PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE STRUCTURE

 
 
Case No.  00-5
 
Facts:
Engineer A was an engineer with a local government.  Engineer A learned about a critical
situation involving a bridge 280 feet long, 30 feet above the stream.  This bridge was a concrete
deck on wood piles built in the 1950's by the state.  It was part of the secondary roadway system
given to the counties many years ago.
 
In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating this bridge
needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten piling. Engineer A had barricades and signs
erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.  Residents in the area were required to take a 10-
mile detour.
 
On the following Monday, the barricades were in the river and the “Bridge Closed” sign was in
the trees by the roadway.  More permanent barricades and signs were installed. The press
published photos of some of the piles that did not reach the ground and the myriad of patch work
over the years. 
 
Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed
and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement. Within three weeks, Engineer A had
obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.  Several departments in the state and federal
transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be
used.
 
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be
reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission. Engineer A explained the
extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge.  The County Commission
decided not to reopen the bridge.
 
Preliminary site investigation studies were begun.  Environmental, geological, right-of-way, and
other studies were also performed.  A decision was made to use a design build contract to avoid a
lengthy scour analysis for the pile design. 
 
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an
engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the
bridge and to open the bridge with a 5-ton limit.  No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
 
Engineer A observes that traffic is flowing and the movement of the bridge is frightening.  Log
trucks and tankers cross it on a regular basis. School buses go around it.
 
Question:
What is Engineer A’s ethical obligation under these circumstances?
 
References:
Section II.1.           -       Code of Ethics:                Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
 
Section II.1.a.       -       Code of Ethics:                 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.
 
Section II.1.e.        -       Code of Ethics:                Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to
appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate
with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
 
Section III.8.a.     -       Code of Ethics:                 Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
 
 
Discussion: 
The obligation of a professional engineer to take action when faced with a situation involving a
direct threat to the public health and safety has been addressed by this board on several other
occasions.  A review of the cases decided over the years by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review
demonstrates a consistent approach regarding this fundamental obligation on the part of
professional engineers.
 
For example, BER Case No. 92-6 involved Technician A serving as a field technician employed
by a consulting environmental engineering firm.  At the direction of his supervisor, Engineer B,
Technician A sampled the contents of drums located on the property of a client.  Based on
Technician A's past experience, it was his opinion that analysis of the sample would most likely
determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste.  If the material was
hazardous waste, Technician A knew that certain steps would legally have to be taken to
transport and properly dispose of the drum, including notifying the proper federal and state
authorities.  Technician A asked his supervisor, Engineer B, what to do with the
samples.  Engineer B told Technician A only to document the existence of the
samples. Technician A was then told by Engineer B that since the client did other business with
the firm, Engineer B would tell the client where the drums were located but would do nothing
else.  Thereafter, Engineer B informed the client of the presence of drums containing
"questionable material" and suggested that they be removed.  The client contacted another firm
and had the material removed.
 
In considering whether it was ethical for Engineer B merely to inform the client of the presence
of the drums and suggest that they be removed, and whether Engineer B had an ethical obligation
to take further action, the Board  noted that the extent to which an engineer has an obligation to
hold paramount the public health and welfare in the performance of professional duties (See
NSPE Code Section I.1.) overlaps the duty of engineers not to disclose confidential information
concerning the business affairs, etc. of clients (See NSPE Code Section III.4.).  With regard to
Case No. 92-6, the Board noted, that unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no
oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.  Instead, Engineer B consciously
and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and to
the public, and were a violation of various environmental laws and regulations.  Under the facts,
it appeared that Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's
confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client.  In addition, it
appeared that, as in all cases that involve potential violations of the law, Engineer B's actions
could have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the
client.  In this regard, the Board noted that, under the facts, it appeared that the manner in which
Engineer B communicated the presence of the drums on the property must have suggested to the
client that there was a high likelihood that the drums contained hazardous materials.  The Board
noted that this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of
Ethics, because it makes the engineer an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action. 
 
