Federal, state, and local regulatory authorities
Applicable Federal, State, and Local Hazardous Waste Disposal Laws and Regulations
Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client
Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public, and also a violation of various environmental laws and regulations
the client would have the obligation of disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal state and local laws
Board of Ethical Review in characterizing Engineer B's conduct as potentially unlawful and in defining the client's disposal obligations
Cited as the legal framework that would obligate the client to properly dispose of confirmed hazardous materials, and as the body of law that Engineer B's conduct risked violating
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Invoked in BER 90-5
Attorney instruction to maintain confidentiality over structural defects in litigated apartment building
Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
In BER Case 90-5, the attorney's instruction that the engineer maintain confidentiality over discovered structural defects as part of the litigation was ethically ineffective because the defects constituted an immediate threat to tenant safety, overriding any purported attorney-client confidentiality extension.
An attorney cannot ethically direct an engineer to suppress safety-critical findings that constitute imminent danger; the engineer's public safety obligation is not subject to attorney control.
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure
the Board discounted the attorney's statement that the engineer was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, noting that any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants.
Imminent danger threshold caused the attorney's confidentiality instruction to be ethically void.
Upon reporting the findings to the attorney, the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential as it is part of the lawsuit
the Board discounted the attorney's statement that the engineer was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, noting that any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
in BER Case 89-7 an engineer was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
the Board, citing cases decided earlier, noted that the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment'
we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well
Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent
Cited as controlling precedent establishing that engineers must report safety violations to appropriate public authorities even when bound by confidentiality agreements, and must insist the client act or refuse to continue work; applied analogically to Engineer B's handling of hazardous drums
in BER Case 90-5, the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case 89-7
Board of Ethical Review as corroborating precedent
Cited as reaffirming BER Case 89-7's principle that immediate and imminent danger to public safety supersedes any attorney-imposed or client-imposed duty of confidentiality; applied analogically to Engineer B's situation involving hazardous materials
BER 89-7 Brief Report Mention Insufficient Public Authority Notification
The engineer made a brief mention of safety deficiencies in the confidential report but did not report to any third parties or public authorities
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Constraint
The BER 89-7 structural engineer's brief mention of electrical and mechanical deficiencies in a confidential report did not discharge the obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of safety violations posing risk to building occupants, as a confidential report not transmitted to public authorities cannot substitute for direct notification to an entity with authority to act.
In his report, the engineer made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
At the time the structural engineer submitted the confidential report
BER 89-7 Building Safety Precedent Environmental Hazard Cross-Domain Application
Board explicitly acknowledged factual differences from BER 89-7 and 90-5 (no confidentiality promise, environmental rather than building safety context) while applying the same underlying principles
Board of Ethical Review (analytical constraint on precedent application)
BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
The Board was constrained to apply the principles of BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 — developed in building safety contexts — to the environmental hazardous waste discovery context of this case, acknowledging the different factual context while preserving the underlying normative principle that paramount public safety obligations supersede confidentiality and business relationship considerations.
BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5; NSPE Code Section I.1
Turning to the facts in this case, we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context.
At the time of the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer B's conduct
Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
{'property_type': 'Occupied apartment building', 'sale_condition': 'As-is, no remediation planned', 'confidentiality_imposed': True}
Retained an engineer under a confidentiality agreement to assess a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is,' disclosed known electrical and mechanical code violations to the engineer, and refused to take any remedial action.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'BER 89-7 Structural Engineer'}
{'type': 'discloses_violations_to', 'target': 'BER 89-7 Structural Engineer'}
Building Sale Confidentiality-Imposing Client
the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is'
Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
the client confided in the engineer that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violated applicable codes and standards
BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Suppressing Safety Report
From execution of confidentiality agreement through engineer's decision not to report code violations to third parties
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
Structural engineer bound by confidentiality agreement with client selling occupied building 'as is'
BER ruling that confidentiality obligation was superseded by paramount public safety duty
in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project
Client's explicit confidentiality terms in the engagement agreement, combined with 'as is' sale instruction
BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
From engineer's discovery of client-disclosed electrical/mechanical deficiencies through completion of confidential structural report without third-party notification
Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale State
Engineer retained to assess structural integrity of 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'
BER determination that engineer was ethically obligated to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities
the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
the engineer had an obligation to go further particularly because the Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect the public safety health and welfare
Client disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations during structural engagement, combined with 'as is' sale instruction and confidentiality agreement
{'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'safety_finding_disclosed_to_client': True, 'reported_to_authorities': False}
Retained under a confidentiality agreement to assess the structural integrity of an occupied apartment building being sold 'as is.' Determined the building was structurally sound but learned from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to occupants. Noted the conversation briefly in the report but did not report the safety violations to public authorities — found unethical by the Board.
{'type': 'obligated_to_protect', 'target': 'Building Occupants Public'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'BER 89-7 Building Sale Client'}
Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
an engineer was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
the engineer did realize that those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informed the client
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement
Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was required to possess the capability to insist that the client take appropriate corrective action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or to refuse to continue work on the project if the client declined.
The BER 89-7 structural engineer discovered electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied apartment building being sold 'as is' under a confidentiality agreement.
The BER 89-7 structural engineer's failure to exercise this capability — proceeding with the project without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing.
the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further particularly because the Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect the public safety health and welfare.
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal
Client made clear building was being sold 'as is' with no planned remediation; engineer discovered code violations posing occupant injury risk; engineer failed to insist on remediation or withdraw.
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to insist that the client take appropriate remedial action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than passively accepting the client's 'as is' sale posture.
Upon learning of electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violated applicable codes and standards
the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is' and the client was not planning to take any remedial action
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency Recognition
Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was required to possess the capability to recognize that including a brief mention of electrical and mechanical code violations in a confidential client report did not satisfy the independent obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations.
The BER 89-7 structural engineer made a brief mention of electrical and mechanical code violations in the confidential structural report but did not report the violations to any public authorities.
The BER 89-7 structural engineer's failure to exercise this capability — treating the brief mention in the confidential report as sufficient discharge of the safety reporting obligation.
in his report, the engineer made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Public Safety Reporting
Engineer bound by confidentiality agreement; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations posing occupant injury risk; engineer treated confidentiality agreement as barring all third-party reporting.
Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Obligation
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement did not bar reporting the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the paramount public welfare obligation supersedes confidentiality when occupant safety is at risk.
Upon determining that the electrical and mechanical deficiencies could cause injury to building occupants
the Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further particularly because the Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect the public safety health and welfare.
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was required to possess the capability to recognize that discovering electrical and mechanical code violations — outside the structural engineering discipline — still activated a reporting duty to appropriate public authorities, because the paramount public safety obligation is not limited to the engineer's primary discipline.
The BER 89-7 structural engineer discovered electrical and mechanical code violations while performing structural assessment, and recognized that those deficiencies could cause injury to occupants but did not report them to public authorities.
The BER 89-7 structural engineer's failure to exercise this capability — treating the out-of-discipline nature of the violations as a reason not to report them to public authorities.
While the engineer was not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he did realize that those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informed the client.
the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Ethical Violation
The structural engineer made only a brief mention of electrical and mechanical deficiencies in a confidential report rather than actively insisting on remediation or reporting to public authorities
Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was constrained from passively acquiescing to the client's decision not to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations — going along without dissent or comment — and was required to actively insist that the client take appropriate corrective action or refuse to continue work on the project.
the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'
During the structural engineer's engagement with the client selling the occupied apartment building
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting
Engineer retained under confidentiality agreement to assess 60-year-old occupied apartment building; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; engineer made brief mention in confidential report but did not report to public authorities or insist on remediation.
Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or withdraw from the project, rather than passively noting the deficiencies in a confidential report without further action.
the engineer did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
Upon receiving client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies during the course of professional services
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Public Authority Safety Reporting
Engineer bound by confidentiality agreement; client disclosed code violations posing occupant injury risk; engineer did not report to any third parties.
Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical safety violations to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement, because the paramount public welfare obligation supersedes confidentiality when occupant safety is at risk.
BER 90-5 Attorney-Directed Concealment of Imminent Structural Danger
From engineer's discovery of serious structural defects through attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality as litigation material
The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants
Attorney-Directed Safety Concealment in Litigation State
Engineer retained as expert witness by building owner's attorney who discovers structural defects constituting immediate tenant safety threat
BER determination that attorney-client privilege claim was superseded by immediate and imminent danger to tenants
any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
Engineer's discovery of serious structural defects posing immediate threat to tenants, followed by attorney's confidentiality directive
BER 90-5 Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Imminent Structural Danger Non-Override
The engineer discovered serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety and was instructed by the retaining attorney to maintain confidentiality as part of the litigation
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Imminent Danger Non-Override Constraint
The BER 90-5 expert witness engineer was constrained from complying with the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality about serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety, as any attorney-imposed confidentiality obligation was superseded by the paramount duty to notify appropriate public authorities of imminent danger.
After the engineer reported structural defects to the attorney and received the confidentiality instruction
{'litigation_party': 'Defendant', 'building_type': 'Apartment building', 'defects_known': 'Disputed — tenants sued for defects, structural defects discovered separately'}
Owner of an apartment building sued by tenants for building defects; retained an attorney who hired an engineer to inspect the building and provide expert testimony in support of the owner. The engineer discovered serious structural defects not part of the existing lawsuit.
{'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Retaining Attorney'}
{'type': 'subject_of_inspection_by', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer'}
Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
tenants of an apartment building sued its owner to force him to repair many of the building's defects
The owner's attorney hired an engineer to inspect the building and give expert testimony in support of the owner
{'retained_by': "Building owner's attorney", 'safety_defects_discovered': True, 'defects_part_of_existing_suit': False, 'complied_with_confidentiality': True, 'reported_to_authorities': False}
Retained by the building owner's attorney to inspect the building and provide expert testimony. Discovered serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety not part of the existing lawsuit. Reported findings to the attorney, was instructed to maintain confidentiality, and complied — found unethical by the Board.
{'type': 'obligated_to_protect', 'target': 'Building Tenants Public'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Retaining Attorney'}
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality-Bound Safety-Discovering Engineer
the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential as it is part of the lawsuit
BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Structural Safety
Engineer retained by building owner's attorney; discovered serious structural defects constituting immediate threat to tenant safety; attorney instructed confidentiality as part of litigation strategy; engineer complied with confidentiality instruction.
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Occupant Safety Obligation
The BER 90-5 forensic engineer was obligated to notify appropriate public authorities of the serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety, notwithstanding the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality, because the immediate and imminent danger superseded any attorney-imposed confidentiality duty.
The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants.
Upon discovering serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety
Upon reporting the findings to the attorney, the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential as it is part of the lawsuit. The engineer complies with the request.
BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Imminent Structural Safety
Forensic engineer discovered structural defects posing immediate threat; attorney directed confidentiality; engineer complied rather than notifying public authorities.
The BER 90-5 forensic engineer was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality instruction from the attorney did not override the paramount duty to protect building tenants from immediate structural danger, and to notify appropriate authorities accordingly.
In deciding it was unethical for the engineer to conceal his knowledge of the safety-related defect, the Board discounted the attorney's statement that the engineer was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, noting that any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants.
Upon discovering structural defects constituting immediate threat to tenant safety and receiving attorney's confidentiality instruction
{'litigation_role': 'Defense counsel for building owner', 'confidentiality_directive_issued': True, 'claimed_legal_basis_for_confidentiality': True}
Attorney representing the building owner in tenant litigation who retained an engineer as forensic expert, and upon receiving the engineer's report of serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety, instructed the engineer to maintain confidentiality over those findings as part of the litigation.
{'type': 'represents', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Building Owner Client'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer'}
Litigation Attorney Directing Engineer Confidentiality Over Safety Findings
BER Case 90-5 before current case discussion (Engineer B / Technician A)
BER Ethics Review Board BER 89-7 90-5 Hazardous Waste No-Confidentiality Factual Distinction Application
BER Dual-Precedent Hazardous Waste No-Confidentiality Factual Distinction Application Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to retrieve BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5, identify the critical factual distinction that the present case involves no confidentiality agreement and business-relationship-motivated suppression, and apply that distinction to reach the conclusion that Engineer B's conduct was ethically worse than the conduct condemned in those precedents.
The BER applied BER 89-7 and 90-5 as precedents while explicitly distinguishing the present case on the no-confidentiality-agreement factual distinction.
The BER's explicit analysis distinguishing the present case from BER 89-7 and 90-5 on the basis of the absence of a confidentiality agreement and the presence of affirmative suppression conduct motivated by business relationship preservation.
Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Regulatory Reporting
From Engineer B's decision to prioritize client business relationship over regulatory reporting through the conclusion of the client's self-arranged removal
since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Safety Reporting State
Engineer B's professional decision-making regarding hazardous drum reporting
Client's self-arranged removal — though the ethical violation of business-motivated suppression is not remediated by the client's independent action
Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed
Engineer B's explicit invocation of the client's other business with the firm as justification for limiting action to a vague client advisory
Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse Applied to Engineer B
Engineer B's decision to use vague language and avoid regulatory notification to preserve client relationship
Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Client Communication
Engineer B's primary motivation for providing only oblique notification about the hazardous drums was preservation of the client business relationship, not confidentiality — and this motivation does not constitute an ethical justification for inadequate safety communication.
