JULY AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXII NUMBER 4 The Magazine …Gannett Fleming, an international planning,...

Also Inside

NSPE Future Directions Task Force UpdateRisky BusinessOn Capitol Hill

The Magazine of the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers

VOLUME XXII NUMBER 4JULY · AUGUST 2005

Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers July/August 2005 PE Reporter ■ 1

2005-2006 Executive Committee

President: Harry E. Garman PE, PLS5081 Hanover Drive; Allentown, PA 18106-9450

Phone: (610)481-9289 • [email protected]

President Elect: Harvey D. Hnatiuk PE, FNSPEPO Box 1075; Ft Washington, PA 19034


Secretary/Treasurer: Leonard K. Bernstein PE, FNSPE4140 Orchard Lane; Philadelphia, PA 19154-4418Phone: (215)824-3570 • [email protected]

Immediate Past President: Ernest U. Gingrich PE, PLS, FNSPE103 Centerfield Drive; Harrisburg, PA 17112Phone: (717)545-7020 • [email protected]

Vice President Central Region: John F. Bradshaw PE4431 N. Front Street, 2nd Floor; Harrisburg, PA 17110-1709


Vice President Northeast Region: Walter J. Poplawski PE90 N Thomas Avenue; Kingston, PA 18704


Vice President Northwest Region: David L. McCullough PE390 Bradys Ridge Road; Beaver, PA 15009


Vice President Southeast Region: Francis J. Stanton Jr. PE50 Fir Drive; Richboro, PA 18954


Vice President Southwest Region: Michel J. Sadaka PE9318 Marshall Road; Cranberry Township, PA 16066


Executive Director: John D. Wanner, CAE908 N. Second Street; Harrisburg, PA 17102


Editor: Jennifer A. Summers

The PE Reporter is published six times annually by the PennsylvaniaSociety of Professional Engineers (PSPE) located at 908 N. SecondStreet, Harrisburg, PA 17102. Phone: (717)441-6051 • www.pspe.org.Opinions expressed by authors herein do not necessarily reflect theopinion of PSPE.

Table of Contents

Cover PhotoThe Port Authority of Allegheny County’s Stage II Light Rail Transit

System Project has been named Project of the Year in the transportationcategory by the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania (ESWP).Gannett Fleming, an international planning, design, and constructionmanagement firm, served as the construction manager for this project, in ajoint venture with DMJM+Harris. See page 8 for more details.

PSPE members who wish to publish a project photo on the cover shouldcontact Jennifer Summers, 717.441.6051.

NSPE Code of Ethics for EngineersEngineers’ Creed

As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge andskill to the advancement and betterment of human welfare. I pledge:

To give the utmost of performance;

To participate in none but honest enterprise;

To live and work according to the laws of man and the highest standardsof professional conduct;

To place service before profit, the honor and standing of the professionbefore personal advantage, and the public welfare above all otherconsiderations.In humility and with need for Divine Guidance, I make this pledge.

Adopted by National Society of Professional Engineers, June 1954

AdvertisersBarton Associates ................................................................................. 4Boles, Smyth Associates, Inc. ............................................................. 17Buchart-Horn, Inc. ................................................................................ 6Burns Engineering Inc. ....................................................................... 13C.S. Davidson, Inc. ................................................................................ 3Carroll Engineering Corp. ................................................................... 4Cayuga Concrete Pipe .................................................................... IFCCumberland Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. ..................................... 9Engineering Mechanics, Inc. .............................................................. 13Fenner & Essler Insurance ................................................................... 2F.T. Kitlinski & Associates .................................................................... 4GAI Consultants Inc. .......................................................................... 16Gannett Fleming ................................................................................... 6Garvin Boward Engineering ............................................................... 3Hanover Engineering Associates, Inc. ............................................... 4Johnston Construction Company .................................................... 17Keddal Aerial Mapping ........................................................................ 4L. Robert Kimball & Associates ......................................................... 12McMahon Associates, Inc. .................................................................... 8Michael Baker Corporation ................................................................. 7Modjeski & Masters Inc. ...................................................................... 8New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co. Inc. .............................................. 4Northwest Engineering Inc. ................................................................ 7Pickering, Corts & Summerson Inc. ................................................... 9Powell Trachtman Logan Carrle & Lombardo ................................. 2Senate Engineering Company .......................................................... 12Tantala Associates ............................................................................... 16UPS ..................................................................................................... BC

ColumnsPresident’s Message .................................................................. 3On Capitol Hill .......................................................................... 5Cover Story ................................................................................. 8Risky Business ........................................................................... 9Political Action Committee Sponsor Report .......................... 15Classifed .................................................................................. 19PSPE Member Spotlight .......................................................... 20

FeaturesNSPE Future Directions Task Force Update ............................ 6

2 ■ PE Reporter July/August 2005 Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers


President’s MessageHarry E. Garman, P.E., PLS

Greetings toeveryone. For those ofwho attended the PSPEAnnual conference atthe Chateau Resort inTannersville in May, Ithank you on behalf ofthe society. I hopeeveryone had a good

time and managed to take in the excellentseminars that were provided. I hope you canplan to attend next year’s conference in ValleyForge. For those who have never attended aPSPE annual conference, I urge you to findthe time to get out to our conference so thatwe can make next year’s conference the mostsuccessful and enjoyable conference in recentyears.

On June 18, 2005, PSPE held a leadershipconference in Eastern Pennsylvania atFogelsville. There were over twenty inattendance which made this a very successfulevent. A concurrent conference wasscheduled in the Pittsburgh area, but due to alow registration of attendees, this conferencewas unfortunately cancelled. Leadershipconferences are held each year. Chapterofficers find the conference very useful forchapter for planning their activities. This is anexcellent opportunity to meet withneighboring chapters and exchange ideas andpossibly plan joint meetings.

During the leadership conference in June,Walt Poplawski, P.E., distributed a copy ofthe Engineer’s Creed. This prompted a

discussion regarding the line about placingservice above profit. I’ve decided to writeabout service in my first of several President’smessages that I will be sending to you thiscoming year.

I remember the first PSPE executivecommittee meeting I ever attended. In wasat the annual conference in Johnstown in 1988.I, being elected as Northeast Regional VicePresident that year, was invited to attend theexecutive committee meeting even though Iwas not yet installed as an officer of the society.Gary Bruce, P.E. was President and he beganthe meeting by asking everyone on theexecutive committee - What is the value ofour membership in NSPE and PSPE and whatdo you get for your dues? Being the new guyon the block, Gary saved me for last; therefore,I had the chance to hear everyone else’sresponse before I would answer. As we wentaround the table the answers covered thingslike our representation at the stategovernment through our lobbyists, receivingEngineering Times and the PE Reporter, theopportunity to take advantage of some ofour affinity programs such as discounts oncar rentals, life insurance and so on,opportunities to network with otherengineers and possibly find employment orget new work, and the opportunity to developleadership skills. When Gary finally got tome, all of the answers were given, at least theanswers that covered what measurable thingsone could get out of their membership. Iresponded by saying that the one thing that I

did not hear from any of the previous replies,was that our membership in NSPE & PSPEgives us the opportunity to give back to ourprofession. Our membership in this societyhelps the society to meet its mission and goalswhich are intended to serve the public.

As a person that has volunteered for anumber of organizations and at times hasvolunteered for a position that requiresgetting other volunteers, I know that onetheme comes through time and time again -time is money. Both are very measurableand it seems that whenever someone is askedto serve an organization, whether it be PSPE,the local youth association, a church orwhatever it may be, the first question askedfrom the potential volunteer is how much timewill this involve. Many times the excuse givenfor not serving is that the person does nothave the time. What is frequently ignored iswhat is gained from the time that is spent.This cannot be measured. It is the feeling ofhelping someone else with no expectation ofreceiving any compensation for your time. Ifyou have ever experienced this you knowthat this feeling is priceless. For many of you,you have known this feeling often. Many ofyou are past or present officers in yourchapter or of PSPE. For those of you thathave not yet been an officer, please considervolunteering for our organization. I am surethat you will find the reward well worth yourtime. ■


On Capitol HillJohn D. Wanner, CAE

“Capitol” continued p. 16

Budget Finally Passed, Cuts AvertedFor the second straight year, legislators

and lobbyists spent Fourth of July weekendtogether, finalizing the FY 2005-06 budget.Though required by law to pass the annualspending plan by midnight on June 30,legislative leaders and the Governor againfailed to meet the deadline, wrangling overrestoration of the proposed cuts in the DPWbudget, Sunday beer sales, implementationof the voter-approved Growing Greener IIenvironmental stewardship plan, and ofcourse, a 16% legislative pay raise.

