October 2008
Volume 33, Number 10

A task force commissioned by ASCE’s president, David G. Mongan, P.E.,  F.ASCE, to study the Society’s policies and procedures for conducting engineering studies delivered its report on September 12, recommending a number of revisions to strengthen current practices. Chaired by Sherwood Boehlert, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York, the task force was charged with “providing recommendations for improving the clarity, transparency, and efficiency of the policies and procedures governing future engineering studies,” according to the report.

Boehlert, who served for six years as the chair of the House Committee on Science and Technology, was approached by Mongan last December to assemble the task force, which was to be composed of a panel of experts not affiliated with the Society, to conduct the review. The task force was given access to all of ASCE’s documents relating to policies and procedures as well as to ASCE staff members. Ten months later, Boehlert submitted a letter to Mongan along with the report. “After a thoughtful and exhaustive examination we remain firm in our belief that ASCE not only plays a vital role in conducting postdisaster engineering assessments, but that the Society is the single best organization to carry out this type of work for our nation,” he wrote in the letter.

Nevertheless, the report notes that “the overall process by which future disaster engineering assessments are conducted must be improved to reflect emerging complexities in assessing disasters and evolving societal expectations.” The task force focused on four key areas and made recommendations for improvement in each. The four are the process for conducting engineering studies, the funding of engineering studies, the role of communications, and the potential for conflicts of interest.

The group determined that ASCE’s process for conducting engineering studies is “an amalgam of policies and practices…not fully articulated in a single document.” It believes that “the lack of formal, well-articulated procedures for conducting engineering reviews has contributed to confusion in understanding the scope of these engineering reviews and undermined the credibility of these engineering reviews and ASCE as an organization.”

In its report the task force recommends that ASCE develop a manual of engineering review procedures that would be available to ASCE members and staff members, as well as to the general public. It also believes that an assessment team selected to conduct engineering studies should be composed of members who are known to possess the appropriate expertise. The selection process should also be timely and open to the public: “It must have provisions for looking beyond ASCE membership to find needed expertise.” The report further recommends that teams have greater independence from ASCE “with respect to staff oversight and communications with the public” and that the teams’ findings include additional views rather than being presented as consensus reports.

Discovering that ASCE’s engineering studies have been funded through a variety of sources, the task force warns in its report that this practice could lead to concerns regarding conflicts of interest. “As the scope and importance of the engineering review increased, the process for funding the review became more ambiguous,” the report states. Moreover, the task force determined that ASCE has no set policy governing external funding for its assessment teams.

The report recommends that ASCE take measures to address issues caused by “perceived and potentially real conflicts of interests.” ASCE, it contends, should fund studies costing less than $1 million; studies requiring more than that amount should be funded through the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (Such funding would require an amendment to the National Construction Safety Team Act so that postdisaster assessment teams could receive funding, according to the report.) The Society should also develop a new funding mechanism based on the practices of other professional organizations, should place funds collected for engineering studies in a separate account, and should use the funds thereby collected solely for that purpose, according to the report. The report also states that the Society should develop formal procedures for funding engineering studies and should make those procedures public.

The task force states that past assessment team members were under tight controls with respect to their interaction with the media. “The work of assessment teams on natural and man-made disasters [is] of high interest and importance to the public and the press,” it states. “There is a perception by some in the public and the press that ASCE staff is controlling and selectively releasing information on the work of the assessment teams.” It recommends that ASCE develop procedures for interacting with the public and with journalists and that those procedures include “scheduled media availability for the assessment team leader coordinated with ASCE’s communications director.”

The task force determined that ASCE’s credibility has a pronounced effect on the value of engineering studies carried out after a disaster. “Credibility rests in large part on the removal of real or perceived conflicts of interests,” the report states. “The potential conflicts of interests in ASCE’s engineering review process are not unique to ASCE and can be addressed through procedures utilized by many government agencies charged with providing unbiased assessments to the public.”

The task force recommends that, with the assistance of an attorney, ASCE develop a briefing memo that would educate its staff and prospective team members on the potential for conflicts of interest. It also recommends that ASCE staff members involved in the process receive annual training on how to avoid such conflicts. To facilitate the “timely deployment of assessment teams to disaster sites,” the Society should create a pool of team members “who possess the requisite expertise to serve on an assessment team and who have been properly vetted with regard to potential conflicts of interests,” the report states. Furthermore, team members should be provided with a briefing on conflicts of interest and should be required to complete a disclosure form designed to reveal potential conflicts.

“Implementation of these recommendations should help ASCE move toward its vision for engineers of the future—as leaders in the community and legitimate stewards of the nation’s physical infrastructure,” the report concludes.

In response to the report, Mongan released a letter to ASCE’s membership in which he stated that “the recommendations contained in [the] report will help strengthen our ability to serve the profession and the public when tragedy strikes.” He also mentioned that ASCE’s executive director, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE, has been assigned the task of reviewing the recommendations as they relate to the Society’s operational procedures and drawing up a list of methods for implementing them. Moreover, Mongan has asked the Society’s Board of Direction to consider various ways of addressing such salient issues as funding.

In addition to Boehlert, the task force included Joseph Bordogna, Ph.D., a former deputy director of the National Science Foundation; Jack W. Hoffbuhr, P.E., BCEE, a former executive director of the American Water Works Association; Jack Snell, Ph.D., a former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory; and William A. Wulf, Ph.D., a former president of the National Academy of Engineering.

—Brett Hansen

As a result of quick and effective action on the part of members
who participate in ASCE’s Key Contact Program, the Society’s Action Plan
for the 110th Congress (www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/actionplan07.cfm) achieved an important goal last month with the enactment of a measure transferring general Treasury funds to the Highway Trust Fund. Progress was also made in the dams, bridges, and water categories of the action plan when the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved three bills that, if enacted, will help improve the nation’s infrastructure.

As gas prices and construction costs soared this year, money flowing into the Highway Trust Fund from gas tax receipts fell drastically, prompting the Bush administration to call for an emergency transfer of general Treasury funds to cover expenditures promised to the states for surface transportation construction. This provided a fillip to ASCE-backed legislation to keep the trust fund solvent through fiscal year 2009, an important goal in the bridges, roads, and mass transit category of the Action Plan for the 110th Congress. Through the efforts of ASCE staff members and those participating in the Key Contact Program, more than 300,000 people working in the construction sector were able to keep their jobs as endangered projects received the necessary funding.

Thanks to expert testimony provided by Andrew Herrmann, P.E., F.ASCE, a member of ASCE’s Board of Direction (see Short Takes, this issue), the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works last month approved a measure that advances ASCE’s
action plan in the area of transportation, namely, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act (S. 3338/H.R. 3999). In the wake of the bridge collapse last year in Minneapolis, ASCE worked closely with Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota), the chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to draft this legislation. The bill, which authorizes $1 billion in fiscal year 2009 for bridge repair and replacement, would strengthen inspection requirements for highway bridges, one of its provisions being that only professional engineers would be authorized to inspect complex bridges.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also approved another ASCE-championed bill, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act (H.R. 3224), which would authorize $200 million for repairing publicly owned dams. In another vote consistent with ASCE’s goals, it approved S. 3500, a measure to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The reauthorization would provide $20 billion for wastewater system upgrades and $15 billion for drinking water upgrades over the next four years. ASCE has been working for nearly a year and a half for reauthorization.

