Clear reporting of unresolved public health and safety risks to “appropriate authorities” satisfies Engineer B’s obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare.Any additional steps taken beyond the notification of appropriate authorities are not an obligation of Engineer B but rather a personal choice as a citizen, and should be taken with due consideration of the multiple stakeholders in this matter and the engineer’s many ethical obligations.

This case focuses on the engineer’s duty to hold paramount the public health, safety and welfare while also balancing how far an engineer should go in pursuing an issue involving protection of the public beyond reporting to appropriate authorities. BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities. Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards. Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision. The client severed Doe’s contract and asked DOE not to write a report. Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards. The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report the observations to the applicable regulatory authority. In BER Case 89-7 , a structural engineer inspected a building that was about to be sold, and was apprised confidentially by the owner that, although the building was structurally sound, there were mechanical and electrical code violations that had not been addressed and that were required to be rectified prior to sale of the building and use by the public. The structural engineer was not qualified to address mechanical and electrical engineering issues, but was aware that the code violations could constitute a safety violation. The structural engineer made only brief mention of the potential mechanical and electrical violations in the project report, and did not report the potential violations to any third party. The BER concluded that the engineer had a duty to report the potential code violations to the appropriate authority. BER Case 20-4 is directly related to the current case. In Case 20-4 , Engineer B, the same Engineer B identified in this current case, was a consulting engineer to the MWC. Engin...

Engineer B, a resident of City M and a consulting engineer with ABC Engineers, was retained to evaluate changing the Metropolitan Water Commission’s (MWC) public water source serving City M from remote reservoirs located in another regional authority to using the local river. The purpose of the contemplated change in water source would be to reduce expenses. City M is a major client of ABC Engineers, through the MWC on water supply projects, and on other public works projects through other commissions and departments.Engineer B’s report recommended to the MWC the need for appropriate water treatment prior to making the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don’t leach lead in excess of drinking water standards. The report clearly outlined the risk of even short-term exposure of adults, and particularly children, to elevated lead levels if appropriate treatment was not provided concurrent with the change in water source. The MWC met and decided to proceed with the change in water source but to construct water treatment improvements at a later date. Engineer B pointed out at a public meeting with the Water Commissioners that public health and safety would be at risk. Following the meeting, Engineer B provided the Water Commissioners with a letter detailing the risk to public health and safety. Engineer B subsequently sent the original report with a letter to the water supply division of the State Department of the Environment.The MWC discharged Engineer B and ABC Engineers from project involvement in the water source change, and retained XYZ Consultants to assist with implementation. XYZ Consultants provided a report to the Water Commission indicating that insufficient information was available to predict the severity of any potential public health and safety risk.Several months later, Engineer B read in the local newspaper that the professional engineer in charge of the water s...

Engineer B ethically obligated to take further action to protect public health, safety and welfare?If Engineer B wishes to take further action to continue to correspond with the MWC or the regulatory agency regarding the public health and safety risk, or to notify the public, what are the ethical considerations in doing so?

II.1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. II.1.a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. Subject Reference Duty to the Public II.4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Conflict of Interest Faithful Agents and Trustees