As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4, engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report.
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.'
BER in analyzing Engineer R's duty to report and potential obligation to escalate concerns to the state environmental regulatory agency
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
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.'
'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.'
BER in analyzing the ethics of publicly challenging a design approach
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
BER Case 63-6 (1963 approximate) before BER Case 79-2 (1979)
BER Case 63-6 decision before BER Case 79-2 decision
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]
BER Case 79-2 (1979) before BER Case 95-5
BER Case 79-2 decision before BER Case 95-5 decision
Old BER cases are a rich trove of resources...BER Case 79-2 [1979]...BER Case 95-5 [1995, per case numbering convention]
a key fact, and one that the BER focused on, was an engineer's failure to include relevant information in a report.
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.'
BER in analyzing whether Engineer H's failure to address concerns about underground tank leaks constituted incomplete and misleading testimony
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
BER Case 95-5 decision before BER Case 20-4 decision
BER Case 20-4 is particularly relevant...[Case 20-4 per numbering convention is from 2020, after Case 95-5 from 1995]
CausalLink_Drainage Board Approves Plan W
CausalLink_H Redirects Testimony Away fro
CausalLink_Person B Promises Environmenta
CausalLink_R Investigates H's Licensure S
CausalLink_R Testifies at Public Hearing
CausalLink_ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relo
Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
III.8.a.: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering....
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.
I.1.: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public....
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.
III.2.d.: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1in order to protect ...
III.3.a.: Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitt...
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.
II.1.f.: Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate...
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.
I.3.: Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
{'type': 'Public regulatory board', 'jurisdiction': 'County, State I', 'authority': 'Drainage and stormwater plan approval'}
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.
{'type': 'approves_project_of', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
{'type': 'receives_presentation_from', 'target': 'Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer'}
{'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority
Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R's testimony
the Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan
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?
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.
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
Proceed with full engineering testimony before the Drainage Board without disclosing the lack of State I licensure, relying on home-state credentials
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
Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
Refrain from testifying before the Board and instead submit written concerns privately to the project engineer or ZZZ without entering the public record
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
Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
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
At the conclusion of the public Drainage Board hearing
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.
Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions
public regulatory body, led by vice president at hearing
Approval without conditions removes any regulatory leverage to ensure Person B's promised consultation results in action
Unconditional approval may create a false sense that R's environmental concerns were fully resolved
Applied current regulatory standards in evaluating the project
Conducted a public hearing and allowed all parties to testify
Public regulatory duty to protect public health and environmental safety
Regulatory compliance as a basis for approval decisions
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
Capacity to evaluate competing technical testimony at public hearings
Regulatory authority to approve, deny, or conditionally approve drainage-related construction plans
Board accepted incomplete engineering testimony (H's selective response) without requiring a complete response to R's underground leak concern
Opportunity to require conditions of approval tied to further environmental study or tank relocation was not exercised despite documented concerns
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.
Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5) → Tank Locations Remain Unchanged (Event 5)
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
Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5)
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
Tank Locations Remain Unchanged (Event 5)
B's promise substituting for enforceable conditions
Board's authority as the relevant regulatory decision-maker
Board's choice not to impose conditions despite R's evidence
H's redirection reducing evidentiary weight of R's testimony
ZZZ's willingness to exploit the unconditional approval
Drainage Board (shared with Engineer H and ZZZ/Person B)
Unconditional approval + ZZZ's non-compliance with promise + absence of enforcement = unchanged tank locations
Drainage Board approval of the plan before construction begins
After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. [Logically follows the Board's approval vote.]
Drainage Board vote to approve the plan before construction begins
Engineer H Design Re-examination Commitment Failure ZZZ Truck Stop
Design Re-examination Commitment Capability
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.
Engineer H's failure to respond substantively to underground leak concerns at the ZZZ truck stop Drainage Board hearing
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
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
After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Compliance Failure ZZZ Truck Stop
Out-of-State Licensure Practice Boundary Recognition Capability
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.
Engineer H's presentation at the County Drainage Board hearing in State I while licensed only in State O
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
R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
Engineer H's testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical
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
Engineer H Selective Testimony Redirection Underground Tanks ZZZ Truck Stop
Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Capability
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.
