ProEthica Case 175 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.588168
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

1990 Clean Air Act enactment before Engineer A's permit review
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act
from entity text: 1990 Clean Air Act enactment
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's permit review
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s permit review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Air-Pollution-Emissions-Permit-Standard-Discussion
type: AirPollutionEmissionsPermitStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Federal and state regulatory authorities
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Federal and State Air Pollution Emissions Permit Regulatory Requirements
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Air Pollution Emissions Permit Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
usedby: Engineer A in assessing whether to issue the permit; state licensing board in advising Engineer A
usedincontext: The regulatory framework governing whether the permit could lawfully be issued forms the technical and legal backdrop against which Engineer A's refusal to sign off is evaluated; Engineer A's concern that approval would violate applicable regulations is the core ethical trigger
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER-Case-65-12
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 65-12
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
textreferences: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit
usedincontext: Cited as early precedent establishing that engineers are ethically justified in refusing to participate in production of a product they believe to be unsafe, even at risk of loss of employment
version: 1965
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER-Case-82-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 82-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review to contrast with the present case and BER 88-6
usedincontext: Cited to distinguish cases involving personal conscience from those involving direct public health and safety impact; established that engineers have an ethical right (but not always a duty) to blow the whistle on employer misconduct, potentially at the cost of employment
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER-Case-88-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 88-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, in BER Case 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works…
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works…
textreferences: The reason for our position in BER Case 88-6 was that the engineer's failure to bring the problems to the attention of the 'proper authorities' made it more probable that danger would ultimately result to the public health, safety and welfare.
textreferences: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical basis for evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the closest analogical precedent: a city engineer who failed to escalate water pollution violations to state authorities was found to have failed her ethical obligations; used to frame Engineer A's duty to escalate and the limits of that duty when proper authorities are already aware
version: 1988
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 65-12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal Capability
type: PublicInterestTechnicalPositionPersistenceUnderInstitutionalOverrideCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Technical Position Persistence Under Institutional Override Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER 65-12 engineers demonstrated the capability to maintain their professional position that a product was unsafe and to refuse to participate in its processing or production, even knowing this would likely lead to loss of employment
casecontext: BER 65-12 referenced case involving engineers who believed a product was unsafe and refused to participate in its processing or production
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product they believed to be unsafe, as long as they held to that view
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 65-12 Unsafe Product Refusing Engineers
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question. The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
textreferences: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question. The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal Non-Withdrawal
type: Safety-ImplicatedPermitRefusalEngagementNon-WithdrawalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A group of engineers believed a product was unsafe; the Board determined they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production as long as they held that view, recognizing the likely employment consequences
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: BER Case 65-12 Engineers
constraintclass: Safety-Implicated Permit Refusal Engagement Non-Withdrawal Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER Case 65-12 engineers who believed a product was unsafe were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product — and were constrained to maintain that refusal as long as they held the view that the product was unsafe — even though such action would likely lead to loss of employment.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 65-12
sourcetext: the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
temporalscope: Throughout the period during which the engineers held the view that the product was unsafe
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
textreferences: The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
textreferences: the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.611946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right
type: Non-Public-SafetyWhistleblowingPersonalConscienceRightRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER 82-5 engineer correctly recognized that his concern about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors — not involving public health or safety danger — gave him an ethical right but not a mandatory duty to continue escalation after employer rejection, and that exercising this right was a matter of personal conscience
casecontext: BER 82-5 referenced case involving a defense industry engineer who documented excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors and reported to his employer, which rejected his reports
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's ruling that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue efforts to secure a change in policy after employer rejection, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, with the Board noting the case did not involve danger to public health or safety
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 82-5 Defense Industry Whistleblower Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Non-Safety Personal Conscience Whistleblowing
type: Non-SafetyConcernMandatoryEscalationNon-CompulsionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Defense industry engineer documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors to employer; employer rejected reports; Board ruled no mandatory obligation to continue or escalate because no public health or safety danger was involved
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: BER Case 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer
constraintclass: Non-Safety Concern Mandatory Escalation Non-Compulsion Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER Case 82-5 defense industry engineer who documented excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors was not ethically obligated to continue internal advocacy or report to proper authorities after his employer rejected his reports — because the case did not involve public health or safety danger — but retained a personal conscience right to do so, accepting the risk of employment consequences.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 82-5
sourcetext: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
temporalscope: After employer rejected engineer's reports on excessive costs and time delays
textreferences: The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
textreferences: the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: the Board was unwilling to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue the campaign within the company, and make the issue one for public discussion.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.612099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Inaction Accessory Liability Proper Authority Non-Identification
type: InactionAccessoryLiabilityProperAuthorityNon-IdentificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City engineer noticed sewage overflow capacity problems required to be reported to state water pollution control authorities; discussed with city council; was warned by city administrator to report only to him; was relieved of responsibility; continued working without escalating to state authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: BER Case 88-6 City Engineer/Director of Public Works
constraintclass: Inaction Accessory Liability Proper Authority Non-Identification Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER 88-6 city engineer was constrained to recognize that after several unsuccessful attempts to modify the views of local officials regarding sewage overflow reporting obligations, the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials but state water pollution control authorities — and that continued inaction after this recognition made the engineer an accessory to the ongoing legal violation.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council.
temporalscope: After multiple unsuccessful internal escalation attempts to city officials
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew or should have known that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials.
textreferences: Said the Board, the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others.
textreferences: the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.611313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Proper External Authority Identification Failure
type: ProperExternalAuthorityIdentificationAfterInternalEscalationFailureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Proper External Authority Identification After Internal Escalation Failure Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER 88-6 city engineer failed to correctly identify that after multiple failed internal escalation attempts, the 'proper authorities' were not the unresponsive city officials but rather state water pollution control authorities, and failed to escalate accordingly — making her an accessory to the ongoing violation
casecontext: BER 88-6 referenced case involving a city engineer who discovered sewage overflow capacity problems, attempted multiple internal escalation steps, but failed to escalate to state water pollution control authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that the engineer knew or should have known that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials but more probably state officials, and that her inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew or should have known that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials.
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew or should have known that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials.
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Public Interest Technical Position Persistence Failure
type: PublicInterestTechnicalPositionPersistenceUnderInstitutionalOverrideCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Technical Position Persistence Under Institutional Override Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER 88-6 city engineer failed to adequately exercise the capability to persist in representing the public interest after multiple failed internal escalation attempts, continuing to work as city engineer without escalating to state water pollution control authorities — the proper authorities — thereby becoming an accessory to the ongoing violation
casecontext: BER 88-6 referenced case involving a city engineer who discovered sewage overflow capacity problems and failed to escalate to state water pollution control authorities after local officials were unresponsive
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that the city engineer's inaction after being relieved of responsibility for disposal plants permitted a serious violation of law to continue, making the engineer an accessory to the city administrator's actions
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In ruling that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the city administrator and certain members of the city council of her concern, the Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council.
textreferences: In ruling that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the city administrator and certain members of the city council of her concern, the Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council.
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 88-6 vs Engineer A Media Coverage Factual Distinction
type: BERPrecedentPublicSafetyvsNon-SafetyFactualThresholdDistinguishingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board found Engineer A's situation similar to BER 88-6 in involving direct public health and safety impact, but distinguished it on the ground that BER 88-6 involved hidden issues while Engineer A's case involved publicly known and investigated facts
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: BER Ethics Review Board
constraintclass: BER Precedent Public Safety vs Non-Safety Factual Threshold Distinguishing Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was constrained to distinguish Engineer A's case from BER Case 88-6 on the factual ground that BER 88-6 involved issues hidden from public note requiring mandatory escalation to state authorities, while Engineer A's case involved facts already receiving media coverage and under active state investigation — making the mandatory external escalation obligation discharged in Engineer A's case but not in BER 88-6.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 88-6; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
temporalscope: Throughout the BER analysis of Engineer A's case
textreferences: The reason for our position in BER Case 88-6 was that the engineer's failure to bring the problems to the attention of the 'proper authorities' made it more probable that danger would ultimately result to the public health, safety and welfare.
textreferences: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
textreferences: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.612300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Board BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation
type: BERThree-PrecedentPublicHealthSafetyThresholdTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to triangulate among three precedent cases to identify the public-health-danger threshold as the critical variable determining whether escalation is mandatory or merely a personal conscience right
casecontext: BER analysis of Engineer A's ethical obligations as a state regulatory engineer who refused to issue a construction permit on Clean Air Act compliance grounds
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: The Board's systematic comparison of BER 65-12, BER 82-5, and BER 88-6, identifying the factual variable (presence or absence of direct public health danger) that determines the normative category, and applying that framework to Engineer A's case
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review (Ethics Reviewing Body)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review has examined this issue over the years in differing contexts.
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review has examined this issue over the years in differing contexts.
textreferences: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6. This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.608372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Board Media-Coverage-Conditioned Mandatory Escalation Discharge Assessment
type: Media-Coverage-ConditionedMandatoryEscalationDischargeAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Media-Coverage-Conditioned Mandatory Escalation Discharge Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to assess that media coverage and an active state investigation discharged Engineer A's mandatory escalation obligation, distinguishing this from BER 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note
casecontext: BER analysis of whether Engineer A retained a mandatory duty to report to proper authorities after the permit dispute became publicly known through media coverage
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The Board's factual distinction between BER 88-6 (issues hidden from public) and Engineer A's case (media coverage, active investigation), and its conclusion that further reporting would be a useless act
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review (Ethics Reviewing Body)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The reason for our position in BER Case 88-6 was that the engineer's failure to bring the problems to the attention of the 'proper authorities' made it more probable that danger would ultimately result to the public health, safety and welfare. Here, the circumstances are presumably already known to appropriate public officials.
textreferences: The reason for our position in BER Case 88-6 was that the engineer's failure to bring the problems to the attention of the 'proper authorities' made it more probable that danger would ultimately result to the public health, safety and welfare. Here, the circumstances are presumably already known to appropriate public officials.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.608720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Case 65-12 before BER Case 82-5
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: As early as case BER 65-12... In BER Case 82-5... More recently, in BER Case 88-6
from entity text: BER Case 65-12
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 82-5
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 82-5
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Case 82-5 before BER Case 88-6
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In BER Case 82-5... More recently, in BER Case 88-6
from entity text: BER Case 82-5
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 88-6
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 88-6
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Case 88-6 before Current Engineer A case
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More recently, in BER Case 88-6... Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
from entity text: BER Case 88-6
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Current Engineer A case
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Current Engineer A case
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementBetweenQualifiedEngineersNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER ethics reviewing body demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process met Clean Air Act standards — and that this constituted an honest technical disagreement between qualified engineers rather than an ethical violation by either party.
casecontext: Applied in the BER's ethical analysis of the case, distinguishing technical disagreement from professional misconduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Ethics analysis finding that the superior's different technical conclusion did not constitute unethical conduct, and that Engineer A's refusal was ethically justified without implying the superior acted unethically
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER Ethics Reviewing Body
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.600546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Case 175 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 6
total elements: 12
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

CausalLink_Department Authorizes Permit O
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer Assesses Plan Inadequ
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer Consults Registration
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer Refuses to Issue Perm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

CausalLink_Superior Endorses Fluidized Bo
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

CausalLink_Superior Orders Expedited Perm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

City administrator warning engineer (BER 88-6) before Engineer discussing problem again informally with city council (BER 88-6)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: (3) being warned by the city administrator to only report the problem to him, (4) discussing the problem again informally with the city council
from entity text: City administrator warning engineer (BER 88-6)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer discussing problem again informally with city council (BER 88-6)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer discussing problem again informally with
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