Commercial motivation for inadequate safety communication is ethically equivalent to, and potentially worse than, confidentiality-motivated inadequate communication, because it lacks even the partial justification of a contractual obligation.
Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
Under the facts, it appears that Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client.
Business relationship preservation is not a recognized ethical justification for compromising safety communication; the violation is compounded by the commercial rather than principled motivation.
Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality
Under the facts, it appears that Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client
Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse — Engineer B Client Communication
Communication to client about drum contents
Decision not to analyze samples or clearly characterize the hazard
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer B's decision to communicate only 'questionable material' language to the client — rather than clearly identifying likely hazardous waste and the associated legal obligations — was motivated by the desire to preserve the ongoing business relationship, which does not constitute ethical justification for inadequate safety communication.
The fact that the client 'does other business with the firm' is explicitly identified as the reason for Engineer B's minimal response, making this a paradigmatic case of business relationship preservation compromising safety communication adequacy.
Engineer B tells Technician A that since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
Business relationship preservation cannot justify vague hazard communication; the principle establishes that commercial motives are an independent ethical violation when they compromise safety communication.
Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
CausalLink_Consulting Supervisor on Proto
CausalLink_Restricting Documentation Only
CausalLink_Vague Client Notification Deci
Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification Applied to Current Case
Drums of potentially hazardous material discovered on client property
Client-First Confrontation Before External Reporting Obligation
Engineer B's responsibility was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a clear recommendation that the material be analyzed, and to identify the client's legal obligation to dispose of confirmed hazardous material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
Clear hazard characterization requires naming the likely nature of the hazard (hazardous material), recommending specific action (analysis), and identifying the legal consequences of confirmed hazard status (disposal obligations under law).
Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification to Client
Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a recommendation that the material be analyzed. To do less would be unethical.
The engineer's duty to clearly characterize the hazard and identify legal obligations is non-negotiable regardless of business relationship considerations.
Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a recommendation that the material be analyzed
If analysis demonstrates that the material is indeed hazardous, the client would have the obligation of disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal state and local laws
Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification — Engineer B Failure
Client notification regarding drum contents
Client's legal obligations under hazardous waste law
Engineer B failed to clearly characterize the drum contents as likely hazardous waste and failed to notify the client of the resulting legal obligations for transport, disposal, and regulatory notification — instead using the vague term 'questionable material' and merely suggesting removal.
The principle requires engineers to ensure clients have the information necessary to comply with applicable law; 'questionable material' with a suggestion to 'remove' it does not satisfy this obligation when the engineer's professional assessment indicates likely hazardous waste with specific legal handling requirements.
The principle is unambiguous: vague notification does not satisfy the engineer's duty to clearly characterize hazards and identify legal obligations, regardless of business relationship considerations.
If the material is hazardous waste, Technician A knows that certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities.
Professional engineering ethics community
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
since the client does other business with the firm
Engineer B (implicitly applying, but incorrectly weighted toward client interest)
Governs Engineer B's decision to prioritize the client's ongoing business relationship over mandatory regulatory reporting of likely hazardous waste, and frames the ethical analysis of when public safety obligations override client loyalty.
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework (as articulated through BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5)
the natural tension between the engineer's public welfare responsibility and the duty of non-disclosure may be resolved in a different manner
Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public
Board of Ethical Review in resolving the confidentiality-safety tension for Engineer B
Applied by the Board to determine when Engineer B's public safety obligations override any implicit confidentiality interest, and to evaluate whether Engineer B's euphemistic communication constituted impermissible subterfuge
{'property_status': 'Owner of site with drums of potentially hazardous material', 'notification_received': "Oblique — 'questionable material' only", 'legal_obligations': 'Federal and state hazardous waste transport and disposal regulations'}
Property owner whose site contains drums of potentially hazardous material; receives only oblique notification ('questionable material') from Engineer B; independently contacts a separate firm to remove the drums without being clearly informed of legal hazardous waste disposal obligations.
{'type': 'hires_separately', 'target': 'Second Firm for Drum Removal'}
{'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm'}
drums located on the property of a client
The client contacts another firm and has the material removed
Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Applied to Engineer B
Client's long-term legal exposure from undisclosed hazardous material on property
Engineer B's oblique communication and failure to clearly advise the client of hazardous waste legal obligations not only violated public welfare obligations but also damaged the client's own long-term legal interests and reputation — demonstrating that genuine client service requires honest legal compliance advisory, not relationship-preserving vagueness.
An engineer who withholds clear legal compliance advice to preserve a business relationship in fact harms the client by leaving them exposed to regulatory liability — genuine loyalty to the client requires honest disclosure of legal obligations.
Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory
it appears that as in all cases which involve potential violations of the law, Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
Short-term relationship preservation and genuine long-term client interest are in conflict; the engineer's duty is to serve the latter even at the cost of the former.
it appears that as in all cases which involve potential violations of the law, Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client
Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice (Event 3) → Improper Waste Removal Occurs (Event 4)
Client Unregulated Hazardous Material Removal
From client's engagement of another firm through completion of removal
Federal and state regulatory authorities
The client's self-arranged removal of drum contents without regulatory authority notification or oversight
Physical removal of drums by the client-engaged firm
Engineer B's vague advisory prompting client to independently arrange removal without regulatory guidance
It was unethical for Engineer B to merely inform the client of the presence of the drums.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B's mere notification was unethical, Engineer B's conduct was not simply inadequate — it was affirmatively deceptive. By selecting the phrase 'questionable material' rather than communicating his professional suspicion that the drums contained hazardous waste, Engineer B made a statement that was technically non-false but materially misleading. This satisfies the definition of a violation under Code Section III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions. The false impression created — that the drums were merely an ambiguous nuisance rather than a likely regulated hazardous waste requiring specific legal handling — directly enabled the client to arrange unregulated removal without understanding the legal consequences. Engineer B's vague language was therefore not merely a failure of completeness but an act of professional subterfuge that made him a contributing cause of the unlawful disposal that followed.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B failed to advise the client of his suspicion and recommend legally compliant removal understates the structural severity of Engineer B's misconduct by framing it primarily as an advisory failure. In fact, Engineer B committed two compounding ethical violations: first, he suppressed the completion of laboratory analysis that would have converted reasonable suspicion into confirmed knowledge, thereby preventing the legal trigger for mandatory regulatory notification from ever being formally reached; and second, he then issued a vague advisory that exploited this artificially maintained ambiguity to avoid the disclosure obligations that confirmation would have imposed. This two-stage suppression — blocking analysis and then leveraging the resulting uncertainty — constitutes active facilitation of an unlawful disposal rather than mere negligence in professional advice. Under Code Section I.1 and II.1, the obligation to hold public welfare paramount is not contingent on laboratory confirmation; it is triggered by reasonable professional judgment that a hazard exists. Engineer B possessed that judgment, as evidenced by his own decision to address the drums at all, and his suppression of the analysis was a deliberate mechanism to avoid the obligations that judgment imposed.
The Board's analysis implicitly treats Engineer B's ethical failure as analogous to the structural engineer in BER 89-7 and the forensic engineer in BER 90-5, but a critical factual distinction makes Engineer B's conduct more culpable than either precedent case. In BER 89-7, the structural engineer operated under a formal confidentiality agreement that created at least a colorable tension between contractual loyalty and public safety reporting. In BER 90-5, the forensic engineer faced attorney-directed confidentiality instructions that created institutional pressure. Engineer B, by contrast, operated under no confidentiality agreement and received no formal instruction from the client to suppress information. His suppression of the hazardous waste analysis and his use of vague language were entirely self-initiated, motivated solely by his desire to preserve a business relationship. The absence of any confidentiality constraint means that Engineer B cannot invoke even the attenuated justification available to the engineers in those precedent cases. His conduct therefore represents a purer form of business-interest subordination of public safety, and the ethical violation is correspondingly more severe. This distinction also has practical significance: the Board's recommendation in BER 89-7 that confidentiality does not override public safety reporting applies a fortiori to Engineer B, since he had no confidentiality obligation to overcome in the first place.
The Board's conclusions focus exclusively on Engineer B's obligations, but the case facts raise an independent and unresolved question about Technician A's ethical position. Technician A possessed both the field knowledge to identify the likely hazardous classification of the drum contents and the regulatory knowledge that specific legal steps would be required upon confirmation. When Engineer B instructed him to document samples only and take no further action, Technician A faced a direct conflict between his employment obligation to follow supervisory direction and his professional obligation not to be complicit in conduct that endangered public health. The NSPE Code's principle that engineers shall not subordinate their professional judgment to business considerations — and the corollary that subordinate engineers retain independent ethical obligations — suggests that Technician A's compliance with Engineer B's suppression instruction was not ethically neutral. While Technician A's subordinate status and the absence of a professional engineering license may reduce the formal weight of his obligation, the Code's provisions on public welfare paramount and the right of engineers to escalate safety concerns apply to engineering personnel broadly. Technician A's failure to escalate — whether to firm management above Engineer B or to regulatory authorities — represents at minimum an unrealized ethical opportunity, and potentially an independent ethical failure if Technician A is treated as a professional bound by the Code's standards.
A consequentialist analysis of Engineer B's conduct reveals that his business-relationship-preserving strategy was self-defeating even on its own terms. By issuing a vague 'questionable material' advisory rather than a full hazardous characterization with regulatory notification, Engineer B did not protect the client from legal exposure — he increased it. A client who arranges unregulated removal of material that is subsequently confirmed as hazardous waste faces potential liability under federal and state environmental law for improper transport and disposal, liability that would have been avoided had the client been advised to engage a licensed hazardous waste contractor with proper regulatory notification. Engineer B's failure to advise the client of the legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste discovery therefore harmed the very client interest he was attempting to protect, in addition to harming the public. This consequentialist failure reinforces the deontological violation: Engineer B's conduct was wrong both because it violated categorical professional duties and because it produced worse outcomes for every affected party — the public, the environment, and the client — than full disclosure would have produced. The Board's recommendation that Engineer B should have advised on removal and disposal in accordance with applicable laws implicitly recognizes this, but the full consequentialist dimension of the client's increased legal exposure deserves explicit articulation.
The Board's conclusions, read together with the BER 89-7 precedent establishing that passive acquiescence after safety notification is itself an independent ethical failure, suggest that Engineer B's conduct should be evaluated on a graduated scale of culpability that the Board did not explicitly articulate. BER 89-7 established that merely mentioning a safety concern in a report without insisting on remediation or withdrawing from the project was insufficient — passive acquiescence was itself a violation. Engineer B's conduct is more culpable than the BER 89-7 baseline in at least three respects: he did not merely passively acquiesce, he affirmatively suppressed the analysis that would have confirmed the hazard; he did not merely fail to insist on proper remediation, he actively directed the client toward unregulated removal through his vague advisory; and he did so without any confidentiality constraint that might have created even a superficial tension justifying caution. The appropriate ethical standard for Engineer B is therefore not merely the BER 89-7 floor of 'do not passively acquiesce,' but a heightened standard requiring affirmative disclosure, regulatory notification, and refusal to participate in or facilitate disposal arrangements that do not comply with applicable law. Engineer B's conduct fell below both the baseline and the heightened standard, making his violation more severe than the Board's conclusions, which track the BER 89-7 framework, may fully convey.
It was unethical for Engineer B to fail to advise his client that he suspected hazardous material and provide a recommendation concerning removal and disposal in accordance with federal, state and local laws.
In response to Q101: Technician A bore an independent ethical obligation that extended beyond mere compliance with Engineer B's documentation-only instruction. Although Technician A occupied a subordinate employment position, the NSPE Code's paramount public welfare principle does not dissolve at the boundary of the employment hierarchy. Technician A possessed specific knowledge — grounded in professional field experience — that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste and that specific federal and state legal obligations would be triggered upon confirmation. That knowledge created an independent duty to act. The subordinate engineer's ethical independence is not extinguished by a supervisor's business-motivated instruction, particularly when the instruction itself is directed at suppressing information that bears on public health and environmental safety. Technician A's ethical path was to escalate the concern to firm management above Engineer B, or, if internal escalation was unavailing, to consider whether direct notification to regulatory authorities was warranted. Compliance with Engineer B's suppression instruction, while understandable from an employment-preservation standpoint, did not satisfy Technician A's independent professional obligations under the Code.
In response to Q102: Engineer B's conduct transcended mere negligence in an advisory capacity and rose to the level of affirmative facilitation of an unlawful hazardous waste disposal. The distinction is ethically and legally significant. A negligent advisor fails to provide complete guidance but does not actively shape the conditions that produce the harmful outcome. Engineer B did more than fail to advise: he instructed Technician A to suppress sample analysis, deliberately withheld the professional characterization of the material as likely hazardous, deployed the euphemistic phrase 'questionable material' to obscure the legal obligations that would attach upon confirmation, and allowed the client to arrange unregulated removal by a third party without regulatory notification. Each of these acts was a positive intervention in the chain of events that produced the unlawful disposal. The Code's prohibition on association with dishonest or unethical enterprise, combined with the subterfuge prohibition, supports the conclusion that Engineer B was not merely a passive bystander who failed to speak — he was an active architect of the information environment that made the unlawful removal possible. This places his conduct in a more culpable category than the Board's framing of a failure to advise fully suggests.
