Jump to content



Featured Articles

Check out the latest featured articles.

File Library

Check out the latest downloads available in the File Library.

New Article

Product Viscosity vs. Shear

Featured File

Vertical Tank Selection

New Blog Entry

Gas Turbine Re-Ratings- posted in Ankur's blog

4

Pe Stamping P&ids


17 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
| More

#1 rpack

rpack

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 01:22 PM

Can you please direct me to the source of the legal requirement to PE stamp P&IDs in Texas?

 

Also, if stamping is required, what engineer/discipline is required to PE stamp the P&IDs? Please direct me to the legal source for this requirement.

 

Thanks.



#2 Bobby Strain

Bobby Strain

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 02:51 PM

I've never seen a PE stamp on any P&ID in Texas. Or anywhere else. Such stamps are usually required only on civil and structural designs. For pressure vessels, an ASME Code Stamp on pressure vessel is not required in Texas either. But only a fool would not provide one.

 

Bobby



#3 Pilesar

Pilesar

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 488 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 04:44 PM

In Texas, documents developed by company employees for company purposes have different requirements than if the same documents are prepared outside the company.

 

See https://engineers.te...R46response.pdf

 

"If a full‐time employee of a petrochemical company, including piping or process engineers, works exclusively on  that company’s property or products and meets the other conditions in § 1001.057, he or she could create any  of the six listed documents without a license.  If the company hired an outside entity or consultant, the  exemption would not be applicable and any of those documents that constitute engineering, would be required  to be done by a licensed Texas Professional Engineer."



#4 Art Montemayor

Art Montemayor

    Gold Member

  • Admin
  • 5,571 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 04:46 PM

E.I. DuPont Chemicals demanded a PE stamp on all P&IDs generated by my project team when I worked on their projects.  I was a registered PE at that time and usually did the stamping.  Other engineers - some mechanical and most chemical - working on other projects did the same.  This took place on projects in Texas.  This was not a legal requirement in the 1990s, but rather a client demand.

 

I don't know if this is now a Texas legal requirement, but you can check with the State Board to find out if this is a legal requirement.



#5 rpack

rpack

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 10 June 2018 - 10:57 AM

Thank you, all, for your insights. For some reason, I heard that all engineering (i work for an E&C company) deliverables need to be PE stamped. Perhaps I am wrong. I was tryin to find this in legal writing for either way.



#6 Pilesar

Pilesar

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 488 posts

Posted 10 June 2018 - 01:44 PM

Perhaps the person you heard that from actually read the same reference I gave in my response.

This is a clarification provided last month by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers.

I will link to it again: https://engineers.te...R46response.pdf

All chemical engineers in Texas should become familiar with this.

The requirement specifically covers:

1. Process and Instrument Diagrams 

2. Line List 

3. Piping Material Specifications 

4. Piping Stress Analysis Specification 

5. Pipe Stress Analysis Reports 

6. Piping Isometric Drawings 



#7 rpack

rpack

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:46 AM

I did read that in a recent email from the Texas PE board. That is what prompted my question. The Board response wasn't detailed enough to answer my question about P&IDs specifically. P&IDs are developed by multiple disciplines of engineers. Does that mean that all disciplines need to stamp each P&ID page? I personally have never seen any P&IDs stamped, much less by multiple engineers.



#8 Pilesar

Pilesar

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 488 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 10:33 AM

Although an engineer in Texas chooses a branch of engineering when qualifying for PE license, there is no artificial restriction attached to a particular branch. For example, an engineer who became a PE by taking the chemical engineering exams is a Texas Licensed Professional Engineer the same as an engineer who became a PE by taking the electrical engineering exams. A PE is responsible for his work and should not undertake any work where he is not competent. But even though I am a chemical engineer, I am not limited to stamping only chemical engineering work. If I were trained in bridge building, I would be able to stamp plans for a bridge if I were responsible for that work. I would not need any additional permission from the licensing board.

  I thought the Texas PE board's response was clear and specifically referenced P&IDs in their memo whether or not I agree with it. The details remain troublesome. For example, do P&IDs need stamping when Issued for Approval? when Issued for Design? when Issued for Construction? Each of these issues may be deliverables to the client. 

  Thanks for continuing this thread. I am hoping Texas engineers in this forum notice the new legal obligation and discuss it. The Texas PE board has changed its rules in the past and this one may impact many.

  More than one PE stamp on a document would not be legally necessary. The responsible engineer would stamp it. In my work flow, the process engineer owns the P&ID and it should not be issued without his approval. Other disciplines contribute to it, but I am the responsible engineer and sign off on it.

  I think the Texas board was aware of past practice and they tolerated it. After someone made an official query about this, they were forced to deal with it. Consistency requires them to consider engineering deliverables as products of engineering. Who can argue with that?


Edited by Pilesar, 13 June 2018 - 10:35 AM.


#9 Pilesar

Pilesar

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 488 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:01 AM

Historically, the industry interpretation was 'this plant is not accessible to the general public, therefore no PE stamp is needed.' The recent response specifically says 'If the company hired an outside entity or consultant, the exemption would not be applicable and any of those documents that constitute engineering, would be required  to be done by a licensed Texas Professional Engineer.' 

  I think the board will need to further clarify this response.