All of the measures approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have already been passed by the House of Representatives. Thus only Senate passage and the conference committee stage remain before the bills can be sent to the president. ASCE key contacts should continue to exert pressure on their senators for quick action on these important policy initiatives.

The Action Plan for the 110th Congress outlines 18 steps that Congress could take to help raise the grades ASCE meted out to our nation’s infrastructure in its 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. With the release of an updated infrastructure report scheduled for March 2009, it is imperative that ASCE redouble its efforts to improve the nation’s infrastructure. Earlier this year Oberstar called ASCE the nation’s infrastructure “watchdog” and thanked it for its indefatigable efforts in improving public safety and the quality of life. With that kind of encouragement and the recent successes ASCE has achieved in the legislative arena, the Society’s goals are truly within reach. For information on lending a hand to these efforts, visit http://www.asce.org/pressroom/publicpolicy/advocacy.cfm.

A group made up of members of ASCE’s Structural Engineering Institute and of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has addressed issues pertaining to the methods and practices used to ensure the safety of highway bridges nationwide. Formed in response to the collapse last year of the bridge in Minneapolis that carried Interstate 35W over the Mississippi, the group has concluded that the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) and the programs developed to implement them are adequate to ensure public safety. However, the members of the group see areas where improvements could be made, improvements that would make bridge inspections more reliable and effective, would integrate inspections, maintenance work, and repairs, and would focus resources where they are most needed.

A comprehensive national bridge safety inspection program was created in the wake of the catastrophic collapse of the Silver Bridge into the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, on December 15, 1967. The fracture of an eyebar at a pin connection during rush hour caused 31 of the 37 cars crossing the bridge to plunge into the frigid water, killing 46 people. That tragic event set in motion federal legislation that established safety inspections and bridge maintenance work nationwide. Congress added a section to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 that required the establishment of the NBIS to ensure the safety of the traveling public. In 1971 the standards were implemented as federal regulations governing inventories, inspection procedures, inspection frequency, personnel qualifications, and inspection reports. In the latest revision to the NBIS, published in the Federal Register in December 2004 (volume 69, number 239) and now part of the Code of Federal Regulations (title 23, part 650), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) clarified language that was vague or ambiguous, reorganized the standards into a more logical sequence, and made it easier for those administering the highway bridge inspection programs at the state and federal levels to understand the regulations.

The national standards set minimum requirements for highway bridge inspections on all public roads in the United States. The primary emphasis of the NBIS is safety, and additional data and procedures are typically employed at the state level. The NBIS and the programs that stem from them help bridge owners detect deterioration in bridges, better understand critical findings in inspections, and take appropriate corrective actions. Additional data and documentation on bridge conditions that support bridge management, maintenance, and repairs are typically collected on the basis of the policies and practices of individual states, and there is some variation in these practices nationally.

The group describes the needs and issues associated with the current practices and policies for assessing the health of bridges. Its members hope that this information will be used by the bridge engineering community to improve the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice inspection and evaluation methods and that new technologies will be adopted nationwide.

With some exceptions, biennial inspections are the rule in the United States, but they may not be appropriate for certain bridges. For example, recently constructed bridges typically experience fewer problems during their first decade of service. Under the present requirements, these bridges have the same inspection frequency as 50-year-old bridges, which may be undergoing severe and rapid deterioration. Most new bridges take advantage of improved fabrication processes, materials, and designs intended to mitigate the effects of fatigue and corrosion. However, older bridges with fracture-critical elements are inspected at the same intervals as newer bridges, irrespective of those characteristics of new bridges that reduce the risk of failure.

A more rational approach to determining the appropriate inspection interval for a bridge would consider such factors as the bridge’s design, details, materials, age, and loading. There is a growing consensus that inspection intervals could be optimized to improve the safety and maintenance of highway bridges. A recent look at bridge quality assurance practices in Europe found that longer inspection intervals were typical, in some cases reaching six years. These inspections are similar to in-depth inspections in the United States in which there is a close inspection of the bridge that may include materials sampling and the application of nondestructive evaluations (NDES). A detailed inspection that is conducted less frequently may improve the safety and maintenance of bridges in the United States, thereby leading to a broader application of nde technologies and a better understanding of a bridge’s condition. A tiered approach that alternates between in-depth inspections and less comprehensive inspections should be considered. A National Cooperative Highway Research Program study of this topic is planned in fiscal year 2009, and the group supports the exploration of such innovative inspection policies. Despite these advantages, however, the current biennial interval is easily understood by a nontechnical audience, whereas variable intervals—while rational to those in the bridge industry—could be easily misunderstood and cause concern.

The implementation of formal quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures is an important element in ensuring that inspection results are consistent, that NBIS requirements are met, and that a program is maintained that is capable of effectively determining critical bridge needs. But since the procedures are not defined, they lend themselves to a variety of interpretations by various agencies working with their counterparts at the FHWA. Therefore, to obtain consistent data that will ensure safety, minimum guidelines should be established for QC/QA procedures nationwide. Similarly, identifying critical findings and addressing them quickly also are left to bridge owners. Thus, more guidelines are needed. AASHTO, in conjunction with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, has initiated a study to review the QC/QA procedures currently followed by various states and to provide recommendations to highway agencies.

The primary reason for bridge inspections is safety, yet being overly conservative is not helpful in effectively using resources. Consequently, obtaining uniform and consistent ratings from various inspectors throughout the country is very important. Using inspection data to ensure safety by recognizing critical findings, reevaluating bridge capacities, and taking appropriate corrective actions also is very important. Therefore, bridge data should be reviewed to ensure that condition ratings and bridge postings are accurate and that corrective measures are implemented as necessary. New and more assertive types of QC/QA that can improve the reliability and consistency of inspection data have been developed in recent years. These include tests of inspector performance, the use of control (reference) bridges, and the certification of inspectors. These new practices should be encouraged to ensure that inspection results are as consistent and uniform as possible. They should also be evaluated carefully in well-designed tests on a smaller scale (probably at the state level) before being adopted nationwide. Several states, including New York, already have projects in progress to evaluate some of these methods.

The bridge inspection process must be able to recognize and document critical deficiencies and bring them to the attention of bridge owners. Inspectors must be well versed in structural behavior and must be provided with an array of assessment techniques so that they can accurately evaluate the structure. An accurate description of a critical deficiency is of paramount importance in determining appropriate responses, designing repair procedures that eliminate the cause of the deficiency, developing an accurate assessment of risk, and using that assessment as a baseline for monitoring programs. Inspectors should be able to categorize damage and understand what caused it. An accurate diagnosis is imperative not only for determining appropriate response actions but also for maintaining the safety of the traveling public.

The standards that inspectors must meet to become qualified are of course closely related to the effectiveness of inspections. The NBIS set minimum requirements for various inspection personnel, including team leaders and program managers. In general, these requirements pertain to the routine inspection of highway bridges and do not consider the complexity of the bridge to be inspected. Requirements for these types of inspections are typically developed at the state level. The consistency and effectiveness of inspections could be improved nationally if the inspector’s qualifications were more uniformly matched to the bridge’s type, condition, and complexity. Matching qualifications and training to the complexity of the inspection tasks could improve the efficiency of bridge inspections and make bridges safer. Moreover, the training of inspectors should be upgraded to ensure consistency in appraisals and in the coding of bridge conditions. The periodic retraining of inspectors should be looked upon as a way of ensuring and promoting uniform inspection practices and consistency in condition ratings.

