JULY, 2000 Volume 37 - Number 7 The Professional GEOLOGIST96.93.209.186/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2000_TPGJul.pdf · INSURANCE PROGRAM Life and Health - (800) 424-9883 Seabury & Smith

The Professional

GEOLOGIST

JULY, 2000

Volume 37 - Number 7

The Professional

GEOLOGIST

A publ icat ion ofThe American Inst i tute of Professional Geologists

• P.E., P.G....WHO CARES?

• AIPG SKEPTIC CHANGES OUTLOOK

• AIPG NATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

• PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE—ADVOCACY AT ITS BEST

• SUMMARY OF APRIL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

• EDITORIAL—THE COMMODITIZATION OF HYDROGEOLOGY

• EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN—VOTE! THEN THINK ABOUTCONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Professional Geologist (USPS 590-810 and ISSN 0279-0521) is published monthly by theAmerican Institute of Professional Geologists, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO80031-3681. Periodicals Postage Paid at Arvada, Colorado and additional mailing offices.POSTMASTER: The Professional Geologist, AIPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200,Westminster, CO 80031-3681.Subscriptions for all Members and Adjuncts in good standing are included in annual member-ship dues. Subscription prices are $30.00 a year for Members’ additional subscriptions and $40.00a year for non-members for 12 issues (for postage outside of the U.S. add $10.00 for Canadaand $18.00 elsewhere). Single copy price is $3.00 for Members and $4.00 for non-members.Claims for nonreceipt or for damaged copies are honored for three months.

Entire contents copyright 2000 by The Professional Geologist. Original material may be reprint-ed with permission. Deadline for articles and advertisements is six weeks preceding publication.Advertising rates available upon request. Opinions and views expressed by the authors are theirown and do not necessarily reflect those of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, itsstaff, or its advertisers.

2000 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OFFICERS

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT-ELECTDennis Pennington, CPG Robert H. Fakundiny, CPGNational Envir. Tech. Corp. 3288 River Rd., 9-JP.O. Box 204 Rensaelaer, NY 12144Telford, PA 18969-0204 O: (518) 474-5816O: (215) 723-9300 Fax: (581) 486-3696Fax: (215) 723-9344 [email protected]@enter.net

PAST PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENTThomas G. Fails, CPG Thomas M. Berg, CPG4101 E. Louisiana #412 Ohio Geological SurveyDenver, CO 80246 4383 Fountain Square Dr.O: (303) 759-9733 Columbus, OH 43224-1362Fax: (303) 759-9731 O: (614) [email protected] Fax: (614) 268-3669

[email protected]

SECRETARY TREASURERMichael D. Lawless, CPG Kelvin J. Buchanan, CPGDraper Aden Associates HB Engineering Group2206 S. Main St. P.O. Box 2391Blacksburg, VA 24060 Reno, NV 89505-2391O: (540) 552-0444 O: (775) 786-4515Fax: (540) 552-0291 Fax: (775) [email protected] [email protected]

EDITOR EDITOR-ELECTMyrna M. Killey, CPG Virginia T. McLemore, CPGIL State Geological Survey NM Bureau of Mines615 E. Peabody Dr. Campus StationChampaign, IL 61820 Socorro, NM 87801O: (217) 244-2409 O: (505) 835-5521Fax: (217) 333-2830 Fax: (505) [email protected] [email protected]

ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVESWilliam H. Hoyt, CPG James A. Jacobs, CPGUniv. of Northern Colorado FAST-TEK Eng. Support SvcsChair, Earth Science Dept. 247 B Tewksbury Ave.Greeley, CO 80639 Pt. Richmont, CA 94801O: (970) 351-2487 O: (510) 232-2728Fax: (970) 351-1269 Fax: (510) [email protected] [email protected]

William V. Knight, CPG Marilyn A. Plitnik, CPG5617 S. Quebec Ave. 7127 Old Seward Hwy.Tulsa, OK 74135 Anchorage, AK 99518H: (918) 496-0352 O: (907) 563-2890Fax: (918) 496-0358 Fax: (907) [email protected] [email protected]

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200

Westminster, CO 80031-36817:30 AM - 4:30 PM MDT; M-F

(303) 412-6205 • Fax (303) 412-6219e-mail: [email protected] • internet: http://www.aipg.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PUBLICATIONS MANAGERWilliam J. Siok, CPG Wendy J. [email protected] [email protected]

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTCatherine A. O’Keefe

[email protected]

INSURANCE PROGRAMLife and Health- (800) 424-9883Seabury & Smith - Stephen Lovell or Debbie BrownProfessional Liability Broker - (301) 770-0880The Novick Group - Margretta Glock

RENTAL CARSALAMO RENTAL CAR - (800) 354-2322 - Member #BY-218167AVIS RENTAL CAR - (800) 222-2847 - Member AWD #L123443

AIPG FOUNDATIONKel Buchanan

HB Engineering GroupP.O. Box 2391

Reno, NV 89505-2391(775) 786-4515/FAX (775) 786-4324

[email protected]

JULY, 2000

Volume 37, Number 7

The Professional

GEOLOGISTBills Would Give Consumers Ability toChoose Drinking Water Sources 2

EDITORIALThe Commoditization of HydrogeologyDon Elsenheimer 3-4AIPG ONLINE DATABASE 4Geologic Work Reserved for Geologists inInternational Building Code 4

AIPG National Scholarship Program 5

MTBE will Change the Way America Thinks aboutGroundwater Resources and Bottled WaterJames A. Jacobs, CPG 6

P.E., P.G.....Who Cares? 6

Summary of the April 30, 2000AIPG Executive Committee MeetingWilliam H. Hoyt, CPG, and Mike Lawless, CPG 7-8

AIPG Skeptic Changes OutlookJerry Kraemer 9

AIPG ARIZONA SECTION NEWS 14Increasing Carbon Dioxide Threatens Coral Reefs 19FRONT COVER – The first landing on the Moon was on July 20, 1969 (doyou remember where you were?); the last was in December 1972.The Moon isthe only body from which samples have been returned to Earth. In the summerof 1994, the Moon was very extensively mapped by the little spacecraftClementine and again in 1999 by Lunar Prospector. Acquired from theInternet: <http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplants/luna.html>.Photograph is courtesy of the USGS, Flagstaff, Arizona.

BACK COVER AND PAGES 18-29 - Photographs were provided courtesy ofthe Milwaukee Convention Bureau, Pfister Hotel, and Dale H. Rezabek,CPG.

DEPARTMENTSPRESIDENT’S MESSAGE - Advocacy At Its Best 2EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN - VOTE! Then Think About Continuing

Professional Development 1 0LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING GEOLOGY 1 1AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEW 12-14PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - Column 56 15-19PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY 20-22CALENDAR 2 3NEW MEMBERS, APPLICANTS, ETC. 2 4

2 The Professional Geologist • JULY 2000

The Washington Fly-In for 2000 isover. The advocacy is not. Several mem-bers from as far away as Nevada, Ohio,California, Virginia, Pennsylvania,Oklahoma, Illinois, Maryland, andColorado volunteered their time.Several AGI staff also helped, includingJohn Dragonetti and David Applegate.

The importance of building on past rela-tions with the various Federal agenciesand science committees, as well as pri-vate organizations, is obvious. No longersimply introducing ourselves, AIPG isrecognized as an important ally and/orpartner in advocating support for keyprograms in agencies such as USGS andNRCS. We are continuing to expand ourrelationships with the National Societyof Professional Engineers, the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, and NationalMining Association to work together onmutual interests. Your currentWashington Fly-In participants contin-ued the process of communication initi-ated by the first organizers of recent fly-ins who include Jon Price, Jim Shotwell,and Bill Knight, among others.

By visiting the USGS and buildingon a strong relationship, we helpedidentify issues used for discussion andpromotion as we visited other agenciesand organizations. As we have becomeexperienced in our national advocacyprogram, we now can better utilize ourlimited resources. I think all partici-

pants felt we had a positive effect. Now,we must use our experience to planadvocacy throughout the year and per-haps visit agencies and congressionaldelegation more than once a year. Whatis particularly encouraging is the posi-tive attitude of present, as well as past,participants, which is resulting in addi-tional advocacy efforts. Two examplesare the State drive-ins in California andColorado.

More work and more volunteers areneeded to go to the next step of usingour influence to sway opinions on issuesaffecting the public as well as our pro-fession. Supplying witnesses andspeakers for key committees and topicsare some of the next levels of partici-pation. Any ideas? We will be bringingthe results of our experience togetherwith mistakes we've made to theNational Affairs Committee so thatnext year's fly-in can be improved.Thanks to the efforts of participants, itwas well worth it.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE — Dennis Pennington

Advocacy At Its Best

Westerville, OH (April 4, 2000)—The National Ground Water Association(NGWA) supports two pieces of proposed legislation now pending beforeCongress that would assist consumers as they make choices about theirsource of drinking water.

H.R. 3865, sponsored by Congressman Richard Pombo from California,would help ensure that consumers have a choice in drinking water sources.Ohio Congressman John Boehner’s H.R. 3910 seeks to authorize the use offederal funds to install, refurbish, or service individually owned household wellsystems.

Congressman Pombo’s proposal prohibits the use of federal funds for anyprogram that restricts the use of any privately owned water source. In somelocalities, ordinances are being put in place requiring connection to long-pipewater supply systems even when a safe household water well is already avail-able.

A recent national survey sponsored by NGWA showed that more than80% of well owners prefer their individual household water well systems toother drinking water delivery options. Only 8.3% said they would rather havetheir drinking water from a water utility company. This bill ensures that feder-ally funded projects respect consumer choice unless a specific health risk isfound that necessitates connection to a public water system.

Additionally, Ohio Congressman John Boehner’s H.R. 3910, the AffordableDrinking Water Act of 2000, seeks to authorize the use of federal funds toinstall, refurbish, or service individually owned household well systems. The

government, working with nonprofit entities, would help low- to moderate-income individuals obtain financing. Government support would allow home-owners of modest means to bring old household well systems up to currentstandards, replace systems that have met their expected life, or install newwells. Convenient, government-subsidized financing would allow well ownersto pay for new or upgraded individual water well systems with convenientmonthly payment, like other utility bills. At the bill’s March 14 introduction,Congressman Boehner called for support of his initiative:

“It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that organizations like theNational Ground Water Association, a group that has a long anddistinguished record preserving and protecting America’s preciousground water resources, strongly endorses this legislation. It is myhope that other organizations and communities that support com-mon sense, innovative approaches to providing affordable, safewater to rural Americans will also endorse Affordable DrinkingWater Act of 2000.”

In supporting development and maintenance of household well systems,both bills could provide savings for taxpayers by discouraging unnecessarylong-pipe projects.

For more information on these bills, visit the NGWA website athttp://www.ngwa.org/pubaff/pubaffmn.html, or call NGWA at (800) 551-7379.

NGWA is a not-for-profit, 16,000-member international organization ded-icated to providing and protecting the world’s ground water resources.

Bills Would Give Consumers Ability to Choose Drinking Water Sources

JULY 2000 • The Professional Geologist 3

The science of hydrogeology and the practice of environ-mental consulting have been significantly affected by the reg-ulatory streamlining and standardization of site investiga-tions. While state-mandated checklists and formulaic work-plans have been imposed primarily with cost-containment inmind, there have been other, less than desirable, results:• Cookie-cutter site investigations where hydrogeologists

are forced to characterize site-specific aquifer character-istics and evaluate contaminant transport mechanismsbased on a pared-down standard body of data that is appro-priate for a generic conceptual site model that rarely seemsto apply.

• Clients who are given the false impression that the qual-ity of a site investigation is the same no matter who isperforming it (after all, anyone can follow a recipe).