City engineer noticing overflow problems (BER 88-6) before City engineer discussing problem with city council (BER 88-6)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: After (1) noticing problems with overflow capacity which are required to be reported to the state water pollution control authorities, (2) discussing the problem privately with members of the city council
from entity text: City engineer noticing overflow problems (BER 88-6)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: City engineer discussing problem with city council (BER 88-6)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: City engineer discussing problem with city council
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Clean Air Act 1990 Air Pollution Standards
type: AirPollutionEmissionsPermitStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: U.S. Congress; implemented by EPA and state environmental agencies
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 — Air Pollution Standards (Sulphur Dioxide Emissions)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Air Pollution Emissions Permit Standard
sourcetext: issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act
textreferences: issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act
usedby: Engineer A (state environmental protection division)
usedincontext: Engineer A invokes these standards as the binding regulatory basis for his conclusion that the permit as drafted cannot lawfully be issued without outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions
version: 1990 Amendments
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.588493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Clean Air Act Regulatory Compliance Context
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the permit issuance process and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Legal compliance framework governing SO2 emissions from the proposed power plant under the 1990 Clean Air Act
terminatedby: Not terminated within case facts
textreferences: without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
triggeringevent: Application for construction permit for power plant subject to 1990 Clean Air Act air pollution standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Clean Air Act Standards Exist
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Federal_Regulatory_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicHealth_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: All permit-related decisions are now legally constrained by federal sulphur dioxide standards; non-compliance is not a discretionary option
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Protect_Public_From_Emissions_Harm
creates obligation: Refuse_NonCompliant_Permit
creates obligation: Verify_Permit_Compliance_With_CAA
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Pre-existing condition; relevant at the point Engineer A begins drafting the permit
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: high
comment: The 1990 Clean Air Act establishes binding federal sulphur dioxide emission standards that apply to the power plant under review, creating a non-negotiable regulatory baseline independent of any party's preferences.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: II.1.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that it was ethical for Engineer A to refuse to issue the permit, Engineer A's prior consultation with the state engineering registration board before refusing represents a model of professional prudence that itself carries independent ethical weight. By proactively seeking guidance on the license implications of issuing a potentially non-compliant permit, Engineer A demonstrated that his refusal was grounded in both public welfare and informed professional judgment rather than mere personal preference or institutional insubordination. This sequence — assess, consult, document, refuse — establishes a procedural standard for regulatory engineers facing superior pressure to approve questionable permits. The Board's analysis implicitly endorses this sequence but does not articulate it as a replicable framework, leaving a gap in guidance for similarly situated engineers. The ethical force of Engineer A's refusal is strengthened, not weakened, by the fact that the registration board's advisory about license revocation risk confirmed rather than originated his professional duty; the duty to refuse was grounded in the Clean Air Act compliance obligation and the NSPE Code's requirement to approve only documents conforming to applicable standards, and the board consultation merely validated what Engineer A's own technical assessment had already indicated.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project reveals an important but underexplored distinction between permissible disassociation and impermissible abandonment. While the NSPE Code permits engineers to disassociate from professionally compromising situations, withdrawal in this context would have functioned as a form of passive acquiescence: it would have removed the only technically qualified internal voice opposing a permit that Engineer A had affirmatively determined to be non-compliant with Clean Air Act SO2 standards. The ethical prohibition on withdrawal is therefore not absolute — it is context-dependent and turns on whether the engineer's continued presence constitutes the sole or primary mechanism by which public safety concerns remain formally on the record within the regulatory process. In this case, Engineer A's documented refusal and formal submission of findings to his superior created a record that ultimately contributed to state investigation and media scrutiny. Had Engineer A withdrawn instead, that record would not have existed, and the department's override would have faced no documented internal dissent. This analysis extends the Board's reasoning by clarifying that the ethical duty to remain engaged is proportional to the degree to which the engineer's continued participation is necessary to preserve public accountability mechanisms, and that withdrawal becomes ethically impermissible precisely when it would eliminate the only internal check on a potentially dangerous regulatory decision.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to issue the permit under superior pressure raises a nuance the Board does not fully resolve: the ethical analysis of the permit refusal cannot be entirely separated from the question of what Engineer A was obligated to do after the department overrode his refusal. The Board treats the refusal as the terminal ethical act, but the case facts — state investigation, media coverage, and active regulatory scrutiny — suggest that Engineer A's ethical obligations did not end with his documented refusal and submission of findings to his superior. Drawing on the distinction established in BER Case 82-5 versus BER Case 88-6, the Board implicitly acknowledges that whistleblowing to external authorities is a matter of personal conscience when the underlying concern is non-safety-related, but becomes closer to an affirmative obligation when public health and safety are directly at stake. The SO2 emissions issue here falls squarely in the public health domain, which means that Engineer A's post-override obligations were not merely permissive but potentially mandatory — at least to the extent of notifying authorities with jurisdiction over the matter. The fact that media coverage and state investigation had already emerged may have discharged this obligation through the known-authority awareness principle, but the Board's silence on this point leaves engineers in analogous situations without clear guidance on when post-override escalation transitions from a personal conscience right to a professional duty.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's analysis implicitly treats the technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior as resolved in Engineer A's favor by virtue of the ethical outcome — that is, because refusing the permit was ethical, Engineer A's technical assessment must have been correct or at least sufficiently credible to justify refusal. However, this conflation of ethical correctness with technical correctness obscures an important analytical question: the ethical obligation to refuse a permit does not require certainty that the superior's technical position is wrong, only that Engineer A's own professional judgment, exercised in good faith, identifies a genuine risk of non-compliance with applicable standards. The threshold for ethical refusal is therefore lower than the threshold for technical certainty. An engineer who holds a reasonable, professionally defensible belief that a permit would violate Clean Air Act standards is ethically obligated to refuse even if a technically competent superior holds a contrary view, because the engineer's professional certification of the permit constitutes a personal attestation of compliance that cannot be delegated to or overridden by supervisory authority. This principle — that permit certification is a non-delegable professional act — is the deepest structural reason why it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to issue the permit, and it applies regardless of whether Engineer A's technical assessment ultimately proves correct upon independent review.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It would not have been ethical for Engineer A to issue the permit.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.1.b
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: The threshold at which an honest technical disagreement becomes an ethical violation requiring refusal rather than deference to supervisory judgment is crossed when the engineer's professional assessment concludes — with reasonable engineering certainty — that the proposed action would violate a specific, enforceable legal standard protective of public health. In this case, Engineer A's belief that the fluidized boiler process would fail to meet Clean Air Act SO2 requirements was not merely a stylistic or methodological preference but a substantive regulatory compliance judgment. The NSPE Code provision requiring engineers to approve only documents conforming to applicable standards (II.1.b) does not permit deference to a superior's differing technical view when the engineer's own professional judgment identifies a legal violation. The disagreement between Engineer A and his superior may have been honest on both sides, but honesty of disagreement does not dissolve Engineer A's independent certification obligation. Once Engineer A concluded — as a matter of professional engineering judgment — that the permit would violate the Clean Air Act, the ethical obligation to refuse crystallized regardless of whether the superior's contrary view was also professionally defensible. The ethical violation would have occurred at the moment of signature, not at the moment of disagreement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: After the department overrode Engineer A's refusal, Engineer A did not bear an affirmative mandatory ethical obligation to escalate externally to the EPA or state environmental regulators, but such escalation was ethically permissible as a matter of personal conscience. The Board's analysis, consistent with BER Case 82-5, treats whistleblowing beyond internal channels as a personal conscience right rather than a categorical duty when the matter has already received public media scrutiny and is under active state investigation. The critical distinction is that Engineer A's mandatory obligations — refusing to sign the non-compliant permit, formally documenting and submitting his findings to his superior, and consulting the state registration board — were fully discharged through his internal actions. The subsequent media coverage and state investigation effectively transferred the accountability mechanism to external authorities without requiring Engineer A to personally initiate that escalation. Had the matter remained entirely internal and suppressed, the ethical calculus might have shifted toward a stronger affirmative duty to escalate. The existing public scrutiny and state investigation served as a functional substitute for Engineer A's personal external disclosure, discharging the public welfare obligation through institutional channels already activated.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The state engineering registration board's advisory that Engineer A's license could be suspended or revoked for issuing a non-compliant permit reinforces but does not independently create the ethical obligation to refuse. The pre-existing ethical duty grounded in public safety and regulatory compliance integrity — as codified in NSPE Code Sections I.1 and II.1.b — already required refusal before Engineer A consulted the board. The board's advisory is best understood as a convergent signal that confirms the ethical and legal weight of Engineer A's professional judgment, rather than as the source of that obligation. Importantly, the advisory also demonstrates that Engineer A's consultation was a professionally responsible act of proactive self-governance rather than mere self-interest. Even if the board had issued no advisory — or had advised that no license risk existed — Engineer A's ethical obligation to refuse the non-compliant permit would have remained intact. The license revocation risk is a consequence of the underlying ethical violation, not its definitional trigger. Engineer A's refusal was ethically required because issuing the permit would have endangered public health and violated applicable law, not because his license was at risk.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b
cited provision3: II.1.a
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The NSPE Code of Ethics does not directly address the obligations of non-engineer supervisors, as its jurisdiction extends only to licensed engineers. However, the Code does address the obligations of engineers who are subject to institutional overrides by non-engineer authorities. Engineer A's superior, as a non-engineer supervisor, operated outside the scope of professional engineering licensure obligations, but this does not diminish the ethical weight of the override — it amplifies it. When a non-engineer supervisor overrides a licensed engineer's professional judgment on a matter of regulatory compliance and public health, the engineer's independent certification obligation becomes more critical, not less, because no licensed professional accountability attaches to the supervisor's decision. The ethical responsibility of the superior is a matter of administrative and potentially legal accountability rather than engineering ethics. For Engineer A, the non-engineer status of his superior reinforces the non-subordination principle: deference to a supervisor's technical judgment is most defensible when that supervisor shares the engineer's professional accountability framework. When the supervisor lacks engineering licensure, the engineer cannot ethically shelter behind supervisory authority as a justification for issuing a document the engineer believes violates applicable standards.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The principle of honest disagreement among qualified engineers does not neutralize the public welfare paramount principle when the subject of disagreement is regulatory compliance with a specific legal standard protective of public health. The threshold at which public welfare overrides deference to a superior's honest technical judgment is reached when the engineer's own professional assessment concludes that a legal violation — not merely a suboptimal engineering choice — would result from the proposed action. In this case, the disagreement was not about which of two equally compliant approaches was preferable, but about whether one approach met the minimum legal threshold at all. Engineer A's position was that the fluidized boiler process failed to satisfy Clean Air Act SO2 requirements; his superior's position was that it did. This is not a symmetrical technical disagreement where both views are equally defensible from a compliance standpoint — it is a disagreement about whether a legal floor is met. When an engineer concludes that a legal floor is not met, the public welfare paramount principle requires refusal regardless of the superior's contrary view, because the engineer's certification is a personal professional act that cannot be delegated to supervisory authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The ethical weight of Engineer A's refusal is not diminished by the possibility that self-protection of his engineering license was a motivating factor alongside public safety concerns. Ethical obligations do not require pure altruistic motivation to be valid; they require that the action taken be the correct one under the applicable ethical framework. Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit was ethically required under NSPE Code Sections I.1 and II.1.b regardless of whether his consultation with the state registration board was primarily motivated by license preservation or public welfare advocacy. The convergence of self-interest and public interest in this case is not a corruption of the ethical obligation — it is a feature of a well-designed professional accountability system in which personal consequences for engineers who violate public safety standards align with the public interest in having those standards enforced. The license revocation risk exists precisely because the regulatory system intends for engineers to refuse non-compliant permits. Engineer A's consultation with the registration board, whatever his motivating mix, produced the professionally correct outcome: documented awareness of his obligations, formal refusal, and submission of findings. The ethical analysis focuses on the action taken and its conformity with professional duty, not on the purity of the actor's motivational hierarchy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 3
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a
cited provision3: II.1.b
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A fulfilled a categorical duty to refuse the permit. The NSPE Code provision requiring engineers to approve only documents conforming to applicable standards (II.1.b) functions as a deontological rule that admits no exception based on consequences, supervisory pressure, or institutional convenience. Engineer A's refusal was not contingent on whether it would produce a better outcome — the department ultimately authorized the permit anyway — but on whether issuing it would have constituted a direct violation of his professional certification obligation. The deontological analysis is further supported by Code Section II.1.a, which requires engineers whose judgment is overruled under circumstances endangering life or property to notify proper authorities. The categorical nature of these obligations means that Engineer A's duty to refuse existed independently of any consequentialist calculation about whether his refusal would actually prevent the permit from being issued. The fact that the department overrode his refusal does not retroactively diminish the ethical correctness of the refusal itself — it confirms that Engineer A correctly identified the limits of his personal professional obligation and discharged it fully.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's refusal and formal submission of findings to his superior produced the best achievable outcome within Engineer A's sphere of professional action, even though the department authorized the permit anyway. The consequentialist evaluation must be assessed at the level of actions available to Engineer A, not at the level of ultimate systemic outcomes. Engineer A's documented refusal created a formal record of professional dissent that directly contributed to the public media scrutiny and state investigation that followed — outcomes that represent the most robust available mechanism for public accountability in this context. Had Engineer A issued the permit or withdrawn without documenting his findings, the permit's non-compliance would likely have proceeded without triggering the same external accountability mechanisms. The consequentialist case for Engineer A's refusal is therefore strong: his action maximized the probability of public welfare protection by activating external oversight, even when internal channels failed. The department's override does not negate this consequentialist justification — it confirms that Engineer A correctly identified that internal channels were insufficient and that his documented dissent was the necessary predicate for external accountability.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.b
cited provision3: II.3.a
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrated all three cardinal professional virtues — courage, integrity, and prudence — through his conduct in this case. Courage was demonstrated by his refusal to issue the permit under direct supervisory pressure and in the face of employment jeopardy, maintaining his professional position despite the institutional power differential between himself and his superior. Integrity was demonstrated by his formal documentation and submission of findings to his superior, ensuring that his dissent was recorded rather than merely expressed verbally, and by his refusal to allow organizational loyalty to override his professional certification obligation. Prudence was demonstrated by his proactive consultation with the state engineering registration board before refusing, which reflected careful professional judgment about the scope and consequences of his obligations rather than impulsive or uninformed action. The combination of these three virtues — acting courageously, with integrity, and after prudent deliberation — represents the paradigmatic expression of professional engineering character under institutional pressure. Engineer A's conduct in this case serves as a model for how a virtuous engineer navigates the conflict between organizational loyalty and public safety obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's withdrawal option would have violated a duty of non-abandonment toward the public. The precedent established in BER Case 88-6 is directly applicable: an engineer who withdraws from a situation involving public safety risk without ensuring that proper authorities are notified becomes effectively complicit through inaction. In Engineer A's case, withdrawal without formally documenting his findings and submitting them to his superior would have left no licensed engineering voice opposing the non-compliant permit within the regulatory process. The deontological duty here is not merely to avoid personally issuing the non-compliant permit — it is to actively ensure that the public safety concern is formally registered within the institutional process before disengagement. Engineer A's obligation was to refuse and document, not merely to refuse and exit. The distinction between ethical withdrawal (after discharging notification obligations) and abandonment (withdrawal without notification) is critical: the former is permissible once mandatory obligations are discharged, while the latter constitutes a breach of the public safety duty that the engineer's professional role uniquely positions him to fulfill. Engineer A correctly chose refusal with documentation over withdrawal, satisfying the non-abandonment duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: II.1.b
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Had Engineer A issued the permit under superior pressure while privately disagreeing with its adequacy, that act of compliance would have constituted a clear abrogation of fundamental engineering responsibility under the NSPE Code. Code Section II.1.b requires engineers to approve only documents conforming to applicable standards — this obligation is personal and non-delegable. The fact that a superior directed the issuance would not have provided ethical shelter, because the engineer's signature on a permit constitutes a professional certification that the document meets applicable standards, regardless of the organizational context in which it was produced. The state engineering registration board's advisory about license revocation risk, while not the source of the ethical obligation, accurately identified the likely regulatory consequence of such compliance. Whether actual disciplinary proceedings would have materialized is a factual question beyond the Board's analytical scope, but the ethical violation would have been complete at the moment of signature. The case of BER Case 65-12 confirms that engineers who refuse to approve unsafe or non-compliant work are acting ethically, and by negative implication, those who approve such work under pressure are acting unethically regardless of the institutional pressure applied.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q402: Had Engineer A withdrawn from the case entirely rather than refusing and submitting formal findings, the department's permit override would almost certainly have faced diminished public scrutiny and the state investigation may not have been triggered at all. Engineer A's documented dissent — his formal submission of findings to his superior — created the institutional paper trail that made the department's override visible as a deliberate decision to proceed over a licensed engineer's professional objection. Without that documented record, the permit's issuance would have appeared as a routine administrative action rather than a contested regulatory decision. The absence of Engineer A's formal dissent would have deprived external accountability mechanisms — media, state investigators, and the public — of the specific factual basis needed to identify and scrutinize the compliance failure. This counterfactual analysis confirms that Engineer A's choice to refuse and document, rather than withdraw, was not merely personally ethical but instrumentally critical to the public accountability outcome that followed. It also reinforces the Board's implicit conclusion that withdrawal would have been ethically impermissible precisely because it would have functionally enabled the non-compliant permit to proceed without triggering the external oversight that Engineer A's documented refusal made possible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q403: Had Engineer A escalated his technical concerns directly to state environmental authorities or the media before exhausting internal channels with his superior, that premature external disclosure would not have been ethically justified under the NSPE Code framework applied by the Board. The bounded loyalty principle requires engineers to exhaust internal channels before resorting to external disclosure, except in cases of imminent danger to life where delay itself constitutes a public safety failure. In this case, Engineer A had not yet formally submitted his findings to his superior or received a departmental override when the question of external escalation would have arisen. Premature external disclosure — bypassing the internal process — would have constituted a breach of the employer loyalty obligation that the NSPE Code preserves within ethical limits, and would have been inconsistent with the professional accountability framework that requires engineers to give their employing institutions the opportunity to correct compliance failures before external authorities are engaged. The Board's analysis implicitly preserves this sequencing: Engineer A's ethical conduct consisted of internal refusal and documentation first, with external escalation remaining a personal conscience right after internal channels were exhausted. The fact that external scrutiny ultimately emerged through media coverage and state investigation — rather than through Engineer A's personal disclosure — is consistent with this framework.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: II.1.b
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If an independent third-party engineering review had confirmed the superior's position that the fluidized boiler process adequately removes sulphur dioxide to meet Clean Air Act requirements, Engineer A would have been ethically obligated to issue the permit, and the Board's analysis of honest disagreement among qualified engineers would have been reframed significantly. The ethical obligation to refuse is grounded in Engineer A's professional judgment that the permit would violate applicable standards — not in the mere existence of a disagreement. If authoritative independent review resolved that disagreement in favor of compliance, Engineer A's basis for refusal would have been eliminated. The NSPE Code does not require engineers to refuse permits that comply with applicable standards; it requires them to refuse permits that do not. A confirmed third-party finding of compliance would have transformed the situation from one of regulatory non-compliance to one of honest technical disagreement resolved in favor of the superior's view. In that scenario, Engineer A's continued refusal would itself have become ethically problematic — an assertion of personal technical preference over a professionally validated compliance determination. This counterfactual clarifies that Engineer A's ethical obligation to refuse was contingent on the substantive correctness of his compliance assessment, not on the mere fact of his disagreement with his superior.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.406925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A to refuse to issue the permit.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 3
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central principle tension in this case — between Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers and Public Welfare Paramount — was resolved by the Board in favor of public welfare, but not by dismissing the legitimacy of the superior's technical position. Rather, the Board implicitly held that when a genuine technical disagreement involves potential violation of a federal environmental statute and creates measurable public health risk from SO2 emissions, the threshold for deference to a superior's honest judgment is crossed. The resolution was not that the superior was necessarily wrong about the fluidized boiler process, but that Engineer A, as the licensed certifying engineer, bore independent professional responsibility for the permit's regulatory conformity under NSPE Code Section II.1.b. This means the principle of honest disagreement functions as a shield against bad-faith accusations of insubordination, not as a license to subordinate one's own professional certification judgment to a supervisor's competing view when public safety is at stake. The case teaches that honest disagreement among qualified engineers is ethically significant precisely because it justifies refusal without requiring proof that the superior is acting in bad faith — the uncertainty itself, when it touches Clean Air Act compliance, triggers the public welfare paramount principle.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of Loyalty Bounded by Ethics was resolved in this case to permit — but not require — external escalation after internal channels were exhausted, while the principle of Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation was resolved to require at minimum formal documented refusal and submission of findings to the superior. The Board drew a careful distinction, informed by BER Case 82-5 and BER Case 88-6, between situations where whistleblowing is a matter of personal conscience (non-safety fund waste, as in BER 82-5) and situations where public health is directly at stake (as here and in BER 88-6). Because media coverage had already emerged and state authorities were actively investigating, the Board found that Engineer A's mandatory escalation obligation was effectively discharged by the public scrutiny already in motion — meaning the bounded loyalty principle was not violated by Engineer A's decision not to personally contact external regulators, since the external accountability mechanism had already been triggered. This resolution teaches that the boundary between permissible loyalty and required whistleblowing is not fixed but is sensitive to whether external accountability mechanisms are already operative: when they are, the engineer's affirmative duty to escalate beyond the employer is satisfied by documented internal dissent, and further external disclosure becomes a matter of personal conscience rather than ethical mandate.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 206
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The potential conflict between License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation and Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Institutional Bargaining — specifically the concern that Engineer A's consultation with the state engineering registration board was primarily self-interested rather than public-welfare-motivated — was resolved by the Board implicitly treating the two motivations as ethically convergent rather than competing. The Board's analysis does not diminish the ethical weight of Engineer A's refusal because his consultation with the registration board was partly self-protective; rather, it treats the license protection framework and the public safety framework as mutually reinforcing. This resolution reflects a deeper principle: the engineering licensure system is itself a public safety instrument, and an engineer who protects his license from revocation by refusing to certify a non-compliant permit is simultaneously protecting the public from the harms that licensure law was designed to prevent. The case therefore teaches that mixed motives — self-protection and public welfare — do not undermine the ethical validity of a refusal when the action required by self-protection is identical to the action required by public welfare. The Professional Accountability principle further reinforces this: Engineer A's willingness to accept employment jeopardy as a consequence of his refusal demonstrates that self-protection was not the dominant or overriding motivation, since a purely self-interested actor would have sought a path that preserved both license and employment.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively consult the state engineering registration board about license jeopardy before deciding whether to issue or refuse the permit, or should he act on his own professional judgment without seeking board guidance?
focus: Engineer A faces a directive from his superior to expedite a construction permit he believes violates Clean Air Act SO2 standards. Before deciding whether to issue or refuse the permit, Engineer A must determine whether to consult the state engineering registration board about the license implications of issuing a potentially non-compliant permit.
option1: Proactively contact the state engineering registration board to obtain guidance on whether issuing the permit would jeopardize Engineer A's professional license, documenting the advisory received before making a final decision on the permit.
option2: Proceed directly to refuse or issue the permit based on Engineer A's own professional assessment of Clean Air Act compliance, without seeking external board guidance, on the grounds that his technical determination is itself sufficient basis for the decision.
option3: Before consulting the registration board or refusing the permit, seek a second technical opinion from a qualified peer engineer on whether the fluidized boiler process meets SO2 standards, using that review to either confirm or resolve the technical disagreement with the superior before escalating.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A issue the construction permit in deference to his superior's professionally defensible technical judgment that the fluidized boiler process meets Clean Air Act standards, or refuse to issue the permit based on his own professional assessment that it does not?
focus: Engineer A has determined that the plans, without outside scrubbers, will violate Clean Air Act SO2 emission standards. His superior — also technically qualified — holds the contrary view that the fluidized boiler process adequately meets those standards. Engineer A must decide whether to issue the permit in deference to his superior's honest technical judgment or refuse on the basis of his own professional assessment.
option1: Decline to issue the construction permit on the grounds that Engineer A's professional assessment concludes the plans fail to meet Clean Air Act SO2 standards, formally documenting the technical basis for refusal and submitting findings to the superior, regardless of the superior's contrary technical view.
option2: Issue the permit in recognition that the superior — also technically qualified — holds a professionally defensible contrary view that the fluidized boiler process meets SO2 standards, treating the disagreement as a legitimate technical dispute in which supervisory judgment appropriately governs the institutional decision.
option3: Neither issue nor formally refuse the permit at this stage, but instead formally request that the department commission an independent third-party engineering review of the fluidized boiler process's SO2 compliance before Engineer A makes a final certification decision, preserving both the public safety concern and the possibility of resolution through authoritative technical consensus.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: After the department overrides Engineer A's permit refusal and authorizes the permit, should Engineer A withdraw from further work on the project or remain engaged and continue to formally represent his professional position within the regulatory process?
focus: After Engineer A refuses to issue the permit and formally submits his findings to his superior, the department overrides his refusal and authorizes the permit. Engineer A must now decide whether to withdraw from further work on the project or remain engaged — standing by his documented professional position within the regulatory process.
option1: Continue working on the project while formally maintaining the documented professional position opposing the permit, ensuring that Engineer A's dissent remains on the institutional record and that no further professional certifications are made that Engineer A believes violate applicable standards.
option2: Disassociate from further work on the project on the grounds that mandatory obligations — refusal, formal submission of findings, and board consultation — have been fully discharged, and that continued involvement in a project whose permit Engineer A believes is non-compliant places him in a professionally compromising situation.
option3: Remain engaged in the project while simultaneously escalating concerns to external authorities — such as the EPA or state environmental regulators — on the grounds that the department override of a licensed engineer's professional objection on a Clean Air Act compliance matter constitutes a public health concern requiring external notification.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: After the department overrides Engineer A's refusal and the matter becomes subject to media coverage and state investigation, does Engineer A have an affirmative ethical obligation to personally escalate to external authorities such as the EPA, or is such escalation merely a permissible personal conscience decision given that external accountability mechanisms are already operative?
focus: After the department overrides Engineer A's refusal and authorizes the permit, media coverage emerges and a state investigation is initiated. Engineer A must decide whether to engage in further public advocacy or external reporting beyond what he has already done internally, or to treat his mandatory obligations as fully discharged and any further escalation as a matter of personal conscience only.
option1: Recognize that mandatory internal obligations have been fully discharged through refusal, formal documentation, and board consultation, and that the existing state investigation and media coverage have activated external accountability mechanisms — treating any further personal external disclosure as a permissible but not required matter of individual conscience.
option2: Affirmatively contact the EPA and state environmental regulatory authorities to formally report the department's override of a licensed engineer's Clean Air Act compliance objection, on the grounds that the public health stakes of SO2 emissions create a mandatory escalation obligation that is not discharged merely by the existence of independent media coverage or investigation.
option3: Refrain from personally initiating external disclosure to regulators or media, but fully cooperate with the ongoing state investigation by providing all documented findings, technical assessments, and records of the permit refusal and department override if requested by investigators — allowing the external accountability process to proceed through institutional channels without Engineer A personally driving the escalation.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should ethics reviewing bodies treat the technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior about Clean Air Act SO2 compliance as a symmetrical honest professional dispute in which neither engineer's position is inherently unethical, or should they hold that Engineer A's independent permit certification obligation required refusal regardless of whether the superior's contrary technical view was professionally defensible?
focus: The board must determine whether the technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior — both presumably technically qualified — about whether the fluidized boiler process meets Clean Air Act SO2 standards constitutes a symmetrical honest professional dispute in which neither position is inherently unethical, or whether Engineer A's independent certification obligation requires refusal regardless of the legitimacy of the superior's contrary view.
option1: Hold that the honest disagreement principle protects Engineer A from bad-faith insubordination accusations by acknowledging the legitimacy of the superior's contrary view, while simultaneously holding that Engineer A's independent certification obligation required refusal once his own professional assessment identified a legal violation — treating the two principles as operating on different analytical levels rather than in direct conflict.
option2: Hold that because both engineers are technically qualified and reached different conclusions from the same facts, the disagreement is fully symmetrical — meaning Engineer A's refusal was ethically permissible but not required, and that issuing the permit in deference to the superior's equally defensible technical judgment would also have been ethically permissible.
option3: Hold that the ethical analysis cannot be completed without first resolving the underlying technical dispute through independent expert review, and that the ethical obligation to refuse or issue the permit is contingent on the outcome of that technical resolution rather than on Engineer A's unilateral professional assessment.
role label: Ethics Reviewing Body
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Department Authorizes Permit Override
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: acting through superior and departmental authority
foreseen unintended effects: Potential legal and regulatory liability for the department
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of public scrutiny and investigation
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of regulatory violation and public health harm if Engineer A's assessment is correct
fulfills obligation text: Exercise of departmental administrative authority over permit decisions
guided by principle text: Administrative authority
guided by principle text: Organizational hierarchy
has agent: State Environmental Protection Division Department
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Advance permit issuance for the power plant despite Engineer A's objections, relying on the department's own technical and regulatory interpretation
requires capability text: Administrative decision-making authority
requires capability text: Departmental authority to issue or authorize permits
requires capability text: Technical and regulatory judgment about Clean Air Act compliance
temporal marker: After Engineer A formally refused and submitted his findings to his superior
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Obligation not to override a subordinate's professionally grounded safety concerns without rigorous independent verification
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure permits comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act
violates obligation text: Obligation to give adequate weight to a licensed engineer's documented technical objections
violates obligation text: Obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare
within competence: true
comment: After Engineer A's refusal, the department unilaterally authorizes issuance of the construction permit without Engineer A's approval, overriding his professional objections and formal findings.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Department Override Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Escalate_Beyond_Employer
activates constraint: PublicHealth_Imminent_Harm_Constraint
activates constraint: Whistleblower_Obligation_Constraint
causes state change: A non-compliant permit has been authorized despite Engineer A's documented objection; the harm Engineer A sought to prevent is now imminent; internal remedies are exhausted; external action becomes the only remaining avenue
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Whether_Further_Action_Required
creates obligation: Consider_External_Reporting_To_Federal_Authorities
creates obligation: Document_Override_For_Record
creates obligation: Protect_Own_Professional_Record
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit and submits findings to superior
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: critical
comment: After Engineer A submits his findings and refuses to issue the permit, the state environmental protection division department overrides his refusal and authorizes the construction permit for the power plant without requiring the scrubbers Engineer A identified as necessary.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Department Override Occurs (Event 4) + Media Coverage Emerges (Event 5) → State Investigation Initiated (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Following the media coverage, state authorities open a formal investigation into the permit dispute, with the combination of the department's unilateral override and public media attention creating the political and institutional conditions necessary for a formal investigation
cause: Department Override Occurs (Event 4) + Media Coverage Emerges (Event 5)
counterfactual: Without media coverage, the override might have proceeded without triggering a formal investigation; without the department override, there would have been no dispute to investigate; without Engineer A's documented findings, investigators would have had a weaker evidentiary basis for opening an investigation
effect: State Investigation Initiated (Event 6)
necessary factors: Department's override of Engineer A's refusal creating a substantive dispute of public concern
necessary factors: Engineer A's documented technical findings and registration board warning providing credible basis for investigation
necessary factors: Media coverage bringing the dispute to public and political attention
necessary factors: State investigative authority having jurisdiction over the permit dispute
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: State Environmental Protection Department (primary); Engineer A (contributing)
sufficient factors: Department override + media coverage + documented technical record = sufficient public and institutional pressure to trigger formal state investigation
sufficient factors: The media coverage alone may not have been sufficient without the substantive documented record of Engineer A's findings and board warning
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Department authorizes issuance of the permit before Widespread media coverage
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The department authorized the issuance of the permit. The case had received widespread publicity in the news media
from entity text: Department authorizes issuance of the permit
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Widespread media coverage
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Widespread media coverage
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer-License-Revocation-Risk-Advisory-StateBoard
type: EngineerLicenseRevocationRiskAdvisory
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State engineering registration board
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Engineering Registration Board Advisory on Permit Approval and Licensure Consequences
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer License Revocation Risk Advisory
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
usedby: Engineer A in deciding whether to issue the air pollution emissions permit
usedincontext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state licensing board as to whether approving the permit could violate the state engineering registration law; the Board found this conduct appropriate and consistent with the Code
version: N/A (case-specific consultation)
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Air Pollution Regulatory Standard Technical Assessment
type: AirPollutionRegulatoryStandardTechnicalAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Air Pollution Regulatory Standard Technical Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed advanced technical capability to assess whether the proposed power plant's fluidized boiler process would meet Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, concluding that outside scrubbers were necessary and that the plans as drafted were inadequate.
casecontext: Applied during review of manufacturing facility power plant construction permit application at the state environmental protection division
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Technical determination that limestone-coal fluidized boiler process was insufficient to meet SO2 emission limits and that external scrubbers were required for Clean Air Act compliance
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary
textreferences: without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation
type: BERThree-PrecedentPublicHealthSafetyThresholdTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's case required the BER to triangulate among BER 65-12, BER 82-5, and BER 88-6 to determine that Engineer A's situation — involving direct public health and safety danger from Clean Air Act violations — fell in the mandatory-duty category analogous to BER 88-6, not the personal-conscience category of BER 82-5
casecontext: Ethics review of Engineer A's refusal to issue a construction permit for a power plant whose plans Engineer A believed violated Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis distinguishing Engineer A's case from BER 82-5 (no public health danger, personal conscience only) and aligning it with BER 88-6 (direct public health danger, mandatory duty) while referencing BER 65-12 as foundational precedent for unsafe product refusal
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
textreferences: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
textreferences: In BER Case 82-5... the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts... The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case 88-6... the Board found that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations
textreferences: Turning to the facts of this case... This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.608190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Clean Air Act SO2 Permit Compliance Legal Constraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, employed by the state environmental protection division, was ordered to issue a construction permit for a power plant at a manufacturing facility. He determined the plans were inadequate to meet Clean Air Act SO2 standards without outside scrubbers.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Clean Air Act SO2 Emission Standard Permit Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not lawfully issue the construction permit because he held a professionally grounded belief that the plans, without outside scrubbers, would violate the SO2 emission control standards mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: 1990 Clean Air Act; applicable SO2 emission control regulations
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
temporalscope: At the time of permit review and throughout the permit issuance process
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.612955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Jeopardy from Safety Refusal
type: WhistleblowerEmploymentJeopardyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit through the disassociation decision
affectedparties: Employing regulatory agency
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment
stateclass: Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy State
subject: Engineer A's professional position following permit refusal
terminatedby: Engineer A's disassociation from the project
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment
textreferences: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns... he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
triggeringevent: Engineer A's refusal to issue the non-compliant permit against superior's directive
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.594483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Safety Determination
type: EmploymentPressureNon-SubordinationofSafetyDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Safety Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to refuse to subordinate his professional safety determination — that the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards — to the employment pressure created by his superior's directive to expedite and avoid technical issues, recognizing that bowing to such pressure would constitute an abrogation of his most fundamental professional responsibility.
casecontext: Sustained throughout the permit review process and the superior's override
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Refusing to issue the permit despite the superior's expediting directive and the implicit risk of adverse employment consequences
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.599528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation Prohibition
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced direct employment pressure from his superior to issue the permit despite his professional determination that it would violate environmental regulations and endanger public health.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from bowing to his superior's institutional pressure — framed as avoiding 'technical hang-ups' — that would have caused him to issue a permit he believed violated Clean Air Act SO2 standards and posed a public health risk.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 88-6; BER Case 65-12