Of particular interest to PSPE was therestoration of the $1 million engineeringequipment grant program in the Departmentof Education budget. While PSPE hasspearheaded the lobbying effort in supportof this line item for more than 20 years, it wasnot included in the Governor’s budgetpresented earlier this year. As a result, theLegislature needed to put it back into thebudget and that is exactly what happened.Also restored was the grant line item thatsupports the Mathcounts program. Thatappropriation was less than the previousyear’s grant however. Still, the inclusion ofboth of PSPE’s education initiatives representsa successful budget in that regard.

Governor’s Office AnnouncesUpdates to Regulatory Agenda

In the March Legislative Report, we noteda number of regulations announced by theRendell Administration. Here is a mid-yearupdate to that report, as published in the July2, 2005 PA Bulletin. Contact the listed agencycontact for more information.1. Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) – two regulations:

a. New Chapter 301 Operator CertificationRegulations Water and Wastewater SystemsOperators’ Certification Act. This proposal willimplement the provisions of Act 11 of 2002,the Water and Wastewater SystemsOperators’ Certification Act which restructuresthe testing and training program foroperators and enhances security provisions

for all water and wastewater treatmentsystems in PA. Scheduled to be published in“September 2005”, as proposed. ContactVeronica Kasi (717) 772-4053 for moreinformation.

b. Chapter 109—Safe Drinking Water Act25 Pa. Code, Chapter 109. This general updatewill revise several sections in Chapter 109 toretain or obtain primacy, includingmonitoring/reporting requirements for lead,copper, inorganic chemicals, volatile syntheticorganic chemicals, and synthetic organicchemicals. Other sections will be clarified, suchas QA/QC requirements for on-lineinstrumentation; monitoring/reportingrequirements for disinfectants and disinfectionbyproducts; requirements regarding thepractice of engineering, land surveying andgeology; reporting requirements for failureto monitor; and comprehensive monitoringplan requirements. Scheduled to be publishedin “October 2005”, as proposed. Contact LisaDaniels (717) 772-2189 for more information.

2. Infrastructure Investment Authority - 25Pa. Code §§ 963.12(a)(6) and (7) 963.13(b)2,963.13(c), 963.15(a), and 25 Pa. Code§ 965.4((9). PENNVEST recommends thefollowing revisions:

(1). Delete Sections 963.12(a) (6) and thesecond sentence of Section 963.13(b)(2) therebyallowing PENNVEST to provide financialassistance (loan or grant) for costs associatedwith development of an approvable officialsewage plan under the Sewage Facilities Act,35 P. S. § 750.1 et seq. While PENNVEST hasalways construed these costs to beencompassed with in the statutory definitionof ‘’eligible cost’’ (35 P. S. § 751.3), the agencychose as a matter of policy not to fund thisplanning process because the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protectionalready provided grant funds for 50% of thesecosts. PENNVEST is revising its policybecause the agency is concerned that, in someinstances, needed projects are unable to moveforward in a timely manner due to a lack offunds to conduct this necessary planning.

PENNVEST, therefore, is removing theimpediment to funding imposed by the aboveregulatory provisions.

(2). Delete 25 PA Code § 963.12(a)(7)thereby allowing PENNVEST to providefinancial assistance (loan and grant) for costsassociated with the extraction for profit ofminerals or other resources from wastewateror sludge whether the project is sponsoredby a public or private actor. While PENNVESThas historically allowed these costs for publicfacilities provided the profits were used toreduce system user costs it has not allowedfinancial assistance for such processes forprivate facilities. PENNVEST is revising itspolicy because it wants to support recyclingand other innovative wastewater projects andthe current policy has the potential to stiflesuch projects. In order to further theseobjectives, PENNVEST is removing theimpediment to funding imposed by the aboveregulatory provision.

(3). Amend 25 PA Code 963.13 (c) byrevising the section to read as follows: ‘’Termsof Loans. Advance funding loans will be for aterm of five years. The term will be paymentof interest only for 59 months and repaymentscheduled for month 60. The scheduledrepayment date, month 60, shall not exceed 1year from completion of the advance fundingproject. If the recipient of an advance fundingloan subsequently receives a construction loanfrom the Authority, the term of theoutstanding advance funding loan shall beamended to carry both the interest only termand the repayment term of the constructionloan, provided the interest only term shall notbe extended beyond five years.’’

(4). Amend 25 Pa. Code § 963.15(a) byrevising the first sentence to read in its entirety:‘’The term of the loans shall normally betwenty years beginning on the dateconstruction is completed or three years fromof the date of loan closing, whichever occursfirst.’’ This amendment provides a level loanrepayment and a defined term at loan closing(normally twenty years). Under the old policy


The Future Directions Task Force wascharged by the NSPE leadership and statesocieties to:• Reaffirm or reinvent the NSPE vision/

mission.• Formulate a plan to enhance and focus

NSPE programs, products, and services.• Streamline governance and

administrative operations.• Recommend bold overall changes to

ensure the long-term sustainability ofNSPE.The overriding framework for the charge

was key: Start with a blank slate. If you wereto create NSPE from nothing, what would itlook like? Nothing is sacred. Nothing is offlimits for consideration.

A highly respected association consultant,Rhea Blanken, was retained to facilitate theinitial phase of the FDTF process andmeetings. She first guided the task force onthrough an in-depth review of a large bodyof reports from NSPE. Reports from Blue-ribbon panels and state executive

recommendations had called for change ofvarious sorts over the past two decades. Thetask force delved into extensive membersurvey and market research results performedover the past several years.

With this extensive analysis andbackground, the task force began to zero inon central questions facing any association.Who will the members be? Who will the newassociation serve? The FDTF formed threesubgroups to develop three potentialscenarios for a future Society, evaluating thestrengths, weaknesses, and measurementmetrics for each, and developing potentialvision, mission and goal statements for each.Those membership scenarios were as follows:1. PEs only (and EIs who will acquire a PE

in a reasonable amount of time);2. An enhancement of the current model-

graduates of ABET-accreditedengineering colleges and PEs;

3. The “big tent,” geared toward all thosewith an engineering degree

Vision and MissionThe FDTF narrowed the Society’s focus

to PE and EI members only. The next stepwas to determine what image NSPE shouldattain in the engineering community and whatpotential members would want from theSociety. These aspects were incorporated intoVision and Mission statements, with thedefinition of membership serving as theguiding factor.

The VisionThe new NSPE Vision statement paints a

picture, in the present tense, of the future thatNSPE seeks to attain, not how it will beachieved. A proposed Vision was developedand then presented at the January 2005Summit in San Diego, and with a modificationrecommended by the participants, thefollowing was approved with overwhelmingsupport:

NSPE is the recognized voiceand advocate of licensedProfessional Engineers.

Highlights from the Action Plan of theNSPE Future Directions Task Forceto Revitalize NSPEPresented to the NSPE Board of DirectorsJune 20, 2005

The Future Directions Task Force began its work in the spring of 2004 with a clear charge from thenational leadership and a broad call from the state societies to address the NSPE membership andservice challenges. Following are excerpts from the task force report.


“Future” continued p. 12

Even if highly successful, the Society maynever reach a point where every professionalengineer is a member, but for those whomake the commitment to become licensed,we want NSPE to be the organization theylook to for defending their interests anddefining their image.

Many other societies serve and promotethe individual disciplines of engineering, butthe license is what sets NSPE apart. To worktowards this Vision, NSPE needs to exploitwhat makes its members different.

The MissionThe new NSPE Mission statement

provides a declaration of identity and purpose,declaring the primary objectives towardwhich resources, programs, and products willbe aimed. The Mission provides direction forthe Society, but not specifically measurablegoals that could quickly become outdated. Theproposed Mission was also presented at theSan Diego Summit and garnered nearlyuniversal support from participatingmembers.

NSPE, in partnership withState Societies, is the organizationof licensed Professional Engineers(PEs) and Engineering Interns/Engineers in Training (EIs/EITs).

Through education, licensureadvocacy, leadership training,multi-disciplinary networking, andoutreach, NSPE enhances the imageof its members and their ability toethically and professionallypractice engineering.