• Hydrogeologic investigations that are treated as a com-modity whose major variable is price.The economic forces driving the standardization of the

environmental consulting business are straightforward. Theenvironmental consulting industry and the job market forhydrogeologists exploded in the 1980s as the result of theClean Water Act and U.S. EPA mandates to upgrade petro-leum underground storage tanks. Remediation costs associ-ated with tank upgrades were generally covered by statetank funds. As the volume of site investigations increased,it became apparent that regulatory agencies were being over-whelmed by the volume of required oversight, and tank fundswere being bankrupted by the cost of remediating sites toworst-case exposure scenarios. Faced with covering the costsof expanded regulatory payrolls and beleaguered tank pro-grams with higher taxes, state legislatures instead changedthe rules of engagement, creating standardized investiga-tions and standardized reports that were easier to track, eas-ier to review, and easier to pay for. Since the standard prac-tices were designed to be protective of human health and theenvironment, everyone won, right?

The environmental profession, by design, failed to benefitfrom these changes. Cost-controls produced less work andless revenue on a per-site basis. So, while total revenues havebeen relatively flat over the last few years, the number ofsites needed to gain that same level of revenue has climbedsteeply. Productivity has become paramount; profitabilityand continued gainful employment depend almost as muchon quantity as on quality.

The commoditization of our work has also created a seri-ous erosion of stature. Once considered professionals whoseeducation and training were used in the judicious design andexecution of site-specific investigations, geologists and hydro-geologists are now more often treated like technicians, per-functorily completing checklists and filling in the blanks ofa state-mandated template report.

A correlative situation now exists in the medical careindustry. For-profit health maintenance organizations thatnow dominate medical care have developed formularies thatdictate which tests and procedures can be ordered for a setof symptoms and what medicines physicians can prescribe.The claimed benefits of this approach are similar: these for-mularies are protective of human health while they controlcosts by efficiently eliminating “unnecessary” procedures andcurtailing use of non-generic drugs (think of an extra x-rayas an additional monitoring well). Again, the commoditiza-tion of the medical profession appears to benefit not the prac-titioners or patients so much as the insurance agencies andbusinesses who are paying the premiums.

It is ironic that the regulatory push to standardize andsimplify environmental site investigations and hydrogeolog-ic investigations comes at the same time that hydrogeolo-gists are being increasingly asked to obtain certifications asregistered professionals. Is it reasonable for regulators andclients to expect that hydrogeologists will accept the addi-tional responsibility and liability associated with profes-sional registration when they are at the same time placingconstraints on how hydrogeologists do their work and exer-cise their judgment?

The sad reality is that there is a strong disconnect betweenthe hydrogeologic studies described in journals like GroundWater and the project loads of the environmental profes-sionals that constitute the majority of its readership. Thesedays, the only opportunity to use the results of a journal arti-cles seems to be when it identifies a faster, cheaper, or easi-er approach to groundwater investigations. This may explainwhy technical societies and organizations have seen theirmembership levels plateau or even decrease over the pastfew years. In an industry where individuals are increasing-ly valued less for their technical judgments and more fortheir productivity, some might argue that their dues wouldbe more wisely spent with a labor union.

Momentum towards standardization and commoditizationof much of our work in the environmental industry is strong.Any arguments by hydrogeologists to roll back the clock toa day where we were trusted to judiciously design and exec-utive environmental investigations based on site-specific cri-teria can be written off as self-serving. At some point, a cou-ple of sites investigated and closed under standardized andcontainerized conditions may blow up, and the public maytake notice of what is going on in our profession, just as they(and lawmakers) have reacted to the compelling stories ofpatients denied needed medical care by “heartless” HMObureaucrats.

My call is not meant to be reactionary; there are many sit-uations and many clients for whom streamlined investiga-tions and perfunctory reports are appropriate. What I ask isthat hydrogeologists protect the integrity of the scientific dis-

EDITORIAL

The Commoditization of Hydrogeology

by Don Elsenheimer


cipline by calling a spade a spade. Resist the temptation togeneralize based on skimpy data sets. Qualify everythingthat should be qualified. Make sure your clients understandthat the qualifiers on your interpretations and conclusionsare necessary not because our science is inadequate butbecause the methods we are working with are scientificallyinadequate. Above all, guard and cherish those clients andthose situations that let you work and act as an unfetteredprofessional. It is in these situations that hydrogeologistshave the best opportunity to demonstrate the value of oureducation, training, and judgment.

Don Elsenheimer, HDR Engineering,6190 Golden Hills Drive,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416,e-mail: <[email protected]>

The views expressed here are the author’s and not nec-essarily those of the AGWSE division, and/or the NationalGround Water Association, or the American Institute ofProfessional Geologists.

Reprinted with permission from:Vol. 37, No. 5—GROUND WATER—September–October

1999

Testimony by the California Council of GeoscienceOrganizations at the International Code Council Hearingsin Birmingham, Alabama, on April 14 and 15, 2000, was partof a successful effort to ensure that geologic work requiredby the International Building Code (successor to the UniformBuilding Code) is performed by geologists, not architects orengineers.

This success contributes to continued improvements inpublic safety. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) gra-ciously modified its proposed code change that would havedefined "registered design professional" as "an individualwho is registered or licensed to practice architecture, engi-neering, land surveying, and landscape architecture..." byadding "or geology." AIA's modified proposed change was sup-ported by CCGO, the American Institute of ProfessionalGeologists, and the Association of Engineering Geologists(AEG). The AIA proposal was defeated, but that leaves geol-ogists and other professionals free to practice "their respec-tive design profession as defined by the statutory require-ments of the professional registration laws of the state inwhich the project is to be constructed." If AIA had not mod-ified its proposal by adding "or geology," and the proposalhad been adopted, numerous code provisions would have lim-ited geologic work to persons licensed in non-geologic pro-fessions.

CCGO then negotiated a modification to a separate pro-posal by the National Council of Architectural RegistrationBoards (NCARB). NCARB's unmodified proposal was toreplace the term "registered design professional" with "archi-tect/engineer" in the structural chapter of the code. That pro-posal would have prohibited geologists from designatingactive faults, planning and carrying out subsurface explo-

ration programs, and recommending appropriate setbacksfrom the crests and toes of slopes. NCARB thought it hadalready included geology in its proposed change by includ-ing "geological engineering" in the definition of"architect/engineer." Upon learning the difference betweengeologists and geological engineers NCARB modified its pro-posal to add "or geologist" in the six relevant code provisionsproposed to be changed. The entire NCARB proposal wasdefeated, leaving all registered design professionals, includ-ing geologists, free to practice their professions.

CCGO also testified in support of a proposal to add a grad-ing appendix to the existing code. The proposal was defeat-ed by the slimmest of margins, largely on technicalities, leav-ing the existing International Building Code still without arequirement for a grading plan, grading permit, soils reportfor grading, grading observation, cut and fill slopes at safegradients, or drainage and debris terraces on high cuts andfills, and leaving local jurisdictions to develop their own grad-ing codes. CCGO will continue its involvement in the effortto add grading provisions to the code.

Geologists once again drew a lot of attention at the hear-ings and continued to increase support for inclusion of geo-logic practice in building codes. To join CCGO's CodeDevelopment Committee, contact CCGO President BetsyMathieson at (650) 688-6755 or [email protected].

Elizabeth L. Mathieson, CEG, Managing Scientist,Exponent Failure Analysis Associates,

149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025,650-688-6755, fax 650-328-3094,

<[email protected]>,http://www.exponent.com

GEOLOGIC WORK RESERVED FOR GEOLOGISTS ININTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE

AIPG ONLINEDATABASE

AIPG members are encouraged to use theAIPG website online database to look up fel-low members. The AIPG printed membershipdirectory is out of date as soon as it goes out.The AIPG National Headquarters receivesdaily changes that are made to members,records. The online database is uploadedquarterly and Members can log on to themember portion of the national website tomake changes to their record at anytime.Headquarters will automatically be e-mailedwith the information that was changed.


American Institute of Professional GeologistsNational Scholarship Program

PurposeTo assist students with college education costs and to promote student participation in the American

Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG). Four scholarships will be awarded to declared undergrad-uate geological sciences majors who are at least sophomores. Details for applying for these scholarshipsare provided below.

Scholarship AwardsFour scholarship awards in the amount of $1,000.00 each will be made to eligible students attend-

ing a college or university in the U.S. Scholarships are intended to be used to support tuition and/orroom and board.

Eligibility RequirementsAny student who is majoring in geology (or earth science), is at least a sophomore, and is attending

a four-year accredited college or university in the US can apply. Also, the student must be either a stu-dent member of AIPG or must have applied for student membership at the time the application for thescholarship is submitted.

Application ProcessApplicants must submit a letter of interest with name, address, and telephone number, proof of enroll-

ment in an eligible geological sciences program, transcripts, and an original one-page essay on why sheor he wants to become a geologist. The letter and essay should be submitted to the following individ-ual:

Mr. William SiokExecutive Director

American Institute of Professional Geologists8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200Westminster, CO 80031-3681

Questions regarding the application process can be directed to either William Siok or CatherineO’Keefe by telephone (303) 412-6205 or e-mail: <[email protected]>.

Application Deadline and Award DateApplications must be received by September 15, 2000. Awards will be made in October 2000.

Basis of AwardsAwards will be based on the content and creativity of the essays as judged by the Education Committee.

The decisions of the Education Committee are final.

MiscellaneousApplication requirements for student membership to AIPG are as follows:

1. Student must be currently enrolled in a geological science degree program (as defined by theAmerican Geological Institute).

2. Sponsorship is required via one letter from a geological science faculty member.3. The application fee is $5.00.4. Annual dues are $15.00.

AIPG student membership applications can be obtained from the American Institute of ProfessionalGeologists, 8703 Yates, Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031-3681. (Application forms are also avail-


MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) is a controversialissue. A January 16, 2000 airing of the 60 Minutes televisionprogram on MTBE highlighted the national groundwaterresources problem. The summary of the facts, predictions intothe future and issues are listed below.• TASTE AND ODOR: Having a taste and odor like tur-

pentine has made MTBE-contaminated groundwatersources unusable for human consumption. The cost for bot-tled water for impacted areas or other large-scale treat-ment or water importation options will cost the nation bil-lions of dollars over the next 50 years. Blending clean waterwith MTBE-impacted water will continue into the future.

• HEALTH RISK: Although MTBE is considered a poten-tial health risk, there is inadequate evidence in humansthat MTBE causes cancer. Fortunately the strong tur-pentine-like smell and odor of MTBE can be detected byhuman taste and smell at relatively low concentrations.The human health effects of MTBE exposure are limiteddue to the unpleasant taste and odor and would makedrinking of large amounts of high level MTBE-contami-nated water unlikely by most people. MTBE is not listedas a human carcinogen by the U.S. National ToxicologyPanel, the California Proposition 65 Committee, and theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer. In an olderItalian MTBE rodent study, limited evidence indicatedthat MTBE caused cancer in the experimental animalswhen administered in unrealistic doses of hundreds oftimes greater than any possible human exposure.

• FATE AND TRANSPORT: The MTBE problem is associ-ated with gasoline leaking from underground storagetanks or from surface spills of gasoline or from small gaso-line engines. Even though the majority of undergroundtanks in this country have been upgraded, the amount ofMTBE already released with gasoline into the environ-ment is so large that the problem of ruined drinking water

sources will exist for several decades. Due to the high sol-ubility of MTBE in water, MTBE has migrated much fasterand further in the groundwater than equal amounts ofother gasoline compounds.

• REMEDIATION: Due to the chemical characteristics ofMTBE, remediation or clean-up of the contaminant isexpensive, time-consuming, and technically difficult. Newtechnologies might improve the remediation efficiency andcost, but at this point, the chemical is considered recalci-trant, or uniquely resistant to remediation.

• AIR POLLUTION: There is still controversy as to thesource of reductions in air pollution in recent years. Partof the improvement is attributable to newer and more effi-cient engines with computer-controlled ignition. The refor-mulated gasoline, containing MTBE, may be related tosome of the improvement in air quality, however, variousconflicting air studies exist.

• COST OF REPLACEMENTS: If other oxygenates areadded to gasoline to lower vehicle emissions, the price andavailability of the replacements, such as ethanol, willincrease the cost of fuel over the costs for MTBE.Replacements for MTBE must be evaluated carefully asto the fate and transport of any chemicals into the sub-surface.

• COMMENTS: The characteristics of MTBE in the sub-surface make assessment and remediation activities chal-lenging. Therefore, qualified geologists should be used inthe assessment and remediation of MTBE soil and ground-water resources.

