ProEthica Case 149 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.879945
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Applicable-Federal-State-Local-Environmental-Laws
type: EnvironmentalComplianceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Federal, state, and local regulatory authorities
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Applicable Federal, State, and Local Hazardous Waste Disposal Laws and Regulations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Environmental Compliance Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client
textreferences: the client would have the obligation of disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal state and local laws
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in characterizing Engineer B's conduct as potentially unlawful and in defining the client's disposal obligations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER-Case-89-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 89-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 89-7 an engineer was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: in BER Case 89-7 an engineer was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: the Board, citing cases decided earlier, noted that the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment'
textreferences: we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well
usedby: Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent
usedincontext: 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
version: 1989
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER-Case-90-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 90-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case 90-5, the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case 89-7
textreferences: in BER Case 90-5, the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case 89-7
textreferences: 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
textreferences: we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well
usedby: Board of Ethical Review as corroborating precedent
usedincontext: 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
version: 1990
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Brief Report Mention Insufficient Public Authority Notification
type: BriefReportMentionInsufficiencyforPublicAuthoritySafetyNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The engineer made a brief mention of safety deficiencies in the confidential report but did not report to any third parties or public authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
constraintclass: Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Case 89-7
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time the structural engineer submitted the confidential report
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Building Safety Precedent Environmental Hazard Cross-Domain Application
type: BERPrecedentCross-DomainAnalogicalApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Board of Ethical Review (analytical constraint on precedent application)
constraintclass: BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5; NSPE Code Section I.1
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer B's conduct
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement
type: ClientInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalSafetyEnforcementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER 89-7 structural engineer's failure to exercise this capability — proceeding with the project without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.902898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency Recognition
type: ConfidentialReportBriefMentionInsufficiencyforPublicAuthoritySafetyNotificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation
type: Out-of-DisciplineSafetyCodeViolationReportingDutyActivationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Ethical Violation
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Case 89-7
sourcetext: 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.'
temporalscope: During the structural engineer's engagement with the client selling the occupied apartment building
textreferences: 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.'
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Imminent Structural Danger Non-Override
type: Attorney-DirectedConfidentialityImminentDangerNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: BER 90-5 Expert Witness Engineer
constraintclass: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Imminent Danger Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Case 90-5
sourcetext: The engineer complies with the request.
temporalscope: After the engineer reported structural defects to the attorney and received the confidentiality instruction
textreferences: The engineer complies with the request.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Building Owner Client
type: BuildingOwnerSafetyRecommendationRecipient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'litigation_party': 'Defendant', 'building_type': 'Apartment building', 'defects_known': 'Disputed — tenants sued for defects, structural defects discovered separately'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Retaining Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_inspection_by', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
sourcetext: tenants of an apartment building sued its owner to force him to repair many of the building's defects
textreferences: The owner's attorney hired an engineer to inspect the building and give expert testimony in support of the owner
textreferences: tenants of an apartment building sued its owner to force him to repair many of the building's defects
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Retaining Attorney
type: LitigationAttorneyDirectingEngineerConfidentialityOverSafetyFindings
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'litigation_role': 'Defense counsel for building owner', 'confidentiality_directive_issued': True, 'claimed_legal_basis_for_confidentiality': True}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Building Owner Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Litigation Attorney Directing Engineer Confidentiality Over Safety Findings
sourcetext: The owner's attorney hired an engineer to inspect the building and give expert testimony in support of the owner
textreferences: The owner's attorney hired an engineer to inspect the building and give expert testimony in support of the owner
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER Case 89-7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER Case 89-7 before BER Case 90-5
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More recently, in BER Case 90-5, the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case 89-7.
from entity text: BER Case 89-7
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 90-5
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 90-5
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER Case 90-5 before current case discussion (Engineer B / Technician A)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More recently, in BER Case 90-5... 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.
from entity text: BER Case 90-5
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current case discussion (Engineer B / Technician A)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current case discussion Engineer B Technician A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER Ethical Violation Finding
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Precedent_Setting_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Disciplinary_Consequence_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Record_Of_Ethical_Standards_Constraint
causes state change: The ethical and legal status of Engineer B's conduct is now authoritatively defined; the case enters the professional record as precedent; the correct standard of conduct is formally articulated for future practitioners
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Educational_Institutions_Should_Use_Case_As_Teaching_Material
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Acknowledge_Violation
creates obligation: Profession_Must_Communicate_Standards_To_Members
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Discussion section; retrospective analytical finding following all factual events
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: medium
comment: The Board of Ethical Review's analysis establishes, through reference to prior cases, that Engineer B's conduct was both unethical and potentially unlawful, and defines what the correct course of action should have been, creating an authoritative normative record of the case.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER Ethics Review Board BER 89-7 90-5 Hazardous Waste No-Confidentiality Factual Distinction Application
type: BERDual-PrecedentHazardousWasteNo-ConfidentialityFactualDistinctionApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Hazardous Waste No-Confidentiality Factual Distinction Application Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: The BER applied BER 89-7 and 90-5 as precedents while explicitly distinguishing the present case on the no-confidentiality-agreement factual distinction.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER Ethics Review Board
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.902721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Case 149 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 4
event count: 5
total elements: 9
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

CausalLink_Consulting Supervisor on Proto
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

CausalLink_Drum Sampling Execution
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

CausalLink_Restricting Documentation Only
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