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review and issuance process
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.601200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Permit Issuing Regulatory Engineer
type: EnvironmentalPermitIssuingRegulatoryEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (state-licensed)', 'employer': 'State environmental protection division', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering, air pollution regulation', 'regulatory_concern': 'Sulphur dioxide emissions non-compliance under 1990 Clean Air Act'}
caseinvolvement: State environmental engineer ordered to issue a construction permit for a power plant who believes the plans violate Clean Air Act air pollution standards, refuses to issue the permit, submits findings to his superior, and consults the state engineering registration board about potential license jeopardy
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'consulted', 'target': 'State Engineering Registration Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'Superior/Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Environmental Permit Issuing Regulatory Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit
textreferences: outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.589976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Environmental Regulatory Compliance Permit Issuance Constraint
type: EnvironmentalRegulatoryComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Clean Air Act SO2 standards formed the binding regulatory framework within which Engineer A's permit issuance decision had to be made, and his belief that the plans failed to meet those standards was the foundation of his refusal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was bound by the environmental regulatory compliance constraint arising from the 1990 Clean Air Act SO2 emission standards, which prohibited him from issuing a construction permit for a power plant whose plans he believed were inadequate to meet those standards.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: 1990 Clean Air Act; applicable state environmental regulations; Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review and issuance process
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.603292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Recognition and Resistance
type: FundamentalEngineeringResponsibilityPressure-AbrogationRecognitionandResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Recognition and Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that complying with his superior's directive to issue the permit — despite his belief that it would violate Clean Air Act standards — would constitute an abrogation of his most fundamental professional responsibility, and to actively resist that abrogation by refusing the permit and submitting his findings.
casecontext: Applied in the context of a state regulatory agency employment relationship with a superior who disagreed with Engineer A's technical conclusion
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Maintaining permit refusal and formal upward submission of findings despite institutional pressure, recognizing that the superior's framing of technical concerns as 'hang-ups' was an attempt to induce professional responsibility abrogation
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.599670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Government Regulatory Employment Relationship
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the permit issuance process
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility Applicant
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
concept category: State
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with the state environmental protection division
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's employment by the state environmental protection division with permit issuance authority
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.590610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process plans met Clean Air Act standards based on the same facts, constituting an honest technical disagreement between qualified engineers rather than an ethical violation by either party
casecontext: The technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior regarding whether the power plant's proposed fluidized boiler process would meet Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's recognition that Engineer A and his superior's differing technical conclusions about the fluidized boiler process did not constitute ethical misconduct by either engineer, reflecting the inherent subjectivity of complex environmental engineering assessments
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act standards, based on the same set of facts, this constitutes an honest technical disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party
textreferences: Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act standards, based on the same set of facts, this constitutes an honest technical disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Escalation Failure External Authority Re-Identification
type: InternalEscalationFailureProperExternalAuthorityRe-IdentificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: With internal escalation exhausted after the department override, Engineer A needed to identify state environmental regulatory authorities as the appropriate external escalation target, consistent with BER Case 88-6 precedent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Internal Escalation Failure Proper External Authority Re-Identification Constraint
constraintstatement: After the department authorized the permit over Engineer A's objection — exhausting internal escalation — Engineer A was required to re-identify who constituted 'proper authorities' for external escalation, recognizing that the department itself was the source of the override and that proper authorities were state regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over Clean Air Act compliance.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; Internal Escalation Failure Proper External Authority Re-Identification Constraint
sourcetext: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
temporalscope: After the department authorized the permit over Engineer A's objection
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.602694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A License Jeopardy Proactive Board Consultation
type: LicenseJeopardyProactiveBoardConsultationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: License Jeopardy Proactive Board Consultation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to proactively contact the state engineering registration board to assess the licensure consequences of issuing a permit he believed violated environmental regulations, obtaining guidance that suspension or revocation was a possibility.
casecontext: Undertaken before finalizing the decision to refuse the permit, as a self-protective and professionally responsible step
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Contacting the state engineering registration board and receiving information that license suspension or revocation was possible if he prepared a permit violating environmental regulations
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Media-Coverage-Conditioned Mandatory Escalation Discharge Assessment
type: Media-Coverage-ConditionedMandatoryEscalationDischargeAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Media-Coverage-Conditioned Mandatory Escalation Discharge Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's situation required assessment of whether widespread media coverage and the commencement of a state investigation discharged the remaining mandatory obligation to bring the Clean Air Act compliance dispute to the attention of proper authorities beyond internal reporting
casecontext: Post-department-override assessment of Engineer A's remaining escalation obligations after the permit dispute received media coverage and triggered a state investigation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that Engineer A was not obligated to further report to proper authorities because media coverage had already made officials aware and an investigation had begun, making further reporting a useless act
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
textreferences: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'. As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
textreferences: To bring the matter to their attention is a useless act.
textreferences: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.608544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Media Coverage External Escalation Discharge
type: MediaCoveragePublicAuthorityAwarenessExternalEscalationDischargeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A refused to issue a construction permit for a power plant he believed violated Clean Air Act SO2 standards; the department overrode his refusal; the matter received media coverage and state investigation commenced
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Media Coverage Public Authority Awareness External Escalation Discharge Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not required to bring the Clean Air Act SO2 permit compliance dispute to the attention of proper external authorities because the facts had already received media coverage and the relevant public authorities had already begun an investigation, making further escalation a useless act that could not further protect public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Analysis — BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'.
temporalscope: After media coverage and state investigation commenced
textreferences: As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
textreferences: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'.
textreferences: To bring the matter to their attention is a useless act.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Engineer Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process met Clean Air Act SO2 requirements. The ethics analysis turns on conduct, not on which technical view was correct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Superior
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: The technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior about whether the fluidized boiler limestone process meets Clean Air Act SO2 standards does not render either engineer's position inherently unethical — both engineers held professionally grounded views, and the ethics analysis must focus on conduct (issuing vs. refusing the permit) rather than on which technical conclusion was correct.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, 79-2; Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review process
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.602984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Superior Safety Override Resistance
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After Engineer A submitted his findings, the department (through his superior) authorized the permit anyway, constituting a non-engineer override of Engineer A's professional safety determination.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was ethically required to resist his superior's override of his professionally grounded determination that the permit would violate Clean Air Act SO2 standards, by escalating his findings formally rather than acquiescing to the department's authorization.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
sourcetext: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
temporalscope: After the department authorized the permit over Engineer A's objection
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.601343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Safety Acquiescence Prohibition
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A correctly refused to passively comply with the directive to issue the permit, instead actively refusing and formally submitting his technical findings to his superior.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from passively acquiescing to his superior's directive to issue the permit without dissent — going along silently would have constituted an independent ethical violation distinct from any failure to report externally, requiring instead active refusal and formal submission of findings.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: At the time of the superior's expedite directive
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.602543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Permit Issuance Professional Certification Scope Self-Recognition
type: PermitIssuanceProfessionalCertificationScopeSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Permit Issuance Professional Certification Scope Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A recognized that issuing the construction permit would constitute a professional certification that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act standards — a certification he could not make in good conscience — and therefore refused to issue the permit and consulted the state licensing board regarding potential license jeopardy
casecontext: Engineer A's recognition that issuing the construction permit for the power plant would constitute a false professional certification of Clean Air Act compliance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit, his formal submission of findings to his superior, and his proactive consultation of the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents in which they may have reservations or concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents in which they may have reservations or concerns.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Permissibility Self-Assessment
type: Post-Department-OverrideWhistleblowingPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: After the department overrode his refusal and authorized the permit, Engineer A retained and could exercise the capability to assess whether further escalation — including to state investigative authorities or the public — was ethically permissible as a matter of personal conscience, distinguishing this right from a mandatory duty.
casecontext: Post-department-override phase, after the permit was authorized despite Engineer A's refusal and formal submission of findings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The case's receipt of widespread media publicity and state investigation, consistent with Engineer A having exercised or permitted the exercise of his post-override escalation right
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The department authorized the issuance of the permit
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right
type: Post-Department-OverridePersonalConscienceWhistleblowingPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit, submitted findings to his superior, the department authorized the permit over his objection, the matter received media coverage, and state investigation commenced; the Board found external escalation was not mandatory but remained permissible as a matter of personal conscience
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Department-Override Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: After the department overrode Engineer A's refusal and authorized the permit, Engineer A retained the ethical right — as a matter of personal conscience — to escalate concerns to appropriate external authorities or the public, while recognizing that such escalation was permissible but not mandated as a professional obligation given that the matter was already under public and regulatory scrutiny.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 82-5; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'.
temporalscope: After the department authorized the permit over Engineer A's objection and after media coverage and state investigation commenced
textreferences: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'.
textreferences: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation to State Authorities
type: Post-DismissalSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The department's authorization of the permit over Engineer A's documented objection triggered the post-dismissal escalation obligation, with state authorities as the appropriate escalation target.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: After the department dismissed Engineer A's refusal and authorized the permit, Engineer A was required to consider escalating his documented technical findings to state environmental regulatory authorities, as passive acceptance of the department's override did not discharge his public safety obligation given the gravity of the identified Clean Air Act compliance risk.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 88-6; Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
sourcetext: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
temporalscope: After the department authorized the permit over Engineer A's objection
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.602839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Mandatory-Obligation-Discharge Regulatory Disassociation Permissibility Assessment
type: Post-Mandatory-Obligation-DischargeRegulatoryDisassociationPermissibilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Mandatory-Obligation-Discharge Regulatory Disassociation Permissibility Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: After discharging mandatory obligations by refusing to issue the permit, formally submitting findings to his superior, and consulting the state licensing board, Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly assess that disassociating from further work on the project was ethically permissible and avoided a professionally compromising situation
casecontext: Engineer A's post-override decision to disassociate from further work on the power plant construction permit project after the department overrode his refusal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's decision to disassociate from further work on the project after fulfilling mandatory professional obligations, which the BER found to be ethically appropriate conduct consistent with Code Section II.1.a.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: This case involves a question of public health and welfare and Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
textreferences: This case involves a question of public health and welfare and Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.608889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Proactive Registration Board Guidance Seeking
type: ProactiveRegulatoryGuidanceSeekingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A consulted the state registration board and received an advisory that issuing a non-compliant permit could result in license suspension or revocation, confirming the appropriateness of his refusal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proactive Regulatory Guidance Seeking Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required — and did — proactively seek guidance from the state engineering registration board before concluding on the scope of his professional obligations regarding the permit, consistent with the constraint that engineers facing novel or ambiguous regulatory compliance situations should seek board guidance rather than acting unilaterally.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.a; Proactive Regulatory Guidance Seeking Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
temporalscope: Before the permit issuance decision
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.603147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Professionally Compromising Situation Disassociation Permissibility
type: ProfessionallyCompromisingRegulatorySituationDisassociationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit, submitted findings to his superior, the department authorized the permit over his objection, and Engineer A consulted the state licensing board; the Board found his decision to disassociate from further work was appropriate
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Professionally Compromising Regulatory Situation Disassociation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: After discharging mandatory obligations by refusing to issue the permit, formally submitting findings to his superior, and consulting the state licensing board, Engineer A was ethically permitted to disassociate himself from further work on the project to avoid being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.a; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: This case involves a question of public health and welfare and Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
temporalscope: After mandatory obligations (permit refusal, findings submission, board consultation) were discharged
textreferences: This case involves a question of public health and welfare and Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.611465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Escalation Duty
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's dual role as a public employee with specific permit-issuance responsibility and as a licensed professional engineer imposed a heightened escalation obligation when he identified a regulatory compliance failure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: As a licensed professional engineer employed by the state environmental protection division with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits, Engineer A bore a heightened escalation obligation — beyond that of a private engineer — requiring formal documentation and submission of findings to his superior and, after department override, consideration of further escalation to state regulatory authorities.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 88-6; Public Employee Heightened Safety Escalation Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review process and after department override
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.601640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that his role as a licensed professional engineer employed by the state environmental protection division with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits created a heightened ethical obligation to refuse permits that violated environmental law, beyond that of a private engineer.
casecontext: Throughout the permit review process, grounded in Engineer A's specific institutional role and assigned responsibility
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Refusing the permit and submitting findings in his capacity as a state environmental protection division engineer with specific permit-issuing responsibility
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.600255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Health Safety Mandatory vs Personal Conscience Distinction
type: PublicHealthSafetyThresholdMandatoryvsPersonalConscienceWhistleblowingDistinctionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board distinguished BER Case 82-5 (personal conscience, no public safety) from Engineer A's case (direct public health and safety impact from SO2 emissions) to determine the applicable ethical standard
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A and BER Ethics Review Board
constraintclass: Public Health Safety Threshold Mandatory vs Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Distinction Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was constrained to distinguish Engineer A's case — involving direct public health and safety danger from Clean Air Act SO2 violations — from BER Case 82-5, which involved only financial impropriety without public health and safety impact, establishing that Engineer A's situation triggered mandatory escalation obligations rather than merely a personal conscience right.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 82-5; BER Case 88-6; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
temporalscope: Throughout the BER analysis of Engineer A's case
textreferences: In this type of situation, the Board felt that the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
textreferences: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.611156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Interest Technical Position Persistence Under Institutional Override
type: PublicInterestTechnicalPositionPersistenceUnderInstitutionalOverrideCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Technical Position Persistence Under Institutional Override Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to maintain his professional position — refusing to issue the permit — and stand by that position under institutional pressure from his superior's directive to expedite and avoid technical hang-ups, representing the public interest as a technically-qualified professional when public health and safety was at stake
casecontext: Engineer A's maintenance of his professional position that the power plant plans violated Clean Air Act standards, despite supervisory pressure to issue the permit
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's sustained refusal to issue the construction permit despite his superior's directive to move expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups, and his formal submission of findings supporting his refusal
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Permit Refusal
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was assigned to review and issue a construction permit for a power plant at a manufacturing facility; he determined the plans were inadequate to meet Clean Air Act SO2 standards; his superior directed him to move expeditiously; he refused to issue the permit
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to refuse to issue the construction permit for the power plant because he held a professionally grounded belief that the fluidized boiler limestone process was inadequate to achieve the required SO2 reduction under the Clean Air Act, and that issuing the permit would endanger public health and welfare.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Case 92-4
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.).
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review and dispute
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.).
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.612463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal
type: Safety-ImplicatedPermitRefusalEngagementNon-WithdrawalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to move expeditiously on the permit; Engineer A refused; the department authorized the permit over his objection; the Board found it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Safety-Implicated Permit Refusal Engagement Non-Withdrawal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from withdrawing from further work on the permit project because he had an obligation to stand by his professional safety position — that the fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act SO2 standards — and to represent the public interest by refusing to issue the permit, even after the department overrode his refusal.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit dispute and after department override
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.610994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Agency Employer Loyalty Boundary Recognition
type: RegulatoryAgencyEngineerEmployerLoyaltyBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Agency Engineer Employer Loyalty Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that his loyalty to the state environmental protection division did not extend to issuing a permit that violated the Clean Air Act — the very law the division was mandated to enforce — and that refusing the permit was consistent with, not contrary to, faithful service to the agency's legitimate mission.
casecontext: Applied throughout the permit review and refusal process within the state environmental protection division
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Refusing the permit while remaining employed and submitting findings through institutional channels, rather than either complying with the unlawful directive or abandoning the agency
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.600405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Agency Permit Issuance Non-Deception
type: RegulatoryAgencyEngineerPermitIssuanceCertificationNon-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was assigned to issue a construction permit; he determined the plans were inadequate to meet Clean Air Act standards; his superior directed him to issue the permit; the Board found that issuing the permit under these circumstances would constitute a deceptive representation of regulatory compliance
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Agency Engineer Permit Issuance Certification Non-Deception Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from issuing the construction permit for the power plant when he held a professionally grounded belief that the plans failed to meet Clean Air Act SO2 standards, because permit issuance would have constituted a deceptive implicit certification of regulatory compliance to the public and to the regulated entity.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Non-Deception provisions; BER Case 92-4
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.).
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review process
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.).
textreferences: Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents in which they may have reservations or concerns.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Compliance Verification Environmental Permit
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to verify that the proposed power plant construction plans did not comply with applicable Clean Air Act air pollution standards, identifying the specific technical deficiency (absence of outside scrubbers for SO2 reduction) that rendered the plans non-compliant.
casecontext: Applied during the technical review of the manufacturing facility's power plant construction permit application
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Determining that the plans as drafted were inadequate to meet regulation requirements and that issuance of the permit would violate Clean Air Act air pollution standards
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.600897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Permit Environmental Law Non-Compliance Refusal
type: RegulatoryPermitIssuanceEnvironmentalLawNon-ComplianceRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Permit Issuance Environmental Law Non-Compliance Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to refuse to issue the construction permit on the grounds that it would violate Clean Air Act standards, maintaining that refusal despite his superior's directive to expedite and avoid technical hang-ups, and formally submitting his findings upward.
casecontext: Core professional action taken in response to the superior's expediting directive and the engineer's own technical assessment of Clean Air Act non-compliance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Refusing to issue the permit and submitting technical findings to superior, notwithstanding the directive to move expeditiously and avoid technical issues
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.599382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Permit Issuance Environmental Law Non-Compliance Refusal
type: RegulatoryPermitIssuanceEnvironmentalLawNon-ComplianceRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Permit Issuance Environmental Law Non-Compliance Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A refused to issue the construction permit for the power plant based on his professionally grounded belief that the plans violated Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, maintaining that refusal under supervisory pressure to expedite and avoid technical hang-ups
casecontext: Engineer A's refusal to issue a state construction permit for a manufacturing facility's power plant whose proposed fluidized boiler process he believed would not meet Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's sustained refusal to issue the construction permit despite his superior's directive to move expeditiously, and his formal documentation and submission of findings supporting his refusal to his superior
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:50.753694+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.).
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.).
textreferences: the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Permit Non-Deception Certification Constraint
type: RegulatoryAgencyEngineerPermitIssuanceCertificationNon-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Issuing the permit would have implicitly represented to the public and the regulated entity that the plans met applicable regulatory requirements, which Engineer A believed to be false.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Agency Engineer Permit Issuance Certification Non-Deception Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from issuing the construction permit because doing so would have constituted a deceptive implicit certification of regulatory compliance when he held a professionally grounded belief that the plans failed to meet Clean Air Act SO2 standards.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Non-Deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.2.b; Compliance Certification Guarantee Deception Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
temporalscope: At the time of the permit issuance decision
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.601490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A State Board License Revocation Risk Regulatory Constraint
type: RegulatoryPermitNon-CompliantIssuanceLicenseRevocationRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A consulted the state registration board and received an advisory that issuing a non-compliant permit could jeopardize his license, reinforcing his refusal to issue the permit.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Permit Non-Compliant Issuance License Revocation Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from issuing the permit by the state engineering registration board's advisory that preparing a permit violating environmental regulations could result in suspension or revocation of his engineering license.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: State Engineering Registration Board advisory; state engineering licensure law
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
temporalscope: From the time of the board consultation through the permit decision
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.601052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A State Licensing Board Permit Compliance Consultation
type: StateLicensingBoardPermitComplianceConsultationAppropriatenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced a directive from his superior to move expeditiously on the permit; he believed the plans violated Clean Air Act SO2 standards; he consulted the state registration board and received an advisory that issuing a non-compliant permit could result in license revocation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: State Licensing Board Permit Compliance Consultation Appropriateness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's affirmative consultation of the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing the permit could violate the state engineering registration law constituted appropriate professional conduct consistent with NSPE Code Section II.1.a, establishing that such consultation is not merely permissible but appropriate when facing a directive to issue a potentially non-compliant permit.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.a; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
temporalscope: During the permit dispute, before and after the department override
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
textreferences: We would also note that this case also raises another dimension which involves the role of the state licensing board in determining the ethical conduct of licensees.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.611620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Stick to Guns Public Safety Representation
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to move expeditiously and avoid 'technical hang-ups'; Engineer A maintained his professional determination that the plans violated Clean Air Act standards and refused to issue the permit
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from capitulating to his superior's institutional pressure — framed as avoiding 'technical hang-ups' — and was required to maintain his professionally grounded determination that the fluidized boiler process plans were inadequate to meet Clean Air Act SO2 standards, even at the risk of employment consequences.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:50:58.245677+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1; BER Case 65-12; BER Case 92-4 Discussion
sourcetext: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit dispute
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
textreferences: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.611792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Environmental Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance
type: SuperiorAuthorityEnvironmentalRegulatoryReportingSuppressionNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to avoid technical issues and move expeditiously, which functioned as a suppression directive. Engineer A correctly refused and submitted his findings formally.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Superior Authority Environmental Regulatory Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from complying with his superior's implicit directive to suppress his technical findings and issue the permit, and was required to formally document and submit those findings — and, after department override, to consider escalation to state regulatory authorities — rather than treating the superior's directive as a discharge of his environmental reporting obligation.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; Superior Authority Environmental Regulatory Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: From the time of the superior's expedite directive through the department's authorization of the permit
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.602288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Expedite Directive Technical Suppression Prohibition
type: SuperiorExpediteDirectiveTechnicalHang-UpSuppressionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to process the permit quickly and avoid technical issues, which Engineer A recognized as a directive to suppress his finding that the plans violated Clean Air Act standards.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Superior Expedite Directive Technical Hang-Up Suppression Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was ethically prohibited from complying with his superior's directive to move expeditiously and avoid 'technical hang-ups,' as that directive functioned to suppress his professionally grounded regulatory compliance review.
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:38.748651+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; NSPE Code Section II.1; Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: At the time the superior issued the expedite directive
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Implicit Pressure Recognition
type: SuperiorExpeditingDirectiveImplicitPressureRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Superior Expediting Directive Implicit Pressure Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the superior's directive to 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues constituted implicit institutional pressure to suppress his professional engineering judgment about Clean Air Act compliance.
casecontext: Recognition triggered by the superior's directive framing before Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing the 'avoid technical hang-ups' framing as an attempt to characterize legitimate safety concerns as procedural obstacles, and responding by maintaining professional independence rather than complying
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.609920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A contacts state engineering registration board before Engineer A refuses to issue the permit
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed... Engineer A refused to issue the permit
from entity text: Engineer A contacts state engineering registration board
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A refuses to issue the permit
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A refuses to issue the permit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A ordered to draw up construction permit before Engineer A identifies inadequacies in the plans
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit... Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate
from entity text: Engineer A ordered to draw up construction permit
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A identifies inadequacies in the plans
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A identifies inadequacies in the plans
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A refuses to issue the permit and submits findings before Department authorizes issuance of the permit
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior. The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
from entity text: Engineer A refuses to issue the permit and submits findings
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Department authorizes issuance of the permit
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Department authorizes issuance of the permit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A's consultation with registration board before Engineer A's refusal to issue permit
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations. Engineer A refused to issue the permit
from entity text: Engineer A's consultation with registration board
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's refusal to issue permit
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s refusal to issue permit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Assesses Plan Inadequacy
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: State Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Assessment would place him in direct conflict with his superior
foreseen unintended effects: Refusal to proceed could result in professional or employment consequences
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to issue professional opinions founded on adequate technical knowledge
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to practice only within areas of competence
guided by principle text: Professional honesty and objectivity
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
guided by principle text: Technical integrity
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and conscientious
intended outcome: Accurately assess whether the plans comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act before issuing the permit
requires capability text: Ability to evaluate compliance with Clean Air Act standards
requires capability text: Environmental engineering expertise
requires capability text: Knowledge of sulphur dioxide emissions control technologies
temporal marker: During the permit drafting phase, after receiving the order
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A independently reviews the drafted construction plans and concludes they are technically inadequate to meet regulatory requirements, determining that external scrubbers are necessary to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions to compliant levels.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Assesses Plan Inadequacy (Action 2) + Registration Board Warning Issued (Event 3) → Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit (Action 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A independently reviews the drafted construction plans and concludes they are technically inadequate, and the registration board advises Engineer A that issuing a permit that does not comply with standards would constitute a professional ethics violation, together compelling Engineer A to formally refuse to issue the construction permit
cause: Engineer Assesses Plan Inadequacy (Action 2) + Registration Board Warning Issued (Event 3)
counterfactual: Without the registration board warning, Engineer A might have faced greater uncertainty about whether refusal was professionally required; without the technical inadequacy finding, there would have been no basis for refusal; if the superior's counter-determination had been technically persuasive, Engineer A might have deferred
effect: Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit (Action 5)
necessary factors: Absence of a revised plan that would meet Clean Air Act standards
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness of personal professional liability and registration consequences
necessary factors: Engineer A's independent technical finding of plan inadequacy
necessary factors: Registration board's formal warning that issuing the permit would violate professional ethics
necessary factors: Superior's counter-determination failing to resolve Engineer A's technical concerns
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Even without the board warning, the technical inadequacy finding alone may have been sufficient given Engineer A's professional obligations under the Clean Air Act
sufficient factors: Technical finding of inadequacy + registration board warning of professional consequences + unresolved superior counter-determination = Engineer A's formal refusal
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Consults Registration Board
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: State Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Board's warning could formally document the risk, strengthening his basis for refusal
foreseen unintended effects: Consulting the board could be perceived by his superior as insubordination or escalation
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to act in accordance with state engineering registration law
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare by verifying compliance obligations
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to seek clarification when facing professionally compromising situations (NSPE Code Section II.1.a.)
guided by principle text: License protection aligned with public safety
guided by principle text: Professional due diligence
guided by principle text: Transparency and accountability to regulatory authority
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and precautionary
intended outcome: Obtain authoritative guidance on the professional and legal implications of issuing a potentially non-compliant permit, and protect his engineering license
requires capability text: Ability to articulate technical and regulatory concerns to a licensing board
requires capability text: Knowledge of state engineering registration law
requires capability text: Professional judgment about when external guidance is warranted
temporal marker: After identifying the technical conflict with his superior, before formally refusing to issue the permit
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A proactively contacts the state engineering registration board to seek guidance on whether issuing the permit as drafted would violate the state engineering registration law and risk his professional license.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Dissent Framework — Conscientious Refusal
type: EngineerDissentFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional ethics framework for engineer conscientious refusal of assigned tasks on ethical grounds
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Dissent Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
usedby: Engineer A; ethics reviewers
usedincontext: Provides the decision framework for Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit on grounds that it would violate regulatory requirements and public safety, distinguishing permissible from obligatory dissent
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.589631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard — Permit Refusal Context
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing engineer duty to escalate public safety concerns and refuse non-compliant certifications
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to refuse issuance of the permit and escalate his findings to his superior when he determines the permit would violate air pollution standards, and potentially to notify regulatory or public authorities if the department proceeds
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.589027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: State Environmental Protection Division, Environmental Engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Department may override his refusal and issue the permit anyway
foreseen unintended effects: His refusal would be formally on record, protecting him from direct complicity
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of employment consequences or professional retaliation
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid being placed in a professionally compromising situation
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to formally communicate professional findings to the appropriate authority within the organization
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to refuse to approve documents not in conformity with applicable engineering standards (NSPE Code Section II.1.a.)
guided by principle text: Professional integrity and honesty
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
guided by principle text: Refusal to approve non-compliant engineering documents
guided by principle text: Standing firm on technically grounded professional judgment
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and principled
intended outcome: Prevent issuance of a permit that he believes violates the 1990 Clean Air Act and endangers public health; formally document his objections through his superior
requires capability text: Ability to formally document and communicate technical findings
requires capability text: Environmental engineering expertise to substantiate refusal
requires capability text: Professional courage to refuse a superior's directive
temporal marker: After receiving the state engineering registration board's warning about license risk
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A formally refuses to issue the construction permit and submits his technical findings to his superior, standing by his professional assessment that the plans are inadequate and would violate air pollution standards.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit (Action 5) → Department Override Occurs (Event 4) + Department Authorizes Permit Override (Action 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After Engineer A's refusal, the department unilaterally authorizes issuance of the construction permit, with the refusal directly triggering the department's decision to bypass Engineer A and issue the permit through institutional override
cause: Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit (Action 5)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's formal refusal, the department would not have needed to exercise override authority; the permit might have been issued through normal channels; if the department lacked override authority or chose not to exercise it, the project would have been halted pending resolution
effect: Department Override Occurs (Event 4) + Department Authorizes Permit Override (Action 6)
necessary factors: Absence of a binding injunction or court order preventing permit issuance
necessary factors: Department's determination that the project should proceed despite Engineer A's findings
necessary factors: Department's institutional authority to override individual engineer decisions
necessary factors: Engineer A's formal refusal to issue the permit
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: State Environmental Protection Department
sufficient factors: Engineer A's formal refusal + department's institutional override authority + department's policy decision to proceed = permit issued without Engineer A's authorization
sufficient factors: The department's willingness to disregard both Engineer A's technical findings and the registration board's warning was sufficient to produce the override
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Regulatory Compliance Certification Standard — Air Permit Context
type: EngineerRegulatoryComplianceCertificationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing engineer's obligation not to certify regulatory compliance when technical requirements are not met
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Regulatory Compliance Certification Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Establishes that Engineer A cannot ethically issue a construction permit certifying regulatory compliance when he has determined the plans do not meet air pollution standards; issuing the permit would constitute a false certification
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.589489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer relieved of responsibility for disposal plants (BER 88-6) meets Engineer continuing to work as city engineer/director of public works (BER 88-6)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: (5) being relieved by the city administrator of responsibility for the disposal plants and beds by a technician, the engineer continued to work in the capacity as city engineer/director of public works
from entity text: Engineer relieved of responsibility for disposal plants (BER 88-6)
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: Engineer continuing to work as city engineer/director of public works (BER 88-6)
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: Engineer continuing to work as city engineer direc
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineering Licensure Law — State Registration Requirements
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: State legislature
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensure Statute — Scope of Practice and License Revocation Provisions
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
usedby: State engineering registration board; Engineer A
usedincontext: Provides the legal basis under which the state engineering registration board advises Engineer A that preparing a non-compliant permit could result in suspension or revocation of his engineering license
version: State-specific statute current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.589769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