GoalsThe FDTF has proposed three primary

goals for the Society:1. State-National Partnerships2. Value to Members3. Membership Growth“Value to members” remains

paramount, but that goal cannot be achievedwithout full commitment to the other goalsas well. Goal 1 (state-national partnerships)represents a “how” in better providing valueto members. Goal 2 focuses on the membersthemselves, and Goal 3 (membership growth)can be viewed as both a result of the bettervalue and a cover for the “how’s” ofrecruitment and retention.

Let us take each goal in turn, with theproposed strategic plan objectives for eachand what they imply for change.

Goal 1: State/National PartnershipsObjectives1. Foster state-national communication and

relations.2. Share association management

knowledge, resources, and assistance.3. Share resources and expertise on

legislative and regulatory affairs affectingPEs/EIs.

4. Develop products and services (e.g.,speakers, educational courses, etc.) fordelivery at all levels of NSPE (chapter,state, and national) to meet memberneeds.

Goal 2: Value to MembersObjectives1. Promote and protect PE licensure and the

practice of professional engineering.2. Provide leadership, outreach, and

management training opportunities.3. Provide networking and mentoring

opportunities for PE/EIs across disciplinesand within interest areas.

4. Provide various opportunities forcontinuing education.

5. Provide assistance to EI members toacquire the PE license.

6. Serve as the information resource formembers on all PE issues.

7. Promote ethical practice and provideethical training to our members.

Goal 3: Membership GrowthObjectives1. Market and promote membership

through a national-state-chapterpartnership and possible partnershipswith other organizations.

2. Improve the visibility and importance ofmembership in NSPE.

3. Expand/improve the EnterpriseProgram for PE/EIs.

4. Offer a template to states and interestgroups on how to establish virtualchapters.

5. Effectively communicate and promotethe benefits of membership.

6. Create an alliance with NCEES and withother national and state organizations.

7. Develop strategies to attract youngengineers.

Guidelines and Goals for InterestGroups

“Interest groups” refer to groups ofmembers who come together to share acommon interest.

These can range from a group networksvia an online forum to a full-fledged practice


The Port Authority of Allegheny County’s Stage II Light RailTransit System Project has been named Project of the Year in thetransportation category by the Engineers’ Society of WesternPennsylvania (ESWP). Gannett Fleming, an international planning,design, and construction management firm, served as theconstruction manager for this project, in a joint venture withDMJM+Harris.

The $400 million Light Rail Transit System Project reconstructedand improved the Overbrook Line located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Theproject also provides signals, communications, and trackworkupgrades throughout the existing and expanded system, includingadditional stations, park and ride facilities, and light rail vehicles.Originally constructed in 1873 as a narrow-gauge single-track coalline, the 5.2-mile Overbrook Line section was closed more than 10years ago due to its deteriorating condition.

According to the ESWP, the Light Rail Transit System Projectenhances patron safety, provides parking and passenger interfacesto enhance ridership, and decreases the overall downtown commutetime for many of the system’s 24,000 daily light rail transit patrons.

“Gannett Fleming is delighted to have teamed with the firmDMJM+Harris to provide the full spectrum of constructionmanagement services on this project, from constructability reviewsduring the project’s design phase, through construction inspection,to operational start-up,” stated Michael A. MacAllister, P.E., StageII project manager. “This successful project provides the SouthHills communities with a faster and safer light rail transit line todowntown Pittsburgh, improving the vitality of the entiremetropolitan area.”

Cover Story


When our founding fathers declared theirindependence from England, we werethirteen colonies. On September 3, 1783, theTreaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary Warand doubled the size of the United States byshifting the boundary to the Mississippi.Twenty years later, on April 30, 1803, theUnited States doubled again with theLouisiana Purchase. Without transportation,all that land was part of the country on paperonly.

How much did transportation matter?By 1803, when Lewis and Clark set out ontheir expedition, transportation as far as St.Louis was so reliable that most peopleconsider the expedition to have started there.East of St. Louis, transportation was nearlyroutine.

This development did not occur naturally.The development of reliable transportationsystems was intentional and strategic.

The RouteThe route west originated as a buffalo

and deer path, then the path of the DelawareIndians. In 1751, Thomas Cresap and theDelaware guide, Nemacolin, followed thepath, blazing the trees so that the white folkcould find it.

In 1753, 21-year old George Washingtonwas sent west by the British governor ofVirginia to warn the French to leave the Ohiocountry. Washington was with GeneralBraddock as he struggled to move cannon

Risky BusinessRebecca Bowman, Esq., P.E.

from the Monongahela River to FortNecessity. He had participated in thetransformation of this path into a 12-foot-widecorduroy road, clearing the path and layingthe cut logs in a parallel pattern to form a(somewhat) stable surface.

Washington traveled the road again in1784 to inspect western land he owned and toencourage travel. It took his party five weeksto travel 680 miles. The trip was more thanpersonal to Washington because he wasopposed to letting geological barriers dividethe land into domains and wanted todemonstrate the possibilities.

The ImpactHow important were roads to the

development of the United States andspecifically in Pennsylvania? Curiously, thelack of a good road was a major factor in theWhiskey Rebellion in 1794. WesternPennsylvania farmers had a surplus of grain.Gross profit on a ton of grain transportedback east by wagon was $36. Gross profit ona ton of corn whiskey transported back eastby wagon was $220. Whiskey quickly becamecurrency.

The new Federal government decidedto tax that currency. When the farmersrebelled, Washington called up the militia,15,000 men, to suppress the revolt.

Many understand the Whiskey Rebellionto have been the first test of the Federalgovernment’s ability to impose taxes. Some

understand that the Whiskey Rebellion wasthe first demonstration of the Federalgovernment’s ability to act locally. Fewunderstand the role of road transportation inthe Whiskey Rebellion.

Had the National Road already been inplace in 1794, there would have been no needfor whiskey to be a form of currency, thatfirst excise tax would have been levied onsome other product, and that firstdemonstration of Federal power would havebeen about something completely different.(Of course, I think it’s exciting in a James Dean-rebellious sort of way that Pennsylvania wasthe source of the Whiskey Rebellion.)

There were other less obviousconsequences of the lack of good roads, too.When the First Congress convened on March4, 1789, there was no quorum. The House didnot have a quorum until April 1st; the Senate

Without transportation,all that land was part of thecountry on paper only....

The development ofreliable transportationsystems was intentional andstrategic.

“Risky” continued p. 10


The effect of the

National Road was

immediate. Land values in

western Pennsylvania

soared from $6 per acre to

as high as $70 per acre.

“Risky” continued from p. 9

did not have a quorum until April 6th. Inlarge part, this was because bad weather hadrendered the primitive roads completelyimpassable. In fact, one commentator notedthat the roads were actually better in thewintertime: Once the snow fell, using a sleighwas much more reliable than trying to use awagon or carriage over rutted roads.

The GenesisWhen Thomas Jefferson became

president, he and his Secretary of the Treasury,Albert Gallatin, were seriously concerned withunifying the union and establishing a presencein the west. Both men believed that a roadbuilt as a nationally-sponsored and nationally-funded project would significantly enhancethe country, easing homesteading andfacilitating economic development, reducingmail time and enhancing communication.

Secretary Gallatin proposed the NationalRoad, estimating that it would save $200,000per year in transportation costs and recapturecommerce currently being diverted by watertransportation to the French territories at themouth of the Mississippi in New Orleans.

Jefferson was concerned that theConstitution did not provide authority forconstruction of internal improvements or fortheir funding. Gallatin’s solution was to setaside a portion of the sale price of governmentland to fund construction. He asked for 10%and got 2%. It was enough.

In 1806, Congress launched the NationalRoad with a Cumberland Road Commissionto establish the route and to overseeconstruction and maintenance. The 1806 routereport of the Commission missed Uniontownand Washington. Pennsylvania declined togive its approval unless the route was alteredto include both towns. The change addedboth miles and elevation, and consequentlycosts, but without Pennsylvania’s agreement,the Road was impossible.

At the time, the normal method ofachieving reliable roads was to form acompany to invest in construction; profitswould result from net toll income.Responsible companies set aside a portion ofthe net toll income for repairs andmaintenance; their roads had relatively longlife spans. Irresponsible companies invested

the minimum amount in construction andtook all of the net toll income as dividends;their roads came and quickly went. In thisway, private investors had already bandedtogether in 1797 to build the Baltimore Pike, atoll road from Baltimore to Cumberland,Maryland.

As states became more stable, theyregulated turnpikes closely, both setting tollsand establishing construction standards.Private turnpikes had two commoncharacteristics: They connected population

centers and they were in low-challengeterrain.

