ASCE Lifelines and Earthquake Engineering and SEAW Emergency Preparedness Joint Committee

David B. Swanson, Chair

ASCE and SEAW have joined forces with the joint operation of two committees. Started in 1998, the SEAW Emergency Preparedness Committee and the ASCE Lifelines and Earthquake Engineering Committee joined forces to combine on-going earthquake engineering and emergency preparedness efforts. This combination provides many benefits to both organizations:

• Combined efforts on earthquake engineering and emergency preparedness issues
• Promotes broader involvement by structural, civil, and geotechnical engineers
• Enhances the diversity of both ASCE and SEAW committees
• Creates another link by which ASCE and SEAW work together

One of the main focuses of the joint committee has been developing and maintaining a database of trained volunteer engineers who are available for post-disaster damage assessment of buildings and other structures on request of governmental jurisdictions. Eligibility criteria are the following: membership in SEAW or ASCE, registered professional engineer, and current training from the ATC-20 "Procedures for Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings." In 1997-98, the committee presented the ATC-20 training course to the SEAW Seattle Chapter, South-Central Chapter, the City of Bainbridge Island, and two sessions for Kitsap County. Currently, the roster lists over 150 registered volunteer engineers throughout the state. The committee has been working hard to update the emergency worker roster. Upcoming ATC-20 training sessions are planned for ASCE and SEAW membership.

Another exciting project that is being developed by the committee is an Earthquake Scenario for Puget Sound. Recognizing the increasing knowledge about potential earthquake hazards in Puget Sound, the linear geography of Puget Sound, and the resulting potential seismic risk, the committee is in the initial stages of preparing a proposal to develop an earthquake scenario for Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Earthquake Scenario is intended to provide a focal point for assessing the region's earthquake risk. The committee is currently researching past and current work in this area and evaluating funding opportunities.

The ASCE/SEAW Joint Committee, typically meets regularly on the third Tuesday of each month in the 6th Floor Conference Room, 1411 Fourth Avenue Building, Seattle. The committee welcomes additional members who are interested in continuing the active involvement by the committee. If you would like to be involved in this interesting project and some of the other exciting work being performed by the joint committee, please contact Dave Swanson at (425) 741-5011. We look forward to an exciting and busy 1999.

BUILDING WASHINGTON HAS ARRIVED!

Shrink-wrapped volumes of BUILDING WASHINGTON, the long-awaited history of Washington State Public Works, are available for immediate shipment. BUILDING WASHINGTON is 560 pages long with nearly 1400 photographs! The largest exhibit of Washington State landmarks ever published. This 9-x-12 inch coffee table sized book includes a scholarly 14-page index with more 4000 citations!

The Sponsor's First Edition is limited to 3000 copies and includes a History of the Washington APWA Chapter as well as a Sponsor's Section of more than 100 pages!

The cost is $50.00 plus $3.30 sales tax, postage and handling is included. Send orders to:

APWA ENDOWMENT FUND
C/o Kato & Warren, Inc.
2003 Western Avenue, Suite 555
Seattle, WA 98121

Make Checks Payable to: APWA ENDOWMENT FUND

OUTSTANDING LOCAL CIVIL ENGINEERING ACHIEVEMENT - 1999

The Section's Awards Committee is soliciting nominations for the Outstanding Local Civil Engineering Achievement Award for 1999. All Civil Engineers who are subscribing members of the Seattle Section of ASCE are encouraged to submit their projects for consideration. The submittal deadline is April 1, 1999.

• The rules for entry are as follows:
• Design must have been accomplished under the direction of a Civil Engineer who is a member of the Seattle Section. (This includes the Kitsap and North Branches.)
• The project must be located in the Seattle Section area.
• Project construction cost may not exceed $1.5 million.
• Work must have been completed in calendar year 1998.
• The project must be predominantly civil engineering work.

Submission packets must include: A standard application form, which includes a project description (200 words or less); a location map; and 8-1/2 x 11 copies of relevant engineering drawings and plans. The entry should also include four to six color photos.

The evaluation of the submitted project will consider the following elements: Excellence in design; innovation; compatibility with the environment; cost effectiveness; aesthetics; contribution to public welfare and/or safety, and; effective use of materials.

