing field conditions. It was the consensus of the Board that this is a contractual issue and should be laid out in the expectations. The City can’t require an original engineer to make modifications; only that a licensed engineer makes the required modifications.

Subject:	Discussion About Quality of Submittals to Public Agencies
Board Action:	The Board reviewed and discussed the quality of professionals’ submittals to public agencies and whether the AES Board should attempt to require a higher level of submittal. It was the consensus of the Board that if the plans, calculations or specs are stamped and signed by the licensee, they shall meet the standard of care applicable for their intended use. Documents falling under the scope of Rule 5.1.4 C.R.S. shall be appropriately identified and qualified and shall meet the standard of care intended for their use.

Date Received:	December 12, 2006
Subject:	Request for Board Opinion on Non-Engineer Verifying Engineering Work - Anonymous
Board Action:	The Board reviewed a request for Board opinion on whether it is appropriate for an engineer to allow his/her work to be verified by a non-engineer. Peter Monroe moved to state that there was not enough information provided to make a determination and the information submitted was out of context. Sandra Scanlon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Date Received:	October 24, 2006
Subject:	Bob Ward, Chief Building Official, City of Lamar
Board Action:	The Board reviewed an e-mail from Mr. Ward requesting a Board opinion on statute 12-25-303, C.R.S., as it relates to home rule cities. Board Council, John Roberts, reviewed the request and provided his informal opinion. It was the consensus of the Board to provide Mr. Ward with the memorandum written by the Mr. Roberts addressing his question. (Click here to view the document)

Date Received:	September 29, 2006
Subject:	Request for Board Opinion on the Responsibility of an Engineer of Record - Daniel E. Centa, PE #22604
Board Action:	The Board reviewed documentation requesting whether it is appropriate for an engineer to stamp and sign a drawing, then issue a letter to release himself of the responsibility for the drawings he stamped. Billy Harris moved to state that an engineer cannot release responsibility for drawings that he/she sealed and signed. However, he/she can state that he/she is not responsible for future changes or modifications after he/she seals and signs the drawings. Sandra Scanlon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Date Received:	July 13, 2006
Subject:	Discussion of NCEES Proposed Changes to the Model Law - Richard G. Weingardt, PE #5606
Board Action:	The Board considered Mr. Weingardt’s presentation in support of NCEES’ proposed changes to the Model Law regarding the requirement of an additional 30 credit hours in upper-level, undergraduate, coursework in engineering before allowing an applicant to take the Principles and Practices of Engineering exam. It was the consensus of the Board to support this proposed change to the Model Law and requested that the Board Members attending the National NCEES meeting vote accordingly on the Board’s behalf.

Subject:	Request for Reconsideration Regarding Designing and Signing of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans – David H. Ward, Executive Director, Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC)
Board Action:	Mr. Ward, CPESC Executive Director, spoke to the Board about CPESC’s certification program and structure. It was the consensus of the Board to reaffirm its position that any work that is considered engineering must be done by a licensed Professional Engineer. However, the Board does encourage individuals in this field to seek supplemental certification in Erosion and Sediment control.