Ensuring the safety and efficiency of the nation’s bridges goes beyond inspecting and assessing the health of existing infrastructure. The long-term performance and safety of bridges are affected not only by the design of a bridge but also by its construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation. More attention needs to be given to the relationships obtaining between initial design decisions, life-cycle costs, construction, inspectability, and maintainability. Although designing bridges in a way that facilitates inspections has long been a stated goal, this commitment has not been reflected in the design process. Therefore, the priority of this aspect of the design process should be raised to make it easier to inspect and maintain bridges. Moreover, details that facilitate the maintenance and inspection of bridges should be provided to designers. The inspection and maintenance community should be encouraged to become involved early in the design process so that its members can provide expertise. The involvement of this community will help ensure that new designs will provide the details necessary to facilitate adequate inspection and maintenance. Furthermore, data on the field performance of particular design details should be collected to help ensure that the details are performing as expected.

There is also a need for close collaboration on the part of those responsible for maintenance and repair and those responsible for bridge inspection and condition assessment. Bridge deterioration that affects the durability of a bridge should be detected in its early stages and addressed before it becomes serious. Using the inspection results to determine the load rating cycles based on the deterioration of the bridge between inspections also would be beneficial. Furthermore, capacity and stability evaluations of bridges under construction should be included. Overall, holistic practices for the design and management of bridges are needed to promote long-term durability and safety.

The importance of load ratings cannot be overstated, and they should be reliable, uniform, and consistent nationwide. If nde results, other inspection results, or the results of structural monitoring are available, these findings should be incorporated into the rating process. Developing structural models in the design stage that incorporate issues brought to light during the bridge inspection so that they could be used during the evaluation phase would be very valuable. Furthermore, documenting load ratings for the bridge and critical elements would lead to more effective bridge management.

States develop their own inspection programs, policies, and supporting documentation to meet the requirements of the NBIS and state laws and regulations. Inspection manuals used by inspectors in the field could be improved by making fuller use of photographs, illustrations, and detailed drawings indicating particular deterioration conditions and methods of reporting those conditions. Descriptions of the causes of deterioration, the effects of that deterioration on the bridge’s structural behavior, the durability of the bridge, and the rehabilitation strategies could improve the efficiency of the inspection and repair process and lead to more consistent and accurate results. Inspection forms tailored to particular bridge designs also are needed to document and rate bridge conditions and to emphasize critical deterioration modes or areas of concern. These forms should allow for the inclusion of key photographs, illustrations, and notes in a format that is suitable for analysis. The development of detailed and illustrated bridge inspection manuals for use nationwide would be beneficial in the long term by encouraging uniform procedures for bridge inspection.

Visual inspection by experienced professionals has been effective in detecting critical conditions affecting bridge safety. Nevertheless, in some cases visual inspection does not detect material defects or other elements that are concealed, and supplemental methods may therefore be required. nde and condition monitoring technologies have been developed in recent years that in some cases can assist in the effective condition assessment and monitoring of bridges. However, the application of these technologies within the context of routine NBIS inspections continues to be a challenge because of the complexity and inaccessibility of the technologies and a lack of guidance on how and when they are to be applied.

The use of the most effective technologies and techniques for bridge condition assessment is an important element in ensuring the safety of highway bridges; several needs in this area have been determined. First, there is a need to develop standardized procedures for such special investigations as pin inspections so that the use of nde technologies can become more widespread and uniform, as well as more accessible to bridge owners. Special technologies and the methods of applying them to situations where visual inspection may be inadequate need to be developed. This may include guidelines on the application of new technologies that take into consideration the technologies’ cost, effectiveness, difficulty, and use in the field. The reliability and cost-effectiveness of these methods should be thoroughly investigated before they are adopted nationwide.

In the United States, data on the deterioration rates of bridges and of specific bridge components or elements are in short supply, and there is no centralized reporting system for documenting bridge or bridge component failures or other bridge problems. The effects of maintenance procedures, innovative materials, environmental parameters, loadings, and construction and fabrication procedures are not yet readily available. Improving the availability of such centralized information on bridge performance could increase the effectiveness of the bridge management systems used at both the national and the state level. The FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program, though in its initial stages, is intended to address some of the needs in this area. The development and maintenance of a centralized system for documenting critical deterioration in bridges are needed to support the exchange of information and provide a resource for bridge owners.

The safety of the traveling public is of paramount concern to transportation officials nationwide. Recent events have made the general public more aware of issues bearing on bridge safety. In many cases, information regarding the status of the nation’s bridges has not been clearly understood by the public. The bridge community should help the public gain a better understanding of key terms used in conjunction with the implementation of the NBIS. In particular, such terms as “structurally deficient,” “functionally obsolete,” and “fracture-critical” need to be more carefully explained so that the public perception of bridge safety accords with the facts. Such bridge condition assessment activities as routine and in-depth inspections, continuous monitoring strategies, and detailed evaluations need to be more clearly defined so that the expectations of those outside the bridge industry arising from these activities are more realistic. A summary document and public information videos could be developed that outline the bridge inspection process and procedures, describe how the bridge inspection is performed, and highlight the inspection program’s value and successes. Moreover, more effective means of communicating information related to bridge conditions, bridge safety, and bridge funding eligibility need to be developed to aid the public. A searchable, easy-to-access version of the national database that was available to the public, in conjunction with improved communication, could lead to a better understanding by the public and the media. At the same time, better mechanisms should be put in place to share information with the rest of the bridge community on practices that have proved to be highly effective, as well as on warnings developed by bridge owners when issues or concerns are uncovered.

Research and development efforts could improve the tools and methodologies available to help ensure the long-term health and safety of bridges. A study of the consistency and reliability of condition ratings obtained from various states could help improve data quality. Developing procedures or databases to take inspection information and prepare appropriate corrective actions—and making sure that these actions are implemented—are of the utmost importance. Research needs associated with some of the items discussed have been developed into initial problem statements that can be further developed into funded research activities. These research activities include the development of criteria that better describe the overall condition of a bridge (“health index”); additional investigations of overload, blanket permits, and the long-term effects of overloads; the development of illustrated bridge inspection and component behavior manuals; developing nde tools and procedures for special inspections; and converting inspection information into highly effective practices for bridge agencies. (These items have been submitted to the appropriate AASHTO technical committee for consideration.)

The group has developed short- and long-term action items related to bridge inspection issues. Some of the short-term items are now being developed or investigated as a result of domestic and international technology scans or other existing programs, and the items can be addressed fairly quickly without extensive funding. The measures include educating bridge owners and inspectors on readily available NDE technologies and their applications; reviewing bridge files for structurally deficient bridges and ensuring the accuracy of the condition ratings and bridge postings; reviewing the qualification and training requirements listed in the NBIS and determining if the current requirements are sufficient; developing public relations guidelines for bridges that define the bridge condition, inspection, rating, and funding terms in a way that is understandable to the public; investigating how those responsible for bridge inspection communicate with those responsible for bridge maintenance and repair in each state and publicizing effective practices in this area; and developing proposals for necessary research and investigating possible funding sources.