Contact John Hastig, at (425) 355-4141 ext. 225, or by e-mail at jhastig@aol.com for an official entry form and rules.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

Now that the State legislative session is running at full tilt the ASCE Legislative Committee is actively reviewing bills related to or impacting our profession. Our input is then combined with opinions of other professional organizations represented by AELC. An Olympia law firm represents AELC by presenting our combined input and opinions to key decision-makers, tracking issues as they move through the legislature, and gathering related information. Some of the issues we have seen so far include: Taxation; A&E Selection; Government Contracting; Infrastructure Funding; Liability Reform; and Licensing.

This is a great opportunity to gain insight to the legislative process and make your voice heard. Because of the fast turn around required, our work and coordination is done via email and FAX, so don't let lack of time for another meeting discourage you from participating. If you are interested in participating please contact Dan Dixon, ASCE Legislative Committee Chair, at ddixon@hntb.com or (425) 450-2529.

Dan Dixon
(425) 450-2529 direct
(425) 453-9179 fax
ddixon@hntb.com

Student Mentoring Program Update

The University Advisory Committee is seeking volunteers for our new student mentoring program. Being a mentor to a civil engineering student is not a time consuming commitment and can be rewarding for both mentors and mentees. For more information, or to volunteer, please contact one of the following people: Cathy Smith at (425)883-0777 or crsmith@golder.com, Michael McAdams at 425 228-5100 or Michael_McAdams@trinityconsultants.com or Chris Yeargin at cyeargin@u.washington.edu.

BE A CONGRESSIONAL LEADER

ASCE is recruiting a new Congressional leader. Applications are now being accepted for the 1999-2000 ASCE Congressional Fellow. The Fellowship is an opportunity to spend a year on Capitol Hill working as a staff member either on a committee or for an individual member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. This is an opportunity to gain hands-on knowledge of congressional decision making. Congress makes important decisions on a multitude of technical issues, many of which directly impact how Civil Engineers conduct their professional practice. And Congress will make these decisions with or without technical expertise. The ASCE Congressional Fellows program works to make sure that sound technical advice is available.

Tim Hess, ASCE's second Congressional Fellow, recently completed a very successful year. He was heavily involved with the reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation programs. The final legislation, the Transportation Equity Ace for the 21sr Century, benefited from his technical advice. Tim has stated that it was a "wonderful, rewarded and challenging year and I would highly recommend it to all interested ASCE members." The selection process is getting underway for the next ASCE Congressional Fellow. The Fellowship year begins on September 1, 1999 and runs through August 31, 2000. Applications are due April 2, 1999, with the selection of the Fellow by early June. ASCE will provide a stipend and some relocation expenses. If you have questions or would like an application, please contact Martin Hight in the ASCE Washington Office at 202-789-2200 or 1-800-548-2723 ext 5125. Or email to mhight@asce.org.

GEOTECHNICAL GROUP NEWS

Through a cooperative effort of Seattle, Vancouver, B.C., and San Francisco area geotechnical organizations and EPS manufacturers, we are pleased to be able to bring Dr. Dawit Negussey, Ph.D, P.E., Professor of Civil Engineering, Syracuse University to Seattle for our March meeting. To work around Dr. Negussey's other commitments, our March meeting will be held Wednesday, March 17 instead of the previously published date. Please mark you calendars and plan to attend.

The next issue of the Geotechnical Group's newsletter, The Groundhog, is due to be published in early March. Get your company news and announcements or other information that you think might be worth including in this newsletter to the local geotechnical community to Matt Smith at msmith@geoengineers.com by February 26, 1999.

In late January and early February the Geotechnical Group, the local chapter of the Association of Engineering Geologists, and the City of Seattle presented three public meetings on Landslide Prevention. The meetings were attended by a combined total of over 220 people. We extend our thanks to the ASCE and AEG members that served on the panels, to the City of Seattle, and to the City of Seattle and Community Connections representatives that helped to make the program a success. A proposal has been made to expand this service to other communities next year. If you would like to participate or have suggestions on ways to expand this program please contact Stan Boyle at 206-695-6863 or srb@shanwil.com. This is a great way to increase public awareness of ASCE and Civil and Geotechnical Engineers, and we encourage your participation.

ANNUAL SPRING SEMINAR: The Geotechnical group spring seminar will be held April 10, 1999 at the University of Washington HUB auditorium. This year's topic is "Excavation Support and Dewatering". Information and registration forms will be mailed during the week of February 15, 1999. If you do not receive a copy by February 23, 1999 and would like one, please contact Stephanie Thatcher at 425-883-0777 or via email at mailto:sthatcher@golder.com to have registration information forwarded to you. Information is also available on the web at http://www.asce.org/gsd/sections/seattle/geo_top.htm.

