ProEthica Case 17 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.830680
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 20-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 20-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 20-4 is particularly relevant.
textreferences: As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4, engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report.
textreferences: BER Case 20-4 is particularly relevant.
textreferences: The BER concluded that 'The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report. However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.'
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer R's duty to report and potential obligation to escalate concerns to the state environmental regulatory agency
usedincontext: Referenced as the most directly applicable precedent establishing that when formal presentations to a governing body fail to change plans involving grave danger to public health and safety, engineers have an obligation to further pursue the matter, including escalating to higher authorities
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 63-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 63-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The BER pointed to BER Case 63-6 where they observed 'There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.'
textreferences: 'it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.'
textreferences: The BER pointed to BER Case 63-6 where they observed 'There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.'
usedby: BER in analyzing the ethics of publicly challenging a design approach
usedincontext: Referenced within BER Case 79-2 to establish that honest differences of opinion among qualified engineers are permissible, and that criticizing another engineer's work at public hearings in the interest of the public is not unethical provided it is done with professional deportment
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.842328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 63-6 (1963 approximate) before BER Case 79-2 (1979)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 63-6 decision before BER Case 79-2 decision
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The BER pointed to BER Case 63-6 where they observed 'There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers...' [Case 63-6 predates Case 79-2 decided in 1979, as indicated by case numbering convention]
from entity text: BER Case 63-6 decision
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 79-2 decision
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 79-2 decision
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 79-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 79-2 (1979) before BER Case 95-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 79-2 decision before BER Case 95-5 decision
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Old BER cases are a rich trove of resources...BER Case 79-2 [1979]...BER Case 95-5 [1995, per case numbering convention]
from entity text: BER Case 79-2 decision
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 95-5 decision
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 95-5 decision
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 95-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 95-5 is applicable here.
textreferences: BER Case 95-5 is applicable here.
textreferences: a key fact, and one that the BER focused on, was an engineer's failure to include relevant information in a report.
textreferences: selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.'
usedby: BER in analyzing whether Engineer H's failure to address concerns about underground tank leaks constituted incomplete and misleading testimony
usedincontext: Referenced as precedent establishing that selective use of facts in engineering reports and testimony is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information, and that omitting relevant information misdirects conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

BER Case 95-5 decision before BER Case 20-4 decision
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: BER Case 20-4 is particularly relevant...[Case 20-4 per numbering convention is from 2020, after Case 95-5 from 1995]
from entity text: BER Case 95-5 decision
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 20-4 decision
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 20-4 decision
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Case 17 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 7
event count: 6
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Case Narrative Unavailable
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_Drainage Board Approves Plan W
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.817428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_H Redirects Testimony Away fro
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_Person B Promises Environmenta
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.817392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_R Investigates H's Licensure S
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.817492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_R Investigates Site History
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_R Testifies at Public Hearing
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