The challenge for the National Road wasthat it needed to proceed west without thesupport of existing population centers and itneeded to cross the Allegheny Mountains.Private investors were not interested in thatmarket!

More about the RouteBeginning in Cumberland, the proposed

National Road was to follow Braddock’s routeas far as Uniontown then proceed west intoOhio, then seeking statehood. The plan wasto proceed from Uniontown throughBrownsville and Washington, Pennsylvaniato Wheeling, Virginia and on throughSt.Clairsville, Ohio to Zanesville. In Zanesville,the National Road was to intersect with thepost road known as Zane’s Trace fromWheeling to Chillicothe, Ohio.

Construction and CostThe National Road was to be a four-rod

(66-foot) right of way finished with stone witha maximum grade of 8.75%. (Only a single,

mountainous stretch between Cumberlandand Uniontown exceeded the grade standardat 9.2%.) The profile was to be raised in themiddle with stone, earth or gravel, and sandwith a ditch on each side.

The initial estimate was a cost of $6,000per mile, excluding bridges. The final cost ofthe National Road from Cumberland toUniontown was $9,745, including bridges. Forthe 30 miles between Uniontown andWashington, the average cost was $6,400 permile, But, between Washington and Wheeling,the average price shot up to $24,400, resultingin a scandal and an investigation.

There were two road constructionstandards in use at the time. FrenchmanPierre Tresaguet’s approach was developedin 1760. His method consisted of a crownedsub-base of 7” stones hammered in place anda base of small hard stones. There was nointegration of the surfaces. EnglishmanThomas Telford’s method consisted of a sub-base of set stones packed with stone chips.This was topped with a tapered, compactedlayer of small stones with a depth of 7” in thecenter and 3” at the outer edges. This wastopped with 1.5” of clean gravel. This methodwas more durable, but much more expensive.

No, Scotsman John Loudoun McAdam’smethod (macadam) was not in use. It wasintroduced in Europe in 1816, but the first U.S.use was on a private turnpike in 1823.McAdam’s focus was on reducing thepenetration of water. He required that allstones must pass through a 2” ring. Thinlayers were installed and traffic was permittedto compact them.

The National Road was constructed inlarge part using a local variation of theTresaguet method: The standard called for alayer of stones that could pass through a 7”ring, topped by a layer of stones that couldpass through a 3” ring. While the roadconstruction methods were less than ideal,the spectacular and beautiful engineeredstructures were immediately famous and, withseveral still in place today, wonderfullydurable.

ProgressContracts to clear were let in 1808, but

construction contracts for the first 10 mileswere not let until 1811. By this time, the plans


BIBLIOGRAPHYBruce, Robert. The National Road. Washington, D.C.: National Highways Association, 1916.Day, Reed B. The Cumberland Road: A History of the National Road. Apollo, Pennsylvania: Closson Press, 1996.Ierley, Merritt. Traveling the National Road: Across the Centuries on America’s First Highway. Woodstock, New York: Overlook Press, 1990.Morse, Joseph E. and R. Duff Green, eds. Thomas B. Searight’s “The Old Pike,” an illustrated narrative of The National Road. Orange, Virginia:

Green Tree Press, 1971.Raitz, Karl, ed.. A Guide to the National Road. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.Raitz, Karl, ed.. The National Road. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.Searight, Thomas B. Searight. The Old Pike. Uniontown, Pennsylvania: privately published, 1894.Vivian, Cassandra. Images of America: The National Road in Pennsylvania. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2003.

for the National Road had been expanded toinclude the capitals of three new states: Ohio(Columbus), Indiana (Indianapolis), andIllinois (Vanadalia). However, it wasn’t until1820 that Congress appropriated an additional$10,000 to extend the National Road fromWheeling to the Mississippi between St. Louiseand the mouth of the Illinois River.

Construction proceeded in segments ofapproximately 10 miles. Magnificent archedbridges crossed various waterways. Many ofthose bridges still exist. Travelers consistentlycommented on their beauty and solidity.Wheeling was finally reached in 1818.Although there were still some sectionsunpaved, U.S. mail service began betweenWheeling and Washington, D.C. in 1818. Theeffect of the National Road was immediate.Land values in western Pennsylvania soaredfrom $6 per acre to as high as $70 per acre.

The section from Wheeling to theMississippi River broke ground on July 4, 1925.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did nothave authority to be involved in civil worksprojects until the General Survey Act waspassed on April 30, 1824. At that point, theCorps became involved in construction westof Wheeling and maintenance and repair eastof Wheeling.

The Corps already faced severe damageto the eastern segments as a result of overuseand from wagoners setting brakes on theslopes. The Corps was responsible for thefirst installation of macadam on the Wheelingsegment. In 1827, Congress appropriated$170,000 to finish the Road brom Bridgeville,Ohio to Zanesville, a distance of 73 miles.

The National Road reached Columbus,Ohio in 1833. Did it make much difference?By 1840, Ohio was the third most populousstate. Due to gentle terrain, the cost of theNational Road in Ohio was only $3,400 per

mile. By 1850, the National Road had beencompleted through Indiana and into Illinois.The western section used an 80-foot right ofway, but the construction quality was poorbecause of the poor quality of local stone.

The issue remained, however, of how topay for maintenance. In 1815, SenatorCalhoun argued for increased funding for theNational Road, especially for maintenance,citing the problems caused in the War of 1812by poor roads. The bill passed the Congress,but President Madison, who strenuouslyopposed a the concept of a national turnpike,vetoed it on March 3, 1817. This actionultimately forced control of the National Roadto pass to the respective states. Tokenamounts were appropriated for repairs until1829, when Congress released $100,000 forrepairs. As repairs were completed, asegment was to be turned over to the state.Until a segment was turned over, the statescould not perform repairs on nationalproperty, no matter how badly they wantedto.

In 1831, Congress started transferringcontrol to the respective states. In 1838, allCongressional appropriations forconstruction ended (excluding the allocationfrom the sale of government lands). In 1849,Congress turned the Indiana segment overto the state after spending $1.1 million ongrading, draining, and bridging the route;note that didn’t include paving. In 1856,Congress turned the Illinois segment, whichnever got further than Vandalia, over to thestate after spending $746,000 for only clearingand grading. By that time, the generalexpectation was that the right of way wouldbe used for a railroad.

The National Road was not withouthistorically-amusing controversy. Concernedthat a cabled bridge over the Ohio at Wheeling

would divert traffic away from Pittsburg andWashington, Pennsylvania’s Edwin Stantonsued to stop construction of that bridge,alleging that the bridge would interfere withriver traffic. The bridge was built anyway. In1849, Stanton smashed a steamship into thebridge to demonstrate the interference. Inresponse, Charles Ellet, Jr. had the bridgedeclared a postroad, giving it priority right-of-way. The battle became moot when thebridge blew down in 1854.

Empire BuildersAs Europe observed the fledgling nation

establish its personality, one thing wasstriking. The European tradition was forleaders to build palaces and monuments toelevate their stature. The United States’ greatmonument to its empire was a National Road,built at great expense and risk, looking to thefuture of the entire population.

Interestingly, by the time it wascompleted, the National Road had becometechnologically obsolete. Engineers wouldforce us to move forward. We’ll look atthat next time. At every stage, though,without engineers as empire builders,westward expansion would have been arisky business. ■

The “Risky Business” column offers articlescovering liability from both the legal andengineering perspective. Mrs. Bowman’s articlesshare general information and should not be reliedupon as professional legal advice of either a generalor specific nature. Rebecca Bowman is a civilengineer-attorney in solo private practice inMcMurray, Pennsylvania for more than 25 years.Her practice is a certified woman-owned business.Her B.S. in Civil Engineering is from theUniversity of North Dakota.


division like those that exist today. Suchinterest groups should represent one ofNSPE’s important member services. Afterall, one of the Society’s unique features is thatit brings together engineers of all disciplinesand all service sectors; interest groups can helpprovide such interactive and service-producing forums. Members may choose tojoin any number of interest groups and nomember will be “assigned” to a particular one.

Interest groups might fit one of threelevels:

1. Few or no resources required;minimal approval process; fastresponse to member interests (thiscould be as little as an online forum).

2. Modest resource allocation andadministration process and simplebusiness plan. An in-year approvalprocess may be possible.

