Engineers A and B acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council. Engineer C acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B.

It is axiomatic that an engineer's primary ethical responsibility is to follow the mandate of 2(a) to place the public welfare over all other considerations. In this case there would be no doubt of the result if we accept as fact that the higher density use of the site would actually be detrimental to the environmental concerns of the citizenry. In that event it would clearly be the duty of Engineers A and B to decline to follow the town council's decision to proceed with the project. But, of course, the case is not that simple. If we assume, as we must, that Engineers A and B are of the sincere opinion that the approach desired by the town council will not jeopardize the public health of the community, we are led into a recognition that this is the kind of situation the engineering profession must face increasingly as public awareness of environmental concerns increases. There is no finite answer to the balance or "trade-off" which is involved in the overall concerns about Case No. 79-2 environmental dangers for particular projects. At the federal, state, and local levels there is a growing body of law and regulation designed to establish governing criteria. But despite these efforts professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs. For example, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has recently published proposed guidelines entitled, "Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste." (Federal Register, March 26, 1979.) Those guidelines are designed ".... to define the level of health and environmental protection which a land disposal facility must achieve to avoid designation as an 'open dump'." And they further stipulate that the test for compliance with the criteria is whether ". . .there will be no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment associated with disposal of solid waste ...

Engineer A, the town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill, taking into account final land use, environmental concerns, surrounding land use, and topography. Engineers A and B jointly determine that the existing landfill space will be exhausted at present rate of use in three years, or soon thereafter. The town council had sought an alternate disposal location, but had not been able to locate one. It then requested Engineers A and B to submit new designs for the existing site at higher final contours in accordance with state environmental laws. After several redesigns were not accepted, the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design which resulted in an accepted solution, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes. This design would provide for a hill more than 100 feet higher than originally proposed. Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contends that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and that it would pollute the nearby ground water. The issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy. Engineer C has publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site.

Did Engineers A and B act ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council? Did Engineer C act ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B?

II. Rules of Practice