CausalLink_ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relo
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.817460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 3
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations through public testimony, Engineer R's conduct also exemplifies the proper boundary between permissible advocacy and impermissible speculation under the objectivity and truthfulness obligation. R grounded testimony in verifiable data — the State I Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database showing a 6% reportable leak rate — and in corroborated site history confirmed by the county surveyor, rather than relying on unsupported alarm. This fact-grounded approach resolved the tension between holding paramount public safety and issuing public statements only in an objective and truthful manner: R did not overstate certainty about whether a leak would occur, but accurately characterized the statistical probability and the site-specific aggravating factors. The Board's conclusion that R fulfilled obligations implicitly validates this calibrated approach as the correct model for engineers who must raise speculative but evidence-supported risks before regulatory bodies without access to the full design file.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer R fulfilled obligations through public testimony leaves open the question of what additional responsibilities arise after the Drainage Board dismisses those concerns without substantive technical rebuttal and construction proceeds without modification. The paramount obligation to hold public safety above all other considerations does not terminate at the moment a regulatory body votes. Where, as here, the risk is ongoing — underground tanks remain in proximity to a creek on historically filled land — and the dismissal was facilitated in part by an incomplete engineering response, Engineer R's ethical obligations shift from fulfilled to continuing. R should be understood to have a residual obligation to monitor the situation and, if the risk materializes or new evidence strengthens the hazard assessment, to escalate concerns to a higher regulatory authority such as the State I Department of Environmental Management. This escalation obligation is not triggered merely by disagreement with the Board's decision, but by the combination of an unaddressed substantive safety concern, an incomplete technical record before the approving body, and the ongoing presence of the hazard. The threshold is not certainty of harm but a reasonable professional judgment that the public safety risk remains inadequately managed.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 208
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer R fulfilled obligations through public testimony does not resolve whether R has an additional obligation to report Engineer H's unlicensed practice in State I after learning of it post-construction. The code provision requiring engineers with knowledge of alleged violations to report them to appropriate professional bodies is not discretionary in its framing. Once R has confirmed knowledge — not mere suspicion — that H practiced engineering in State I without a State I license, the reporting obligation is triggered independently of whether reporting will remedy the environmental risk. However, the ethical analysis is enriched by recognizing that reporting the licensure violation and escalating the substantive environmental safety concern are not mutually exclusive and should not be treated as alternatives. R should pursue both tracks: reporting the unlicensed practice to the appropriate State I engineering licensure authority, and separately escalating the unresolved tank proximity risk to environmental regulators. Treating the licensure report as a substitute for safety escalation would subordinate the paramount public safety obligation to a procedural one; treating safety escalation as a substitute for the licensure report would selectively apply the code's reporting requirement based on consequentialist convenience, which the deontological structure of that provision does not permit.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 3
answers question1: 4
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer H acted unethically by failing to address underground leak risks extends naturally to a finding that H's selective response constituted a material omission of fact in a public regulatory proceeding. H's answer to the Drainage Board vice-president addressed only the above-ground spill scenario — grading designed to return surface spills to the pavement — while leaving entirely unaddressed the distinct and arguably more serious risk of a subsurface leak migrating through the historically filled soil toward the creek. Because Engineer R had explicitly raised the underground leak risk, and because the vice-president's question was prompted by R's testimony as a whole, H's response created a misleading impression that the drainage design adequately addressed the concerns R had raised. A technically accurate but incomplete answer that omits a material dimension of a known risk satisfies neither the obligation to avoid statements containing material omissions of fact nor the broader obligation to hold paramount public safety. The incompleteness was not inadvertent: H had the design documents, knew the site history was at issue, and chose to address only the scenario most favorable to the client's interest in obtaining unconditional approval.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer H failed to ethically address underground leak risks implicitly raises, but does not resolve, the compounding ethical problem created by H's unlicensed status in State I. The licensure requirement is not merely a bureaucratic formality; it exists in part to ensure that engineers presenting technical work before state regulatory bodies are accountable to that state's professional standards and disciplinary mechanisms. When Engineer H presented engineering testimony before the State I Drainage Board without a State I license, the Board was deprived of the assurance that H was subject to State I's professional accountability framework. This structural deficiency amplifies the harm caused by H's incomplete testimony: not only did H omit material safety information, but the regulatory body had no practical recourse against H under State I's engineering licensure law. Firm C, as H's employer and the entity that deployed H to this hearing, bears shared institutional responsibility for this compounded failure. A national firm operating across jurisdictions has an affirmative obligation to verify that engineers it assigns to present work before state regulatory bodies hold the requisite state licensure, and failure to implement such a verification process is itself an ethical lapse at the organizational level.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 3
answers question1: 4
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion regarding Engineer H's failure to address underground leak risks also exposes a gap in the regulatory proceeding itself that individual engineer ethics cannot fully close. The Drainage Board accepted Person B's non-engineering assurance that ZZZ would consult its environmental team as a sufficient response to a technically grounded safety concern raised by a licensed professional engineer. This acceptance effectively allowed a commercial representative to deflect a substantive engineering question without requiring a substantive engineering answer. While the Board's ethical conclusions appropriately focus on Engineer H's obligations, the broader lesson is that the integrity of public regulatory hearings depends on the quality of the engineering record before the approving body. When an engineer presenting a project addresses only a subset of raised concerns and a non-engineer representative offers a vague commitment to future consultation, the resulting approval rests on an incomplete technical foundation. This systemic vulnerability — the regulatory body's limited capacity to compel complete engineering responses in real time — underscores why the obligation on the presenting engineer to be complete and forthright is especially weighty: H was the only party at the hearing with both the technical knowledge and the professional obligation to ensure the Board had an accurate and complete picture of the risk profile before voting.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: Once Engineer R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, R acquires a reporting obligation under the Code that is categorically independent of whether the unlicensed practice caused demonstrable harm and independent of whether the project has already been approved and constructed. The deontological structure of the reporting obligation under the Code does not permit R to weigh the practical futility of a report against the duty to report; the obligation arises from the fact of the violation, not from the prospect of a remedial outcome. However, this reporting obligation does not displace or satisfy R's separate and continuing public welfare escalation obligation regarding the environmental risk. These are two distinct duties triggered by two distinct facts: the unlicensed practice triggers the reporting duty, and the unmitigated environmental risk triggers the escalation duty. R must pursue both independently. The risk that reporting H's unlicensed practice may consume regulatory attention without addressing the environmental hazard is real, but it does not create an ethical basis for deferring or waiving the reporting obligation. R should report the unlicensed practice to the appropriate State I engineering licensure authority and separately notify the State I Department of Environmental Management about the environmental risk — treating these as parallel, non-substitutable obligations.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.643507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_108
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 3
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 4
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 108
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer H's objectivity obligation to the Drainage Board and H's loyalty to Firm C and ZZZ as a client is resolved clearly by the Code's hierarchy of obligations: the duty to be objective and complete before a regulatory body is not a client-modifiable obligation. When H chose to address only above-ground spill scenarios while omitting any discussion of underground leak risk — the precise concern that the Drainage Board vice president had invited H to address — H subordinated the public's right to complete engineering information to the client's interest in obtaining approval without complication. This inversion of the Code's priority structure is the core ethical failure. The objectivity obligation owed to a regulatory body is owed to the public, not to the client, and it cannot be discharged selectively. Engineer H's obligation upon being asked to respond to R's testimony was to address the full scope of R's concerns honestly — including acknowledging if underground leak prevention measures had not been specifically designed into the plan, and committing on the record to re-examine the design if they had not. The failure to do either, in favor of a response that created a misleading impression of design adequacy, placed client interest above public welfare in precisely the manner the Code prohibits.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.643663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: III.8.a.: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering....
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Firm C bears independent ethical and supervisory responsibility for deploying Engineer H to present engineering work before a State I regulatory body without first verifying that H held a valid State I professional engineering license. A national partnership structure does not dissolve the obligation of each constituent firm to ensure that engineers it assigns to jurisdiction-specific regulatory presentations comply with the licensure laws of that jurisdiction. By sending Engineer H to appear before the County Drainage Board in State I, Firm C effectively enabled unlicensed practice, regardless of whether any individual within Firm C was aware of the gap. The ethical vulnerability created by a national franchise model — where engineers are routinely deployed across state lines — is systemic and cannot be remedied solely by the virtue or diligence of the individual engineer assigned to the project. Firm C's obligation under the conformance-with-registration-laws provision extends institutionally: the firm had both the means and the responsibility to verify licensure status before the assignment was made, and its failure to do so represents an organizational ethics failure distinct from Engineer H's individual violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Person B's offer to consult ZZZ's environmental team about additional protective measures functioned, whether intentionally or not, as a procedural deflection that substituted a vague commercial assurance for a substantive engineering response. Because Person B is a non-engineer representative, this response carried no technical authority and created no enforceable commitment. The Drainage Board's acceptance of that assurance — without requiring Engineer H to provide a technically grounded answer to the underground leak risk specifically raised by Engineer R — represents a procedural failure on the Board's part. While the Board is not itself an engineering body and may lack the technical capacity to compel a more rigorous response, its acceptance of Person B's non-committal statement as sufficient closure on a documented public safety concern effectively transferred unresolved risk to the public. The Board bore at minimum a procedural responsibility to condition its approval on a written engineering response to the underground leak question, or to table the vote pending that response.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: III.2.d.: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect ...
cited provision2: III.3.a.: Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitt...
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The historical legality of the site fill does not extinguish Engineer H's present-day obligation under sustainable development principles to investigate and disclose the environmental risks that fill creates. The fact that filling occurred before current regulations were in place means only that no regulatory violation occurred at the time; it does not mean the resulting conditions are environmentally benign or that a design engineer presenting plans for a fuel storage facility on that site may ignore those conditions. Under the sustainable development provision of the NSPE Code, Engineer H had an affirmative obligation to account for the site's fill history in the design documents and to address it transparently before the Drainage Board, particularly given that the fill affects contamination pathways and the structural context in which underground tanks would be placed. Silence on this issue during the regulatory presentation — especially after Engineer R explicitly raised it — constitutes a failure to adhere to sustainable development principles, independent of whether any current regulation was technically violated.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: II.1.f.: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate...
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer R's ethical obligation to escalate concerns beyond the Drainage Board does not arise only after a concrete harm has materialized; it arises when R has reasonable, documented grounds to believe that a regulatory body has approved a plan without adequately addressing a credible public safety risk, and when no substantive technical rebuttal to that risk was offered. The 6% reportable leak rate in State I's own database, the proximity of the tanks to the creek, and the site's fill history collectively constitute a documented and statistically grounded risk profile — not mere speculation. Once construction began with tank locations unchanged and R confirmed that no remedial engineering review had occurred, the threshold for mandatory escalation to a higher regulatory authority such as the State I Department of Environmental Management was effectively crossed. At that point, R's obligation shifted from the discretionary act of public testimony to a positive duty to report the unresolved safety concern to an authority with enforcement capacity, consistent with the paramount obligation to hold public safety above all other considerations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: I.3.: Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner....
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The tension between issuing public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public does not, on these facts, create an irresolvable conflict for Engineer R. The objectivity and truthfulness obligation constrains the form and epistemic grounding of R's testimony — R may not overstate certainty or assert facts not in evidence — but it does not prohibit R from presenting probabilistic, statistically supported risk arguments forcefully and clearly. R's citation of the 6% reportable leak rate from State I's own database, combined with documented site conditions, constitutes objectively grounded testimony. The paramount safety obligation then requires R to present that grounded evidence as compellingly as the facts support. These two obligations are therefore complementary rather than conflicting in this case: R fulfills both by presenting documented risk evidence accurately and without embellishment, while making clear the magnitude of the potential harm to the creek and major river.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: III.8.a.: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering....
cited provision2: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The principle of conforming with state registration laws and the principle of holding paramount public safety do not exist in a hierarchy that allows the latter to override the former when an unlicensed engineer possesses relevant technical expertise. The licensure requirement is not merely a bureaucratic formality; it is the mechanism by which the public is assured that engineers presenting technical conclusions before regulatory bodies have met a jurisdiction-specific standard of competence and accountability. Allowing unlicensed practice to be excused on grounds of technical competence would hollow out the licensure system entirely, since any unlicensed practitioner could invoke the same justification. Moreover, Engineer H's unlicensed status in State I is directly relevant to the quality of the testimony actually given: H's incomplete response to the underground leak question may reflect, at least in part, unfamiliarity with State I's specific regulatory environment, including the very leaking tank database that Engineer R cited. The public interest is therefore better served by strict adherence to licensure requirements than by ad hoc competence assessments, and Engineer H's technical expertise does not ethically legitimate the unlicensed practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: III.3.a.: Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitt...
cited provision2: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Engineer H's selective response to the Drainage Board vice-president — addressing only above-ground spill scenarios while remaining entirely silent on the underground leak risk that Engineer R had explicitly raised — constitutes a material omission of fact within the meaning of the NSPE Code's completeness-of-reports provision. The omission was not incidental: Engineer R had placed the underground leak risk squarely before the Board, and Engineer H, as the presenting design engineer, was the only party at the hearing with direct knowledge of whether the design addressed that specific risk. By answering only the surface spill question, Engineer H left the Board with a materially incomplete picture of the hazard profile of the site. This omission served ZZZ's commercial interest in obtaining unconditional approval, but it did so at the expense of the Board's ability to make a fully informed regulatory decision. The duty of loyalty to a client does not extend to withholding information that a regulatory body needs to protect public safety, and Engineer H's silence on the underground leak risk cannot be ethically justified by reference to client loyalty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.1.f.: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate...
cited provision2: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: When Engineer R learns after the hearing that Engineer H was not licensed in State I, R faces two distinct but related obligations that should be pursued concurrently rather than sequentially. The duty to report an alleged code violation requires R to report Engineer H's unlicensed practice to the appropriate authority. The paramount safety obligation requires R to escalate the unresolved underground tank risk to an environmental regulatory authority. These obligations are not in conflict: reporting the licensure violation addresses the procedural integrity of the regulatory process, while escalating the safety concern addresses the substantive environmental risk. Prioritizing one over the other would leave either the regulatory system or the public inadequately protected. The argument that reporting the licensure violation serves only procedural justice while doing nothing for public safety is correct as far as it goes, but it does not justify deferring the licensure report — it justifies filing both reports. The consequentialist concern that reporting H may be futile or disproportionate does not override the deontological duty to report code violations, particularly where the unlicensed practice materially contributed to the inadequate treatment of a public safety issue at a regulatory hearing.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.849907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 4
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: III.3.a.: Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitt...
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer H had an absolute duty to address the underground tank leak risk before the Drainage Board, independent of whether the vice-president's question specifically invited that disclosure. The duty arises from H's role as the presenting design engineer in a public regulatory forum affecting public safety, not from the particular framing of a question posed by a Board member. A regulatory hearing is not an adversarial proceeding in which an engineer may legitimately answer only the questions asked while withholding material safety information. Engineer H's obligation under the paramount safety canon and the completeness-of-reports provision required H to volunteer a substantive response to the underground leak concern that Engineer R had placed on the record, regardless of whether the vice-president's question was broad enough to encompass it. The failure to do so was not a permissible exercise of professional judgment about relevance; it was a breach of the affirmative duty of candor that attaches to engineers presenting work before public regulatory bodies.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: III.2.d.: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect ...
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the Drainage Board's unconditional approval of the truck stop plan — facilitated in part by Engineer H's incomplete testimony — produced an outcome that failed to adequately weigh the probabilistic environmental harm against the commercial benefits of the development. The 6% reportable leak rate in State I's own database is not a speculative or remote risk; it is a documented, jurisdiction-specific empirical rate that, applied to a tank installation adjacent to a creek discharging into a major river on historically filled land, yields a non-trivial expected harm. The commercial benefit of the truck stop, while real, does not obviously outweigh the environmental cost of a fuel contamination event affecting a waterway used by the broader public. A consequentialist analysis that properly accounts for the magnitude of potential harm, the probability of occurrence, the irreversibility of waterway contamination, and the breadth of affected parties would likely conclude that the unconditional approval was not the outcome that maximized aggregate welfare, and that at minimum, conditions requiring additional tank safeguards or relocation would have produced a better expected outcome.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: III.8.a.: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering....
cited provision2: II.1.f.: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate...
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: If Engineer R had discovered Engineer H's unlicensed status before the Drainage Board hearing rather than after construction began, R would have faced a more acute and time-sensitive ethical obligation. Raising the licensure issue at the hearing itself would have been appropriate and arguably required, because the Board's ability to give weight to H's technical testimony was directly affected by whether H was legally authorized to practice engineering in State I. An unlicensed engineer's testimony before a State I regulatory body is not merely procedurally irregular; it undermines the evidentiary foundation on which the Board was being asked to rely. Had R raised the issue at the hearing, the Board would have been on notice that H's technical responses lacked the jurisdictional authority that licensure confers, which may well have led the Board to require a response from a licensed State I engineer before voting, or to condition approval on a supplemental licensed engineering review. The failure to discover H's unlicensed status before the hearing does not diminish R's obligation to act on that knowledge once it is obtained, but the counterfactual illustrates that earlier discovery would have provided a procedurally cleaner and more effective point of intervention.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: III.3.a.: Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitt...
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer H had fully and transparently addressed the underground tank leak risk during the Drainage Board hearing — either by explaining existing mitigation measures in detail or by committing on the record to re-examine tank placement — the Drainage Board would have had a materially different evidentiary basis for its decision. A substantive engineering response to the leak risk would have either demonstrated that the design adequately addressed the concern, in which case the Board's approval would have rested on a more defensible technical foundation, or it would have revealed that the design did not adequately address the concern, in which case the Board would have been obligated to impose conditions or defer approval. Either outcome would have better served the public interest than the unconditional approval that actually occurred, which was based on a response that addressed only surface spill scenarios while leaving the underground leak risk entirely unaddressed. This counterfactual reinforces the conclusion that Engineer H's incomplete testimony was not merely a missed opportunity but a material failure that shaped the regulatory outcome in a way that left public safety inadequately protected.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: III.2.d.: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect ...
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Even if Person B had followed through on the stated intention to consult ZZZ's environmental team and those measures had been formally incorporated into the approved plan, Engineer R would not necessarily have been relieved of all post-approval ethical obligations. R's obligation to escalate would diminish significantly if the incorporated measures were substantive, engineering-grounded, and verifiable — for example, secondary containment systems, groundwater monitoring wells, or tank relocation away from the creek. However, if the additional measures were cosmetic or insufficient given the site's fill history and the documented leak rate, R's paramount safety obligation would persist. The key variable is not whether ZZZ made a good-faith effort to respond, but whether the resulting design actually reduced the risk to the creek and major river to an acceptable level. R, as a licensed engineer with environmental expertise in State I, would be positioned to assess that question and would retain an obligation to escalate if the answer were negative, regardless of the procedural good faith shown by ZZZ.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: III.2.d.: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect ...
cited provision2: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: The regulatory gap created by the pre-regulation fill history of the ZZZ Truck Stop site illustrates a systemic failure that individual engineer ethics cannot fully compensate for. Had the site been classified as a flood plain — which the historical fill artificially prevented — additional siting constraints on underground storage tanks would likely have applied, potentially rendering Engineer R's concerns moot through regulatory mandate rather than voluntary engineering judgment. The fact that legal fill activity can permanently alter a site's regulatory classification, removing it from protective frameworks that would otherwise apply, represents a structural deficiency in the regulatory system. Individual engineers like Engineer R can identify and raise these gaps, and engineers like Engineer H have an obligation to account for them under sustainable development principles, but neither individual ethical action nor professional codes of conduct can substitute for regulatory frameworks that address the environmental consequences of historical land use. This case therefore supports the conclusion that the ethical obligations of individual engineers are necessary but not sufficient to protect public safety in the face of systemic regulatory gaps, and that the appropriate long-term remedy lies in regulatory reform rather than reliance on engineer virtue alone.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 405
cited provision1: III.8.a.: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering....
cited provision2: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: If Firm C had assigned a State I-licensed engineer to present the ZZZ Truck Stop project to the Drainage Board, the ethical and legal legitimacy of the technical testimony would have been substantially enhanced, and the weight the Board gave to that testimony relative to Engineer R's concerns would likely have been greater. A licensed State I engineer would have been accountable under State I's professional engineering statutes, would have been presumed familiar with State I's regulatory environment including the leaking tank database, and would have had a professional obligation to provide complete and accurate testimony enforceable under State I law. This enhanced accountability structure would have created stronger incentives for the presenting engineer to address the underground leak risk substantively rather than deflecting it. Whether it would have produced a more rigorous public safety analysis depends on the individual engineer's professional character, but the institutional conditions for such rigor would have been more fully present. The counterfactual therefore supports the conclusion that Firm C's failure to ensure State I licensure was not merely a technical violation but a decision that materially degraded the quality of the regulatory process.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer R had escalated concerns to State I's Department of Environmental Management immediately after the Drainage Board approved the plan and before construction began, there is a meaningful probability that regulatory review could have required changes to tank locations or additional protective measures before installation. The failure to escalate at that earlier moment does represent a missed ethical opportunity, even though Board Conclusion 1 confirms that R's public testimony alone satisfied the minimum ethical obligation. The distinction between minimum ethical compliance and optimal ethical conduct is important: the NSPE Code's public welfare mandate (I.1) supports a reading that engineers should pursue the most effective available means of protecting public welfare when a regulatory body has failed to act on credible safety concerns. The post-approval, pre-construction window was the moment of maximum leverage for R, and the failure to use it — while not an ethical violation — represents a gap between what was ethically required and what was ethically possible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:45.930415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_217
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
cited provision2: III.2.d.: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect ...
conclusion number: 217
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Engineer R had escalated concerns directly to the State I Department of Environmental Management or another higher regulatory authority immediately after the Drainage Board approved the plan — rather than only observing that tank locations were unchanged after construction began — there is a meaningful probability that the environmental risk could have been mitigated before construction was completed. Regulatory agencies with environmental jurisdiction typically have authority to require supplemental review, impose conditions, or halt construction pending environmental assessment when credible evidence of risk is presented. R possessed precisely the kind of documented, quantified evidence — the LUST Database leak rate, the corroborated fill history, the tank proximity to the creek, and the creek's discharge into a major river — that would support a regulatory inquiry. The window between Drainage Board approval and the completion of construction represents the period during which escalation would have been most consequential. R's delay in escalating until after observing unchanged tank locations post-construction reduced the practical effectiveness of any intervention. This supports the conclusion that R's post-approval escalation obligation was not merely permissive but time-sensitive, and that earlier escalation would have better served the paramount public welfare duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:01:02.031757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_218
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.f.: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate...
cited provision2: III.8.a.: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering....
conclusion number: 218
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer R had discovered Engineer H's lack of State I licensure before the public hearing rather than after construction began, R would have faced a genuine ethical tension between the obligation to report known violations and the procedural context of a public regulatory hearing. Under NSPE Code provision II.1.f, R's knowledge of an alleged violation creates a reporting obligation to appropriate professional or governmental bodies — but the hearing itself may not be the appropriate venue for that report. The more appropriate action would have been to notify the State I engineering licensure authority before or immediately after the hearing, rather than raising the issue as a rhetorical challenge during testimony. However, R would also have had a legitimate basis to inform the Drainage Board that H's licensure status in State I was unverified, as this information was directly relevant to the weight the Board should assign to H's technical representations. Raising the licensure issue at the hearing would not have rendered H's testimony procedurally void in most regulatory frameworks, but it would have placed the Board on notice that H's authority to practice engineering in State I was legally uncertain — a fact material to the Board's evaluation of H's technical assurances.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T17:01:02.031846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 3
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 4
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.3.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The paramount obligation to hold public safety above all other considerations was not effectively resolved against client loyalty in this case — it was simply bypassed. Engineer H's selective response to the Drainage Board vice-president's question addressed only above-ground spill scenarios while remaining silent on underground leak risk, a silence that functionally served ZZZ's commercial interest in obtaining unconditional approval. The NSPE Code's hierarchy places public safety at the apex precisely because client loyalty, commercial convenience, and project momentum will otherwise fill the vacuum left by incomplete disclosure. This case illustrates that when an engineer presents engineering work in a public regulatory forum, the duty of completeness is not satisfied by answering the narrow question asked; it extends to volunteering material information bearing on public safety that the questioner may not have known to request. Engineer H's omission of underground leak risk — a risk Engineer R had explicitly placed before the Board — constituted a material omission of fact that served the client while leaving the regulatory body with a structurally incomplete hazard picture. The principle tension between client loyalty and public safety was therefore not resolved through principled prioritization but was instead dissolved by selective framing, an outcome the Code's provisions on objective and truthful public statements and completeness of reports were designed to prevent.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 305
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle requiring conformity with state registration laws and the principle holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public do not resolve cleanly in favor of either when an out-of-state engineer presents technically relevant work before a regulatory body. This case demonstrates that the two principles are not genuinely in tension in the way that might justify a public-safety exception to licensure requirements. Engineer H's unlicensed status in State I did not enhance public safety — it undermined it. Licensure requirements exist precisely to ensure that engineers presenting work to regulatory bodies in a jurisdiction are accountable to that jurisdiction's professional standards, disciplinary mechanisms, and legal framework. An engineer who is not licensed in the forum state cannot be disciplined by that state's engineering board for deficient testimony, cannot be held to that state's practice standards, and operates outside the accountability structure that gives regulatory testimony its professional weight. Accordingly, the public interest in having competent engineering testimony before the Drainage Board was not served by Engineer H's unlicensed appearance; it was compromised by it. The principle of conforming with state registration laws is not merely procedural — it is itself a public safety mechanism, and treating it as subordinate to the convenience of deploying an out-of-state engineer reflects a systemic misunderstanding of why jurisdictional licensure exists.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 204
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
cited provision4: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: This case reveals a structural gap in how the NSPE Code's principle hierarchy operates when an engineer acting in the public interest — Engineer R — has fulfilled voluntary disclosure obligations through public testimony, but the regulatory body dismisses those concerns without substantive technical rebuttal and approves the plan anyway. The Code's provisions on reporting violations, sustainable development, and public safety collectively imply a duty that does not terminate at the hearing room door. Engineer R's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is not discharged simply by testifying; it persists as long as the unmitigated risk persists and as long as R possesses knowledge that higher regulatory authorities do not. The principle of sustainable development — protecting the environment for future generations — reinforces this reading by framing environmental risk near a creek and major river as a forward-looking obligation, not merely a procedural one. The post-hearing discovery that Engineer H was not licensed in State I adds a further dimension: R now holds knowledge of an alleged Code violation that the reporting provision requires be brought to appropriate professional or judicial authorities. These two obligations — escalating the substantive environmental risk and reporting the licensure violation — are not in conflict; they are complementary expressions of the same underlying commitment to public welfare and professional integrity. The case teaches that principle prioritization in complex multi-actor scenarios requires engineers to track obligations dynamically as facts evolve, rather than treating a single act of public testimony as a terminal discharge of duty.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Conclusion_4
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 4
conclusion number: 4
conclusion text: Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans in light of the issue.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