3. Significant resource allocation; morecomplex administrative structurerequired; more sophisticatedbusiness plan, probably requiringspecific inclusion in the annualbudgeting process. (Example:Professional Engineers in PrivatePractice [PEPP])

Interest groups will receive significantautonomy within certain reasonableguidelines. Activities must meet the missionand objectives of NSPE. Beyond that, therewill be budget evaluation and allocation basedon the value delivered to members, and in sodoing, interest groups will be encouraged toengage members in innovative and new waysto address a common interest or concern

The current practice divisions are foldedunder the interest group umbrella becausethey are basically large interest groups. Each

of the historical five practice divisions -construction, education, government,industry, and private practice - have beencritical to NSPE’s past success, despite somepast NSPE organizational changes that, forsome, have made their continued financialviability a challenge.

Moving forward, the business plans ofthe current practice divisions will be reviewedannually to determine what resources theywill require and how they will operate, and ingeneral, interest groups will need to delivermeasurable outcomes for continuation oftheir programs, as with any NSPE initiative.

Each practice division will align itselfwithin the same guidelines as other interestgroups. One enhancement to the generalresource allocation process will be a greaterunification of the interest group/practicedivision budgets into the full national budgetfor comprehensive program prioritization.The new structure will give flexibility inproviding the needed staff resources, lessduplication of effort, and a lifting of rules thatrequire practice divisions to balance theirbudgets. If an opportunity exists for a practicedivision to provide valuable services paid outof membership dues and not their ownrevenue programs, then the prioritizationprocess can put that effort on the table witheverything else.

A measurable outcome of these interestgroups will be the number of satisfiedmembers who are engaged in their activitiesand who see the benefit of participating.

Role of RegionsState societies will be encouraged to

continue meeting with one another to fostercommunications, share ideas, and serve themembers. However, the traditional role of

the regions will be eliminated under the newgovernance scheme. With each state societyhaving a direct representative (Delegate) tothe House of Delegates, there will no longerbe Regional Vice-Presidents representing eachof the regions on the Board of Directors (as ofJuly 2006).

Geographic districts will be establishedto provide for a regional distribution on theBoard of Directors and the CandidateScreening Committee, but will have no otherofficial role.

New Governance ModelThe new governance model is designed

to address two critical questions:1. How do we provide a more direct

relationship between each statesociety and national?

2. How do we provide a more efficientand expedient way to make criticaldecisions?

Although these can be seen ascontradictory priorities, a balanced approachhas been developed to meet both objectives(while also providing members a greatopportunity to develop organizational andleadership skills). With the changes outlinedbelow, we are seeking a more efficient andflexible organization that can nimbly shift toaddress ever-changing member needs.

House of DelegatesA House of Delegates is proposed to

provide a direct relationship between eachstate society and national. The House ofDelegates will be comprised of onerepresentative from each state society and oneseat for each member of the Board ofDirectors, for a total not to exceed sixty-nine(69) Delegates. Each state society will select

“Future” continued from p. 7


“Future” continued p. 14

their Delegate, who will serve a two-year term;half of the state Delegates will rotate in andout of the House of Delegates each year.

A House of Delegates assembly will meeteach July to deliberate and determine strategyand policy for NSPE and elect members to fillexpired terms of the NSPE Officers and Boardof Directors. We recommend that Delegates’attendance at the House of Delegatesassembly be reimbursed for reasonableexpenses as defined in the OperatingProcedures (still to be developed).

Full and engaged participation of eachstate society in the strategic decisions of thenational organization is essential to theultimate success of both national and each statesociety. The House of Delegates will make allsignificant decisions concerning the directionof NSPE, including the election of the Boardof Directors and NSPE Officers. The House ofDelegates will be responsible for definingwhat the organization will do to meet thevision, mission, and goals. The House ofDelegates will also have the sole power toamend the new NSPE Bylaws.

The proposed Bylaws will includeweighted voting for each State Delegate, basedon the membership of the state societyrepresented. This issue was much debated atthe January 2005 Summit in San Diego. Theweighted voting scheme proposed in theBylaws will provide greater influence for thelarger states while assuring that the smallerstates have a strong voice.

This model is the most effective way toengage each state society in NSPE. However,this is not the “old Board of Directors.” TheHouse of Delegates will deal with policy andstrategic planning for the organization but willnot be involved with the business aspects ofNSPE. Issues such as budget allocation and

staffing will be the responsibility of theExecutive Director, national leadership, andthe NSPE Board of Directors.

Board of DirectorsThe Board of Directors will be limited to

sixteen (16) members and be comprised ofthe NSPE Officers (President, President-Elect,Immediate Past President, Treasurer andSecretary), State Society Executives Council(SSEC) President, and ten (10) other Directors.

Each member, except the Secretary, willbe a voting member of the Board of Directorsand by extension, voting members of theHouse of Delegates. NSPE Officers will servethe term defined in the Bylaws. The SSECPresident will serve for a one-year termcorresponding to their term as SSECPresident. Each of the ten Directors will servea two-year term with five (5) Directorsrotating off the Board each year. TheseDirectors will not be eligible for re-election toa second consecutive term. A State Delegatecan be elected to the Board of Directors buthe/she will have only the vote(s) of their statesociety at the House of Delegates assembly.

This smaller Board of Directors will focuson the implementation of the strategies andpolicies set by the House of Delegates. Theywill be focused on “how” not “what.” Theywill also focus on measuring the outcome ofthe various initiatives and the performanceof the national staff, through the ExecutiveDirector.

Election of NSPE OfficersThe House of Delegates will elect the

NSPE President-Elect every year, andTreasurer every two years. The all-memberelection of these officers is being changed togive direct control over the election of the

Officers to the House of Delegates. This changeenables NSPE to conduct a more conventionalelection, with more than one candidate foreach position.

The NSPE Candidate ScreeningCommittee will review candidates for NSPEPresident-Elect and Treasurer and prepare aballot including all qualified candidates forboth positions. This ballot will be submittedto the House of Delegates for the election ofNSPE Officers. No longer will the CandidateScreening Committee select the onerecommended candidate for each office,virtually electing the new officers when theselection is not contested by the othercandidates. A majority vote of the House ofDelegates is required to elect an Officer. Asecond or third ballot may be required toachieve this majority vote as set forth in theBylaws if there is a race for an office with morethan two candidates. NSPE Officers will bedirectly responsible to the House ofDelegates.

Election of Board of DirectorsThe House of Delegates will also elect

the ten other Directors (five Directors eachyear.) The proposed Bylaws and OperatingProcedures will define an initial allocation ofthe ten Directors to represent specificconstituent groups as follows: one for eachgeographic district (six total, with thegeographic districts defined in the OperatingProcedures [see “Role of Regions” in thecomplete report online]), two to represent thepractice divisions (two total), one to representthe Young Engineers Advisory Council(YEAC), and one representative from thevoting membership at large.


The House of Delegates can change thisallocation as they see fit. The presiding officerof the House of Delegates assembly will takenominations and conduct an election for eachvacant position on the Board of Directors.

The election of each of these Directorswill still fall to the House of Delegates. Theonly representatives to the Board of Directorsnot directly ratified by the House of Delegateswill be the SSEC President who is chosen bythe State Society Executives Council and theSecretary who is elected annually by theBoard, and is traditionally the NSPE ExecutiveDirector. In this manner, the Board ofDirectors is responsible to and serves at thepleasure of the House of Delegates, who havethe ultimate authority over the governanceof NSPE.

Constitution & Bylaws RevisionsChanges to the current Constitution and

Bylaws governing NSPE have beendeveloped to accomplish this newgovernance scheme. We propose to eliminatethe Constitution and incorporate all the majororganizational functions in a new set of NSPEBylaws.

The Board of Directors is expected tosend the Constitutional revisions to themembership for a vote at their summermeeting in July 2005. Presuming that theConstitutional revisions receive the requiredtwo-thirds affirmative vote of themembership, these revisions will be ratifiedby the Board of Directors in October 2005along with the proposed new Bylaws andOperating Procedures. The new proposedNSPE Bylaws are included in the appendices.

When the Constitution and Bylawsrevisions are ratified in October 2005, thenewly created House of Delegates willconvene for the first time at the AnnualMeeting in Boston, MA, in July 2006. Eachstate society will need to determine how they

“Future” continued from p. 13 will select their representative to the Houseof Delegates. One half the State Societies willselect a Delegate to serve for a one-year term(selected by random lot), while the other halfwill elect their Delegate to serve a two-yearterm. All subsequent Directors will serve atwo-year term to set the desired rotation ofrepresentation to the House of Delegates.