Mr. Jacobs, CPG-07760, has just completed a book onMTBE with a host of other contributors. The publisher isCRC Press/Lewis Publishers: MTBE and its Effect on Soiland Groundwater Resources, ed. James A. Jacobs. The bookwill be available in the Summer, 2000.

MTBE will Change the Way America Thinks aboutGroundwater Resources and Bottled Water

James A. Jacobs, CPG-07760

P.E., P.G....Who Cares?

This from John Bachner, in his role as Program Director, Fundamentals of Professional Practice (FOPP): I’m sur-prised by the number of individuals enrolled in FOPP who do not use P.E. or P.G. after their name, when they haveearned the right to do so. I cannot imagine a physician enrolling in a professional practice course and not insertingM.D. after his or her name.” Is it just the self-effacing nature of engineers, geologists, and other professionals? Whoknows? But if professionals of a certain type take no particular pride in associating themselves with that profession,and all the extremely hard work required to earn that position, why should someone else think there’s anything spe-cial about a P.E. or P.G.? If the younger P.E.’s and P.G.’s who are enrolled in FOPP do not use those designations, couldit be it’s because the more experienced members of the firm don’t do it either? Support your profession! Use the cre-dentials you’ve earned whenever you have an opportunity to do so.

NEWSLOG, Volume 26, No. 4, November/December 1999,Published for Its Members Every Other Month by ASFE.


Though it was a bit of a commute to downtown Washington,D. C., the Washington Suites Alexandria provided a goodvenue for the spring Executive Committee meeting andnational AIPG Fly-In. Warm chocolate chip & cherry cookiesafter Martha Washington’s own recipe welcomed us to thehotel (apparently, she can tell a lie)! Likewise, many politi-cians, government officials, and various geological associateswelcomed us to the nation’s capital—they were ready to talkabout a number of pressing national geoscience issues (seePresident’s Message summarizing the Fly-In elsewhere inthis issue). It was good to hear reports from some of the sec-tions (notably California) about successful new programs forlegislative “Drive-Ins” modeled after the national Fly-In.

Several issues of general interest to all AIPG memberswere taken up during the second meeting of the 2000Executive Committee. Among the highlights were:• encouraging positive reports on AIPG’s financial status

and discussion of new initiatives for improving memberrecruiting and member support;

• continuing dialog and analysis of the ContinuingProfessional Development Program;

• clarification and streamlining of “Registered Member”qualifications and application procedures;

• development of shared publication and marketing ven-tures with other geological societies;

• adoption of measures to prevent possible loss of AIPGSection monies in accounts of inactive Sections; and

• exciting prospects and plans for several future annualmeetings.Executive Committee members in attendance were

President Pennington, President-Elect Fakundiny, VicePresident Berg, Treasurer Buchanan, Secretary Lawless,Editor Killey, Editor-Elect McLemore, Advisory BoardRepresentatives Hoyt, Jacobs, Knight, Plitnik, headquartersstaff Executive Director Siok, and observers and visitorsLynn Kantner (Ohio) and Robin Roth (Ohio).

After the agenda was adopted and the minutes of theJanuary 22, 2000 Executive Committee and February 18-25,2000 Interim Action were approved, President DennisPennington guided us through seven hours of agenda items.Secretary Lawless reported that from 2/23/99 to 3/1/00, mem-bership in AIPG (all categories) went from 4,649 membersdown to 4,536. Decreases occurred in CPG and StudentAffiliate categories while increases occurred in CPG-Retired,Member, Associate Member, and Honorary categories. Thenumber of Registered Members held constant from last year.However, from the 1st of March to the 21st of April, therehave been an additional 187 members renewed or admitted.

The Treasurer’s report showed overall strengthening ofAIPG’s financial condition over last year: net assets are up$67,000. However, there was a strong call to make strategic

investments in the sections in order to maintain a positivepicture and build for the future.

Membership development is still the largest single orga-nizational challenge for AIPG. New initiatives were discussedin order to increase the number of new applicants in thepipeline. Initial recruitment results from the first quarter of2000 are not very promising. Additional people and supportare needed in order to make headway here!

AIPG members and the Executive Committee are work-ing hard to develop a user-friendly Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment Program that will reinforce the global credi-bility of AIPG Certification well into the next millennium.The May issue of TPG had Part 1 of a detailed descriptionof the Program, and the June issue of TPGhad Part 2 of theproposal, both authored by principal architect and immedi-ate Past-President of AIPG Tom Fails. Additional commentsare welcomed!

In order to clarify the intent of AIPG’s Registered Membercategory, the Executive Committee adopted a Bylaw word-ing change. In effect, if a jurisdiction has recognized an appli-cant as a geologist, AIPG will recognize that applicant as aRegistered Member, including an applicant who was grand-fathered by his or her jurisdiction, without researching theapplicant’s credentials.

Another major area of concern over the past several yearshas been how to develop a more sustainable and more appro-priate AIPG publications program. In order to share mar-keting and publications costs, and in order to increase ourvisibility among other geoscience organizations, theExecutive Committee of AIPG has ratified a Memorandumof Understanding with the Geological Society of America. Thefirst publication covered by this MOU is Environmental Riskand Liability Management for Corporations and Consultantsby Fletcher and Paleologos. Release of that book is due verysoon. Also, Richard Proctor is nearing completion of his 300-page A History of AIPG 1963-2000, which will be availableon the AIPG website. Finally, AIPG continues to investigatejoint publication with the United States Geological Surveyof some portion of the monograph on the geology of thePhilmont Boy Scout Ranch area.

In order to help prevent potential loss of AIPG Sectionmonies left unattended by dormant Sections of AIPG, theExecutive Committee enacted the following Bylaw change:“If a Section fails to submit the annual financial accountingas required under Section 7.2.3 of these Bylaws by April 15,the dues collected by National Headquarters on behalf of thatSection for the year in which the report is due shall revertto the National Treasury. Dues held by the National Treasurywill be retained in trust for two years. All officers and/or for-mer officers of a delinquent Section will be notified by certi-fied mail of this delinquency in order to effect a cure. If thereis no response from the Section during this two year period,these dues will revert to the National General Account.” The

Summary of the April 30, 2000AIPG Executive Committee Meeting

William H. Hoyt, CPG-07015, AIPG National Advisory Board Representative, andMike Lawless, CPG-09224, AIPG National Secretary


CONGRATULATIONS!The American Institute of Professional Geologists Announces

the Award Recipients for 2000

The American Institute of Professional Geologists is pleased to announce that the followingindividuals have been named the recipients of this year’s Honors and Awards.

BEN H. PARKER MEMORIAL MEDALRussell G. Slayback, CPG-02305

MARTIN VAN COUVERING MEMORIAL AWARDRobert A. Levich, CPG-06477

JOHN T. GALEY, SR. MEMORIAL PUBLIC SERVICE AWARDJames H. Williams, CPG-00374

AWARD OF HONORARY MEMBERSHIPTravis H. Hughes, 03529

Awards will be given to recipients at the AIPG Annual Meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.The Awards Banquet will be held on October 13, 2000.

intent of this provision is not to punish Sections that do notturn in reports, but rather to help them get on their feet.This provision ensures that Section monies will not be lostfrom various Section accounts left unclaimed.

Initial reports on the October, 1999 National AIPG meet-ing in Alaska are favorable, but the final report is not com-pleted as of this writing. The Milwaukee AIPG National meet-ing scheduled for October of 2000 is developing very nicely,but many more paper abstracts need to be submitted by theJune 30, 2000 deadline (see http://www.aipgwis.org ).

There are tentative plans to open national meetingexhibits to K-12 teachers and other members of the publicfor selected hours. That could improve our public relationsand visibility. The 2001 meeting in St. Louis will be jointlysponsored with the Association of Engineering Geologists(AEG), and details of the 2002 meeting in Nevada are beingworked out. Other exciting venues from around the UnitedStates and Canada are being considered for other futuremeetings.

In other business, the Executive Committee formallyagreed to include AIPG’s national President-Elect in thebudget process for the year prior to assuming the presiden-cy. Also, the Immediate Past President will now be invitedas a voting member of the Executive Committee for the yearfollowing the Presidential term of office.

Vice President Berg reported that some of the AIPGSections are very active, while others are nearly inactive.There are few Sections in between very active and inactive.Look for a future article in TPG on the status of Sections.

Steve Testa has agreed to chair a task force to comparecollege and university curricula with AIPG licensing require-

ments. As time goes on there are more and more problemsreconciling the two, particularly as higher education coursetitles and course contents change.

President Pennington continues to work toward bolster-ing AIPG’s visibility, both nationally and internationally.Clearly, AIPG needs to take a more active role in workingwith other geoscience organizations. Several AIPG members,including some Executive Committee members, will beattending the First International Professional GeologyConference, July 11-14, 2000 in Alicante, Spain. A numberof “White Papers” and position statements are in process ontopics such as global change, wetlands, public lands, energypolicy, and MTBE use. The Executive Committee discussedthe fact that scientific data and information continue to betrivialized and ignored at virtually all levels of public policyformulation. These trends are deeply troubling, and seem torepresent a serious threat to the public. Perhaps AIPG cancontinue to work in these areas where ethical practices andadvocacy for geoscience professions intersect!

Additional student geoscience scholarships have beenauthorized, and eligibility and application guidelines will beforthcoming soon. Up to four $1000 geology scholarships willbe available to AIPG Student Members.

The Executive Committee will reconvene in Milwaukee,WI on October 10, 2000. As always, members are invited toattend!

William H. Hoyt, Ph. D., Professor of Oceanography andChair Department of Earth Sciences, Univ. NorthernColorado Greeley, CO 80639 e-mail: [email protected],Phone: (970)351-2487; Fax: (970)351-1269.


I am a Licensed Professional Geologist (LPG) with twen-ty years of experience, and during the course of my tenure,I always believed that only my experience would advance mycareer. With recent changes throughout the various States,it has become a standard to license geologists in order to seta standard for their practice. I never gave this much thoughtin the past and felt that if a person has years of experiencepracticing geology, then why would he or she need to havethis type of credential when his/her experience speaks foritself.?

During attendance at an October 1999 meeting to organ-ize an advocacy group for Illinois LPGs, I learned that it wasnecessary to have licensing for geologists. I learned severalthings from some of my colleagues at that meeting. First,there appears to be people practicing geology who are notqualified and have no credentials. Secondly, geologists withvery little experience (less than four years) are making geo-logic interpretations and writing reports that formulate con-clusions regarding the fate of a site. Lastly, critical docu-ments are being written, reviewed, and signed off by LicensedProfessional Engineers. Don’t get me wrong, there are someengineers that have a good knowledge of geology and evensome that may be qualified to formulate geological conclu-sions; however, most do not. I know of several electrical andmechanical engineers who jumped on the environmentalbandwagon in the mid to late 80’s who knew nothing aboutgeology at the time. All of us LPGs have completed our edu-cation in geology and have applied what we learned for manyyears in the field. I am not rapping the engineers (after all,I need them for design work), I am just saying that I believeit is necessary to have experienced geologists direct all geo-logical work, review all documents pertaining to the practiceof geology, and sign off on them. This is why I now agree thatlicensing is a necessity.

All that being said, I want to get to the point of this arti-cle. When I attended the October meeting, one of the thingsthat was discussed was the possibility of forming a localorganization under the umbrella of a larger national group.One group was the American Institute of ProfessionalGeologists (AIPG). I was appalled at this idea, because Ialways thought of AIPG as mostly a bunch of high-societygeologists who sit around drinking martinis, smoking cigars,and telling geologic war stories (always trying to best eachother). I worked with several great colleagues who were AIPGmembers, and I just thought that they were an exception.AIPG was represented at the October meeting, and they toldus all of the things that they would do for us, but they informedus that they were recruiting members. The new group wouldorganize as a local Chapter of AIPG as an advocacy group,and the chapter would assist in obtaining new members. Thegroup became the Illinois Chapter of the Illinois–IndianaSection of AIPG. AIPG agreed the Section would initiallyfund our efforts. I am sure you all know how I felt about thisat the time. I voted against this idea at the meeting, becauseI felt that all AIPG wanted was to recruit members and that

the Chapter would receive minimal support. Well, I waswrong.