County Drainage Board Regulatory Body
type: CountyDrainageBoardRegulatoryAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Public regulatory board', 'jurisdiction': 'County, State I', 'authority': 'Drainage and stormwater plan approval'}
caseinvolvement: The county regulatory body that conducts the public hearing on the ZZZ truck stop project, receives testimony from Engineer R, Engineer H, and Person B, and ultimately votes to approve the plan.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'approves_project_of', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_presentation_from', 'target': 'Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority
sourcetext: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R's testimony
textreferences: the Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.840514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer H disclose the lack of a State I professional engineering license to the Drainage Board before presenting engineering testimony, or proceed with the presentation without disclosure?
focus: Engineer H is deployed by Firm C to present engineering testimony before the County Drainage Board in State I regarding the ZZZ truck stop project. Before appearing, Engineer H must decide whether to verify and disclose licensure status in State I, knowing that providing engineering input before a regulatory body in a jurisdiction where one is not licensed constitutes unlicensed practice.
option1: Disclose the absence of a State I license to the Drainage Board before presenting, and either obtain licensure, defer to a licensed State I engineer, or limit testimony to non-engineering factual matters
option2: Proceed with full engineering testimony before the Drainage Board without disclosing the lack of State I licensure, relying on home-state credentials
option3: Notify Firm C of the licensure gap and request that Firm C either obtain a licensed State I engineer to present or seek a continuance from the Board
role label: Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.644104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: When directly questioned by the Drainage Board vice president about underground tank leak risks near the creek, should Engineer H provide a complete and objective response addressing both above-ground and below-ground scenarios, or limit the response to above-ground spill pathways only?
focus: During the Drainage Board hearing, the Board vice president directly questions Engineer H about Engineer R's documented concerns regarding underground storage tank proximity to the creek and the historical fill site conditions. Engineer H must decide how to respond — whether to engage substantively with the underground leak risk or redirect attention solely to above-ground spill grading.
option1: Provide a complete and objective response addressing both above-ground spill grading and the underground tank leak risk, including acknowledgment of the LUST database leak rate data and any mitigation measures incorporated into the design
option2: Redirect the Board's attention exclusively to above-ground spill containment grading, omitting any substantive engagement with the underground tank proximity and subsurface leak risk raised by Engineer R
option3: Acknowledge the underground leak risk question, state that the issue requires further analysis, and commit on the record to re-examining the plans and reporting back to the Board before approval is finalized
role label: Public Hearing Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.644191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer R appear before the County Drainage Board and present technically grounded public testimony documenting the environmental risks of the proposed truck stop, or refrain from intervening in the regulatory process?
focus: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer and area resident with technical knowledge of environmental risks, must decide whether to appear before the County Drainage Board to present documented concerns about the ZZZ truck stop project — specifically the proximity of underground storage tanks to the creek and the historical fill site conditions — or to remain silent and allow the approval process to proceed without a public technical challenge.
option1: Appear before the Drainage Board and deliver fact-grounded public testimony citing verifiable data — including the LUST database leak rate and the historical fill site characteristics — to document the environmental risk to the creek
option2: Refrain from testifying before the Board and instead submit written concerns privately to the project engineer or ZZZ without entering the public record
option3: Appear before the Board to testify and simultaneously notify State I's Department of Environmental Management directly about the underground tank proximity risk and historical fill conditions, independent of the Board proceeding
role label: Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.644272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Upon learning that Engineer H presented engineering testimony before a State I regulatory body without holding a valid State I professional engineering license, should Engineer R report the unlicensed practice to the appropriate licensing authority?
focus: After Engineer R provides public testimony, R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I. R must decide whether to report Engineer H's unlicensed practice to the appropriate licensing authority, weighing the categorical reporting obligation under the Code against concerns that post-construction reporting may consume regulatory resources without altering the physical risk already present at the site.
option1: Report Engineer H's unlicensed practice to the State I professional engineering licensing authority, treating the reporting obligation as categorically independent of whether the unlicensed practice caused demonstrable harm or whether construction has begun
option2: Defer reporting Engineer H's unlicensed practice until after the immediate environmental risk to the creek is addressed through regulatory escalation, prioritizing the physical safety concern over the licensure violation
option3: Report Engineer H's unlicensed practice to the licensing authority and simultaneously escalate the environmental risk concern to the Department of Environmental Management, pursuing both obligations concurrently rather than treating them as competing priorities
role label: Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.644352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Before deploying Engineer H to present engineering testimony before the County Drainage Board in State I, should Firm C verify and confirm that Engineer H holds a valid State I professional engineering license, or proceed with the deployment without conducting a licensure verification?
focus: Firm C, as the national partnership firm responsible for the ZZZ truck stop project, must decide whether to verify that Engineer H holds a valid State I professional engineering license before deploying H to present engineering work before the County Drainage Board — a State I regulatory body. Firm C has institutional knowledge of multi-state practice requirements and controls which engineers are assigned to regulatory presentations.
option1: Verify Engineer H's State I licensure status before the hearing, and if H is not licensed in State I, assign a licensed State I engineer to present the testimony or obtain the necessary licensure before the hearing date
option2: Deploy Engineer H to present before the Drainage Board without conducting a State I licensure verification, relying on H's home-state credentials and professional judgment to manage any jurisdictional compliance issues
option3: Establish and enforce a firm-wide pre-hearing protocol requiring documented licensure verification for all engineers presenting before regulatory bodies in any jurisdiction, and apply that protocol to Engineer H's Drainage Board appearance
role label: National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.644430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Drainage Board Approval Granted
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Duty_To_Notify_Authorities_Constraint
activates constraint: PE_Duty_To_Escalate_Unresolved_Safety_Concerns
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Project transitions from proposed to approved; construction is legally authorized; R's role shifts from hearing witness to post-approval monitor; unresolved safety concerns now exist within an approved project framework
concept category: Event
creates obligation: R_Must_Assess_Whether_Board_Decision_Creates_Imminent_Danger
creates obligation: R_Must_Consider_Whether_To_Escalate_To_State_Environmental_Agency
creates obligation: R_Must_Monitor_Construction_For_Compliance
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: At the conclusion of the public Drainage Board hearing
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: The Drainage Board approves the ZZZ Truck Stop construction plan without conditions, despite R's testimony about illegal fill, tank proximity risks, and the 6% LUST leak rate, allowing construction to proceed as designed.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: public regulatory body, led by vice president at hearing
foreseen unintended effects: Approval without conditions removes any regulatory leverage to ensure Person B's promised consultation results in action
foreseen unintended effects: Unconditional approval may create a false sense that R's environmental concerns were fully resolved
fulfills obligation text: Applied current regulatory standards in evaluating the project
fulfills obligation text: Conducted a public hearing and allowed all parties to testify
guided by principle text: Due process in public hearings
guided by principle text: Public regulatory duty to protect public health and environmental safety
guided by principle text: Regulatory compliance as a basis for approval decisions
has agent: Drainage Board
has mental state: deliberate regulatory decision
intended outcome: Approve the truck stop plan as presented, having received responses from H and Person B that the Board found sufficient to address R's concerns
requires capability text: Capacity to evaluate competing technical testimony at public hearings
requires capability text: Regulatory authority to approve, deny, or conditionally approve drainage-related construction plans
temporal marker: At the conclusion of the public Drainage Board hearing
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Board accepted incomplete engineering testimony (H's selective response) without requiring a complete response to R's underground leak concern
violates obligation text: Opportunity to require conditions of approval tied to further environmental study or tank relocation was not exercised despite documented concerns
within competence: true
comment: The Drainage Board, after hearing testimony from R, H, and Person B, votes to approve the ZZZ Truck Stop plan without requiring tank relocation, additional environmental study, or any conditions tied to Person B's promise of environmental consultation.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5) → Tank Locations Remain Unchanged (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The Drainage Board, after hearing testimony from R, H, and Person B, votes to approve the ZZZ Truck Stop plan without conditions, removing the only regulatory barrier that could have compelled tank relocation or environmental safeguards
cause: Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5)
counterfactual: Had the board imposed conditions requiring tank relocation or documented environmental review, ZZZ would have faced legal obligation to alter tank placement; unconditional approval was the necessary enabling factor for ZZZ's non-compliance
effect: Tank Locations Remain Unchanged (Event 5)
necessary factors: B's promise substituting for enforceable conditions
necessary factors: Board's authority as the relevant regulatory decision-maker
necessary factors: Board's choice not to impose conditions despite R's evidence
necessary factors: H's redirection reducing evidentiary weight of R's testimony
necessary factors: ZZZ's willingness to exploit the unconditional approval
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Drainage Board (shared with Engineer H and ZZZ/Person B)
sufficient factors: Unconditional approval + ZZZ's non-compliance with promise + absence of enforcement = unchanged tank locations
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Drainage Board approval of the plan before construction begins
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. [Logically follows the Board's approval vote.]
from entity text: Drainage Board approval of the plan
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: construction begins
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: construction begins
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Drainage Board vote to approve the plan before construction begins
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Design Re-examination Commitment Failure ZZZ Truck Stop
type: DesignRe-examinationCommitmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Re-examination Commitment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer H failed to exercise the capability to either explain how Engineer R's underground leak concerns had been evaluated and addressed in the design, or to commit to re-examining the plans in light of R's testimony, resulting in incomplete and misleading testimony before the Drainage Board.
casecontext: Engineer H's failure to respond substantively to underground leak concerns at the ZZZ truck stop Drainage Board hearing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: H neither explained how underground leak risks had been addressed in the design nor offered to re-examine the tank placement plans in response to R's substantive testimony about LUST statistics and site conditions
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer H
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.837902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Compliance Failure ZZZ Truck Stop
type: Out-of-StateLicensurePracticeBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-State Licensure Practice Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer H lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that providing verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing in State I — where H was licensed only in State O — constituted the practice of engineering requiring State I licensure, resulting in unlicensed practice.
casecontext: Engineer H's presentation at the County Drainage Board hearing in State I while licensed only in State O
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer H presented the ZZZ truck stop project, responded to technical questions from the Board vice president, and defended engineering decisions at the State I Drainage Board hearing without holding a State I license
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer H
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: Engineer H's testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.837571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Selective Testimony Redirection Underground Tanks ZZZ Truck Stop
type: PublicHearingTestimonyCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer H failed to exercise the capability to provide complete, objective testimony addressing all material technical concerns raised by Engineer R — specifically the underground leak risk — instead selectively redirecting testimony to the above-ground spill scenario, constituting a material omission in violation of NSPE Code I.3 and III.3.a.
casecontext: Engineer H's response to the Drainage Board vice president's question about Engineer R's testimony at the ZZZ truck stop hearing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: When asked by the Drainage Board vice president about R's testimony, H addressed only above-ground spill pathways ('the spill will flow back to the pavement area') while omitting any substantive response to the underground leak concerns raised by R
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer H
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek
textreferences: Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.837728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Sustainable Development Testimony Integration Failure ZZZ Truck Stop
type: SustainableDevelopmentEnvironmentalTestimonyIntegrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony Integration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer H failed to exercise the capability to integrate sustainable development principles into testimony regarding the ZZZ truck stop project — including consideration of whether the tank placement adequately protected the waterway environment for future generations — as encouraged by NSPE Code III.2.d.
casecontext: Engineer H's testimony before the County Drainage Board regarding the ZZZ truck stop project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: H's testimony focused exclusively on regulatory compliance and above-ground spill management without addressing sustainable development considerations related to underground tank proximity to the creek and its discharge point into a major river
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer H
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
textreferences: Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.838090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint State I ZZZ Truck Stop
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer H provided verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board hearing in State I. The BER determined such input likely constitutes the practice of engineering requiring State I licensure. Engineer R, as a State I licensed engineer present at the hearing, had an obligation to report potential unlicensed practice upon becoming aware of it.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, upon learning or having reason to believe that Engineer H was providing verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing in State I without holding a State I professional engineering license, was constrained to report that potential unlicensed practice to the appropriate authority under State I's engineering practice act, and was prohibited from passively acquiescing in Engineer H's continued unlicensed engineering practice before the regulatory body.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State I Engineering Licensure Law; Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (State I); NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on unlicensed practice
sourcetext: In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer R's discovery or reasonable belief that Engineer H lacked State I licensure, during or after the Drainage Board hearing
textreferences: In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
textreferences: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.846771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure ZZZ Truck Stop State I
type: VerbalEngineeringTestimonyJurisdictionalLicensureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer H, licensed in another state but not in State I, provided verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing regarding the ZZZ Truck Stop project. The BER determined that providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board relies on such input in decision-making is likely to constitute the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer H
constraintclass: Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer H was constrained from providing verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing in State I — where the Board was relying on such input in its decision-making — without holding a professional engineering license in State I, as such verbal engineering testimony likely constitutes the practice of engineering in that jurisdiction requiring jurisdictional licensure.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State I Engineering Licensure Law; State Engineering Licensure Statutes; BER interpretation of engineering practice definition
sourcetext: In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
temporalscope: At the time of and prior to Engineer H's testimony before the County Drainage Board
textreferences: In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
textreferences: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
textreferences: Practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.
textreferences: Was H practicing engineering?
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.846323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H's response before Person B's response
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Following up R's presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R's testimony...Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded...
from entity text: Engineer H's response
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Person B's response
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Person B s response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H's response to Drainage Board vice president after Engineer R's testimony at public hearing
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Environmental Risk Assessment and Public Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
type: LeakingUndergroundStorageTankEnvironmentalRiskAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Environmental Risk Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed advanced capability to assess and communicate the environmental risks posed by underground fuel storage tanks adjacent to a waterway, integrating site history, fill material characteristics, LUST database statistics, and proximity to the creek in public testimony before the County Drainage Board.
casecontext: Engineer R testified as a member of the public at the County Drainage Board hearing regarding the ZZZ truck stop project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: R testified about fill material characteristics, potential for underground tank leaks, proximity of tanks to the creek, and cited State I LUST database showing 6% of tanks installed in prior 5 years experienced reportable leaks or spills
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.836869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R testified at the Drainage Board hearing regarding underground fuel storage tank proximity risks and historical fill site conditions, citing the State I LUST database. The BER confirmed R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing, but R's opinions needed to be grounded in established facts and professional analysis rather than unverified speculation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R was constrained to express technical opinions at the County Drainage Board public hearing only when those opinions were founded upon established facts and completed analysis — including verified data from the State I Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database and professional assessment of site fill conditions — prohibiting disclosure of unverified concerns as if they were established professional findings.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and truthfulness provisions; BER Case 63-6 (honest differences of opinion among qualified engineers); BER Case 79-2
sourcetext: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
temporalscope: During Engineer R's testimony at the County Drainage Board public hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
textreferences: There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
textreferences: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
textreferences: it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.846626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion LUST Database ZZZ Truck Stop
type: Fact-GroundedPublicTechnicalOpinionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fact-Grounded Public Technical Opinion Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R demonstrated the capability to ground public technical opinions in established facts — including state LUST database statistics, site history corroborated by the county surveyor, and observable site conditions — while clearly distinguishing between established facts (6% leak rate, fill history, tank proximity) and technically grounded concerns (potential for contamination pathways).
casecontext: Engineer R's public testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing regarding the ZZZ truck stop project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: R cited specific LUST database statistics (6% reportable leak rate), acknowledged the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, and grounded concerns in corroborated site history rather than speculation
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.838271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation Fulfillment ZZZ Truck Stop
type: EnvironmentalRiskEscalationPost-RegulatoryApprovalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Risk Escalation Post-Regulatory Approval Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R demonstrated the capability to fulfill public interest environmental testimony obligations by raising concerns at the Drainage Board hearing, and subsequently to assess whether the post-approval failure to change tank locations warranted escalation to the state environmental regulatory agency.
casecontext: Engineer R's complete arc of public interest advocacy from initial testimony through post-construction monitoring
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfied the duty to report; R's subsequent observation that tank locations were not changed triggered assessment of escalation obligations to higher regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony
textreferences: If R believes that there is a danger to public health, safety and welfare, R could choose to raise the concerns to a higher regulatory authority
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.838594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony Professional Deportment Constraint ZZZ Truck Stop
type: EngineerRPublicInterestEnvironmentalTestimonyProfessionalDeportmentConstraintZZZTruckStop
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R publicly challenged the engineering approach adopted by Engineer H and Firm C at the Drainage Board hearing. BER Case 63-6 and 79-2 establish that such public challenge is ethical when offered on a high level of professional deportment and grounded in honest differences of professional opinion in the public interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer R was constrained, when publicly challenging Engineer H's engineering approach at the County Drainage Board hearing, to offer criticism on a high level of professional deportment — grounded in established facts, honest differences of professional opinion, and genuine public interest concern — and was prohibited from criticism motivated by competitive self-interest or offered without adequate factual foundation.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case 63-6; BER Case 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics professional conduct provisions
sourcetext: it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
temporalscope: During Engineer R's testimony at the County Drainage Board public hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
textreferences: There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
textreferences: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
textreferences: it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.831981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness
type: PublicInterestEnvironmentalWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer, State I', 'specialty': 'Environmental regulation', 'role_basis': 'Voluntary public testimony, no formal engagement with project'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed PE in State I who testifies at the county drainage board public hearing as a member of the public, raising concerns about fill material, underground fuel tank proximity to the creek, and leaking tank statistics from the state environmental database. Subsequently observes that tank locations were not changed after construction begins.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'public_interest_advocate_for', 'target': 'Waterway and Creek Affected Community'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_witness_to', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'technical_challenger_of', 'target': 'Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.840049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness Escalation Assessment ZZZ Truck Stop
type: EnvironmentalRiskEscalationPost-RegulatoryApprovalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Risk Escalation Post-Regulatory Approval Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed the capability to assess whether the Drainage Board's approval of the ZZZ truck stop — without changing tank locations — warranted escalation to a higher regulatory authority such as the state environmental agency, consistent with BER Case 20-4 principles.
casecontext: Post-approval monitoring of ZZZ truck stop construction and assessment of escalation obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: After construction began and R observed tank locations were not changed, R faced the decision of whether to escalate concerns to the state environmental regulatory agency
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony. If R believes that there is a danger to public health, safety and welfare, R could choose to raise the concerns to a higher regulatory authority
textreferences: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.837075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Qualified to Perform — Environmental Regulatory Assessment
type: QualifiedtoPerform
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the case — R is a licensed PE in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
stateclass: Qualified to Perform
subject: Engineer R's competence and licensure to assess environmental regulatory compliance and risk in State I
terminatedby: Not terminated
textreferences: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
triggeringevent: Engineer R's identification of environmental risks associated with the ZZZ Truck Stop project
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.842071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Context — State I Environmental Regulation
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the project planning, approval, and construction phases
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: State I Department of Environmental Management
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: The regulatory framework governing the ZZZ Truck Stop project, including floodplain regulations, underground storage tank regulations, and environmental management requirements in State I
terminatedby: Not terminated — ongoing regulatory context
textreferences: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
textreferences: analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
triggeringevent: Proposed construction of truck stop with underground fuel storage tanks adjacent to a creek and major river in State I
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.831005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Unlicensed Practice Identification Engineer H ZZZ Truck Stop
type: UnlicensedPracticeIdentificationinPublicHearingContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Identification in Public Hearing Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed the capability to identify that Engineer H's verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing — where H was identified only as 'person H of Firm C Engineers' without licensure status — constituted the practice of engineering requiring licensure in State I, and to recognize the obligation to report this to State I authorities.
casecontext: Post-hearing discovery that Engineer H lacked State I licensure despite providing verbal engineering input at the Drainage Board hearing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: R learned that Engineer H is not licensed in State I but is licensed in State O, triggering recognition of unlicensed practice and reporting obligations
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: Engineer R has an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: in the public record, H is simply identified as 'person H of Firm C Engineers'
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.837283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation Engineer H
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingandChallengeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer R possessed the capability to act on the recognition of Engineer H's unlicensed practice by formulating and communicating a report to State I authorities, consistent with NSPE Code II.1.f obligations to report known code violations.
casecontext: Post-hearing reporting obligation triggered by discovery of Engineer H's lack of State I licensure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Upon learning H was licensed only in State O and not State I, R faced the obligation to report the unlicensed practice to appropriate State I authorities
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer R
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: Engineer R has an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities
textreferences: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.837431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R's public testimony at Drainage Board hearing before Engineer H's response to the Drainage Board vice president
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Following up R's presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R's testimony. H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek...
from entity text: Engineer R's public testimony at Drainage Board hearing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer H's response to the Drainage Board vice president
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer H s response to the Drainage Board vice p
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R's testimony at public hearing before Drainage Board vote to approve the plan
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Environmental Hazard — Creek and River Contamination Risk
type: EnvironmentalHazardPresent
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From identification of tank placement plans through construction and operation of the truck stop
affectedparties: Creek ecosystem
affectedparties: Downstream public
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Major river receiving waters
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state
stateclass: Environmental Hazard Present
subject: The creek and its discharge point into the major river, threatened by proximity of underground fuel storage tanks on a historically filled site
terminatedby: Not terminated — risk persists through and after construction
textreferences: 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area
textreferences: the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state
textreferences: the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek
triggeringevent: Combination of historical illegal fill, proximity of underground fuel storage tanks to the creek, and statistical evidence of tank leak rates
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.841238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Firm C Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight ZZZ Truck Stop Engineer H Testimony
type: SubconsultantEthicalComplianceOversightConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm C retained or directed Engineer H to provide engineering testimony before the County Drainage Board. Engineer H's testimony was found to be incomplete and potentially constituted unlicensed practice in State I. Firm C bore responsibility for ensuring the ethical compliance of engineering work performed on its behalf.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Firm C
constraintclass: Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm C, as the engineering firm responsible for the ZZZ Truck Stop project and the entity on whose behalf Engineer H testified before the County Drainage Board, was constrained to maintain oversight sufficient to ensure that Engineer H's testimony complied with professional ethical standards — including completeness, objectivity, and jurisdictional licensure requirements — and was prohibited from passively accepting testimony that selectively omitted material safety information or that may have constituted unlicensed engineering practice in State I.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-5; State I Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
temporalscope: During and following Engineer H's testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
textreferences: R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.846935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Firm C Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Engineer H Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
type: SubcontractorEthicalOversightCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm C failed to exercise the capability to maintain active ethical oversight of Engineer H's testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing — including ensuring H was licensed in State I before presenting, and ensuring H's testimony was complete and addressed all material technical concerns raised by public testimony — resulting in unlicensed practice and incomplete testimony.
casecontext: Firm C's responsibility for the ethical conduct of Engineer H's testimony at the ZZZ truck stop Drainage Board hearing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Firm C sent Engineer H to present at a State I regulatory hearing without verifying H's State I licensure, and H's testimony selectively redirected away from underground leak concerns raised by Engineer R
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:30:24.823598+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop
textreferences: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.838421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Floodplain Compliance Standard for Construction Site Classification
type: FloodplainComplianceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: FEMA / State I floodplain management authority
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Federal and State Floodplain Management Regulations (as applied in State I)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Floodplain Compliance Standard
sourcetext: As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain
textreferences: As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
usedby: Engineer R, Engineer H, County Drainage Board
usedincontext: Establishes that the historically filled site technically falls outside the flood plain, creating the ethical tension between regulatory compliance and substantive environmental risk that Engineer R raises in testimony.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.839343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