The House of Delegates will elect NSPEOfficers and Directors to take office upon theclose of the Board of Directors meeting to beheld after the House of Delegates meeting inJuly 2006.

New Meetings FormatLike many associations, NSPE has

traditionally invested considerable resourcesin large national meetings. The ultimate goalis to develop a program integrated with thenew Vision, Mission, and Goals, emphasizingvalue to our members and creating a dynamicexperience. Whether to hold two majornational meetings became the first questionto answer. Discussions centered around manymembers’ unwillingness to make the time ormonetary commitment for two nationalmeetings and the perception that moreinexpensive local meetings provided moreappealing opportunities to receive education.Many active members attend nationalmeetings not because they see a compellingcareer value in the education, but primarilyfor the governance aspects expected orrequired of their positions. It was felt thatdecreasing to one all-member meeting peryear, to be held in July, would allow for amore focused approach for reachingmembers as well as providing a focal point tocelebrate engineering.

All-Member Meeting Format andContent

The FDTF recommends the followingformat and content for the new AnnualMeeting:

• The annual meeting will beshortened to four days (Thursday – Sunday),with general/plenary sessions, education,NSPE leadership training, governance, andrecreational activities in concurrent time slots.Members should have so much to choosefrom that they want to return the followingyear to catch what they missed. With thecurrent, extended format, some activemembers must spend a week or more onsite, with a meeting of interest at the beginningof the conference and another at the end.

• The House of Delegates will holdtheir annual assembly, and standingcommittees will meet as well. Committeechairs will be available to deliver reports tothe House of Delegates. The Board ofDirectors will hold their quarterly meeting.

• A major State of the Society addresswill be given by the NSPE President at aplenary session.

• A Grand Banquet will be held tocelebrate engineering, install national officers,and recognize selected award recipients forthat year.

• A State Leaders Forum will be heldto discuss topics of concern among the statesas well as to share best practices.

• As new interest groups form withinthe society, roundtable discussions may bescheduled to encourage participation andincrease the visibility of these new groups.

• The location of the meeting willchange each year with the focus on affordable,desirable, and easily-reached destinations.Meetings will rotate among four locations,with three being repeated and permanent.

If you are interested in reading thecomplete report, check it out online atwww.nspe.org. Scroll partway down thefront page to “Future Directions Final Report”to view the Word document. ■


Many thanks to the following individuals who contribute to the PSPE Political Action Committee fund, allowing our staff to influencebills on behalf of PSPE members. PSPE is very active at the Pennsylvania state capitol monitoring legislation that could impact PSPE membersin their profession. Your contributions are critical as PSPE affects bills such as those found in the article “On Capitol Hill.”

(If you you would like to receive monthly legislative updates from the PSPE listserv, simply send an e-mail message [email protected] with the subject: “add me to the monthly update.”

Political Action Committee2005 Sponsor Recognition

Use my contribution!Enclosed is my personal contributionto PSPE’s Political Action Committee.

Name: __________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________

City, State, Zip:___________________________________________

Occupation: _____________________________________________

Name of Employer: ________________________________________

Employer’s Address: ______________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Amount Enclosed: ❏ $100 ❏ $50 ❏ $30 ❏ Other:________

• Please make your personal check payable to: PSPE PAC (CORPORATE CHECKS CANNOT BE USED BY PAC.)• Return check to: PSPE, 908 N. Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102.

Thank you!

Century Club(2005 Contribution $100 - $200)

Reyman Branting, PE

Elizabeth Catania, PE, FNSPE

Karen Davis, PE

Jon Drosendahl, PE

Harry Garman, PE, PLS

Daniel Grieco, Jr., PE

Harve Hnatiuk, PE, FNSPE

Thomas Maheady, PE

Capitol Club(2005 Contribution $50 - $99)

Albert Bedard, Jr., PE

J. Dixon Early, PE

Earl McCabe, Jr. PE

Friends Society(2005 Contribution $5 - $30)

John Boderocco, PE

John Bradshaw, PE, PLS

Gunther Carrle, Esq.

James Cobb, PE

Robert Dietz, PE

Robert Fisk, PE

David Folk, PE

David Goodling, PE

Barry Isett, PE, FNSPE

Joseph Keller, PE

Bruce Konsugar, PE

Paul Maxian, PE

William McElroy, PE

Jack Smyth, PE

Benjamin Thayer, PE

Thomas Tronzo, PE

Eugene Waldner, PE

James Wickersham, PE

Clarence Wysocki, PE

David Zartman, PE

Ronald Zborowski, PE

Joseph Zucofski, PE


“Capitol” continued from p. 5

the loan term was determined afterconstruction closed out. Consequently, underthe old policy a Borrower with a project thattook two years to construct would have hadonly eighteen years to repay the loan. Underthe new policy the repayment term would betwenty years plus two years of interest-onlypayments to provide for construction.

(5). Amend 25 Pa. Code § 965.4 (9) toplace a period after the word ‘’Board’’ anddelete the remainder of the sentence. Thisamendment allows costs associated withacquisition of land under the UniformRelocation Assistance and Real PropertyAcquisition Policies Act of 1970 to be financedby PENNVEST. This change is necessary toreflect a shift in policy by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the desire ofPENNVEST to take advantage of the policyshift to finance such costs. Now expected tobe published in “fall/winter 2005” asproposed. Contact Jayne B. Blake717.783.6776, for more information.

3. Department of State – two regulations:a. State Registration Board for

Engineers, Land Surveyors and GeologistsBiennial Renewal Fees and Examination Fees49 Pa. Code § 37.17 (16A-478)

The regulation would increase biennialrenewal fees for all license classes, deleteexamination fees as unnecessary, and makeeditorial and organizational changes to theother fees. This regulation is expected to bepublished in fall 2005, as FINAL. ContactShirley Klinger 717.772.8528 for moreinformation.

b. General Revisions 49 Pa. Code,Chapter 37 (number not yet assigned) Theregulation represents a comprehensive

updating and revision of the Board’sregulations, including matters relating toeligibility for examination and licensure as aprofessional engineer, professional landsurveyor and professional geologist;references for qualifying experience;temporary practice permits; reactivation oflicensure; approval of corporate or fictitiousnames; and use of professional seal. Thisregulation is expected to be published inwinter 2005-06, as proposed. Contact ShirleyKlinger 717.772.8528, for more information.

Legislative Activity

HB 86 RE: Army Corps of EngineersLiability (by Rep. David Steil, et al)

Act stating that DCNR, PennDOT andDEP, acting in the name of theCommonwealth, are authorized to agree tohold and save the United States Army Corpsof Engineers free from all damages arisingfrom construction, operation and maintenanceof projects along the Delaware Canal StatePark, and projects in the Boroughs ofStockertown and Tatamy and the Townshipof Palmer located in Northampton County,involving cooperative agreements betweenthe Commonwealth and the United StatesArmy Corps of Engineers, except for anydamages due to the fault or negligence of theUnited States Army Corps of Engineers.Passed House, 6/8/2005 (197-0)Passed Senate, 7/5/2005 (50-0)In the hands of the Governor 7/6/2005. Lastday for Governor’s action, 7/16/2005

HB 138 RE: Comparative Negligence (byRep. Mike Turzai, et al)

Amends Title 42 (Judiciary) reenactingprovisions relating to comparative negligence,

including that where recovery is allowedagainst more than one person, and whereliability is attributed to more than onedefendant, each defendant would be liable forthat proportion of the total dollar amountawarded as damages in the ratio of the amountof that defendant’s liability to the amount ofliability attributed to all defendants and otherpersons to whom liability is apportioned. Forpurposes of apportioning liability only, thequestion of liability of any defendant or otherperson who has entered into a release withthe plaintiff with respect to the action and whois not a party would be transmitted to thetrier of fact upon appropriate requests andproofs by any party. Nothing in this sectionwould affect the admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence regarding releases,settlements, offers to compromise orcompromises as set forth in the PennsylvaniaRules of Evidence. Also, the doctrine ofvoluntary assumption of risk as it applies todownhill skiing injuries and damages is notmodified by this reenactment. Lastly, Section7102(b) of Title 42 is repealed.Reported as committed from House StateGovernment Committee, read first time, andRereferred to House Rules Committee, 6/20/2005

HB 488 RE: Prototypical School FacilityDesign Clearinghouse (by Rep. BevMackereth, et al)

