Modification Of Code Report Relating To Nuclear Facility Chiller Design

The issues identified under the facts in this case raise some basic questions about the role of the professional engineer specifying design parameters for equipment procurement as the ethical “gatekeeper” in the design and manufacturing process, and the “slippery slope” that professional engineers sometimes face while involved in relations with management, clients, vendors, the public, and other parties.

The ethical conflicts with which engineers are frequently faced was discussed in BER Case No. 76-4. In that case, XYZ Corporation had been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ was also advised of the minimum standard that must be met. In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water, after receiving the manufacturing wastes, will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employed Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concluded that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concluded that corrective action would be very costly. Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminated the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructed Doe not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards. In ruling that XYZ’s actions were improper, and that Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board noted that upon learning of the hearing, Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. The NSPE Code required that his duty to the public be paramount. In that case, it was presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.

The Board believes BER Case No. 76-4 is instructive for purposes of the present case. In Case No. 76-4, Engineer Doe had concluded there might be a threat to the public welfare. On the contrary, the issue in this case appears to be legibility of text on a drawing, which has been signed and sealed by a professional engineer, at the request of Engineer A, and a request to Engineer A, by a senior officer of his company, to replace the illegible text to meet the customer's quality assurance requirements for records. The facts indicate that Manufacturer B had responsibility for direction and control of the product design, while Engineer A specified design parameters, which included quality assurance requirements for Customer C. Under the facts, there is evidence of procedural problems, but no clear evidence of a danger to the public health and safety. The facts do not state that the equipment in question is to be used in a safety-related system. Engineer A apparently concurred with the design on the basis he authorized manufacture with the inclusion of his exceptions. If Engineer A understood the text as complying with his specified changes, then it would be reasonable and in the interest of all parties for Engineer A to make the text adequately legible. However, if Engineer A could not reliably read and interpret the text to his satisfaction, then it would not be ethical for Engineer A to do anything but go back to the originator. The facts do not make this distinction clear, but the Board assumes that the latter must have been the case for Engineer A to have escalated his resistance to the vice-president level. The perception of the Board is reinforced by the vice-president's concession that "it was technically improper to substitute text". The facts do not indicate any deficiency with the drawing, but rather legibility of the text in the accompanying report. The Board is puzzled by the resistance of Company X to asking Manufacturer B to make an improvement in text legibility. While it may be that the proposed course of action posed no direct threat to the public safety as far as the design of the vessel was concerned, Company X’s failure to take actions regarding Manufacturer B exposes Company X and Engineer A to professional misconduct and, perhaps, other consequences. In addition, by failing to notify the originator of the code report if there were changes being made to his work and then resubmitting it, Engineer A and Company X would be violating their professional obligations to another professional engineer. In sum, any effort saved by putting the manufacturer to an added inconvenience is not worth the risk of an employee suffering professional sanctions and other consequences.

Obviously, these types of situations involve sensitive circumstance, requiring the engineer to exercise great skill and prudent judgment in dealing with the employer. Engineer A may be viewed by management as a “can’t do’er” and may seriously damage his promotional prospects. One additional alternative in this type of situation is for Engineer A to obtain a copy of the state engineering licensure board's rules to discuss with the employer. Under those rules, the engineer is legally bound under the state board's rules of professional conduct. In this connection, it appears that the actions the engineer is being requested to take would be in direct violation of the state law and rules. Engineer A might have suggested that the applicable provisions be reviewed by the company’s legal counsel for a legal opinion.

In sum, ethics should not be a matter of what might be convenient for the engineering firm, a vendor, or a client. Instead, engineering ethics is intended to provide guidance to practicing engineers to help navigate through professional obligations and restrictions. Moreover, a corporate official that ignores a mandate of licensure laws is acting irresponsibly, and it would seem that higher-ranking corporate officials, particularly those with engineering backgrounds, as well as shareholders would presumably be interested in being made aware of that fact.