In response to Q103: The absence of any confidentiality agreement between Engineer B and the client is an aggravating factor in the ethical analysis, not a neutral or mitigating one. In BER 89-7, the structural engineer operated under a formal confidentiality agreement with the client, yet the Board still found that the public danger posed by the safety deficiency overrode that contractual constraint. In BER 90-5, the forensic engineer was subject to attorney-directed confidentiality obligations, yet the Board again held that imminent structural danger to tenants could not be suppressed behind those obligations. In the current case, Engineer B had no confidentiality agreement at all — no contractual, attorney-client, or other formal constraint that could even colorably justify withholding the hazardous waste characterization from the client or from regulatory authorities. The engineers in BER 89-7 and BER 90-5 at least faced a genuine structural tension between a formal confidentiality obligation and the public safety duty. Engineer B faced no such tension: his suppression of the hazardous waste analysis was motivated purely by business relationship preservation, a rationale the Code explicitly rejects as a justification for subordinating public safety obligations. The absence of a confidentiality agreement therefore removes the only arguable competing obligation that might have complicated the ethical calculus, leaving Engineer B's suppression conduct without any principled ethical defense.
In response to Q104: Engineer B's use of the phrase 'questionable material' in communicating with the client constituted a violation of the honesty and non-deception provisions of the NSPE Code. At the time Engineer B communicated with the client, he already possessed Technician A's professional field assessment that the drum contents would most likely be classified as hazardous waste upon analysis, and he possessed his own supervisory knowledge of the regulatory obligations that would attach upon such classification. The phrase 'questionable material' is technically non-false in the narrowest sense — the material had not been laboratory-confirmed — but it is materially misleading in the context in which it was used. The Code's prohibition on statements containing material misrepresentation by omission is directly implicated: by choosing language that conveyed ambiguity rather than professional suspicion, Engineer B omitted the material fact that the drums likely contained hazardous waste subject to specific federal and state transport and disposal requirements. The client, receiving only the phrase 'questionable material' and a suggestion to remove the drums, had no basis to understand that unregulated removal would expose them to legal liability. The deliberate selection of euphemistic language, in the context of a business-relationship-preservation motive, transforms what might otherwise be a cautious professional hedge into an instrument of deception by omission.
In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle are not co-equal duties that require balancing when they conflict over hazardous waste. The Code's structure is hierarchical: the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is the foundational canon from which all other obligations derive their legitimacy. The Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer B to serve the client's interests — is a valid and important professional duty, but it is explicitly bounded by ethical limits. When the client's apparent interest in avoiding regulatory scrutiny would result in the unregulated disposal of likely hazardous waste, that interest falls outside the zone of interests that the Faithful Agent Obligation protects. Engineer B was not required to choose between serving the client and serving the public: the Code's framework resolves that conflict in advance by making public welfare paramount. Serving the client's genuine long-term interest, moreover, would have required advising the client of the legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste discovery, because the client's unregulated removal exposed them to significant legal liability. The apparent conflict between the two obligations dissolves upon analysis: the client's true interest and the public interest both pointed toward full disclosure and regulatory compliance.
In response to Q202 and Q203: The threshold of 'public danger' sufficient to trigger the Confidentiality Non-Applicability principle should not be calibrated to require laboratory confirmation of hazardous classification before the disclosure obligation activates. Requiring confirmed classification as a prerequisite for disclosure would create a perverse incentive structure: engineers could indefinitely defer the confirmation that triggers their disclosure obligation by simply declining to complete the analysis — precisely what Engineer B did by instructing Technician A to document samples only. The appropriate threshold is reasonable professional suspicion grounded in field expertise, which Technician A clearly possessed and communicated to Engineer B. The tension identified in Q203 — between the duty to act on reasonable suspicion and the duty not to make representations beyond what evidence supports — is resolved by recognizing that these duties operate on different objects. The duty not to overstate evidence applies to Engineer B's characterization of the material to the client and to regulatory authorities; it does not require Engineer B to remain silent about his professional suspicion. Engineer B could have disclosed his suspicion accurately, recommended laboratory confirmation before removal, and notified regulatory authorities of the suspected hazardous classification — all without making representations beyond what the evidence supported. The honesty obligation and the disclosure obligation were fully compatible; Engineer B's framing of them as in tension was itself a product of his business-relationship-preservation motive rather than a genuine ethical dilemma.
In response to Q204: The Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification standard established in BER 89-7 sets a floor, not a ceiling, for ethical culpability in hazardous safety situations. BER 89-7 found that a structural engineer who mentioned a safety concern in a confidential report but took no further action to ensure remediation had independently violated the Code through passive acquiescence. Engineer B's conduct in the current case exceeds that floor in every relevant dimension: he did not merely fail to follow up on a disclosed concern — he affirmatively suppressed the analysis that would have confirmed the hazard, deployed euphemistic language to obscure the legal obligations triggered by the hazard, and allowed unregulated removal to proceed without regulatory notification. The BER 89-7 standard therefore understates the severity of Engineer B's misconduct. The Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation, also drawn from BER 89-7, further supports this conclusion: Engineer B not only failed to insist on legally compliant remedial action, he actively shaped the information environment to make non-compliant removal the path of least resistance for the client. The current case thus represents a more serious ethical violation than BER 89-7 on the passive acquiescence dimension, in addition to the independent violations arising from the suppression of analysis and the misleading communication.
In response to Q301 and Q303: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B failed his categorical duty to notify federal and state authorities of suspected hazardous waste, and from a virtue ethics perspective, he demonstrated neither the professional integrity nor the courage that the role of a licensed environmental engineer demands. The deontological analysis is straightforward: the duty to protect public health and comply with environmental law is not contingent on the commercial consequences to the engineering firm or the preferences of the client. A categorical duty is precisely one that does not yield to consequentialist calculations about business relationships. Engineer B's decision to suppress analysis and issue a vague advisory was a direct violation of this categorical structure. The virtue ethics analysis is equally damning: the choice of the phrase 'questionable material' was not a display of professional caution — it was a calculated act of linguistic evasion designed to preserve a business relationship at the expense of the client's legal exposure and the public's environmental safety. A virtuous environmental engineer, possessing the professional courage the role requires, would have characterized the hazard accurately, recommended laboratory confirmation before any removal, advised the client of the specific legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste discovery, and notified the appropriate regulatory authorities. Engineer B's conduct at each decision point — suppressing analysis, choosing euphemistic language, allowing unregulated removal — reflects the opposite of the virtues of honesty, integrity, and professional courage that the Code demands.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer B's decision to issue only a vague 'questionable material' advisory produced worse aggregate outcomes across every relevant dimension than full disclosure would have. For public health and environmental safety, the vague advisory enabled the client to arrange unregulated removal by a third party without regulatory oversight, creating the risk that hazardous material was transported and disposed of in violation of federal and state law — precisely the environmental harm that the regulatory framework was designed to prevent. For the client's own long-term legal exposure, the vague advisory was actively harmful: the client, unaware of the legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste discovery, arranged removal in a manner that may have created significant regulatory and civil liability. A complete disclosure — including the professional suspicion of hazardous classification, the specific legal obligations for transport and disposal, and a recommendation to engage a qualified hazardous waste contractor with regulatory notification — would have protected the client from that liability. For the engineering firm's long-term interests, association with a regulatory violation is a far worse outcome than the temporary discomfort of delivering unwelcome professional advice to a valued client. The consequentialist calculus thus reinforces rather than challenges the deontological and virtue ethics conclusions: no plausible outcome weighting produces a result in which Engineer B's chosen course of action was superior to full disclosure.
In response to Q401 and Q402: Had Engineer B directed Technician A to complete the laboratory analysis before any client notification or removal action, the confirmed hazardous classification would have created an unambiguous legal trigger that made continued suppression of regulatory notification practically and legally untenable. The significance of this counterfactual is not merely that a different outcome would have been likely — it is that Engineer B's decision to suppress the analysis was itself a strategic choice designed to avoid the legal trigger that confirmation would have created. By keeping the material in a state of professional ambiguity — documented but unanalyzed — Engineer B preserved a zone of deniability that the confirmed classification would have eliminated. This reveals that the suppression of analysis was not a passive oversight but an affirmative act of regulatory avoidance. Had full disclosure occurred — including professional suspicion of hazardous classification, specific legal obligations for transport and disposal, and a recommendation to engage a qualified hazardous waste contractor with regulatory notification — the client would have been protected from the legal liability arising from the unregulated removal that actually occurred. The client's engagement of another firm for unregulated removal was a direct consequence of Engineer B's failure to provide the information the client needed to make a legally compliant decision. Engineer B's conduct thus harmed the very client whose business relationship he was attempting to preserve.
In response to Q403 and Q404: Technician A's independent escalation of the hazardous waste suspicion — either to firm management above Engineer B or directly to regulatory authorities — would have been ethically justified under the NSPE Code, and such action would likely have altered the chain of events that led to the unregulated removal. The Code's paramount public welfare obligation does not contain a subordinate-employee exception; it applies to all engineers regardless of their position in an organizational hierarchy. Technician A's compliance with Engineer B's suppression instruction, while professionally understandable, was not ethically required and may itself have constituted a failure of independent professional duty. Regarding Q404, even if Engineer B had been bound by a formal confidentiality agreement analogous to the structural engineer in BER 89-7, that agreement would not have ethically or legally shielded him from the obligation to notify regulatory authorities about suspected hazardous waste. The Board's conclusions in BER 89-7 and BER 90-5 establish that public danger categorically overrides confidentiality constraints, whether those constraints arise from contract, attorney-client relationship, or employment loyalty. The public danger posed by unregulated hazardous waste disposal is precisely the category of harm that the Code's confidentiality exception was designed to address. Engineer B's actual absence of any confidentiality agreement therefore removes the only arguable competing obligation, making his suppression conduct not merely a violation of the public welfare paramount principle but an unambiguous one, unencumbered by any legitimate competing duty.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved decisively in favor of public welfare, but this case reveals that the resolution is not merely a matter of one principle overriding another — it exposes that the Faithful Agent Obligation itself contains an internal ethical ceiling. Engineer B's business-relationship-preservation motive did not represent a genuine conflict between two legitimate principles; rather, it represented a corruption of the faithful agent role itself. A faithful agent cannot serve a client's genuine long-term interests by facilitating unlawful hazardous waste disposal that exposes the client to federal and state regulatory liability. The case therefore teaches that when an engineer invokes client loyalty to suppress a safety finding, the engineer has already departed from the faithful agent role and is instead serving a short-term commercial interest that is adverse to the client's actual legal and financial welfare. Public Welfare Paramount did not defeat client loyalty in this case — it revealed that Engineer B had no legitimate client loyalty claim to assert.
The Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger principle and the general duty under Code Section III.4 not to disclose confidential client information without consent did not produce a genuine tension in this case because no confidentiality agreement existed between Engineer B and the client. This structural absence is analytically significant: in BER 89-7 and BER 90-5, engineers faced a real doctrinal conflict between a confidentiality obligation and a public safety disclosure duty, and the Board resolved that conflict by holding that public danger categorically overrides confidentiality. In the current case, Engineer B could not even invoke the weaker side of that tension. The absence of any confidentiality constraint means that Engineer B's suppression of hazardous waste information was not the product of a difficult principle conflict — it was an unambiguous ethical failure with no countervailing principle to balance. This makes Engineer B's conduct more culpable than that of the engineers in the precedent cases, not less, because those engineers at least faced a genuine doctrinal obstacle that the Board had to reason through. Engineer B faced no such obstacle and suppressed the information anyway, driven solely by commercial self-interest.
The interaction between the Honesty in Professional Representations principle, the Technically True But Misleading Statement principle, and the Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation reveals a compounding ethical failure in Engineer B's conduct that is worse than any single violation in isolation. Engineer B's use of the phrase 'questionable material' was not merely imprecise — it was strategically calibrated to convey enough information to discharge a minimal notification duty while withholding enough to prevent the client from understanding the specific federal and state legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste classification. This means the Honesty principle and the Environmental Law Reporting Obligation were violated simultaneously and interdependently: the vague language was the mechanism by which the reporting obligation was evaded. The case therefore teaches that technically accurate but deliberately incomplete professional communications can constitute a form of subterfuge that violates both the honesty provisions of the Code and the substantive regulatory disclosure obligations, and that the two violations are not independent — the misleading communication was the instrument of the regulatory evasion. The Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification standard from BER 89-7 understates the severity of this conduct because Engineer B did not merely fail to act after notifying the client — he affirmatively constructed a communication designed to prevent the client from acting in a legally compliant manner.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession Applied to BER 89-7 Structural Report
Confidentiality agreement covering structural report that also contained safety violation information
In BER Case 89-7, the contractual confidentiality agreement requiring the structural report to remain confidential did not supersede the engineer's obligation to report electrical and mechanical safety violations to appropriate public authorities, because the public danger posed by the violations overrode the contractual confidentiality obligation.