Amends the Public School Codeproviding for a prototypical school facilitydesign clearinghouse. The legislationauthorizes the Department of Education toestablish a central clearinghouse ofprototypical school facility designs for accessby any school entity that may want to use aprototype design in the construction of school


facilities. The Department will compile allnecessary publications and set up a computerdatabase to make the information availableby school entities and the public at large.Design professionals registered in PA maysubmit plans. The original design professionalretains ownership of a prototype design.Passed House, 6/13/2005 (200-0)Referred to Senate Education Committee, 6/17/2005

HB 815 RE: 2005-06 Budget (by Rep. BrettFeese, et al)

This is the General Appropriation Act of2005 providing for expenses of the Executive,Legislative and Judicial Departments, thepublic debt, for the public schools for the fiscalyear July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006.Approved by Gov. Rendell, with line itemvetoes, 7/7/2005. Act. No. 1A of 2005

HB 1108 RE: Water and Wastewater SystemConnection Funding (by Rep. Carol Rubley,et al)

Amends the Pennsylvania InfrastructureInvestment Authority Act establishing theWater and Wastewater System ConnectionFunding Program to authorize financialassistance in the form of grants and low-interest loans to homeowners for tapping orfacilities extension fees and eligible costsrelating to the installation of a water orwastewater lateral for homes constructedprior to the installation of a publicly orprivately owned water distribution systemor a publicly or privately owned wastewatercollection system servicing the property orrelating to the replacement of water orwastewater laterals to housing units as partof an upgrading or reconstruction of a publiclyor privately owned water distribution system

or publicly or privately owned wastewatercollection system. To be eligible for theprogram, an applicant must be an owner-occupier of a housing unit and any of thefollowing exist: (1) the housing unit is servedby a publicly or privately owned water orwastewater system; (2) the owner- occupieris required to replace private water orwastewater laterals as part of an upgradingor reconstruction of a publicly or privatelyowned water or wastewater system; (3) theowner of the real property into which theproperty lateral will be installed is the ownerof the housing unit located thereon. Loanswould be provided under the program if theapplicant’s household income is less than 200%of the statewide median household incomeand grants would be provided to applicantswhose household income does not exceed themost recent Federal poverty guidelines.Grants and loans would be made out of theWater and Wastewater System ConnectionFunding Program Fund, into which $5,000,000would be transferred from the PennsylvaniaInfrastructure Investment Bond AuthorizationFund. The legislation also makes severaleditorial changes.Amended on House floor and passed House,6/29/2005 (198-0)Referred to Senate Environmental Resourcesand Energy Committee, 6/29/2005

HB 1467 RE: Residential ConstructionDispute Resolution Act (by Rep. TomStevenson, et al)

Establishes dispute resolution proceduresrelating to residential construction defectsbetween contractors and homeowners ormembers of associations. In an action underthe legislation, the claimant must notify thecontractor of a claim at least 75 days before

initiating action. The contractor would have15 days to respond. The legislation wouldnot apply to any claim for personal injury ordeath.Reported as committed from House UrbanAffairs Committee, read first time, andrereferred to House Rules Committee, 7/6/2005

HB 1507 RE: Building Code Exemptions (byRep. Rod Wilt, et al)

Amends the Pennsylvania ConstructionCode Act by adding that an existing buildingwhich did not have a certificate of occupancyprior to April 10, 2004, would be treated as anexisting building under Chapter 3. Such abuilding would be issued an occupancy permitif the entire building meets the requirementsfor fire protection systems and means ofegress and the building is not unsafe,unsanitary or judged to be a fire hazard ordangerous to human life or public welfare. Acode administrator may not require changeswhich are technically infeasible for thepurpose of meeting means of egressrequirements.Amended on House floor and passed House,6/22/2005 (198-0)Referred to Senate Labor and IndustryCommittee, 6/24/2005

HB 1522 RE: PA Construction Code ActEnforcement (by Rep. Tom Creighton, et al)

Amends the Pennsylvania ConstructionCode Act by stating that municipalities mayadminister and enforce the PA ConstructionCode Act by designating an employee to serveas the municipal code official as long as themunicipality has at least two other third partyagencies from whom persons may select

“Capitol” continued p. 18


services. The bill increases requiredconstruction code officials from one to threefor single municipalities and for multiplemunicipalities that have entered into an inter-municipal agreement for joint administrationand enforcement of the Act. The bill statesthat municipalities may administer andenforce the PA Construction Code Act byentering into an agreement with thedepartment as long as they make at least twoother third party agencies accessible fromwhom persons may select services.Reported from House State GovernmentCommittee with request to re-refer to LaborRelations, 6/8/2005Rereferred to House Labor RelationsCommittee, 6/8/2005

HB 1637 RE: Mechanics’ Lien Law (by Rep.George Kenney, et al)

Amends the Mechanics’ Lien Law bystating that only a contractor (not asubcontractor) may waive his right to file aclaim by a written instrument signed by himor by any conduct which operates equitablyto prevent the contractor from filing a claim.Also, a written contract between the ownerand contractor, or a separate writteninstrument signed by the contractor, whichprovides that no claim would be filed by thecontractor, would be binding.Reported as submitted from HouseLabor Relations Committee, read firsttime, rereferred to House RulesCommittee, 6/22/2005

HB 1802 RE: Capital Facilities Debt EnablingAct Debt Ceiling (by Rep. Brett Feese)

Amends the Capital Facilities DebtEnabling Act adding that the capital budgetbill does not need to itemize projects ifitemization is contained in or approved byprior legislation referred to in the capitalbudget bill or included in one or moresupplemental capital budget bills.Additionally, the maximum amount ofredevelopment assistance capital projectsundertaken by the Commonwealth for whichobligations are outstanding may not exceed,in aggregate, $2,650,000,000 (increased from$2,150,000,000), of which $25,000,000 may beused for the construction of housing units.The bill also adds that “redevelopment

assistance capital projects” may includehousing units.Passed House, 6/30/2005 (178-21)Reported as amended from SenateAppropriations Committee, and passedSenate, 7/6/2005 (50-0)Re-reported on concurrence as committedfrom House Rules Committee, 7/7/2005

H Res. 391 RE: Unsolicited ProcurementProposals (by Rep. John Perzel, et al)

A resolution directing the Joint StateGovernment Commission to study ways inwhich the Commonwealth’s procurementlaws may be changed to allow citizens,businesses and public and private universitiesand colleges to make unsolicited proposals toCommonwealth agencies, boards andcommissions.Adopted, 7/2/2005 (198-0)

SB 62 RE: Electronic Bidding (by Sen. JaneEarll, et al)

Amends Title 62 (Procurement) addingthat the Department of General Services hasthe power and duty to receive, assess andrespond to all commonwealth purchaseproposals for the procurement of supplies,services or construction under this part. TheDepartment would provide notification to theperson who submitted the commonwealthpurchase proposal within 60 days of receivingthe proposal and indicate that the departmentis in receipt of the proposal and that a writtenassessment of the merits of the proposal willbe provided within 90 days. The legislationadds a chapter entitled the Local GovernmentUnit Electronic Bidding Act, which states thata local government unit may permit electronicsubmission of bids and may receive bidselectronically if the local government unit hasthe electronic capability to maintainconfidentiality of the bid until bid openingtime.Passed Senate, 5/9/2005 (47-0)Passed House, amended, 7/1/2005 (198-0)Rereferred to Senate Rules and ExecutiveNominations Committee, 7/1/2005

SB 643 RE: Subcontractor WC Liability (bySen. John Gordner, et al)

Amends the Workers’ CompensationAct by adding that a contractor whosubcontracts all or any part of a contract and

his insurer would be liable for the payment ofcompensation to the employees of thesubcontractor unless the subcontractor hascertified that he/she does not employ otherindividuals, operates as an independentcontractor and is not required to carryworkers’ compensation insurance.Certification of such would create a non-rebuttable presumption that the filingsubcontractor is an independent contractorand that the certifying subcontractor isprohibited from filing any claim for benefitsagainst the contractor or the contractor’sinsurer. “Independent contractor” is definedin the legislation.Reported as amended from Senate Labor andIndustry Committee, and read first time, 6/28/2005Rereferred to Senate Rules and ExecutiveNominations Committee, 7/7/2005

New Bills Introduced

HB 1873 RE: Construction Sales Tax Exclusion(by Rep. Paul Clymer, et al)

Amends the Tax Reform Code by addingthat the sale at retail to or use by a constructioncontractor, employed by a nonprofit schoolwould be exempt from the sales and use tax.Referred to House Finance Committee, 7/3/2005

HB 1878 RE: Retainage (by Rep. John Evans,et al)