H Redirects Testimony Away from Leak Risks
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: engineer employed by Firm C, licensed in State O, not licensed in State I
foreseen unintended effects: Failure to address leak probability may result in inadequate environmental safeguards being built into the approved plan
foreseen unintended effects: Incomplete testimony may mislead the Board into believing all of R's concerns had been addressed
foreseen unintended effects: Selective response may constitute incomplete and misleading engineering testimony under NSPE Code standards
fulfills obligation text: Partial response to Board inquiry regarding physical design features (setback, grading)
guided by principle text: All relevant and pertinent information must be included in professional statements
guided by principle text: Completeness and objectivity in engineering testimony
guided by principle text: Sustainable development and environmental protection
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and non-misrepresentation in professional communications
has agent: Engineer H
has mental state: deliberate and strategically selective
intended outcome: Satisfy the Drainage Board's inquiry sufficiently to secure project approval without committing to design changes or acknowledging the validity of R's concerns about underground leak risk
requires capability text: Ability to evaluate and respond to environmental risk concerns
requires capability text: Knowledge of underground fuel storage tank standards
requires capability text: Public hearing testimony skills
requires capability text: Site engineering and grading design expertise
temporal marker: At the public Drainage Board hearing, immediately following R's testimony
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: NSPE Canon 3 obligation to issue only truthful and complete statements. H's testimony was selective and incomplete
violates obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in testimony (BER Case 95-5)
violates obligation text: Obligation of objectivity, selective use of facts misdirects the Board's conclusion (BER Case 95-5)
violates obligation text: Obligation to either explain how R's leak concerns had been evaluated and addressed, or to offer to re-examine the plans in light of R's testimony (per Discussion section analysis)
violates obligation text: Potential violation of State I engineering licensure requirements by providing verbal engineering input at a public hearing without State I licensure
violates obligation text: Professional Obligation III.2.d to adhere to sustainable development principles to protect the environment
within competence: true
comment: Engineer H, responding to the Drainage Board vice president's question about R's testimony, chooses to address only tank setback distance and surface spill grading design, deliberately redirecting the conversation away from R's substantive concerns about underground tank leak probability and the site's fill history.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

H Redirects Testimony Away from Leak Risks (Action 3) → Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5 / Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer H, responding to the Drainage Board vice president's question about R's testimony, chooses to redirect deliberation away from leak risks, undermining the evidentiary weight of R's technical findings at the critical decision point
cause: H Redirects Testimony Away from Leak Risks (Action 3)
counterfactual: Had H engaged honestly with R's leak risk evidence, or had H's unlicensed status been known, the board would likely have given greater weight to R's findings and potentially imposed conditions or denied approval
effect: Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5 / Event 4)
necessary factors: Board vice president's direct inquiry creating the opportunity for H's intervention
necessary factors: Board's reliance on H's technical framing in its deliberation
necessary factors: H's decision to redirect rather than engage substantively with leak risk evidence
necessary factors: H's status as a credentialed engineer lending authority to his redirection
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer H
sufficient factors: H's authoritative redirection + Person B's promise + absence of conditions = board approval without safeguards
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Historical Illegal Fill Discovered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Environmental_Hazard_Reporting_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Disclosure_Constraint
causes state change: Site status changes from assumed compliant to known-violation; R is now a witness to a pre-existing environmental hazard with professional disclosure obligations activated
concept category: Event
creates obligation: R_Must_Assess_Environmental_Risk_Scope
creates obligation: R_Must_Disclose_Illegal_Fill_Finding
creates obligation: R_Must_Notify_Relevant_Authorities_If_Imminent_Danger
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Before public Drainage Board hearing; during R's initial site investigation
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer R uncovers evidence of historical illegal fill on the ZZZ Truck Stop site during site history investigation, establishing a pre-existing environmental violation adjacent to a creek near its discharge into a major river.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

H's Unlicensed Status Confirmed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: PE_Duty_To_Report_Licensure_Violations_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Unauthorized_Practice_Reporting_Constraint
causes state change: H's hearing testimony is retroactively recontextualized as potentially unauthorized engineering practice; the credibility and legal standing of H's technical input to the Board is called into question; R now has an additional, independent basis for reporting
concept category: Event
creates obligation: R_Must_Assess_Whether_H_Testimony_Constituted_Engineering_Practice
creates obligation: R_Must_Consider_Whether_Firm_C_Enabled_Unauthorized_Practice
creates obligation: R_Must_Report_H_Unlicensed_Practice_To_State_I_Licensing_Board
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After construction begins, during or following R's post-approval investigation
temporal sequence: 13
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer R discovers that Engineer H, who provided technical testimony at the Drainage Board hearing on behalf of Firm C, holds a PE license in State O but is not licensed in State I where the project is located, potentially constituting unauthorized practice of engineering.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