CausalLink_Vague Client Notification Deci
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client-Confidentiality-Public-Safety-Balancing-Framework
type: ClientConfidentialityvs.PublicSafetyBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
sourcetext: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm
usedby: Engineer B (implicitly applying, but incorrectly weighted toward client interest)
usedincontext: 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.
version: N/A — ontology class
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.881354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client-Confidentiality-Public-Safety-Balancing-Framework-Instance
type: ClientConfidentialityvs.PublicSafetyBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework (as articulated through BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
sourcetext: the natural tension between the engineer's public welfare responsibility and the duty of non-disclosure may be resolved in a different manner
textreferences: Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public
textreferences: the natural tension between the engineer's public welfare responsibility and the duty of non-disclosure may be resolved in a different manner
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in resolving the confidentiality-safety tension for Engineer B
usedincontext: 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
version: Developed through BER case series
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client Hazardous Waste Property Owner
type: HazardousWastePropertyOwnerClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:21.320348+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:21.320348+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'hires_separately', 'target': 'Second Firm for Drum Removal'}
relationships: {'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client
sourcetext: drums located on the property of a client
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed
textreferences: drums located on the property of a client
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.880681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Informed_Consent_Constraint
activates constraint: Hazardous_Waste_Disclosure_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthful_Communication_Constraint
causes state change: Client now holds a distorted understanding of the situation; is positioned to make consequential decisions (hiring another firm) based on materially incomplete information; Engineer B's duty of candor has been violated
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Client_Must_Investigate_Further
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Has_Ongoing_Duty_To_Clarify
creates obligation: Firm_Liable_For_Consequences_Of_Incomplete_Disclosure
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following Vague Client Notification Decision
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: As an outcome of Engineer B's vague notification decision, the client receives ambiguous information about 'questionable material' rather than a clear hazardous waste designation, leaving them without the knowledge needed to fulfill their own legal obligations.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice (Event 3) → Improper Waste Removal Occurs (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As an outcome of Engineer B's vague notification decision, the client receives ambiguous information, and subsequently hires a second firm to remove the drum contents without proper hazardous waste notification protocols
cause: Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice (Event 3)
counterfactual: Had the client received a clear hazardous waste characterization from Engineer B, the client would have been legally and practically compelled to engage a licensed hazardous waste contractor following proper notification protocols, preventing improper removal
effect: Improper Waste Removal Occurs (Event 4)
necessary factors: Absence of regulatory intervention prior to removal
necessary factors: Client's decision to proceed with removal based on incomplete professional guidance
necessary factors: Client's receipt of information insufficient to identify the material as regulated hazardous waste
necessary factors: Second firm's lack of hazardous waste handling credentials or notification compliance
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer B (primary); Client (secondary); Second Removal Firm (tertiary)
sufficient factors: Vague professional notification + client's uninformed procurement decision + second firm's non-compliant removal practices together constituted a sufficient causal set for improper waste removal
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to merely inform the client of the presence of the drums.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: III.1.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: III.1.
cited provision4: III.3.
cited provision5: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
cited provision5: III.1.
cited provision6: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: III.1.
cited provision5: III.3.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: III.1.
cited provision4: III.3.
cited provision5: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.893924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: III.1.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
cited provision4: II.1.c.
cited provision5: III.1.
cited provision6: III.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: II.1.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 104
cited provision1: III.1.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
cited provision5: II.1.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Consulting Supervisor on Protocol
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Field Technician, environmental consulting firm
foreseen unintended effects: Opportunity for the firm to initiate correct legal compliance procedures
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that supervisor might override proper protocol, placing Technician A in a position of conflict between deference and independent ethical duty
fulfills obligation text: Exercised professional judgment in recognizing a situation requiring guidance
fulfills obligation text: Initiated a chain of communication that created an opportunity for proper protocol
fulfills obligation text: Raised the issue with supervisory authority rather than ignoring it
guided by principle text: Duty to act within the chain of professional authority while maintaining independent ethical judgment
guided by principle text: Duty to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
guided by principle text: Transparency and professional integrity in reporting findings
has agent: Technician A
has mental state: deliberate and professionally conscientious
intended outcome: Obtain supervisory guidance on proper next steps, including whether to initiate hazardous waste reporting and disposal protocols
requires capability text: Ability to articulate professional concerns to a superior
requires capability text: Knowledge of hazardous waste regulatory framework
requires capability text: Professional judgment to recognize a situation requiring supervisory input
temporal marker: Immediately following sample collection and formation of professional opinion; before any documentation or reporting
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Arguably, Technician A's independent professional duty to protect public health and welfare (Section I.1.) was not fully pursued when supervisor's response was inadequate. Technician A did not independently escalate further after receiving Engineer B's instructions
within competence: true
comment: After forming a professional opinion that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste, Technician A proactively approached Engineer B to ask what steps should be taken with the collected samples. This decision to escalate rather than act unilaterally was a volitional professional choice.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Technician A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Drum Sampling Execution
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Field Technician, environmental consulting firm
foreseen unintended effects: Creation of a professional record that could implicate the firm if not handled properly
foreseen unintended effects: Discovery of likely hazardous material triggering mandatory legal reporting obligations
fulfills obligation text: Applied professional competence and experience in forming an informed field judgment about the material
fulfills obligation text: Followed supervisor's directive to conduct sampling
guided by principle text: Accuracy and integrity in data collection
guided by principle text: Professional competence and diligence in executing assigned field tasks
has agent: Technician A
has mental state: deliberate and compliant with supervisor direction
intended outcome: Collect representative samples of drum contents for potential analysis and characterization
requires capability text: Field sampling techniques
requires capability text: Knowledge of regulatory thresholds for hazardous waste classification
requires capability text: Recognition of potentially hazardous materials based on prior experience
temporal marker: Initial field visit; before any reporting or documentation decisions
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Technician A collected samples from drums located on the client's property, acting under direct instruction from Engineer B. This professional act generated physical evidence and triggered Technician A's informed suspicion that the contents were likely hazardous waste.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer-Confidentiality-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard
type: EngineerConfidentialityandLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
usedby: Engineer B (invoking client loyalty as justification for minimal action)
usedincontext: 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.
version: N/A — ontology class
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.882178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
usedby: Engineer B (obligation bearer who failed to escalate), Technician A (subordinate facing ethical conflict)
usedincontext: 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.
version: N/A — ontology class
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.881498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer-Safety-Recommendation-Rejection-Standard
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
usedby: Technician A (subordinate whose safety concern was dismissed by Engineer B)
usedincontext: 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.
version: N/A — ontology class
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.882332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition Hazardous Waste
type: Engineer-as-Accomplice-to-Unlawful-ActionSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineer-as-Accomplice-to-Unlawful-Action Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required throughout Engineer B's handling of the hazardous waste discovery, from the documentation-only instruction through the oblique client notification and removal suggestion.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.893118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Affirmative Harmful Environmental Action Accomplice Prohibition
type: AffirmativeHarmfulEnvironmentalActionvs.PassiveAcquiescenceDistinctionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Affirmative Harmful Environmental Action vs. Passive Acquiescence Distinction Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's direction of Technician A and communication with the client regarding drum contents
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Affirmative Hazardous Waste Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition
type: AffirmativeHazardousWasteSuppressionEnvironmentalDangerProhibitionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Affirmative Hazardous Waste Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.902579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor
type: Business-Relationship-PreservingHazardousWasteSupervisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:21.320348+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:21.320348+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'notifies_obliquely', 'target': 'Client Hazardous Waste Property Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor Engineer
sourcetext: At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums
textreferences: At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.880493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Suppression Recognition
type: BusinessRelationshipNon-JustificationforHazardousWasteReportingSuppressionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Relationship Non-Justification for Hazardous Waste Reporting Suppression Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B's primary motivation for suppressing hazardous waste findings was preservation of the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination of Hazardous Waste Reporting
type: BusinessRelationshipSafetyDisclosureNon-SubordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Business Relationship Safety Disclosure Non-Subordination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B decided to limit the firm's response based on the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.892835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business Relationship Safety Reporting Non-Subordination
type: BusinessRelationshipPreservationSafetyReportingNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Business Relationship Preservation Safety Reporting Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1 (public safety paramount); BER Case 92-6
sourcetext: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B became aware of Technician A's hazardous waste assessment through the client's unregulated removal of drum contents
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Advisory Duty
type: ClientLong-TermInterestLegalComplianceNon-SubordinationtoShort-TermBusinessRetentionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Non-Subordination to Short-Term Business Retention Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4 (faithful agent); applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws
sourcetext: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B communicated drum findings to the client
textreferences: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Non-Subordination
type: ClientLong-TermInterestLegalComplianceNon-SubordinationtoShort-TermBusinessRetentionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Non-Subordination to Short-Term Business Retention Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4 (faithful agent); applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws
sourcetext: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B communicated drum findings to the client without recommending formal analysis or disclosing legal disposal obligations
textreferences: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Confidentiality Non-Bar Environmental Regulatory Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityNon-BartoEnvironmentalRegulatoryViolationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Confidentiality Non-Bar to Environmental Regulatory Violation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections I.1 and III.4; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5
sourcetext: the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B decided to suppress regulatory notification
textreferences: any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
textreferences: the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Environmental Engineer Heightened Stewardship