The long-term action items include developing a model inspection manual that would make expanded use of photographs, illustrations, and detailed drawings indicating particular deterioration conditions. This manual could be incorporated into existing state and local inspection manuals. Other measures include developing guidelines on the use of new inspection technologies that incorporate information on their cost, ease of use, effectiveness, and reliability. Another possibility is incorporating more QC/QA checks and balances within bridge inspection programs by, for example, using control (reference) bridges and testing inspectors. The group also suggests working with the FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program to develop and maintain a centralized database of bridge deterioration information; developing a more rational, risk-based approach to determining appropriate inspection intervals for bridges through research and incorporating this approach into future bridge inspection programs; developing training and refresher courses to promote uniform inspection practices and consistency in condition ratings; and incorporating inspectability guidelines into design specifications for new bridges to ensure that details can be easily inspected.

The members of the Structural Engineering Institute and AASHTO ad hoc group are Sreenivas Alampalli, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, who served as chair, William R. “Randy” Cox, P.E., Robert J. Healy, P.E. M.ASCE, Andrew Herrmann, P.E., F.ASCE, Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E., Brian J. Leshko, P.E., M.ASCE, Harold C. Rogers, Jr., P.E., Glenn Washer, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Peter Weykamp, P.E., and Kevin C. Womack, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE. The ex officio members are Thomas D. Everett, P.E., A.M.ASCE, Ian M. Friedland, P.E. M.ASCE, Hamid Ghasemi, Ph.D., Ken Kobetsky, P.E., Susan N. Lane, P.E., M.ASCE, M. Myint Lwin, P.E., S.E., M.ASCE, Kelley C. Rehm, P.E., M.ASCE, and James A. Rossberg, P.E., M.ASCE.

This article is based on the group’s “White Paper on Bridge Inspection and Rating, Rehabilitation, and Replacement.” To view that paper, visit http://content.seinstitute.org/files/pdf/Adhocwhitepaper_Final.pdf. The paper is scheduled for publication in the January 2009 issue of ASCE’s Journal of Bridge Engineering.

My term is coming to a close and it is time for reflection on activities and achievements during my year as president, as well as my year as president-elect—also a period of active engagement and opportunity that I greatly valued.

I began my presidential term on a personal note of happiness with the birth of my first grandchild, literally a few hours before my induction as president. I took the opportunity in my inaugural remarks to reflect on and emphasize the “power of one.” I believe that one individual can make a significant difference in ASCE, our profession, our nation, and our world.

One key role of the president is to represent the Society internationally, and in this regard I traveled far and wide. My trip to Mexico City gave me the opportunity to renew a number of acquaintances within the Society and to strengthen ties with our Mexico Section. I was impressed by the two-day conference there on sustainability, which demonstrated the section’s strong commitment to improving the standard of living and quality of life of the Mexican people.

My trip to Beijing presented a stark contrast to my trip to Mexico City. Both cities have enormous populations and extreme areas of poverty. But despite its impoverished areas Beijing projects an image of prosperity and hope. Prosperity is in fact a reality in Beijing and was conveyed to us through the hopes and aspirations of everyone with whom we spoke. Clearly they personally desire to have the quality of life they see in Western society. Our visit with the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering in Québec was extremely enlightening and enriching. Canada has a national vision for its infrastructure and a plan for funding infrastructure renewal. While perhaps this funding may not be at a level that will satisfy every stakeholder, it is a national plan, something we desperately need in the United States.

The World Justice Forum, held in July in Vienna, Austria, marked the global debut of the World Justice Project. Four hundred fifty governmental and nongovernmental leaders convened in Vienna to learn about the rule of law and develop programs to strengthen it. Participants came from 83 nations and represented 16 disciplines. I was impressed with this remarkable undertaking and was pleased to take part. I am very proud of ASCE’s efforts in concert with a number of international engineering organizations to combat corruption through education and training. I think we in the United States with our middle-class way of life often take too much for granted. We often fail to recognize the levels of poverty that exist worldwide and within the United States and are unaware of how a lack of access to justice and a legal system can exacerbate poverty. One of the effects of corruption is to prevent those who are impoverished from bettering their lot.

My visit to South Africa further demonstrated to me the extent of ASCE’s influence. One of the activities of which the South African Institution of Civil Engineers (SAICE) is most proud is the assessment of the country’s infrastructure it released in 2006. SAICE had clearly followed our example, conducting many conversations with our staff members in developing their report. They have used this “report card” extensively in raising public awareness and seeking to influence public policy. Like ASCE, SAICE has recognized the value of making their voice heard in the corridors of power. South Africa will be hosting the 2010 World Cup, the soccer competition organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, better known as FIFA. In anticipation of the demands that will be placed on their transportation system and other facets of infrastructure, the South Africans are investing billions of dollars. These improvements not only will benefit those visiting the country for the games but also will provide something of lasting value to the South African economy. The country has an extreme shortage of engineers and skilled technicians. saice is working with the nation’s educational system in outreach efforts to foster students’ interest in science, mathematics, and technology and to acquaint them with the opportunities that these fields offer. saice is also very interested in our Excellence in Civil Engineering Education (ExCEEd) program as a way of helping college faculty members become more effective in the classroom.

In contrast to South Africa, Egypt has a considerable number of civil engineers. Indeed, the South Africans recruit engineers from Egypt, but unfortunately Egypt lacks the financial resources for infrastructure investment on the scale seen in South Africa. The Egyptian Engineering Society is very active, and ASCE has a strong Egypt Section that is examining ways of providing greater benefit to its members.

Tunisia is an example of a stable government led by an enlightened president, Ben Ali, who has been in power for 20 years. He and his ministers recognize that the economic success of their country depends upon having a growth in gross national product nearly twice that of Europe. Tunisia is not rich in natural resources, but the country has emphasized science, mathematics, and technology and is using the export of their technology as a means of enhancing economic growth. This country of slightly more than 10 million people boasts more than 20 colleges and universities offering engineering and technical degrees. Tunisia has a program to reduce poverty and provide low-income housing, and the nation has virtually eliminated inadequate housing. With an emphasis on education, foreign investment, and internal investment, Tunisia is expanding and improving its infrastructure. Because it relies on imported energy, the nation recognizes the need for conservation and has a major energy conservation initiative in place. Recognizing that water is precious, Tunisia is also heavily engaged in developing water conservation techniques.

Engineers Week was a highlight of my presidential year. It was during that week that ASCE released the second edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century (http://www.asce.org/professional/educ/), which outlines the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that ASCE believes are necessary to practice civil engineering at the professional level. The event marking its formal release was attended by civil engineers, others within the profession, and representatives of the National Academy of Engineering. Engineers Week also saw the launch of an initiative called Engineer Your Life (www.engineeryourlife.org), which offers guidance to young women and acquaints them with the challenges and opportunities that a career in engineering can offer. The initiative is an outgrowth of ASCE’s involvement and leadership in the Extraordinary Women Engineers Project.

Promoting diversity in our profession was a major focus of my presidency. We celebrated the success of the Public Broadcasting Service series Design Squad, which brought the excitement of engineering challenges to younger audiences. Emulating the excellent work done by the Salvadori Center, of New York City, we launched a project to help teachers at the middle school level incorporate examples of civil engineering principles in their lesson plans. Furthermore, in publishing Diversity by Design: Guide to Fostering Diversity in the U.S. Civil Engineering Workforce, we outlined ways of developing and nurturing talent in all segments of our population.

