It was not unethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about unquantified increased risk. Later, Engineer L did comply with Code provisions that require engineers to notify their employers or clients if a project will not be successful.It would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L. Continuing to work on the project after concerns about runoff were quantified would in effect mean Engineer L was placing the clients’ financial interest above the engineer’s paramount obligation to the public health, safety, and welfare. This, the engineer cannot ethically do.

The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a rich history of cases dealing with environmental issues like the one Engineer L faces. Several recent cases, including BER Case 22-5 and BER Case 20-4 , emphasize an engineer’s primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water. BER Case 76-4 provides a foundation that other BER cases have built upon, and it is appropriate to review the facts and conclusions of that case as we start our analysis. BER Case 76-4 stated that XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste into a receiving body of water, and they hired Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. Engineer Doe verbally reported to XYZ that their discharge will lower the water quality in the receiving body of water below standards. XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report and paid Engineer Doe the agreed upon fee. Engineer Doe later learned that the Pollution Control Authority would be holding a public hearing and that XYZ Corporation would present data to show their discharge meets minimum standards. The BER noted an engineer’s obligation is to act for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee. The case goes on to state “Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.” Section 2(a) of the NSPE Code of Ethics (the Code) at that time read “He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount.” In BER Case 76-4 , the BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority, and they quoted BER Case 67-10 which stated, “[i]t is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in [S...

Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design. Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development near a small community. This community relies on a nearby surface water watershed as a primary drinking water source. Part of Engineer L’s scope of work for Client X includes ensuring that stormwater from the new development will not impact this primary drinking water source for the community. During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time. But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract. In their communications about the suspension, Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source.Several months later, Client X’s financial situation improves and Engineer L is asked to resume work on the stormwater management system. About this same time, an historic heavy rainfall in the region leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed. Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source. Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources. However, Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations. Despite Engineer L’s concerns, Clie...

Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L?

I.1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Subject Reference Duty to the Public I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees 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.3.a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. Subject Reference Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony II.3.b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter. Subject Reference Opinions III.1.b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful. Subject Reference Duty to Disclose III.3.a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact. Subject Reference Advertising Self-Promotion