type: EnvironmentalEngineerHeightenedDomainStewardshipCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Engineer Heightened Domain Stewardship Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required given Engineer B's role as supervising engineer at an environmental engineering consulting firm engaged in environmental assessment services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Technician A is a field technician employed by a consulting environmental engineering firm.
textreferences: At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums located on the property of a client.
textreferences: Technician A is a field technician employed by a consulting environmental engineering firm.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.893760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Environmental Regulatory Compliance Hazardous Waste
type: EnvironmentalRegulatoryComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: Federal hazardous waste law (RCRA); applicable state environmental statutes
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the moment credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste classification was received
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure
type: EnvironmentalStandardsViolationRegulatoryDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; Federal and state environmental law; BER Case 92-6
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment through the client's unregulated removal
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Ethical Perception Hazardous Waste Business Relationship
type: EthicalPerception
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Perception
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required throughout Engineer B's decision-making process regarding the hazardous waste discovery and the appropriate professional response.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.893612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Euphemistic Hazard Communication Avoidance
type: EuphemisticHazardCommunicationRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Euphemistic Hazard Communication Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.892973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Material Analysis Before Disposal Recommendation
type: HazardousMaterialAnalysisRecommendationBeforeDisposalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; Federal and state hazardous waste law; BER Case 92-6
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B communicated with the client and suggested removal of drum contents
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
textreferences: analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.890431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition
type: HazardousMaterialVagueLanguageSubterfugeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a (engineers shall not use misleading language); NSPE Code Section III.2 (non-deception); BER Case 92-6
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B communicated with the client regarding the drum contents
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition
type: HazardousWasteAccompliceLiabilitySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B's cumulative conduct — euphemistic communication, documentation-only direction, and removal suggestion without analysis — constituted complicity in potential unlawful hazardous waste disposal.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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.'
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Prerequisite Before Removal
type: HazardousMaterialAnalysisPrerequisiteRecommendationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Material Analysis Prerequisite Recommendation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B communicated with the client about the drum contents and suggested their removal without recommending analysis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Direction
type: HazardousMaterialAnalysisRecommendationBeforeDisposalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B communicated drum findings vaguely to the client, who then arranged for removal of the drum contents without formal analysis or regulatory notification
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B communicated drum findings to the client and the client arranged for removal
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: To do less would be unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Client Legal Obligation Notification
type: HazardousWasteClientLegalObligationNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Client Legal Obligation Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B communicated with the client about the drum contents and their disposition.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.902166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Communication Prohibition
type: HazardousWasteEuphemisticCommunicationProhibitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Communication Prohibition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B communicated the drum findings to the client using the phrase 'questionable material' rather than clearly identifying the likely hazardous waste classification.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification Execution
type: HazardousWasteFederalandStateAuthorityNotificationExecutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Federal and State Authority Notification Execution Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B received Technician A's assessment and was obligated to notify proper federal and state authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure to notify federal and state authorities; instead only informing the client obliquely of 'questionable material' and suggesting removal.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Field Identification
type: HazardousWasteFieldIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Field Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B supervised Technician A's sampling of drums on client property and received the field assessment of likely hazardous waste classification.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Field Identification Supervisory
type: HazardousWasteFieldIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Field Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Applied (deficiently) when Engineer B received Technician A's assessment and chose to instruct documentation-only rather than pursue analysis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Receipt of Technician A's professional assessment that drum contents would likely be classified as hazardous waste, which Engineer B then intentionally disregarded.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.892548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Regulatory Knowledge
type: HazardousWasteRegulatoryTransportandDisposalKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport and Disposal Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B received credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste and was obligated to direct analysis and notify regulatory authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure to apply regulatory knowledge when instructing documentation-only and suggesting removal without analysis or regulatory notification.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
textreferences: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
textreferences: certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.892697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Non-Deferral
type: HazardousWasteRegulatoryNotificationNon-DeferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Non-Deferral Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: Federal and state hazardous waste law (RCRA and state equivalents); NSPE Code Section I.1 (public safety paramount)
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment of likely hazardous waste classification
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.886613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport Disposal Knowledge
type: HazardousWasteRegulatoryTransportandDisposalKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport and Disposal Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B's firm was engaged in environmental consulting work on a client property where drums of potentially hazardous material were discovered.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Intentional Evidence Disregard Prohibition
type: IntentionalEvidenceDisregardProhibitionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Intentional Evidence Disregard Prohibition Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment and chose to instruct documentation-only rather than act on the assessment.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.893264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Intentional Hazardous Assessment Disregard Prohibition
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.3 (objectivity and truthfulness); NSPE Code Section I.1 (public safety paramount)
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B received Technician A's professional assessment through the client communication
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material'
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B No-Confidentiality-Agreement Heightened Culpability Self-Recognition
type: No-Confidentiality-AgreementHeightenedCulpabilitySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: No-Confidentiality-Agreement Heightened Culpability Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B suppressed hazardous waste findings without any confidentiality agreement, solely to preserve the client's ongoing business relationship with the firm.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.902314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B No-Confidentiality-Promise Affirmative Suppression Aggravated Culpability
type: No-Confidentiality-PromiseAffirmativeSuppressionAggravatedCulpabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: No-Confidentiality-Promise Affirmative Suppression Aggravated Culpability Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 distinguished
sourcetext: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B directed Technician A to merely document samples and communicated findings using vague language to the client
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.899007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Non-Association Unlawful Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilitation
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.d (non-association with fraudulent enterprise)
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B suggested removal of drum contents without regulatory notification or analysis
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Passive Safety Acquiescence Hazardous Waste
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; NSPE Code Section II.1.c (non-aiding unlawful conduct)
sourcetext: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's handling of the hazardous waste discovery
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Escalation Hazardous Waste
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Required when Engineer B received credible field evidence of likely hazardous waste and was obligated to notify proper federal and state authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
textreferences: certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.893448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Hazardous Waste
type: PublicSafetyParamountOverConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5
sourcetext: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B received credible evidence of likely hazardous waste through the client's unregulated removal
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Hazardous Waste Escalation
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B prioritized client business relationship preservation over mandatory regulatory reporting of likely hazardous waste, in direct violation of the paramount public safety obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:29:11.506985+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's handling of the hazardous drum discovery
textreferences: Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.900818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Technically True Misleading Questionable Material Statement
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: We believe that this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B informing client about 'questionable material' before client contacting another firm to remove the material
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed. The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
from entity text: Engineer B informing client about 'questionable material'
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: client contacting another firm to remove the material
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: client contacting another firm to remove the mater
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B instructing Technician A to only document samples before Engineer B informing the client about 'questionable material'
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples... Thereafter, Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material'.
from entity text: Engineer B instructing Technician A to only document samples
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B informing the client about 'questionable material'
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B informing the client about questionabl
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Environmental-Impact-Disclosure-Standard
type: EnvironmentalImpactDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
usedby: Engineer B (obligation bearer who used euphemistic disclosure)
usedincontext: 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.
version: N/A — ontology class
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.881633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Federal-State-Hazardous-Waste-Notification-Law
type: EnvironmentalComplianceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: U.S. EPA / State environmental agencies
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Federal and State Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Requirements (RCRA and analogous state law)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Environmental Compliance Standard
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Technician A (aware of legal obligations), Engineer B (directing action contrary to these obligations)
usedincontext: 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.
version: Applicable at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.881210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Hazardous Waste Suspicion Arises
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: HazardousWaste_Identification_Protocol_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
activates constraint: RCRA_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: Regulatory_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
causes state change: Site status elevated from routine assessment to potential hazardous waste incident; all subsequent actions now subject to environmental law and professional ethics constraints
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Ensure_Proper_Containment
creates obligation: Escalate_To_Qualified_Supervisor
creates obligation: Initiate_Formal_Hazardous_Waste_Protocol
creates obligation: Notify_Regulatory_Authorities
creates obligation: Preserve_Sample_Integrity
emergency status: critical
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Immediately following Drum Sampling Execution
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: critical
comment: Upon sampling the drum contents, Technician A develops a reasonable suspicion that the material is hazardous waste, triggering mandatory regulatory and professional obligations. This is an automatic cognitive and legal trigger resulting directly from the sampling activity.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