I.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

III.2.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

LUST Database Leak Rate Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Technical_Testimony_Constraint
activates constraint: Evidence_Based_Risk_Communication_Constraint
causes state change: R now possesses quantitative, publicly available evidence to substantiate risk claims; testimony is elevated from opinion to data-supported assertion
concept category: Event
creates obligation: R_Must_Cite_LUST_Data_Accurately_In_Testimony
creates obligation: R_Must_Contextualize_Statistical_Risk_For_Decision_Makers
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: During R's pre-hearing investigation, prior to the Drainage Board hearing
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: medium
comment: State I's Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database yields a 6% historical leak rate, providing R with quantitative evidence to support testimony about contamination risk from the proposed underground fuel storage tanks.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon 1.3
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Fundamental Canon 1.3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Question 4 deals with objectivity and truthfulness - issues directly addressed by fundamental Canon 1.3.
textreferences: Question 4 deals with objectivity and truthfulness - issues directly addressed by fundamental Canon 1.3.
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer H's obligation to address concerns about underground tank leaks with objectivity and truthfulness
usedincontext: Cited as directly addressing objectivity and truthfulness obligations relevant to Engineer H's conduct in testimony before the Drainage Board
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.842464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Completeness of Reports Provision
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Requirement to Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information in Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.'
textreferences: selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.'
usedby: BER in concluding that Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
usedincontext: Cited as the specific code provision violated by Engineer H's selective omission of information about underground tank leak risks in testimony, requiring that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.842624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Obligation III.2.d
type: SustainableDevelopmentEthicsProvision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.2.d
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
sourcetext: Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
textreferences: Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer H's failure to address environmental concerns about underground storage tank leaks
usedincontext: Cited as an additional basis for finding Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from underground tank leak issues troubling, as it encourages engineers to adhere to principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.831381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
usedby: Engineer R, Engineer H
usedincontext: Governs Engineer R's obligation to testify about public safety concerns regarding underground fuel storage tank siting near a waterway, and Engineer H's obligations regarding competent design and licensure in State I.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.838755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Person B Promises Environmental Consultation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: ZZZ representative, non-engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Failure to follow through on the consultation or to change tank locations may constitute a breach of the implicit representation made to the Board
foreseen unintended effects: The non-committal response may result in no substantive environmental safeguards being added
foreseen unintended effects: The promise to consult may be interpreted by the Board as a meaningful commitment to address R's concerns, influencing the approval vote
fulfills obligation text: Acknowledged R's concerns and provided a response to the Board
fulfills obligation text: Offered a process (environmental team consultation) for further review
guided by principle text: Good faith engagement with public regulatory processes
guided by principle text: Transparency about the limits of commitments made in public hearings
has agent: Person B
has mental state: deliberate and strategically non-committal
intended outcome: Satisfy the Drainage Board's concern sufficiently to secure project approval while preserving ZZZ's flexibility to maintain the existing tank placement after the hearing
raises obligation text: Implicit obligation of good faith to the Drainage Board: the promise to consult was not followed through, as post-construction observation confirmed tank locations were unchanged
raises obligation text: Obligation not to make representations to a public regulatory body that create a false impression of forthcoming remedial action
requires capability text: Ability to represent ZZZ's position at a public regulatory hearing
requires capability text: Knowledge of ZZZ's operational requirements for fuel storage
requires capability text: Understanding of the scope of ZZZ's environmental team resources
temporal marker: At the public Drainage Board hearing, following H's response to the Board vice president
temporal sequence: 7
within competence: true
comment: ZZZ representative Person B responds to R's testimony by explaining the operational rationale for tank placement and committing only to consult with ZZZ's environmental team about possible additional measures, without making any binding commitment to design changes.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Person B Promises Environmental Consultation (Action 4) → ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relocation (Action 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: ZZZ representative Person B responds to R's testimony by explaining the operational rationale for tank placement and promising environmental consultation, but after Drainage Board approval, ZZZ proceeds without tank relocation despite this public promise
cause: Person B Promises Environmental Consultation (Action 4)
counterfactual: Had the board conditioned approval on documented environmental consultation outcomes, ZZZ would have faced legal obligation to follow through; the promise alone was insufficient to compel action
effect: ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relocation (Action 6)
necessary factors: Absence of enforceable conditions attached to the approval
necessary factors: Drainage Board's reliance on the promise as a substitute for conditional approval
necessary factors: Person B's public promise creating a reasonable expectation of follow-through
necessary factors: ZZZ's subsequent decision to disregard the promise once approval was secured
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Person B / ZZZ Corporation
sufficient factors: Unenforceable oral promise + unconditional approval + ZZZ's profit motive = non-compliance with promised consultation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Person B ZZZ Commercial Development Owner Representative
type: CommercialDevelopmentOwnerRepresentative
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Non-engineer commercial representative', 'affiliation': 'ZZZ Truck Stop', 'role_basis': 'Owner/developer representative at regulatory hearing'}
caseinvolvement: Non-engineer representative of ZZZ who responds to public testimony at the drainage board hearing, explains the rationale for tank placement based on operational access needs, and commits to consulting the environmental team about additional measures.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
relationships: {'type': 'responds_to', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Commercial Development Owner Representative
sourcetext: Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps
textreferences: Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take
textreferences: Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.840369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Person B's response after Engineer H's response
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Person B's response before Drainage Board vote to approve the plan
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take. The Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan.
from entity text: Person B's response
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Drainage Board vote to approve the plan
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Drainage Board vote to approve the plan
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Waterway Contamination
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From identification of tank proximity risk through ongoing operation of the truck stop
affectedparties: Creek and river ecosystem
affectedparties: Downstream water users
affectedparties: General public relying on the major river
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Public safety and environmental welfare threatened by potential fuel contamination of the creek and major river
terminatedby: Not terminated — risk persists
textreferences: 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state
triggeringevent: Engineer R's identification of the combined risk factors: historical fill, tank proximity, statistical leak rates, and creek discharge to major river
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.841410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Qualitative Risk Assessment for Underground Tank Proximity to Waterway
type: QualitativeRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering practice norms, environmental engineering methodology
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Risk Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Underground Fuel Storage Tank Proximity to Surface Water
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualitative Risk Assessment
sourcetext: R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
usedby: Engineer R
usedincontext: Provides the structured professional methodology underlying Engineer R's testimony estimating the likelihood and magnitude of potential contamination of the creek from underground fuel storage tank leaks, drawing on LUST database statistics and site-specific characteristics.
version: N/A (methodology)
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.839867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.850919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Firm C bear any ethical or supervisory responsibility for deploying Engineer H to present engineering work before a regulatory body in a state where H is not licensed, and should Firm C have verified H's licensure status before assigning H to the project?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that Person B, a non-engineer representative of ZZZ, offered to consult their environmental team about additional measures, did this response effectively deflect technical scrutiny in a way that placed public safety at risk, and does the Drainage Board bear any responsibility for accepting that assurance without requiring a substantive engineering response?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Because the site's historical fill was legal at the time it occurred but creates present-day environmental risk, does Engineer H have an obligation under sustainable development principles to proactively investigate and disclose that risk in design documents and regulatory presentations, even absent a current regulatory violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: After the Drainage Board approved the plan and construction began without relocating the tanks, at what point does Engineer R's ethical obligation shift from optional escalation to a mandatory duty to report to a higher regulatory authority such as the State I Department of Environmental Management, and what threshold of perceived danger triggers that mandatory duty?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the obligation to issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner conflict with the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public when Engineer R, lacking direct access to design documents, must decide how forcefully to characterize speculative but statistically supported risks before the Drainage Board?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should the principle of conforming with state registration laws be weighed against the principle of holding paramount public safety when Engineer H possesses genuine technical expertise relevant to the public hearing but lacks a State I license — does the public interest in having competent engineering testimony override the jurisdictional licensure requirement, or does unlicensed practice categorically undermine the integrity of that testimony regardless of its technical merit?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the obligation to avoid statements containing material omissions of fact conflict with an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client when Engineer H, by addressing only above-ground spill scenarios and remaining silent on underground leak risks, selectively presents information that serves ZZZ's commercial interest while leaving the Drainage Board with an incomplete picture of the hazard profile?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: When Engineer R learns of Engineer H's unlicensed practice after the hearing, does the duty to report a code violation under the provision requiring engineers to report alleged violations conflict with the principle of sustainable development and public welfare — specifically, could reporting H at that stage serve primarily procedural justice while doing little to address the ongoing environmental risk, and should R therefore prioritize escalating the substantive safety concern to environmental regulators before or alongside reporting the licensure violation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer H have an absolute duty to disclose the underground tank leak risk to the Drainage Board, independent of whether the vice-president's question specifically invited that disclosure, given that H was presenting engineering work in a public regulatory forum affecting public safety?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer H demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual honesty by addressing only above-ground spill scenarios while remaining silent on the underground leak risk that Engineer R had explicitly raised, and does this selective response reflect the character expected of a competent and candid engineering professional?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the Drainage Board's approval of the truck stop plan, facilitated in part by Engineer H's incomplete testimony, produce an outcome that adequately weighed the probabilistic environmental harm — evidenced by the 6% reportable leak rate in State I — against the commercial benefits of the development, and does the resulting risk to the creek and major river represent an ethically unjustifiable outcome?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer R's duty to protect public health and safety — as encoded in the paramount obligation of the NSPE Code — extend beyond voluntary public testimony to a positive obligation to escalate concerns to higher regulatory authorities when the Drainage Board dismisses those concerns without substantive technical rebuttal, regardless of whether escalation is likely to succeed?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Firm C demonstrate institutional integrity by deploying Engineer H — an engineer not licensed in State I — to present engineering work before a State I regulatory body, and does Firm C's national partnership structure create a systemic ethical vulnerability that individual engineer virtue alone cannot remedy?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the benefit to public safety of requiring Engineer R to formally report Engineer H's unlicensed practice outweigh the professional and relational costs to Engineer R, and does the answer change depending on whether the unlicensed practice materially contributed to the inadequate treatment of the underground leak risk at the hearing?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_4
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 4
question text: Engineer H’s response to the Board vice-president’s question about R’s testimony addressed concerns with above-ground spills (“the spill will flow back to the pavement area, not directly toward the creek”). Did Engineer H have an obligation to address the issues R raised regarding an underground leak?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer R had discovered that Engineer H was not licensed in State I before the Drainage Board hearing rather than after construction began, would R have had an obligation to raise the licensure issue at the hearing itself, and would doing so have altered the Board's willingness to credit H's technical testimony about tank setbacks and surface spill grading?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer H had fully and transparently addressed the underground tank leak risk during the Drainage Board hearing — either by explaining existing mitigation measures or by committing to re-examine tank placement — would the Drainage Board have been likely to impose conditions on its approval, and would that outcome have better served the public interest than the unconditional approval that actually occurred?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If ZZZ's representative Person B had followed through on the stated intention to consult the environmental team about additional protective measures, and if those measures had been formally incorporated into the approved plan, would Engineer R still have had an ethical obligation to escalate concerns to higher regulatory authorities after the Drainage Board vote?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the ZZZ Truck Stop site had been located in a designated flood plain rather than on historically filled land that technically escaped that classification, would the regulatory framework have imposed additional siting constraints on the underground storage tanks that might have rendered Engineer R's concerns moot, and does the regulatory gap created by the pre-regulation fill history expose a systemic failure that individual engineer ethics cannot fully compensate for?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Question_405
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 405
question text: If Firm C had required Engineer H to obtain a State I license — or had assigned a State I-licensed engineer to present the project to the Drainage Board — would the ethical and legal legitimacy of H's technical testimony have changed the weight the Board gave to H's responses relative to Engineer R's concerns, and would that have produced a more rigorous public safety analysis?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.848670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R Investigates H's Licensure Status
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed PE, State I
foreseen unintended effects: Discovery of H's unlicensed status may create an obligation for R to report to the State I engineering licensure board
foreseen unintended effects: This discovery adds a second dimension to R's potential escalation beyond the environmental concern, a professional licensure violation
fulfills obligation text: Diligent follow-up on public safety concerns after the hearing
fulfills obligation text: Professional responsibility to be aware of licensure requirements and potential violations affecting public reliance on engineering testimony
guided by principle text: Accountability of engineers providing technical input to public regulatory bodies
guided by principle text: Continued vigilance after formal hearing testimony, consistent with BER Case 20-4's obligation to further pursue matters if formal presentations fail
guided by principle text: Public protection through enforcement of engineering licensure requirements
has agent: Engineer R
has mental state: deliberate investigative decision
intended outcome: Determine whether H's public hearing testimony constituted unlicensed practice of engineering in State I, potentially providing an additional basis for regulatory escalation
requires capability text: Ability to assess whether specific activities constitute 'practice of engineering' under State I law
requires capability text: Knowledge of State I engineering licensure requirements
requires capability text: Professional judgment about reporting obligations
temporal marker: Post-approval, during or after construction begins
temporal sequence: 12
within competence: true
comment: After construction begins and R observes that tank locations were unchanged, R investigates and discovers that Engineer H is not licensed in State I but holds a license only in State O, raising the question of whether H's testimony at the public hearing constituted unlicensed practice of engineering in State I.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R Investigates H's Licensure Status (Action 7) → H's Unlicensed Status Confirmed (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After construction begins and R observes that tank locations were unchanged, R investigates and discovers that Engineer H lacked a valid engineering license at the time of testimony, confirming that H's authoritative technical redirection was provided without legitimate professional standing
cause: R Investigates H's Licensure Status (Action 7)
counterfactual: Without R's investigation, H's unlicensed status would likely have remained undiscovered, and the Drainage Board's approval would have stood on a false evidentiary foundation without challenge
effect: H's Unlicensed Status Confirmed (Event 6)
necessary factors: Existence of accessible licensure records
necessary factors: H's actual unlicensed status being a discoverable fact
necessary factors: R's decision to investigate H's licensure rather than accept the outcome
necessary factors: R's observation that tank locations remained unchanged, triggering further investigation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer H (primary); Engineer R (discovery agent)
sufficient factors: R's investigative decision + accessible licensure records + H's actual unlicensed status = confirmation of H's lack of professional standing
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R Investigates Site History
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed PE, State I, environmental regulation specialist
foreseen unintended effects: Findings may put R in adversarial position with ZZZ and Firm C
foreseen unintended effects: Testimony based on findings may delay or complicate project approval
fulfills obligation text: Duty to use relevant technical knowledge and databases in assessing environmental risk
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Canon obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be informed before making public professional statements
fulfills obligation text: Professional Obligation III.2.d to adhere to sustainable development principles to protect the environment
guided by principle text: Objectivity and factual grounding in professional judgment
guided by principle text: Public safety and environmental protection
guided by principle text: Sustainable development and protection of waterways for future generations
has agent: Engineer R
has mental state: deliberate and purposeful
intended outcome: Gather sufficient factual and regulatory basis to assess environmental risk posed by the proposed truck stop location and tank placement
requires capability text: Ability to interpret LUST database statistics
requires capability text: Environmental regulation expertise
requires capability text: Knowledge of floodplain and fill history assessment
requires capability text: Understanding of underground fuel storage tank risk
temporal marker: Pre-hearing, upon learning of ZZZ Truck Stop construction plans
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Engineer R proactively investigates the historical fill activity on the proposed truck stop site, reviews the county surveyor's records, and consults State I's LUST database to quantify underground tank leak rates before the public hearing.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R Investigates Site History (Action 1) → Historical Illegal Fill Discovered (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer R proactively investigates the historical fill activity on the proposed truck stop site, uncovering evidence of historical illegal fill during site history investigation
cause: R Investigates Site History (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without R's proactive investigation, the illegal fill would likely have remained undiscovered prior to construction approval, as no other agent appears to have been investigating site history
effect: Historical Illegal Fill Discovered (Event 1)
necessary factors: Existence of historical fill records accessible to R
necessary factors: R's decision to proactively investigate beyond standard scope
necessary factors: R's professional competence to interpret site history data
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer R
sufficient factors: Proactive investigation + accessible records + professional competence = discovery of illegal fill
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R Testifies at Public Hearing
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed PE, State I, environmental regulation specialist
foreseen unintended effects: R may be perceived as opposing a legally compliant project without formal standing
foreseen unintended effects: Testimony may be dismissed or minimized by the Board or Firm C
foreseen unintended effects: Testimony satisfies formal duty to report but may not result in substantive change
fulfills obligation text: Duty to report environmental concerns formally, as established by BER Case 20-4
fulfills obligation text: Ethical right and obligation to publicly challenge engineering decisions at hearings in the interest of the public, as established by BER Cases 63-6 and 79-2
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Canon 1 obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information (LUST data, fill history, proximity) in public testimony
fulfills obligation text: Professional Obligation III.2.d to protect the environment for future generations
guided by principle text: Criticism of another engineer's work is ethical when offered in the public interest with professional deportment (BER Case 79-2)
guided by principle text: Formal presentation satisfies duty to report (BER Case 20-4)
guided by principle text: Honest differences of professional opinion may be expressed at public hearings (BER Case 63-6)
guided by principle text: Public safety and environmental protection paramount
has agent: Engineer R
has mental state: deliberate and professionally motivated
intended outcome: Formally place environmental and public safety concerns on the record, prompt the Drainage Board and Firm C to require relocation of fuel storage tanks or additional environmental study before approval
requires capability text: Ability to interpret and present LUST database statistics
requires capability text: Environmental regulation expertise
requires capability text: Professional judgment on underground tank placement relative to waterways
requires capability text: Public hearing testimony skills
temporal marker: At the public Drainage Board hearing, prior to Board vote
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Engineer R chooses to appear and testify as a member of the public at the Drainage Board hearing, presenting concerns about historical fill material, underground tank proximity to the creek, and empirical leak rate data, while requesting the Board and design firm consider alternative tank locations.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R Testifies at Public Hearing (Action 2) → Underground Tank Proximity Risk Identified (Event 2) enters public record
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer R chooses to appear and testify as a member of the public at the Drainage Board hearing, presenting findings including the underground fuel storage tank proximity risk and the 6% LUST database leak rate
cause: R Testifies at Public Hearing (Action 2)
counterfactual: Without R's testimony, the Drainage Board would have proceeded with no independent technical challenge to ZZZ's plan; tank proximity risks and illegal fill history would not have been part of the deliberative record
effect: Underground Tank Proximity Risk Identified (Event 2) enters public record
necessary factors: Existence of a public hearing forum providing opportunity for testimony
necessary factors: LUST database data establishing quantifiable leak risk
necessary factors: R's prior investigative work establishing the evidentiary basis
necessary factors: R's volitional decision to appear and testify
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer R
sufficient factors: R's testimony + evidentiary findings + public forum = formal introduction of risk evidence into decision-making record
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.852011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:45.931194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.645134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T18:39:41.645183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.851695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I after Drainage Board public hearing
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R's observation that tank locations were not changed during construction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R's observation that tank locations were unchanged equals R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: equals
evidence: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
from entity text: R's observation that tank locations were unchanged
owl time property: time:intervalEquals
to entity text: R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
interval equals: R s discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in S
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R's review of LUST database (5-year period) before R's testimony at Drainage Board hearing
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill [presented as part of R's testimony]
from entity text: R's review of LUST database (5-year period)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: R's testimony at Drainage Board hearing
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: R s testimony at Drainage Board hearing
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

State Engineering Licensure Statutes
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State legislatures and regulatory bodies
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Statutes and Regulations Governing the Practice of Engineering
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:49.410815+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
textreferences: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
textreferences: Practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.
usedby: BER in analyzing whether Engineer H was practicing engineering without a license when testifying before the Drainage Board
usedincontext: Referenced as the governing legal authority for determining whether Engineer H's verbal engineering input at a public meeting constitutes the practice of engineering requiring licensure, with the BER noting that such laws vary by state and must be consulted
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

State I Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
type: LeakingUndergroundStorageTankDatabase
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State I Department of Environmental Management
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State I IDEM Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Database
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
sourcetext: analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
usedby: Engineer R
usedincontext: Cited by Engineer R in public testimony before the Drainage Board to quantify the statistical risk of underground fuel storage tank leaks, supporting the argument for relocating tanks away from the creek.
version: Current (5-year data window referenced)
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.838911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

State I Engineering Licensure Law
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: State I Legislature / State Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State I Professional Engineering Licensure Statute
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
usedby: Engineer H, Engineer R
usedincontext: Governs the requirement that Engineer H be licensed in State I to present and seal engineering work for approval before the county drainage board; Engineer H holds a license in State O but not State I.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.839051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

State I Environmental Compliance Regulations for Waterway Protection
type: EnvironmentalComplianceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: State I Department of Environmental Management / State Legislature
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State I Environmental Regulations Governing Development Adjacent to Waterways
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Environmental Compliance Standard
sourcetext: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
textreferences: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
textreferences: the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
textreferences: the site was not regulated while it was filled
usedby: Engineer R, Engineer H, County Drainage Board
usedincontext: Provides the regulatory framework within which the ZZZ Truck Stop site design must comply, including protections for the creek and the major river into which it discharges, and the historical fill context that predates current regulations.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.839191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