Dr. Mike O'Neill, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Houston will present his 1998 Terzaghi Lecture - Side Resistance in Deep Foundations at our April 22, 1999 meeting.

For the April program we plan to have a short-short course/talk about "Ethical Practice in a Target-Rich Environment". Dr. Ron Bucknam of the University of Washington will present the talk which is a truncated version of one of his popular lecture series normally presented as part of the Professional Engineering Practice Liaison Program. Three case histories that will be discussed as part of the program. Please take a few minutes to read these case histories prior to the April program. Case history #1 will be appearing on this web page soon. Case #1 can be found in the Seattle Section newsletter.

Case History #2
To Flush or Not to Flush: That's the Question

You are a senior engineer and project manager for EnviroConcern, Inc., a geo-environmental group specializing in groundwater and undergroundpollution mitigation in a large, heavily industrialized area on the Atlantic seaboard.

Your firm has established a reputation for excellent and accurate work among clients and regulatory agencies, including the federal EPA and state health and ecology departments, as well.

Several months ago, your firm was contacted by Ira Klene, the president of Industrial Solvents, Ltd. His company was named, among others, as suspected of having moderate to severe groundwater pollution concentrations beneath his industrial solvent manufacturing plant and adjacent plant property by the state regulatory agency. In order to avoid severe fines and potential lengthy litigation, Mr. Klene negotiated a contract with your firm to investigate the alleged problem, determine the severity of the condition, and prepare a report of the site investigation and conclusions for transmittal to the state regulatory agency, in compliance with their stated requirements.

As a result, you were assigned to be the project manager and coordinated the installation of an array of groundwater monitoring wells, well sampling and testing, analyses and preparation of the written report. During your visits to the site, you noted that abutting the Industrial Solvent plant property on Three sides and directly across the street were several other firms either manufacturing or using the types of chemicals used by Industrial Solvents.

Based on the results of the field monitoring and sampling, Ira Klene's initial claim that his company was only a minor contributor to the problem, if at all, appeared to be substantiated. Groundwater elevation monitoring in the observation wells indicated that the direction of groundwater flow was from west (upgradient) to east (downgradient) underneath the Industrial Solvents site.

Testing of samples taken from the monitoring wells indicated that the concentration of toxics in the groundwater were higher at the west side of the site, and decreased in the wells further to the east on the site.

You finished putting your report together yesterday in preparation for a presentation to the state regulatory agency the day after tomorrow, accompanied by Mr. Klene and his in-house corporate legal counsel. The conclusion stated in your report is that the test results showed the levels of toxics in the groundwater decrease across the site from west to east, therefore the major portion of the pollution is originating with the industrial chemical plants further to the west. If Industrial Solvents Ltd. is contributing to the pollution under their site, it can only be a minor to insignificant amount.

Early this morning you decided to visit the Industrial Solvents site one more time, just to be certain that you had not missed anything of importance in your general description of the site and the activities in the plant. Since the site is not far out of your way from your home to the EnviroConcern offices, and you are by nature an early riser, you arrived at the Industrial Solvents site about 6:45 a.m., about 45 minutes before the plant goes into operation on a weekday basis. After looking around inside the plant, you wandered around to the parking lot to the west behind the building to glance at the monitoring well installations in that area. When you got there, you recognized Ira Klene with a rubberized raincoat over his suit, wearing boots and standing at one of the monitoring well caps in the middle of the parking lot with his back to you.

Since he had not seen you, you stepped behind a pickup truck lot and continued to observe Mr. Klene's actions. It soon became obvious that he had a key to the monitoring well caps in one hand and a hose connected to the water spigot on the back of the building in the other. In the next 25 minutes he proceeded from well to well toward the building, unlocking the well caps, inserting the hose and allowing water to flow into each well for several minutes. At first you could not believe what you were seeing. Poring water into these downgradient wells causes a reduction in the measured level of toxics in the groundwater at those locations, creating the appearance of decreasing toxic concentrations across the site from west to east.

Not knowing what to do or say, and not wanting to confront Mr. Klene directly at that moment, you crept back around the truck, waited until his back was turned, and rapidly went back into the building and out the front to where you had parked your car, and drove as quickly as possible to your office.