II.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

III.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

III.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Improper Waste Removal Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Environmental_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
activates constraint: RCRA_Violation_Response_Constraint
activates constraint: Retroactive_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
causes state change: Hazardous waste has been physically removed and potentially improperly disposed of; regulatory violations have crystallized from potential to actual; legal liability for Engineer B, the firm, the client, and the second firm is now concrete; environmental harm may be irreversible
concept category: Event
creates obligation: All_Parties_Must_Preserve_Evidence
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Disclose_Role_In_Chain_Of_Events
creates obligation: Firm_Must_Cooperate_With_Any_Regulatory_Investigation
creates obligation: Immediate_Regulatory_Notification_Now_Mandatory
creates obligation: Remediation_Assessment_Required
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice; after client independently engages second firm
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: critical
comment: The client hires a second firm to remove the drum contents without proper hazardous waste notification or disposal procedures, resulting in a concrete regulatory violation and potential environmental harm that is the direct downstream consequence of Engineer B's incomplete disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
usedby: Engineer B (supervisor), Technician A (field technician)
usedincontext: 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.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.881062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-I-1
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section I.1 (Fundamental Canon: Hold Paramount Public Health and Safety)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's obligations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.884739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III-4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.4 (Professional Obligation: Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:57.000605+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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.)
textreferences: 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.)
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the confidentiality-safety tension
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.884873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Out-of-Scope-Safety-Finding-Reporting-Standard
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyFindingReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:44.060526+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
usedby: Technician A (discoverer of the hazardous finding), Engineer B (supervisor directing suppression)
usedincontext: 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.
version: N/A — ontology class
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.881798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Protocol Restriction Imposed on Technician
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Independent_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Subordinate_Ethical_Conflict_Constraint
activates constraint: Whistleblower_Consideration_Constraint
causes state change: Technician A is operationally blocked from fulfilling regulatory obligations; ethical and legal responsibility shifts upward to Engineer B; hazardous waste remains unaddressed on site
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Bears_Full_Ethical_Responsibility_For_Restriction
creates obligation: Firm_Exposed_To_Legal_Liability_For_Non_Compliance
creates obligation: Technician_A_Must_Consider_Independent_Reporting
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Immediately following Consulting Supervisor on Protocol and Restricting Documentation Only
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: high
comment: As an outcome of Engineer B's supervisory decision, Technician A is formally constrained from following proper hazardous waste protocols and is limited to documentation only, creating a gap between legal obligation and permitted action.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.894985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to merely inform the client of the presence of the drums and suggest that they be removed?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Did Engineer B have an ethical obligation to take further action?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.891980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.892447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.896019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.896050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.896080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.896111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.896142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.896172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.895672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Restricting Documentation Only
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Supervisor, consulting environmental engineering firm
foreseen unintended effects: Creation of legal and reputational risk for the firm and the client
foreseen unintended effects: Exposure of Technician A to ethical and potentially legal liability
foreseen unintended effects: Potential violation of federal and state hazardous waste laws
foreseen unintended effects: Public and environmental health risks from improper handling of likely hazardous material
guided by principle text: Honesty and transparency in professional practice
guided by principle text: Legal compliance as a baseline professional obligation
guided by principle text: Public safety and welfare as paramount professional duty (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate and calculated
intended outcome: Avoid triggering mandatory hazardous waste reporting and disposal obligations while preserving the client relationship and the firm's business interests
requires capability text: Environmental engineering judgment on material classification
requires capability text: Knowledge of hazardous waste regulatory framework
requires capability text: Professional communication with clients on legal compliance obligations
temporal marker: After Technician A consulted Engineer B; before any client communication
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: Duty not to engage in deceptive acts or acts contrary to the public interest (NSPE Code Section II.5.)
violates obligation text: Duty to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
violates obligation text: Duty to perform services only in areas of competence and to advise clients on legal obligations (NSPE Code Section II.2.)
violates obligation text: Federal and state hazardous waste regulatory notification and handling obligations
violates obligation text: Obligation to recommend proper analysis and inform client of legal hazardous waste disposal requirements
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B instructed Technician A to document only the existence of the samples and nothing further, deliberately stopping short of initiating hazardous waste analysis, regulatory notification, or proper disposal protocols. This was a conscious decision to limit the firm's formal engagement with the likely hazardous material.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Restricting Documentation Only (Action 3) + Vague Client Notification Decision (Action 4) → BER Ethical Violation Finding (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The Board of Ethical Review's analysis establishes, through reference to prior cases, that Engineer B's combined decisions to restrict documentation and provide vague client notification constituted violations of professional engineering ethics obligations
cause: Restricting Documentation Only (Action 3) + Vague Client Notification Decision (Action 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer B authorized full documentation and provided a professionally accurate hazard characterization to the client, no ethical violation finding would have been warranted, and the improper waste removal would likely have been prevented
effect: BER Ethical Violation Finding (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer B's deliberate restriction of documentation beyond mere existence notation
necessary factors: Engineer B's deliberate use of non-specific language in client notification despite possessing more precise professional information
necessary factors: Engineer B's knowledge of Technician A's professional hazardous waste suspicion prior to issuing restrictions
necessary factors: The causal link between Engineer B's decisions and the subsequent improper waste removal
necessary factors: The existence of applicable engineering ethics code provisions requiring honest and complete professional communication
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B (Consulting Supervisor)
sufficient factors: Knowledge of hazard + deliberate suppression of documentation + deliberately vague client notification + resulting harm from improper removal together constituted a sufficient basis for an ethical violation finding under engineering professional codes
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Restricting Documentation Only (Action 3) → Protocol Restriction Imposed on Technician (Event 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B instructed Technician A to document only the existence of the samples and nothing further, formally constraining Technician A from following standard hazardous waste reporting protocol
cause: Restricting Documentation Only (Action 3)
counterfactual: Without Engineer B's restrictive instruction, Technician A would have been free to follow standard hazardous waste documentation and reporting protocols, potentially triggering proper regulatory notification
effect: Protocol Restriction Imposed on Technician (Event 2)
necessary factors: Absence of override mechanism for subordinate ethical concerns
necessary factors: Engineer B's supervisory authority over Technician A
necessary factors: Explicit instruction limiting documentation scope
necessary factors: Technician A's professional obligation to follow supervisor directives
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B (Consulting Supervisor)
sufficient factors: Combination of supervisory authority + explicit restrictive instruction + Technician A's compliance obligation was sufficient to impose the protocol restriction
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Technician A
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; professional ethics obligations applicable to engineering technicians
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
temporalscope: From the moment Technician A received Engineer B's documentation-only instruction
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.891620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Hazardous Waste Field Identification
type: HazardousWasteFieldIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Field Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Applied when Technician A sampled drum contents on client property and assessed the likely hazardous waste classification of the material.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Formation and communication of professional opinion that drum contents would most likely be classified as hazardous waste based on past field experience.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Technician A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.892094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Hazardous Waste Regulatory Knowledge
type: HazardousWasteRegulatoryTransportandDisposalKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport and Disposal Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Applied when Technician A assessed the regulatory implications of the likely hazardous waste classification of the drum contents.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that if the material were confirmed as hazardous waste, certain legally mandated steps for transport, disposal, and authority notification would be required.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:22:31.254870+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Technician A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.892228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Supervisor Business-Motivated Suppression Instruction Non-Compliance
type: SupervisorBusiness-MotivatedSuppressionInstructionNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Technician A
constraintclass: Supervisor Business-Motivated Suppression Instruction Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:21:40.410013+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code provisions governing subordinate engineer conduct; professional ethics obligations applicable to engineering technicians
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
temporalscope: From the moment Technician A received Engineer B's documentation-only instruction
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.890787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Ethical Refusal
type: SupervisorDocumentation-OnlyInstructionEthicalRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Ethical Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: 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.
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:30:10.900506+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Technician A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.901226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A sampling drum contents before Technician A consulting Engineer B about what to do with samples
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums... Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
from entity text: Technician A sampling drum contents
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Technician A consulting Engineer B about what to do with samples
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Technician A consulting Engineer B about what to d
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A sampling drums before material removal by another firm
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Technician A samples the contents of drums... The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
from entity text: Technician A sampling drums
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: material removal by another firm
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: material removal by another firm
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Vague Client Notification Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Supervisor, consulting environmental engineering firm
foreseen unintended effects: Client would likely infer hazardous content from the term 'questionable material' but proceed without proper regulatory compliance
foreseen unintended effects: Continued environmental and public health risk
foreseen unintended effects: Improper removal and disposal by a third party without hazardous waste protocols
foreseen unintended effects: Long-term reputational and legal damage to the client that Engineer B's approach was ostensibly designed to protect
foreseen unintended effects: Potential legal liability for the client, the firm, and Engineer B personally
guided by principle text: Duty to serve the client's genuine long-term interests, including legal protection
guided by principle text: Engineer's responsibility not to be an accomplice to potentially unlawful action (BER discussion)
guided by principle text: Public safety and welfare as paramount (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
guided by principle text: Transparency and full disclosure as a foundation of professional integrity
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate and strategically evasive
intended outcome: Alert the client to the drums' presence in a manner that would prompt removal without formally triggering the firm's or the client's legal hazardous waste obligations, thereby protecting the business relationship while maintaining plausible deniability
requires capability text: Environmental engineering expertise to characterize material risk
requires capability text: Ethical judgment to distinguish between adequate and inadequate disclosure
requires capability text: Knowledge of hazardous waste regulatory requirements and client notification obligations
requires capability text: Professional communication skills for advising clients on legal compliance
temporal marker: After instructing Technician A to document only; before client hired a separate removal firm
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Duty not to engage in deceptive or misleading professional conduct (NSPE Code Section II.5.)
violates obligation text: Duty of honesty and full disclosure to clients on matters affecting their legal obligations
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid actions that make the engineer complicit in unlawful conduct (BER determination)
violates obligation text: Duty to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
violates obligation text: Federal and state hazardous waste notification obligations
violates obligation text: Obligation to recommend material analysis and inform client of hazardous waste legal requirements
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B chose to inform the client only that drums containing 'questionable material' were present on their property and suggested they be removed, deliberately omitting any explicit identification of likely hazardous waste classification, associated legal obligations, or the requirement for proper regulatory notification and disposal. This was a calculated act of obfuscation rather than full professional disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Vague Client Notification Decision (Action 4) → Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B chose to inform the client only that drums containing 'questionable material' were present, resulting in the client receiving ambiguous information insufficient to trigger proper hazardous waste handling procedures
cause: Vague Client Notification Decision (Action 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer B communicated a clear professional assessment of likely hazardous waste status with applicable regulatory references, the client would have had sufficient information to engage a properly qualified hazardous waste removal contractor
effect: Client Receives Vague Hazard Notice (Event 3)
necessary factors: Absence of any supplementary hazard classification or regulatory reference
necessary factors: Client's reasonable reliance on Engineer B's professional characterization
necessary factors: Deliberate selection of non-specific, non-technical language ('questionable material')
necessary factors: Engineer B's role as primary communicator to the client
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B (Consulting Supervisor)
sufficient factors: Deliberate vagueness in professional notification + client's lack of independent hazard knowledge + absence of regulatory language was sufficient to leave the client without actionable hazard information
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.903816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.423390+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425183+00:00
value: The paramount public welfare obligation requires active insistence, not passive compliance with client preference to ignore violations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427880+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426125+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426301+00:00
value: In all three cases, the public danger threshold was met, causing confidentiality to yield to the disclosure obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427968+00:00
value: Passive mention was held insufficient; active insistence or withdrawal was required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426216+00:00
value: Passive mention was held insufficient; active insistence or withdrawal was required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.423659+00:00
value: Passive mention was held insufficient; active insistence or withdrawal was required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425065+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.423918+00:00
value: Imminent danger threshold caused the attorney's confidentiality instruction to be ethically void.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425298+00:00
value: Immediate and imminent danger threshold was met, causing public welfare obligation to supersede attorney-directed confidentiality.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428052+00:00
value: Imminent danger threshold caused the attorney's confidentiality instruction to be ethically void.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426417+00:00
value: Imminent danger threshold caused the attorney's confidentiality instruction to be ethically void.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427640+00:00
value: Honesty in professional representations is not subject to dilution based on business relationship considerations; the engineer's communication must accurately reflect the professional assessment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428135+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation is not a recognized ethical justification for compromising safety communication; the violation is compounded by the commercial rather than principled motivation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426559+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation is not a recognized ethical justification for compromising safety communication; the violation is compounded by the commercial rather than principled motivation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428394+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428216+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation cannot justify vague hazard communication; the principle establishes that commercial motives are an independent ethical violation when they compromise safety communication.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426675+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation cannot justify vague hazard communication; the principle establishes that commercial motives are an independent ethical violation when they compromise safety communication.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424720+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426012+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427542+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation is not a recognized ethical justification for compromising safety communication; the violation is compounded by the commercial rather than principled motivation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424352+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426986+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425702+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424593+00:00
value: The engineer's duty to clearly characterize the hazard and identify legal obligations is non-negotiable regardless of business relationship considerations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425616+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427224+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427285+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427793+00:00
value: Environmental law violation reporting obligation is not discharged by oblique client notification; the engineer must ensure the regulatory framework is activated.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427157+00:00
value: Client-first confrontation is the initial step; regulatory escalation follows if the client fails to comply with legal disposal obligations after being clearly informed.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428343+00:00
value: The engineer's duty to clearly characterize the hazard and identify legal obligations is non-negotiable regardless of business relationship considerations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426778+00:00
value: No business relationship interest justifies subterfuge; the engineer must communicate clearly even when clarity is commercially uncomfortable.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424190+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation cannot justify vague hazard communication; the principle establishes that commercial motives are an independent ethical violation when they compromise safety communication.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428276+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425513+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424971+00:00
value: Environmental stewardship is a core domain-specific obligation for environmental engineers that cannot be subordinated to business relationship preservation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426843+00:00
value: Environmental stewardship is a core domain-specific obligation for environmental engineers that cannot be subordinated to business relationship preservation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425816+00:00
value: Environmental law violation reporting obligation is not discharged by oblique client notification; the engineer must ensure the regulatory framework is activated.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428494+00:00
value: Environmental stewardship is a core domain-specific obligation for environmental engineers that cannot be subordinated to business relationship preservation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.426923+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427069+00:00
value: Environmental law violation reporting obligation is not discharged by oblique client notification; the engineer must ensure the regulatory framework is activated.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424084+00:00
value: Business relationship preservation is not a recognized ethical justification for compromising safety communication; the violation is compounded by the commercial rather than principled motivation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425410+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427727+00:00
value: No business relationship interest justifies subterfuge; the engineer must communicate clearly even when clarity is commercially uncomfortable.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.424881+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427456+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.425928+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.428446+00:00
value: 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.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:47:10.427375+00:00
value: 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.