Engineer H's response to the Drainage Board vice president's question about Engineer R's testimony at the ZZZ truck stop hearing
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
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
Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning
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
Engineer H Sustainable Development Testimony Integration Failure ZZZ Truck Stop
Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony Integration Capability
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.
Engineer H's testimony before the County Drainage Board regarding the ZZZ truck stop project
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
Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations
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
Engineer H Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint State I ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
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.
State I Engineering Licensure Law; Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (State I); NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on unlicensed practice
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.
Upon Engineer R's discovery or reasonable belief that Engineer H lacked State I licensure, during or after the Drainage Board hearing
Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
Engineer H Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure ZZZ Truck Stop State I
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.
Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Constraint
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.
State I Engineering Licensure Law; State Engineering Licensure Statutes; BER interpretation of engineering practice definition
At the time of and prior to Engineer H's testimony before the County Drainage Board
Practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.
Engineer H's response before Person B's response
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...
Engineer H's response to Drainage Board vice president after Engineer R's testimony at public hearing
Engineer R Environmental Risk Assessment and Public Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Environmental Risk Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer R testified as a member of the public at the County Drainage Board hearing regarding the ZZZ truck stop project
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
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
Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
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
Engineer R Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and truthfulness provisions; BER Case 63-6 (honest differences of opinion among qualified engineers); BER Case 79-2
These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
During Engineer R's testimony at the County Drainage Board public hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
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.
Engineer R Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion LUST Database ZZZ Truck Stop
Fact-Grounded Public Technical Opinion Capability
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).
Engineer R's public testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing regarding the ZZZ truck stop project
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
The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place
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
Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation Fulfillment ZZZ Truck Stop
Environmental Risk Escalation Post-Regulatory Approval Capability
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.
Engineer R's complete arc of public interest advocacy from initial testimony through post-construction monitoring
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
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
Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony Professional Deportment Constraint ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
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.
BER Case 63-6; BER Case 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics professional conduct provisions
{'license': 'Professional Engineer, State I', 'specialty': 'Environmental regulation', 'role_basis': 'Voluntary public testimony, no formal engagement with project'}
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.
{'type': 'public_interest_advocate_for', 'target': 'Waterway and Creek Affected Community'}
{'type': 'public_witness_to', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
{'type': 'technical_challenger_of', 'target': 'Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer'}
Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness Escalation Assessment ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Post-approval monitoring of ZZZ truck stop construction and assessment of escalation obligations
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
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
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
Engineer R Qualified to Perform — Environmental Regulatory Assessment
Throughout the case — R is a licensed PE in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation
Engineer R's competence and licensure to assess environmental regulatory compliance and risk in State I
Engineer R's identification of environmental risks associated with the ZZZ Truck Stop project
Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Context — State I Environmental Regulation
Throughout the project planning, approval, and construction phases
State I Department of Environmental Management
The regulatory framework governing the ZZZ Truck Stop project, including floodplain regulations, underground storage tank regulations, and environmental management requirements in State I
Not terminated — ongoing regulatory context
acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
Proposed construction of truck stop with underground fuel storage tanks adjacent to a creek and major river in State I
Engineer R Unlicensed Practice Identification Engineer H ZZZ Truck Stop
Unlicensed Practice Identification in Public Hearing Context Capability
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.
Post-hearing discovery that Engineer H lacked State I licensure despite providing verbal engineering input at the Drainage Board hearing
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
Engineer R has an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities
in the public record, H is simply identified as 'person H of Firm C Engineers'
Engineer R Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation Engineer H
Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge Capability
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.
Post-hearing reporting obligation triggered by discovery of Engineer H's lack of State I licensure
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
Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities
Engineer R's public testimony at Drainage Board hearing before Engineer H's response to the Drainage Board vice president
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...
Engineer R's public testimony at Drainage Board hearing
Engineer H's response to the Drainage Board vice president
Engineer R's testimony at public hearing before Drainage Board vote to approve the plan
Environmental Hazard — Creek and River Contamination Risk
From identification of tank placement plans through construction and operation of the truck stop
the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state
The creek and its discharge point into the major river, threatened by proximity of underground fuel storage tanks on a historically filled site
Not terminated — risk persists through and after construction
6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
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
the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek
Combination of historical illegal fill, proximity of underground fuel storage tanks to the creek, and statistical evidence of tank leak rates
Firm C Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight ZZZ Truck Stop Engineer H Testimony
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.
Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-5; State I Engineering Licensure Law
During and following Engineer H's testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans.
Firm C Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Engineer H Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Capability
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.
Firm C's responsibility for the ethical conduct of Engineer H's testimony at the ZZZ truck stop Drainage Board hearing
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
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
Floodplain Compliance Standard for Construction Site Classification
FEMA / State I floodplain management authority
Federal and State Floodplain Management Regulations (as applied in State I)
As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain
Engineer R, Engineer H, County Drainage Board
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.
H Redirects Testimony Away from Leak Risks
engineer employed by Firm C, licensed in State O, not licensed in State I
Failure to address leak probability may result in inadequate environmental safeguards being built into the approved plan
Incomplete testimony may mislead the Board into believing all of R's concerns had been addressed
Selective response may constitute incomplete and misleading engineering testimony under NSPE Code standards
Partial response to Board inquiry regarding physical design features (setback, grading)
All relevant and pertinent information must be included in professional statements
Completeness and objectivity in engineering testimony
Sustainable development and environmental protection
Truthfulness and non-misrepresentation in professional communications
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
Ability to evaluate and respond to environmental risk concerns
Knowledge of underground fuel storage tank standards
Site engineering and grading design expertise
At the public Drainage Board hearing, immediately following R's testimony
NSPE Canon 3 obligation to issue only truthful and complete statements. H's testimony was selective and incomplete
NSPE Code obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in testimony (BER Case 95-5)
Obligation of objectivity, selective use of facts misdirects the Board's conclusion (BER Case 95-5)
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)
Potential violation of State I engineering licensure requirements by providing verbal engineering input at a public hearing without State I licensure
Professional Obligation III.2.d to adhere to sustainable development principles to protect the environment
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.
H Redirects Testimony Away from Leak Risks (Action 3) → Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5 / Event 4)
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
H Redirects Testimony Away from Leak Risks (Action 3)
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
Drainage Board Approves Plan Without Conditions (Action 5 / Event 4)
Board vice president's direct inquiry creating the opportunity for H's intervention
Board's reliance on H's technical framing in its deliberation
H's decision to redirect rather than engage substantively with leak risk evidence
H's status as a credentialed engineer lending authority to his redirection
H's authoritative redirection + Person B's promise + absence of conditions = board approval without safeguards
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
Before public Drainage Board hearing; during R's initial site investigation
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.
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
After construction begins, during or following R's post-approval investigation
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.
R now possesses quantitative, publicly available evidence to substantiate risk claims; testimony is elevated from opinion to data-supported assertion
During R's pre-hearing investigation, prior to the Drainage Board hearing
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.
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Fundamental Canon 1.3
Question 4 deals with objectivity and truthfulness - issues directly addressed by fundamental Canon 1.3.
BER in analyzing Engineer H's obligation to address concerns about underground tank leaks with objectivity and truthfulness
Cited as directly addressing objectivity and truthfulness obligations relevant to Engineer H's conduct in testimony before the Drainage Board
NSPE Code of Ethics - Completeness of Reports Provision
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Requirement to Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information in Reports
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.'
BER in concluding that Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
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
NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Obligation III.2.d
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.2.d
Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
BER in analyzing Engineer H's failure to address environmental concerns about underground storage tank leaks
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
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
Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
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.
Person B Promises Environmental Consultation
Failure to follow through on the consultation or to change tank locations may constitute a breach of the implicit representation made to the Board
The non-committal response may result in no substantive environmental safeguards being added
The promise to consult may be interpreted by the Board as a meaningful commitment to address R's concerns, influencing the approval vote
Acknowledged R's concerns and provided a response to the Board
Offered a process (environmental team consultation) for further review
Good faith engagement with public regulatory processes
Transparency about the limits of commitments made in public hearings
deliberate and strategically non-committal
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
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
Obligation not to make representations to a public regulatory body that create a false impression of forthcoming remedial action
Ability to represent ZZZ's position at a public regulatory hearing
Knowledge of ZZZ's operational requirements for fuel storage
Understanding of the scope of ZZZ's environmental team resources
At the public Drainage Board hearing, following H's response to the Board vice president
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.