I began my term just after the horrific collapse of a bridge in Minneapolis, and the tragedy focused the nation’s attention on the overall condition of our infrastructure. ASCE has continued to call attention to the urgent need to improve our built environment. I and many other ASCE leaders were interviewed on numerous occasions. We also testified before Congress, and in meeting with local, state, and federal legislators we made the case as forcefully as we could for adequate investments in our nation’s future. Our Leadership Training in Government Relations Program this year had the largest attendance ever, and those who participated made more than 250 visits to senators and congressmen. During that week I had the pleasure of naming Representative Earl Blumenauer ( D-Oregon), who has been a stalwart champion of infrastructure, an honorary ASCE fellow.

The year 2008 also saw its share of tragedy. The cyclone in Myanmar caused extreme devastation and loss of life. Unfortunately, the political system there made it impossible for ASCE to collect data and survey the damage. In China, the devastating earthquake that struck the southwestern part of the country in May severely strained the nation’s capability for disaster response. With the help of a number of individuals within China and ASCE members there, as well as members in this country, we were able to send three teams to collect data on the performance of infrastructure during and after the temblor. All of us within ASCE can be proud of our tradition of responding to these types of events. ASCE also apportioned $10,000 to match our members’ contributions to the Red Cross to assist the victims of the devastating floods this year in the Midwest.

ASCE’s External Review Panel completed its assessment of the work carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force on the hurricane protection system for New Orleans. As an outgrowth of that effort, ASCE decided to examine its own processes and procedures for these types of reviews. Sherwood Boehlert, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York, chaired a blue-ribbon committee and developed excellent recommendations. (See “Independent Task Force Recommends Changes to ASCE Procedures,” page 1.) Our Board of Direction and our Executive Committee are in the process of reviewing these recommendations, and new policies and procedures will be forthcoming.

It is always a great pleasure to recognize the achievements of civil engineers. The gala in April for those honored this year in ASCE’s Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) program was one of the highlights of my presidential year. Honoring these extraordinary individuals was extremely gratifying. It was also a pleasure to confer the Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award on a Maryland project, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This year, three civil engineers received awards from the American Association of Engineering Societies: Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., Ph.D. P.E., Hon.D.WRE, Dist.M.ASCE, Albert A. Grant, P.E., F.ASCE, and Priscilla P. Nelson, Ph.D., Dist.M.ASCE.

Our affiliation with Engineers Without Borders–USA (EWB-USA), which began at the end of my term as president-elect, will be an important part of ASCE’s future. I attended EWB-USA’s annual meeting this past spring in Seattle. Students and young members, as well as older members, were enthusiastic about their projects and their successes in helping people around the world. The desire to be a part of something larger than oneself and to assist people who are less fortunate has always been demonstrated by civil engineers. EWB-USA is an excellent vehicle for giving full scope to these constructive and humanitarian impulses, and I am confident that our relationship with EWB-USA will continue to be significant. We have a committee examining how we can better connect our student chapters with EWB-USA student chapters and link our sections and branches with the EWB-USA’s professional chapters. This effort holds great promise for our continued success as a profession and as a society.

During my year as president-elect, I had the pleasure of visiting almost 20 sections, branches, and student chapters, and my travels took me from New England to Hawaii and from Alaska to Florida. Meeting with members and hearing their concerns were invaluable to me as president-elect. My visit to the Los Angeles Section, which included a luncheon at which its life members were honored, led me to establish a task committee charged with giving our life members a higher profile. These members have much to contribute as mentors. We need to find structured ways of taking full advantage of their knowledge and energy and benefiting from their experience and perspective. The task committee has produced a report and is now working to help sections and branches establish life member groups.

My visits to student chapters were always invigorating. I loved the opportunities to converse with students. Attending events in the Student Steel Bridge Competition, which is also sponsored by the American Institute of Steel Construction, and in the National Concrete Canoe Competition were highlights of my year. The enthusiasm, energy, ingenuity, and spirit of teamwork that students brought to the events were remarkable.

A personal effort of mine for more than seven years finally came to fruition during my year as president-elect. With the help of an extremely able committee and 60 invited participants and staff, we were able to publish the report that grew out of the Summit on the Future of Civil Engineering, which was held in 2006. The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025 (http://content.asce.org/vision2025/index.html) received widespread attention, and rightly so, for it guides our strategic planning efforts, our work to properly define the civil engineering body of knowledge, and many other important Society undertakings. Testimony to our work is the fact that some of our sister societies are now embarking on their own efforts to define a vision.

During my year as president-elect, the event that most stands out in my mind is the tragedy that occurred at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In representing ASCE at the memorial service there, paying tribute to those who lost their lives in the process of teaching and learning, and offering my condolences, I was struck by the resilience and spirit of the students, teachers, bereaved family members, and, indeed, all those belonging to the Virginia Tech family. Their courage and grace were eloquent and made it clear that we can all be proud to be civil engineers.

In closing, I would like to announce that ASCE’s membership has grown to more than 145,000. I would very much like to take full credit for that, but clearly I do not deserve it! This achievement resulted from the efforts of many members, volunteers, and staff members. As I turn the reins of the presidency over to D. Wayne Klotz, P.E., D.WRE, F.ASCE, I am very confident that Wayne’s vision for the Society will lead to new levels of achievement and provide even greater value to our members.

 —David G. Mongan, P.E., F.ASCE

Liquid Assets Debuts At Newseum

The Newseum, a museum in Washington, D.C., devoted to news, provided the backdrop for the debut of the Public Broadcasting Service (pbs) program Liquid Assets, a documentary highlighting the parlous state of the nation’s water, wastewater, and storm-water systems. ASCE helped support the documentary and is also doing outreach work in connection with it. The documentary was produced by Penn State Public Broadcasting, part of Pennsylvania State University, and its debut featured comments by members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The program highlights the history of water, wastewater, and storm-water systems in the United States by focusing on 10 towns and cities and the unique issues they face, including water contamination caused by aging infrastructure, pollution from combined sewer overflows, storm-water pollution, and a lack of adequate funding. It features interviews with experts from a variety of groups, including the American Public Works Association, the EPA, local municipalities, and activist groups.

“This is a powerful and serious message,” stated Benjamin Grumbles, the assistant administrator for water for the EPA, prior to the debut. He also stated that individuals and organizations should view storm water as a reusable resource rather than as a waste product and that municipalities should consider raising the price of water so that funds would be available for repairing and replacing antiquated infrastructure.

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) contended that “our infrastructure is simply old across the country.” She also noted that Texas is the only state in the nation that has adopted a 50-year plan for rejuvenating and maintaining its water systems. Representative John Boozman (R-Arkansas) acknowledged that “water is not the most glamorous thing to talk about” but emphasized that issues related to it, including funding issues, need to be addressed.

In an interview with ASCE News, Tom Keiter, the executive producer of Liquid Assets, said that the idea for the program came from Sunil Sinha, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, formerly an assistant professor of civil engineering at Penn State and now an associate professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Sinha discussed with Keiter the deplorable state of the nation’s water, wastewater, and storm-water infrastructure and acquainted him with ASCE’s 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, which gave both drinking water and wastewater a grade of D–. Keiter then visited Atlanta to learn more about the innovative wastewater renewal projects there, which have stemmed from the efforts of the city’s mayor, Shirley Franklin. According to Keiter, his visit to Atlanta brought home to him the importance of the issue, and he thought it would make an interesting documentary. He said that he was familiar with ASCE’s involvement in the pbs five-part series Building Big, which was produced by pbs’s affiliate wgbh in Boston. That series explored the engineering and construction of such large structures as dams, tall buildings, and bridges.