engineer discovering structural defects (BER Case 90-5) before attorney instructing engineer to maintain confidentiality (BER Case 90-5)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The engineer discovered serious structural defects... Upon reporting the findings to the attorney, the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential.
from entity text: engineer discovering structural defects (BER Case 90-5)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: attorney instructing engineer to maintain confidentiality (BER Case 90-5)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: attorney instructing engineer to maintain confiden
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

engineer performing structural tests (BER Case 89-7) before client confiding about electrical and mechanical deficiencies (BER Case 89-7)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The engineer performed several structural tests on the building... during the course of providing services, the client confided in the engineer that the building contained deficiencies.
from entity text: engineer performing structural tests (BER Case 89-7)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: client confiding about electrical and mechanical deficiencies (BER Case 89-7)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: client confiding about electrical and mechanical d
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

hazardous material removal by another firm before potential long-term reputational damage to client
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
from entity text: hazardous material removal by another firm
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: potential long-term reputational damage to client
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: potential long-term reputational damage to client
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 menti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 notificati

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 autho

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 obligat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 saf

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 trigge

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 r

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 regulator

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 c

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 'qu

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 v

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 obligati

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 profes

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 bus

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 f

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 disclos

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 anothe

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 noti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 — demon

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 path

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 sup

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 n

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 trigge

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 regulator

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 obligation

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 v

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 wa

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 'qu

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 regulator

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 collec

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 regardles

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 bus

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 pro

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 supp

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 noti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 supers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 notificati

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 obligat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 saf

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 approp

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: 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 path

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 supers

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 wa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 dr

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 commu

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 regulator

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 collec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 regardles

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 pro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 supp

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 approp

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 d

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 oblig

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 confidentialit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 aut

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 n

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 allo

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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 obligation

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: 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