As you sit at your desk you realize that all of the analytical data in your final report is now suspect and unreliable. Your firm's contract with Industrial Solvents Ltd. contains a confidentiality clause requiring you to discuss the findings in your report with them before releasing the information to anyone else. The presentation for the state agency has been confirmed for the day after tomorrow.

You alternately stare at the wall and at your finished report for the Industrial Solvents site on your desk in front of you. You then ask yourself the big question of the day: what do I do now?

Alternate Approaches:

1. Call Mr. Klene, indicate that you had stopped by the site this morning and observed him pouring water into a number of the monitoring wells near to plant building. Ask him what he was doing that for, and how long he had been doingt. Perhaps it was a one-time occurrence.

2. Talk with your corporate management and explain what you have observed. Let them decide what to do about the issue, if there really is an issue in their estimation. After all, there may well be a logical explanation to what you observed and you are not in a position to question the actions of your company's client. Indicate that you do not want to be directly involved in this communication, but will do whatever your management decides.

3. Say nothing to the client or to your management. Realize that since you were not invited, you were probably legally trespassing on the property this morning, which was an error in judgment. Your job was to direct the field investigations, monitoring and laboratory results, and to determine if a toxic problem existed based on these results. You cannot be responsible for watching the monitoring wells on a 24-hour basis, nor are you in a position to confront the person who hired your firm in the first place.

4. Submit the report as it stands. You know that there is not enough money in the project budget to redo all of the sampling and testing, as well as reanalyze the results. Also, there is no way Mr. Klene is going to agree to increase the budget to redo the work. With all of the other groundwater pollutant contributors adjacent to the site, some variation in the contribution resulting from the Industrial Solvents Ltd. operations is probably insignificant when viewed on a larger scale.

5. Before submitting your report to Industrial Solvents for review, and then on to the state agency, add a qualifying disclaimer to the end of your report indicating the conclusions made in the report are based on the results of chemical testing of the groundwater samples obtained at the site at the time, locations and depths indicated in the data. Also indicate that thesemay vary at locations away from the monitoring wells, and/or from time to time at the specific monitoring well locations. Therefore, no other warranty, express or implied, is made or intended.

6. Write a short memo to your project file indicating what you observed, and that you have no basis for determining what, if any, effect Mr. Klene's actions have made on the test results shown in your report, nor is there any way to make such a determination without throwing out all of the accumulated data and starting the sampling and testing program over from the beginning - an unwarranted action since the project scope of work has been completed and the project budget has been depleted. This will stand you in good stead should there be any question in the future.

7. Put in a confidential call to the state agency and indicate that you have reason to believe the results of the testing data in the report they are about to receive may be suspect, but you cannot determine the extent. Realize that if the word gets out to Mr. Klene that you have done this, your company, and quite possibly you personally, may get sued for violating the confidentiality clause in your contract with Industrial Solvents Ltd.

8. Submit the report as it is today to Industrial Solvents Ltd. for their information, in accordance with the terms of your contract agreement with them, and indicate that the final report is due at the state agency the day after tomorrow. Tell them that you have reason to believe that the results may be erroneous, and that you are willing to discuss this issue, as well as methods of rectifying the situation (e.g., obtaining an agreement from the state agency to delay the report and redoing the sampling and testing to either confirm or revise the original results, all at additional cost to the client). Since they are legally responsible for submitting the report to the state agency, it is their decision on how to proceed.

9. Have your management contact Industrial Solvent's legal counsel and indicate what has happened. Tell them that the sampling and testing needs to be redone to confirm or revise the suspect data, and that actions such as those of Mr. Klene cannot be tolerated during the repeat program. Indicate that the locks on the well caps will be changed, and if there is any evidence or indication of tampering with the wells during the repeat program, your company will report Industrial Solvents Ltd. directly to the state agency, no matter what the contract says. Also tell their legal counsel that the repeat program will be done under your normal fee schedule for additional work, and an amendment to the contract is required to cover the additional anticipated cost.

10. Confer with your management; decide to tell Mr. Klene what was observed and that the results presented in the report are suspect. As a result, your company refuses to present the report to the state agency as Industrial Solvents' consultant, and furthermore will not do any more work for Industrial Solvents Ltd., realizing that you will in all likelihood never get paid for the work you did on the project, and may even get sued for breach of contract.

Case History #3
The Plagiarized Proposal

You have been asked to submit a proposal and cost estimate for the foundation investigation for a proposed mid-rise condominium at First and Main Streets by a developer for whom your firm has done work previously at the site of the Hillside Court project.