I went to the meeting, because I had come to recognizethat in order to practice geology in Illinois and many otherU.S. States, licensing is a necessity. This being the case, Iwanted to be involved in advocating my profession, becauseI worked hard at it and was proud of it. I also recognized thatfor job security purposes in the future, a geologist would needto have a license to practice and comply with sign-off require-ments (i.e., IEPA submitted documents); the license wouldhelp tell others in the industry that I am qualified to con-duct the work. However, I always felt that this was notenough and that I needed to do what I could to advocate myprofession. That is why I volunteered to run for office on theExecutive Committee of the Illinois Chapter. I believed thateven if AIPG did not give support, I would do what I could,and this means being involved. Even after I was elected asSecretary to the Illinois Chapter, I was still adamant aboutnot becoming a National AIPG member and wanted non-AIPGs represented in the advocacy group.

After several months of working on this committee andworking with AIPG National, I have reached some new con-clusions. First, the members are not martini-drinking, cigar-smoking, war-story tellers (although I am sure we all do thatfrom time to time), but they are hard-working geologists whohave contributed tremendously to this profession. Second,AIPG works very hard to advocate this profession through-out the U.S. I was amazed to find out that they do what’scalled a fly-in to Washington D.C., where they meet withpoliticians to promote and lobby for the profession and helpin promulgating new legislation on geological issues. Finally,I must commend AIPG on the assistance that they have giventhe Illinois Chapter in pursing our advocacy issues. Theyhave given us great support in how to organize and how toapproach many of the issues at hand. For example, they willbe presenting a seminar to interested Section membersregarding lobbying efforts to get legislation changed to legal-ly recognize geologists in their field of practice. This is oneexample of the many things that AIPG is doing to assist usin Illinois. In addition to local issues, AIPG offers a wide vari-ety of assistance to members on a national basis (check outtheir website at www.aipg.org for more information). I amextremely satisfied with the efforts of AIPG and because ofthat, I recently applied for membership. I still do believe thatthose Illinois LPGs who do not wish to become AIPG mem-bers should be recognized and supported in the IllinoisChapter, since the main focus is advocacy for all Illinois LPGs,but I urge those non-members to further consider joining andseeing what AIPG has to offer. This is one former AIPG skep-tic who, through getting involved, learned that what you ini-tially see is not always what you get. Sometimes, it’s betterthan you think.

AIPG Section News, Illinois-Indiana Section,March 2000

AIPG Skeptic Changes Outlook

Jerry Kraemer


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN

VOTE!Then Think About Continuing Professional Development

William J. Siok, CPG-04773

Vote: The June issue of TPG con-tained biographies and personal edito-rials from the 2001 AIPG Candidatesfor President-Elect, Vice-President, andTreasurer. The mail-in ballot for theelection was also included in TPG.Please vote. If you don’t know any of thecandidates personally or by reputation,don’t let that deter you. Read their pro-files and vote for the geologist you feelwill help move AIPG in a direction youcan support. While you’re marking theballot, think about your own active par-ticipation in AIPG through a Section ora National committee.

Continuing Education: In both theMay and June issues of TPG, Tom Fails(Chairman of the Task Force forContinuing Professional Development)has presented the results of the TaskForce’s work over the past two years.Tom has invested an inordinate amountof his own time and energy to guide thecommittee’s work and to personally pre-pare the clear and concise proposalsfound in the two issues of TPG. If youhaven’t yet read them, please take thetime to do so.

It’s fair to say that most of us becamemembers of AIPG due to the cachetassociated with the designation ofCertified Professional Geologist (CPG)and in order to demonstrate our prideand commitment to our chosen profes-sion. The certification credential wasalso a significant boost to individual

credibility, particularly in relationshipto legal procedures associated with reg-ulatory requirements such as permitapplications and providing expert tes-timony. With the trend to state-levelregistration for geologists, many prac-titioners developed an opinion that cer-tification was no longer relevant in viewof the availability (and requirement) forthe registration credential.

Approximately half the states nowhave some type of registration (or licen-sure or certification). Practitioners whopreviously assumed that registrationwould obviate the need for or desir-ability of certification are now recog-nizing the complementary nature of thetwo quite different credentials.

All interested practicing geologistsrealize that registration compels theissuing government entity (state) topromote and preserve the interests ofthe public health and welfare. The reg-istered geologist stands alone as bothbeneficiary and responsible individual.With certification, the practicing geolo-gist is one of a community of practi-tioners who together promote the pro-fession on behalf of all. Certification isnot passJ. If anything, a case can bemade that certification is at least as rel-evant now as it has ever been.

The case for certification is only partof a discussion that continues through-out AIPG and our sister societies. Theother significant aspect of the questionis that of the need and desire for con-tinuing professional development/con-tinuing education (CPD). For those whoare of the opinion that certification isimportant and must be made more sig-nificant, there are two means by whichto accomplish that goal. The first isthrough examination. The second isthrough CPD.

The Task Force has prepared anexcellent mechanism for defining CPDand monitoring the individual practi-tioner’s progress in fulfilling therequirements. The ExecutiveCommittee has begun evaluating theproposal. A few AIPG members have

commented on early drafts of the CPDproposal, but the Executive Committeewould like to elicit points of view froma larger number before acting upon theproposal.

Please take the time to review theparticulars. Send your comments andopinions to members of the ExecutiveCommittee, to Tom Fails, or to AIPGheadquarters. (E-mail addresses, mail-ing addresses, and telephone numbersare in the annual Directory, on the AIPGwebsite, and in each issue of TPG). Asyou will learn from the proposal, CPDwill not be mandatory for existingCPGs. It will, however, be a conditionfor certification maintenance for allgeologists certified by AIPG after theprogram is enacted.


Background

For the better part of the past two decades, the Departmentof Energy (DOE) has been studying Nevada's Yucca Mountainto determine if the site would be suitable as a high-level nuclearwaste repository. The investigation was initially mandated bypassage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982, whichdirected DOE to identify a deep geologic formation suitablefor the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-levelradioactive waste produced by both industry and government.Then in 1987, Congress amended the act identifying YuccaMountain as the sole site for continued study. The study siteadjacent to the Nevada Test Site is located approximately 100miles northwest of Las Vegas. Although the repository wasoriginally scheduled to open by 1998, technical and politicaldelays have advanced that date to 2010. In April of 1997, DOEcompleted a three-year effort carving a five-mile tunnelthrough the mountain to house an Exploratory Studies Facilityto gather data concerning the suitability of the site. Also in1997, frustrated by the numerous delays, Congress directedDOE to prepare a viability assessment identifying the progressof research at Yucca Mountain.

DOE's Assessment

After physical on-site testing and analysis of several mod-els, DOE issued its report entitled "Viability Assessment ofa Repository at Yucca Mountain" in December 1998. Thereport indicated nuclear waste would be transported to thesite by specially licensed trucks and trains, starting in 2010.The waste would be placed in containers designed for long-term storage, sealed, and placed in the repository 200 metersbelow the ground surface and 100 meters above the ground-water table. After 100 years, during which time the wastewould be monitored, the facility would be permanently closedand sealed. While it was anticipated that the storage con-tainers would eventually disintegrate, the surrounding vol-canic tuff was considered to be a suitable natural barrieragainst waste migration. The report also stated there wouldbe no radiation emanating from the site to endanger localresidents for 10,000 years.

Interim Facility

Although the siting of an interim facility at Yucca Mountainwas prohibited in 1987 as a concession for identifying YuccaMountain as the designated nuclear waste site, a number ofstates have been anxious to remove high-level wastes fromDOE sites and commercial reactors within their borders.Proposals to site interim facilities in Washington and SouthCarolina have raised vigorous objections by those state's del-egations. Therefore, Congress proposed legislation to estab-lish a surface facility adjacent to Yucca Mountain for interimstorage. Although such legislation has failed to obtain the nec-essary support to override an anticipated presidential veto inpast congresses, proponents nevertheless have pushed for thepassage of Senate bill 1287 in the current session. The bill,entitled the "Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000,"was originally written to require DOE to move spent fuel cur-

rently residing at 81 individual reactor sites to a temporarycentralized storage facility at Yucca Mountain. In a compro-mise with the Clinton administration, however, the bill wasmodified to simply allow the spent fuel to be delivered to theYucca Mountain site as early as 2007, which would be sever-al years ahead of the permanent repository completion date.

The DebateWhile there seems to be agreement that a safe repository

for nuclear waste is essential, determining the ideal site orseries of sites has been problematic. The issues on both sidesof the controversy were voiced during the several hours ofdebate on May 2 with Nevada's senators leading the oppo-sition. Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV) claimed the bill's envi-ronmental standards were insufficient and termed the leg-islation "mobile Chernobyl," referring to transportation ofthe waste to Nevada. That theme was echoed by legislatorsrepresenting states along proposed transportation corridorsthrough which the waste must pass on its route to the pro-posed repository. Others suggested that long-term storage inconcrete casks at nuclear power plants is a much safer alter-native. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), who chairs theSenate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and waslead sponsor of S. 1287, pointed out that such a solution wouldkeep the waste at 81 sites in 40 states instead of in a remotesite in the Nevada desert.

The legislation passed in the Senate by a 64-34 vote andwas approved in the House 253-167. The Senate vote fell threevotes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override athreatened presidential veto. The House vote also fell short.As expected, President Clinton vetoed the legislation on April25th stating, among other reasons, that the bill would limitthe Environmental Protection Agency from issuing radiationstandards to protect human health and the environment.Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) scheduled a votein early May in an attempt to override the veto, but that voteagain failed to achieve the needed supermajority by threevotes. Although proponents of the bill believe action on thebill is still possible during this session of Congress, no actionis expected until after the November election. It is worth not-ing that both presidential candidates have opposed the move-ment of high-level nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain siteuntil it is deemed scientifically safe to do so.

Although it appears that Congress continues to move clos-er to a legislative solution for nuclear waste disposal at YuccaMountain, any decision must still overcome political, regu-latory, transportation, and possible judicial obstacles. Unlessa new technology emerges that has the capacity to serve thenation's ever growing energy needs combined with the ulti-mate depletion of fossil fuels, the demand for nuclear ener-gy can only increase as will the accompanying problem ofnuclear waste disposal.

The Government Affairs column is a bimonthly featurewritten by John Dragonetti, CPG-02779, who is SeniorAdvisor to the American Geological Institute's GovernmentAffairs Program.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING GEOLOGYCONGRESS CONTEMPLATES YUCCA MOUNTAIN ONCE AGAIN

John J. Dragonetti, CPG-02779


AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEWMonthly review prepared by Margaret Baker and David Applegate, MEM-0002,AGI Government Affairs Program, and AGI/AAPG Geoscience Policy Intern Alison Alcott.

APRIL 2000

• AAPG President Testifies Before House ResourcesCommittee

• Appropriation Levels Look Tight After Passage of BudgetResolution

• Congressional Visits Day Brings Geoscientists to Hill• Efforts Stall to Pass Petroleum-Related Legislation• Comments Sought on International Climate Assessment• Clinton Vetoes Nuclear Waste Legislation, Lott Vows

Override Attempt• Geotimes Special Issue on Geoscience and Public Policy• AGI Provides Testimony in Support of NSF, USGS, DOE

Programs• AGI Selects New Congressional Science Fellow• New Material on Website

AAPG President Testifies Before HouseResources Committee

On April 12th, American Association of PetroleumGeologists (AAPG) President Ray Thomasson testified at aHouse Resources Committee hearing entitled“Compromising our National Security by RestrictingDomestic Exploration and Development of our Oil and GasResources.” Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) statedthat he would use the hearing to “focus on the alarming factthat while our nation is one of the largest consumers of fos-sil fuels, it lacks a coherent energy policy.” Testifying weremembers of Congress, notably House Majority Whip TomDelay (R-TX), administration officials, and a number of non-governmental witnesses. Thomasson provided the view of thepetroleum geology community, noting that declines in domes-tic production of crude oil and flat levels of natural gas pro-duction are the result of declining opportunities for explo-ration but not because the resources are not there to be found.Thomasson’s testimony and that of other witnesses is avail-able at <http://www.house.gov/resources/106cong/fullcomm/00apr12/agenda2000_0412.htm>.