According to Ted Krichels, the general manager of Penn State Public Broadcasting, local outreach programs and resources have been developed to give the public a better understanding of the issues discussed in the documentary, and a number of organizations, including ASCE, are currently making use of them. For more information about using the documentary for public education or to download a “community toolkit,” visit http://liquidassets.psu.edu. For broadcast dates, check local PBS listings.

Herrmann Testifies before Senate Committee

Andrew Herrmann, P.E., F.ASCE, a member of the Society’s Board of Direction, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on September 10. A bridge engineer for Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, of New York City, and a managing partner of the firm, Herrmann expressed ASCE’s views on the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act (S. 3338/H.R. 3999).

Herrmann’s testimony, which reinforced some of the points he made last year to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (see “Herr-mann, Womack Present ASCE’s Views on Bridge Infrastructure to Congress,” ASCE News, October 2007, page 1), stressed the urgency of removing or repairing bridges designated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

Herrmann described the inspection standards promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as well as approaches for evaluating and classifying bridges set forth in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges (2003) and in the FHWA’s Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (1995). He stated that those guidelines provide criteria for designating bridges as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. A designation as structurally deficient, he explained, requires limitations on speed and weight; bridges classified as functionally obsolete are safe for traffic but have “less than desirable geometric conditions required by current standards.”
“ASCE strongly supports quick action to enact the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act, which would authorize additional funds to repair, rehabilitate, and replace structurally deficient bridges,” Herrmann stated. He also said that ASCE supports a requirement that only licensed professional engineers certified as bridge inspectors be permitted to carry out bridge inspections.

Herrmann went on to recommend that the definition of “complex bridges” in the bill (title 23, part 650, section 650.30) be revised. That portion of the bill defines complex bridges as those with “unusual characteristics, including movable, suspension, and cable-stayed highway bridges.” ASCE believes that, by that definition, truss bridges with fracture-critical members, a category that would include the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007, would not be considered complex bridges. “ASCE suggests the language be amended to state that all bridges but simple highway overpasses be considered complex for inspection purposes,” Herr-mann stated.

Herrmann concluded his testimony by outlining ASCE’s policies regarding bridge funding and safety and by discussing the lamentable condition of the nation’s infrastructure. “Successfully and efficiently addressing the nation’s infrastructure issues, bridges and highways included, will require a long-term, comprehensive nationwide strategy—including identifying potential financing methods and investment requirements,” he said.

South African Dam Named a Civil Engineering Landmark 

David G. Mongan, P.E., F.ASCE, the Society’s president, and Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE, its executive director, were members of a delegation that traveled to Cape Town, South Africa, to formally recognize Woodhead Dam in ASCE’s Historic Civil Engineering Landmark Program. Mongan presented a commemorative plaque to Cape Town officials during a ceremony on August 1.

“I would wholeheartedly like to thank the South African Institution of Civil Engineering for nominating this structure as an international civil engineering landmark and for hosting this event today,” Mongan said during the ceremony. “Civil engineers are not usually in the spotlight when the water is flowing, sewage is being treated, and roads and buildings are standing safe and secure, so it is a great pleasure to be able to recognize a project that represents the wisdom of civil engineers and embodies the meticulous principles of dam engineering.”

The dam was constructed on Table Mountain, near Cape Town, to meet the needs of the large numbers of people who moved into the area after 1867, the year diamonds were discovered there. In 1894 Thomas Stewart, a young British hydraulic engineer, undertook the task of constructing the dam. Stewart overcame many challenges, not the least of which was transporting workers and materials to the dam site via a cableway that had been constructed for the purpose. Stewart successfully completed the project in 1897.

“For more than forty years, ASCE has recognized civil engineering achievements that have played a unique role in the development of our nation and the world as historic civil engineering landmarks. To date, two hundred forty-four projects worldwide have earned this prominent designation, one that illustrates the pioneering spirit of civil engineers,” Mongan remarked.

I would like to thank and congratulate ASCE members for their hard work on behalf of the Highway Trust Fund last month. After Mary E. Peters, the U.S. secretary of transportation, warned that the balance in the fund would become too low to continue regular highway reimbursements to states, those participating in our Key Contact Program wrote to their senators urging them to support a one-time, $8-billion transfer into the account to keep it solvent through fiscal year 2009. The measure won overwhelming bipartisan support, and the emergency cash infusion helped more than 300,000 people working in the construction industry keep their jobs. To learn more about ASCE’s public policy advocacy, attend the training seminar for the Key Contact Program that will be offered in Pittsburgh as part of our annual conference or visit www.asce.org/pressroom/publicpolicy/keycont.cfm.

Editors of ASCE’s professional journals have a unique opportunity to gain prestige for their publications by nominating outstanding papers for our Alfred Noble Prize, which is awarded to a technical paper of exceptional merit by an author 35 years of age or younger; our Norman Medal, which is awarded to the author of a paper that makes a significant contribution to engineering science; or our Arthur M. Wellington Prize, which is conferred on the author of a paper on transportation engineering. To learn more about these awards or to download nomination forms, visit www.asce.org/awards.

Did you know that friends or colleagues can acknowledge the efforts and contributions of recently deceased Society members by submitting their memoirs to our annual publication Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers? Memoirs should not exceed 600 words and should include the following information if available: the full name of the individual; the father’s given name; the mother’s given and maiden name; the individual’s date of birth, marital information, and educational background; highlights from his or her professional career; extracurricular activities; the names of his or her survivors; and the dates and grades of Society membership. To view examples, visit http://cedb.asce.org/ and select “Memoirs” under “Document Type.” The deadline for submissions for the 2008 edition is December 20. Individuals who wish to submit memoirs may e-mail them to cedatabase@asce.org. They may also mail them to the following address: Information Services (Memoir Submission), Publication Division, ASCE, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400. For more information, visit http://pubs.asce.org/authors/memoir.

I am pleased to announce that our Leader Education and Development (LEAD) program will begin its fifth training course on November 13. The sessions in this eight-month program will be held at ASCE’s headquarters, in Reston, Virginia. LEAD helps engineering managers become better leaders by training them to, for example, communicate in a way that motivates and inspires, lead the change process, put conflict in perspective, and create win-win solutions. Professional development in this area is very much in keeping with the skills and attitudes cited in The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025 (http://content.asce.org/vision2025/index.html) and the new edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century (http://www.asce.org/professional/educ/). Steve Smith, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, a principal structural engineer for the CTLGroup and a 2007 LEAD participant, had this to say: “Making a commitment to LEAD is one of the smartest, most efficient paths to building a leadership culture necessary for success.” For more information, visit www.asce.org/lead.

—Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE
Executive Director

SITUATION: An engineer and ASCE member is attending a large engineering conference. The engineer’s firm is planning to make a sizable computer system and software purchase, and many of the potential suppliers are exhibiting their wares at the conference. The engineer expects to play a role in the purchasing decision, so he visits the exhibit booths to learn more about the vendors’ products. At one of the booths the engineer is invited to put his business card in a jar as part of a raffle the vendor is conducting. The engineer does so, and a few days after the conference he is contacted by the vendor and told that he has won the grand prize, a $500 gift certificate.
While the engineer has no reason to believe his win was anything other than “the luck of the draw,” he is concerned that accepting the prize would be inappropriate in light of the potential business dealings he may have with the vendor. He discusses the issue with his immediate supervisor and contacts the ASCE hotline for ethics advice.