Contractual confidentiality agreements are enforceable in ordinary commercial contexts but yield to the paramount public safety obligation when the subject matter involves danger to building occupants.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
In determining that it was unethical for the engineer not to report the safety violations to appropriate public authorities, the Board, citing cases decided earlier, noted that the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment.'
The public danger threshold was met by the electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants, causing the confidentiality agreement to yield.
In determining that it was unethical for the engineer not to report the safety violations to appropriate public authorities
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure — Hazardous Waste Context
Potential confidentiality argument for not notifying regulatory authorities about likely hazardous waste
Any confidentiality obligation Engineer B might invoke with respect to the client's property conditions does not bar notification of proper federal and state authorities regarding the likely presence of hazardous waste, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of environmental protection law and does not constitute protected confidential information in the relevant ethical sense.
Confidentiality cannot shield from regulatory authorities the existence of conditions that trigger mandatory legal reporting obligations; the principle establishes that public danger disclosure is not barred by professional confidentiality.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
Confidentiality non-applicability to public danger disclosure resolves the tension in favor of regulatory notification; the client's business confidentiality interest does not override mandatory hazardous waste reporting obligations.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
Electrical/mechanical code violations in occupied building
Hazardous material drums on client property
Structural defects in litigated building
Across BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, and the current case, the Board consistently held that confidentiality obligations — whether contractual, attorney-directed, or business-motivated — do not bar engineers from disclosing or escalating conditions that constitute danger to the public, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code.
Confidentiality is a relational principle that yields when public danger is present; the ethics code's public welfare purpose overrides the protective function of confidentiality in danger scenarios.
we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context.
In all three cases, the public danger threshold was met, causing confidentiality to yield to the disclosure obligation.
the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case 89-7
we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context
Current Case Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client
{'hazardous_material_present': True, 'notified_obliquely': True, 'arranged_independent_removal': True, 'legal_disposal_obligations': True}
Property owner whose land contained drums of potentially hazardous material, received only oblique notification from Engineer B, independently arranged for drum removal, and bears legal obligations for proper hazardous waste disposal under applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws.
{'type': 'obligated_under', 'target': 'Federal State and Local Environmental Laws'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor'}
Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client
Should Engineer B direct Technician A to formally analyze the drum samples to confirm or exclude hazardous waste classification, or restrict Technician A to documenting sample existence only, thereby suppressing the information needed to trigger mandatory regulatory obligations?
After Technician A collects samples from the drums of unknown material and reports field-based suspicion that the contents are likely hazardous waste, Engineer B must decide how to direct the handling of those samples. Engineer B is aware that formal analysis would trigger mandatory federal and state regulatory notification and disposal requirements, and that such obligations could jeopardize the business relationship with the client. Engineer B must choose between directing formal analysis — which would confirm or exclude the hazardous classification and trigger legal obligations — or restricting Technician A to mere documentation of sample existence without analysis.
Instruct Technician A to submit the collected drum samples for formal laboratory analysis so that the hazardous waste classification can be confirmed or excluded, triggering the appropriate regulatory notification and legally compliant disposal pathway.
Instruct Technician A to merely document the existence of the samples without submitting them for analysis, thereby suppressing the information necessary to trigger mandatory federal and state hazardous waste reporting obligations and preserving the client business relationship at the expense of public welfare.
Should Engineer B clearly communicate to the client that the drum contents are likely hazardous waste triggering specific legal disposal obligations, or use euphemistic language such as 'questionable material' that obscures the hazardous classification and the client's regulatory duties?
Having received Technician A's field assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste, Engineer B must communicate findings to the client. Engineer B knows that a clear characterization of the likely hazardous nature of the material and the client's resulting legal obligations would create regulatory and financial burdens for the client and risk the business relationship. Engineer B must choose between communicating the likely hazardous classification clearly — including the client's legal disposal obligations — or using deliberately vague, euphemistic language such as 'questionable material' that is technically non-false but designed to obscure the hazard and the legal consequences.
Inform the client in unambiguous professional terms that the drum contents are likely hazardous waste, that formal analysis is required before any removal, and that if confirmed, the client bears specific legal obligations for regulatory notification and compliant disposal under applicable federal, state, and local law.
Notify the client only that drums containing 'questionable material' were found and suggest they 'be removed,' using technically non-false but deliberately ambiguous language that obscures the likely hazardous classification, omits the client's legal obligations, and enables the client to proceed without regulatory oversight.
Recommend that the client arrange removal of the drums without specifying that analysis must precede removal, without identifying the likely hazardous nature of the contents, and without informing the client of the legally required disposal pathway — facilitating potential unlawful disposal through omission.
Should Engineer B notify proper federal and state regulatory authorities upon receiving credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste, or rely solely on vague client notification and allow the client to self-report — or not report — to regulators?
Upon receiving credible field evidence from Technician A that the drum contents are likely hazardous waste, Engineer B must decide whether to notify proper federal and state regulatory authorities as legally required, or to rely solely on oblique client notification and allow the client to arrange removal without regulatory oversight. No confidentiality agreement exists between Engineer B and the client that would bar such notification. Engineer B's primary motivation for non-notification is preservation of the business relationship rather than any competing professional obligation.
Fulfill the mandatory legal and ethical obligation by notifying the appropriate federal and state environmental regulatory authorities of the credible field evidence that the drum contents constitute hazardous waste, independent of and in addition to informing the client, recognizing that client self-reporting after oblique notification is insufficient to discharge this duty.
Limit communication to the vague 'questionable material' advisory to the client and take no independent steps to notify regulatory authorities, effectively delegating the regulatory notification decision to the client and allowing potential unlawful disposal to proceed without oversight — motivated by business relationship preservation rather than any confidentiality obligation.
Should Technician A comply with Engineer B's documentation-only instruction, or refuse the instruction and independently escalate the hazardous waste suspicion through appropriate channels — including to higher authority within the firm or directly to regulatory bodies?
After Engineer B instructs Technician A to merely document the drum samples without analysis, Technician A — who possesses independent professional knowledge that the contents likely constitute hazardous waste triggering mandatory federal and state reporting obligations — must decide how to respond. Technician A faces a direct conflict between compliance with a supervisory instruction and the independent professional and ethical obligation to ensure that a serious public safety and environmental hazard is not suppressed. Technician A consults the supervisor on protocol but must ultimately decide whether to comply with the documentation-only instruction or to independently escalate the concern.
Decline to follow Engineer B's documentation-only directive, invoke independent professional judgment that the drum contents likely constitute hazardous waste requiring mandatory reporting, and escalate the safety and legal concern through appropriate channels — including higher firm authority or direct regulatory notification — regardless of the supervisory relationship.
Follow Engineer B's directive and limit actions to documenting sample existence without analysis or escalation, deferring entirely to supervisory authority and thereby becoming a passive participant in the suppression of information necessary to trigger mandatory hazardous waste regulatory obligations.
Escalate the conflict between Engineer B's instruction and independent professional judgment to higher authority within the engineering firm — above Engineer B — seeking organizational resolution of the ethical dilemma before deciding whether to comply with or refuse the documentation-only directive.
Should Engineer B clearly inform the client of the specific legal obligations for hazardous waste disposal that would be triggered upon confirmation of the drum contents, or omit this legal advisory and allow the client to arrange removal without awareness of applicable regulatory requirements?
Engineer B must decide how to frame the client's legal obligations with respect to the drum contents when communicating findings. Even if Engineer B uses some form of notification, the engineer must choose whether to clearly specify that if the contents are confirmed as hazardous waste the client bears legally mandated disposal obligations under applicable federal, state, and local law — or to omit this legal advisory entirely, leaving the client to arrange removal through whatever means are convenient without awareness of the regulatory compliance requirements. This decision directly implicates whether Engineer B serves the client's genuine long-term interests or merely the client's apparent short-term interest in avoiding regulatory scrutiny.
Clearly advise the client that if analysis confirms the drum contents are hazardous waste, the client bears specific legal obligations for regulatory notification and disposal in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, recognizing that this honest advisory serves the client's genuine long-term interests and reputation even if it creates short-term regulatory burden.
Notify the client of the drums' existence without specifying the legal disposal obligations that would be triggered by hazardous waste confirmation, allowing the client to arrange removal through unspecified means — prioritizing short-term business relationship preservation over the client's genuine long-term legal compliance interests and the engineer's public welfare obligations.
Drum Sample Suspected Hazardous Classification
From the moment Technician A collects samples and forms expert opinion through the client's unregulated removal of drums
Based on Technician A's past experience, it is his opinion that analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste
Suspected Hazardous Waste Unanalyzed Sample State
Physical drum samples collected by Technician A on client property
Client contacts another firm and has material removed — though without confirmed regulatory analysis or proper authority notification, the underlying regulatory obligation arguably persists
Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples
Technician A's collection of drum samples and formation of expert opinion that contents would likely be classified as hazardous waste
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
Engineer B (invoking client loyalty as justification for minimal action)
Represents the competing obligation that Engineer B appears to be prioritizing — loyalty to the client's business relationship — which must be weighed against and ultimately subordinated to public safety and regulatory compliance obligations in this case.
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
Engineer B (obligation bearer who failed to escalate), Technician A (subordinate facing ethical conflict)
Establishes the professional obligation of Engineer B (and potentially Technician A) to escalate the hazardous waste finding to regulatory authorities when the client's response — merely removing the drums without proper notification — fails to fulfill legal and public safety requirements.
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
Technician A (subordinate whose safety concern was dismissed by Engineer B)
Applicable to Technician A's position: having raised the hazardous waste concern with Engineer B and been directed to take only minimal action, the standard addresses what obligations remain for the subordinate professional when a supervisor rejects or minimizes a safety-protective course of action.
Engineer B Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition Hazardous Waste
Engineer-as-Accomplice-to-Unlawful-Action Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recognize that instructing documentation-only, using euphemistic language, and suggesting removal without analysis made Engineer B an accomplice to potentially unlawful hazardous waste disposal.
Required throughout Engineer B's handling of the hazardous waste discovery, from the documentation-only instruction through the oblique client notification and removal suggestion.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B's conduct — documentation-only instruction, euphemistic communication, and removal suggestion without analysis — collectively enabled the client's potentially unlawful disposal of hazardous waste.
Engineer B Affirmative Harmful Environmental Action Accomplice Prohibition
Engineer B's conduct went beyond passive acquiescence to active facilitation of potentially unlawful hazardous waste disposal through direction of subordinate and vague client communication
Affirmative Harmful Environmental Action vs. Passive Acquiescence Distinction Constraint
Engineer B was constrained from consciously and affirmatively directing actions — including instructing Technician A to merely document samples, using vague language to obscure hazard classification, and suggesting removal without analysis — that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public and make the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful disposal.
NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5
Instead, Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public, and also a violation of various environmental laws and regulations.
Throughout Engineer B's direction of Technician A and communication with the client regarding drum contents
We believe that this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics because it makes the engineer an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action.
Engineer B Affirmative Hazardous Waste Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition
Affirmative Hazardous Waste Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that consciously directing documentation-only, communicating findings in vague language, and suggesting removal without analysis constituted affirmative acts creating serious environmental danger to workers and the public — not merely passive omissions.
Engineer B's cumulative conduct constituted affirmative suppression of hazardous waste findings creating environmental danger, as distinguished from the passive acquiescence condemned in BER 89-7.
Engineer B's failure to exercise this capability, consciously and affirmatively directing Technician A to document only, communicating findings as 'questionable material,' and suggesting removal without analysis.
Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public, and also a violation of various environmental laws and regulations.
Engineer B Artfully Misleading Questionable Material Statement
Engineer B's use of 'questionable material' was a deliberate choice to avoid clearly characterizing the drums as likely hazardous waste, motivated by business relationship preservation.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from using the technically ambiguous phrase 'questionable material' — which, while not literally false, was designed to obscure the likely hazardous waste classification and the resulting legal obligations — in professional communications to the client.
Engineer B Business-Motivated Regulatory Suppression Instruction
From Engineer B's instruction to only document samples through Engineer B's vague client advisory and the client's self-arranged removal
Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples
Supervisor-Directed Regulatory Notification Suppression for Business Retention State
Engineer B's supervisory direction to Technician A regarding drum samples
Client independently arranges removal through another firm — though proper regulatory notification was never made, leaving the suppression state's ethical consequences unresolved
Engineer B's explicit instruction to Technician A to only document the existence of samples and take no further regulatory action, motivated by the client's other business with the firm
Engineer B Business-Relationship-Driven Vague Hazard Communication
From Engineer B's identification of drums through vague advisory to client, without explicit recommendation for analysis or regulatory reporting
Engineer B's communication of drum hazard to client using deliberately vague language ('questionable material') to preserve business relationship rather than issuing explicit regulatory notification
BER analysis concludes Engineer B must bring matter to client's attention with explicit recommendation for analysis and proper regulatory disposal
This subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics because it makes the engineer an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action
the manner in which Engineer B communicated the presence of the drums on the property must have suggested to the client that there was a high likelihood that the drums contained hazardous materials
Supervisor directive to suppress regulatory notification combined with Engineer B's business-relationship preservation motivation
Engineer B Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by supervisor role at engineering firm)', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering supervision', 'ethical_failure': 'Prioritizes business relationship over regulatory compliance and public safety'}
Supervising engineer who directs Technician A to sample drums, then upon receiving the technician's assessment, instructs only documentation of samples, declines to order analysis or notify regulators, and instead obliquely informs the client of 'questionable material' — motivated by the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'notifies_obliquely', 'target': 'Client Hazardous Waste Property Owner'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician'}
Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor Engineer
At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums
Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Regulatory Reporting
Engineer B explicitly cited the client's ongoing business relationship as the reason for limiting the firm's response to oblique client notification only, suppressing sample analysis and regulatory reporting.
