Schaub 6:00PM
R10
SUSTAINABLE DILLEMA: ETHICAL PROBLEMS AT WORK
Elizabeth Crumley (erc61@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION:
DIFFICULTIES AT WORK
Over the past couple of months, the engineering firm I’ve
been working at has been designing a new overpass for the
local highway. The old one’s not large enough for the
increased traffic, and it’s obviously going to fail soon if
something isn’t done. There’s cracking on the piers, along
with the beams, which indicate that the bridge will fail soon.
The proposed plan would completely demolish the old one,
and construct a larger and more stable overpass in its place.
While in one of the design meetings on Friday, my boss
brought up the fact that many people are worried about the
sustainability of the new overpass. Even though we are
planning on using greener building materials, like recycled
products and impervious pavement, there’s still the issue of
the actual construction of the overpass.
I understand fully that nobody wants to harm the
environment when it’s unnecessary, but if we delay this
project, I’m worried that people will be injured. If the
overpass collapses, people could be killed. And even if no
one’s harmed in the initial fall, without that overpass, there’s
no way for people to quickly get to the highway. The next
turn on is 15 minutes away from this one. If someone has to
get to a hospital quickly, they’d have to pass through town.
But, if we continue with this project, we’d harm the
surrounding area. The construction process isn’t very green,
and ways to increase sustainability would have to be worked
into the plan. The machinery that’s used uses up a lot of gas,
and pollutants are produced during construction.
So now I’m torn between wanting to delay the project to
come up with a newer, more sustainable design and
construction plan, or continue on with the project the way it
is. If I approve the plan, my supervisor will continue with this
project the way it is, but if I tell him that we should reconsider
a few design decisions, he’d delay the construction. The delay
could take months to get past, and during these months
something could happen, like a collapse. But if nothing’s
done, the environment could be hurt.
To help me come to a decision on what to do, I looked into
the code of ethics for both the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) and the National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE). I also found a few articles on the ethics of
sustainability and researched the materials and construction
processes more. And sometimes, just to clear my head and
think a little better, I like to go on hikes or watch old movies.
One of my favorites that’s really helped me in the past is
Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim. Of course it is a movie
about giant robots beating up giant aliens, but it’s helped me
see that the earth and mankind is something worth protecting.
Not only that, but my hike can help clear my head and look at
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29
what exactly I’m protecting by delaying the project.
Hopefully, by using these resources, I can come to a decision
on what to do.
LOOKING INTO THE CODES OF ETHICS
American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics
The first code of ethics I pulled out is from the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Within the code, Canon
1 deals with public safety and environmental impact. Canon
1, Section A, states that “Engineers shall recognize that the
lives, safety, health and welfare of the general public are
dependent upon engineering judgments [1].” But, within the
same canon, Section F states that “Engineers should be
committed to improving the environment by adherence to the
principles of sustainable development [1].” Both are helpful
sections and pertain to both sides of my dilemma, but they
seem to be at odds with each other in my context.
While I have to make sure that the public is safe, I also
have to make sure that the design is sustainable. We’re
already using recycled materials, like concrete and steel, and
we’re utilizing impervious asphalt to limit runoff. Not only
that, but we’re recycling the materials that are used. By doing
this, we’re following in the footsteps of past demolition. In
2003, for example, about 48% out of 455 million tons of
construction materials were recycled [2]. By using recycled
steel for rebar, we’re also cutting down on the need to
excavate and refine new steel. We’re also using fly ash from
coal power as a portion of the cement binder in concrete [2].
By harvesting the ash from the coal plants, less of it is released
into the atmosphere and instead is put to use for new
buildings.
The surrounding roadways are also being
improved by adding systems to gather storm water and filter
it. This is being achieved by using impervious pavement and
trenches and would also reduce runoff toxin levels [3]. By
including this in the design, we’re protecting the surrounding
area from toxins and filtering the water at the same time. So
even when we’re done with construction, the overpass will
continue to be more sustainable than the rest of the road.
All of these methods are sustainable, but there is still the
issue that the actual construction process is unsustainable.
One example of this is fugitive dust. During construction,
high levels of dust are produced, which causes a decrease in
air quality and visibility [4]. One way to reduce dust emission
is to water down the worksite and the construction vehicles.