QUESTION: What ethical considerations are involved in deciding whether or not the engineer should accept the raffle prize?

DISCUSSION: Canon 4 of ASCE’s Code of Ethics reads as follows: “Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.” A conflict of interest may be defined as any situation in which financial or other personal relationships might impair a person’s ability to hold paramount the interests of his or her client or employer.

Receiving a gift or gratuity from a current or potential vendor represents a conflict of interest because it creates the possibility that the recipient may place more importance on continuing a beneficial relationship with the donor than on selecting the best vendor for his or her employer. While the financial benefit in this case is a raffle prize rather than an outright gift or gratuity, it is still possible that the employee may be so influenced by the prize that he is unable to dispassionately assess the merits of the products offered by the vendor. The employee in this case therefore has an ethical obligation to take steps to address the potential conflict of interest.

While the simplest solution here would be for the engineer to decline the prize, the requirement in the Code of Ethics to “avoid” conflicts of interest recognizes the possibility that not all potential conflicts of interest must be—or even can be—eliminated. (Indeed, the code does not flatly prohibit engineers from taking part in professional matters in which they have a conflict of interest.) Instead, the treatment prescribed by the code for most potential conflicts of interests is full disclosure to all parties involved in the transaction.

The guidelines to practice for canon 4 have this to say: “Engineers . . . shall promptly inform their employers or clients of any business association, interests, or circumstances which could influence their judgment or the quality of their services.” This stricture reflects the view that the party best placed to decide how to address an engineer’s potential conflict is the party whose interests would be affected by the engineer’s actions. The affected party may decide to require the party in question to recuse himself or herself from all participation in the activity, may allow for limited participation, or may decide that the potential conflict is so insubstantial that no action is warranted.

In the case at hand, the engineer discussed the prize with his immediate supervisor, who in turn referred the question to the firm’s president. After receiving assurances from the vendor that the prize was a legitimate raffle, the president agreed that the engineer could accept the prize, subject to the requirement that any decision on future contracts with the vendor be approved by the engineer’s supervisor and that the vendor be notified that the engineer would have no decision-making authority.

Situations such as this illustrate the importance of establishing corporate policies and guidelines for conflicts of interest. This is advisable not only for reasons of ethics but also as a regulatory and business matter. A well-written conflict policy should comply with state corporation laws, which often govern conflict of interest disclosures for officers and directors of a corporation, and should also serve as a tool for staff members and employees in understanding and resolving the various types of conflicts that may be encountered in the workplace.

Members who have an ethics question or would like to file a complaint with the Committee on Professional Conduct may call ASCE’s hotline at (703) 295-6061 or (800) 548-ASCE (2723), extension 6061. The attorneys staffing this line can provide advice on how to handle an ethics issue or file a complaint. Please note that individual facts and circumstances vary from case to case and that the general summary information contained in these case studies is not to be construed as a precedent binding upon the Society.

Manous Retires with Honors
Joe D. Manous, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, who recently retired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a colonel, has been honored for his service, attainments, and dedication. The Corps bestowed the Legion of Merit on him in recognition of his many accomplishments during his 29 years of service, and the Army Engineer Association honored him with the Silver de Fleury Medal for his achievements as an engineer. Manous also received the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for his contributions to both the military and civilian communities near West Point, New York. During his career Manous held a variety of field assignments and served as a professor of environmental engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point. A licensed professional engineer in Virginia, he earned a bachelor’s degree in physics from North Georgia College and State University and in civil engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology; a master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Illinois and in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College; and a doctorate in environmental engineering from the University of Minnesota. Manous currently serves on several ASCE committees and is the chair of the Committee on Professional Practice and of a task force set up after Hurricane Katrina to make recommendations on infrastructure. Upon his retirement from the military, he accepted a civilian position at the Corps’s Institute for Water Resources, in Alexandria, Virginia.

Fellows Elected
The following members were elected fellows of the Society in recent months. ASCE fellows are legally registered professional engineers or land surveyors who have made significant technical or professional contributions and have demonstrated notable achievement in responsible charge of engineering activity for at least 10 years following election to the ASCE grade of member. Fellows occupy the Society’s second-highest membership grade, exceeded only by distinguished members.

Joseph O. Arumala, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, is a professor in the civil engineering department at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. As a practicing engineer with more than 30 years of experience, Arumala has concerned himself not only with classroom instruction but also with work in the construction industry, research, administrative duties, and consulting work for various organizations. He has also been involved in collaborative research activities on coastal and gully erosion, construction materials, the resistance of tunnel linings to earthquakes, the resistance of building materials to different types of loads, integrity assessments of structures, and condition surveys of roads. In addition to working on a $470,000 athletic center in Princess Anne, Maryland, Arumala managed a summer internship program for five years in which undergraduate students at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore worked with scientists and engineers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Wallops Flight Facility. The author of An Introduction to Engineering Design, Arumala has made notable contributions to wall systems involving brick veneers with steel stud backup and has also investigated the effectiveness and applicability of alternative building materials for the housing industry, including compressed earth blocks and building blocks made using kenaf plant fibers. A member of ASCE since 1996, Arumala holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Lagos, in Nigeria, and a master’s degree and a doctorate, also in civil engineering, from Clemson University.

Terry A. Howell, Sr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, has worked for the past 14 years in Bushland, Texas, as the supervisory agricultural engineer of the Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, a facility operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Resource Service. Howell is responsible for leading the water management research unit and was one of the founders of a potential evapotranspiration network in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Texas Cooperative Extension Service (Texas AgriLife Extension Service). A licensed professional engineer in Texas, he has served on the task committee for ASCE’s practice manual 70 (Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements) for the past eight years. Howell has authored, coauthored, or contributed to more than 375 scientific publications and has demonstrated unique insight in adapting known principles of micrometeorology and soil physics for irrigation scheduling, work that has involved an understanding of the relationships between crops and water. He has also used mathematics and hydraulic theories to improve the design of irrigation and drainage systems. His research has contributed in important ways to the adoption of advanced irrigation systems and irrigation scheduling techniques in the southwestern United States.

Mewburn H. Humphrey, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, is currently on special assignment from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as the director of quality assurance and quality control for the Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel, a rail link beneath the Hudson River connecting New Jersey and New York. In that capacity he is responsible for directing the project’s quality management system. Humphrey provides quality assurance consultation and direction in the areas of design and construction and is also working with suppliers and vendors. As an adjunct associate professor at the New York City College of Technology, he has taught undergraduate courses in civil engineering technology, construction management, and statistics. A licensed professional engineer in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, Humphrey holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Guyana, a master’s degree in civil engineering from the City College of New York, and a doctorate in civil engineering from the City University of New York.

Sandra N. Knight, P.E., F.ASCE, works in Cleveland, Tennessee, as the county engineer for Bradley County and in that capacity is responsible for coordinating the operations of the county’s road department with regard to bridge replacements, the acceptance of new county roads, and the correction of drainage and traffic problems. Earlier in her career she was an engineering design manager for the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Knight has served on numerous ASCE committees and on the national level has been a member of the Committee on Professional Practice and the Policy Review Committee. She is currently completing her first term as governor of Region 4 and has been nominated for a second term. The Tennessee Section recognized her contributions and achievements with its Daniel B. Barge Award for Distinguished Service. A licensed professional engineer in Tennessee, Knight holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Tennessee.