Business Relationship Non-Subordination of Hazardous Material Disclosure Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from limiting the firm's response to the hazardous waste discovery based on the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm, and instead to take all legally and ethically required steps regardless of commercial considerations.
Technician A is then told by Engineer B that since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
Upon receiving Technician A's assessment and deciding on the firm's response to the hazardous waste discovery.
Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Suppression Recognition
Business Relationship Non-Justification for Hazardous Waste Reporting Suppression Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm did not constitute an ethical justification for withholding or minimizing required regulatory reporting of likely hazardous waste.
Engineer B's primary motivation for suppressing hazardous waste findings was preservation of the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
Engineer B's failure to exercise this capability — prioritizing business relationship preservation over mandatory hazardous waste disclosure — as identified by the BER as the primary ethical violation.
Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
Engineer B's primary motivation for vague communication was preservation of business relations with a client that 'does other business with the firm'; this commercial motivation drove inadequate safety communication.
Engineer B was obligated to communicate the hazardous drum findings clearly and completely to the client, including recommending formal analysis and advising of legal obligations, rather than limiting disclosure to vague language motivated by a desire to preserve the ongoing business relationship.
Upon receiving field evidence that drums likely contained hazardous waste and deciding how to communicate findings to the client
it appears that Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client.
Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination of Hazardous Waste Reporting
Business Relationship Safety Disclosure Non-Subordination Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recognize that the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm did not justify suppressing required hazardous waste analysis and regulatory reporting.
Required when Engineer B decided to limit the firm's response based on the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B explicitly cited the client's ongoing business relationship as the reason for limiting the firm's response to documentation-only and oblique client notification.
Engineer B Business Relationship Safety Reporting Non-Subordination
Engineer B explicitly cited the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm as the reason for limiting the firm's response to merely informing the client of drum location and suggesting removal, rather than notifying regulatory authorities.
Business Relationship Preservation Safety Reporting Non-Subordination Constraint
Engineer B was absolutely prohibited from subordinating the mandatory regulatory reporting obligation regarding likely hazardous waste to the desire to preserve the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm — the paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare superseded commercial relationship interests, and structuring communications to avoid triggering legal reporting obligations in order to maintain client goodwill constituted an ethical violation.
NSPE Code Section I.1 (public safety paramount); BER Case 92-6
From the moment Engineer B became aware of Technician A's hazardous waste assessment through the client's unregulated removal of drum contents
Engineer B Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Conflict Over Hazardous Drums
From Engineer B's identification of drums through vague client advisory, persisting until proper regulatory notification is made
Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
Engineer B's situation involving suspected hazardous drums on client property, where business relationship preservation motivated vague advisory rather than mandatory regulatory notification
Not yet terminated — BER analysis identifies ongoing ethical violation requiring corrective action
this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics because it makes the engineer an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action
Discovery of drums likely containing hazardous materials on client property, combined with supervisor directive to suppress regulatory notification for business retention
Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Advisory
Engineer B's vague communication, while ostensibly intended to preserve the business relationship, actually exposed the client to serious long-term legal and reputational harm by failing to advise the client of applicable environmental law obligations.
Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to recognize that the client's genuine long-term interests required clear communication of the hazardous waste finding and resulting legal obligations, because the oblique notification that enabled the client to proceed without proper regulatory compliance risked seriously damaging the client's long-term interests and reputation.
At the time of communicating drum findings to the client and deciding the scope of advisory communication
Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Advisory Duty
Engineer B's failure to advise the client of legal disposal obligations exposed the client to liability for unlawful disposal and damaged the client's long-term interests
Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Non-Subordination to Short-Term Business Retention Constraint
Engineer B was required to inform the client that if analysis confirmed hazardous waste classification, the client bore a legal obligation to dispose of the material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws — recognizing that this advisory served the client's genuine long-term interests by avoiding the greater legal and reputational consequences of unlawful disposal.
NSPE Code Section III.4 (faithful agent); applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws
Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
At the time Engineer B communicated drum findings to the client
If analysis demonstrates that the material is indeed hazardous, the client would have the obligation of disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal state and local laws.
Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Non-Subordination
Engineer B's vague communication and failure to advise the client of legal disposal obligations exposed the client to greater legal liability than honest disclosure would have
Engineer B was constrained from suppressing hazardous waste reporting to preserve the client business relationship, as such suppression damaged the client's own long-term legal and reputational interests by exposing the client to liability for unlawful disposal — making the suppression contrary to the faithful agent duty even from a client-interest perspective.
At the time Engineer B communicated drum findings to the client without recommending formal analysis or disclosing legal disposal obligations
Engineer B Confidentiality-Absent Business-Motivated Suppression Heightened Culpability
Engineer B made no oral or written promise of confidentiality; the suppression was motivated solely by business relationship preservation, making the ethical violation more direct and less defensible than the confidentiality-bound cases.
Confidentiality-Absent Business-Relationship-Motivated Suppression Heightened Culpability Obligation
Engineer B, unlike the engineers in BER 89-7 and 90-5 who acted under express or implied confidentiality obligations, was obligated to recognize that suppressing hazardous waste findings for purely commercial reasons — without any competing confidentiality obligation — constituted heightened ethical culpability requiring correspondingly complete hazard communication and regulatory notification.
Throughout the period of discovering, assessing, and communicating the drum findings to the client
Engineer B Confidentiality Non-Bar Environmental Regulatory Disclosure
The Board applied the BER 89-7 and 90-5 principle that confidentiality does not bar safety reporting, noting that Engineer B's situation was actually more serious because no confidentiality obligation existed
Confidentiality Non-Bar to Environmental Regulatory Violation Disclosure Constraint
Even if Engineer B had possessed a confidentiality obligation to the client, that obligation would not have barred disclosure of the likely hazardous waste condition to federal and state regulatory authorities, as the paramount public safety duty supersedes confidentiality obligations when environmental danger to workers and the public is at stake.
NSPE Code Sections I.1 and III.4; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5
the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context
At the time Engineer B decided to suppress regulatory notification
Engineer B Confidentiality Non-Override Public Danger Hazardous Waste
Engineer B's limitation of response to client-only notification — even if partially motivated by confidentiality considerations — was impermissible because the likely hazardous waste discovery triggered mandatory public authority notification that confidentiality obligations cannot override.
Engineer B was obligated to recognize that any confidentiality obligation owed to the client regarding the property conditions did not bar notification of proper federal and state authorities about the likely hazardous waste, as the public danger disclosure falls outside the scope of protected client confidentiality.
Upon professional determination that drum contents were likely hazardous waste.
Engineer B Environmental Engineer Heightened Stewardship
Environmental Engineer Heightened Domain Stewardship Capability
Engineer B, as a supervising engineer at an environmental engineering consulting firm, was required to possess and exercise heightened domain stewardship capability, recognizing that specialized environmental engineering credentials amplify the professional obligation to respond to discovered hazardous waste.
Required given Engineer B's role as supervising engineer at an environmental engineering consulting firm engaged in environmental assessment services.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B, despite being a licensed professional engineer at an environmental consulting firm with domain expertise in environmental assessment, failed to fulfill the heightened stewardship obligation triggered by the hazardous waste discovery.
Technician A is a field technician employed by a consulting environmental engineering firm.
At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums located on the property of a client.
Engineer B Environmental Regulatory Compliance Hazardous Waste
Technician A's professional assessment that drum contents were likely hazardous waste triggered mandatory federal and state regulatory compliance obligations that Engineer B was bound to fulfill regardless of the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
Engineer B was bound by federal and state environmental statutes requiring that parties who identify or handle materials classified as hazardous waste follow prescribed notification, transport, and disposal procedures — this legal constraint was inviolable and could not be waived by client preference, business relationship considerations, or supervisory discretion.
Federal hazardous waste law (RCRA); applicable state environmental statutes
From the moment credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste classification was received
Engineer B Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure
Engineer B possessed credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste classification and was obligated to disclose this to regulatory authorities, but instead communicated only vaguely to the client and facilitated unregulated removal.
Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Engineer B was required to disclose to applicable regulatory authorities the field evidence establishing that drum contents were likely hazardous waste — the paramount duty to public welfare superseded any client confidentiality or business relationship interest, and Engineer B's failure to make this disclosure while facilitating client-arranged removal constituted a violation of this constraint.
NSPE Code Section I.1; Federal and state environmental law; BER Case 92-6
From the moment Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment through the client's unregulated removal
Engineer B Ethical Perception Hazardous Waste Business Relationship
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recognize the ethically salient features of the situation — specifically that business relationship preservation was being allowed to override mandatory hazardous waste reporting obligations — and to dynamically assess the ethical dimensions of the documentation-only instruction.
Required throughout Engineer B's decision-making process regarding the hazardous waste discovery and the appropriate professional response.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B failed to perceive or act on the ethical salience of allowing business relationship considerations to suppress required hazardous waste analysis and regulatory notification.
Engineer B Euphemistic Hazard Communication Avoidance
Euphemistic Hazard Communication Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recognize that describing likely hazardous waste as 'questionable material' constituted an artfully misleading euphemistic communication, and to instead communicate the hazard clearly and accurately.
Required when Engineer B communicated the drum contents to the client and chose to use the phrase 'questionable material' rather than accurately characterizing the likely hazardous waste.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B described likely hazardous waste as 'questionable material' — a deliberately understated characterization that misled the client about the nature and severity of the hazard.
Engineer B Hazardous Material Analysis Before Disposal Recommendation
Engineer B suggested to the client that the drums be removed without recommending formal analysis, despite Technician A's professional assessment that the contents were likely hazardous waste requiring specific legal disposal procedures. The client then arranged unregulated removal through another firm.
Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Constraint
Engineer B was prohibited from suggesting removal of drum contents to the client without first recommending formal analysis to determine the legal classification of the material and the applicable federal and state transport and disposal requirements — suggesting removal without analysis made Engineer B an accomplice to potentially unlawful disposal.
NSPE Code Section I.1; Federal and state hazardous waste law; BER Case 92-6
At the time Engineer B communicated with the client and suggested removal of drum contents
analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste
Engineer B Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation to Client
Engineer B's firm discovered drums of unknown material on client's property; field experience indicated likely hazardous waste; Engineer B communicated only 'questionable material' language to client without recommending formal analysis.
Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Direction Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a clear recommendation that the material be formally analyzed before any disposal action, rather than communicating only vague 'questionable material' language.
Clearly, Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a recommendation that the material be analyzed.
Upon receiving Technician A's assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste
Engineer B Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Client Notification
Engineer B notified the client only of the presence of 'questionable material' and suggested removal, without informing the client of the legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste classification.
Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Obligation Notification to Client Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to clearly inform the client that if the drum contents were confirmed as hazardous waste, the client bore legal obligations for proper disposal including regulatory notification, rather than merely suggesting the drums 'be removed' without specifying legal requirements.
At the time of client notification regarding the drum contents.
Engineer B Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Notification to Client
Engineer B failed to clearly advise the client of the legal disposal obligations that would be triggered by confirmed hazardous waste classification; the client independently arranged drum removal without proper regulatory guidance.
Engineer B was obligated to inform the client that if analysis confirmed the drums contained hazardous material, the client bore a legal obligation to dispose of the material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, so that the client could take legally compliant remedial action.
At the time of communicating drum findings to the client
Engineer B Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition
Engineer B used the phrase 'questionable material' to describe drum contents that Technician A had assessed as likely hazardous waste, a characterization designed to avoid triggering the client's and engineer's legal obligations while preserving the business relationship.
Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B was prohibited from characterizing drum contents as 'questionable material' when Engineer B's professional assessment — informed by Technician A's field evaluation — indicated the contents were likely hazardous waste, as such vague language was calculated to obscure the hazard, avoid triggering legal reporting obligations, and maintain client goodwill at the expense of accurate hazard communication.
NSPE Code Section II.5.a (engineers shall not use misleading language); NSPE Code Section III.2 (non-deception); BER Case 92-6
At the time Engineer B communicated with the client regarding the drum contents
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition
Hazardous Waste Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that using vague language, directing documentation-only, and suggesting removal without analysis made the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful hazardous waste disposal, wholly inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Engineer B's cumulative conduct — euphemistic communication, documentation-only direction, and removal suggestion without analysis — constituted complicity in potential unlawful hazardous waste disposal.
