Turning in other engineers 1

[howardoark]

I'm working on a site in California with a pretty big environmental concern (soil gas at 10 times the human health screening level on the other side of inhabited commercial structures from the source area (so presumably directly under the inhabited structures the soil gas concentrations are even higher) and adjacent to an upscale condominium development. There is no existing indoor air samples, so it isn't clear that anyone is exposed, though I think you would have to assume they were in the absence of data to the contrary. I'm working for a third party doing due-dilligence. The owner's engineer (a very large national firm) has not reported the 10x soil gas exceedance to the regulators and doesn't appear to have any interest in doing so. We have a report from a previous engineering firm (this one international and even larger) showing the same result. Again, they did not report it and probably won't at this point. Our client has a confidentiality agreement with the current owner and is very concerned about what will happen to them if we report our results (which we should have in a week or so).

Eventually, this is going to be reported - by me if no one else will do it. It won't cost me my job, but it may cost us the client (who accounts for 20% of our gross, so it will probably cost one or two people their jobs if we lose them as a client).

Anyone have any thoughts on the best way to proceed?

 

[JedClampett]

Of course it's easy for me to say, but if you don't report it, you're equally at fault.
Proper course of action is to formally notify your client and/or employer. See b. below.

http://www.asce.org/Leadership-and-Management/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/

"Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general public are dependent upon engineering judgments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.



a. Engineers shall approve or seal only those design documents, reviewed or prepared by them, which are determined to be safe for public health and welfare in conformity with accepted engineering standards.
b. Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health and welfare of the public are endangered, or the principles of sustainable development ignored, shall inform their clients or employers of the possible consequences.
c. Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such further information or assistance as may be required.
d. Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their communities, and the protection of the environment through the practice of sustainable development.
e. Engineers should be committed to improving the environment by adherence to the principles of sustainable development so as to enhance the quality of life of the general public. "

 

[JohnRBaker]

Of course this does assume, at least with respect to the sprit and context of the quoted material, that howardoark is a registered Professional Engineer. Granted, he should do the right thing no matter what, but his personal and professional liability may be different if he's NOT a PE and he chooses to 'look the other way'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[SLTA]

read this how you want. Yes, ASCE has a code of ethics, but someday I'm going to have to explain to my higher power why I did what I did. That's how I try to live. Or, think of it like this... what if you and your kids lived there? Would you be ok with the engineer just telling the owner and/or his/her company, if they end up not doing anything about it?

 

[patprimmer]

Of course there are three issues. What is right, what is ethical and what is legal. To my mind, what is right and what is ethical are identical and often present moral dilemmas.

As to what is legal, only a licensed legal practitioner in your jurisdiction should advise you. After all, your lawyer does not specify spans for beams does he.

My personal higher authority is myself, but he sets a pretty high standard about right and wrong.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[JedClampett]

OK, I seem to being slammed for referencing the code of ethics. Sure you could grandstand, go to the district attorney, go to the newspaper and go all "China Syndrome" on them. But the first step should be to report to your client and allow them to correct the situation.
If you've "misintrepreted" the situation, this might save you from a lot of embarassment and potential legal problems. And the code of ethics allows you to then proceed to the Deep Throat step.

 

[patprimmer]

Jed

Your advice gets no disagreement from me. The obvious first step is consultation with your boss and the customer. There might not really be the problem envisaged once explained. The sceptic within doubts that, but hey why assume the worst before looking for the best.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[zdas04]

I think that Pat has given you the only answer--hire a lawyer and lay out your data under attorney/client privilege and get legal advice on how to proceed.

Remember that nothing ever really goes away on the Internet and by starting this thread you have created a gigantic personal liability that could come back on you in spades. eng-tips.com does not have a First Amendment right to protect your identity and the management will not go to jail to protect it. Take a copy of your original post to the lawyer and see how much he yells at you. Prior knowledge of a potentially lethal set of conditions is not a small thing.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[howardoark]

I did say, "Eventually, this is going to be reported - by me if no one else will do it."

Having read the California Business and Professions Code and the applicable environmental regulations this morning, I don't believe I have a legal obligation to report the contamination (or that the other two firms had a legal obligation). The contamination occurred before CERCLA, was reported to the County in the late 80s and the County closed the Site in 1990 based on bad engineering by the current owner's consultant. During the due diligence work we (and they) found that considerable contamination was missed and it is likely that workers are being exposed to unhealthful concentrations of carcinogens. I think the owner has an absolute requirement to report (Prop 65 if nothing else) and is risking a very large fine and potentially jail time if the indoor air concentrations turn out to be very high.

Ethically and morally I think I have a requirement to report the contamination because the public may be being exposed to unhealthy levels of carcinogens (it isn't certain). If I have to do it, I'm pretty sure I'm going to ask the board of professional engineers and geologists what the right thing to do was, and by implication, if the PEs and PGs of the other two firms have the requisite moral fiber to practice in California. It seems pretty clear to me that I have that obligation and that so do they (at least the current owner's consultant's head guy is neither a PE nor a PG and is going to skate regardless of what happens). As of now, investigations are still on-going,so I don't think I have an immediate need to report it.