Appropriation Levels Look Tight After Passageof Budget Resolution

Congress has passed a new budget resolution that mayput the squeeze on science spending. The last congressionalbudget resolution was passed in 1997, the same year thatCongress and the President agreed to fixed caps on discre-tionary spending (non-mandatory spending that includesnearly all funding for science-related programs) designed tohelp the government balance its books and pay off the nation-al debt. Projected federal surpluses and a strong economy,along with a presidential proposal to change the spendingcaps, have prompted Congress to compose their own new fis-cal blueprint—a budget resolution does not go to thePresident but is the principal mechanism by which Congresssets appropriations and other spending levels.

Now that the budget resolution has passed both cham-bers, the appropriations committees will set the 302(b) allo-cations (spending levels) for each of the 13 appropriations

bills. Each chamber establishes its own 302(b) levels—thediscrepancies are smoothed out later in the appropriationsprocess—before the subcommittees report on what they deemsuitable for their corresponding bill. Final numbers are notexpected until the beginning of May. Despite the budget sur-plus and strong economy, things are not looking good for thethree major geoscience-related functions—general science,energy, and natural resources and environment. It appearslikely that the 302(b) allocations for FY 2001 will be wellbelow the President’s request and may be even lower thanFY 2000 levels. More information on the budget resolutionis available at:

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/budget_res2001.htmlMore on the appropriations process at

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/appropsfy2001.html

Congressional Visits Day BringsGeoscientists to Hill

Over 300 scientists and engineers, including more than30 earth scientists, converged on Capitol Hill in early Aprilas part of the fifth annual Science-Engineering-TechnologyCongressional Visits Day. The scientists sent a resoundingmessage to Congress in support of balanced federal invest-ment in science, engineering, and technology. Most partici-pants spent April 4th attending briefings given by key fed-eral agency officials and Hill staff. During a Capitol Hillreception that evening, the George E. Brown Jr. Science-Engineering-Technology Leadership Award was given toSenators Bill Frist (R-TN) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) tohonor their efforts to double the federal investment in sci-ence. Over the course of the event, members of ten AGI mem-ber societies visited the offices of 29 senators and 29 repre-sentatives as well as met with committee staff to discuss theimportance of federal funding for geoscience research.Briefing materials are available from the CVD website at<http://www.agiweb.org/cvd>.

Efforts Stall to Pass Petroleum-RelatedLegislation

Gas prices decreased slightly in April following an agree-ment between OPEC nations to increase petroleum produc-tion. But that did not deter Senate Majority Leader TrentLott (R-MS) from continuing his efforts to push for a feder-al gas-tax holiday. Lott attempted to bring his bill, S. 2285,to the Senate floor on April 11th, but the Senate voted 43-56 not to bring the bill up for a vote. Earlier in the month,Lott’s attempt to attach a similar measure to the FY 2001Senate budget resolution also failed. Many Members ofCongress, including several prominent Republicans, areagainst reducing the gas tax for fear that it would put theHighway Trust Fund, which is funded by the 4.3 cents/gal-lon excise tax, in jeopardy. More at

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/oil_price.html.Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) continued his efforts toopen up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to petro-leum exploration. Murkowski was able to put language in


the Senate’s budget resolution assuming $1.2 billion in rev-enues from ANWR leases during the next two years. However,the language was shot down by House Republicans andDemocrats alike in conference on April 13th, calling his effort“highly speculative and widely disputed.” Another blow toMurkowski’s efforts came from Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R-NH), whoannounced his opposition to the plan. Smith specifically ques-tioned the effect that opening ANWR would have on reduc-ing US dependence on foreign sources of oil and called forgranting permanent protection to the refuge. More at<http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/anwr.html>.

Comments Sought on InternationalClimate Assessment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)recently released a draft version of its Third AssessmentReport on Climate Change for comments by national gov-ernments. The National Science and Technology Council’sSubcommittee on Global Change Research is responsible forcoordinating the US response and has published a FederalRegister notice seeking comments on the draft report fromscientists and experts. A list of the chapters from each of thethree working groups and a reviewer registration form isavailable online at <http://www.gcrio.org/ipccform/>. One canalso e-mail a request to [email protected] or send a letter toGCRIO at P.O. Box 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964.The deadline for comments ranges from May 8th to June26th, depending on the working group. The Third AssessmentReport is the sequel to IPCC’s Second Assessment, releasedin 1995, which contained the oft-cited conclusion that “thebalance of evidence...suggests a discernible human influenceon global climate.”

Clinton Vetoes Nuclear Waste Legislation,Lott Vows Override Attempt

As expected, President Clinton vetoed legislation—S.1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000—that would have sped up the process of moving high-levelnuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. In astatement accompanying the veto on April 25th, the presi-dent cited concerns over the bill’s reduction of theEnvironmental Protection Agency’s role in setting radiationstandards. According to Greenwire, “Clinton said he is notopposed to opening a repository at Yucca Mountain, but wantsthe decision based on sound science.” Shortly after the vetowas announced, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS)announced that he would quickly schedule an override vote,but the bill failed to achieve a veto-proof supermajority whenit passed the Senate in February and the House in March.More at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/yucca106.html.

Geotimes Special Issue on Geoscience andPublic Policy

The fifth annual Geotimes special geoscience and publicpolicy issue (April 2000) reflects the range of policy activi-ties in which geoscientists are engaged—federal budget pol-icy, the balance between resource development and environ-mental protection, natural hazard mitigation, and funda-mental research. The Comment is by former House SpeakerNewt Gingrich, who calls on scientists to make the case totheir fellow citizens for federal investment in research. CraigSchiffries discusses the current state of mining law with par-

ticular reference to the recent National Research Councilstudy, Mining on Public Lands, which he directed. Tim Cohnand Kathleen Gohn of the USGS report on lessons learnedfrom the Public Private Partnership 2000 forum series thatbrought together all parties having a stake in hazard miti-gation to map out a national strategy for making hazardreduction a public value and improving resilience to disas-ters in the United States and abroad. The issue also includesan interview with Dr. Margaret Leinen, the new head of theNSF Geosciences Directorate. Leinen outlines a number ofnew initiatives and her goals for the directorate, specifical-ly in the context of her role as NSF Director Rita Colwell’spoint person for coordinating environmental research. Boththe Gingrich comment and the natural hazards article canbe found on the web at <http://www.geotimes.org/apr00/index.html>. The April issue also marks the debut of full-color presentation for Geotimes, so please take a look!

AGI Provides Testimony in Support of NSF,USGS, DOE Programs

On April 12th, the American Geological Institute (AGI)provided both oral and written testimony in support of theNational Science Foundation’s budget request to the HouseAppropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and IndependentAgencies. On April 6th, AGI provided written testimony tothe House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior andRelated Agencies in support of budget requests for the U.S.Geological Survey and the Department of Energy’s FossilEnergy Research and Development program. AGI argued forthe value of federal investments in the geosciences, whichaddress a wide range of important environmental, resource,and natural hazard challenges facing this nation. The testi-mony is available at <http://www.agiweb.org/gap/testimon.html>.

AGI Selects New Congressional Science FellowAGI is pleased to announce the selection of Kathryn

Makeig as the 2000-2001 AGI Congressional Science Fellow.She will succeed current fellow Dr. Eileen McLellan, who isserving through August on the staff of Senator Ron Wyden(D-OR). A member of AIPG, Makeig is president of WasteScience Inc., an environmental and engineering consultingfirm located in Rockville, Maryland. Makeig will join fellowsfrom GSA, AGU, SSSA, and more than twenty other scienceand engineering societies for an orientation session inSeptember followed by placement in the office of a repre-sentative, senator, or congressional committee for the fol-lowing year. The AGI fellowship is supported by a generousgrant from the AGI Foundation. More on the fellowship at<http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/csf.html>.

New Material on WebsiteThe following updates and reports were added to the

Government Affairs portion of AGI’s website http://www.agi-web.org since the last monthly update:• High-Level Nuclear Waste Update (4-26-00)• Fiscal Year 2001 Geoscience Appropriations Update

(4-21-00)• Congressional Response to Rising Oil Price (4-20-00)• Summary of the Educational OPTIONS Act, H.R. 4141

(4-18-00)• Federal Acquisition of the Valles Caldera Update

(4-17-00)


• Land Sovereignty and National Monument Acts Update(4-17-00)

• Science Education Policy Update (4-17-00)• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Update (4-14-00)• Climate Change Hearing Summaries (4-14-00)• Congressional Efforts to Double Science Funding

(4-14-00)• Fiscal Year 2001 Congressional Budget Resolution

(4-14-00)• Energy Policy & Conservation Act Reauthorization and

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Update (4-12-00)• AGI Testimony: National Science Foundation—FY 2001

House Appropriations Testimony (4-12-00)• Update on the Kansas School Board Decision and Related

Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution (4-11-00)• Superfund Update (4-11-00)• Climate Change Policy Update (4-10-00)• Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act Update

(4-10-00)• AGI Testimony: USGS and DOE Fossil Energy —FY 2001

House Appropriations Testimony (4-6-00)

Sources: Energy and Environment Daily, Greenwire,Library of Congress.

This monthly review goes out to members of the AGIGovernment Affairs Program (GAP) Advisory Committee, theleadership of AGI’s member societies, and other interestedgeoscientists as part of a continuing effort to improve com-munications between GAP and the geoscience communitythat it serves. Prior updates can be found on the AGI web-site under “Government Affairs” <http://www.agiweb.org>.For additional information on specific policy issues, pleasevisit the website or contact us at <[email protected]> or (703)379-2480, ext. 212.

AIPG SPONSORSHIPPROGRAM

CONTRIBUTORSThe following individuals and corporations

have made generous contributions to AIPGthrough our Sponsorship Program for theenhancement of AIPG’s professional image andto allow improvements in the efficiency of serv-ice delivery to all Members.

Thank you for your support:IndividualsFrank W. Harrison, Jr., CPG-02500Dennis I. Pennington, CPG-04401Dawn H. Garcia, CPG-08313Thomas G. Fails, CPG-03174Robert G. Font, CPG-03953Douglas E. Connell, CPG-08014

CorporationsIT Corporation

For further information on the AIPGSponsorship Program contact AIPG NationalHeadquarters at (303) 412-6205.

Steve Bohlen, Assis-tant Geologist for theUSGS, met with AIPGmembers in Tucson onApril 5. Steve providedsome insights into theworkings of USGS, espe-cially in light of the cur-rent restructuring. Stevealso met with AIPG inearly May during theWashington Fly-In.

Photo (left to right):Erick Weiland, CPG,Dawn Garcia, CPG, FredFox, CPG, and SteveBohlen.

AIPG ARIZONA SECTION NEWS


PROFESSIONAL ETHICS & PRACTICES - Column 56Compiled by David M. Abbott, Jr., CPG-04570, Ethics Committee Chairman, 2266 Forest Street,Denver, CO 80207-3831, 303-394-0321, fax 303-394-0543, [email protected]

The Ethics of Class Noteson Web Pages

(Columns 53& 54, March & April ‘00)

Fred L Fox, CPG-01273, comment-ed on column 54. “To answer your ques-tions in order: students can use infor-mation posted on a website unlessadvised otherwise (why not?). Using theinformation, though, is different fromcopying it. Regarding collaboration, theword means cooperation and implieswillingness, so collaboration on home-work is not a problem. Copying is some-thing else–one can’t copy another’swork without referencing him.Regarding the charge of plagiarism, theprof may charge plagiarism as he wish-es–he is in position to judge.Maintaining the charge, though, is a dif-ferent animal.

“This points out a difference betweenethics and law that I constantly make.The ethics of the situation has nothingto do with proving it. Something does-n’t have to be proven unethical to beunethical. Law has nothing to do withit.

“Collaboration warrants at leastacknowledgment, if not joint author-ship. Since the writers collaborated,they cooperated willingly; both are duesuch recognition as they agree on. Noone else is involved. An author takescomplete responsibility for his work orany of his actions.