II.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
type: PowerPlantConstructionPermitApplicant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'facility_type': 'Manufacturing facility with proposed power plant', 'proposed_compliance_method': 'Limestone mixed with coal in fluidized boiler process', 'regulatory_context': '1990 Clean Air Act, state air pollution standards'}
caseinvolvement: Manufacturing facility seeking a state construction permit for a power plant whose proposed technical plans (fluidized boiler process) are the subject of Engineer A's regulatory compliance objection regarding sulphur dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'permit_applicant_reviewed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Environmental Permit Issuing Regulatory Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'permit_granted_by', 'target': 'Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
sourcetext: construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility
textreferences: construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility
textreferences: plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.590282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Media Coverage Emerges
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Public_Transparency_Constraint
activates constraint: Reputational_Risk_Management_Constraint
causes state change: The dispute is now public; all parties are subject to external scrutiny; the department can no longer manage the issue internally; Engineer A's conduct becomes a matter of public professional record
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Department_Respond_To_Public_Scrutiny
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Maintain_Professional_Conduct_Under_Scrutiny
creates obligation: State_Authorities_Investigate
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After Department Authorizes Permit Override
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: medium
comment: The case receives widespread media coverage, bringing public attention to the disputed permit, the engineer's refusal, and the department's override, transforming what was an internal regulatory dispute into a matter of public record and scrutiny.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Media coverage and state investigation before BER Discussion/Analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities. [Discussion then analyzes the case retrospectively]
from entity text: Media coverage and state investigation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Discussion/Analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Discussion Analysis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-I.1
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Fundamental Canon I.1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the foundational obligation requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II.1.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice II.1.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:09.516832+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in affirming Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the provision with which Engineer A's consultation of the state licensing board is consistent, affirming the appropriateness of seeking guidance on whether permit approval would violate the state engineering registration law
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior
usedby: Engineer A; ethics reviewers analyzing the case
usedincontext: Provides the primary normative framework governing Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount, refuse to issue a non-compliant permit, and escalate findings to his superior — particularly Fundamental Canon I (public safety, health, and welfare) and Rules of Practice governing regulatory compliance
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.588847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard — Regulatory Permit Context
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorAuthorityLimitationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms limiting superior authority to override licensed engineer's technical and regulatory compliance judgments
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit
usedby: Engineer A; ethics reviewers
usedincontext: Governs the limits of Engineer A's superior's authority to order expeditious permit issuance and override Engineer A's technical finding that the permit violates air pollution standards; the superior's directive to 'avoid any hang-ups' does not override the engineer's professional obligation
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.589178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Plan Inadequacy Discovered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Honesty_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Competence_Obligation
activates constraint: PublicHealth_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: Permit process is no longer routine; a compliance gap has been identified that fundamentally changes Engineer A's obligations and the risk profile of issuing the permit
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Technical_Assessment
creates obligation: Refuse_To_Issue_NonCompliant_Permit
creates obligation: Report_Findings_To_Superior
creates obligation: Seek_Technical_Or_Legal_Guidance
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During permit drafting phase, after Superior Orders Expedited Permit
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: high
comment: Upon reviewing the power plant plans, Engineer A identifies that the proposed limestone-coal fluidized boiler process is insufficient to meet 1990 Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, and that external scrubbers would be required for compliance.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Would it have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work in this case?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Given that the technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior involves a genuine dispute about whether the fluidized boiler process meets Clean Air Act standards, at what point does an honest technical disagreement become an ethical violation requiring refusal rather than deference to supervisory judgment?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: After the department overrode Engineer A's refusal and authorized the permit, did Engineer A have an affirmative ethical obligation to escalate his concerns to external authorities such as the EPA or state environmental regulators, or was such escalation merely a permissible personal conscience decision?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the state engineering registration board's advisory that Engineer A's license could be suspended or revoked for issuing a non-compliant permit create an independent ethical obligation to refuse, or does it merely reinforce a pre-existing professional duty grounded in public safety?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What ethical responsibility, if any, does Engineer A's superior bear as a non-engineer supervisor who overrode a licensed engineer's professional judgment on a matter of regulatory compliance and public health, and does the NSPE Code of Ethics address the obligations of engineers who witness such institutional overrides by non-engineer authorities?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Would it have been ethical for Engineer A to issue the permit?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount when Engineer A's superior — also presumably technically qualified — holds a different but professionally defensible view about whether the fluidized boiler process satisfies Clean Air Act SO2 requirements? At what threshold of uncertainty does public welfare override deference to a superior's honest technical judgment?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Loyalty Bounded by Ethics — Engineer A's Obligation to Superior Within Ethical Limits conflict with the principle of Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right when Engineer A considers escalating beyond his department after the permit override? Specifically, does bounded loyalty prohibit active external disclosure, or does it merely permit it as a matter of personal conscience once internal channels are exhausted?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Professional Accountability — requiring Engineer A to accept employment consequences for his refusal — conflict with the principle of Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation, which may demand continued active engagement rather than withdrawal, when Engineer A faces potential termination or retaliation for refusing to issue the permit?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation conflict with the principle of Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Institutional Bargaining when Engineer A's primary motivation for consulting the state registration board could be interpreted as self-interested license preservation rather than public welfare advocacy — and does the ethical weight of his refusal diminish if self-protection rather than public safety was the dominant motivating principle?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to refuse to issue the permit?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill a categorical duty to refuse the permit regardless of personal consequences, given that issuing it would have constituted a direct violation of the 1990 Clean Air Act and NSPE Code Section II.1.b requiring approval only of documents conforming to applicable standards?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's refusal to issue the permit and formal submission of findings to his superior produce the best achievable outcome for public welfare, given that the department ultimately authorized the permit anyway and the matter escalated to state investigation and media scrutiny?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.404969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and prudence by consulting the state engineering registration board, formally documenting his findings, and refusing to issue the permit under superior pressure, even at risk of employment jeopardy and license scrutiny?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A's withdrawal option violate a duty of non-abandonment toward the public, given that withdrawal would have left no qualified engineering voice opposing the non-compliant permit within the regulatory process, effectively making Engineer A complicit through inaction in the manner condemned in BER Case 88-6?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had issued the permit under superior pressure while privately disagreeing with its adequacy, would that act of compliance have constituted an abrogation of fundamental engineering responsibility under the NSPE Code, and would the state engineering registration board's advisory about license revocation risk have materialized into actual disciplinary proceedings?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had withdrawn from the case entirely rather than refusing to issue the permit and submitting formal findings, would the department's override of the permit decision have faced the same public scrutiny and state investigation, or would the absence of Engineer A's documented dissent have allowed the non-compliant permit to proceed without triggering external accountability mechanisms?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had escalated his technical concerns directly to state environmental authorities or the media before exhausting internal channels with his superior, would that premature external disclosure have been ethically justified under the NSPE Code, or would it have constituted a breach of the bounded loyalty obligation to his employer that the Board's analysis implicitly preserves?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior about whether the fluidized boiler process adequately removes sulphur dioxide had been resolved by an independent third-party engineering review confirming the superior's position, would Engineer A have been ethically obligated to issue the permit, and how would that outcome reframe the Board's analysis of honest disagreement among qualified engineers?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.405313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Registration Board Warning Issued
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Refuse_Unethical_Directives
activates constraint: License_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A now has formal external validation that issuing the permit would be professionally dangerous; the risk is no longer merely theoretical or self-assessed
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Board_Consultation
creates obligation: Formally_Refuse_NonCompliant_Permit
creates obligation: Notify_Superior_Of_Licensure_Risk
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer Consults Registration Board; before Engineer Refuses to Issue Permit
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: The state engineering registration board advises Engineer A that issuing a permit that does not comply with applicable standards could place his professional engineering license at risk, formally linking permit issuance to personal licensure consequences.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.407998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.408270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