Michael F. Moran, P.E., F.ASCE, is an engineering manager in the Florida Power & Light Company’s nuclear projects engineering group, where most recently he oversaw the efforts of 84 engineering and support staff members working to develop capital modifications. On an earlier project, he oversaw the engineering activities required to support the replacement of the St. Lucie Plant’s unit 1 pressurizer, a pressure vessel that was part of the reactor coolant system and cost more than $100 million. In recognition of his contributions on that project, Moran received the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Top Industry Practice Award in 2006. As an expert in the areas of project management and structural engineering, Moran has also been the engineering manager on a number of highly important projects to support Florida Power & Light’s power generation capabilities. A licensed professional engineer in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Florida, Moran received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering technology in 1979 from the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

Gan Mukhopadhyay, P.E., F.ASCE, is the senior surveying engineer and geotechnical and tunneling area operations manager for PB Americas, Inc., and has more than 35 years of engineering experience in the United States and abroad. With his expertise in geotechnical and earthquake engineering, Mukhopadhyay has provided leadership in planning, field investigations, design, and construction on a wide variety of civil engineering projects. These involved transportation corridors, highways, bridges, ports, offshore structures, dams, embankments, low- and high-rise buildings, pipelines, and power plants, and he has also done work in forensic engineering. Within ASCE Mukhopadhyay has chaired and been an officer of the Los Angeles Section’s waterways, harbors, and coastal engineering group. He has also served as a member of the board of directors of the Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce section encompassing Long Beach and Los Angeles. A licensed professional engineer in Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico, Mukhopadhyay holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Calcutta, in India, and a master’s degree in geotechnical engineering from Auburn University.

Samuel A. Shipman, P.E., F.ASCE, is a project officer and public administration coordinator for Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc., a contractor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a licensed professional engineer in Texas with more than 35 years of experience, Shipman has served almost exclusively in the public sector. He has functioned as a FEMA project officer since 2000, assessing damage, preparing cost estimates, and recommending the apportionment of funds (through public assistance programs) for rebuilding damaged infrastructure in a number of areas, among them Dauphin Island, Alabama (flood mitigation berm and sewer system), the Acoma Indian Reservation, in New Mexico (irrigation system repair), and Caddo County, Oklahoma (soil conversation rehabilitation). As an engineer officer with the U.S. Army, Shipman did humanitarian work in Panama in 1986. As an engineer and budget officer for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), he oversaw design and construction work on power generation projects, and he was later involved in ensuring that the TVA’s 54 dams met federal guidelines for dam safety, work that directly affected power generation, navigation, and flood control in an area encompassing seven states. Shipman holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Clemson University and a master’s degree in engineering management from the University of Tennessee.

Fellow applications may be obtained from ASCE’s world headquarters, in Reston, Virginia, by calling (800) 548-2723, extension 6289. From outside the country, the number is (703) 295-6289. The e-mail address is fellows@asce.org. The application may be found on the Web at www.asce.org/pdf/fellowmemapp.pdf. Completed applications may be submitted online at www.asce.org/membership/fellowgrade.cfm (click on “Online ASCE Fellow Application”). Questions concerning fellow guidelines (including guideline waiver inquiries) or the application process may be directed to Patrick Ballou, the applications coordinator, at (703) 295-6169 or pballou@asce.org. Completed applications are reviewed monthly by the Membership Application Review Committee.

Gordon Boutwell, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, died on September 2 at the age of 70. Boutwell earned a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree, both in civil engineering, from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a doctorate in civil engineering from Duke University. A practicing soils consultant in Louisiana since 1963, Boutwell founded Soil Testing Engineers, Inc., of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 1974 and was the firm’s president and a senior consultant until his death. (Soil Testing Engineers was purchased by the engineering firm Ardaman & Associates, Inc., in 2007.) Boutwell was an adjunct professor or guest lecturer at a variety of universities and was well known for his contributions to geotechnical and environmental engineering. A member of the Technical Coordination Council, a body within ASCE’s Geo-Institute, he also served on a team ASCE  assembled in 2005 to assess the performance of the levees in New Orleans. From 1992 to 2001 Boutwell served on the editorial board of ASCE’s Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

James C. Howland, P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, died on August 28 at the age of 92. Howland served as the general manager of the engineering firm Cornell, Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield (now CH2M HILL, of Denver) almost since its inception in 1946. After the firm became incorporated 20 years later, Howland became president, a position he held through 1974. In 2003 a plaza honoring Howland and his wife, Ruth, was constructed in their hometown of Corvallis, Oregon, in recognition of their dedicated service to the community. Howland received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Oregon State College (now Oregon State University) and a master’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During World War II he was in charge of creating military infrastructure, including hospitals, airfields, and water systems, on the island of Saipan. He retired in 1982 and was then appointed to Oregon’s State Water Resources Board, where he served from 1986 to 1994. Howland was an avid supporter of Oregon State University’s asce student chapter. For his many contributions, the Society honored him with its John I. Parcel–Leif J. Sverdrup Civil Engineering Management Award in 1984. Howland is survived by his wife, three sons, a daughter, a daughter-in-law, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Robert H. Kuhlman, P.E., F.ASCE, passed away on July 14 at the age of 85. Kuhlman was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and attended Lambuth College (now Lambuth University), in Jackson, Tennessee. He received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Arkansas, where he was a member of the engineering fraternity Theta Tau. In World War II he served in both the European and Pacific theaters and after the war went on to become the southeastern regional manager of the Portland Cement Association. He also worked as a consulting engineer. Kuhlman is survived by his wife, Willete, his son, William, and his daughter-in-law, Catherine.

Carlos Marin, M.ASCE, the U.S. commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission, died on September 15 at the age of 54 in a plane crash in Mexico. As the U.S. commissioner, he oversaw employees and projects in 12 offices along the United States–Mexico border. Marin was appointed commissioner in 2006 by President Bush after working for the commission for 27 years managing projects dealing with, among other subjects, flood control, sanitation, boundary demarcation, and mapping. He recently helped conclude an agreement with Mexico to improve flood control in the valley shared by El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Marin received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso in 1978 and worked for the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation from 1975 to 1979.

Carl J. Michels, P.E., BCEE, M.ASCE, died on May 10 at the age of 69. Michels earned a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Wisconsin at Platteville and a master’s degree in environmental engineering from the University of Notre Dame. In 1971 he moved to Sheboygan, Wisconsin, to work for Donohue & Associates, Inc. (now Earth Tech). There he was involved in water and wastewater treatment projects throughout the Midwest. He retired from Earth Tech in 2001 and established his own engineering firm, Michels Engineering. Michels was a registered professional engineer in four states and was actively involved in many professional associations. He organized and participated in industry conferences and published articles in several engineering publications. An avid hunter and fisherman, he was also an advocate of preserving natural resources. Michels’s love for his profession was balanced by his love for his family. He is survived by four children, seven grandchildren, and numerous friends and family members. Memorial donations may be made to a fund established in his name at the American Lung Association of Wisconsin, 13100 West Lisbon Road, Suite 700, Brookfield, WI 53005-2508.