“Evidentiary problems are not ethi-cal problems but legal ones, although Iagree that they are real issues in ethicsenforcement. A person is not necessar-ily punished via the law for being uneth-ical, and I’m not so sure that he shouldbe. I don’t believe that the law shouldjudge ethics or ethical transgressions(unless of course they violate the lawwhile doing so). I do believe that pro-fessions like ours should police theirethics, and that in clear violations theyshould act accordingly. In unclear situ-ations it has to remain enough to advise.Persons having been advised repeated-ly will develop their own reputation.And the record remains with the advi-sor.

“A person either cheats or doesnot–forget coming close to the line. It

may be true that only the person doingso knows for sure, but again, a personcoming close to the line repeatedly willdevelop his own reputation. Dismissalof charges does not exonerate the indi-vidual. His reputation precedes him.The prof knows, and has his own wayof dealing with the situation (as long ashe remains ethical while doing so).Certainly useful results occurred—probably on both sides. Yes—suchresults are enough.

“Now your last question: ...what doesit mean in practice? Cheating is wrong,and cheaters must be called to answerfor it. They may talk their way out ofcharges using legal tactics (in whichthey will be supported by society), butthe record remains, and their reputa-tion will be affected. A warning can beissued together with another warningthat should it happen again, a penaltywill be forthcoming. The imminentpenalty should be spelled out, andimposed should it become necessary. Irealize that this is less than perfect andthere are risks involved, but we arefaced with problems arising from theconflict of ethics with the law and in oursociety, the law is the last word. In thebig picture, though, ethics has the lastword. We just have to work toward that.”

Fox’s comments distinguish betweenaspirational ethical behavior, the con-tinual striving to do the ethically cor-rect thing, and disciplinary action takenagainst those who fail to act either inaccord with the law or act in ethicallyproscribed ways. There is a range of con-sequences for unethical behavior rang-ing from personal twinges of conscience,acquiring a reputation for unethicalbehavior, and being disciplined for par-ticular acts.

The case described in column 54involved the use of a professor’s solu-tion to a homework problem that wasposted on a website available to theclass by some of the students. The schoolin question has an honor or ethics codethat admonishes against plagiarism,among other things, and informs stu-dents that violations can result in dis-ciplinary action that can include expul-sion. Thus Fox’s criteria for a descrip-tion of prohibited acts and the conse-quences of violations were met. I recall

receiving a detailed booklet on theschool’s honor code when I matriculat-ed as a freshman. One can always hopethat disciplinary actions are unneces-sary, but experience shows otherwise.

Following up on academic honesty, a1997 study by Rutgers professor DonaldMcCabe found that cheating was upalthough percentage of cheating atschools with an honor code was lower. Ifyou want to follow up, go to the Centerfor Academic Integrity (CAI) web site,www.academicintegrity.org. The CAImaintains a searchable database on aca-demic integrity. The specific statisticscited come from a referenced article atwww.bergen.com/ed/cheat9708281.htm.

In column 55, I reviewed BernardGert’s Morality: its nature and justifi-cation. Gert proposed 10 moral rules,the tenth being: do your duty. Acting inaccord with an academic honor code isan example of doing one’s duty. Such acode is specifically incumbent on all (orat least specified) members of the insti-tution but is not an obligation for thosewho are not members of the institution.However, regardless of the existence ofan academic honor code, cheating is gen-erally regarded as unethical, and thosewho cheat should not be surprised whenconsequences result.

Honesty in Science:Use of Imagery

In column 52 (March ‘00) I reviewedRichard Feynman’s belief that scientif-ic honesty requires us to bend over back-wards to make sure that the limits toand uncertainties around our studiesare made clear. The speaker at theColorado Section’s April meeting, Dr.Frederick B. Henderson, III, addressedthe growing capabilities of multi-spec-tral and hyperspectral images takenfrom satellites and aircraft to discernall sorts of information at increasinglyfine resolution. Selection of particularsmall segments of the spectral bandsavailable and the necessary generationof false-color pictures, which are com-puter-corrected into orthographicmaps, provide output that helps usmake particular points. Henderson alsopointed out that depending on how youchoose to portray data, you can augment


or suppress the visual impact of theimage. He noted that one must thinkabout the ethics involved in the impactof the pictures you are generating.

The Saturday following Henderson’stalk was the day that the INS seizedElian Gonzales in Miami, an event pro-viding a graphic example ofHenderson’s observation on the impactof pictures. The Sunday papers ran thestory on the front page with two pic-tures predominating. The first, and fre-quently the largest,1 showed the INSagents in full SWAT gear and withmachine guns finding Elian in the clos-et of his relatives’ Miami home. The sec-ond was of a smiling Elian in the armsof his father.

Both Denver papers ran both pic-tures on their front pages. However, thepicture of the INS agents with themachine guns was nearly 3 times thesize of the picture of Elian with hisfather. Both pictures relate to the samestory but their visual impact and impli-cations are very different. The first pic-ture is a scene of violence while the sec-ond is of a happy family. By choosing torun the violent picture at a much larg-er size, the violence of the event wasemphasized. Interestingly enough, bothDenver papers editorially supportedthe government’s seizure, not the posi-tion suggested by their front pages.

I started formulating this articleassuming that both pictures were fac-tual, that they correctly recorded a par-ticular event. Monday’s papers carriedthe story suggesting that the picture ofhappy Elian with his father had beenfaked. The story cited perceived differ-ences in hair length and the presenceor absence of a missing tooth as evi-dence of the alleged faking. The pres-ence of a band-aid on Elian’s arm wasalleged to be evidence that Elian hadbeen drugged. However, after the orig-inal assertions that the photo had beenfaked, the story was dropped. This sug-gests, although does not prove, that theassertions were untrue.

The point for us as geoscientists isthat this example clearly illustrates theimpact of pictures on a report, on theevidence of an event. That is true if thepictures are assumed to be accurate.

The charge that one of the photos wasfaked reminds us again of the power ofthe image processing capability of a rea-sonably capable home computer. Inusing the types of spectral imagesHenderson discussed during his talk,we are using artificial images. Are theyconstructed in a manner that obscuresany uncertainty in the data? Do thealgorithms used honor the data? Do wediscuss these issues in the text?

While I’ve never actively boughtimage processing software particularly,I have two or three programs allowingme to do interesting things with elec-tronic images obtained from my scan-ner or packaged as part of graphics pro-grams. I have used graphics software toannotate photos with lines and labels,a common enough thing in publishedgeoscience photos. I’m not suggestingthat the practice is unethical. No one isdeceived by the added graphic elements(unless something is obscured2). Buteach of us as authors using pictures doselect which ones will be used to illus-trate a point. In selecting the “best” pic-ture or illustration of a particular point,are we glossing over something impor-tant?

As an illustration, consider Figure 1,which illustrates the relative relation-ships between exploration informationand the various categories of mineralresources and mineral reserves. The dif-ferences between categories is theamount of geological information aboutthe deposit, shown on the vertical axis,and economic and other relevant factorson the horizontal axis. Mining geolo-gists will recognize this fairly standardillustration of the differences betweenthe various categories.

Although a standard and useful illus-tration, Figure 1 (and the classificationit illustrates) does have some relevant,undisclosed assumptions and undis-cussed issues. Specifically, what are theboundaries between the various cate-gories? Although the written text of theSME Guide provides a good deal of guid-ance, it doesn’t ultimately answer thequestion. The importance of the amountof geologic information, essentially thedensity and continuity of the samplingdata, is usually true, but reflects a biastowards metallic deposits. Industrialmineral deposit evaluation is oftenmore dependent on the ability to mar-ket the produced product(s). This is notthe place for a detailed discussion ofthese particular points—that is the sub-

1. I base this statement not only on the Denver papers but also on photos of front pages of papers from around the country on theInternet.

2. I attending a meeting once where an audience member questioned one of the speaker’s conclusions in more or less the followingmanner: “The slide you used to support your conclusion had a pine tree on the right-hand slide. If you’d looked behind that tree,you would have found the following evidence refuting your interpretation:...”

Figure 1. An illustration of the relationships between the various mineral resource andmineral reserve categories from A Guide for Reporting Exploration Information, MineralResources, and Mineral Reserves, 1999, SME, www.smenet.org.


ject of an entirely different paper. Thepoint of the discussion is that a com-monly used geologic illustration con-tains weaknesses that each of us shouldstrive to explicitly recognize.Unfortunately, often the initial illus-trator frequently forgets such points, ormay not consciously recognize them inthe first place. Repeated use of the illus-tration compounds the error.

The petroleum industry provides anexample involving a critical underlyingassumption. Fairly early in the devel-opment of oil fields it was observed thata well’s production declined over timeand that the decline was frequentlyexponential in character, that is pro-duction would decline by a fixed per-centage over a given time period (usu-ally measured by month or by year).Plotting production on semi-log graphpaper allowed production geologistsand engineers to fit a straight line tothe decline “curves” and predict futureproduction with pretty good accuracy.Figure 2 illustrates this. Based on theobservation, a mathematical proof wasdeveloped to prove that exponentialdecline exists. The proof works very wellif you accept the initial assumption:that the reservoir is an isotropic, homo-geneous layer with infinite horizontaldimensions. This always struck me asakin to the cartoon of the scientists pon-dering a blackboard full of equationswhere the punch line is “And at this stepa miracle occurs.” Nevertheless, expo-nential decline is close enough to accu-rate to have been in widespread useprior to the spread of personal comput-

ers that could calculate fancier curve-fitting equations. It still works prettywell in appropriate fields even if a geo-logically unreasonable assumption isrequired for its mathematical proof.

Do you have examples of misleadingillustrations or critical assumptionsthat you can share?

Business Ethics

Ernest K. Lehmann, CPG-00583,sent me an article on corporate ethicsfrom the April 22, 2000 issue of TheEconomist. The article was prompted bythe anti-globalization protests at theInternational Monetary Fund meetingsin Washington, D.C. Various groupsdemand that corporations behave inways that they favor, often couchingtheir demands in terms of justice orequality or ethics. But are traditionalethical principles truly involved?

Corporations exist to pursue prof-itable commercial ventures. Their goalis financial rewards for their owners.Economic issues like profit and loss arenot mentioned in any ethical codes I’maware of. But we do expect the peopleemployed by corporations, and hencethe corporations themselves, to be hon-est in their dealings and honesty isclearly an ethical idea. The briberyscandals of the 1970s and 1980sresolved themselves around the issue ofdisclosure of business practices viewedas corruption or bribery. If one disclos-es the circumstance surrounding a cashpayment to the fellow with an AK-47 ata road block, the question becomes

whether one should be working in coun-tries where this happens. Or, if one doeswork in such places, should companiesactively work to change things? Thereis a lot of complaining in this countryabout big business interfering in thepolitical process. If such activity is badhere, why is it good elsewhere?

Many of the new demands focus onissues not covered in traditional ethicalprinciples. Environmental concernsprovide an example. Recognition ofenvironmental stewardship in ethicscodes is a recent development. The ten-sions between the need to extract nat-ural resources and the fact that minesand other industrial operations areviewed as environmental degradationhave not been worked out.

The consequences of “ethically”demanded actions have often not beenfully thought out. The article pointed tothe example of the demands that Nikeand other shoe manufacturers requirethat their suppliers pay a “living wage”to their workers. A reported conse-quence of this is that Vietnamese doc-tors are quitting the practice of medi-cine to work in shoe factories becausethe wages are so much higher. Is thissocially or ethically desirable?

Is it right to impose American stan-dards on the rest of the world? The giv-ing of gifts more valuable than the trin-kets passed out at booths at conventionsas part of business relationships is com-mon is some countries but not here.Here, such gifts start looking likebribes. What is the difference? Whosecustoms should be followed? If it isappropriate to follow dictum, when inRome, do as the Romans, with regardto gift giving, does it follow that the dic-tum should follow in all things? The liv-ing wage issue is an example wheresome claim the answer is no. Genderequality in working is a similarly stickyissue in some countries.

Are these issues ethical issues orsocial issues? What is the difference? Asalways, comments are welcomed.