State Engineering Registration Board Advisory on Permit Compliance
type: EngineerLicenseRevocationRiskAdvisory
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: State engineering registration board
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Registration Board Informal Advisory — Licensure Risk from Non-Compliant Permit Issuance
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.326449+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer License Revocation Risk Advisory
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Engineer A consults the state registration board and receives an advisory that issuing a permit violating environmental regulations could result in suspension or revocation of his engineering license, reinforcing his ethical and professional obligation to refuse
version: Informal oral/written advisory (case-specific)
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.588659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

State Engineering Registration Board Regulatory Authority
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority_type': 'Professional licensure regulatory body', 'advisory_function': 'Provided guidance on license risk based on limited information'}
caseinvolvement: State engineering registration board consulted by Engineer A regarding potential license jeopardy if he prepares a permit that violates environmental regulations; informs Engineer A that suspension or revocation of his license is a possibility
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'consulted_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Environmental Permit Issuing Regulatory Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.590441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

State Investigation Initiated
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Cooperative_With_Investigation_Obligation
activates constraint: Federal_Regulatory_Enforcement_Trigger
activates constraint: Institutional_Accountability_Constraint
causes state change: The permit and the override are now under formal legal and regulatory scrutiny; the matter has moved from an internal institutional dispute to a formal state accountability process; outcomes may include permit revocation, disciplinary action, or policy reform
concept category: Event
creates obligation: All_Parties_Cooperate_With_Investigation
creates obligation: Department_Produce_Documentation
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Provide_Testimony_If_Required
creates obligation: State_Authorities_Assess_Permit_Validity
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Media Coverage Emerges; subsequent to Department Override
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: high
comment: Following the media coverage, state authorities open a formal investigation into the permit dispute, the department's override, and the underlying compliance questions, creating an official accountability mechanism external to the department itself.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Department Permit-Overriding Supervisor Air Pollution Technical Assessment
type: AirPollutionRegulatoryStandardTechnicalAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Air Pollution Regulatory Standard Technical Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The superior possessed technical capability to assess the fluidized boiler limestone process against Clean Air Act SO2 standards, reaching the different — though honest — professional conclusion that the process would remove 90% of sulphur dioxide and meet regulatory requirements.
casecontext: Applied in the superior's review of the manufacturing facility's power plant construction permit application
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Reaching the technical conclusion that the fluidized boiler process was adequate for Clean Air Act compliance, disagreeing with Engineer A's assessment that external scrubbers were required
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:39:37.908880+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.600688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Endorses Fluidized Boiler Process
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: State Environmental Protection Division Manager
foreseen unintended effects: Could expose the department and Engineer A to regulatory and legal liability
foreseen unintended effects: If wrong, the permit could violate Clean Air Act standards
fulfills obligation text: Exercise of managerial technical judgment within his authority
guided by principle text: Administrative efficiency
guided by principle text: Managerial authority
has agent: Superior
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Establish a technical basis for proceeding with the permit as drafted, overriding Engineer A's objections
requires capability text: Managerial authority over permit decisions
requires capability text: Regulatory interpretation of Clean Air Act standards
requires capability text: Technical knowledge of emissions control processes
temporal marker: Concurrent with Engineer A's technical assessment, during the drafting phase
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Obligation not to override a subordinate engineer's technically grounded safety concerns without adequate justification
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure permits comply with applicable environmental regulations
violates obligation text: Obligation to protect public health and welfare
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A's superior makes an affirmative technical counter-determination that the limestone-coal fluidized boiler process, which removes 90% of sulphur dioxide, is sufficient to meet regulatory requirements, directly contradicting Engineer A's assessment.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Endorses Fluidized Boiler Process (Action 3) → Engineer Consults Registration Board (Action 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A's superior makes an affirmative technical counter-determination endorsing the limestone-coal fluidized boiler process, directly creating the unresolved conflict of professional judgment that prompts Engineer A to proactively contact the state engineering registration board to seek guidance
cause: Superior Endorses Fluidized Boiler Process (Action 3)
counterfactual: If the superior had accepted Engineer A's technical finding and halted the permit process, Engineer A would have had no need to consult the registration board; if the superior had provided a technically persuasive counter-argument that resolved Engineer A's concerns, external consultation might not have been sought
effect: Engineer Consults Registration Board (Action 4)
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness that proceeding under the superior's direction despite personal technical concerns could constitute a professional ethics violation
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional registration creating a personal stake in obtaining authoritative guidance
necessary factors: Existence of the state engineering registration board as an accessible external authority
necessary factors: Superior's counter-determination creating an unresolved conflict with Engineer A's independent technical finding
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A's Superior (triggering); Engineer A (executing)
sufficient factors: The superior's counter-determination was the pivotal factor; without it, Engineer A's technical finding alone might have been resolved internally
sufficient factors: Unresolved technical conflict with superior + Engineer A's professional ethics concerns + accessible registration board = Engineer A's decision to seek external guidance
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Orders Expedited Permit
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: State Environmental Protection Division Manager
foreseen unintended effects: Potential regulatory non-compliance with 1990 Clean Air Act
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of issuing a permit that violates air pollution standards
fulfills obligation text: Administrative duty to advance departmental workflow
guided by principle text: Administrative efficiency
guided by principle text: Organizational hierarchy compliance
has agent: Superior
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Expedite permit issuance to facilitate construction of the power plant without procedural delays
requires capability text: Managerial authority over permit processes
requires capability text: Technical judgment regarding emissions control methods
temporal marker: At the outset, before Engineer A begins drafting
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Obligation not to pressure subordinate engineers to compromise professional judgment
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure regulatory compliance with the 1990 Clean Air Act
violates obligation text: Obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare (NSPE Code Section I.1.)
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A's superior directs him to draft the construction permit quickly and to avoid any technical 'hang-ups,' effectively pressuring him to deprioritize regulatory scrutiny in favor of speed.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Orders Expedited Permit (Action 1) → Plan Inadequacy Discovered (Event 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A's superior directs him to draft the construction permit quickly and to avoid any technical scrutiny, which creates the conditions under which Engineer A independently reviews the plans and identifies the inadequacy
cause: Superior Orders Expedited Permit (Action 1)
counterfactual: If the superior had not ordered expedited review, a standard technical review process would have been followed and the inadequacy would still have been discovered, but through official channels rather than Engineer A's independent action; if Engineer A had complied with the order to avoid technical scrutiny, the inadequacy may not have been formally identified at this stage
effect: Plan Inadequacy Discovered (Event 2)
necessary factors: Clean Air Act Standards providing a compliance benchmark (Event 1)
necessary factors: Engineer A's independent professional judgment to conduct review anyway
necessary factors: Existence of technically inadequate plans submitted for permitting
necessary factors: Superior's directive to expedite and suppress technical review
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer A's Superior
sufficient factors: Combination of superior pressure to bypass review + Engineer A's professional obligation to assess + technically deficient plans = discovery of inadequacy
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.613973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior's instruction to move expeditiously before Engineer A's identification of inadequacies
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues. Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate
from entity text: Superior's instruction to move expeditiously
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's identification of inadequacies
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s identification of inadequacies
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy for Engineer A
type: WhistleblowerEmploymentJeopardyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's refusal to issue permit through ongoing state investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
stateclass: Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy State
subject: Engineer A's employment security following refusal to issue permit and submission of findings
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's documented refusal to issue permit and submission of findings to superior, contrary to organizational directive
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Widespread media coverage before State authorities investigation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
from entity text: Widespread media coverage
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: State authorities investigation
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: State authorities investigation
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.614317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231570+00:00
value: The Board distinguished BER 82-5 from the present case precisely because the present case involves direct public health and safety impact, converting the personal conscience right into a mandatory obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232628+00:00
value: The Board distinguished BER 82-5 from the present case precisely because the present case involves direct public health and safety impact, converting the personal conscience right into a mandatory obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233063+00:00
value: The heightened public employment obligation overrides the personal conscience characterization; both BER 88-6 and the present case involve mandatory duties, not mere personal conscience rights.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.234098+00:00
value: The consultation was found to be appropriate conduct; it informed Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit and disassociate from further work on the project.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232047+00:00
value: The consultation was found to be appropriate conduct; it informed Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit and disassociate from further work on the project.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233948+00:00
value: The obligation to consult the registration board when facing potential license jeopardy overrides any concern about disclosing employer information, because the engineer's professional standing is at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231159+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount and environmental law violation reporting obligations override the duty of loyalty when compliance with supervisory direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232794+00:00
value: The bounded character of loyalty means Engineer A's refusal of his superior's directive was not a breach of loyalty but rather a proper exercise of bounded loyalty.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232231+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount and environmental law violation reporting obligations override the duty of loyalty when compliance with supervisory direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231235+00:00
value: Loyalty to employer is a legitimate professional value but is subordinate to the paramount public safety obligation; when the two conflict, the public safety obligation prevails.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233871+00:00
value: The principle distinguishes between the mandatory minimum (refusal and internal reporting, which Engineer A discharged) and the discretionary maximum (external public advocacy), leaving the latter to personal conscience.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233267+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides the duty to follow supervisory direction when compliance would require the engineer to certify a permit he believes violates applicable environmental law protecting public health.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232285+00:00
value: Loyalty to employer is a legitimate professional value but is subordinate to the paramount public safety obligation; when the two conflict, the public safety obligation prevails.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233435+00:00
value: Loyalty to employer is a legitimate professional value but is subordinate to the paramount public safety obligation; when the two conflict, the public safety obligation prevails.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231836+00:00
value: The paramount public safety obligation cannot be overridden by supervisory pressure; Engineer A was required to maintain his refusal regardless of employment consequences.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231453+00:00
value: The obligation to consult the registration board when facing potential license jeopardy overrides any concern about disclosing employer information, because the engineer's professional standing is at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233219+00:00
value: The consultation was found to be appropriate conduct; it informed Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit and disassociate from further work on the project.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232096+00:00
value: The obligation to consult the registration board when facing potential license jeopardy overrides any concern about disclosing employer information, because the engineer's professional standing is at stake.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232936+00:00
value: The consultation with the registration board served two functions: it provided Engineer A with information about the professional consequences of compliance with the directive, and it confirmed that the permit issuance function carries personal professional liability that cannot be transferred to the superior through supervisory direction.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231345+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 88-6 precisely because the issues were publicly known and under investigation, discharging the external reporting obligation that would otherwise have been mandatory.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233335+00:00
value: The purpose of external reporting is to ensure appropriate authorities can act to protect the public; when confirmed authority awareness already serves that purpose, the formal reporting obligation is discharged and further notification would be a useless act.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231941+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 88-6 precisely because the issues were publicly known and under investigation, discharging the external reporting obligation that would otherwise have been mandatory.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232708+00:00
value: The non-delegable character of the professional certification function means that the superior's disagreement does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation or eliminate the engineer's personal license liability for issuing a permit believed to be non-compliant.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231400+00:00
value: The principle distinguishes between the mandatory minimum (refusal and internal reporting, which Engineer A discharged) and the discretionary maximum (external public advocacy), leaving the latter to personal conscience.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232870+00:00
value: The mandatory floor of Engineer A's obligation was met by internal refusal and formal reporting; the case's receipt of widespread media publicity and state authority investigation represents the discretionary ceiling of further public advocacy, which the principle permits but does not require.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231708+00:00
value: Professional ethics obligations are not subordinated by organizational pressure; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233009+00:00
value: The principle applies where the engineer has a good-faith professional belief that public health is at risk; the superior's disagreement does not eliminate that belief or discharge the engineer's responsibility.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232162+00:00
value: Professional ethics obligations are not subordinated by organizational pressure; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233535+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 88-6 precisely because the issues were publicly known and under investigation, discharging the external reporting obligation that would otherwise have been mandatory.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232505+00:00
value: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 88-6 precisely because the issues were publicly known and under investigation, discharging the external reporting obligation that would otherwise have been mandatory.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.234043+00:00
value: The Board distinguished BER 82-5 from the present case precisely because the present case involves direct public health and safety impact, converting the personal conscience right into a mandatory obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231996+00:00
value: The heightened public employment obligation overrides the personal conscience characterization; both BER 88-6 and the present case involve mandatory duties, not mere personal conscience rights.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233169+00:00
value: The environmental law violation reporting obligation reinforces the permit issuance integrity obligation; both required Engineer A to refuse the permit.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233386+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount and environmental law violation reporting obligations override the duty of loyalty when compliance with supervisory direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233486+00:00
value: The engineer's professional obligation to resist organizational pressure overrides the duty to follow supervisory direction when the direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.233117+00:00
value: Even where honest technical disagreement exists, the engineer assigned to issue the permit must act on their own professional judgment; the superior's disagreement does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation or license liability.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231765+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount and environmental law violation reporting obligations override the duty of loyalty when compliance with supervisory direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231890+00:00
value: The non-delegable permit certification obligation overrides supervisory direction; Engineer A was required to refuse issuance and was ethically correct to do so.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231627+00:00
value: The consultation was found to be appropriate conduct; it informed Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit and disassociate from further work on the project.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232573+00:00
value: The consultation was found to be appropriate conduct; it informed Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit and disassociate from further work on the project.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.231291+00:00
value: The engineer's professional obligation to resist organizational pressure overrides the duty to follow supervisory direction when the direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232367+00:00
value: The engineer's professional obligation to resist organizational pressure overrides the duty to follow supervisory direction when the direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.234157+00:00
value: Professional ethics obligations are not subordinated by organizational pressure; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T04:13:27.232432+00:00
value: The public safety obligation cannot be subordinated to institutional pressure for expedience; Engineer A's refusal was correct and the superior's directive was impermissible.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A refused to issue a permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards and submitted his findings formally to his superior, fulfilling the obligation to refuse participation in and report discovered violations of environmental law.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's insistence that outside scrubbers are necessary to adequately reduce sulphur dioxide emissions reflects the environmental stewardship obligation to protect air quality resources that the proposed fluidized boiler process would compromise.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and his superior reached different conclusions about whether the power plant's fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards — a genuine technical disagreement between qualified engineers that the Board recognized as permissible.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid any hang-ups' in a regulatory permit context reflects the type of institutional pressure — likely driven by economic or political considerations — that the principle of non-subordination of public safety prohibits Engineer A from yielding to.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted the professional and employment consequences of refusing to issue the permit and disassociating from further work on the project, demonstrating professional accountability by taking responsibility for his ethical decision.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A demonstrated professional accountability by consulting the state engineering registration board to understand the license implications of issuing a potentially non-compliant permit, and by formally submitting his findings to his superior.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a state environmental protection division engineer with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits, bore a heightened ethical obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue public safety.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's superior directed him to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups; had Engineer A complied despite his good-faith belief that the plans violated the Clean Air Act, he would have committed an abrogation of his fundamental engineering responsibility.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's superior framed legitimate safety concerns as mere 'technical hang-ups' and directed Engineer A to move expeditiously, creating institutional pressure that — had Engineer A yielded — would have constituted an abrogation of his fundamental engineering responsibility.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's good-faith belief that the power plant's fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards triggered his obligation to refuse to issue the permit and to report the concern to appropriate authorities.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and his superior reached different conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process adequately meets Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide standards — Engineer A believing outside scrubbers are necessary, his superior believing the process is adequate.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A refused to issue a construction permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, placing public health above his superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the state environmental engineer assigned to issue the construction permit, bore a non-delegable obligation to certify only that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act requirements as determined by his own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's refusal to issue the construction permit reflects the principle that the permit issuance function is a professional certification act — not a ministerial administrative act — that cannot be overridden by non-technical supervisory directives.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A resisted his superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, maintaining his professional position that the plans violated Clean Air Act standards — demonstrating that organizational pressure does not constitute a legitimate basis for overriding a professional safety determination.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A resisted his superior's directive to 'avoid any hang-ups' and move expeditiously, recognizing that the framing of safety concerns as bureaucratic obstacles did not resolve the underlying technical question of whether the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Having discharged his mandatory obligation by refusing to issue the permit and submitting his findings to his superior, Engineer A's decision about whether to engage in further external public advocacy — including participation in media coverage — was a matter of personal conscience.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A contacted the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated environmental regulations could result in license suspension or revocation — fulfilling the obligation to consult appropriate authorities about license jeopardy.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A owed loyalty to his employer (the state environmental protection division) and his superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his professional ethics and public welfare obligations — he could not comply with the directive to issue the permit.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A owed loyalty to his state agency employer and superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his paramount public safety obligation and his good-faith belief that the permit would violate the Clean Air Act — requiring him to refuse the permit.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because the Clean Air Act compliance dispute had received media coverage and appropriate officials had already begun an investigation, the Board held that Engineer A was not obligated to separately bring the matter to the attention of 'proper authorities.'