Engineer B's failure to exercise this capability, resulting in conduct the BER characterized as 'subterfuge' making the engineer 'an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action.'
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Affirmative Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition
Engineer B directed Technician A to only document samples without analysis, communicated only 'questionable material' language to the client, and failed to notify regulatory authorities — a series of affirmative suppressive acts rather than mere passive non-disclosure.
Hazardous Waste Environmental Worker and Public Danger Affirmative Action Prohibition Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from consciously and affirmatively directing Technician A to merely document samples, communicating findings in deliberately vague terms, and failing to notify regulatory authorities — actions that collectively created serious environmental danger to workers and the public and constituted violations of applicable environmental laws.
From the moment of directing Technician A's sample documentation through the client communication and failure to notify regulatory authorities
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Prerequisite Before Removal
Hazardous Material Analysis Prerequisite Recommendation Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recommend formal laboratory analysis of the drum contents before suggesting their removal, and to communicate to the client the legal obligations that would arise upon confirmation of hazardous waste classification.
Required when Engineer B communicated with the client about the drum contents and suggested their removal without recommending analysis.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B suggested removal of the drums without recommending prior analysis, enabling the client to arrange removal through another firm without regulatory compliance.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal
Engineer B suggested the drums 'be removed' without directing or recommending formal analysis, enabling the client to arrange removal through another firm without regulatory oversight or proper hazardous waste disposal protocols.
Engineer B was obligated to recommend formal analysis of the drum contents before suggesting their removal to the client, so that the appropriate legal disposal pathway could be determined and applicable regulatory notification requirements triggered.
Before any disposal recommendation was communicated to the client.
Based on Technician A's past experience, it is his opinion that analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Direction
Engineer B communicated drum findings vaguely to the client, who then arranged for removal of the drum contents without formal analysis or regulatory notification
Engineer B was required to recommend formal analysis of the drum contents before suggesting their removal to the client, so that the appropriate legal disposal requirements could be identified and communicated — prohibiting Engineer B from suggesting or acquiescing to removal without prior analysis to determine hazardous waste classification.
NSPE Code Section I.1; applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws
Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a recommendation that the material be analyzed.
At the time Engineer B communicated drum findings to the client and the client arranged for removal
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Client Legal Obligation Notification
Hazardous Waste Client Legal Obligation Notification Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to clearly inform the client of the specific legal obligations that would arise upon confirmation of hazardous waste classification, including transport, disposal, and regulatory notification requirements.
Required when Engineer B communicated with the client about the drum contents and their disposition.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B communicated only obliquely about 'questionable material' and suggested removal, without informing the client of the legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste confirmation.
certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Characterization Prohibition
Engineer B used the phrase 'questionable material' in client notification rather than clearly identifying the contents as likely hazardous waste, thereby obscuring the legal obligations triggered by the discovery.
Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Hazardous Material Communication Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from characterizing the drum contents as 'questionable material' when the engineer's professional assessment — informed by Technician A's field experience — indicated the contents were likely hazardous waste, and instead to communicate the likely hazardous classification clearly to the client.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Communication Prohibition
Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Communication Prohibition Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that describing drums likely containing hazardous waste as 'questionable material' constituted artfully misleading communication violating professional ethics, and to instead communicate the nature and severity of the hazard in clear, accurate, and professionally candid terms.
Engineer B communicated the drum findings to the client using the phrase 'questionable material' rather than clearly identifying the likely hazardous waste classification.
Engineer B's failure to exercise this capability — using the phrase 'questionable material' to describe what professional assessment indicated was likely hazardous waste — as identified by the BER as subterfuge making the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful action.
the manner in which Engineer B communicated the presence of the drums on the property must have suggested to the client that there was a high likelihood that the drums contained hazardous materials.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification
Engineer B, upon receiving Technician A's assessment of likely hazardous waste, notified only the client using vague language and allowed the client to independently arrange removal through another firm without regulatory notification.
Hazardous Waste Federal and State Authority Notification Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to notify proper federal and state regulatory authorities upon receiving credible field evidence that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste, rather than relying solely on oblique client notification and allowing the client to arrange removal without regulatory oversight.
Upon professional determination that drum contents were likely hazardous waste, before any disposal action was taken.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification Execution
Hazardous Waste Federal and State Authority Notification Execution Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to identify and notify proper federal and state regulatory authorities upon receiving credible field evidence that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste, independent of client consent or business relationship considerations.
Required when Engineer B received Technician A's assessment and was obligated to notify proper federal and state authorities.
Failure to notify federal and state authorities; instead only informing the client obliquely of 'questionable material' and suggesting removal.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Field Identification
Hazardous Waste Field Identification Capability
Engineer B possessed the professional capability to assess, based on Technician A's field report and professional experience, that the drum contents were likely classified as hazardous waste under applicable federal and state regulations.
Engineer B supervised Technician A's sampling of drums on client property and received the field assessment of likely hazardous waste classification.
Receipt and comprehension of Technician A's assessment that drum contents likely constituted hazardous waste, as evidenced by Engineer B's subsequent communication to the client using the phrase 'questionable material' — implying awareness of the likely hazardous classification.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Field Identification Supervisory
Engineer B, as supervising licensed professional engineer, was required to possess the capability to assess and act upon Technician A's field assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste.
Applied (deficiently) when Engineer B received Technician A's assessment and chose to instruct documentation-only rather than pursue analysis.
Receipt of Technician A's professional assessment that drum contents would likely be classified as hazardous waste, which Engineer B then intentionally disregarded.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Regulatory Knowledge
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport and Disposal Knowledge Capability
Engineer B, as supervising licensed professional engineer, was required to possess advanced knowledge of federal and state regulatory requirements for hazardous waste transport, disposal, and authority notification.
Required when Engineer B received credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste and was obligated to direct analysis and notify regulatory authorities.
Failure to apply regulatory knowledge when instructing documentation-only and suggesting removal without analysis or regulatory notification.
Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Non-Deferral
Engineer B directed Technician A only to document sample existence and told the client only of 'questionable material,' suggesting removal without notifying regulatory authorities, despite Technician A's professional assessment that the drums likely contained hazardous waste requiring mandatory regulatory notification.
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Non-Deferral Constraint
Engineer B was prohibited from deferring or suppressing notification to proper federal and state authorities upon receiving Technician A's credible professional assessment that drum contents were likely hazardous waste — the legal notification obligation was triggered by credible field assessment, not by formal laboratory confirmation, and could not be deferred to preserve the client business relationship.
Federal and state hazardous waste law (RCRA and state equivalents); NSPE Code Section I.1 (public safety paramount)
From the moment Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment of likely hazardous waste classification
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport Disposal Knowledge
Engineer B, as a licensed professional engineer in environmental consulting, possessed or was required to possess knowledge of federal and state regulatory requirements governing hazardous waste transport, disposal, and notification obligations.
Engineer B's firm was engaged in environmental consulting work on a client property where drums of potentially hazardous material were discovered.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer B was obligated to notify proper federal and state authorities and to inform the client of legal disposal obligations upon confirmation of hazardous waste classification.
Engineer B Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Suppression
Engineer B supervised Technician A's sampling of drum contents on a client's property; upon receiving Technician A's assessment, Engineer B directed only documentation of sample existence, suppressing analysis.
Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to direct Technician A to formally analyze the drum samples rather than merely document their existence, given Technician A's professional assessment that the contents were likely hazardous waste requiring regulatory action.
Upon receiving Technician A's assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste and before any disposal recommendation was made.
{'confidentiality_agreement': False, 'primary_motivation': 'Preserving business relationship with client', 'communication_of_hazard': 'Oblique/indirect only', 'recommended_analysis': False, 'reported_to_authorities': False}
The primary engineer in the current case who, upon discovering drums of likely hazardous material on a client's property, communicated the finding only obliquely to the client and directed subordinate staff merely to document samples — prioritizing the business relationship over regulatory compliance and public safety, thereby becoming an accomplice to potential environmental law violations.
{'type': 'obligated_to_protect', 'target': 'Workers and Public'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Current Case Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Environmental Field Sampling Technician Under Engineer Supervision'}
This subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics
Engineer B Intentional Evidence Disregard Prohibition
Intentional Evidence Disregard Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recognize and refrain from intentionally disregarding Technician A's professional assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste, particularly when the disregard was motivated by business relationship preservation.
Required when Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment and chose to instruct documentation-only rather than act on the assessment.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B intentionally disregarded Technician A's assessment and instructed documentation-only, explicitly citing the client's ongoing business relationship as the reason.
Engineer B Intentional Hazardous Assessment Disregard Prohibition
Engineer B, upon receiving Technician A's assessment that drum contents were likely hazardous waste, intentionally disregarded that assessment by directing only documentation and communicating to the client using vague language that obscured the likely hazardous classification.
Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B was prohibited from intentionally disregarding Technician A's professional assessment that drum contents were likely hazardous waste — the constraint required that Engineer B incorporate this material professional assessment into the firm's response rather than selectively omitting it to preserve the client business relationship.
NSPE Code Section II.3 (objectivity and truthfulness); NSPE Code Section I.1 (public safety paramount)
From the moment Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment through the client communication
Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material'
Engineer B Intentional Sample Analysis Disregard Prohibition
Engineer B received Technician A's assessment of likely hazardous waste and deliberately directed that the samples only be documented — not analyzed — thereby intentionally disregarding information that would have triggered mandatory legal and ethical obligations.
Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from intentionally disregarding Technician A's professional assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste by directing only documentation of sample existence without analysis, thereby suppressing material information necessary for a complete and accurate professional response.
Upon receiving Technician A's assessment of the drum contents.
Engineer B No-Confidentiality-Agreement Heightened Culpability Self-Recognition
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Heightened Culpability Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that, unlike the engineers in BER 89-7 and 90-5 who acted under confidentiality obligations, Engineer B's suppression of hazardous waste findings was motivated solely by business relationship preservation — making the ethical violation more serious, not less.
Engineer B suppressed hazardous waste findings without any confidentiality agreement, solely to preserve the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
Engineer B's failure to exercise this capability, proceeding with suppression conduct without the partial mitigating factor of a confidentiality obligation that was present in the BER 89-7 and 90-5 precedents.
Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client.
Engineer B No-Confidentiality-Promise Affirmative Suppression Aggravated Culpability
Engineer B directed Technician A to document drum samples without analysis and communicated findings as 'questionable material' to preserve client business relationship, without any confidentiality agreement in place
No-Confidentiality-Promise Affirmative Suppression Aggravated Culpability Constraint
Engineer B, having made no oral or written promise of confidentiality to the client, bore aggravated culpability for consciously and affirmatively directing suppression of hazardous waste reporting motivated solely by business relationship preservation — a more serious ethical violation than the confidentiality-bound suppression in BER 89-7 and BER 90-5.
NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 distinguished
At the time Engineer B directed Technician A to merely document samples and communicated findings using vague language to the client
Engineer B Non-Aiding Unlawful Hazardous Waste Disposal
Engineer B's suggestion that the drums 'be removed' without specifying legal disposal requirements or notifying authorities facilitated the client's engagement of another firm for removal that may not have complied with hazardous waste disposal regulations.
Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from facilitating the client's potential unlawful disposal of hazardous waste by suggesting removal without analysis, regulatory notification, or specification of legally compliant disposal requirements.
At the time of client notification and disposal suggestion.
Engineer B Non-Association Unlawful Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilitation
By suggesting removal of likely hazardous waste without regulatory notification or formal analysis, Engineer B facilitated the client's potential unlawful disposal through a third-party firm, making the engineering firm an associate in potentially unlawful conduct.
Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
Engineer B was prohibited from permitting the firm's continued association with — and facilitation of — the client's potential unlawful disposal of hazardous waste by suggesting removal without analysis and without regulatory notification, as such facilitation constituted association with a potentially dishonest or unlawful enterprise.
NSPE Code Section II.1.d (non-association with fraudulent enterprise)
At the time Engineer B suggested removal of drum contents without regulatory notification or analysis
Engineer B Passive Safety Acquiescence Hazardous Waste
Engineer B did not merely fail to report — Engineer B actively structured the firm's response to minimize action, directing only documentation, using vague language, and suggesting removal without analysis, constituting both active misrepresentation and passive acquiescence to unlawful disposal.
Engineer B committed an independent ethical violation by passively acquiescing to the situation — limiting the firm's response to vague client notification and removal suggestion — rather than actively insisting that the client undertake proper analysis, regulatory notification, and lawful disposal, establishing that Engineer B's passive non-escalation was itself an ethical failure distinct from the active misrepresentation through vague language.
NSPE Code Section I.1; NSPE Code Section II.1.c (non-aiding unlawful conduct)
Throughout Engineer B's handling of the hazardous waste discovery
Engineer B Public Safety Escalation Hazardous Waste
Engineer B was required to possess and exercise the capability to recognize that the likely hazardous waste discovery exceeded the client relationship and required escalation to federal and state regulatory authorities, and to act on that recognition.
Required when Engineer B received credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste and was obligated to notify proper federal and state authorities.
Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B limited the firm's response to documentation and oblique client notification, failing to escalate to regulatory authorities despite credible evidence of likely hazardous waste.
Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Hazardous Waste
Engineer B treated the client's ongoing business relationship as a basis for limiting the firm's response, effectively subordinating public safety to client confidentiality and commercial interests — a direct inversion of the paramount public safety obligation.
Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer B's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare pre-empted any implicit confidentiality or loyalty obligation to the client regarding the drum contents — Engineer B was prohibited from remaining silent about the likely hazardous waste on the basis of client relationship considerations, and was required to notify proper authorities when a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare existed.
From the moment Engineer B received credible evidence of likely hazardous waste through the client's unregulated removal
Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Hazardous Waste Escalation
Engineer B prioritized client business relationship preservation over mandatory regulatory reporting of likely hazardous waste, in direct violation of the paramount public safety obligation
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Engineer B was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare above client business relationship considerations when discovering likely hazardous waste conditions posing serious environmental danger to workers and the public.
the extent to which an engineer has an obligation to hold paramount the public health and welfare in the performance of professional duties (Section I.1.) has been widely discussed
Throughout Engineer B's handling of the hazardous drum discovery
Engineer B Safety Obligation Hazardous Waste Public Welfare
Engineer B's decision to limit the firm's response to oblique client notification, motivated by the client's ongoing business relationship, directly violated the paramount duty to public safety in the context of likely hazardous waste discovery.
Engineer B was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking all required steps upon discovering likely hazardous waste — including sample analysis, clear client notification, and regulatory authority notification — rather than subordinating public welfare to business relationship preservation.
Throughout the engagement from sample collection through client notification.
Engineer B Subterfuge Prohibition Hazardous Material Communication
Engineer B communicated the drum findings to the client using only the term 'questionable material' rather than clearly characterizing the likely hazardous nature of the contents and the resulting legal obligations.
Engineer B was obligated to refrain from using vague, euphemistic language such as 'questionable material' to describe what professional assessment indicated was likely hazardous waste, because such subterfuge made Engineer B an accomplice to potentially unlawful action and was wholly inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Engineer B Technically True Misleading Questionable Material Statement
Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that describing drums likely containing hazardous waste as 'questionable material' — while technically not a direct lie — was a misleading statement that created a false impression in the client's mind about the nature and severity of the hazard, and to refrain from making such artfully misleading statements.
Engineer B communicated the drum findings to the client using deliberately vague language designed to minimize the apparent severity of the hazard while technically not making a false statement.
Engineer B's use of the phrase 'questionable material' to describe what professional assessment indicated was likely hazardous waste, characterized by the BER as 'subterfuge' inconsistent with the Code of Ethics.
We believe that this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics
Engineer B informing client about 'questionable material' before client contacting another firm to remove the material
Engineer B instructing Technician A to only document samples before Engineer B informing the client about 'questionable material'
Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination — Business Relationship Pressure on Engineer B
Decision to limit hazardous waste response to preserve client business relationship
Engineer B's decision to limit the firm's response to vague client notification — explicitly because the client 'does other business with the firm' — represents a failure to resist organizational/commercial pressure that subordinated professional ethical obligations to business relationship preservation.
The commercial pressure of maintaining a multi-engagement client relationship constitutes an organizational demand that Engineer B allowed to override professional ethical obligations — a paradigmatic case of the pressure resistance principle's application.
Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
The principle establishes that commercial pressures do not constitute ethical justification for subordinating professional obligations; Engineer B's explicit invocation of the business relationship as the reason for inaction is a direct violation.
Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
Engineer B (obligation bearer who used euphemistic disclosure)
Governs Engineer B's obligation to accurately and completely disclose the nature of the drum contents — including the likelihood of hazardous waste classification — rather than using vague language ('questionable material') that obscures the environmental and legal significance of the finding.
Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Triggered by Confirmed Hazardous Material
Potential hazardous waste drums on client property requiring regulatory disposal compliance
Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities
Once analysis confirms that the drums contain hazardous material, the client's obligation to dispose of the material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws is activated — and Engineer B's obligation to ensure this pathway is followed (rather than obscured) flows from the engineer's environmental stewardship and public safety duties.
The engineer's environmental law violation reporting obligation is sequenced: first clear client notification with recommendation for analysis, then — if confirmed hazardous — ensuring the client understands and fulfills disposal obligations under law, with escalation to regulatory authorities if the client fails to act.
Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
Client-first confrontation is the initial step; regulatory escalation follows if the client fails to comply with legal disposal obligations after being clearly informed.
Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation — Hazardous Waste Discovery
Client's subsequent unverified removal of material
Discovery of likely hazardous waste drums on client property
Engineer B's discovery of drums likely containing hazardous waste triggered an obligation to confront the client with a clear characterization and demand for proper legal handling, and — given that the client arranged removal through another firm without confirmed regulatory notification — to consider reporting to appropriate regulatory authorities.
The environmental law violation reporting obligation applies here because the likely hazardous waste, if improperly transported or disposed of, constitutes a violation of federal and state environmental law — triggering the engineer's domain-specific reporting duty beyond mere client notification.
Environmental law violation reporting obligation is not discharged by oblique client notification; the engineer must ensure the regulatory framework is activated.
Environmental Stewardship — Hazardous Waste Handling Context
Decision not to analyze samples or notify regulatory authorities
Environmental engineering firm's response to discovered likely hazardous waste
Engineer B's engagement as an environmental engineering firm supervisor placed environmental stewardship obligations at the center of the professional role; the decision to minimize hazardous waste characterization and avoid regulatory notification directly contravened the environmental stewardship principle that bridges engineering practice with broader societal responsibilities.
Environmental stewardship in this context requires that environmental engineering professionals — whose domain-specific expertise is precisely the identification and management of environmental hazards — act to protect environmental resources from improper hazardous waste handling, not merely to document and minimally notify.
Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Technician A is a field technician employed by an consulting environmental engineering firm.
Environmental stewardship is a core domain-specific obligation for environmental engineers that cannot be subordinated to business relationship preservation.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits — Engineer B Suppression of Analysis
Decision to limit firm's response to client notification only
Direction to Technician A regarding sample handling
Engineer B's direction to Technician A to only document samples — without analyzing them or taking legally required steps — exceeded the permissible scope of faithful agent deference to client business interests; the faithful agent obligation does not authorize suppression of legally mandated action in service of client relationship preservation.
The faithful agent role requires diligent execution of assigned work within ethical limits; it does not permit an engineer to suppress legally required regulatory notification or hazard analysis to preserve a business relationship.
The ethical limits embedded in the faithful agent obligation prevent Engineer B from treating client business relationship preservation as justification for suppressing legally required action.
Federal and State Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Requirements (RCRA and analogous state law)
Technician A (aware of legal obligations), Engineer B (directing action contrary to these obligations)
Establishes the legal obligation to notify proper federal and state authorities and follow prescribed transport and disposal procedures when drum contents are classified as hazardous waste — the legal threshold that Engineer B's instructions caused to be circumvented.
Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities Applied to Engineer B
Drums of likely hazardous material on client property requiring federal and state regulatory notification
Engineer B's failure to ensure that proper federal and state authorities were notified of the likely hazardous material on the client's property — instead providing only oblique client notification — violated the domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover likely hazardous waste to activate regulatory compliance pathways, not merely inform the client vaguely.
Vague client notification ('questionable material') is insufficient when the engineer's professional assessment indicates likely hazardous waste subject to federal and state reporting requirements; the engineer must ensure regulatory disclosure pathways are activated.
The engineer's obligation to activate regulatory compliance pathways is not discharged by oblique client notification; it requires clear characterization and, where legally required, direct regulatory notification.
Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities — Engineer B Failure
Discovery of likely hazardous waste drums
Regulatory notification obligation under federal and state law
Engineer B's failure to notify proper federal and state authorities — as legally required when hazardous waste is discovered — and reliance solely on oblique client notification violated the principle requiring engineers to ensure regulatory compliance frameworks are activated when legally mandated hazardous waste reporting thresholds are triggered.
The principle establishes that engineer notification to the client alone is insufficient when the discovered conditions trigger independent legal obligations to notify regulatory authorities; the engineer must ensure the regulatory framework is activated, not merely that the client is vaguely informed.
Regulatory notification obligations are not discharged by client notification; they are independent duties that attach to the engineer upon discovery of conditions meeting the legal threshold.
Honesty in Professional Representations — 'Questionable Material' Characterization
Professional characterization of drum contents
Engineer B's characterization of likely hazardous waste as merely 'questionable material' in the client notification fails the standard of honesty in professional representations by understating the engineer's actual professional assessment of the material's nature and the legal obligations it triggers.
Honesty in professional representations requires that engineers communicate their professional assessments accurately; using 'questionable material' when the professional assessment indicates likely hazardous waste violates this principle.
Honesty in professional representations is not subject to dilution based on business relationship considerations; the engineer's communication must accurately reflect the professional assessment.
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation in BER 89-7
Client refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied building
The Board in BER Case 89-7 held that upon discovering safety violations, the engineer was obligated to insist that the client take appropriate remedial action or refuse to continue work on the project — passive acquiescence after notification was ethically insufficient.
The engineer's obligation is not discharged by notification alone; the engineer must actively press for remediation and be prepared to withdraw if the client refuses.
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
The paramount public welfare obligation requires active insistence, not passive compliance with client preference to ignore violations.
The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further particularly because the Code uses the term 'paramount'
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer B (supervisor), Technician A (field technician)
Primary normative authority governing Engineer B's obligations when supervising environmental sampling that reveals likely hazardous waste, including duties to public safety, honest communication, and regulatory compliance over client business interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section I.1 (Fundamental Canon: Hold Paramount Public Health and Safety)
the extent to which an engineer has an obligation to hold paramount the public health and welfare in the performance of professional duties (Section I.1.) has been widely discussed by the Board of Ethical Review over the years
Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's obligations
Cited as the primary normative basis for the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health and welfare, used to evaluate Engineer B's conduct in handling suspected hazardous drums
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.4 (Professional Obligation: Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information)
this basic duty has frequently intersected with the duty of engineers not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs, etc., of clients (Section III.4.)
Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the confidentiality-safety tension
Cited as the competing duty of non-disclosure that must be weighed against the paramount public safety obligation; the Board uses it to frame the tension between confidentiality and public welfare
Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
Technician A (discoverer of the hazardous finding), Engineer B (supervisor directing suppression)
Relevant to Technician A's situation: having identified a likely hazardous condition during routine sampling, the standard addresses whether and how such findings must be reported to authorities even when the supervisor directs minimal action. Also relevant to Engineer B's suppression of the finding.
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure in BER 89-7
Electrical and mechanical code violations disclosed by client during structural engagement
In BER Case 89-7, the engineer's brief mention of electrical and mechanical deficiencies in the confidential report without insisting on remediation or refusing to continue work constituted an independent ethical failure — the notification was insufficient because the engineer 'went along without dissent or comment' rather than forcing the issue.
Mere mention of a safety concern does not discharge the paramount public welfare obligation; the engineer must actively insist on remediation or withdraw from the project.
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
Passive mention was held insufficient; active insistence or withdrawal was required.
If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project
the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment'
Protocol Restriction Imposed on Technician
Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Hazardous Drum Discovery Current Case
Drums of potentially hazardous material on client property posing environmental and public health risk
In the current case, Engineer B's affirmative actions in obscuring the hazardous nature of drum contents and failing to ensure proper regulatory notification violated the paramount public welfare obligation by creating serious environmental danger to workers and the public.
The paramount public welfare obligation extends to environmental hazards and requires not merely vague client notification but clear characterization of the hazard and activation of regulatory reporting pathways.
Business relationship preservation cannot displace the paramount public welfare obligation; Engineer B's primary motivation of maintaining client relations does not constitute an ethical justification.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 89-7 Electrical Deficiency Non-Disclosure
Electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
In BER Case 89-7, the Board held that the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare required him to report electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, not merely to mention them obliquely in a confidential report, because the term 'paramount' imposes an active and overriding duty.
The word 'paramount' in the ethics code elevates public welfare above confidentiality and client preference, requiring active insistence on remediation or escalation to authorities — not passive mention.
Public welfare obligation overrides confidentiality agreement because the code's use of 'paramount' signals that no competing obligation can displace the duty to protect building occupants.
The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further particularly because the Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect the public safety health and welfare
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 90-5 Structural Defect Concealment
Serious structural defects in occupied apartment building under litigation
In BER Case 90-5, the Board reaffirmed that an engineer's discovery of serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety could not be suppressed by attorney instruction, because the paramount public safety obligation supersedes any purported legal duty of confidentiality in litigation.
Immediate and imminent danger to building occupants triggers the paramount public welfare obligation regardless of the professional context (litigation support) in which the discovery was made.
any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants.
Immediate and imminent danger threshold was met, causing public welfare obligation to supersede attorney-directed confidentiality.
In deciding it was unethical for the engineer to conceal his knowledge of the safety-related defect, the Board discounted the attorney's statement that the engineer was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, noting that any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer B Hazardous Waste Oblique Notification
Decision to notify client only with vague 'questionable material' language
Discovery of drums of likely hazardous waste on client property
Engineer B's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required more than oblique notification to the client; the likely presence of hazardous waste with federal and state legal reporting requirements triggered a paramount public welfare obligation that superseded business relationship preservation.