tenants filing lawsuit (BER Case 90-5) before owner's attorney hiring engineer to inspect building (BER Case 90-5)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: 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.
from entity text: tenants filing lawsuit (BER Case 90-5)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: owner's attorney hiring engineer to inspect building (BER Case 90-5)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: owner s attorney hiring engineer to inspect buildi
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.904162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Building Sale Client
type: BuildingSaleConfidentiality-ImposingClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession Applied to BER 89-7 Structural Report
attributes: {'property_type': 'Occupied apartment building', 'sale_condition': 'As-is, no remediation planned', 'confidentiality_imposed': True}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'BER 89-7 Structural Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'discloses_violations_to', 'target': 'BER 89-7 Structural Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Building Sale Confidentiality-Imposing Client
sourcetext: the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is'
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
textreferences: the client confided in the engineer that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violated applicable codes and standards
textreferences: the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is'
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.880837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER Case 90-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:49:27.890412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Current Case Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client
type: HazardousWastePropertyOwnerClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Triggered by Confirmed Hazardous Material
attributes: {'hazardous_material_present': True, 'notified_obliquely': True, 'arranged_independent_removal': True, 'legal_disposal_obligations': True}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_under', 'target': 'Federal State and Local Environmental Laws'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the client would have the obligation of disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal state and local laws
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.886458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Suppressing Safety Report
type: ConfidentialityInstructionSuppressingSafetyReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From execution of confidentiality agreement through engineer's decision not to report code violations to third parties
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer
affectedparties: Public authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
stateclass: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
subject: Structural engineer bound by confidentiality agreement with client selling occupied building 'as is'
terminatedby: BER ruling that confidentiality obligation was superseded by paramount public safety duty
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
textreferences: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project
triggeringevent: Client's explicit confidentiality terms in the engagement agreement, combined with 'as is' sale instruction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.884058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Attorney-Directed Concealment of Imminent Structural Danger
type: Attorney-DirectedSafetyConcealmentinLitigationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engineer's discovery of serious structural defects through attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality as litigation material
affectedparties: Building owner
affectedparties: Court
affectedparties: Engineer (expert witness)
affectedparties: Retaining attorney
affectedparties: Tenants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants
stateclass: Attorney-Directed Safety Concealment in Litigation State
subject: Engineer retained as expert witness by building owner's attorney who discovers structural defects constituting immediate tenant safety threat
terminatedby: BER determination that attorney-client privilege claim was superseded by immediate and imminent danger to tenants
textreferences: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants
textreferences: 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
textreferences: any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
triggeringevent: Engineer's discovery of serious structural defects posing immediate threat to tenants, followed by attorney's confidentiality directive
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.884251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client Unregulated Hazardous Material Removal
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From client's engagement of another firm through completion of removal
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Federal and state regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Second removal firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: The client's self-arranged removal of drum contents without regulatory authority notification or oversight
terminatedby: Physical removal of drums by the client-engaged firm
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed
triggeringevent: Engineer B's vague advisory prompting client to independently arrange removal without regulatory guidance
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.883699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Drum Sample Suspected Hazardous Classification
type: SuspectedHazardousWasteUnanalyzedSampleState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Technician A collects samples and forms expert opinion through the client's unregulated removal of drums
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Federal and state regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Technician A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Suspected Hazardous Waste Unanalyzed Sample State
subject: Physical drum samples collected by Technician A on client property
terminatedby: Client contacts another firm and has material removed — though without confirmed regulatory analysis or proper authority notification, the underlying regulatory obligation arguably persists
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples
triggeringevent: Technician A's collection of drum samples and formation of expert opinion that contents would likely be classified as hazardous waste
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.882858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Conflict Over Hazardous Drums
type: Client-Interestvs.Public-InterestOpenConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's identification of drums through vague client advisory, persisting until proper regulatory notification is made
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Supervising engineer
affectedparties: Workers on property
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
subject: Engineer B's situation involving suspected hazardous drums on client property, where business relationship preservation motivated vague advisory rather than mandatory regulatory notification
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — BER analysis identifies ongoing ethical violation requiring corrective action
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Discovery of drums likely containing hazardous materials on client property, combined with supervisor directive to suppress regulatory notification for business retention
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.884424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Subordinate Compliance Dilemma
type: EmploymentPressureAbrogationofSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's instruction to Technician A through the conclusion of the client's removal of drums
affectedparties: Consulting firm
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Technician A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples
stateclass: Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation
subject: Technician A's professional position after receiving Engineer B's suppression instruction
terminatedby: Client's self-arranged removal — though Technician A's ethical obligation to escalate or refuse was never discharged
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.883544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician
type: EnvironmentalFieldSamplingTechnicianUnderEngineerSupervision
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right — Technician A
has obligation: Technician A Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
has obligation: Technician A Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
attributes: {'license': 'Non-licensed technician', 'specialty': 'Environmental field sampling', 'experiential_knowledge': 'Sufficient to assess likely hazardous classification of drum contents'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:13:21.320348+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:13:21.320348+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Consulting Environmental Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'samples_property_of', 'target': 'Client Hazardous Waste Property Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Environmental Field Sampling Technician Under Engineer Supervision
sourcetext: Technician A is a field technician employed by an consulting environmental engineering firm
textreferences: At the direction of his supervisor Engineer B, Technician A samples the contents of drums
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples
textreferences: Technician A is a field technician employed by an consulting environmental engineering firm
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.880326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
type: Out-of-ScopeCodeViolationDisclosureinOccupiedBuildingSaleState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engineer's discovery of client-disclosed electrical/mechanical deficiencies through completion of confidential structural report without third-party notification
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client/building owner
affectedparties: Engineer (structural)
affectedparties: Prospective purchasers
affectedparties: Public authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the client confided in the engineer that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violated applicable codes and standards
stateclass: Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale State
subject: Engineer retained to assess structural integrity of 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'
terminatedby: BER determination that engineer was ethically obligated to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities
textreferences: the client confided in the engineer that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violated applicable codes and standards
textreferences: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Client disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations during structural engagement, combined with 'as is' sale instruction and confidentiality agreement
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.883889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Regulatory Reporting
type: Business-RelationshipPreservationDisplacingSafetyReportingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's decision to prioritize client business relationship over regulatory reporting through the conclusion of the client's self-arranged removal
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Consulting firm
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Technician A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
stateclass: Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Safety Reporting State
subject: Engineer B's professional decision-making regarding hazardous drum reporting
terminatedby: Client's self-arranged removal — though the ethical violation of business-motivated suppression is not remediated by the client's independent action
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
triggeringevent: Engineer B's explicit invocation of the client's other business with the firm as justification for limiting action to a vague client advisory
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.883220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Confidentiality-Absent Business-Motivated Suppression Heightened Culpability
type: Confidentiality-AbsentBusiness-Relationship-MotivatedSuppressionHeightenedCulpabilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Regulatory Reporting
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination — Business Relationship Pressure on Engineer B
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Confidentiality-Absent Business-Relationship-Motivated Suppression Heightened Culpability Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of discovering, assessing, and communicating the drum findings to the client
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.898433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Client Notification
type: HazardousMaterialLegalDisposalObligationNotificationtoClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Vague Hazard Advisory Without Regulatory Notification
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification — Engineer B Failure
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Obligation Notification to Client Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time of client notification regarding the drum contents.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.888943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal
type: HazardousMaterialAnalysisRecommendationBeforeDisposalDirectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Drum Sample Suspected Hazardous Classification
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification Applied to Current Case
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Direction Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: Before any disposal recommendation was communicated to the client.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Non-Aiding Unlawful Hazardous Waste Disposal
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulEngineeringPracticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client Unregulated Hazardous Material Removal
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation — Hazardous Waste Discovery
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time of client notification and disposal suggestion.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.890279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Subterfuge Prohibition Hazardous Material Communication
type: Subterfuge-as-AccompliceProhibitioninHazardousMaterialCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Relationship-Driven Vague Hazard Communication
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition Applied to Engineer B Drum Communication
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Hazardous Material Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of communicating drum findings to the client
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.897260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities Applied to Engineer B
type: HazardousMaterialLegalObligationDisclosuretoRegulatoryAuthorities
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Drums of likely hazardous material on client property requiring federal and state regulatory notification
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client-First Confrontation Before External Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
invokedby: Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician
principleclass: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technically True But Misleading Statement — 'Questionable Material' Language
type: TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client notification language regarding drum contents
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
tensionresolution: The prohibition applies regardless of the engineer's motive; the overall impression conveyed by 'questionable material' falls far short of the honest characterization required.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.887268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Vague Hazard Advisory Without Regulatory Notification
type: HazardousMaterialPresenceWithoutRegulatoryNotificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's advisory to the client through the client's self-arranged removal without regulatory oversight
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Federal regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Technician A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed
stateclass: Hazardous Material Presence Without Regulatory Notification State
subject: Engineer B's communication to client regarding drum contents and the absence of regulatory authority notification
terminatedby: Client contacts another firm and has material removed — though regulatory notification obligation was never discharged
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed
textreferences: certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
triggeringevent: Engineer B informing the client of 'questionable material' and suggesting removal, without notifying federal or state authorities as legally required for hazardous waste
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.883394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer
type: Attorney-DirectedConfidentiality-BoundSafety-DiscoveringEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Invoked in BER 90-5
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 90-5 Structural Defect Concealment
has obligation: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Structural Safety
has obligation: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Imminent Structural Safety
attributes: {'retained_by': "Building owner's attorney", 'safety_defects_discovered': True, 'defects_part_of_existing_suit': False, 'complied_with_confidentiality': True, 'reported_to_authorities': False}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_protect', 'target': 'Building Tenants Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'BER 90-5 Retaining Attorney'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality-Bound Safety-Discovering Engineer
sourcetext: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants
textreferences: The engineer complies with the request
textreferences: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants
textreferences: the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential as it is part of the lawsuit
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.886157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification — Engineer B Failure
type: ClearHazardCharacterizationandLegalObligationNotificationtoClient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client notification regarding drum contents
appliedto: Client's legal obligations under hazardous waste law
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification to Client
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.887113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession Applied to BER 89-7 Structural Report
type: ConfidentialityAgreementNon-SupersessionofImminentDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Confidentiality agreement covering structural report that also contained safety violation information
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 89-7 Building Sale Client
invokedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: 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.'
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: In determining that it was unethical for the engineer not to report the safety violations to appropriate public authorities
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Artfully Misleading Questionable Material Statement
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Relationship-Driven Vague Hazard Communication
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — 'Questionable Material' Characterization
derived from principle: Technically True But Misleading Statement — 'Questionable Material' Language
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time of client notification.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Notification to Client
type: HazardousMaterialLegalDisposalObligationNotificationtoClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Vague Hazard Advisory Without Regulatory Notification
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification Applied to Current Case
derived from principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Triggered by Confirmed Hazardous Material
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Obligation Notification to Client Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of communicating drum findings to the client
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.898250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Affirmative Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition
type: HazardousWasteEnvironmentalWorkerandPublicDangerAffirmativeActionProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Motivated Regulatory Suppression Instruction
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Environmental Stewardship — Hazardous Waste Handling Context
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Hazardous Drum Discovery Current Case
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Waste Environmental Worker and Public Danger Affirmative Action Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the moment of directing Technician A's sample documentation through the client communication and failure to notify regulatory authorities
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.898569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Triggered by Confirmed Hazardous Material
type: EnvironmentalLawViolationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential hazardous waste drums on client property requiring regulatory disposal compliance
balancingwith: Client-First Confrontation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Current Case Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Client-first confrontation is the initial step; regulatory escalation follows if the client fails to comply with legal disposal obligations after being clearly informed.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.895907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations — 'Questionable Material' Characterization
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client notification language
appliedto: Professional characterization of drum contents
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations is not subject to dilution based on business relationship considerations; the engineer's communication must accurately reflect the professional assessment.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.888661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation in BER 89-7
type: InsistenceonClientRemedialActionorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied building
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
principleclass: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
sourcetext: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
tensionresolution: The paramount public welfare obligation requires active insistence, not passive compliance with client preference to ignore violations.
textreferences: The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further particularly because the Code uses the term 'paramount'
textreferences: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.895129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 89-7 Electrical Deficiency Non-Disclosure
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the Board, citing cases decided earlier, noted that the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment'
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.882521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 90-5 Structural Defect Concealment
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Serious structural defects in occupied apartment building under litigation
balancingwith: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure
balancingwith: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants.
tensionresolution: Immediate and imminent danger threshold was met, causing public welfare obligation to supersede attorney-directed confidentiality.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.882684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer B Hazardous Waste Oblique Notification
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision to notify client only with vague 'questionable material' language
appliedto: Discovery of drums of likely hazardous waste on client property