This causes more problems, though. The contaminated water
can runoff into the surrounding area, and this process can also
be seen as a waste of water. Also, during the construction
process, there are times when there should be no outside water
use. An example of this can be when concrete is being mixed
Elizabeth Crumley
and set in place. Mixing concrete is usually done offsite and
then transported over, but the additional water from cleaning
the worksite could cause the concrete to lose strength. To
clear the worksite, the water would have to be pumped off.
But, this water could have suspended particles within it, and
should be treated as contaminated [5]. Because of this, new
materials would have to be brought in to decontaminate the
water and to ensure that it’s safe to put back in the surrounding
environment.
To increase construction sustainability, new practices
would have to be implemented. The project is already pretty
sustainable, and noise pollution won’t be an issue because the
construction site is away from residential areas and the center
of town. If I treat the design as being sustainable, the project
would be approved and construction can begin. This way, I
feel like I’d be ensuring the safety of the citizens due to the
fact that a new overpass is necessary. Without the new
overpass, I’d be violating Canon 1, section A by not ensuring
the safety of the public. If I delay the project any further I’m
afraid that they overpass can suddenly collapse and injure or
kill someone. Overpasses that were deemed safe for public
use have unexpectedly collapsed in the past and I don’t want
that to happen. The public has also been supporting this
construction project for a year now, and they know the risks
of keeping the old overpass. If it’s delayed any further,
citizens can start to worry and question our decisions.
Of course, the environment is still at risk. The design and
materials used are sustainable, but the construction methods
cause issues. Recycled materials are a great way to increase
“green” design, but water runoff and dust can impact the
environment. Ways to reduce this impact would have to be
implemented, and that could take time to be approved. So
even though I’d be ensuring public safety by approving the
design, I’d increase the environmental impact.
cause noise pollution, and the increase in dust could cause
breathing problems for the residents. Not only that, but traffic
will have to be diverted through town. This increase in traffic
flow puts new stresses on the town’s roadways and there will
be many delays because of it. These are just minor problems
that will eventually go away after a few months, and the
overpass will be much safer than the old one.
Canon III, Section 1.A also states that “Engineers are
encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable
development in order to protect the environment for future
generations [6].” Because of this, not only do I have to protect
the public by making sure that their roadways are safe, but I
have to make sure that the environment is also protected. The
design is sustainable, considering how it uses recycled
materials and filters runoff. But, as I figured out before, the
actual construction process isn’t sustainable. The vehicles use
gas, produce dust, and the construction site would make a lot
of noise. To reduce dust, the vehicles and site would have to
be watered down, but that would be a waste of water and
cause runoff if not overviewed correctly. Not only that, but
the project would have to be delayed to account of this new
method of construction.
For both sections of this code that I’ve looked into, I feel
like I’ve just made things worse for myself. As an engineer,
I have to protect both the public and environment. But this
can cause issues when it comes to planning because they don’t
always match up like they should. The code was useful
because it did help me find out more about the issues that I’m
faced with, but it still raises problems for me.
National Society of Professional Engineers
By looking into these codes, I feel like I’ve just made
things worse for myself. I want to help the public, but at the
same time, I want to ensure that the environment won’t be
harmed. To help overcome these new issues, I’ve decided to
read up on articles about the ethics of engineering.
The first one that I found is from The Civil Engineer's
Handbook of Professional Practice by Karen Lee Hansen.
Under the ethics section, there is an example where
environmental needs come into play. The case study is about
the protection of a threatened bird species [8]. While this does
not directly correlate with my dilemma, it’s still relevant. The
study brings up a good fact that sometimes there is a conflict
of interests within the field. A decision could positively
impact one group, but cause a negative impact on the other.
For me, I would either help or hurt the public or the
environment through my decision. Not only do engineers
have to protect the environment, but they have to protect the
public. I personally feel like this case study was not much
help. For the study, it was talking about how a threatened bird
species was not noted in the survey report. While it did help
me understand that other engineers have ethical dilemmas like
PAST ETHICAL CASE STUDIES AND
ARTICLES
While the ASCE’s code of ethics did help me find new
alternatives and get a few facts straight, it still brought up
other issues. I’m not sure if the design is sustainable enough,
or if it’s just right, and I’m worried that if I delay the project,
the overpass could collapse and hurt someone. Because of
this, I decided to take a look at the National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics.
Canon 1, states that “Engineers shall hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public [6].” Considering
this, I should just go ahead and approve the plan. It would
benefit the town and ensure that the exit onto the highway is
safe.