This is a trickier moral issue than you might think because by doing the right thing, I'm risking some money down the road but I'm also putting the jobs of at least two of our company's employees in jeopardy (we might lose one of our biggest clients if I have to report the contamination).

So, I know what the right thing to do is (you don't have to tell me) my issue is how do I go about doing the right thing and when do I have to do it?

 

[casseopeia]

What about calling in to the Brian Sussman show for whistle-blower Wednesday and ask for your voice to be disguised? You might still lose the client, though. Just a thought.

"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge." Ivana Trump

 

[dik]

I think Jeb is pretty much on the mark... I'd discuss this with my employer, and suggest a 'sit down' with my employer and client to discuss the serious potential problem at hand... First 'chit chat' should be with your employer, notwithstanding, the client is responsible for 20% of the office work...

Dik

 

[dik]

That's Jed, not Jeb... sorry for the typo... hardly ever think of the Beverly Hillbillies, anymore...

 

[howardoark]

I own a large stake in our firm. The president of the firm and I have discussed the issue and I'm confident he'll support reporting the issue to the regulators if it comes to it even if we lose the client because of it - unless our lawyers convince us that we can't - I don't see that happening. Naturally, we'd like to avoid losing an important client but I put myself in the place of a single mother of three working 50 hours a week at the site who would probably like to know she's potentially being exposed to a carcinogen not of her choosing and I find I don't want to keep the client that badly. Also, it isn't clear we'd lose the client as they know reporting it is the right thing to do too.

 

[SLTA]

Jed, I didn't mean that at all. The Code of Ethics is a great document and I'm proud to be a member of the organization that has it. All I meant by that is that to me, it's like the building code - the minimum we must meet. I think Pat described it best.

 

[moltenmetal]

It is a mistake to assume that people know there is a real problem, and that they understand its magnitude, and that they still chooose to do nothing. It may well be true, but you cannot assume that: you must prove that before you take action on that assumption.

I've done soil gas to indoor air infiltration calcs many years ago in past employ, and I can tell you that the concentration in the underlying soils has to be way more than 10x the human health concern level to cause an impact of concern to indoor air quality in a typical basement. The calculations need to be done by a competent person, and any parameters that you don't have good values for need to be estimated and sensitivity analysis performed so you know the range of accuracy of the result.

I can also tell you that indoor air sampling of an existing residence is a recipie for disaster unless the compounds you're looking for are so unusual that they would never be found inside a typical home. By the way, that eliminates most of the compounds that have been used industrially in the past 50 years or so- at trace levels, all of those substances can be detected in indoor air even if they're absent from the local soils. If you sample for a typical compoound, you WILL find it, and then regardless where it actually came from, the soils WILL be blamed for it.

Once you've determined that there actually IS a REAL concern, the local regulatory authorities have to be informed. At that point, the responsibility to inform the people who would be impacted by this lies with the regulatory bodies- there is no need for you to go knocking on doors or to contact the media unless you are certain that peoples' lives are in danger and there is nothing being done about it.

When dealing with an issue like this, order of operations is everything. You have a responsibility to do things in the right order, raising the issue with increasing levels of authority and responsibility (and documenting that you have done so) and giving them all the opportunity to do the right thing before you go to the media or directly to a regulatory body (assuming that this is not already your responsibility to inform them under local regulations).

 

[SNORGY]

(1) Measure and obtain the data.
(2) Verify the accuracy of the data.
(3) Report the data.
(4) Report the potential ramifications of the data based on facts.

I fail to see the problem. It is what it is.

 

[dik]

SNORGY... that's part of it, and correct steps, but, you also have to have a dialogue with your employer and the client...

Dik

 

[IRstuff]

"pretty big environmental concern (soil gas at 10 times the human health screening level on the other side of inhabited commercial structures "

Is this a threat to public safety?

While there is no explicit requirement, the California PE Act states,
"In order to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, no person shall practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering..."

The implication is that by licensing is to "safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare."

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[howardoark]

The soil gas screening level takes into account something like a 100 to 1 dilution between the soil gas and indoor air. The soil gas is 10x the soil gas screening level on the other side of the buildings from the source area. My client doesn't own the property but has agreed to keep all of the data confidential. If the current owner does collect indoor air samples and they turn out non-detect for the contaminant of concern, that allays the human health risk. I haven't seen any indication they're willing to do that. They appear to know what they're doing. Their current consultant has the appearance of being unethical, but I don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

[brandonbw]

Report the results to the best degree you can. What is the point of doing due diligence otherwise?

Now for the aftermath. So maybe this client does drop your company, someone may lose their job, etc. Do you really want to work with a client that is doing questionable practices? I am hoping the engineering industry still has some morality as to what is the right thing to do. I know we are only humans and still chasing the dollars, but we know when we shouldn't go beyond that thin line of money hindering our judgement. Ethics and following basic standards should go hand in hand with each other and you should be taking that into account.

I think your lawyers would not be too happy that this thread even exists. But its good to know that owners or partial stake owners are thinking about the entire picture when making the tough choices. I have had to make those decisions on maybe a smaller level and its not fun when we have to drop those clients and refund their money.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer

http://bwengr.com

|

http://bwstructuralengineer.com

|

http://bwcivilengineer.com