Amends the Pennsylvania ConstructionCode by adding that in cities of the first class(e.g. Philadelphia) a certificate of occupancyfor a commercial building or structure maynot be issued by a construction code officialor a municipal code official until the ownerprovides certification that all retainage forcontractors, subcontractors and materialssuppliers, that performed work or suppliedmaterials for the building or structure, hasbeen paid. This does not apply to any of thefollowing: (1) amounts necessary to ensurecompletion of incomplete work, (2) amountsnecessary to insure performance of workwhich is noted in a written list provided to theowner specifying deficiencies yet to becorrected, and (3) amounts necessary tocompensate for undelivered, defective orotherwise inadequate supplies. A constructioncode official or a municipal code official may

“Capitol” continued from p. 17


issue a certificate of occupancy if the owner can demonstrate thatdisputed amounts are in an escrow account awaiting the determinationof a legal proceeding. “Retainage” is defined as a percentage of acontract price that is withheld from a contractor by an owner orwithheld from a subcontractor or materials supplier by a contractorfor a period of time as a guarantee for work performed or materialssupplied, pursuant to a projects contract.Referred to House Labor Relations Committee, 7/5/2005

SB 725 RE: Dam Management (by Sen. Jim Rhoades, et al)Amends Title 27 (Environmental Resources) by adding a chapter

on dam management. The legislation would authorize indebtednessfor $1 billion for the purposes of financing the costs of dam projects.Of that amount, $250 million would be allocated to the Department ofEnvironmental Protection to finance the costs of State dam projectsand the remainder would be allocated to the department for thepurpose of providing assistance to owners of private dams, as co-applicants with local government units or to local government unitsthat own dams to finance the cost of dam projects undertaken by oron behalf of the owners of dams. The proceeds from the sale of bondsused to provide assistance to owners of dams for dam projects orState dam projects would be paid to the State Treasurer and be held

by the State Treasurer in the Dam Project Fund. The proceeds fromthe sale of bonds used to provide loans to owners of dams, lakes orstreams for dam projects would be paid to the State Treasurer and beheld by the State Treasurer in the Dam Project Revolving Loan Fund.The question of incurring indebtedness would be submitted to theelectors at the next primary, municipal or general election followingthe effective date of this section.Referred to Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee,6/17/2005

House & Senate Fall Session Days Schedule2005 House Fall Session Schedule

September 26, 27, 28October 3 (non-voting), 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31November 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22December 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19 (non-voting)The Senate has not yet announced its fall session calendar yet, but

should follow similar datesCopies of all bills of interest are available from the PSPE office, or

they can be accessed via the Internet at www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/billroom.htm. ■

Electrical Project EngineerH.F. Lenz Company is seeking an engineering professional for our Johnstown, PA headquarters. H.F. Lenz Company, a 200

employee firm, offers a career opportunity in a highly dynamic, continuous learning, team focused environment. As part of a teamthat focuses in the design of mission-critical data centers, we offer a comprehensive and competitive total compensation packagefor the selected individual.

We’re seeking a professional electrical engineer with a BSEE and a minimum of 7 years experience. Will be responsible forclient interface and construction coordination of low and medium voltage power distribution systems, including double endedswitchgear, diesel generators, and UPS systems. The successful candidate will possess a working knowledge of NFPA, IEEE,ANSI, and electrical equipment construction standards, and have prior electrical project management or lead electrical designexperience. PE registration required.

Interested candidates should submit a letter of interest and resume in confidence to: Human Resources Director; H.F. LenzCompany; 1407 Scalp Avenue, Johnstown, PA 15904. E-Mail: [email protected]; FAX: 814-269-9400. NO PHONE CALLSPLEASE. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

Civil EngineerLicensed Civil Engineer with experience in Profit Management, Stormwater Design & Management, E&S, Grading, Sanitary

Sewer, Plan Preparation and Processing. Salary to commensurate with experience.Reply to H. Edward Black & Assoc., PC. 2403 N Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, 717-233-1026, 717-233-2192 fax, e-mail

[email protected].

Engineering TechnicianEngineering Technician (EIT) with 2+ years industry experience in Land Development Design, Plan Preparation & Processing.

AutoCad experience is helpful. Salary to commensurate with experience.Reply to H. Edward Black & Assoc., PC. 2403 N Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, 717-233-1026, 717-233-2192 fax, e-mail

[email protected].

Classified


HRG Names New RegionalEnvironmental Service Group Manager

Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. is pleasedto announce the addition of John R. Ackerman,P.E., P.G., DEE, as the Regional EnvironmentalService Group Manager for its office located inMonroe County, PA. His responsibilities

include management and direction of the regional office’s water/wastewater engineering and environmental science projectsthroughout Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Mr. Ackerman is an expert in the field of environmentalengineering and brings 29 years of diverse experience to the firm.His numerous professional accomplishments include award-winning designs, publication and presentation of numerous papersat national and international conferences, and a U.S. Patent#5,004,484 – “Air Stripping of Liquids Using High Intensity TurbulentMixer.”

PSPE Member Spotlight

Mr. Ackerman was recently named a Fellow by the NationalSociety of Professional Engineers. This prestigious designationhonors active NSPE members who have demonstrated exemplaryservice to the engineering profession, the Society, and thecommunity. He has also achieved certification as a Board CertifiedEnvironmental Engineer (DEE) from the American Academy ofEnvironmental Engineers. The DEE designation is internationallyknown and awarded to professionals that are experts in theindustry.

Mr. Ackerman earned his bachelor of science degree in theEarth Sciences (Geology) from the Pennsylvania State Universityand is an active member of the National Society of ProfessionalEngineers (past national director and fellow), Pennsylvania Societyof Professional Engineers (past president), Society for Mining,Metallurgy and Exploration/AIME, and the American Academy ofEnvironmental Engineers (Diplomate).

PSPE Calendar of Events

September 10 MATHCOUNTS CoordinatorsHarrisburg/Hershey Wyndham

September 16 Pennsylvania PEPP BoardHarrisburg

September 23 PSPE Executive CommitteeSeptember 24 PSPE Board of Directors

Best Western Inn, Bedford

October 27-29 NSPE Northeast Region ConferenceSheraton Harborside Hotel

and Conference CenterPortsmouth NH

2005

The Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers is proud to offer the Platinum Plus® credit card, a no annualfee Visa credit card program that provides peerless benefits, service, worldwide acceptance, and convenience.

Issued by MBNA America Bank N.A, the leading issuer of affinity credit cards, this program offers our associationmembers a low introductory annual percentage rate for cash advance checks and balance transfers.* PlatinumPlus Customers may also take advantage of numerous superior benefits such as fraud-protection services, a year-end summary of charges, supplemental auto-rental collision damage coverage, and Carrier Travel Accident Insurance.

The Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers credit card, which proudly displays our organization’s name,offers privileges of particular value to our members. Credit lines are individually established to ensure qualifiedapplicants receive the maximum in purchasing power—up to $100,000 of available credit. The PennsylvaniaSociety of Professional Engineers Platinum Plus cardholders are invited to take advantage of credit-line increasedecisions within 15 minutes, 24-hour Customer service, emergency-card replacement, and ATM cash-advanceaccess at more than 300,000 automated teller machines worldwide that display the Cirrus network logo. Also,each time you make a purchase with your credit card, a contribution is made to the Pennsylvania Society ofProfessional Engineers -at no additional cost to you.

To request your Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers Platinum Plus card, call toll-free (866) 438-6262. (TTY users, please call 1-800-833-6262.) Please refer to priority code C0AH when speaking withan MBNA representative to apply for this program.

*There are costs associated with the use of this credit card. MBNA America Bank, N.A, is the issuer and administrator of thisprogram. For rate, fee and other cost and benefit information; or to apply for this credit card call MBNA toll free or write to P.O.Box 15020, Wilmington, DE 19850. MBNA America and Platinum Plus are federally registered service marks of MBNA AmericaBank, N.A. Visa is a federally registered service marks of Visa International Inc. and Visa U.S.A. Inc., respectively; each is usedby MBNA pursuant to license. © 2005 MBNA America Bank, N. A.

Introducing The Pennsylvania Society of ProfessionalEngineers

Platinum Plus Visa credit card.

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage Paid

Harrisburg, PAPermit No. 339

JULY AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXII NUMBER 4 The Magazine …Gannett Fleming, an international planning,...

Documents

Transcript of JULY AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXII NUMBER 4 The Magazine …Gannett Fleming, an international planning,...