The Board noted that Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the
drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a
recommendation that the material be analyzed.  To do less would be unethical.  If analysis
demonstrates that the material is indeed hazardous, the client would have the obligation of
disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
 
In an earlier case, BER Case No. 89-7, an engineer was retained to investigate the structural
integrity of a 60-year-old, occupied apartment building, which his client was planning to
sell.  Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the
engineer was to remain confidential.  In addition, the client made it clear to the engineer that the
building was being sold "as is," and the client was not planning to take any remedial action to
repair or renovate any system within the building.  The engineer performed several structural
tests on the building and determined that the building was structurally sound.  However, during
the course of providing services, the client confided in the engineer that the building contained
deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems, which violated applicable codes and
standards.  While the engineer was not an electrical or mechanical engineer, he did realize that
those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informed the
client.  In his report, the engineer made a brief mention of his conversation with the client
concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not
report the safety violations to any third parties.  In determining that it was unethical for the
engineer not to report the safety violations to appropriate public authorities, the Board, citing
cases decided earlier, noted that the engineer "did not force the issue, but instead went along
without dissent or comment.  If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should
have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the
project."  The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further, particularly
because the NSPE Code uses the term "paramount" to describe the engineer's obligation to
protect the public safety, health, and welfare. 
 
In BER Case No. 90-5, the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case No. 89-
7.  There, tenants of an apartment building sued its owner to force him to repair many of the
building's defects.  The owner's attorney hired an engineer to inspect the building and give expert
testimony in support of the owner.  The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the
building that he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants.  The
tenants' suit had not mentioned these safety-related defects.  Upon reporting the findings to the
attorney, the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential because it was
part of the lawsuit.  The engineer complied with the request.  In deciding it was unethical for the
engineer to conceal his knowledge of the safety-related defects, the Board discounted the
attorney's statement that the engineer was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, noting that
any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's
tenants.  While the Board recognized that there may be circumstances where the natural tension
between the engineer's public welfare responsibility and the duty of nondisclosure may be
resolved in a different manner, the Board concluded that this clearly was not the case under the
facts.
 
The Board believes much of the same reasoning in the earlier cases applies to the case at
hand.   The facts and circumstances facing Engineer A involve basic and fundamental issues of
public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.  For an engineer to bow to
public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers
present would be an abrogation of the engineer’s most fundamental responsibility and
obligation.  Engineer A should take immediate steps to contact the county governing authority
and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state
engineering licensure board, and other authorities. By failing to take this action, Engineer A
would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations.   
 
Conclusion:
Engineer A should take immediate steps to go to Engineer A’s supervisor to press for strict
enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this is ineffective, contact state and/or federal
transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board the director of public
works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.  Engineer
A should also work with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch pile with
five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.  In
addition, Engineer A should determine whether a basis exists for reporting the activities of the
retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
 
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
Lorry T. Bannes, P.E., NSPE
John W. Gregorits, P.E., F.NSPE
Louis L. Guy, Jr., P.E., F.NSPE
William J. Lhota, P.E., NSPE
Paul E. Pritzker, P.E., F.NSPE
Harold E. Williamson, P.E., NSPE
E. Dave Dorchester, P.E., NSPE, Chair
 
NOTE:     The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from
NSPE members, other engineers, public officials and members of the public.  The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code and
earlier BER opinions.   The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the
BER. 
 
Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students and the public.  In regard to the question of application of the
NSPE Code to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole-proprietorships, government agencies, university engineering
departments, etc.), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the NSPE Code.  The
NSPE Code deals with professional services -- which services must be performed by real persons.   Real persons in turn establish and implement
policies within business structures. 
 
This opinion is for educational purposes only.  It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or
after the text of the case and that appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Board of Ethical Review. 
 
Visit NSPE’s website (www.nspe.org) and learn how to obtain volumes that include NSPE Opinions (or call 1-800-417-0348).