#10 Bobby Strain

Bobby Strain

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 01:32 PM

Well, I practiced process engineering for more than 40 years, over half with E&C companies. And executed projects around the world. Never had to stamp anything. And I never registered as a PE in Texas or elsewhere. PE license is pushed to chemical engineers who never use it. The registration is promoted by entities who make money with training and other stuff. Unlike civil and structural engineers, there is no reason for a Chemical Engineer to obtain a license. Art will probably take exception to my view. If you poll ChEs who are registered in Texas, you will find few who were ever required to stamp anything. Of course, I'm no longer practicing, so whatever changes are made by the board have no impact on me. I still do consulting from time to time.

 

Bobby



#11 Art Montemayor

Art Montemayor

    Gold Member

  • Admin
  • 5,571 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 04:35 PM

Unlike Bobby Strain, I was a registered PE in Texas for approximately 20 years and I stamped P&IDs while working for E&C companies here in the Houston area.  I did the stamping due to client requirements - not because I was legally forced to do so at the time.  I understand that the requirements for P&ID generation has now changed in Texas since those times.

 

My personal feelings and opinions about the need for PE registration here in Texas are quite in line with what Bobby states.  I found that the PE board in Texas was basically interested in dictating what they considered and decided what was “professional” engineering - emphasizing the collection of yearly dues (always subject to being increased) and subjecting all members to bureaucratic procedures, dictates, and controls.  While I fully understand the potential of engineers doing harm to society through mistakes, errors, wrong decisions, bad organization, and ignorance in their applied designs, I also feel that as professionals we - who are self-driven towards excellence in our profession and are dedicated to doing the best we can do - do not need the supervision and dictatorial edicts of a State Board composed of political and elitist individuals who believe they know more of how our work should be done.  I found the controls and demands being imposed by the State Board bordered on private interests making money on mandatory “continuing education” courses that almost everyone involved cheated on.  The amount of money required for fees and mandatory courses was substantial and left to the individual engineer to figure out how to pay for this professional expense.  No direct action or steps was considered by the Board on making it possible for the engineer to pass on all these mounting expenses to the end user - something that is the unwritten law in U.S. businesses.

 

Yes, I can see the positive merit of having an engineer take legal responsibility on the accuracy, safety, and applicability of a final P&ID issued for construction.  However, I would also insist that the responsibility be compensated for in kind - in other words, payment by the client to allow for costs of the PE license, the fees, the insurance policy, and the justifiable profit for the work performed.  Unfortunately, when questioned, the representatives of the State Board would not comment nor offer any explanation for not taking into consideration the compensations due to a registered engineer.  Consequently, after some years, I did not renew my registration.

 

I would hope that in the future the problem of ensuring safe and reliable engineering design and construction will be resolved - but always taking into consideration the just and fair compensation due to any engineer that puts his/her future employment on the line.  What is fair and just for the consumer should also be the same for the supplier.
Unfortunately, I found the State Board unwilling - or unable - at that time to address these concerns as well as many others involving the legal responsibilities and repercussions involving the application of engineering stamps.



#12 rpack

rpack

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:26 PM

My concern (and the reason for my posted question) is that P&IDs are complex documents that require the input of various disciplines. My concern is that liability falls to the process engineer stamping the P&IDs while there are still numerous aspects of a P&ID that the process engineer has nothing to do with.



#13 Bobby Strain

Bobby Strain

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 10:00 PM

So, don't stamp them. I have seen project groups do some dangerous things in developing designs. And I have cleaned up many messes during my career. Some installations so dangerous that I refused to enter the units until hazards were remediated.

 

Bobby



#14 Technical Bard

Technical Bard

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 335 posts

Posted 20 June 2018 - 11:12 PM

Every jurisdiction is different.  Many US states did not require PE stamping of chemical engineering deliverables, but some (like Texas) have moved in that direction.  In Canada, some provinces have required P.Eng. stamping of P&IDs for a long time (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario), while others still do not (New Brunswick).  While there has been movement in North America to harmonize some of these rules, what I have seen is further differentiation one what documents need to be stamped (some places keep adding things to the list), while others are asking for even non-final design documents to be stamped if they are the basis for another party's work (for instance, IFD drawings, not just IFC).



#15 rpack

rpack

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 24 June 2018 - 10:13 AM

Thanks. I wish things were more clear and universalized. oh well. it looks like it's a case by case basis.

 

Thanks, all.



#16 Technical Bard

Technical Bard

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 335 posts

Posted 25 June 2018 - 07:06 PM

My concern (and the reason for my posted question) is that P&IDs are complex documents that require the input of various disciplines. My concern is that liability falls to the process engineer stamping the P&IDs while there are still numerous aspects of a P&ID that the process engineer has nothing to do with.

 

I dislike this too.  In one jurisdiction I have worked in, Process Engineering stamps the P&ID, Metallurgy/Materials stamps the Line List and Control Systems Stamps the Cause and Effect Diagram and Control Narratives.  That covers most of the engineering detail on those interrelated documents.



#17 sewoodward77

sewoodward77

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 July 2018 - 01:33 PM

I've been told there are two states that require stamping of process deliverables: Texas and one other.  Does anyone know what the one other is?


Edited by sewoodward77, 17 July 2018 - 01:34 PM.


#18 Technical Bard

Technical Bard

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 335 posts

Posted 20 July 2018 - 10:05 AM

It is my understanding that Louisiana is now asking for P&IDs to be stamped.






Similar Topics