System Error State → Case Narrative Unavailable
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.846973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Tank Locations Remain Unchanged
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Imminent_Environmental_Hazard_Constraint
activates constraint: PE_Mandatory_Escalation_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: The risk identified at the hearing is now physically instantiated in the ground; the situation escalates from potential to actual hazard; R's obligation to act is no longer prospective but immediate
concept category: Event
creates obligation: R_Must_Assess_Whether_Construction_Halt_Is_Required
creates obligation: R_Must_Document_Observed_Tank_Locations
creates obligation: R_Must_Escalate_Beyond_Drainage_Board_If_Necessary
creates obligation: R_Must_Report_To_State_Environmental_Or_Licensing_Authority
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After construction begins, during R's post-approval site observation
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: After construction begins, Engineer R observes that the underground fuel storage tanks have been installed in the same locations identified as problematic during the hearing, confirming that Person B's promise to consult the environmental team did not result in any design modification.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Underground Storage Tank Siting and Setback Standards
type: UndergroundStorageTankSitingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: EPA, State I environmental agency, professional engineering practice norms
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Regulatory and Professional Standards for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Siting Near Waterways
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Underground Storage Tank Siting Standard
sourcetext: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan
textreferences: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan
textreferences: R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek
usedby: Engineer R, Engineer H, Person B (ZZZ representative)
usedincontext: Governs the acceptable setback distance and spill containment design for underground fuel storage tanks relative to the creek, forming the technical basis for Engineer R's concerns and Engineer H's design defense before the Drainage Board.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.839498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Underground Tank Proximity Risk Identified
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Environmental_Hazard_Reporting_Constraint
activates constraint: LUST_Risk_Assessment_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Disclosure_Constraint
causes state change: Proposed project now formally associated with an identified contamination risk pathway; R's professional obligations to disclose are fully activated
concept category: Event
creates obligation: R_Must_Disclose_Tank_Proximity_Concern_At_Hearing
creates obligation: R_Must_Quantify_Leak_Risk_Using_Available_Data
creates obligation: R_Must_Recommend_Tank_Relocation_Or_Protective_Measures
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: During R's initial site investigation, concurrent with or immediately following discovery of illegal fill
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer R identifies that underground fuel storage tanks associated with the proposed truck stop are located in close proximity to the creek, creating a potential contamination pathway to both the creek and the major river into which it discharges.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (State I)
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE, State I Engineering Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Reporting of Unlicensed Engineering Practice in State I
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:31.211869+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
usedby: Engineer R
usedincontext: Governs Engineer R's obligation upon learning that Engineer H is not licensed in State I but is presenting engineering work for approval before the county drainage board, raising questions about R's duty to report to the State I licensing board.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.839705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Waterway Creek Affected Community
type: AffectedCommunity
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Community stakeholder', 'risk': 'Contamination of creek and major river from underground fuel storage tank leaks', 'basis': 'Proximity to proposed truck stop site adjacent to creek'}
caseinvolvement: The community whose primary waterway (creek discharging into a major river) is at risk from potential fuel storage tank leaks and spills associated with the proposed truck stop construction on a historically filled site.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'at_risk_from', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'protected_by_testimony_of', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Affected Community
sourcetext: a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek
textreferences: a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek
textreferences: concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.840676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relocation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
agent relation: collectively
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer R's post-construction observation of unchanged tank locations may prompt escalation to state environmental regulators
foreseen unintended effects: Failure to follow through on Person B's public promise may constitute bad faith toward the Drainage Board
foreseen unintended effects: Unchanged tank locations leave the environmental risk identified by R unmitigated
fulfills obligation text: Complied with the Drainage Board's unconditional approval by proceeding with the approved plan
guided by principle text: Good faith compliance with representations made to public regulatory bodies
guided by principle text: Responsiveness to credible public safety concerns in engineering design
guided by principle text: Sustainable development and environmental protection
has agent: ZZZ (project owner) and Firm C (design firm), collectively
has mental state: deliberate decision to proceed as originally designed
intended outcome: Complete construction according to the approved plan, maintaining operationally convenient tank placement without incurring costs or delays associated with redesign
multi agent: true
requires capability text: Construction management authority
requires capability text: Engineering design revision capability (Firm C)
requires capability text: Environmental risk assessment capability
temporal marker: Post-approval, during construction
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Good faith obligation to the Drainage Board arising from Person B's public promise to consult the environmental team and consider additional measures
violates obligation text: Obligation to re-examine plans in light of credible public safety concerns raised at the hearing (per Discussion section analysis of H's obligations)
violates obligation text: Professional Obligation III.2.d to adhere to sustainable development principles to protect the environment (applicable to Firm C's engineers)
within competence: true
comment: After the Drainage Board's approval and despite Person B's public promise to consult ZZZ's environmental team, ZZZ and Firm C proceed with construction without changing the underground fuel storage tank locations from the originally approved plan.
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ZZZ Truck Stop Developer Client
type: DeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Commercial development entity', 'project': 'ZZZ Truck Stop construction adjacent to creek', 'national_partnership': 'National partnership with Firm C for site engineering'}
caseinvolvement: The commercial development entity proposing to construct a truck stop adjacent to a creek, retaining Firm C for site engineering services, and whose representative participates in the drainage board hearing.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'Person B ZZZ Commercial Development Owner Representative'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_approval_by', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Body'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Developer Client
sourcetext: a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek
textreferences: Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ
textreferences: Person B, a representative of ZZZ
textreferences: a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ZZZ Truck Stop Site Historical Fill Condition
type: HistoricalUnregulatedFillSiteState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time of original pre-regulatory filling through the present construction phase; persists indefinitely until fill is characterized and remediated
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Public and downstream waterway users
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled
stateclass: Historical Unregulated Fill Site State
subject: The proposed ZZZ Truck Stop construction site adjacent to the creek
terminatedby: Not terminated — persists through construction approval and commencement
textreferences: As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain
textreferences: R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled
textreferences: The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
triggeringevent: Engineer R's identification that the site was previously filled with materials that would today be classified as illegal fill, corroborated by the county surveyor
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.840877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

ZZZ Underground Storage Tank Creek Proximity Risk
type: UndergroundStorageTankProximityRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer R's review of the plans through construction completion; persists as long as tanks remain in their approved locations
affectedparties: Creek and major river ecosystem
affectedparties: Downstream public water users
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek
stateclass: Underground Storage Tank Proximity Risk State
subject: Underground fuel storage tanks proposed and constructed in close proximity to the creek at the ZZZ Truck Stop site
terminatedby: Not terminated — tank locations were not changed after construction began
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek
textreferences: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
triggeringevent: Engineer R's review of plans showing underground fuel storage tanks located close to the creek, combined with knowledge of 6% leak rate from State I LUST database
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.841052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

construction begins after Drainage Board hearing and approval
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed.
from entity text: construction begins
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Drainage Board hearing and approval
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Drainage Board hearing and approval
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974246+00:00
value: The Drainage Board's approval of the plan without requiring re-examination of tank placement, combined with Engineer R's post-construction observation that tanks were not relocated, triggers the escalation obligation recognized in BER Case 20-4 — the formal presentation satisfied the initial reporting duty but does not exhaust R's public welfare obligation

Defeasibility edge from casecontext
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974303+00:00
value: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly challenged the new sanitary landfill design prepared by Engineers A and B as environmentally unsound. The BER in Case 79-2 confirmed that such public challenge was ethical and consistent with professional obligations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.972244+00:00
value: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans

Defeasibility edge from concreteexpression
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973778+00:00
value: Engineer H failed to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner by omitting material information about underground tank leak risks from testimony before the Drainage Board, selectively addressing only surface spill scenarios in a manner that potentially misdirected the Board's conclusion about the adequacy of the proposed design

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973088+00:00
value: Objectivity and truthfulness in public statements are non-negotiable obligations that override the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H's omission of underground leak concerns was inconsistent with the objectivity canon

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.972906+00:00
value: Licensure integrity and public protection override the obligation to serve client interests by presenting the project; Engineer H should have obtained State I licensure or ensured a State I-licensed engineer presented the project

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973832+00:00
value: Providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making constitutes the practice of engineering requiring licensure in that jurisdiction; Engineer H's testimony without State I licensure eroded the public protection rationale of the licensure system

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973247+00:00
value: Licensure integrity and public protection override the obligation to serve client interests by presenting the project; Engineer H should have obtained State I licensure or ensured a State I-licensed engineer presented the project

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.972660+00:00
value: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973884+00:00
value: Engineer H was constrained, upon being confronted at the County Drainage Board hearing with Engineer R's documented technical concerns regarding underground fuel storage tank leak risk and historical fill site conditions, to either (1) explain how those issues had already been evaluated and addressed in the design, or (2) offer or agree to re-examine the plans — and was prohibited from redirecting conversation away from those concerns or omitting them from testimony, as such non-response rendered H's testimony incomplete and misleading.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973192+00:00
value: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973935+00:00
value: Engineer H was prohibited from selectively omitting or redirecting away from information about underground fuel storage tank leak risks in testimony before the County Drainage Board, and was required to include all relevant and pertinent information — including the environmental risks raised by Engineer R — in engineering testimony, as selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting the Board's conclusion.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973301+00:00
value: Objectivity and truthfulness in public statements are non-negotiable obligations that override the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H's omission of underground leak concerns was inconsistent with the objectivity canon

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974601+00:00
value: Escalation is warranted because the gravity of potential waterway contamination is high, the initial regulatory body did not address the underground leak concern, and Engineer R has both the specialized knowledge and the factual basis (LUST statistics, site history) to support escalation to the state environmental agency

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974371+00:00
value: Escalation is warranted because the gravity of potential waterway contamination is high, the initial regulatory body did not address the underground leak concern, and Engineer R has both the specialized knowledge and the factual basis (LUST statistics, site history) to support escalation to the state environmental agency

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973624+00:00
value: Escalation is warranted because the gravity of potential waterway contamination is high, the initial regulatory body did not address the underground leak concern, and Engineer R has both the specialized knowledge and the factual basis (LUST statistics, site history) to support escalation to the state environmental agency

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973721+00:00
value: The Drainage Board's approval of the plan without requiring re-examination of tank placement, combined with Engineer R's post-construction observation that tanks were not relocated, triggers the escalation obligation recognized in BER Case 20-4 — the formal presentation satisfied the initial reporting duty but does not exhaust R's public welfare obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973033+00:00
value: Escalation is warranted because the gravity of potential waterway contamination is high, the initial regulatory body did not address the underground leak concern, and Engineer R has both the specialized knowledge and the factual basis (LUST statistics, site history) to support escalation to the state environmental agency

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974175+00:00
value: The Drainage Board's approval of the plan without requiring re-examination of tank placement, combined with Engineer R's post-construction observation that tanks were not relocated, triggers the escalation obligation recognized in BER Case 20-4 — the formal presentation satisfied the initial reporting duty but does not exhaust R's public welfare obligation

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974117+00:00
value: Engineer R, having formally presented documented safety concerns regarding underground fuel storage tank proximity to the creek and historical fill site conditions at the County Drainage Board public hearing, and having had those concerns dismissed without corrective action by the Board, was constrained to escalate those concerns to a higher authority — specifically the state environmental regulatory agency — and was prohibited from treating the Drainage Board's override as a final discharge of the public safety reporting obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974010+00:00
value: Engineer R balanced the obligation to ground disclosures in established facts with the public welfare obligation to raise prospective risks by presenting statistical evidence as a basis for concern rather than asserting that a leak would occur

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973356+00:00
value: Escalation is warranted because the gravity of potential waterway contamination is high, the initial regulatory body did not address the underground leak concern, and Engineer R has both the specialized knowledge and the factual basis (LUST statistics, site history) to support escalation to the state environmental agency

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974425+00:00
value: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974530+00:00
value: Licensure integrity and public protection override the obligation to serve client interests by presenting the project; Engineer H should have obtained State I licensure or ensured a State I-licensed engineer presented the project

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.974478+00:00
value: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973570+00:00
value: Licensure integrity and public protection override the obligation to serve client interests by presenting the project; Engineer H should have obtained State I licensure or ensured a State I-licensed engineer presented the project

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973444+00:00
value: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:07:00.973500+00:00
value: The prohibition on unlicensed practice is non-negotiable; Engineer H's obligation to serve Firm C's client could not justify practicing engineering without State I licensure

illegal fill of the site before current environmental fill regulations
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place
from entity text: illegal fill of the site
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: current environmental fill regulations
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: current environmental fill regulations
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

illegal fill of the site before current environmental regulations enacted
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

illegal fill of the site before proposed ZZZ Truck Stop construction
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled
from entity text: illegal fill of the site
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: proposed ZZZ Truck Stop construction
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: proposed ZZZ Truck Stop construction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.815922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

illegal fill of the site before proposed truck stop construction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.847065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R testified as a member of the public about environmental and safety risks posed by underground fuel storage tanks adjacent to a creek, invoking the paramount obligation to protect public welfare and water quality even when acting

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R issued public statements at the drainage board hearing in an objective and truthful manner, acknowledging current regulatory compliance while presenting statistical evidence of risk, consistent with NSPE Canon I.3

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R, leveraging extensive knowledge of environmental regulation and the State I LUST database, provided objective and factually grounded public testimony at the county drainage board hearing, acknowledging current regulatory complian

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After learning that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, Engineer R acquires knowledge of an alleged violation of the engineering code and state registration laws, triggering an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice to State I auth

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R grounded public testimony in established facts — county surveyor corroboration of fill history, LUST database statistics showing 6% leak rate — and acknowledged current regulatory compliance, distinguishing between confirmed hist

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After construction begins and Engineer R observes that tank locations were not changed despite testimony, the escalation obligation is triggered — R's initial formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfied the first-level reporting dut

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was identified in the public record only as 'person H of Firm C Engineers' without disclosure of licensure status or the fact that H was not licensed in State I, preventing the Drainage Board and public from assessing the qualifi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H presented engineering work and provided technical responses to regulatory questions before the County Drainage Board in State I without holding a State I license, performing acts constituting the practice of engineering in a juri

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H presented a project for regulatory approval and provided technical testimony before the County Drainage Board in State I while holding a license only in State O, constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering in State I and

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H failed to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner by omitting material information about underground tank leak risks from testimony before the Drainage Board, selectively addressing only surface spill scenario

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H responded to the Drainage Board vice president's question about Engineer R's testimony by addressing only surface spill scenarios (grading directing spills back to pavement) while entirely omitting any response to the underground

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R was obligated, as a licensed professional engineer with technical knowledge of potential environmental risks posed by the ZZZ truck stop project, to bring forward concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from und

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R, leveraging extensive knowledge of environmental regulation and the State I LUST database, provided objective and factually grounded public testimony at the county drainage board hearing, acknowledging current regulatory complian

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R issued public statements at the drainage board hearing in an objective and truthful manner, acknowledging current regulatory compliance while presenting statistical evidence of risk, consistent with NSPE Canon I.3

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R grounded public testimony in established facts — county surveyor corroboration of fill history, LUST database statistics showing 6% leak rate — and acknowledged current regulatory compliance, distinguishing between confirmed hist

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated, before providing verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing in the jurisdiction where the ZZZ truck stop project is located, to verify whether such testimony constituted the practice of en

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H presented a project for regulatory approval and provided technical testimony before the County Drainage Board in State I while holding a license only in State O, constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering in State I and

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H failed to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner by omitting material information about underground tank leak risks from testimony before the Drainage Board, selectively addressing only surface spill scenario

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H responded to the Drainage Board vice president's question about Engineer R's testimony by addressing only surface spill scenarios (grading directing spills back to pavement) while entirely omitting any response to the underground

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was identified in the public record only as 'person H of Firm C Engineers' without disclosure of licensure status or the fact that H was not licensed in State I, preventing the Drainage Board and public from assessing the qualifi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm C was obligated, as the engineering firm responsible for the ZZZ truck stop project, to ensure that the engineering testimony provided by Engineer H at the County Drainage Board public hearing was complete, objective, and addressed all

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm C was obligated, as the engineering firm responsible for the ZZZ truck stop project, to ensure that the engineering testimony provided by Engineer H at the County Drainage Board public hearing was complete, objective, and addressed all

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R was obligated, as a licensed professional engineer with technical knowledge of potential environmental risks posed by the ZZZ truck stop project, to bring forward concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from und

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer R was obligated to express technical opinions at the County Drainage Board public hearing only when those opinions were founded upon established facts and completed professional analysis, and to include all relevant and pertinent i

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated, after their formal presentations to the Metropolitan Water Commission failed to change its plans regarding the water supply source change that A and B believed could not be used safely without additional st

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated, as a licensed professional engineer and town resident with technical knowledge indicating that the new sanitary landfill design was environmentally unsound, to publicly challenge that design at appropriate proceedi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated, before providing verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing in the jurisdiction where the ZZZ truck stop project is located, to verify whether such testimony constituted the practice of en

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated to be objective and truthful in testimony submitted to the County Drainage Board, and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information responsive to Engineer R's concerns about underground f

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated, when testifying before the County Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C regarding the ZZZ truck stop project, to substantively address Engineer R's concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from und

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated, when providing engineering testimony before the County Drainage Board regarding the ZZZ truck stop project, to consider and address sustainable development principles — including the protection of the environment f

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated to be objective and truthful in testimony submitted to the County Drainage Board, and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information responsive to Engineer R's concerns about underground f

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer H was obligated, when testifying before the County Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C regarding the ZZZ truck stop project, to substantively address Engineer R's concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from und

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm C was obligated, as the engineering firm responsible for the ZZZ truck stop project, to ensure that the engineering testimony provided by Engineer H at the County Drainage Board public hearing was complete, objective, and addressed all