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.886775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination — Business Relationship Pressure on Engineer B
type: EngineerPressureResistanceandEthicalNon-SubordinationtoOrganizationalDemands
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision to limit hazardous waste response to preserve client business relationship
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.888509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities — Engineer B Failure
type: HazardousMaterialLegalObligationDisclosuretoRegulatoryAuthorities
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Discovery of likely hazardous waste drums
appliedto: Regulatory notification obligation under federal and state law
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.887966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Invoked in BER 90-5
type: Attorney-DirectedConfidentialityNon-OverrideofImminentStructuralSafetyDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Attorney instruction to maintain confidentiality over structural defects in litigated apartment building
balancingwith: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer
invokedby: BER 90-5 Retaining Attorney
principleclass: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Imminent danger threshold caused the attorney's confidentiality instruction to be ethically void.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.894803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal
type: ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Public Safety Reporting
prevails over: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation in BER 89-7
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
obligationclass: Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
temporalscope: Upon learning of electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violated applicable codes and standards
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Public Authority Safety Reporting
type: ConfidentialityScopeLimitationforPublicDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting
prevails over: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Public Safety Reporting
casecontext: Engineer bound by confidentiality agreement; client disclosed code violations posing occupant injury risk; engineer did not report to any third parties.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 89-7 Electrical Deficiency Non-Disclosure
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
obligationclass: Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
temporalscope: Upon determining that the electrical and mechanical deficiencies could cause injury to building occupants
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Structural Safety
type: Attorney-DirectedConfidentialityNon-OverrideofImminentOccupantSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Imminent Structural Safety
prevails over: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Imminent Structural Safety
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 90-5 Structural Defect Concealment
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer
obligationclass: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Occupant Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants.
temporalscope: Upon discovering serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety
textreferences: The engineer discovered serious structural defects in the building which he believed constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse — Engineer B Client Communication
type: BusinessRelationshipPreservationNon-ExcuseforSafetyCommunicationAdequacy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Communication to client about drum contents
appliedto: Decision not to analyze samples or clearly characterize the hazard
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Business relationship preservation cannot justify vague hazard communication; the principle establishes that commercial motives are an independent ethical violation when they compromise safety communication.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.886933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Applied to Engineer B
type: ClientLong-TermInterestProtectionThroughLegalComplianceAdvisory
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's long-term legal exposure from undisclosed hazardous material on property
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.895757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Advisory
type: ClientLong-TermInterestProtectionThroughLegalComplianceAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
prevails over: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of communicating drum findings to the client and deciding the scope of advisory communication
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.898083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation to Client
type: HazardousMaterialAnalysisRecommendationBeforeDisposalDirectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Characterization Prohibition
prevails over: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Characterization Prohibition
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification Applied to Current Case
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Direction Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Technician A's assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: To do less would be unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.897104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation — Hazardous Waste Discovery
type: EnvironmentalLawViolationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's subsequent unverified removal of material
appliedto: Discovery of likely hazardous waste drums on client property
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Environmental law violation reporting obligation is not discharged by oblique client notification; the engineer must ensure the regulatory framework is activated.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.887429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship — Hazardous Waste Handling Context
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision not to analyze samples or notify regulatory authorities
appliedto: Environmental engineering firm's response to discovered likely hazardous waste
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
invokedby: Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Technician A is a field technician employed by an consulting environmental engineering firm.
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship is a core domain-specific obligation for environmental engineers that cannot be subordinated to business relationship preservation.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Technician A is a field technician employed by an consulting environmental engineering firm.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.887620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits — Engineer B Suppression of Analysis
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision to limit firm's response to client notification only
appliedto: Direction to Technician A regarding sample handling
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.887786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure in BER 89-7
type: PassiveAcquiescenceAfterSafetyNotificationasIndependentEthicalFailure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations disclosed by client during structural engagement
balancingwith: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
principleclass: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
sourcetext: 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.'
tensionresolution: Passive mention was held insufficient; active insistence or withdrawal was required.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the engineer 'did not force the issue but instead went along without dissent or comment'
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.894974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Hazardous Drum Discovery Current Case
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Drums of potentially hazardous material on client property posing environmental and public health risk
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.893918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
type: Confidentiality-BoundStructuralSafetyDiscoveringEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
adheres to principle: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation in BER 89-7
adheres to principle: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure in BER 89-7
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER 89-7 Electrical Deficiency Non-Disclosure
has obligation: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal
has obligation: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Public Safety Reporting
has obligation: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting
has obligation: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Public Authority Safety Reporting
attributes: {'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'safety_finding_disclosed_to_client': True, 'reported_to_authorities': False}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_protect', 'target': 'Building Occupants Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'BER 89-7 Building Sale Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
sourcetext: an engineer was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: an engineer was retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
textreferences: the engineer did realize that those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informed the client
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.885655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse Applied to Engineer B
type: BusinessRelationshipPreservationNon-ExcuseforSafetyCommunicationAdequacy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's decision to use vague language and avoid regulatory notification to preserve client relationship
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Client Communication
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Business relationship preservation is not a recognized ethical justification for compromising safety communication; the violation is compounded by the commercial rather than principled motivation.
textreferences: Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.895437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure — Hazardous Waste Context
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential confidentiality argument for not notifying regulatory authorities about likely hazardous waste
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.888362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business-Motivated Regulatory Suppression Instruction
type: Supervisor-DirectedRegulatoryNotificationSuppressionforBusinessRetentionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's instruction to only document samples through Engineer B's vague client advisory and the client's self-arranged removal
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Consulting firm
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Federal and state regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Technician A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:14:18.092113+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples
stateclass: Supervisor-Directed Regulatory Notification Suppression for Business Retention State
subject: Engineer B's supervisory direction to Technician A regarding drum samples
terminatedby: Client independently arranges removal through another firm — though proper regulatory notification was never made, leaving the suppression state's ethical consequences unresolved
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples
textreferences: since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.883025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business-Relationship-Driven Vague Hazard Communication
type: Business-RelationshipPreservationDisplacingSafetyReportingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's identification of drums through vague advisory to client, without explicit recommendation for analysis or regulatory reporting
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Workers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:15.837630+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Safety Reporting State
subject: 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
terminatedby: BER analysis concludes Engineer B must bring matter to client's attention with explicit recommendation for analysis and proper regulatory disposal
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Supervisor directive to suppress regulatory notification combined with Engineer B's business-relationship preservation motivation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.884603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Suppression
type: HazardousWasteSampleAnalysisDirectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Intentional Sample Analysis Disregard Prohibition
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Motivated Regulatory Suppression Instruction
prevails over: Engineer B Intentional Sample Analysis Disregard Prohibition
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits — Engineer B Suppression of Analysis
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Technician A's assessment that the drum contents were likely hazardous waste and before any disposal recommendation was made.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.888806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Safety Obligation Hazardous Waste Public Welfare
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Regulatory Reporting
prevails over: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Regulatory Reporting
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Hazardous Drum Discovery Current Case
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer B Hazardous Waste Oblique Notification
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement from sample collection through client notification.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.890110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition Applied to Engineer B Drum Communication
type: Subterfuge-as-AccompliceProhibitioninClientCommunication
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Communication to client about drums of potentially hazardous material on client property
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification to Client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Client Communication
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: No business relationship interest justifies subterfuge; the engineer must communicate clearly even when clarity is commercially uncomfortable.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.895283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
type: SupervisorSample-Documentation-OnlyInstructionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Technician A Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Motivated Regulatory Suppression Instruction
prevails over: Technician A Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
casecontext: Technician A, possessing independent knowledge that likely hazardous waste triggers mandatory regulatory reporting, accepted Engineer B's documentation-only instruction without independent escalation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right — Technician A
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Technician A
obligationclass: Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer B's instruction to document samples only and not to analyze them.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting
type: PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Public Authority Safety Reporting
defeasible under: BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure in BER 89-7
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
obligationclass: Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon receiving client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies during the course of professional services
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Regulatory Reporting
type: BusinessRelationshipNon-SubordinationofHazardousMaterialDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Safety Obligation Hazardous Waste Public Welfare
defeasible under: Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Regulatory Reporting
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination — Business Relationship Pressure on Engineer B
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Business Relationship Non-Subordination of Hazardous Material Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Technician A's assessment and deciding on the firm's response to the hazardous waste discovery.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Confidentiality Non-Override Public Danger Hazardous Waste
type: ConfidentialityScopeLimitationforPublicDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification
defeasible under: Engineer B Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Conflict Over Hazardous Drums
prevails over: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure — Hazardous Waste Context
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: Upon professional determination that drum contents were likely hazardous waste.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Characterization Prohibition
type: Subterfuge-as-AccompliceProhibitioninHazardousMaterialCommunicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation to Client
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Relationship-Driven Vague Hazard Communication
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition Applied to Engineer B Drum Communication
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Hazardous Material Communication Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
temporalscope: At the time of client notification regarding the drum contents.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Intentional Sample Analysis Disregard Prohibition
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Suppression
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Motivated Regulatory Suppression Instruction
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits — Engineer B Suppression of Analysis
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Technician A's assessment of the drum contents.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.889508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Technician A Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
type: SupervisorSample-Documentation-OnlyInstructionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Technician A Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal
defeasible under: Technician A Subordinate Compliance Dilemma
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right — Technician A
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Technician A
obligationclass: Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer B's instruction to merely document samples without analysis or further regulatory action
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.898708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Public Safety Reporting
type: ConfidentialityNon-OverrideofImminentStructuralSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal
defeasible under: BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Suppressing Safety Report
defeasible under: BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
obligationclass: Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
temporalscope: Upon determining that the electrical and mechanical deficiencies could cause injury to building occupants
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.898845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Imminent Structural Safety
type: ConfidentialityNon-OverrideofImminentStructuralSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Structural Safety
defeasible under: BER 90-5 Attorney-Directed Concealment of Imminent Structural Danger
casecontext: Forensic engineer discovered structural defects posing immediate threat; attorney directed confidentiality; engineer complied rather than notifying public authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Invoked in BER 90-5
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer
obligationclass: Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon discovering structural defects constituting immediate threat to tenant safety and receiving attorney's confidentiality instruction
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.896960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification Applied to Current Case
type: ClearHazardCharacterizationandLegalObligationNotificationtoClient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Drums of potentially hazardous material discovered on client property
balancingwith: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
balancingwith: Client-First Confrontation Before External Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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).
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification to Client
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: The engineer's duty to clearly characterize the hazard and identify legal obligations is non-negotiable regardless of business relationship considerations.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.895606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification
type: HazardousWasteFederalandStateAuthorityNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
competes with: Engineer B Confidentiality Non-Override Public Danger Hazardous Waste
prevails over: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities Applied to Engineer B
derived from principle: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities — Engineer B Failure
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:19:38.832481+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Hazardous Waste Federal and State Authority Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon professional determination that drum contents were likely hazardous waste, before any disposal action was taken.
textreferences: Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The client contacts another firm and has the material removed.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.897546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right — Technician A
type: SubordinateEngineerIndependentSafetyEscalationRightWhenSupervisorDirectionIsEthicallyDeficient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Technician A's knowledge of legal obligations triggered by likely hazardous waste
appliedto: Technician A's response to Engineer B's direction to only document samples
balancingwith: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:17:34.345863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Technician A Environmental Field Sampling Technician
principleclass: Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right When Supervisor Direction Is Ethically Deficient
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.888206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Electrical/mechanical code violations in occupied building
appliedto: Hazardous material drums on client property
appliedto: Structural defects in litigated building
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:24:49.228652+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
invokedby: BER 90-5 Forensic Engineer
invokedby: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context.
tensionresolution: In all three cases, the public danger threshold was met, causing confidentiality to yield to the disclosure obligation.
textreferences: any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
textreferences: the Board reaffirmed the basic principle articulated in BER Case 89-7
textreferences: we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.894133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
type: BusinessRelationshipNon-SubordinationofHazardousMaterialDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Advisory
competes with: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification
defeasible under: Engineer B Business-Relationship-Driven Vague Hazard Communication
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse Applied to Engineer B
derived from principle: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse — Engineer B Client Communication
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Business Relationship Non-Subordination of Hazardous Material Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon receiving field evidence that drums likely contained hazardous waste and deciding how to communicate findings to the client
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.897401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction

Engineer B Hazardous Waste Supervisor
type: Business-Relationship-PreservingHazardousWasteSupervisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse — Engineer B Client Communication
adheres to principle: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification Applied to Current Case
adheres to principle: Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification — Engineer B Failure
adheres to principle: Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure — Hazardous Waste Context
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Invoked Across All Three Cases
adheres to principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination — Business Relationship Pressure on Engineer B
adheres to principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation — Hazardous Waste Discovery
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship — Hazardous Waste Handling Context
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits — Engineer B Suppression of Analysis
adheres to principle: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities — Engineer B Failure
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — 'Questionable Material' Characterization
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Hazardous Drum Discovery Current Case
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer B Hazardous Waste Oblique Notification
adheres to principle: Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition Applied to Engineer B Drum Communication
adheres to principle: Technically True But Misleading Statement — 'Questionable Material' Language
has obligation: Engineer B Artfully Misleading Questionable Material Statement
has obligation: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Regulatory Reporting
has obligation: Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Material Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer B Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Advisory
has obligation: Engineer B Confidentiality-Absent Business-Motivated Suppression Heightened Culpability
has obligation: Engineer B Confidentiality Non-Override Public Danger Hazardous Waste
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation to Client
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Client Notification
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Notification to Client
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Affirmative Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Characterization Prohibition
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Federal State Authority Notification
has obligation: Engineer B Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Suppression
has obligation: Engineer B Intentional Sample Analysis Disregard Prohibition
has obligation: Engineer B Non-Aiding Unlawful Hazardous Waste Disposal
has obligation: Engineer B Safety Obligation Hazardous Waste Public Welfare
has obligation: Engineer B Subterfuge Prohibition Hazardous Material Communication
attributes: {'confidentiality_agreement': False, 'primary_motivation': 'Preserving business relationship with client', 'communication_of_hazard': 'Oblique/indirect only', 'recommended_analysis': False, 'reported_to_authorities': False}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 149
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 149
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T12:15:14.387812+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_protect', 'target': 'Workers and Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Current Case Hazardous Waste Property Owner Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Environmental Field Sampling Technician Under Engineer Supervision'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public
textreferences: Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public
textreferences: 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
textreferences: This subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 149 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:35:30.886313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 149 Extraction