September/October 2019

On Ethics: You be the Judge
Planning Ahead Raises Ethics Issues

An engineer wants to prepare for a 100-year storm. The project owner doesn’t.

NSPE’s annual Milton F. Lunch Ethics Contest challenges members to consider the facts of a scenario and the questions it raises. This year’s winner, Linda Hartle Bergeron, P.E., of Hahnville, Louisiana, received a $2,000 award.

Here’s her winning entry.

Cost Reduction

In BER Case No. 08-12, an Administrator insisted that a specification detailed by Engineer A for emergency lights, mandated by the building code, be deleted due to the cost of renovation of a warehouse to convert storage space into office space. Emergency lights serve to light the way of occupied buildings when there is no electricity or other visible light, allowing occupants to safely evacuate. The Administrator, who had no technical background, had given a project cost estimate which was exceeded by actual costs of specifications determined by Engineer A, a licensed electrical engineer. When Engineer A refused to yield, Administrator accused Engineer A of being a disruptive influence in the workplace. The conclusion in this case stated that Engineer A could not ignore the situation since this was a matter crucial to public health, safety, and welfare. Engineer A is the technically competent party who must strongly object to any effort to compromise on this issue, including going above his immediate manager and the Administrator to resolve this issue. The Conclusion states: When life safety issues are at stake, such as they are in the present case, there is no room for concessions that undermine the public interest.

In another case where cost reduction was a driving factor, Engineer A in BER Case No. 18-5 performed product testing which demonstrated that new boiler valves and electric switches that Boilco, a boiler manufacturer, began using were inferior and could be unsafe. Engineer A eventually was fired for insubordination for reporting his concerns to senior management. After being fired, Engineer A contacted a federal agency about the threat to public safety. The Conclusion states that these actions were justified and in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics. This is similar to the present case where scientific data supports a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, like BER 18-5 where the product testing had been performed and data supported that the newer equipment was inferior and could pose a safety threat to the public. In the present case as in BER 18-5, competent individuals, with skills in the specific areas, obtain data. Another point with supported by BER Case No. 18-5, is that while there are credible instances for nondisclosure, when safety, health, and welfare of the public are at risk, the engineer is justified in escalating notifications.

Current standards and best practices

In BER Case No. 17-7, an amendment to a local ordinance is being proposed by a city citizen’s group. The amendment is contrary to established engineering standards and Engineer A considers it unsafe and that it does not satisfy current standards and best practices. The city attorney attempted to explain this information to the city council in a public meeting, however the city council voted to accept the amendment. The conclusion of the Board of Ethical Review was that Engineer A was obligated to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. This report noted that professional engineers should be in command of the facts and relevant technical information, may need to deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or public officials, are capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the situation, and can articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter. This gives justification to the recommended actions for Engineer A in the present case to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities.

One case that would appear to oppose the recommended action for Engineer A to escalate communication of findings and recommendations is BER Case No. 08-4 in which Engineer A is employed by a contractor in development of a residential subdivision near high-voltage power lines. While Engineer A understands that there are no widely-accepted health and safety standards limiting occupational or residential exposure to 60-Hz electromagnetic fields (EMF), he is aware of scientific research concerning possible causal links between childhood leukemia and exposure to low-frequency EMF from power lines. Therefore, Engineer A recommends use of protective steel mesh in the homes to be built to mitigate occupants’ exposure to interior levels of low-frequency EMF. Due to the added cost associated with this recommendation, the developer refuses to approve the recommendation and the contractor directs Engineer A to proceed in accordance with the developer’s decision. The BER concluded that because the issue of residential EMF exposure due to high-voltage power lines is an example of a perceived health risk for which no scientific consensus currently exits on the nature and degree of harmful effect, and there is no widely-accepted engineering standard for EMF exposure levels and mitigation, Engineer A has fulfilled his ethical obligation and may accept the client’s decision and continue to perform his services, unless there is demonstrated evidence that there are special risks involved. This is unlike the present case where scientific evidence based upon historic weather data is used to justify the recommendation by Engineer A to build to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation.

Sustainable development

Another aspect of this case is sustainability. BER Case No. 07-6 found it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to a “threatened species” of bird in a written report submitted to the public authority considering development of property adjacent to a wetlands area. While there are instances warranting nondisclosure, there did not appear to be any affirmative action on the part of the client to treat the information as confidential, since it appears that the client was not even aware of the situation prior to it being brought to the client’s attention and the client never directly requested that Engineer a maintain it as confidential. Relating to the present case, BER 07-6 deals with adhering to the NSPE Code of Ethics for sustainable development, Section III.2.d., by adhering to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations. Both the present case and BER 07-6 deal with protecting the environment for future generations, therefore justifying communicating the recommendations of Engineer A along with the supporting data.

Conclusion

It is the ethical obligation of Engineer A to advise the developer, Client A, of the scientific data supporting why the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, and that although the cost is greater, this would protect the public, health, safety, and welfare, and support sustainable development. Since Client A refuses to agree with the recommendation, Engineer A should also report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal—or other—authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Although there currently is no building code in place for this area of potential development, Engineer A should demonstrate how relevant engineering standards, such as the 100-year projected storm surge elevation, should apply. Any written reports should include the scientific and historical data along with Engineer A’s recommendation. Also, Engineer A should present these findings to civic groups and in public forums if meetings take place concerning this proposed development. Engineer A should withdraw from further service on this project until this issue is resolved for a favorable outcome for the public, health, safety, and welfare.