You go to the developer's office to discuss the scope of the work in preparation for writing the proposal and note that in addition to the red BMW convertible and the steel gray Jaguar with gold trim parked in front of the one-story, single-office building, the lettered sign on the door indicates:

Hillside Court Development, Inc. Grandview Enterprises, Ltd. First and Main Associates, Inc.

As you enter the building, you note that there appears to be one secretary (who also acts as the receptionist) in a general office function area, plus two large executive offices. At the meeting in one of executive offices, the developer, Barry Young, indicates that he is retaining I. M. Strong, principal of Strong Engineers, as the structural engineer for the project. He also states that due to the peculiar architectural layout of the proposed building on the site, the structural engineer will be responsible for considerably more work than normal for this type of structure. Nothing of any substance can be done on the structural design until the foundation report is received. You are familiar with the Strong structural engineering group, having worked with them on one or two projects recently, and know that they have a good reputation in the local engineering community.

Young indicates that he does not know what needs to be done regarding the foundation investigation and requests that you outline the specific items in your proposal to him for the work. You return to your office and prepare a detailed scope of work, including it in your proposal for the foundation investigation. You have the proposal delivered to Young's office and get on with other projects on your list of things to do. Three weeks later, having heard nothing from the developer, you call to ascertain the status of the project. r. Young apologizes for not having called you, and explains that he gave your scope of work to one of your competitors, who agreed to do the work for the same price as your budget estimate, but also agreed to bill the developer for only the field work by the drilling contractor (about 25% of the total budget) until the condominium complex is completed and 80% occupied. In fact, the field work is scheduled to start in about two weeks.

What, if anything, do you do?

Alternate Approaches:

1. Do nothing. Walk away and don't call this client again. It is a poor lesson to have to be learned; hopefully you will have enough sense to foresee such a situation in the future.

2. Call Young and tell him that his actions in using the scope of work you prepared to solicit a bid from someone else was disreputable. Then walk away from the project and don't pursue it further.

3. Call Young and explain that you really want this project, and if you had know price was that sensitive an issue, you would have been happy to match your competitor's offer, insisting that because it is your scope of work, you should get the project. Also, tell him that you have contacted the exploration drilling contractor and can get a 10% discount on his work if the project is given to you.

4. Write a letter to Young, telling him that while you understand his position, he has made a mistake. You have worked "behind" (as a follow-up to) the other firm on several occasions, and have found their work to be substandard. Encourage him to reconsider, because he really doesn't want the other firm on his project, and you would do a much better job.

5. You suspect your competitor actually has some sort of affiliation with the developer, so you should ask around to find out who else may have received a 'bid' package from the developer. If your suspicions are true (only your competitor received the package), contact Young and discuss your suspicions. If there is no satisfactory conclusion reached, go to Alternate # 9, below.

6. Sue the b-----d! He (the developer) manipulated you into preparing a very detailed scope of work just so he could then copy it and present it to your competitor, or give your entire proposal to your competitor to use in bidding against you. Scum like this should be run out of the state on a rod back to where he came from (you saw the out-of-state plates on the Jaguar)!

7. Send a letter to your competitor explaining that engineers shall not use practices that denigrate the profession or are improper, misleading or unfairly coerce favorable business results. It was a breach of ethics to use another engineer's proposal to unfairly obtain favorable business.

8. Call your competitor and let him/her know what you think of their unprofessional behavior. Tell him/her that accepting work on a contingency basis (getting paid only if the project receives funding and is 80% occupied) is unethical. Also, you will be happy to tell everyone you know in the local engineering community what kind of non-professional they are to take your scope of work as their own!

9. File a complaint against your competitor for unethical behavior with the state Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, showing that the competitor used your work product (the detailed scope of work) as their own.

10. Send a letter to Young explaining that he violated copyright laws when he gave a copy of your proposal to another engineering firm to solicit a 'bid'. Include an invoice for preparing the original proposal and scope of work.

11. In the future, include a Proprietary Statement with your proposal alerting the reader that the information in the proposal is copyrighted. Then sue the developer if such a thing should happen again.

12. Work with this developer in the future, recognizing his previous behavior and be prepared to deal with it.

13. Accept the fact you are not going to work on the project, but call I. M. Strong to inform him of what has transpired, for his information, since he will be heavily involved in the project for a substantial fee.