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively consulted the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated the Clean Air Act could jeopardize his engineering license — an action the Board found to constitute appropriate professional self-protection.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 82-5 and BER 88-6, identifying the material factual differences — direct public health impact (distinguishing from BER 82-5) and media coverage/authority awareness (distinguishing from BER 88-6).

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board analogized Engineer A's situation to BER 88-6, where the city engineer's public employment role created a heightened obligation to escalate sewage overflow concerns to state authorities — establishing that Engineer A's role as a state environmental engineer similarly created a heightened obligation.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 82-5, the engineer's concern about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors did not involve direct public health/safety danger, so the Board held that further advocacy after employer rejection was a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups constituted an attempt to use institutional authority to override Engineer A's public safety determination — a form of institutional bargaining that the principle of non-subordination of public safety prohibits.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A refused to issue a permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards and submitted his findings formally to his superior, fulfilling the obligation to refuse participation in and report discovered violations of environmental law.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's good-faith belief that the power plant's fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards triggered his obligation to refuse to issue the permit and to report the concern to appropriate authorities.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A refused to issue a construction permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, placing public health above his superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the state environmental engineer assigned to issue the construction permit, bore a non-delegable obligation to certify only that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act requirements as determined by his own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's refusal to issue the construction permit reflects the principle that the permit issuance function is a professional certification act — not a ministerial administrative act — that cannot be overridden by non-technical supervisory directives.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the state environmental engineer assigned to issue the construction permit, bore a non-delegable obligation to certify only that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act requirements as determined by his own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's refusal to issue the construction permit reflects the principle that the permit issuance function is a professional certification act — not a ministerial administrative act — that cannot be overridden by non-technical supervisory directives.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid any hang-ups' in a regulatory permit context reflects the type of institutional pressure — likely driven by economic or political considerations — that the principle of non-subordination of public safety prohibits Engineer A from yielding to.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid any hang-ups' in a regulatory permit context reflects the type of institutional pressure — likely driven by economic or political considerations — that the principle of non-subordination of public safety prohibits Engineer A from yielding to.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A resisted his superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, maintaining his professional position that the plans violated Clean Air Act standards — demonstrating that organizational pressure does not constitute a legitimate basis for overriding a professional safety determination.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A resisted his superior's directive to 'avoid any hang-ups' and move expeditiously, recognizing that the framing of safety concerns as bureaucratic obstacles did not resolve the underlying technical question of whether the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's superior directed him to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups; had Engineer A complied despite his good-faith belief that the plans violated the Clean Air Act, he would have committed an abrogation of his fundamental engineering responsibility.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's superior framed legitimate safety concerns as mere 'technical hang-ups' and directed Engineer A to move expeditiously, creating institutional pressure that — had Engineer A yielded — would have constituted an abrogation of his fundamental engineering responsibility.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a state environmental protection division engineer with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits, bore a heightened ethical obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue public safety.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A contacted the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated environmental regulations could result in license suspension or revocation — fulfilling the obligation to consult appropriate authorities about license jeopardy.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively consulted the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated the Clean Air Act could jeopardize his engineering license — an action the Board found to constitute appropriate professional self-protection.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A demonstrated professional accountability by consulting the state engineering registration board to understand the license implications of issuing a potentially non-compliant permit, and by formally submitting his findings to his superior.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A accepted the professional and employment consequences of refusing to issue the permit and disassociating from further work on the project, demonstrating professional accountability by taking responsibility for his ethical decision.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Having discharged his mandatory obligation by refusing to issue the permit and submitting his findings to his superior, Engineer A's decision about whether to engage in further external public advocacy — including participation in media coverage — was a matter of personal conscience.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 82-5, the engineer's concern about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors did not involve direct public health/safety danger, so the Board held that further advocacy after employer rejection was a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because the Clean Air Act compliance dispute had received media coverage and appropriate officials had already begun an investigation, the Board held that Engineer A was not obligated to separately bring the matter to the attention of 'proper authorities.'

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A owed loyalty to his employer (the state environmental protection division) and his superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his professional ethics and public welfare obligations — he could not comply with the directive to issue the permit.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A owed loyalty to his state agency employer and superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his paramount public safety obligation and his good-faith belief that the permit would violate the Clean Air Act — requiring him to refuse the permit.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 82-5 and BER 88-6, identifying the material factual differences — direct public health impact (distinguishing from BER 82-5) and media coverage/authority awareness (distinguishing from BER 88-6).

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER 82-5, the engineer's concern about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors did not involve direct public health/safety danger, so the Board held that further advocacy after employer rejection was a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board analogized Engineer A's situation to BER 88-6, where the city engineer's public employment role created a heightened obligation to escalate sewage overflow concerns to state authorities — establishing that Engineer A's role as a state environmental engineer similarly created a heightened obligation.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and his superior reached different conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process adequately meets Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide standards — Engineer A believing outside scrubbers are necessary, his superior believing the process is adequate.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and his superior reached different conclusions about whether the power plant's fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards — a genuine technical disagreement between qualified engineers that the Board recognized as permissible.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The BER 65-12 engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of a product they believed to be unsafe, even knowing that such refusal would likely lead to loss of employment.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The BER 82-5 engineer did not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy or report to external authorities after his employer rejected his reports about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, because the concern did not involve direct public health/safety danger.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was not obligated to bring the Clean Air Act compliance dispute to the attention of proper authorities beyond his internal refusal and formal submission, because the matter had already received media coverage and appropriate public officials had begun an investigation.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from bowing to his superior's institutional pressure — framed as avoiding 'technical hang-ups' — that would have caused him to abandon his professional safety determination that the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: As a licensed professional engineer employed by the state environmental protection division with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits, Engineer A bore a heightened institutional safety obligation — commensurate with his public employment role.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to remain engaged in the permit matter — standing by his professional position that the fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards — and to refuse to issue the permit.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to subordinate his professional technical determination — that the plans were inadequate to meet Clean Air Act standards — to his superior's directive to move expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to resist his superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid any hang-ups,' recognizing that framing his legitimate Clean Air Act compliance concerns as mere technical obstacles did not diminish their substantive safety significance.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to issue the construction permit because he had a professionally grounded belief that the plans, without outside scrubbers, would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A owed loyalty to his state agency employer and superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his paramount public safety obligation — his duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — and did not extend to issuing a permit he believed would violate the Clean Air Act.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to serve the state environmental protection division's legitimate interests faithfully, while recognizing that loyalty to his employer did not extend to issuing a permit he believed would violate the Clean Air Act.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The BER 88-6 city engineer was obligated to escalate the sewage overflow capacity problem to state water pollution control authorities — the 'proper authorities' — after recognizing that city officials were engaged in an ongoing pattern of ignoring the problem.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to consult the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated environmental regulations would jeopardize his professional license, before making a final decision on the permit.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to treat the act of issuing the construction permit as a professional certification that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, and to refuse to issue the permit when he held a professionally grounded belief that the plans were non-compliant.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to formally document and submit his technical findings — supporting his refusal to issue the permit — to his superior, so that the department had the full technical basis for any override decision and Engineer A's professional position was on record.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After discharging mandatory obligations by refusing to issue the permit, formally submitting findings, and consulting the state licensing board, Engineer A was ethically permitted to disassociate himself from further work on the project to protect his professional integrity.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to subordinate his professional safety determination — that the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards and endanger public health — to the employment pressure created by his superior's directive to expedite the permit.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After the department overrode Engineer A's refusal and authorized the permit, Engineer A retained the ethical right — as a matter of personal conscience — to engage in further public advocacy or external reporting, and this post-override conduct was permissible.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively consult the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated Clean Air Act standards would jeopardize his professional license, so that he could make an informed decision about the permit.

BER 65-12 Unsafe Product Refusing Engineers
type: UnsafeProductRefusingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal
attributes: {'action_taken': 'Refused to participate in processing or production of product believed unsafe', 'outcome': 'Ethically justified in refusal; risk of employment loss acknowledged'}
caseinvolvement: Referenced group of engineers who believed a product was unsafe and were found ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, even at risk of loss of employment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
importance: medium
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unsafe Product Refusing Engineer
sourcetext: a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment
textreferences: a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
textreferences: the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.594125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Case 82-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER Case 88-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T12:11:06.403852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A BER 82-5 Versus BER 88-6 Precedent Distinction
type: ComparativePrecedentPublicHealthSafetyThresholdDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board compared the present case to BER 82-5 (defense industry cost reporting) and BER 88-6 (city engineer sewage overflow) to determine the applicable ethical obligations for Engineer A.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Applied by BER Board
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Comparative Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Distinguishing Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to systematically distinguish Engineer A's case from BER 82-5 (personal conscience, no direct public health danger) and align it with BER 88-6 (direct public health and safety impact), while further distinguishing from BER 88-6 on the basis that the facts here were already known to authorities through media coverage, to calibrate Engineer A's obligations correctly.
sourcetext: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
temporalscope: At the time of ethical review and opinion issuance
textreferences: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
textreferences: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
textreferences: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A believed outside scrubbers were necessary; his superior believed the fluidized boiler process removing 90% of sulphur dioxide was sufficient. Both positions were professionally grounded.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Honest Disagreement Permissibility Applied to Engineer A vs Superior Technical Dispute
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Ethics reviewing bodies; State engineering registration board
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Ethics reviewing bodies were obligated to recognize that Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process met Clean Air Act standards, and that neither engineer's position was inherently unethical — the ethical question turned on whether each acted with integrity and fulfilled professional obligations, not on which technical conclusion was correct.
sourcetext: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
temporalscope: In any ethics review or adjudication of the case
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A believed the fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act standards; his superior disagreed and directed issuance of the permit; the Board addressed the ethical dimensions of this technical disagreement.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers — Engineer A vs. Superior on Fluidized Boiler Process
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to recognize that Engineer A and his superior reached different technical conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process adequately met Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, and that neither engineer's position was inherently unethical — the ethical question turning on whether each acted with integrity and fulfilled professional obligations, not on which technical position was correct.
sourcetext: This case also raises another dimension which involves the role of the state licensing board in determining the ethical conduct of licensees.
temporalscope: At the time of ethical review
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties
textreferences: This case also raises another dimension which involves the role of the state licensing board in determining the ethical conduct of licensees.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.607745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
type: Permit-OverridingGovernmentSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Institutional Bargaining Applied to Engineer A's Superior
attributes: {'employer': 'State environmental protection division', 'authority': 'Supervisory authority over permit issuance', 'technical_position': 'Believes fluidized boiler process meets regulatory requirements'}
caseinvolvement: State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, disagrees with Engineer A's technical assessment, and ultimately authorizes the department to issue the permit despite Engineer A's documented objections
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:28:43.854282+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'authorized_permit_for', 'target': 'Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Environmental Permit Issuing Regulatory Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.590133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Air Pollution Regulatory Non-Compliance Risk from Permit
type: Non-CompliantState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's assessment through department's authorization of permit and ongoing investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: Public (air quality)
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
stateclass: Non-Compliant State
subject: Proposed construction permit for power plant at manufacturing facility relative to 1990 Clean Air Act SO2 standards
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts; under investigation by state authorities
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional determination that the permit as drafted violates air pollution standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.591285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER 65-12 involved a group of engineers who believed a product was unsafe; the Board found they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: BER 65-12 group of engineers
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: The BER 65-12 engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of a product they believed to be unsafe, even knowing that such refusal would likely lead to loss of employment.
sourcetext: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
temporalscope: Upon forming and maintaining the professional belief that the product was unsafe
textreferences: As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.607579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Industry Whistleblower Engineer
type: DefenseIndustryWhistleblowerEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Principle Applied to BER 82-5 Precedent
has obligation: BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Right
attributes: {'employer': 'Large defense industry firm', 'action_taken': 'Documented and reported excessive costs and time delays internally', 'outcome': 'No ethical obligation to continue campaign or report externally; ethical right to do so as personal conscience'}
caseinvolvement: Referenced engineer employed by a large defense industry firm who documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors; the Board ruled he had an ethical right but not an absolute duty to escalate externally after employer rejection, treating further action as a matter of personal conscience.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Defense Industry Employer (BER 82-5)'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Defense Industry Whistleblower Engineer
sourcetext: an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors
textreferences: an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors
textreferences: has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
textreferences: the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
type: CityEngineerPublicWelfareEscalationObligatedEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Public Employee Heightened Obligation Applied via BER 88-6 Precedent
has obligation: BER 88-6 City Engineer Proper Authority Escalation Failure
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Municipal government', 'responsibility': 'Disposal plants and beds', 'outcome': 'Found to have failed ethical obligations by not escalating to state authorities'}
caseinvolvement: Referenced city engineer/director of public works who discovered unreported sewage overflow capacity problems, attempted internal reporting to city administrator and council members, was warned and had responsibilities stripped, but failed to escalate to state water pollution control authorities — thereby becoming an accessory to ongoing regulatory violations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'City Council (BER 88-6)'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'City Administrator (BER 88-6)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Engineer Public Welfare Escalation Obligated Engineer
sourcetext: an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal plants and beds and reported to a city administrator
textreferences: an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal plants and beds and reported to a city administrator
textreferences: noticing problems with overflow capacity which are required to be reported to the state water pollution control authorities
textreferences: the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory'
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

