Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Strange but True (SB 828)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 11:34 PM 11/1/97 -0600, Arvel Williams, P.E. wrote:

snip

>Another Chicken Little In Oklahoma agrees with Mr. Caldwell on this
>issue.

I don't think Chuck met to ridicule Mr. Caldwell. CELSOC yes. But as was
acknowledged, they did a poor job. As I understood it, Chuck's post was to
point out that CELSOC was attempting to foster a false alarm by
misrepresentation. I understood that any analogy to Chicken Little was met
primarily for CELSOC.

The statement that ".. it appears that their next plant in California can
now be undertaken without the involvement of any Professional Engineers
(except Civil)" misinterprets the effect and intent of SB828. "Construction
documents" will still have to be sealed by a Licensed Professional Civil or
Structural Engineer or an Architect and any electrical and mechanical
construction plans and specifications will still have to be sealed by the
respective Registered Electrical and Mechanical Engineers responsible for
the preparation.

Does either Texas or Oklahoma require that the motors, pumps, controllers,
electrical panels, fans, compressors, ect., specified on construction
documents, be designed by engineers licensed in your respective states? Were
the plans for any wafer processing equipment sealed by a Licensed
Professional Engineer in Texas? If unlicenced employees of industrial
corporations were always permitted to perform certain limited engineering
work, how does the change allowing unlicenced consultants, temporary
employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to
third-party contracts to perform this same work cause an adverse effect?
Note, there was no change in the scope of what engineering work was exempt.
The sky is not falling, but as Nigel pointed out, we need to get involved
and remain active.

Robert