May 2011
NSPE Today: Outlook
Industrial Exemption or Exclusion?
BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LARRY JACOBSON
In light of a potential nuclear disaster caused by the horrendous tsunami in Japan, NSPE issued a press release questioning whether this is the time for the federal government to reconsider the various "industrial exemptions" applied to the design, construction, and maintenance of federally licensed nuclear facilities in the United States. We asked whether the federal government shouldn't be taking all prudent precautions in the design, construction, and maintenance of nuclear power facilities. One would think the most fundamental principle would be to have licensed engineers acting in their capacity as licensed engineers at every stage of the process.
What do I mean by licensed engineers working in their capacity as licensed engineers? I have heard many NSPE members argue against the industrial exemption based on a commonly held idea that exempt industries don't hire licensed professional engineers. Many of our members feel excluded from those industries. Some even go so far as to assume that because there is a legal exemption, the exempt companies are prohibited from hiring licensed professional engineers. Hence, the presumption is that PEs are excluded either by choice or by law. Neither is true.
Companies that come within the industrial exemption hire whoever they want, and they have the resources to hire the best. They hire a lot of licensed professional engineers, and that's because the PEs are a cut or two above the average unlicensed engineer. Probably half of this nation's 450,000 PEs work in exempt industries. The concentration of PEs is lower than in a typical engineering firm, but on the other hand, the big exempt industrial companies hire many more engineers than any engineering firm.
The issue is "exemption" and not "exclusion." The "exempt" companies hire lots of PEs for their skills and for the credentials but not for the purpose of putting their stamp and seal on documents. The exemption is from having any particular individual seal documents to personally take responsibility for the plan or the process. So, while lots of licensed professional engineers design all manner of instrumentalities for exempt industries, they don't have to go so far as to take personal responsibility, as they would if they had to sign and seal the documents with the registration number issued to them by a state licensing board.
So, it is a legal exemption and not a legal exclusion. But where does that leave the public?
The purpose of licensing engineers is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The mechanism for doing that is to identify the individual engineer who either created the design or had direct control and supervision over the design. When the design is deemed worthy to be built, the PE takes personal responsibility by applying his or her seal and signature. Every time that happens, the PE's reputation is on the line and his or her career hangs in the balance. I would argue that the importance of that sign of personal responsibility increases with severity of the dangers inherent in the design. At one end of the scale are designs of common things that have a very low risk of injuring anyone. At the other end of the scale are designs of inherently dangerous things that have the very real potential of harming the public in general and generations to come.
Four categories come to mind: pharmaceuticals, bioengineered food, deepwater oil and gas drilling, and nuclear power generation. Unlike some other dangerous industries, these four categories pose dangers that are not contained by an event. The danger can grow and continue without end. Wouldn't it make common sense for government to require these four industries to require licensed engineers to take personal responsibility at every turn? Shouldn't the public, via government authorities, have a paper trail through a design process so they can ask the engineer why he or she thought the design worthy when it was signed and sealed? If PEs were required by state and federal government to sign and seal documents, I submit they'd be much more careful about approving designs, much more protective of the public, and much less likely to be pressured by the economic needs of their employers.
The big lesson from Japan seems to be the unthinkable does happen—even with redundant safety systems and huge margins of safety. When bad things happen in inherently dangerous industries, the potential damage to public life, health, and welfare is enormous. Given all the money and effort spent on superb design, meticulous construction, and rigorous preventive maintenance, wouldn't it make sense for the federal government to require the nuclear industry to take the obvious step of requiring the PEs who are already working at those companies to take personal responsibility by dusting off their stamps and sealing plans for design, construction, and maintenance of all nuclear facilities?
For the federal government to allow the industrial exemption of nuclear facilities is imprudent. To allow the exemption to become an exclusion is foolish beyond belief. And, since bad things do happen, how will the government justify not even requiring licensed engineers to sign off on the design, construction, or maintenance of a nuclear power plant?