Public welfare paramount in this context means that when an engineer discovers conditions likely constituting legally regulated hazardous waste, the obligation to protect the public — including communities potentially affected by improper disposal — overrides the engineer's interest in preserving the client business relationship.
Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples... Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
Public welfare obligation was not satisfied by oblique client notification; the legal reporting framework for hazardous waste exists precisely to protect public welfare and must be activated.
Was it ethical for Engineer B to merely inform the client of the presence of the drums and suggest that they be removed?
Did Technician A bear an independent ethical obligation to refuse Engineer B's documentation-only instruction and escalate the hazardous waste suspicion to higher authority or regulatory bodies, regardless of his subordinate employment status?
By instructing Technician A to document samples only and suppressing further analysis, did Engineer B's conduct rise to the level of actively facilitating an unlawful hazardous waste disposal, making him complicit in a regulatory violation rather than merely negligent in his advisory duty?
Because no confidentiality agreement existed between Engineer B and the client in this case — unlike in BER 89-7 and BER 90-5 — does the absence of any confidentiality obligation make Engineer B's suppression of hazardous waste information ethically more culpable than the engineers in those precedent cases?
Was Engineer B's use of the phrase 'questionable material' in communicating with the client a violation of the honesty and non-deception provisions of the NSPE Code, given that Engineer B already had reasonable grounds to suspect the material was hazardous waste with specific legal disposal requirements?
Did Engineer B have an ethical obligation to take further action?
Does the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer B to serve the client's business interests — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when the client's apparent interest in avoiding regulatory scrutiny directly endangers public health through improper hazardous waste disposal?
Does the Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger principle — which permits disclosure of client information when public safety is at risk — conflict with the Engineer's general duty under Code Section III.4 not to disclose confidential client business information without consent, and how should the threshold of 'public danger' be calibrated in the context of suspected but unconfirmed hazardous waste?
Does the Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation — which is triggered by confirmed hazardous material classification — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle when the material has not yet been laboratory-confirmed as hazardous, creating tension between the duty to act on reasonable suspicion and the duty not to make representations beyond what the evidence supports?
Does the Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification principle — established in BER 89-7 as an independent ethical failure — conflict with the Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation when applied to Engineer B's case, given that Engineer B went beyond passive acquiescence by affirmatively suppressing analysis and issuing a vague advisory, raising the question of whether the BER 89-7 standard understates the severity of Engineer B's active misconduct?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill his categorical duty to notify federal and state authorities of suspected hazardous waste, regardless of the business relationship with the client or the potential commercial consequences to his firm?
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer B's decision to issue only a vague 'questionable material' advisory — rather than a full hazardous waste characterization with regulatory notification — produce worse aggregate outcomes for public health, environmental safety, and the client's own long-term legal exposure than a complete disclosure would have?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity, honesty, and courage expected of a licensed environmental engineer when he chose to use the euphemistic phrase 'questionable material,' suppressed sample analysis, and allowed business relationship considerations to override his duty to characterize the hazard accurately and advise on legally required disposal procedures?
From a deontological perspective, did Technician A independently violate his professional duty by complying with Engineer B's instruction to document samples only and refrain from pursuing analysis, given that Technician A possessed the knowledge that the material was likely hazardous and that specific legal obligations would be triggered upon confirmation?
If Engineer B had directed Technician A to complete the laboratory analysis of the drum samples before any client notification or removal action, would the confirmed hazardous classification have created an unambiguous legal trigger that made it practically impossible for Engineer B to continue suppressing regulatory notification — and would that have forced a compliant outcome that protected both the public and the client from unlawful disposal liability?
If Engineer B had disclosed to the client not only the location of the drums but also his professional suspicion that the contents were hazardous waste, explained the specific federal and state legal obligations for transport and disposal, and recommended engagement of a qualified hazardous waste contractor with proper regulatory notification, would the client have been protected from potential legal liability arising from the unregulated removal that actually occurred?
If Technician A had refused Engineer B's instruction to document samples only and had independently escalated the hazardous waste suspicion to firm management above Engineer B or directly to the relevant regulatory authorities, would that action have been ethically justified under the NSPE Code — and would it have altered the chain of events that led to the unregulated removal?
If Engineer B had been bound by a formal confidentiality agreement with the client — analogous to the structural engineer in BER 89-7 — would that agreement have ethically or legally shielded him from the obligation to notify regulatory authorities about suspected hazardous waste, or does the public danger posed by unregulated hazardous material categorically override any such confidentiality constraint, making Engineer B's actual absence of a confidentiality agreement an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor in the ethical analysis?
Restricting Documentation Only (Action 3) + Vague Client Notification Decision (Action 4) → BER Ethical Violation Finding (Event 5)
Restricting Documentation Only (Action 3) → Protocol Restriction Imposed on Technician (Event 2)
Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right — Technician A
Technician A's knowledge of legal obligations triggered by likely hazardous waste
Technician A's response to Engineer B's direction to only document samples
Technician A, possessing independent knowledge that likely hazardous waste triggers mandatory federal and state reporting obligations, accepted Engineer B's instruction to only document the samples without escalating concerns beyond the supervisor — raising the question of whether Technician A's own professional obligations required independent action.
Technician A's independent knowledge of the legal obligations triggered by likely hazardous waste means the subordinate's ethical agency is not fully extinguished by Engineer B's instruction; the principle raises whether Technician A bore an independent obligation to escalate beyond the supervisor's direction.
Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right When Supervisor Direction Is Ethically Deficient
Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples. Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
The tension between deference to supervisory direction and independent professional obligation is not fully resolved by compliance with the supervisor's instruction when the subordinate possesses independent knowledge of legal obligations.
Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition Applied to Engineer B Drum Communication
Communication to client about drums of potentially hazardous material on client property
Engineer B's use of the vague term 'questionable material' rather than clearly characterizing the drums as likely containing hazardous material constituted subterfuge that made Engineer B an accomplice to a potentially unlawful action, in violation of the spirit and intent of the ethics code.
Deliberately oblique language that obscures the legal and safety significance of discovered conditions is ethically equivalent to concealment and makes the engineer complicit in the client's potential violation.
No business relationship interest justifies subterfuge; the engineer must communicate clearly even when clarity is commercially uncomfortable.
We believe that this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics because it makes the engineer an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action
Technically True But Misleading Statement — 'Questionable Material' Language
Client notification language regarding drum contents
Engineer B's use of 'questionable material' to describe what the engineer's professional assessment indicated was likely hazardous waste constitutes a technically non-false but materially misleading characterization — designed to minimize client alarm and preserve the business relationship while obscuring the true nature of the discovered material and the legal obligations it triggers.
The term 'questionable material' is not technically false, but it creates a materially false impression by understating the likely hazardous nature of the material and concealing the legal framework that applies to it — violating the prohibition on technically true but misleading statements.
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
The prohibition applies regardless of the engineer's motive; the overall impression conveyed by 'questionable material' falls far short of the honest characterization required.
Technician A Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition
Technician A, knowing the legal requirements triggered by hazardous waste classification and having assessed the drums as likely hazardous, faced a direct conflict between supervisory compliance and the paramount public safety obligation — the constraint prohibited abrogation of safety responsibility in deference to employment hierarchy.
Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
Technician A was prohibited from bowing to Engineer B's supervisory direction to suppress regulatory notification of likely hazardous waste — the paramount obligation to public safety superseded deference to the supervisor's instruction when the likely hazardous classification of drum contents presented a credible public health and environmental risk.
NSPE Code Section I.1; professional ethics obligations applicable to engineering technicians
From the moment Technician A received Engineer B's documentation-only instruction
{'license': 'Non-licensed technician', 'specialty': 'Environmental field sampling', 'experiential_knowledge': 'Sufficient to assess likely hazardous classification of drum contents'}
Employed by the consulting environmental engineering firm, directed by Engineer B to sample drum contents on client property; based on experience, believes contents are likely hazardous waste; asks supervisor what to do with samples and is told only to document their existence.
{'type': 'samples_property_of', 'target': 'Client Hazardous Waste Property Owner'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor'}
Environmental Field Sampling Technician Under Engineer Supervision
Technician A is a field technician employed by an consulting environmental engineering firm
Technician A Hazardous Waste Field Identification
Technician A possessed intermediate-level capability to assess drum contents based on field experience and form a professional opinion that the material would likely be classified as hazardous waste.
Applied when Technician A sampled drum contents on client property and assessed the likely hazardous waste classification of the material.
Formation and communication of professional opinion that drum contents would most likely be classified as hazardous waste based on past field experience.
Technician A Hazardous Waste Regulatory Knowledge
Technician A possessed knowledge of the specific federal and state regulatory steps legally required for transport and disposal of confirmed hazardous waste, including notification of proper authorities.
Applied when Technician A assessed the regulatory implications of the likely hazardous waste classification of the drum contents.
Recognition that if the material were confirmed as hazardous waste, certain legally mandated steps for transport, disposal, and authority notification would be required.
Technician A Subordinate Compliance Dilemma
From Engineer B's instruction to Technician A through the conclusion of the client's removal of drums
Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation
Technician A's professional position after receiving Engineer B's suppression instruction
Client's self-arranged removal — though Technician A's ethical obligation to escalate or refuse was never discharged
Engineer B's explicit direction to Technician A to only document samples and take no further action, placing Technician A in a position of potential complicity in regulatory non-compliance
Technician A Supervisor Business-Motivated Suppression Instruction Non-Compliance
Technician A, having assessed drum contents as likely hazardous waste and knowing the legal notification requirements, was directed by Engineer B to merely document sample existence and take no further action — a direction motivated by client business relationship preservation rather than legitimate professional judgment.
Supervisor Business-Motivated Suppression Instruction Non-Compliance Constraint
Technician A was constrained to refuse Engineer B's instruction to merely document sample existence without analysis and to withhold regulatory notification, recognizing that Engineer B's supervisory authority did not extend to directing Technician A to participate in regulatory non-compliance motivated by client business relationship preservation, and that Technician A bore independent ethical responsibility for compliance with the suppression instruction.
NSPE Code provisions governing subordinate engineer conduct; professional ethics obligations applicable to engineering technicians
Technician A Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Ethical Refusal
Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Ethical Refusal Capability
Technician A possessed the professional capability to recognize Engineer B's instruction to merely document the drum samples without recommending analysis as ethically impermissible, and to refuse compliance and escalate the matter.
Technician A was directed by Engineer B to sample drum contents on client property and, upon assessing likely hazardous waste classification, received instruction to merely document the samples without recommending formal analysis.
Technician A's professional assessment that drum contents likely constituted hazardous waste, which created the predicate for recognizing that documentation-only instruction was ethically impermissible.
Technician A was obligated, upon receiving Engineer B's instruction to merely document the sample existence without analysis, to refuse compliance and escalate the matter through appropriate channels
Technician A Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
Technician A, possessing independent knowledge that likely hazardous waste triggers mandatory regulatory reporting, accepted Engineer B's documentation-only instruction without independent escalation.
Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal Obligation
Technician A was obligated, upon receiving Engineer B's instruction to merely document the sample existence without analysis, to refuse compliance with that instruction and independently escalate the likely hazardous waste finding to appropriate authorities, given Technician A's independent knowledge that the discovery triggered mandatory federal and state reporting obligations.
Upon receiving Engineer B's instruction to document samples only and not to analyze them.
Technician A Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
Technician A accepted Engineer B's direction to only document samples despite independent knowledge that the contents were likely hazardous waste requiring mandatory regulatory reporting; Technician A did not independently escalate.
Technician A, possessing independent professional knowledge that the drum contents likely constituted hazardous waste triggering mandatory federal and state reporting obligations, was obligated to refuse Engineer B's instruction to merely document the samples without analysis and to independently escalate the safety and legal concern through appropriate channels.
Technician A, possessing independent knowledge that likely hazardous waste triggers mandatory federal and state reporting obligations, accepted Engineer B's direction to only document samples
Upon receiving Engineer B's instruction to merely document samples without analysis or further regulatory action
Technician A sampling drum contents before Technician A consulting Engineer B about what to do with samples
Technician A sampling drums before material removal by another firm
Vague Client Notification Decision (Action 4) → Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice (Event 3)
Vague Hazard Advisory Without Regulatory Notification
From Engineer B's advisory to the client through the client's self-arranged removal without regulatory oversight
Hazardous Material Presence Without Regulatory Notification State
Engineer B's communication to client regarding drum contents and the absence of regulatory authority notification
Client contacts another firm and has material removed — though regulatory notification obligation was never discharged
Engineer B informing the client of 'questionable material' and suggesting removal, without notifying federal or state authorities as legally required for hazardous waste
engineer discovering structural defects (BER Case 90-5) before attorney instructing engineer to maintain confidentiality (BER Case 90-5)
engineer performing structural tests (BER Case 89-7) before client confiding about electrical and mechanical deficiencies (BER Case 89-7)
hazardous material removal by another firm before potential long-term reputational damage to client
tenants filing lawsuit (BER Case 90-5) before owner's attorney hiring engineer to inspect building (BER Case 90-5)