AIPG’s ContinuingProfessional

Development Program(see column 14, Jan ‘97)

In the May and June issues of theTPG, Tom Fails, CPG-03174, present-ed the proposed AIPG ContinuingProfessional Development Program(Proposed CPD Program). In column 14

Figure 2. Turner production from 8 wells in the Finn Shurley field of northeasternWyoming. The thick line is a straightline curve fit through the data and reflects the gen-eral tendency of the wells to decline by a fixed precentage each month after about thefirst 5 months.


(Jan. ‘97), I presented a fairly lengthyreview of my thoughts on continuingprofessional development in general, anarticle considered by AIPG’s Continu-ing Professional Development TaskForce, which Fails chaired. In thatreview, I suggested that continuing pro-fessional development program consid-er the points listed below.3 Followingeach of my original heading points aremy comments on how the Task Forceimplemented the points in the ProposedCPD Program.1. Continuing professional devel-

opment should consist of a mixof technical, professional, andethical activities.

The Proposed CPD Program providescredit for a wide variety of technical andother professional activities that can beapplied towards the required number ofpoints. Some additions to or clarifica-tions in the draft logbook are requiredto address how credit should be award-ed for training programs related to pro-fessional activities that do not involvegeoscience. I suspect that for most geo-scientists, regulatory developmentcourses of one sort or another will bethe most common type. For example, Iannually attend one of the major secu-rities law conferences in the country, a10.5-hour day of presentations by theleading attorneys and accountants inthe field. This conference helps me keepabreast of developments in one of myparticular specialities, full disclosureabout natural resources related busi-nesses. This is not an active participa-tion session. However, the attorneysreceive 10.5 hours of general and 1.5hours of legal ethics CLE credits forattending the conference. I think I oughtto receive at least a 0.33 multiplier forattending this course. I could also arguethat the presentations and accompany-ing handouts are superior in sum towhat one receives from attending a ses-sion at a typical national geoscienceorganization session, for which I receivea 0.66 multiplier per contact hour.Clarity on how such sessions should beaccounted for is needed in the logbook.

Notably missing from the ProposedCPD Program is any requirement relat-ed to professional ethics. The threewords on the AIPG shield, which is partof the AIPG seal, are competence,

integrity, and ethics. Integrity andethics are closely related, and I believethat some points relating to profes-sional ethics should be required.Making a contribution to this column isone way in which one could receive suchpoints. Giving a paper or presentationrelating to professional ethics would beanother. I’m not suggesting that theethics component should necessarily belarge, but it ought to be worth at least6 to 10 points. Ethical concern is onething distinguishing AIPG from a greatmany of the other geoscience organiza-tions.2. Continuing professional devel-

opment credits should be avail-able by a variety of means.

3. Continuing professional devel-opment credits should be read-ily available around the world.

The Proposed CPD Program appearsto do a pretty good job of recognizingthat some members located in geo-graphically remote areas or who travela great deal have special needs in meet-ing their CPD obligations. Distancelearning over the Internet is rapidlyevolving and will help a great deal.Nevertheless, I would encourage thoseof you living in remote areas to fill outa draft logbook and report on how muchdifficulty you would have in meeting theproposed CPD obligation.4. Working with international

organizations to provide mutu-al continuing professionaldevelopment support.

I noted in my original article that theGeological Society of London was in theprocess of developing a CPD program.Its continues to be. Other organizationsand licensing authorities can be expect-ed to initiate their own programs. WhenAIPG was founded, the requirementsfor certification constituted a premiumcredential. Now they are frequentlysimilar to the minimum standard forlicensing (testing aside). I expect thatCPD requirements will evolve in thesame way. I would like to think that acommon and internationally acceptedlogbook could be developed.5. Consider a 3- to 5-year rather

than annual continuing pro-fessional development require-ment.

The Proposed CPD Program calls fora 6-year renewal cycle. However, one isexpected to accumulate a minimum of10 points per year in both continuingeducation and professional participa-tion areas. To me, this requirement maybe an issue particularly in the continu-ing education category. The 10-pointsper year requirement does not allow forone year’s worth of heavy continuingeducation activity to generate credit forthe entire renewal period. The creditreceived for taking a geoscience classfor credit illustrates the point. Last yearI took a 3-semester hour course fromthe Colorado School of Mines for cred-it. Given the multiplier of 16 per semes-ter hour, this results in 48 points worthof continuing education credit.Currently, that gives me a lot of extrapoints in one year that I can’t use to off-set potential deficits in other years. Forsome this may be problem. However,given the various ways in which con-tinuing education points can bereceived, it may not be as much of aproblem in practice as it appears to be.Again, if a number of you would fill outdraft logs for a year or two, potentialproblems could be identified andbrought to the CPD Task Force’s atten-tion.6. How much credit should be

required?I spent 20 minutes or so completing

a draft logbook and found that TomFails’ assertion that many, even most,of us are meeting the proposed CPDrequirements now, if we bothered torecord our activities, is true. Incompleterecording yielded 145 points in all areasfor 1999 and 99 point so far in 2000.This exercise suggests that some con-cerns expressed under point 5 may notbe real in practice. 7. Who sets the standards and

keeps track of credits earned?The Proposed CPD Program is

AIPG’s. However, as noted above, AIPGis simply getting into the CPD gameearly, and I rather expect that over theyears various groups will try to one-upeach other by claiming that they havemore rigorous CPD programs. This willbe a problem we should work towardsavoiding. It’s rather like the old prob-lem of whether your undergraduatefield program was any good compared

3. Please refer to column 14 for the details—a reprint is included on pages 195–199 of Geologic Ethics and ProfessionalPractices, 1987-1997 and will be posted in the continuing professional development section of the AIPG website.


to the program offered at your gradu-ate school (if you switched schools). Oneof the problems that exists with simi-lar programs in other professions is thebureaucracy that can develop to “certi-fy” that short courses, etc. warrant thegranting of CE credits of some sort. Iforesee another “arms race” for who getsto control things, to claim the most rig-orous requirements, and charge for it.The Proposed CPD Program hasn’t got-ten into this swamp yet, and tries todeal with measurable things like con-tact hours, semester hours, etc., com-bined with multipliers to calculate thepoints received for each activity.

Other Comments

I’ve indicated that the best way todetermine how your present practicestacks up against the proposed programis to try it out. This will also show wherethe problems are. For example, work forAIPG generates more points than forother organizations. I’m on committeesfor other national organizations, butsince I’m not the committee chairman,I receive no points. I’ve done as muchwork on some of those committees as I

have on some AIPG committees. Thisshould be adjusted.

Then there is the question of whetherbeing a member of a committee reflectsthat you actually did something. Merelysigning up for a committee should notresult in points if you don’t do some-thing. Perhaps confirmation from chair-men for members and from presidentsfor committee chairs might be appro-priate.

You get 2 points for attending theannual meeting of a national geoscienceorganization other than AIPG and 3points for the AIPG annual meeting. Itdoesn’t matter how many days themeeting lasts, you get your points forbeing in attendance for at least one fullday. It is not clear whether this is inaddition to points one would get forattending some sessions, chairing a ses-sion, and presenting a paper at third. Ifall activities count, then you can reallyrack up the points by attending 2-3 daysof an annual meeting and going on acouple of field trips.

It was also unclear how many pointsa non-academic geoscientist wouldreceive for organizing and presenting a

short course. Does “Course Presenta-tion” include short courses as well ascredit courses? What about credit forpresenting a lecture in a course? Givinga 1-hour lecture requires more workthan a 15–20 minute talk.

The foregoing comments are reallyabout the mechanics of how thingscount. Some example logbooks provid-ed by the CPD Task Force will reallyhelp answer some of these questions.The June article contained the draftAIPG Certification Advancement andMaintenance Program Annual Log-book. This is the document outlininghow the rubber really meets the road.Please review and comment on the pro-posed program, and in particular lookat the logbook in terms of what you havedone in the past year or two and whatyou are doing this year. Having done so,you will be able to offer a variety of use-ful comments. I urge you to do so.Comments should be sent to Tom Fails,but I will be happy to print commentsin this column as well.

WASHINGTON - Researchers at Columbia University'sBiosphere 2 Center have determined that increasing levelsof carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere may cause moreharm to marine coral reef communities than previousresearch had indicated. Dr. Christopher Langdon ofColumbia's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and hisresearch team believe that coral growth could be reduced byas much as 40 percent from pre-industrial levels over thenext 65 years.

The team found no evidence that reef organisms are ableto acclimate after prolonged exposure to the reduced car-bonate levels. "This is the first real evidence that increasingatmospheric carbon dioxide levels have a negative impact ona major Earth ecosystem," says Langdon, whose research willbe published in the June edition of Global BiogeochemicalCycles, an American Geophysical Union journal that coversglobal environmental change.

Langdon's team is investigating the impact of changingseawater chemistry on coral reef calcification rates. By mid-century, increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, are expectedto reduce by 30 percent the carbonate ion concentration ofthe surface ocean. When Langdon changed the carbonate con-centration in the Biosphere 2 ocean to that projected level,he observed significant reduction in calcification rates forthe coral and coralline algae.

Langdon believes the results of his research have someimportant implications. Coral reefs are natural breakwatersprotecting tropical islands and other coastal areas from beacherosion. "While some terrestrial ecosystems may actuallybenefit from elevated carbon dioxide levels, that does notappear to be the case for shallow marine ecosystems like acoral reef," says Langdon. The impacts are much greater thanpreviously believed, leading to increasing vulnerability ofmany reefs to other man-caused sources of stress, like over-fishing or pollution, he says.

The project is underway in the ocean ecosystem atColumbia's Biosphere 2 laboratory near Oracle, Arizona. The700,000-gallon aquarium of artificial seawater with its com-munity of coral reef life mimics key aspects of real worldcoral reef ecosystems. Biosphere 2 President and ExecutiveDirector William Harris says the ability to control preciselythe chemical environment and accurately measure changesin the system offers a unique opportunity to conduct researchof this kind.

Joint American Geophysical Union/Columbia UniversityRelease, May 16, 2000, AGU RELEASE NO. 00-12

AGU Contact: Harvey Leifert, (202) 777-7507 ore-mail: <[email protected]>.

Increasing Carbon Dioxide Threatens Coral Reefs


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY

This service is open to AIPG Members as well as non-mem-bers. The Professional Services Directory is a 12-monthlisting offering experience and expertise in all phases ofgeology. Prepayment required. Advertising rates are basedon a 3 3/8” x 1 3/4” space.

12-MONTH LISTING FOR ONLY:AIPG Member $200.00Non-member $300.00

Space can be increased vertically bydoubling or tripling the size and also the rate.