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers A and B were obligated, after their formal presentations to the Metropolitan Water Commission failed to change its plans regarding the water supply source change that A and B believed could not be used safely without additional st

underground fuel storage tanks installation during construction of ZZZ Truck Stop
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed [implying tanks were installed as part of construction per original plan]
from entity text: underground fuel storage tanks installation
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: construction of ZZZ Truck Stop
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: construction of ZZZ Truck Stop
generated at time: 2026-02-26T19:29:40.816247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

underground tank installation (tracked in LUST database) before Engineer R's testimony
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer
type: PublicHearingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer A Engineer B Public Safety Escalation Water Commission
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Sanitary landfill / civil engineering design', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2 and Case 20-4 (analogous)'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A collaborated with Engineer B on studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill, made presentations to the town council, and was directed to prepare a new design at higher final contours. In the analogous Case 20-4 context, Engineer A had an obligation to further pursue public safety concerns beyond formal presentations when the MWC overruled engineering judgment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council / MWC'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer B Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Hearing Design Engineer
sourcetext: engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
textreferences: Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
textreferences: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report
textreferences: engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.843144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer B Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer
type: PublicHearingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer A Engineer B Public Safety Escalation Water Commission
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Sanitary landfill / civil engineering design', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2 and Case 20-4 (analogous)'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B collaborated with Engineer A on the sanitary landfill design and presentations to the town council, sharing the same obligations to pursue public safety concerns beyond formal presentations when overruled by the MWC.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council / MWC'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Hearing Design Engineer
sourcetext: engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
textreferences: Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
textreferences: The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report
textreferences: engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.843291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer C Resident Challenger Landfill Design
type: ResidentEngineerPublicInterestChallenger
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer C Public Interest Landfill Design Challenge
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'capacity': 'Town resident and licensed engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly challenged the new sanitary landfill design prepared by Engineers A and B as environmentally unsound, establishing the precedent that such public challenge by a resident engineer is ethically permissible when conducted on a high level of professional deportment in the public interest.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'community_member', 'target': 'Town'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_challenger', 'target': 'Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_challenger', 'target': 'Engineer B Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound
textreferences: it was ethical for C to publicly challenge the design approach adopted by A and B
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.843620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Opposing Engineer Concern Response Obligation ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
type: OpposingEngineerConcernResponseObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R raised documented concerns at the Drainage Board hearing about underground fuel storage tank proximity to the creek and historical fill site conditions. Engineer H redirected conversation away from these concerns rather than addressing them substantively. The BER found this redirection troubling as a failure to address raised issues and a failure to include all relevant information in testimony.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer H
constraintclass: Opposing Engineer Concern Response Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer H was constrained, upon being confronted at the County Drainage Board hearing with Engineer R's documented technical concerns regarding underground fuel storage tank leak risk and historical fill site conditions, to either (1) explain how those issues had already been evaluated and addressed in the design, or (2) offer or agree to re-examine the plans — and was prohibited from redirecting conversation away from those concerns or omitting them from testimony, as such non-response rendered H's testimony incomplete and misleading.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1.3 (objectivity and truthfulness); NSPE Code completeness of reports provision; BER Case 95-5 precedent
sourcetext: Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading.
temporalscope: During and immediately following Engineer R's testimony at the County Drainage Board public hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Testimony Completeness Sustainable Development ZZZ Truck Stop
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer H redirected conversation away from Engineer R's concerns about underground tank leak risks during Drainage Board testimony. BER Case 95-5 establishes that selective use of facts in engineering reports and testimony is inconsistent with the NSPE Code requirement to include all relevant and pertinent information. The sustainable development provision III.2.d further reinforces the obligation to address environmental protection concerns.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer H
constraintclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer H was prohibited from selectively omitting or redirecting away from information about underground fuel storage tank leak risks in testimony before the County Drainage Board, and was required to include all relevant and pertinent information — including the environmental risks raised by Engineer R — in engineering testimony, as selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting the Board's conclusion.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1.3; NSPE Code completeness of reports provision; BER Case 95-5; NSPE Code Professional Obligation III.2.d
sourcetext: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
temporalscope: During Engineer H's testimony before the County Drainage Board on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
textreferences: selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.846477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Post-Drainage-Board Dismissal Escalation Constraint ZZZ Truck Stop
type: Post-DismissalSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R testified at the County Drainage Board public hearing regarding risks of underground fuel storage tanks on a historically filled site adjacent to a creek. The Board approved the project without addressing R's concerns. BER Case 20-4 establishes that formal presentations satisfy the duty to report but do not exhaust the obligation when the gravity of danger to public health and safety remains.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer R
constraintclass: Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer R, having formally presented documented safety concerns regarding underground fuel storage tank proximity to the creek and historical fill site conditions at the County Drainage Board public hearing, and having had those concerns dismissed without corrective action by the Board, was constrained to escalate those concerns to a higher authority — specifically the state environmental regulatory agency — and was prohibited from treating the Drainage Board's override as a final discharge of the public safety reporting obligation.
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:06:59.926591+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics paramount safety obligation; BER Case 20-4 precedent; BER Case 79-2 precedent
sourcetext: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
temporalscope: Following the County Drainage Board's approval of the ZZZ Truck Stop project over Engineer R's objections
textreferences: As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4, engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report.
textreferences: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
textreferences: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.845749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
type: NationalFranchiseSiteEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
attributes: {'type': 'Private engineering consulting firm', 'partnership': 'National partnership with ZZZ', 'services': 'Conceptual site layout through final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater'}
caseinvolvement: Engineering firm in national partnership with ZZZ that provides comprehensive site engineering services for the truck stop project, employing Engineer H to present the project for regulatory approval.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'national_partner_of', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
relationships: {'type': 'presents_to', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
sourcetext: Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop
textreferences: Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.831575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer C / Engineer R Public Challenge of Peer Design
type: ProfessionalOpinionConflictatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From R's presentation of safety concerns at the Drainage Board hearing through resolution or escalation
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Future water quality stakeholders
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment
stateclass: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
subject: Engineer R's (and historically Engineer C's) conflicting technical opinion versus Engineers A/B and Engineer H at public regulatory hearings
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — board approved project without requiring concerns to be addressed
textreferences: engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report
textreferences: it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment
triggeringevent: Engineer R presenting documented technical safety concerns at the Drainage Board public hearing, conflicting with Engineer H's testimony supporting the project
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.843796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Only in State I
type: Out-of-StateLicensureOnlyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer H's engagement on the ZZZ project in State I through the Drainage Board hearing and construction; persists until H obtains State I licensure or withdraws
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: State I licensing authority
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
stateclass: Out-of-State Licensure Only State
subject: Engineer H's licensure status relative to State I, where engineering services are being performed and regulatory approval is being sought
terminatedby: Not terminated within the facts presented
textreferences: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
triggeringevent: Engineer R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I but is licensed in State O, after H has already presented the project for approval at the public hearing
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.841578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Potential Unlicensed Practice at Public Hearing
type: Out-of-StateLicensureOnlyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Engineer H's testimony at the Drainage Board hearing
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction
stateclass: Out-of-State Licensure Only State
subject: Engineer H's provision of verbal engineering input at the Drainage Board public hearing in a jurisdiction where H's licensure status is uncertain
terminatedby: Not resolved — BER notes laws vary by state and practitioners should consult governing statutes
textreferences: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked
textreferences: providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction
triggeringevent: Engineer H providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where the Drainage Board relied on that input for decision-making, without confirmed licensure in the jurisdiction
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.844191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards
type: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Drainage Board approval through construction commencement and confirmation that tank locations were unchanged
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
stateclass: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
subject: The documented and unmitigated risk of fuel contamination to the creek from underground storage tanks on a historically filled site
terminatedby: Not terminated within the facts presented
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan
triggeringevent: Construction proceeding with tank locations unchanged after Engineer R's documented testimony and the Drainage Board's approval without requiring mitigation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.841920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Post-Hearing Escalation Obligation
type: PublicTestimonySafetyConcernDismissedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Drainage Board's failure to require resolution of R's concerns through any escalation action R takes
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Future water quality stakeholders
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State environmental regulatory agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report
stateclass: Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed State
subject: Engineer R's documented safety concerns regarding underground tank proximity and historical fill site, presented at the Drainage Board and not resolved
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — R retains obligation to consider escalation to state environmental regulatory agency
textreferences: R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency
textreferences: engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report
textreferences: given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
triggeringevent: Drainage Board approving the project without requiring Engineer H or Firm C to address R's documented safety concerns
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.844355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation Triggered For Engineer R
type: UnlicensedPracticeProhibitionandChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
appliedto: State I engineering licensure authorities
balancingwith: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After learning that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, Engineer R acquires knowledge of an alleged violation of the engineering code and state registration laws, triggering an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice to State I authorities
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: NSPE Code II.1.f requires engineers with knowledge of any alleged code violation to report to appropriate professional bodies and public authorities; Engineer R's discovery that H practiced engineering in State I without State I licensure creates a direct reporting obligation running to State I licensing authorities
invokedby: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
principleclass: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O. Engineer R has an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
tensionresolution: The reporting obligation is mandatory; while Engineer R may not have a prior relationship with Engineer H that would create space for compassionate private engagement, the public protection rationale of licensure requirements and the gravity of the unlicensed practice before a regulatory body require formal reporting
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
textreferences: Engineer R has an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
textreferences: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.836239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice by Engineer H in State I
type: UnlicensedPracticebyThirdPartyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer H's commencement of engineering work on the ZZZ project in State I through Engineer R's discovery and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer H (unlicensed practitioner)
affectedparties: Engineer R (discovering party with reporting obligation)
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Public relying on licensed engineering oversight
affectedparties: State I Board of Registration
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
stateclass: Unlicensed Practice by Third Party State
subject: Engineer H's performance of engineering services and regulatory presentations in State I without holding a State I professional engineering license
terminatedby: Not terminated within the facts presented
textreferences: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
triggeringevent: Engineer R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I after H has presented the project at the Drainage Board hearing
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.832662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Unverified Concern — Fill Material Characteristics
type: UnverifiedConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From R's initial identification of the fill history through the Drainage Board hearing; partially elevated to documented concern by county surveyor corroboration but fill material characteristics remain uncharacterized
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill
stateclass: Unverified Concern State
subject: Engineer R's concern about the characteristics of the historical fill material and its potential to affect tank integrity and contamination pathways
terminatedby: Not terminated — fill material characteristics were never formally assessed within the facts presented
textreferences: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics
textreferences: R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill
textreferences: requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
triggeringevent: Engineer R's awareness of historical illegal fill combined with absence of fill material characterization data
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.831216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer C Public Interest Landfill Design Challenge
type: PublicInterestEnvironmentalTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C / Engineer R Public Challenge of Peer Design
casecontext: Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly challenged the new sanitary landfill design prepared by Engineers A and B as environmentally unsound. The BER in Case 79-2 confirmed that such public challenge was ethical and consistent with professional obligations.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer C Resident Challenger Landfill Design
obligationclass: Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated, as a licensed professional engineer and town resident with technical knowledge indicating that the new sanitary landfill design was environmentally unsound, to publicly challenge that design at appropriate proceedings, consistent with the BER's conclusion that it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles at hearings on an engineering project in the interest of the public.
sourcetext: Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound.
temporalscope: Upon formation of professional judgment that the design was environmentally unsound, at public proceedings regarding the landfill design
textreferences: Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound.
textreferences: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
textreferences: it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.831809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Drainage Board Override of Engineer R's Safety Judgment
type: RegulatoryBodyOverrideofEngineeringJudgmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Drainage Board's approval of the project without addressing R's concerns through any escalation or resolution
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State environmental regulatory agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency
stateclass: Regulatory Body Override of Engineering Judgment State
subject: Engineer R's professional judgment regarding underground tank proximity risk and site fill hazards, overridden by Drainage Board approval
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — escalation to state environmental regulatory agency remains an open obligation
textreferences: R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency
textreferences: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
triggeringevent: Drainage Board proceeding to approve the project after R's formal presentation of safety concerns without requiring those concerns to be addressed
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.843987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Public Hearing Design Engineer
type: PublicHearingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Completeness In Responsive Technical Testimony Violated By Engineer H
adheres to principle: Objectivity Violated By Engineer H Selective Testimony
has obligation: Engineer H Objective Complete Reporting Drainage Board Testimony
has obligation: Engineer H Public Hearing Testimony Completeness ZZZ Truck Stop
attributes: {'license': 'Licensure status in jurisdiction questioned', 'firm': 'Firm C', 'specialty': 'Site engineering / commercial development design', 'ethical_concerns': ['Selective testimony', 'Failure to address relevant safety concerns', 'Potential unlicensed practice', 'Potential misrepresentation of qualifications']}
caseinvolvement: Engineer H testified before the Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C regarding the commercial site development project, redirecting conversation away from concerns about underground fuel storage tank leaks raised by Engineer R, raising questions about completeness of testimony, potential misrepresentation of qualifications, and whether H was practicing engineering without licensure in the jurisdiction.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Firm C'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_adversarial', 'target': 'Engineer R'}
relationships: {'type': 'testimony_before', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Hearing Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer H misrepresented H's personal qualifications when testifying to the Drainage Board
textreferences: Engineer H misrepresented H's personal qualifications when testifying to the Drainage Board
textreferences: Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling
textreferences: Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
textreferences: R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.842818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
type: SustainableDevelopmentEnvironmentalTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer H Testimony Evasion of Tank Leak Concerns
prevails over: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
casecontext: Engineer H testified before the County Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C. Engineer R raised environmental concerns about underground fuel storage tanks near a creek. Engineer H redirected conversation away from these issues, failing to address sustainable development considerations under NSPE III.2.d.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
obligationclass: Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer H was obligated, when providing engineering testimony before the County Drainage Board regarding the ZZZ truck stop project, to consider and address sustainable development principles — including the protection of the environment for future generations — when responding to concerns about potential contamination of the adjacent creek from underground fuel storage tank leaks, rather than redirecting conversation away from those environmental concerns.
sourcetext: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
temporalscope: During the County Drainage Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.844987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed by Drainage Board
type: PublicTestimonySafetyConcernDismissedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the Drainage Board's vote to approve the plan through construction commencement and beyond
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Public and downstream waterway users
affectedparties: ZZZ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:54:18.136884+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan
stateclass: Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed State
subject: Engineer R's documented safety concerns regarding fill, tank proximity, and leak risk, presented at the public hearing and acknowledged but not acted upon by the Drainage Board
terminatedby: Not terminated within the facts presented
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
textreferences: Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take
textreferences: the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan
triggeringevent: Drainage Board's vote to approve the plan after acknowledging R's testimony, followed by confirmation that tank locations were not changed during construction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.841751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Objectivity Obligation Applied To Engineer R Public Testimony
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer R issued public statements at the drainage board hearing in an objective and truthful manner, acknowledging current regulatory compliance while presenting statistical evidence of risk, consistent with NSPE Canon I.3
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity required Engineer R to present both the favorable fact (current floodplain compliance) and the adverse concerns (fill history, tank proximity, LUST statistics) without distortion, enabling the Drainage Board to make an informed decision
invokedby: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks
tensionresolution: Objectivity and public welfare were mutually reinforcing in Engineer R's testimony — honest acknowledgment of current compliance strengthened rather than undermined the credibility of the safety concerns raised
textreferences: Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.835347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Fulfilled By Engineer R
type: PublicInterestEngineeringTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing
appliedto: ZZZ Truck Stop site design
balancingwith: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer R, leveraging extensive knowledge of environmental regulation and the State I LUST database, provided objective and factually grounded public testimony at the county drainage board hearing, acknowledging current regulatory compliance while raising legitimate concerns about site history and tank proximity to the creek
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer R's specialized environmental knowledge created an obligation to testify at the public hearing; the testimony was properly grounded in established facts (county surveyor corroboration, LUST database statistics) and acknowledged technical limitations (current floodplain compliance), satisfying the principle's requirements for objective and complete public interest testimony
invokedby: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
principleclass: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek, acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
tensionresolution: Engineer R satisfied both principles by presenting statistical evidence and site history while explicitly acknowledging current regulatory compliance, thereby providing a complete and honest picture rather than an alarmist or selective one
textreferences: Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony.
textreferences: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation learns that a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer R At Drainage Board Hearing
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Waterway Creek Affected Community water quality
appliedto: ZZZ Truck Stop underground fuel storage tank placement adjacent to creek
balancingwith: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer R testified as a member of the public about environmental and safety risks posed by underground fuel storage tanks adjacent to a creek, invoking the paramount obligation to protect public welfare and water quality even when acting outside a formal professional engagement
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires Engineer R to bring specialized environmental knowledge to bear in the public regulatory process even when not retained as a professional, because the potential contamination of a major waterway affects third parties who have no direct voice in the drainage board's decision
invokedby: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek, acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
tensionresolution: Engineer R balanced public welfare concerns with fact-based disclosure by acknowledging current technical compliance with floodplain requirements while presenting statistical evidence from the LUST database to ground the safety concern empirically
textreferences: Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.834349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Qualification Transparency Violated By Engineer H Identification In Public Record
type: QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body decision-making
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing record
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer H was identified in the public record only as 'person H of Firm C Engineers' without disclosure of licensure status or the fact that H was not licensed in State I, preventing the Drainage Board and public from assessing the qualifications and accountability of the person providing engineering testimony
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The identification of Engineer H as 'person H of Firm C Engineers' in the public record implied engineering credentials and authority without disclosing that H lacked State I licensure, misleading the regulatory body about the qualifications of the person on whose engineering testimony it was relying
invokedby: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
invokedby: Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
principleclass: Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
sourcetext: in the public record, H is simply identified as 'person H of Firm C Engineers'
tensionresolution: Qualification transparency required disclosure of licensure status; the firm name 'Firm C Engineers' implied licensed engineering practice in the jurisdiction without warranting it
textreferences: Engineer H's testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical.
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: in the public record, H is simply identified as 'person H of Firm C Engineers'
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.836048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer A Engineer B Public Safety Escalation Water Commission
type: PublicWelfareSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Drainage Board Override of Engineer R's Safety Judgment
casecontext: In BER Case 20-4, Engineers A and B found themselves at odds with a metropolitan water commission that overruled their engineering judgment about the safety of a proposed water supply source change. The BER concluded that formal presentations satisfied the duty to report but that further pursuit was obligated given the gravity of the danger.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer
obligationclass: Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers A and B were obligated, after their formal presentations to the Metropolitan Water Commission failed to change its plans regarding the water supply source change that A and B believed could not be used safely without additional study and capital investment, to further pursue the matter beyond the formal presentations given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
sourcetext: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
temporalscope: After formal presentations to the MWC failed to produce corrective action
textreferences: As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4, engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report.
textreferences: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.845421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Satisfied By Engineer R
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing testimony
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer R grounded public testimony in established facts — county surveyor corroboration of fill history, LUST database statistics showing 6% leak rate — and acknowledged current regulatory compliance, distinguishing between confirmed historical facts and prospective risk concerns
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer R properly distinguished between confirmed facts (fill history corroborated by county surveyor, statistical leak rates from state database) and prospective concerns (potential future leaks), satisfying the fact-based disclosure obligation while still raising legitimate public welfare concerns
invokedby: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
principleclass: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place. R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill.
tensionresolution: Engineer R balanced the obligation to ground disclosures in established facts with the public welfare obligation to raise prospective risks by presenting statistical evidence as a basis for concern rather than asserting that a leak would occur
textreferences: R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
textreferences: The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place.
textreferences: acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.835190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
type: Out-of-StateLicensedDesignPresentationEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Licensure Integrity Violated By Engineer H Unlicensed Practice
adheres to principle: Qualification Transparency Violated By Engineer H Identification In Public Record
adheres to principle: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violated By Engineer H
has obligation: Engineer H Objective Complete Reporting Drainage Board Testimony
has obligation: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
has obligation: Engineer H Public Hearing Testimony Completeness ZZZ Truck Stop
has obligation: Engineer H Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer, State O (not licensed in State I)', 'employer': 'Firm C', 'specialty': 'Site engineering, grading, stormwater'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer employed by Firm C who presents the ZZZ truck stop project for approval at the county drainage board public hearing, responds to public testimony about tank placement and grading design, but is not licensed in State I where the project is located.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:53:55.900752+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'presents_to', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'responds_to', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves_client', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
textreferences: H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek
textreferences: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.840215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Objectivity Violated By Engineer H Selective Testimony
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing
appliedto: ZZZ Truck Stop underground fuel storage tank placement decision
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer H failed to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner by omitting material information about underground tank leak risks from testimony before the Drainage Board, selectively addressing only surface spill scenarios in a manner that potentially misdirected the Board's conclusion about the adequacy of the proposed design
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: NSPE Canon I.3 requires objective and truthful public statements; Engineer H's selective response to the Board's question about Engineer R's testimony violated this canon by omitting the more serious underground leak risk scenario from the response, creating a misleadingly favorable picture of the design's safety
invokedby: Engineer H Public Hearing Design Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
tensionresolution: Objectivity and truthfulness in public statements are non-negotiable obligations that override the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H's omission of underground leak concerns was inconsistent with the objectivity canon
textreferences: Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling
textreferences: Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
textreferences: Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.836686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violated By Engineer H
type: UnlicensedPracticeProhibitionandChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing
appliedto: State I engineering practice statutes
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer H presented engineering work and provided technical responses to regulatory questions before the County Drainage Board in State I without holding a State I license, performing acts constituting the practice of engineering in a jurisdiction where H was not licensed
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer H's verbal engineering input at the drainage board hearing — presenting design details, responding to technical questions about grading and spill management — constituted the practice of engineering in State I, which H was not licensed to perform; this violated the prohibition on unlicensed practice
invokedby: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
principleclass: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O. In the public record, H is simply identified as 'person H of Firm C Engineers.'
tensionresolution: The prohibition on unlicensed practice is non-negotiable; Engineer H's obligation to serve Firm C's client could not justify practicing engineering without State I licensure
textreferences: Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
textreferences: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
textreferences: in the public record, H is simply identified as 'person H of Firm C Engineers'
textreferences: providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.835883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Testimony Evasion of Tank Leak Concerns
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and following Engineer H's testimony at the Drainage Board hearing
affectedparties: Drainage Board
affectedparties: Engineer H
affectedparties: Engineer R
affectedparties: Firm C
affectedparties: Future water quality stakeholders
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:18.518406+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer H's oral testimony before the Drainage Board regarding the project, specifically H's redirection away from underground tank leak risk concerns raised by Engineer R
terminatedby: Not terminated — H neither explained prior evaluation of the concern nor offered to re-examine plans
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
textreferences: selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report
triggeringevent: Engineer R raising documented concerns about underground tank proximity and leak risk at the public hearing, which Engineer H redirected rather than addressed
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.833368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
type: ResidentEngineerPublicInterestChallenger
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Escalation Obligation Triggered For Engineer R Post-Construction
adheres to principle: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Satisfied By Engineer R
adheres to principle: Objectivity Obligation Applied To Engineer R Public Testimony
adheres to principle: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Fulfilled By Engineer R
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer R At Drainage Board Hearing
adheres to principle: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation Triggered For Engineer R
has obligation: Engineer R Fact Grounded Technical Opinion Drainage Board
has obligation: Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'capacity': 'Private citizen / community member with engineering expertise', 'specialty': 'Environmental and site engineering concerns', 'escalation_path': 'State environmental regulatory agency'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer R testified at the public hearing before the Drainage Board raising concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks threatening water quality, satisfying the duty to report through formal presentation, with potential obligation to escalate to state environmental regulatory agency if concerns remain unaddressed.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T12:55:07.405474+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_challenger', 'target': 'Engineer H'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_interest_advocate', 'target': 'Affected Community'}
relationships: {'type': 'testimony_before', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
sourcetext: R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing
textreferences: Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks
textreferences: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency
textreferences: R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing
textreferences: engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.842968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
type: Out-of-StatePracticeLicensureComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
defeasible under: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Only in State I
prevails over: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
casecontext: Engineer H is employed by Firm C and presented the ZZZ truck stop project for approval at the county drainage board public hearing. The case raises the question of whether H misrepresented personal qualifications and whether H was practicing engineering without licensure in the jurisdiction.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Licensure Integrity Violated By Engineer H Unlicensed Practice
derived from principle: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violated By Engineer H
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
obligationclass: Out-of-State Practice Licensure Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer H was obligated, before providing verbal engineering input at the County Drainage Board public hearing in the jurisdiction where the ZZZ truck stop project is located, to verify whether such testimony constituted the practice of engineering under applicable state statutes and regulations, and to hold the required licensure in that jurisdiction if it did.
sourcetext: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
temporalscope: Prior to and during the County Drainage Board public hearing
textreferences: In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
textreferences: Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
textreferences: Practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.
textreferences: Questions 2 and 3 are closely related and raise the question if engineer H misrepresented H's personal qualifications when testifying to the Drainage Board? Was H practicing engineering?
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.844661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Licensure Integrity Violated By Engineer H Unlicensed Practice
type: LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing
appliedto: State I engineering licensure requirements
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer H presented a project for regulatory approval and provided technical testimony before the County Drainage Board in State I while holding a license only in State O, constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering in State I and undermining the licensure system's public protection function
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making constitutes the practice of engineering requiring licensure in that jurisdiction; Engineer H's testimony without State I licensure eroded the public protection rationale of the licensure system
invokedby: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
principleclass: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
sourcetext: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
tensionresolution: Licensure integrity and public protection override the obligation to serve client interests by presenting the project; Engineer H should have obtained State I licensure or ensured a State I-licensed engineer presented the project
textreferences: Engineer H's testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical.
textreferences: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
textreferences: R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
textreferences: providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.835718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Objective Complete Reporting Drainage Board Testimony
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
defeasible under: Engineer H Testimony Evasion of Tank Leak Concerns
prevails over: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
casecontext: Engineer H testified before the County Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C regarding the ZZZ truck stop project. The BER found that selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion, and that Engineer H's failure to address concerns about underground tank leaks rendered the testimony incomplete and misleading.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Objectivity Violated By Engineer H Selective Testimony
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer H was obligated to be objective and truthful in testimony submitted to the County Drainage Board, and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information responsive to Engineer R's concerns about underground fuel storage tank leaks — rather than selectively redirecting conversation away from those concerns.
sourcetext: selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.'
temporalscope: During the County Drainage Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading.
textreferences: selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.'
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.845149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Escalation Obligation Triggered For Engineer R Post-Construction
type: EscalationObligationWhenInitialRegulatoryReportIsInsufficient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body decision to approve plan
appliedto: State environmental regulatory agency as potential escalation target
balancingwith: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After construction begins and Engineer R observes that tank locations were not changed despite testimony, the escalation obligation is triggered — R's initial formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfied the first-level reporting duty, but the board's approval without addressing the underground leak concerns creates a basis for escalation to the state environmental regulatory agency
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Drainage Board's approval of the plan without requiring re-examination of tank placement, combined with Engineer R's post-construction observation that tanks were not relocated, triggers the escalation obligation recognized in BER Case 20-4 — the formal presentation satisfied the initial reporting duty but does not exhaust R's public welfare obligation
invokedby: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
principleclass: Escalation Obligation When Initial Regulatory Report Is Insufficient
sourcetext: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
tensionresolution: Escalation is warranted because the gravity of potential waterway contamination is high, the initial regulatory body did not address the underground leak concern, and Engineer R has both the specialized knowledge and the factual basis (LUST statistics, site history) to support escalation to the state environmental agency
textreferences: After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed.
textreferences: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
textreferences: in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.835517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer H Public Hearing Testimony Completeness ZZZ Truck Stop
type: PublicHearingTestimonyCompletenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
defeasible under: Engineer H Testimony Evasion of Tank Leak Concerns
prevails over: Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
casecontext: Engineer H testified before the County Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C regarding the ZZZ truck stop project. Engineer R raised concerns about fill material and potential leaks from underground fuel storage tanks near a creek. Engineer H redirected conversation away from these issues rather than addressing them.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Completeness In Responsive Technical Testimony Violated By Engineer H
derived from principle: Qualification Transparency Violated By Engineer H Identification In Public Record
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
obligationclass: Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer H was obligated, when testifying before the County Drainage Board on behalf of Firm C regarding the ZZZ truck stop project, to substantively address Engineer R's concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks — either by explaining how those concerns had already been evaluated and addressed, or by offering to re-examine the plans — rather than redirecting conversation away from those issues.
sourcetext: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
temporalscope: During and immediately following Engineer R's public testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.844512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
type: PublicInterestEnvironmentalTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer R Fact Grounded Technical Opinion Drainage Board
defeasible under: Drainage Board Override of Engineer R's Safety Judgment
defeasible under: Engineer R Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed by Drainage Board
defeasible under: Unverified Concern — Fill Material Characteristics
prevails over: Engineer R Fact Grounded Technical Opinion Drainage Board
casecontext: Engineer R, a licensed PE in State I and a community resident, testified at the county drainage board public hearing raising concerns about fill material and potential leaks from underground fuel storage tanks near a creek that discharges into a major river serving as a public water supply.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Fulfilled By Engineer R
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer R At Drainage Board Hearing
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
obligationclass: Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer R was obligated, as a licensed professional engineer with technical knowledge of potential environmental risks posed by the ZZZ truck stop project, to bring forward concerns about site fill issues and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks at the County Drainage Board public hearing, and if the formal presentation failed to produce corrective action, to escalate the concern to a higher regulatory authority such as the state environmental regulatory agency.
sourcetext: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
temporalscope: At the County Drainage Board public hearing and, if unresolved, thereafter through escalation to state environmental agency
textreferences: As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4, engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report.
textreferences: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
textreferences: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.844814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Completeness In Responsive Technical Testimony Violated By Engineer H
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Drainage Board Regulatory Body decision-making
appliedto: ZZZ Truck Stop underground fuel storage tank design
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer H responded to the Drainage Board vice president's question about Engineer R's testimony by addressing only surface spill scenarios (grading directing spills back to pavement) while entirely omitting any response to the underground tank leak concerns that were the central focus of Engineer R's testimony, leaving the Board without complete information on the more serious risk scenario
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:26:29.619021+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer H's selective response to the Board's question redirected attention from the more consequential underground leak risk to the less consequential surface spill scenario, constituting an incomplete and potentially misleading presentation to a regulatory body that was relying on H's engineering expertise to evaluate the safety of the proposed design
invokedby: Engineer H Public Hearing Design Engineer
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek.
tensionresolution: The obligation to provide complete and non-selective testimony to the regulatory body overrides the interest in presenting the client's project favorably; Engineer H should have either explained how underground leak risks had been addressed or committed to re-examining the plans
textreferences: Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
textreferences: H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek.
textreferences: selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.836427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Engineer R Fact Grounded Technical Opinion Drainage Board
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
defeasible under: Engineer R Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards
defeasible under: Engineer R Post-Hearing Escalation Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer R Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed by Drainage Board
casecontext: Engineer R testified at the county drainage board public hearing raising concerns about fill material and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks near a creek, acting on the basis of professional engineering judgment and experience.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Satisfied By Engineer R
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation Applied To Engineer R Public Testimony
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer R was obligated to express technical opinions at the County Drainage Board public hearing only when those opinions were founded upon established facts and completed professional analysis, and to include all relevant and pertinent information in the testimony presented to the public regulatory body.
sourcetext: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
temporalscope: During the County Drainage Board public hearing
textreferences: If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
textreferences: These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.845288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction

Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
type: SubcontractorEthicalComplianceOversightObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer H Objective Complete Reporting Drainage Board Testimony
competes with: Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
competes with: Engineer H Public Hearing Testimony Completeness ZZZ Truck Stop
defeasible under: Engineer H Potential Unlicensed Practice at Public Hearing
defeasible under: Engineer H Testimony Evasion of Tank Leak Concerns
defeasible under: Unlicensed Practice by Engineer H in State I
casecontext: Firm C employed Engineer H to present the ZZZ truck stop project at the County Drainage Board public hearing. Engineer H redirected conversation away from concerns about underground tank leaks raised by Engineer R, resulting in incomplete and potentially misleading testimony before the regulatory body.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Completeness In Responsive Technical Testimony Violated By Engineer H
derived from principle: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violated By Engineer H
discoveredincase: 17
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 17
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T13:05:24.362691+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
obligationclass: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm C was obligated, as the engineering firm responsible for the ZZZ truck stop project, to ensure that the engineering testimony provided by Engineer H at the County Drainage Board public hearing was complete, objective, and addressed all material technical concerns raised — including concerns about underground fuel storage tank leaks — and to offer to re-examine the plans if those concerns had not already been evaluated and addressed.
sourcetext: Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans.
temporalscope: During and following the County Drainage Board public hearing
textreferences: Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling
textreferences: Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans.
wasattributedto: Case 17 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T13:30:32.845580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 17 Extraction