City Engineer Accessory Through Inaction on Overflow Violations (BER 88-6 Precedent)
type: AccessoryLiabilityThroughInactiononKnownRegulatoryViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the city engineer's awareness of overflow capacity violations through continued employment without external escalation
affectedparties: City administrator
affectedparties: City council
affectedparties: City engineer
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State water pollution control authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council
stateclass: Accessory Liability Through Inaction on Known Regulatory Violation State
subject: City engineer/director of public works in BER Case 88-6 precedent
terminatedby: Board's determination that engineer failed ethical obligations by not escalating to state officials
textreferences: the engineer knew or should have known that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials
textreferences: the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others
triggeringevent: City administrator's suppression of required state water pollution control authority reporting
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Employment Pressure on Engineer A to Issue Non-Compliant Permit
type: EmploymentPressureAbrogationofSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From superior's directive to expedite the permit through Engineer A's disassociation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory agency
affectedparties: Superior
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties
stateclass: Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with regulatory agency superior
terminatedby: Engineer A's disassociation from the project
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment
textreferences: he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
triggeringevent: Superior's override of Engineer A's compliance determination and directive to issue the permit
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A License Revocation Threat from Registration Board
type: EngineerLicenseRevocationThreatforRegulatoryComplianceRefusalState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's contact with the registration board through resolution of the permit dispute
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State Engineering Registration Board
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
stateclass: Engineer License Revocation Threat for Regulatory Compliance Refusal State
subject: Engineer A's professional license status in light of registration board's advisory
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
triggeringevent: State engineering registration board's informal advisory that issuing a non-compliant permit could result in license suspension or revocation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.591678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A License Revocation Threat from State Board
type: EngineerLicenseRevocationThreatforRegulatoryComplianceRefusalState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's consultation with the state engineering registration board through the disassociation decision
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
stateclass: Engineer License Revocation Threat for Regulatory Compliance Refusal State
subject: Engineer A's professional license status following state board consultation
terminatedby: Engineer A's disassociation from the project
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
textreferences: Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code
triggeringevent: Engineer A's affirmative inquiry to the state board about whether approving the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Permit Refusal with Disassociation Permissibility
type: EngineerPermitRefusalObligationwithDisassociationPermissibilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's formal refusal to issue the permit through the disassociation decision
affectedparties: Employing agency
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position
stateclass: Engineer Permit Refusal Obligation with Disassociation Permissibility State
subject: Engineer A's ethical position following permit refusal and superior override
terminatedby: Engineer A's disassociation from further work on the project
textreferences: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns'
textreferences: it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position
triggeringevent: Superior's issuance of the permit over Engineer A's objection, combined with Engineer A's continued project involvement
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Permit Refusal State
type: PublicSectorEngineerOrderedtoExpeditePermitDespiteComplianceConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A identified the regulatory compliance deficiency through the permit refusal and subsequent disassociation decision
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Permit applicant
affectedparties: State licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
stateclass: Public Sector Engineer Ordered to Expedite Permit Despite Compliance Concern State
subject: Engineer A's employment situation in regulatory capacity
terminatedby: Engineer A's decision to disassociate from further work on the project
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
triggeringevent: Superior's directive to issue the permit despite Engineer A's documented compliance concerns
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.594306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked by Engineer A in Sulphur Dioxide Emission Assessment
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Fluidized boiler process technical design
appliedto: Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's insistence that outside scrubbers are necessary to adequately reduce sulphur dioxide emissions reflects the environmental stewardship obligation to protect air quality resources that the proposed fluidized boiler process would inadequately protect.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Environmental stewardship in the regulatory permit context requires the engineer to assess whether the proposed technical solution adequately protects air quality, not merely whether it nominally addresses the pollutant of concern.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
tensionresolution: The engineer's professional judgment that the fluidized boiler process is technically inadequate to meet Clean Air Act standards triggers the environmental stewardship obligation to refuse to certify the permit.
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.596523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Internal Escalation Exhausted After Department Override
type: InternalEscalationExhaustedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From department's authorization of permit through case publicity and state investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
affectedparties: State Investigating Authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
stateclass: Internal Escalation Exhausted State
subject: Engineer A's exhaustion of internal channels after submitting findings to superior and department authorizing permit anyway
terminatedby: State investigation initiated (external escalation pathway activated)
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
triggeringevent: Department's authorization of permit over Engineer A's documented objection, exhausting the internal escalation pathway
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Non-Safety Fund Waste Reporting Discretion (BER 82-5 Precedent)
type: Non-SafetyPublicFundWasteReportingDiscretionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engineer's documentation of excessive costs through employer rejection of reports
affectedparties: Defense firm employer
affectedparties: Engineer
affectedparties: Public fund stakeholders
affectedparties: Sub-contractors
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports
stateclass: Non-Safety Public Fund Waste Reporting Discretion State
subject: Defense industry engineer in BER Case 82-5 precedent
terminatedby: Engineer's decision on whether to pursue public disclosure
textreferences: The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
textreferences: the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports
textreferences: the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience
triggeringevent: Employer's rejection of engineer's reports on excessive contractor costs and time delays
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Authorities Already Investigating the Permit Concern
type: PublicAuthorityAlreadyInvestigatingSafetyConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point media coverage began and officials initiated investigation through resolution
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Permit applicant
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media
stateclass: Public Authority Already Investigating Safety Concern State
subject: State of regulatory investigation into the permit dispute
terminatedby: Conclusion of the regulatory investigation
textreferences: To bring the matter to their attention is a useless act
textreferences: such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation
textreferences: the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media
textreferences: we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'
triggeringevent: Media coverage of the permit dispute prompting official investigation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.594839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Media Scrutiny and State Investigation Active
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From case receiving widespread publicity through ongoing state investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
affectedparties: State Investigating Authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Active state investigation and public media scrutiny of the permit issuance decision
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
triggeringevent: Widespread news media publicity and initiation of state investigation into the permit issuance
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.592530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Safety Risk from SO2 Emissions Without Adequate Scrubbing
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of inadequacy through ongoing state investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General Public
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Air quality and public health risk from potential issuance of permit without adequate SO2 emission controls
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination that plans without outside scrubbers would violate Clean Air Act SO2 standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.591500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk from Non-Compliant Permit
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From identification of the compliance deficiency through resolution of the regulatory investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:58.813192+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: General public affected by the permit under dispute
terminatedby: Regulatory investigation conclusion and corrective action
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake
textreferences: this case also involves a question of public health and welfare
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination that the permit does not meet applicable regulatory requirements
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.594666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Superior Expedite Directive Suppressing Technical Review
type: PublicSectorEngineerOrderedtoExpeditePermitDespiteComplianceConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of superior's directive through Engineer A's refusal to issue permit
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
affectedparties: Superior
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
stateclass: Public Sector Engineer Ordered to Expedite Permit Despite Compliance Concern State
subject: Engineer A's relationship with superior regarding permit processing
terminatedby: Engineer A's documented refusal and submission of findings to superior
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
triggeringevent: Superior's instruction to move expeditiously and avoid technical 'hang-ups'
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.590785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Supervisor-Directed Non-Compliant Permit Authorization Over Engineer Objection
type: Supervisor-DirectedRegulatoryPermitNon-ComplianceIssuanceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From department's authorization of permit through ongoing state investigation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
affectedparties: Superior
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
stateclass: Supervisor-Directed Regulatory Permit Non-Compliance Issuance State
subject: Department's authorization of permit after Engineer A's documented refusal and submission of findings
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts; under state investigation
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
triggeringevent: Department's decision to authorize permit issuance despite Engineer A's documented compliance findings and refusal
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.591846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Technical Disagreement on SO2 Emission Control Regulatory Adequacy
type: TechnicalDisputeBetweenEngineerandSuperioronRegulatoryComplianceMethodState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's assessment of the plans through department's authorization of the permit
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Manufacturing Facility
affectedparties: Public (air quality)
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
affectedparties: Superior
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
stateclass: Technical Dispute Between Engineer and Superior on Regulatory Compliance Method State
subject: Disagreement between Engineer A and superior on whether fluidized boiler process meets Clean Air Act SO2 requirements
terminatedby: Department's authorization of permit (resolving administratively but not technically)
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination that outside scrubbers are necessary; superior's contrary view that fluidized boiler process is sufficient
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.591128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Institutional Bargaining Applied to Engineer A's Superior
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act compliance determination
appliedto: State environmental protection division permit issuance process
appliedto: Supervisory override of subordinate engineer's professional judgment
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups constituted an attempt to use institutional authority to override Engineer A's public safety determination — a form of institutional bargaining that the principle prohibits.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public safety standards in the permit-issuance context cannot be treated as negotiable in response to institutional pressure for expedience; the superior's directive was ethically impermissible.
invokedby: Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups.
tensionresolution: The public safety obligation cannot be subordinated to institutional pressure for expedience; Engineer A's refusal was correct and the superior's directive was impermissible.
textreferences: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor -- State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, disagrees with Engineer A's assessment.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.605195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Proper Authority Escalation Failure
type: PublicSafetyParamountVociferousnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: City Engineer Accessory Through Inaction on Overflow Violations (BER 88-6 Precedent)
casecontext: BER 88-6 city engineer discovered unreported sewage overflow capacity problems, attempted internal reporting, was warned by city administrator, and continued working without escalating to state authorities; Board found ethical obligation failure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Public Employee Heightened Obligation Applied via BER 88-6 Precedent
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 88-6 city engineer/director of public works
obligationclass: Public Safety Paramount Vociferousness Obligation
obligationstatement: The BER 88-6 city engineer was obligated to escalate the sewage overflow capacity problem to state water pollution control authorities — the 'proper authorities' — after recognizing that city officials were engaged in an ongoing pattern of disregard for the law, rather than limiting escalation to informal discussions with city council members and the city administrator.
sourcetext: In ruling that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the city administrator and certain members of the city council of her concern, the Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council.
temporalscope: After recognizing that city officials were not the proper authorities and were engaged in ongoing legal violations
textreferences: After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew or should have known that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials.
textreferences: In ruling that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the city administrator and certain members of the city council of her concern, the Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council.
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.607416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Applied by BER Board
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BER 82-5 defense industry precedent
appliedto: BER 88-6 city engineer precedent
appliedto: Present case ethical obligation determination
balancingwith: Cross-Case Precedent Consistency in Public Safety Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board systematically compared the present case to BER 82-5 and BER 88-6, identifying the material factual differences — direct public health impact (distinguishing from BER 82-5) and media coverage/authority awareness (distinguishing from BER 88-6) — to determine the precise scope of Engineer A's obligations.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board's ethical reasoning required careful identification of which precedents were materially analogous and which were distinguishable, and explanation of how the distinguishing facts altered the applicable obligations.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
sourcetext: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6. This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: The Board maintained consistency in the underlying public safety principle while distinguishing the specific obligations based on material factual differences between the cases.
textreferences: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
textreferences: Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6 .
textreferences: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.604723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure to Issue Non-Compliant Permit
type: EmploymentPressureAbrogationofSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From superior's directive through Engineer A's refusal and department's override authorization
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public (air quality)
affectedparties: State Environmental Protection Division
affectedparties: Superior
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:29:21.677885+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
stateclass: Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's professional position under organizational hierarchy directing non-compliant permit issuance
terminatedby: Engineer A's refusal and submission of findings; department's authorization of permit over Engineer A's objection
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
triggeringevent: Superior's directive to expedite permit and avoid technical issues, combined with Engineer A's belief that the permit violates the Clean Air Act
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.590958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A License Jeopardy Board Consultation
type: LicenseJeopardySelf-ProtectionBoardConsultationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A License Revocation Threat from Registration Board
casecontext: Engineer A faced a superior's directive to issue a permit he believed was non-compliant; he was uncertain about the license implications of either complying or refusing.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: License Jeopardy Self-Protection Board Consultation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to consult the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated environmental regulations would jeopardize his professional license, before making a final decision on the permit.
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
temporalscope: Before issuing or formally refusing to issue the permit
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Findings Formal Upward Submission
type: RegulatoryFindingsFormalUpwardSubmissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Supervisor-Directed Non-Compliant Permit Authorization Over Engineer Objection
casecontext: After refusing to issue the permit, Engineer A submitted his findings to his superior; the department then authorized issuance of the permit.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Through Board Consultation and Formal Refusal
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Findings Formal Upward Submission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to formally document and submit his technical findings — supporting his refusal to issue the permit — to his superior, so that the department had the full technical basis for any override decision and Engineer A's professional position was on record.
sourcetext: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
temporalscope: Concurrent with or immediately following the refusal to issue the permit
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: EnvironmentalLawViolationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
appliedto: Power plant fluidized boiler process permit application
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A refused to issue a permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards and submitted his findings formally to his superior, fulfilling the obligation to refuse participation in and report discovered environmental law violations.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the regulatory permit context, the environmental law violation reporting obligation requires the engineer to refuse to issue the permit and to formally document and report the basis for the refusal — not merely to note concerns informally.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
tensionresolution: The engineer's good-faith professional judgment that the permit would violate applicable law triggers the reporting obligation regardless of the superior's different technical view.
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.596336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Permissibility Applied to Engineer A vs Superior Technical Dispute
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act compliance determination
appliedto: Fluidized boiler process technical assessment
appliedto: Technical disagreement between regulatory engineer and supervisor
balancingwith: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A and his superior reached different conclusions about whether the power plant's fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards — a genuine technical disagreement between qualified engineers that the Board treated as a legitimate professional dispute, not an ethical violation by either party.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The existence of a genuine technical disagreement between Engineer A and his superior does not make either party's position unethical per se; what matters is that each engineer maintains their honest professional judgment.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
invokedby: Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor -- State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, disagrees with Engineer A's assessment.
tensionresolution: The honest disagreement principle legitimizes Engineer A's position as a good-faith professional judgment, while the pressure resistance principle requires him to maintain that judgment against supervisory pressure.
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor -- State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, disagrees with Engineer A's assessment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.605893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Accepting Employment Consequences
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Disassociation from further project work
appliedto: Employment consequences of ethical refusal
appliedto: Permit refusal decision
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A accepted the professional and employment consequences of refusing to issue the permit and disassociating from further work on the project, demonstrating professional accountability by taking responsibility for his ethical decision rather than rationalizing compliance with his superior's directive.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires engineers to own the consequences of their ethical choices; Engineer A's willingness to accept the professional consequences of his refusal is itself an expression of professional accountability.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability requires accepting employment consequences rather than rationalizing ethical violations; Engineer A's conduct exemplified this principle.
textreferences: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
textreferences: The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
textreferences: if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.605565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Through Board Consultation and Formal Refusal
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Engineering Registration Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
balancingwith: Employment security
balancingwith: Institutional hierarchy compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A demonstrated professional accountability by consulting the state engineering registration board to understand the license implications of issuing a potentially non-compliant permit, and by formally submitting his findings to his superior upon refusal — taking responsibility for his professional judgment and its consequences.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability in this context requires not merely making the right decision but ensuring that the decision is informed (through board consultation), documented (through formal submission of findings), and owned (by accepting the professional and employment consequences).
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability requires accepting the consequences of ethical decisions; the possibility of license jeopardy or employment consequences does not excuse the engineer from making the professionally correct decision.
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.597187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
appliedto: State environmental protection division permit review function
balancingwith: Institutional hierarchy compliance
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as a state environmental protection division engineer with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits, bore a heightened ethical obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue his public safety concerns through all available institutional channels, including formal refusal and submission of findings to his superior.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public agency regulatory context amplifies the baseline public safety obligation: Engineer A was not merely a professional with safety concerns but the public's designated technical representative in the permit review process, making his refusal both a professional and a public trust obligation.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
tensionresolution: The heightened public trust obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the professional obligation to refuse non-compliant permits; both point in the same direction.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.596687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Abrogation Principle Invoked Against Supervisor Pressure on Engineer A
type: AbrogationofFundamentalEngineeringResponsibilityThroughPressureYielding
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act compliance determination
appliedto: Superior's directive to expedite permit and avoid technical hang-ups
balancingwith: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's superior directed him to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups; had Engineer A complied despite his good-faith belief that the plans violated the Clean Air Act, he would have committed an abrogation of his fundamental professional responsibility.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board's determination that it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw (i.e., he had to maintain his refusal) reflects the principle that yielding safety determinations to supervisory pressure is an abrogation of fundamental responsibility.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding
sourcetext: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
tensionresolution: The paramount public safety obligation cannot be overridden by supervisory pressure; Engineer A was required to maintain his refusal regardless of employment consequences.
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: the Board determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question. The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.603477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding — Pressure Applied by Superior
type: AbrogationofFundamentalEngineeringResponsibilityThroughPressureYielding
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Power plant construction permit issuance decision
appliedto: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's superior framed legitimate safety concerns as mere 'technical hang-ups' and directed Engineer A to move expeditiously, creating institutional pressure that — had Engineer A yielded — would have constituted an abrogation of his fundamental professional responsibility.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The framing of safety concerns as 'hang-ups' is a paradigm instance of institutional pressure designed to cause the engineer to subordinate professional judgment to organizational convenience. The principle establishes that yielding to such pressure — when the engineer believes public health is at stake — would be an abrogation of fundamental professional responsibility.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
tensionresolution: The principle applies where the engineer has a good-faith professional belief that public health is at risk; the superior's disagreement does not eliminate that belief or discharge the engineer's responsibility.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Permit Issuance Professional Certification Non-Compromise
type: RegulatoryEngineerPermitIssuanceProfessionalCertificationNon-CompromiseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Air Pollution Regulatory Non-Compliance Risk from Permit
casecontext: Engineer A was assigned to review and issue a construction permit for a power plant; he believed the proposed fluidized boiler process would not adequately reduce sulphur dioxide emissions to meet Clean Air Act standards.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: Regulatory Engineer Permit Issuance Professional Certification Non-Compromise Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to treat the act of issuing the construction permit as a professional certification that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, and to refuse to issue the permit when he held a professionally grounded belief that the fluidized boiler process plans failed to meet those standards.
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
temporalscope: At the point of permit issuance decision
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Health Safety Whistleblowing Mandatory vs Personal Conscience Distinction
type: PublicHealthSafetyWhistleblowingMandatoryDutyVersusPersonalConscienceDistinctionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Right
prevails over: BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Right
casecontext: The Board compared Engineer A's situation to BER 82-5 and BER 88-6 to determine whether Engineer A's obligations were mandatory professional duties or personal conscience matters.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Principle Applied to BER 82-5 Precedent
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Public Health Safety Whistleblowing Mandatory Duty Versus Personal Conscience Distinction Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to distinguish Engineer A's case — involving direct public health and safety danger from Clean Air Act violations — from BER 82-5's personal conscience category, correctly classifying Engineer A's obligations as mandatory professional duties rather than discretionary personal conscience matters.
sourcetext: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
temporalscope: At the time of ethical review and opinion issuance
textreferences: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
textreferences: the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but the Board was unwilling to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue the campaign within the company
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.608033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Applied to Engineer A
type: EnvironmentalLawViolationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act air pollution standard compliance
appliedto: Fluidized boiler process technical review
appliedto: Power plant construction permit application
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's good-faith belief that the power plant's fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards triggered his obligation to refuse to issue the permit and to report the concern to appropriate authorities — an obligation the Board found he discharged by refusing issuance and consulting the state engineering registration board.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's domain-specific obligation to refuse to certify activities believed to violate federal environmental law was directly triggered by his good-faith assessment of the power plant plans.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A is a state environmental engineer ordered to issue a construction permit for a power plant who believes the plans violate Clean Air Act air pollution standards.
tensionresolution: The environmental law violation reporting obligation reinforces the permit issuance integrity obligation; both required Engineer A to refuse the permit.
textreferences: Engineer A is a state environmental engineer ordered to issue a construction permit for a power plant who believes the plans violate Clean Air Act air pollution standards.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.605398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers — Engineer A vs. Superior on Fluidized Boiler Process
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standard compliance
appliedto: Fluidized boiler process technical adequacy determination
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A and his superior reached different conclusions about whether the fluidized boiler process adequately meets Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide standards — Engineer A believing outside scrubbers are necessary, his superior believing the process removes sufficient sulphur dioxide. This is a legitimate technical disagreement between qualified professionals.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The existence of honest technical disagreement does not resolve the ethical question of whose judgment should prevail in the permit issuance decision; it contextualizes the disagreement as a legitimate professional dispute rather than a case of one party acting in bad faith.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
invokedby: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
tensionresolution: Even where honest technical disagreement exists, the engineer assigned to issue the permit must act on their own professional judgment; the superior's disagreement does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation or license liability.
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary.
textreferences: His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.597027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in Permit Refusal
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
appliedto: Power plant construction permit for fluidized boiler process
balancingwith: Institutional hierarchy compliance
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A refused to issue a construction permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, placing public health above his superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups.
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the regulatory permit context, public welfare paramount requires the engineer to refuse to certify regulatory compliance when the engineer's professional judgment concludes that the proposed technical solution is inadequate to protect public health from air pollution.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides the duty to follow supervisory direction when compliance would require the engineer to certify a permit he believes violates applicable environmental law protecting public health.
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.595832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political or Budgetary Bargaining — Applied to Superior's Expediting Directive
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
appliedto: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
balancingwith: Institutional hierarchy compliance
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid any hang-ups' in a regulatory permit context reflects the type of institutional pressure — likely driven by economic or political considerations related to the manufacturing facility — that engineers in public agency roles must not allow to compromise public safety standards.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In a regulatory permit context, expediting pressure that causes engineers to overlook genuine safety concerns is functionally equivalent to allowing political or economic considerations to compromise public safety standards, regardless of how the pressure is framed.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
tensionresolution: Public safety standards are non-negotiable constraints; the engineer's obligation to apply them cannot be overridden by institutional expediting pressure.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.596857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Public Employee Heightened Obligation Applied via BER 88-6 Precedent
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City engineer/director of public works role
appliedto: Escalation to appropriate state authorities
appliedto: State regulatory permit issuance role
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board analogized Engineer A's situation to BER 88-6, where the city engineer's public employment role created a heightened obligation to escalate sewage overflow concerns to state authorities — establishing that Engineer A's role as a state regulatory permit engineer similarly creates a heightened obligation to maintain his refusal and pursue proper channels.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public agency engineers with specific regulatory responsibility bear a heightened obligation to pursue safety concerns through all available channels; inaction constitutes accessory liability to ongoing violations.
invokedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
tensionresolution: The heightened public employment obligation overrides the personal conscience characterization; both BER 88-6 and the present case involve mandatory duties, not mere personal conscience rights.
textreferences: In BER Case 88-6 , an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal plants and beds and reported to a city administrator.
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others.
textreferences: we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6 . This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.603812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Disassociation from Professionally Compromising Situation
type: DisassociationfromProfessionallyCompromisingRegulatorySituationPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal
prevails over: Engineer A Regulatory Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal
casecontext: Engineer A's superior overrode his permit refusal; Engineer A had discharged mandatory obligations and the Board found his disassociation from further project work to be appropriate and consistent with Section II.1.a.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Accepting Employment Consequences
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: Disassociation from Professionally Compromising Regulatory Situation Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: After discharging mandatory obligations by refusing to issue the permit, formally submitting findings, and consulting the state licensing board, Engineer A was ethically permitted to disassociate himself from further work on the project to avoid being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
sourcetext: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
temporalscope: After mandatory obligations were discharged and superior's override decision was made
textreferences: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.607122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Public Safety
type: EmploymentPressureNon-SubordinationofPublicSafetyDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety
prevails over: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety
casecontext: Superior's directive created institutional pressure to issue the permit despite Engineer A's belief that it would violate environmental law and endanger public health through excessive sulphur dioxide emissions.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political or Budgetary Bargaining — Applied to Superior's Expediting Directive
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Public Safety Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to subordinate his professional safety determination — that the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards and endanger public health — to the employment pressure created by his superior's directive to expedite and avoid hang-ups, recognizing that yielding would constitute an abrogation of his most fundamental professional responsibility.
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review process and upon receiving the superior's directive
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Permissibility
type: Post-Superior-OverridePublicSafetyWhistleblowingPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety
defeasible under: Public Media Scrutiny and State Investigation Active
casecontext: The department authorized the permit over Engineer A's objection; the case received widespread media publicity and is under state investigation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right — Engineer A's Post-Refusal Advocacy Decision
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Superior-Override Public Safety Whistleblowing Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: After the department overrode Engineer A's refusal and authorized the permit, Engineer A retained the ethical right — as a matter of personal conscience — to engage in further public advocacy or external reporting, and this post-override conduct was ethically permissible and not constrained by employer loyalty obligations, even though it was not itself a mandatory professional duty at that stage.
sourcetext: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
temporalscope: After the department authorized issuance of the permit
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Pressure Resistance Applied to Engineer A Against Superior Directive
type: EngineerPressureResistanceandEthicalNon-SubordinationtoOrganizationalDemands
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act compliance determination
appliedto: Employment consequences of ethical refusal
appliedto: Superior's directive to expedite permit
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A resisted his superior's directive to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, maintaining his professional position that the plans violated Clean Air Act standards — demonstrating that organizational pressure does not constitute ethical justification for non-compliant conduct.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The existence of supervisory pressure to expedite the permit does not constitute ethical justification for issuing a permit the engineer believes in good faith would violate applicable law; the engineer must resist such pressure.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
sourcetext: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
tensionresolution: Professional ethics obligations are not subordinated by organizational pressure; Engineer A's resistance was ethically required.
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
textreferences: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor -- State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, disagrees with Engineer A's assessment.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.604986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Expediting Directive
type: EngineerPressureResistanceandEthicalNon-SubordinationtoOrganizationalDemands
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
balancingwith: Institutional hierarchy compliance
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A resisted his superior's directive to 'avoid any hang-ups' and move expeditiously, recognizing that the framing of safety concerns as bureaucratic obstacles did not resolve the underlying technical question of whether the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Organizational urgency framing ('move expeditiously,' 'avoid hang-ups') is a form of institutional pressure that engineers must recognize and resist when it is being used to suppress legitimate safety concerns.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
tensionresolution: The engineer's professional obligation to resist organizational pressure overrides the duty to follow supervisory direction when the direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.596136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer A
type: RegulatoryPermitIssuanceIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Clean Air Act air pollution standard compliance determination
appliedto: Power plant construction permit application
appliedto: State environmental protection division permit issuance process
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as the state environmental engineer assigned to issue the construction permit, bore a non-delegable obligation to certify only that the power plant plans met Clean Air Act requirements as determined by his own professional judgment — and was required to refuse to issue the permit he believed in good faith would violate those standards, regardless of his superior's directive.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The permit-issuing engineer's professional certification is the public's primary protection against regulatory violations; supervisory override of that certification is impermissible when the engineer holds a good-faith belief of non-compliance.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
tensionresolution: The non-delegable permit certification obligation overrides supervisory direction; Engineer A was required to refuse issuance and was ethically correct to do so.
textreferences: Engineer A is a state environmental engineer ordered to issue a construction permit for a power plant who believes the plans violate Clean Air Act air pollution standards.
textreferences: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor -- State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.603996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: RegulatoryPermitIssuanceIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Manufacturing Facility Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
appliedto: Power plant construction permit for fluidized boiler process
appliedto: State Engineering Registration Board Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's refusal to issue the construction permit reflects the principle that the permit issuance function is a professional certification act — not a ministerial administrative act — that cannot be overridden by non-technical supervisory direction, because the engineer's professional judgment about regulatory compliance is the substantive content of the certification.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The state engineering registration board's confirmation that issuing a non-compliant permit could result in license suspension or revocation confirms that permit issuance is a professional certification act carrying personal professional liability — not a ministerial act that can be delegated to supervisory authority.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
tensionresolution: The non-delegable character of the professional certification function means that the superior's disagreement does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation or eliminate the engineer's personal license liability for issuing a permit believed to be non-compliant.
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.597766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right — Engineer A's Post-Refusal Advocacy Decision
type: WhistleblowingasPersonalConscienceRightWithoutMandatoryDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: News media coverage
appliedto: State authorities investigating the case
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
balancingwith: Employment security
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Having discharged his mandatory obligation by refusing to issue the permit and submitting his findings to his superior, Engineer A's decision about whether to engage in further external public advocacy — including participation in media coverage or state authority investigation — became a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory professional duty.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The mandatory floor of Engineer A's obligation was met by internal refusal and formal reporting; the case's receipt of widespread media publicity and state authority investigation represents the discretionary ceiling of further public advocacy, which the principle permits but does not require.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
sourcetext: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
tensionresolution: The principle distinguishes between the mandatory minimum (refusal and internal reporting, which Engineer A discharged) and the discretionary maximum (external public advocacy), leaving the latter to personal conscience.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: The case had received widespread publicity in the news media and is currently being investigated by state authorities.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.597602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A License Board Consultation Self-Protection
type: LicenseJeopardySelf-ProtectionBoardConsultationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Environmental Law
defeasible under: Engineer A License Revocation Threat from State Board
prevails over: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Environmental Law
casecontext: Engineer A faced a directive from his superior to issue a permit he believed violated environmental law; he consulted the state engineering registration board regarding potential license implications.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation Applied by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: License Jeopardy Self-Protection Board Consultation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively consult the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated Clean Air Act standards would jeopardize his professional license, so that he could make an informed decision about whether to comply with his superior's directive or refuse.
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
temporalscope: Before making the final decision on permit issuance
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Media Coverage External Reporting Discharge
type: Media-Coverage-ConditionedExternalReportingDischargeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Responsibility
defeasible under: Internal Escalation Exhausted After Department Override
prevails over: Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Responsibility
casecontext: After Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted findings to his superior, the matter received media coverage and officials began an investigation; the Board found no mandatory duty for Engineer A to further escalate externally.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Known-Authority Awareness Discharge Applied to Engineer A External Reporting
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: Media-Coverage-Conditioned External Reporting Discharge Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was not obligated to bring the Clean Air Act compliance dispute to the attention of proper authorities beyond his internal refusal and formal submission, because the matter had already received media coverage and appropriate public officials had already begun an investigation, making further external reporting a useless act.
sourcetext: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'. As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
temporalscope: After internal mandatory obligations were discharged and media coverage/official investigation confirmed
textreferences: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'. As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
textreferences: To bring the matter to their attention is a useless act.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: LicenseSelf-ProtectionConsultationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Engineering Registration Board Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality of employer information
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A contacted the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated environmental regulations could result in license suspension or revocation — fulfilling the obligation to consult appropriate professional bodies before deciding how to respond to a directive that may require violation of applicable law.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The consultation with the registration board served two functions: it provided Engineer A with information about the professional consequences of compliance with the directive, and it confirmed that the permit issuance function carries personal professional liability that cannot be transferred to the superior through supervisory direction.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
tensionresolution: The obligation to consult the registration board when facing potential license jeopardy overrides any concern about disclosing employer information, because the engineer's professional standing is at stake.
textreferences: Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.597913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Loyalty Bounded by Ethics — Engineer A's Obligation to Superior Within Ethical Limits
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State environmental protection division
appliedto: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor
balancingwith: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A owed loyalty to his employer (the state environmental protection division) and his superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his professional ethics and public welfare obligations — he could not comply with the directive to issue a permit he believed would violate applicable law.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:35:06.182478+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Loyalty in the public agency engineering context does not extend to compliance with directives that would require the engineer to certify regulatory compliance he does not believe exists; the bounds of loyalty are defined by professional ethics and applicable law.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount and environmental law violation reporting obligations override the duty of loyalty when compliance with supervisory direction would require the engineer to certify a permit believed to violate applicable law.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.597422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety Applied to Engineer A
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bounded loyalty in regulatory context
appliedto: State agency employment relationship
appliedto: Superior's directive to issue permit
balancingwith: Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A owed loyalty to his state agency employer and superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his paramount public safety obligation and his good-faith belief that the permit would violate the Clean Air Act — requiring him to refuse the directive rather than comply.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Loyalty to employer is a legitimate professional value but is subordinate to the paramount public safety obligation; when the two conflict, the public safety obligation prevails.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups.
tensionresolution: The bounded character of loyalty means Engineer A's refusal of his superior's directive was not a breach of loyalty but rather a proper exercise of bounded loyalty.
textreferences: Superior Department Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor -- State environmental protection division superior who directs Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups, disagrees with Engineer A's assessment.
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.605732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Right
type: WhistleblowingPersonalConscienceRightNon-MandatoryDutyRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Health Safety Whistleblowing Mandatory vs Personal Conscience Distinction
defeasible under: Non-Safety Fund Waste Reporting Discretion (BER 82-5 Precedent)
casecontext: BER 82-5 involved an engineer who documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors to his employer; the Board found no mandatory duty to continue advocacy after employer rejection.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Principle Applied to BER 82-5 Precedent
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: BER 82-5 defense industry engineer
obligationclass: Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The BER 82-5 engineer did not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy or report to external authorities after his employer rejected his reports about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, because the matter did not involve direct public health or safety danger; any continued action was a matter of personal conscience and ethical right.
sourcetext: In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
temporalscope: After employer rejected engineer's reports
textreferences: In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.607267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Pressure Yielding Abrogation Prohibition
type: Pressure-YieldingAbrogationofFundamentalEngineeringResponsibilityProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Resistance
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Pressure to Issue Non-Compliant Permit
prevails over: Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Resistance
casecontext: Superior's directive framed Engineer A's legitimate safety concerns as mere 'hang-ups'; Engineer A resisted this framing and refused to issue the permit.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Abrogation Principle Invoked Against Supervisor Pressure on Engineer A
derived from principle: Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding — Pressure Applied by Superior
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pressure-Yielding Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from bowing to his superior's institutional pressure — framed as avoiding 'technical hang-ups' — that would have caused him to abandon his professional safety determination that the permit would violate Clean Air Act standards, recognizing that yielding would constitute an abrogation of his most fundamental professional responsibility.
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: Upon receiving the superior's expediting directive
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Responsibility
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedInstitutionalSafetyResponsibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Media Coverage External Reporting Discharge
defeasible under: Public Authorities Already Investigating the Permit Concern
casecontext: Engineer A was specifically assigned to review and issue the construction permit; his public agency role gave him both the authority and the heightened responsibility to ensure regulatory compliance.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Obligation
obligationstatement: As a licensed professional engineer employed by the state environmental protection division with specific assigned responsibility to review and issue construction permits, Engineer A bore a heightened institutional safety obligation — compelled both by professional engineering ethics and by his public employee status — requiring more assertive action than would be required of a private engineer encountering the same regulatory compliance concern incidentally.
sourcetext: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review and refusal process
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.599054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Non-Subordination
type: SuperiorExpeditingDirectiveSafetyNon-SubordinationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Permit Environmental Law Compliance Refusal
defeasible under: Superior Expedite Directive Suppressing Technical Review
casecontext: Superior directed Engineer A to expedite the permit and avoid 'hang-ups'; Engineer A believed the plans were non-compliant with sulphur dioxide emission standards.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political or Budgetary Bargaining — Applied to Superior's Expediting Directive
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Superior Expediting Directive Safety Non-Subordination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to subordinate his professional technical determination — that the plans were inadequate to meet Clean Air Act standards — to his superior's directive to move expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups.
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: Upon receiving the superior's expediting directive and throughout the permit review process
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Known-Authority Awareness Discharge Applied to Engineer A External Reporting
type: Known-AuthorityAwarenessDischargeofExternalReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: External reporting obligation
appliedto: Media coverage of Clean Air Act compliance dispute
appliedto: Ongoing governmental investigation
balancingwith: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation for Unresolved Public Safety Threats
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Because the Clean Air Act compliance dispute had received media coverage and appropriate officials had already begun an investigation, the Board held that Engineer A was not obligated to separately bring the matter to the attention of 'proper authorities' — that obligation was discharged by the existing authority awareness.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The purpose of external reporting is to ensure appropriate authorities can act to protect the public; when confirmed authority awareness already serves that purpose, the formal reporting obligation is discharged and further notification would be a useless act.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
principleclass: Known-Authority Awareness Discharge of External Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: To bring the matter to their attention is a useless act.
tensionresolution: The Board distinguished the present case from BER 88-6 precisely because the issues were publicly known and under investigation, discharging the external reporting obligation that would otherwise have been mandatory.
textreferences: In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'. As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
textreferences: The reason for our position in BER Case 88-6 was that the engineer's failure to bring the problems to the attention of the 'proper authorities' made it more probable that danger would ultimately result to the public health, safety and welfare. Here, the circumstances are presumably already known to appropriate public officials. To bring the matter to their attention is a useless act.
textreferences: Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.604503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation Applied by Engineer A
type: LicenseSelf-ProtectionConsultationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: License jeopardy assessment
appliedto: Permit issuance decision under supervisory pressure
appliedto: State engineering registration board consultation
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A proactively consulted the state engineering registration board to determine whether issuing a permit he believed violated the Clean Air Act could jeopardize his engineering license — an action the Board found to constitute appropriate conduct consistent with the Code.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When facing a directive that may require violation of professional ethics or applicable law, engineers have an obligation to consult appropriate regulatory bodies to understand the license implications before deciding how to proceed.
invokedby: Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
invokedby: State Engineering Registration Board Regulatory Authority
principleclass: License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
tensionresolution: The consultation was found to be appropriate conduct; it informed Engineer A's decision to refuse the permit and disassociate from further work on the project.
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law.
textreferences: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A's actions in this regard constitute appropriate conduct and actions are consistent with Section II.1.a. of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.604183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Principle Applied to BER 82-5 Precedent
type: WhistleblowingasPersonalConscienceRightWithoutMandatoryDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Defense industry sub-contractor cost and delay reporting
appliedto: Distinction between personal conscience matters and mandatory public safety duties
balancingwith: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER 82-5, the engineer's concern about excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors did not involve direct public health/safety danger, so the Board held that further advocacy after employer rejection was a matter of personal conscience, not mandatory ethical duty — distinguishing it from the present case.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:44:03.169178+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The BER 82-5 precedent establishes that the mandatory/permissive distinction in whistleblowing is calibrated by whether the concern involves direct public health/safety; the present Engineer A case crosses into mandatory territory because it directly affects public health.
invokedby: BER 82-5 Defense Industry Whistleblower Engineer
principleclass: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
sourcetext: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: The Board distinguished BER 82-5 from the present case precisely because the present case involves direct public health and safety impact, converting the personal conscience right into a mandatory obligation.
textreferences: In BER Case 82-5 , where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
textreferences: The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
textreferences: This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.603643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal
type: EngineerPermitRefusalNon-WithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Disassociation from Professionally Compromising Situation
defeasible under: Engineer A Permit Refusal with Disassociation Permissibility
casecontext: Engineer A, a state environmental engineer, refused to issue a construction permit for a power plant believing the plans violated Clean Air Act air pollution standards; his superior directed him to move expeditiously and avoid technical hang-ups.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: Engineer Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to remain engaged in the permit matter — standing by his professional position that the fluidized boiler process plans violated Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards — and to refuse to issue the permit, rather than withdrawing from further work on the project after his superior directed him to expedite.
sourcetext: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
temporalscope: From the point of permit refusal through the superior's override decision
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Resistance
type: InstitutionalPressureFramingNon-LegitimizationofSafetyOverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Pressure Yielding Abrogation Prohibition
defeasible under: Employment Pressure on Engineer A to Issue Non-Compliant Permit
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to expedite the permit and avoid technical hang-ups; Engineer A maintained his professional position that the plans violated environmental law.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Applied to Engineer A Against Superior Directive
derived from principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Expediting Directive
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: Institutional Pressure Framing Non-Legitimization of Safety Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist his superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid any hang-ups,' recognizing that framing his legitimate Clean Air Act compliance concerns as mere technical obstacles did not diminish their substantive validity, and that compliance with the directive would have constituted an abrogation of his fundamental professional responsibility.
sourcetext: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake
temporalscope: Upon receipt of superior's expediting directive
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake
textreferences: Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents in which they may have reservations or concerns.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.606501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety
type: EmployerLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Public Safety
competes with: Engineer A Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Permissibility
defeasible under: Engineer A Public Safety Permit Refusal State
defeasible under: Public Safety Risk from SO2 Emissions Without Adequate Scrubbing
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to issue the permit; Engineer A's loyalty to his employer was bounded by his professional obligation to refuse a permit he believed violated environmental law.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Loyalty Bounded by Ethics — Engineer A's Obligation to Superior Within Ethical Limits
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:47:19.035851+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (state environmental protection division engineer)
obligationclass: Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A owed loyalty to his state agency employer and superior, but that loyalty was bounded by his paramount public safety obligation — his duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — and did not extend to issuing a permit he believed would violate Clean Air Act standards and endanger public health.
sourcetext: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
temporalscope: Throughout the permit review and refusal process
textreferences: Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
textreferences: we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.607889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Permit Environmental Law Compliance Refusal
type: RegulatoryPermitIssuanceEnvironmentalLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Environmental Law
competes with: Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Non-Subordination
defeasible under: Technical Disagreement on SO2 Emission Control Regulatory Adequacy
prevails over: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Environmental Law
prevails over: Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Non-Subordination
casecontext: State environmental protection division permit review for a power plant at a manufacturing facility; Engineer A believed the fluidized boiler process was insufficient to meet Clean Air Act standards.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Applied to Engineer A
derived from principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in Permit Refusal
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Permit Issuance Environmental Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to issue the construction permit because he had a professionally grounded belief that the plans, without outside scrubbers, would violate Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards, and issuing the permit would constitute a professional certification of regulatory compliance he could not honestly make.
sourcetext: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
temporalscope: Upon completing technical review of the permit application and forming a professional judgment that the plans were non-compliant
textreferences: Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.598059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Environmental Law
type: EmployerLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A License Board Consultation Self-Protection
competes with: Engineer A Regulatory Permit Environmental Law Compliance Refusal
defeasible under: Engineer A Employment Pressure to Issue Non-Compliant Permit
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk from Non-Compliant Permit
casecontext: Engineer A's superior directed him to issue the permit; Engineer A's loyalty to his employer was bounded by his professional obligation not to issue a non-compliant permit.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:37:09.589974+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to serve the state environmental protection division's legitimate interests faithfully, while recognizing that loyalty to his employer did not extend to issuing a permit he believed would violate the Clean Air Act and endanger public health, and that his paramount duty to uphold public welfare and legal compliance bounded his loyalty obligation.
sourcetext: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
temporalscope: Upon receiving the superior's directive and throughout the permit review process
textreferences: Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
textreferences: He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.599194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction

Engineer A Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
type: Permit-RefusingSubordinateRegulatoryEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Abrogation Principle Invoked Against Supervisor Pressure on Engineer A
adheres to principle: Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding — Pressure Applied by Superior
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Applied by BER Board
adheres to principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Applied to Engineer A Against Superior Directive
adheres to principle: Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked by Engineer A Against Expediting Directive
adheres to principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Applied to Engineer A
adheres to principle: Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked by Engineer A in Sulphur Dioxide Emission Assessment
adheres to principle: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers — Engineer A vs. Superior on Fluidized Boiler Process
adheres to principle: Honest Disagreement Permissibility Applied to Engineer A vs Superior Technical Dispute
adheres to principle: Known-Authority Awareness Discharge Applied to Engineer A External Reporting
adheres to principle: License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation Applied by Engineer A
adheres to principle: License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Loyalty Bounded by Ethics — Engineer A's Obligation to Superior Within Ethical Limits
adheres to principle: Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety Applied to Engineer A
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political or Budgetary Bargaining — Applied to Superior's Expediting Directive
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer A Accepting Employment Consequences
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Through Board Consultation and Formal Refusal
adheres to principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in Permit Refusal
adheres to principle: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Applied to Engineer A
adheres to principle: Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right — Engineer A's Post-Refusal Advocacy Decision
has obligation: Engineer A Disassociation from Professionally Compromising Situation
has obligation: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Environmental Law
has obligation: Engineer A Employer Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety
has obligation: Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Public Safety
has obligation: Engineer A License Board Consultation Self-Protection
has obligation: Engineer A License Jeopardy Board Consultation
has obligation: Engineer A Media Coverage External Reporting Discharge
has obligation: Engineer A Permit Issuance Professional Certification Non-Compromise
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Permissibility
has obligation: Engineer A Pressure Yielding Abrogation Prohibition
has obligation: Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Responsibility
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Findings Formal Upward Submission
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Permit Environmental Law Compliance Refusal
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal
has obligation: Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Non-Subordination
has obligation: Engineer A Superior Expediting Directive Resistance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (state-licensed)', 'employer': 'State environmental/regulatory agency', 'action_taken': 'Refused to issue permit; sought state licensing board opinion; withdrew from project'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is the subordinate state regulatory engineer who refused to issue a construction permit he believed violated environmental/public health regulations, sought guidance from the state licensing board regarding whether approving the permit would violate the state engineering registration law, and ultimately disassociated himself from further work on the project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 175
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 175
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T11:30:35.604452+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'Permit-Overriding Government Supervisor'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
textreferences: Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
textreferences: Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation
textreferences: Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest
textreferences: it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
wasattributedto: Case 175 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T11:57:23.593696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 175 Extraction