Also, it would create jobs. The majority of the
construction budget is actually going towards the salaries of
workers [7]. By creating jobs, this project would be
benefitting society while it’s under construction.
But, the actual construction process takes time and causes
issues for the public. Even though the overpass will be away
from residential areas and the center of town, there are still a
few homes within the immediate area. Construction would
2
Elizabeth Crumley
this, it did not help me come any closer to making a decision.
The article was too far off from my topic for it to be of any
real use to me.
The second article I found was more on the “why
sustainability matters” side of this problem. One of the first
paragraphs states that “once designed, the artefact that is
brought into being continues to exist [9].” In other words,
once this overpass is created, it will still continue to exist and
impact the environment. But, the overpass incorporates green
technologies. It reduces waste to the environment by using
recycled materials, and reduces contaminated runoff.
Because of this, the overpass will impact the environment in
a positive way. Of course, the construction of it does cause
issues, as I found out before, but in the end the overpass would
benefit both the environment and the public. Considering
this, I feel better about deciding to approve the design the way
it is. But, I’m still not inclined to decide on this overpass plan
right away. There are still environmental issues with it that I
can’t let go of quite yet.
This article is only helpful by bringing up the fact that
once something is built, it will continue to impact the
environment. Aside from that, the author didn’t seem to
understand just how hard it is to incorporate sustainability into
construction and design. For construction, all the procedures
have been used for years, so it’s hard to try and come up with
a new way to do things. The same goes for materials. In
theory it’s a great idea to use one material instead of another,
but there is still the issue of safety. Concrete can’t be replaced
by stone all the time, and rebar can’t be replaced by bamboo
or timber. The materials are not strong enough for the
overpass to be functional. Not only that, but new technologies
take years to develop before they’re fully understood.
Sustainable design and construction are great in theory, but in
practice it’s much harder than it seems. So even though this
article did bring up the important fact that once something’s
created, it will stay there for a long time, it didn’t take into
account the fact that it’s difficult to make sustainable choices
all the time.
consequences are, something needs to be done. I have to
make a choice on whether or not I should approve the
overpass project, or delay it to make it more sustainable.
Either way, I have to decide and do something. If I just sat
around and did nothing that would be no help either. I could
approve the plan but also tell my boss that we should figure
out a more sustainable method of construction for the next
project. This way the new overpass would be built, like it
needs to be, but the next project would be even more
sustainable than the last one. Overall, this movie shows me
that I have to be brave, no matter what the consequences. As
Dr. Newton Geiszler said, “Fortune favors the brave, dude.”
And for this project to get anywhere, I have to be brave and
stand up for my choice. If I approve or delay the plans, people
will say something no matter what. They’ll either tell me that
the plan could have been “greener” or that the delay could kill
someone. Of course, I’m not really sure what side I’ll choose
right now, but I do know that I have to make a decision soon.
Either way, I’d be protecting both the environment and the
public. It’s a sustainable design for a problem that needs to
be fixed soon. It just might take a while for either side to
really see the impact of my decision. It’s like what Stacker
Pentecost said, “A long time ago, I made you a promise.”
When I decided to be an engineer, I made a promise to
improve this world and help in any way I could. So I have to
be brave to stand behind my decision, and keep my promise
as an engineer to protect the public and environment.
A Hike through the Woods
Even though watching movies does help sometimes, to
clear my head when I have too many things going on around
me, I like to take a hike through the local park. It helps keep
me calm because it’s far away from everything else.
When I’m at the top of the mountain, I can see everything
from my town, all the way over to the local nuclear power
plant. Up there, it doesn’t seem like the nature and humans
are at odds with each other. There’s trees lining the highways,
and their canopies are covering the local roads. The bridges
that cross the rivers almost look natural. They’ve been there
for so long their colors start to blend into the surrounding
areas.
Even though humans were never really the best at keeping
peace with the natural world, we’ve gotten better. Even the
project I’m working on is more sustainable than past projects.
The recycled materials don’t hurt the earth as much, and steps
are taken to make sure that it won’t hurt the environment in
the future. It’s hard to always balance sustainability with
what needs to be done, but the team I’m working with seems
to have done a good job.
The overpass won’t just be used by cars, but by public
transport too. Both buses and carpoolers will use it too. And,
there is also an increase in alternate energy cars on the road.
