DP1

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP1

Should Engineers A and B proceed with the final higher-contour landfill design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes, and if so, must they first provide the town council with formal written disclosure of the residual methane migration and groundwater contamination risks — or should they refuse the assignment if their professional judgment cannot certify the design as adequately safe?

Engineers A and B, after multiple redesigns were rejected by the town council and the final accepted design incorporated both minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes simultaneously, must decide how to discharge their public welfare paramount obligation while continuing to serve as faithful agents of the town council. The core tension is whether proceeding with the extreme-parameter design — within state environmental law but at the outer regulatory boundary — satisfies their ethical duty, or whether they must take additional affirmative steps (written risk disclosure, refusal, or regulatory escalation) before or instead of submitting the final design.

Proceed with the final higher-contour design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes, but only after providing the town council with formal written documentation of the specific residual risks of methane migration and groundwater contamination, explicitly noting that the design represents the outer boundary of regulatory permissibility and that the risk-acceptance decision belongs to the council and the public.

Proceed with the final design on the basis that it complies with all applicable state environmental law and reflects sincere professional judgment that the design is adequately safe, treating regulatory approval of the design parameters as sufficient ethical cover without separate written risk disclosure to the council.

Decline to prepare any design combining both minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes simultaneously, advise the town council in writing that no design within those combined parameters can be certified as adequately protective of adjacent property owners and groundwater, and notify the relevant state environmental regulatory authority of the cumulative risk profile so that the specific configuration receives independent regulatory scrutiny beyond general standards approval.

Engineers A and B