Robert G. Font, Ph.D.CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST

Petroleum; Data ManagementGeohazards; Courses & Seminars

(CDs available)

P. O. Box 864424, Plano, TX 75086

English/Spanish/French

Ph./Fax (972) 516-4725 • Pager: (972) 585-5234e-mail: [email protected]

Dennis Pennington, P.G.President

National Environmental Technologies CorporationP.O. Box 204 • 2840 West Clymer Avenue • Telford, PA 18969

Tel: (215) 723-9300 • Fax: (215) 723-9344Internet: www.enter.net/~netc

OFFICES IN PITTSBURGH, PA AND HURRICANE, WVGround Water & Environmental Consulting Services

s

David M. Abbott, Jr.Consulting Geologist, AIPG CPG-4570

evaluating natural resources, disclosures about them,reserve estimates, and geological ethics & practices

2266 Forest Street PH.: (303) 394-0321Denver, CO 80207-3831 Fax: (303) 394-0543

[email protected]

• Geotechnical Engineering • Wetlands Studies• Soils Laboratory • Permeability Tests

7378 COCKRILL BEND BLVD. • NASHVILLE, TN 37209(615) 350-8124 • FAX (615) 350-8149E-MAIL: [email protected]

LARRY R. RHODES, P.G.PresidentMailing Address:

P.O. Box 24080Lexington, KY 40524

Ph: 859-887-5700FAX: 859-887-5703

Bluegrass Industr ial Park115 Eisenhower Court

Nicholasvil le, KY 40356e-mail: [email protected]

ELLIS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC.Valuations • Geology • Economics

www.minevaluation.com

TREVOR R. ELLISCertified Minerals Appraiser-AIMA

Certified Professional Geologist-AIPGMineral Economist-MS

600 Gaylord Street • Geology ReportsDenver, Colorado 80206-3717, USA • Market StudiesPhone: 303 399 4361 • Economic EvaluationFax: 303 399 3151 • Property Valuatione-mail: [email protected]


Hurst & Associates, Inc.9 Faculty Court ~ Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-2934

(805) 492-7764 Ph ~ (805) 241-7149 [email protected]

Richard W. Hurst, Ph.D.President

Organic & Inorganic Geochemistry ~ Age-Dating of ReleasesLitigation Support ~ Statistics ~ Contaminant Fingerprinting


Full Service Environmental Consulting and Contracting

Roger Breeden, CPG, REPSenior Project Manager/Geologist

• RCRA, CERCLA • Geotechnical-Drilling/Engineering Service• Phase I, Phase II - Site Investigation • Construction Equipment, Land Development• Phase III-CAP’s, Remediation Design • Demolition• Hydrogeological Studies • Hazardous Waste Management• Regulatory/Industrial Compliance • UST Installation and Removal• Federal & State Permitting • Karst Studies• Expert Testimony • CDD Landfill Management/Ownership

*Recognized National Accounts2040 Old Louisville Road • P.O. Box 2590 • Bowling Green, KY 42102(270) 781-4945 • Fax (270) 793-0088 • e-mail: [email protected]

For 24-Hour Environmental Response call 1-800-TPM-4ERT

TOM FAILS, CPG-3174, AAPG CPG-877INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST

South Louisiana and European E & P Projects

Basin Analysis Coalbed MethaneExploration Management Salt Dome Problems

4101 East Louisiana Ave., Ste. 412Denver, CO 80246 USA

Ph: (303) 759-9733 Fax: (303) 759-9731E-mail: [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLERS, INC.MARK ZBYLOT, CPG 7757

Operations Manager

Monitoring Wells, Direct Push SamplingEnvironmental Soil Sampling

Geotechnical Exploration

2209 Wisconsin St. 972.620.8911Suite 100 888.950.3007Dallas, Texas 75229 FAX 972.406.8023

ADVERTISE HERE!12-MONTH LISTING FOR ONLY:

AIPG Member $200.00

Non-member $300.00

Space can be increased vertically bydoubling or tripling the size and also the rate.



NEW AIPG PUBLICATIONCOMING SOON!

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK and LIABILITY MANAGEMENT forCORPORATIONS AND CONSULTANTS

by

Charles D. Fletcher and Evan K. Paleologos

If you need:

• a timely review of tools and techniques available for environmental risk management• a comprehensive but "quick-read" approach to subject matter fundamental to every company and firm that is

influenced by environmental regulations and lawsuits• a synopsis that answers such questions as "How do I control my risk exposure and shield my profits" and

"How can a small or mid-sized consulting firm bid haz-waste and superfund projects without betting the farm"...

...THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU. Written from a consulting geologist's point of view on what is important in financialrisk management, this book addresses how companies and consultants use modern insurance techniques, riskfinancing models, environmental management systems and pollution prevention to reduce their environmentalliability. The book also discusses, by example, how environmental regulations and potential changes in regula-tions can affect corporate exposure both in the US and internationally.

Draper Aden AssociatesBlacksburg, óó Richmond, Virginia

Engineering ó Surveying ó Environmental Services

• Groundwater Assessment and Remediation• Solid Waste Management• Wetlands and Ecological Services

2206 South Main Street • Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

Phone: (540) 552-0444 http://www.daa.com

Fax: (540) 552-0291 [email protected]

TheErnest K. Lehmann

& Associates Inc. GroupandNorth Central

Mineral Ventures Inc.

Suite 62212 South 6th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402

USATEL: 612-338-5584FAX: 612-338-5457

SPECIALIZEDENGINEERINGConstruction Quality Control • Environmental ConsultingGeotechnical & Forensic Engineering

• Vibration Monitoring• Geophysical Surveys• Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL)

9607 Dr. Perry Road, Suite 102 - Ijamsville, MD 217541-800-773-3808 [email protected]

World WideGeologic, Mining,

and Mineral EconomicsConsulting Services and

Mineral Project Management

Since 1967

HB Management GroupEngineering, Risk Analysis,

Turn-Arounds.(Svetovalec/Inñenior).

Kelvin J. Buchanan, P.E., M.B.A.President

USA575 Forest St., #100P.O. Box 2391Reno, NV 89505-2391Tel: (775) 786-4515Fax: (775) 786-4324E-mail: [email protected]

EUROPEAlpska 8

4248 LesccSlovenia

Tel: 386-64-700-88-54E-mail: [email protected]


CALENDAR

ADVERTISERS INDEXAIPG Publication IFCAIPG Annual Meeting B CEarth Science Week IBCKrueger Enterprises, Inc. 23Professional Services Directory 27-29

2000Jul. 31-Aug. 3. Pacific Rocks 2000,Fourth North American Rock MechanicsSymposium, Seattle, WA. Contact: MarkCramer, Ph.: (303) 771-2000.

Aug. 3-5. Conference on the History ofGeologic Pioneers, Troy, NY. Call forpapers. Contact: Northeastern ScienceFoundation, Inc., affiliated with BrooklynCollege of the City University of New York,P.O. Box 746, Troy, NY 12181,Ph.: (518) 273-3247,e-mail: [email protected],http://www2.netcom.com/~gmfstf/

Aug. 5-8. GeoDenver 2000, Denver, CO.Contact: American Society of CivilEngineers, Ph.: (703) 295-6300,http://www.asce.org/conferences/geo2000.

Sep. 6-8. 1st World Conference onExplosives and Blasting Technique, Munich,Bavaria, Germany. Sponsored by:International Society of ExplosivesEngineers and by German Society ofExplosives Engineers, Ph.: +46 8 679 1700or fax +46 8 611 1091.

Sep. 8-10. National Association ofGeoscience Teachers Far-Western Section,Blairsden, California. Contact: ElwoodBrooks, Dept. of Geological Sciences,California State University, Hayward, CA94542, Ph.: (530) 862-0415.

Sep. 17-20. The Society for OrganicPetrology, 17th Annual Meeting,Bloomington, IN. Contact: Maria Mastalerz,Indiana Geological Survey, 611 N. Walnut

Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405, Ph.: (812)855-9416, e-mail: [email protected],http://adamite,igs.indiana.edu/tsop

Oct. 10-14. AIPG 37th Annual Meeting,Learning form the Past - Directions for theFuture, Milwaukee, WI. Contact: Jack Travisat (920) 854-7869, e-mail: [email protected],http://www.aipgwis.org.

Nov. 12-15. Managing Earthquake Risk inthe 21st Century, Sixth InternationalConference on Seismic Zonation,Palm Springs, CA. Contact: EarthquakeEngineering Research Institute, 499 14thSt., #320, Oakland, CA 94612, Ph.: (510)451-0905, e-mail: [email protected],http://www.eeri.org.

Nov. 13-16. GSA Annual Meeting, Reno,NV. Contact: GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder,CO 80301, Ph.: (303) 447-2020 or<www.geosociety.org>.

Dec. 3. RMAG Annual Meeting, A NewExploration Strategy for UnconventionalBasin Center Hydrocarbon Accumulations,Denver, CO. Contact: The Rocky MountainAssociation of Geologists, 820 16th St.,#505, Denver, CO 80202, Ph.: (303) 623-5396 or (303) 573-8621.

Dec. 13-16. NGWA Convention, LasVegas, NV. Contact: NGWA, 601 DempseyRd., Westerville, OH 43081, Ph.: (614) 898-7791 or <www.ngwa.org>.

Send notices of meetings of generalinterest, in format above, to Editor,TPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200,Westminster, CO 80031-3681 ore-mail: [email protected].

AIPG ANNUALMEETINGS

October 10-14, 2000Milwaukee, Wisconsin

www.aipgwis.org

September 29 -October 5, 2001

St. Louis, Missouri

2002Reno, Nevada

AIPG Membership Totals

As of As of05/26/99 05/19/00

CPG - Active 4,165 4,010CPG - Retired 510 526Cand. for Cert. 57 47Member 22 40Registered Memb. 16 19Associate Memb. 7 5Student Affiliate 83 72Honorary 17 19

TOTALS 4,877 4,738

Moving? — Changing Jobs?...don’t forget to send AIPG your new address!

Name AIPG No.

Address

Address

City/State/Zip

New phone numbers: Office Home

Fax E-mail

Only one change notification is necessary for all AIPG publications.

AIPG, 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031-3681(303) 412-6205 • fax (303) 412-6219 • [email protected]

Visit the AIPG Booth #647

during the 2000GSA Annual Meeting November 13-16, 2000

Reno, Nevada


NEW APPLICANTS AND NEW MEMBERS - (4/26/00 - 05/18/00)

Applicants for certification must meet AIPG’sstandards as set forth in its Bylaws on educa-tion, experience, competence, and personalintegrity. If any Member or board has any fac-tual information as to any applicant’s qualifica-tions in regard to these standards, whether thatinformation might be positive or negative,please mail that information to Headquarterswithin thirty (30) days. This information will becirculated only so far as necessary to processand make decisions on the applications.Negative information regarding an applicant’squalifications must be specific and supportable;persons who provide information that leads toan application’s rejection may be called as awitness in any resulting appeal action.

Applicants for

Certified Professional GeologistMA-Neil J. Frasca

4 Alpine Dr., Haverhill MA 01830. Sponsors:Richard Kowalski, Tom Rankin, James Tarr.

NY-William T. Frederick68 North Willow St., East Aurora NY 14052.Sponsors: Mark Schwippert, Richard Frappa,David Steiner.

New Certified Professional GeologistsTX-Fain, Stephen E. CPG-10494

Radian International, P.O. Box 201088, Austin TX78720-1088, (512) 419-5240

NY-Teeling, Michael J. CPG-104988812 Lovers Lane Rd., Corfu NY 14036, (716)693-8800

NY-Wunderlich, Christopher D. CPG-1049910 Charles St., Hamilton NY 13346, (607) 266-0147

TX-Prater, Molly O’Kelley CPG-1050017409 County Rd. 1325, Flint TX 75762, (903)894-5999

NJ-Demytrk, Mark K. CPG-10502242 Cummings Ave., Long Branch NJ 07740,(732) 432-5990

VA-Glover, William D. CPG-10503335 Fox Run Dr., , Galax VA 24333-3342, (540)236-6161

New MembersKY-Brosi, Brook E. MEM-0049

F.M.S.M. Engineers, Inc., 1409 N. Forbes Rd.,Lexington KY 40511, (606) 233-0574

Request for an Application and/orAdditional Information

Name

Employer

Street

City State Zip Country

Daytime Phone

E-mail:

Please send:❑ Application Packet

(packet includes forms for all classifications of membership)

❑ Publications List

❑ Advertising Rates

Mail, fax, e-mail, or call (forms are available online):

AIPG, 8703 Yates Dr., Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031-3681(303) 412-6205 • fax (303) 412-6219

e-mail: [email protected]: http://www.aipg.org

Earth Science WeekFlyers Available

Thanks to AGI, AIPG has, for dis-tribution, colored 8½ x 11 flyersannouncing Earth Science Week2000. If you are able to use some ofthese announcements, or know aneducator or other interested individ-ual or group who would have aninterest, please contact AIPG head-quarters for details. The announce-ments are available at no cost.

Also, AIPG has a beautiful edu-cational poster, created by AGI , enti-tled “Minerals - Foundations ofSociety”. The poster has a colorfulcollage on one side and some min-eral picture/word associations onthe reverse side. The poster isdesigned to be an introduction to thewide use of rocks and minerals inbasic everyday life. These are alsoavailable for educational use and atno cost. Please contact headquar-ters for details.

Documents

JULY, 2000 Volume 37 - Number 7 The Professional GEOLOGIST96.93.209.186/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2000_TPGJul.pdf · INSURANCE PROGRAM Life and Health - (800) 424-9883 Seabury & Smith