Into the future, the overpass will serve much more than single
person cars, and it will last a long time. The last overpass was
built in the 50s, and we’re just replacing it now. When it has
OUTSIDE INFLUENCES
Pacific Rim [10]
Even though the codes of ethics and papers on the ethics
of engineering did get me thinking, it’s sometimes more
helpful for me to go back and watch movies or shows that
have impacted me in some way. One of these films is
Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim. Even though it is a movie
about giant robots punching giant monsters, it’s also a film
about how important it is to protect mankind and the world.
Herc Hansen, one of the pilots, states “We can either sit here
and do nothing, or we can grab those flare guns and go out
there and do something really stupid.” In context, he’s talking
about shooting one of the monsters in the face with a small
flare gun, but for me it means that no matter what the
3
Elizabeth Crumley
to be rebuilt again in the future, the technology will be better
and more sustainable.
I understand that it’s completely necessary to protect the
earth, but we’re already doing a pretty good job at it. From
up on top of the mountain, humans and nature seem to be at
harmony. This puts me at ease about the whole dilemma and
it’s helped me come closer to a decision.
[5] Environment Protection Authority (2010)
“Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites”
EPA Victoria (Online Article).
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/480.pdf
[6] National Society of Professional Engineers (2007)
“National Society of Professional Engineers: Code of Ethics
for
Engineers”
(Online
Article)
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[7] “Repair Existing Infrastructure” Smart Growth America.
(2010). (Online blog).
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/issues/revitalization/rep
air-existing-infrastructure
[8] K. Hansen, K. Zenobia (April 2011) “Ethics” Civil
Engineer’s Handbook of Professional Practice (Book). pp
63-94
[9] P. Denison (September 2011) “Design Futuring:
Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, Design Activism:
Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World” Oxford
University
Press
(Online
Article).
http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/4/397.full
[10] G. del Toro (Director). (2013). “Pacific Rim” Warner
Brothers (Motion Picture).
CONCLUSION
Considering the state of the old overpass and how much it
needs to be repaired, I don’t think that it would be a good idea
to delay it any further. After reviewing papers on ethics, the
engineering codes of ethics and taking time to think
everything over, I have come to the conclusion that the
overpass design should be approved and rebuilt.
When it was originally designed, ways to make it more
sustainable were put in place. The demolished materials will
be recycled, and the overpass would be constructed using as
many recycled materials as possible. The bridge’s decking
and roadway would also reduce runoff to protect the
surrounding environment.
The codes of ethics helped me figure out which issues I
had to deal with, and the papers on the ethics of engineering
helped me see both sides of my dilemma better. Even though
they did help in that respect, I only really came to a conclusion
by taking time out of my week to watch an old film and go on
a hike. Pacific Rim reminded me to be brave when making
decisions, and to keep my promises as engineer to protect both
the environment and the public. The hike helped solidify my
feelings that I wouldn’t be harming the earth by approving
this overpass design. Nature and humans can live in harmony,
it just might take some time for us to fully realize it.
So, when I go into work next week, I can fully approve the
overpass design and construction can begin. I will mention to
my boss that next time we should look into sustainable
construction methods, but the public needs a new overpass
before the old one collapses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the librarians for taking time out of
their day to teach us how to find articles and how to properly
source them. I would also like to thank Ms. Allen for her
support and her continuing help and suggestions for this
paper. I would also like to thank my mentor, Dr. Kent Harries,
for allowing me to continuously ask questions about
construction without getting frustrated. I would also like to
thank everyone in the Watkins-Haggart Structural
Engineering Lab for teaching me about the ethics of structural
engineering. And finally, I would like to thank the girls of
floor 13 for reviewing my paper and putting up with my
antisocial behavior while writing.
REFERENCES
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (2006) “American
Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics” (Online Article).
http://www.asce.org/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/
[2] R. Heard, C. Hendrickson, F. C. McMichael (April 2012)
Materials Research Society Bulletin (Print Article) Vol. 37
pp 389-394
[3] S. K. Adler, M. Cederoth, et. al (2012) “Sustainable
Transportation Infrastructure” Infrastructure Sustainability
and Design, S. Pollalis, A Georgoulias, S. Ramos, Kentucky:
Routledge (Print Essay) pp 126- 131
[4] D. Ko, J. Alberico (July 2010) “Reducing Environmental
Impacts Due to Construction Activities” RWDI Technotes
(Print Article) Vol. 31
4