Person B Promises Environmental Consultation (Action 4) → ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relocation (Action 6)
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
Person B Promises Environmental Consultation (Action 4)
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
ZZZ Proceeds Without Tank Relocation (Action 6)
Absence of enforceable conditions attached to the approval
Drainage Board's reliance on the promise as a substitute for conditional approval
Person B's public promise creating a reasonable expectation of follow-through
ZZZ's subsequent decision to disregard the promise once approval was secured
Unenforceable oral promise + unconditional approval + ZZZ's profit motive = non-compliance with promised consultation
Person B ZZZ Commercial Development Owner Representative
{'type': 'Non-engineer commercial representative', 'affiliation': 'ZZZ Truck Stop', 'role_basis': 'Owner/developer representative at regulatory hearing'}
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.
{'type': 'represents', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
{'type': 'responds_to', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
{'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
Commercial Development Owner Representative
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
Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take
Person B's response after Engineer H's response
Person B's response before Drainage Board vote to approve the plan
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.
Public Safety at Risk — Waterway Contamination
From identification of tank proximity risk through ongoing operation of the truck stop
General public relying on the major river
Public safety and environmental welfare threatened by potential fuel contamination of the creek and major river
Engineer R's identification of the combined risk factors: historical fill, tank proximity, statistical leak rates, and creek discharge to major river
Qualitative Risk Assessment for Underground Tank Proximity to Waterway
Professional engineering practice norms, environmental engineering methodology
Risk Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Underground Fuel Storage Tank Proximity to Surface Water
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.
Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?
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?
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?
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?
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?
After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Discovery of H's unlicensed status may create an obligation for R to report to the State I engineering licensure board
This discovery adds a second dimension to R's potential escalation beyond the environmental concern, a professional licensure violation
Diligent follow-up on public safety concerns after the hearing
Professional responsibility to be aware of licensure requirements and potential violations affecting public reliance on engineering testimony
Accountability of engineers providing technical input to public regulatory bodies
Continued vigilance after formal hearing testimony, consistent with BER Case 20-4's obligation to further pursue matters if formal presentations fail
Public protection through enforcement of engineering licensure requirements
Determine whether H's public hearing testimony constituted unlicensed practice of engineering in State I, potentially providing an additional basis for regulatory escalation
Ability to assess whether specific activities constitute 'practice of engineering' under State I law
Knowledge of State I engineering licensure requirements
Professional judgment about reporting obligations
Post-approval, during or after construction begins
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.
R Investigates H's Licensure Status (Action 7) → H's Unlicensed Status Confirmed (Event 6)
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
R Investigates H's Licensure Status (Action 7)
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
H's Unlicensed Status Confirmed (Event 6)
Existence of accessible licensure records
H's actual unlicensed status being a discoverable fact
R's decision to investigate H's licensure rather than accept the outcome
R's observation that tank locations remained unchanged, triggering further investigation
Engineer H (primary); Engineer R (discovery agent)
R's investigative decision + accessible licensure records + H's actual unlicensed status = confirmation of H's lack of professional standing
licensed PE, State I, environmental regulation specialist
Findings may put R in adversarial position with ZZZ and Firm C
Testimony based on findings may delay or complicate project approval
Duty to use relevant technical knowledge and databases in assessing environmental risk
NSPE Canon obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
Obligation to be informed before making public professional statements
Objectivity and factual grounding in professional judgment
Public safety and environmental protection
Sustainable development and protection of waterways for future generations
Gather sufficient factual and regulatory basis to assess environmental risk posed by the proposed truck stop location and tank placement
Ability to interpret LUST database statistics
Knowledge of floodplain and fill history assessment
Understanding of underground fuel storage tank risk
Pre-hearing, upon learning of ZZZ Truck Stop construction plans
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.
R Investigates Site History (Action 1) → Historical Illegal Fill Discovered (Event 1)
Engineer R proactively investigates the historical fill activity on the proposed truck stop site, uncovering evidence of historical illegal fill during site history investigation
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
Historical Illegal Fill Discovered (Event 1)
Existence of historical fill records accessible to R
R's decision to proactively investigate beyond standard scope
R's professional competence to interpret site history data
Proactive investigation + accessible records + professional competence = discovery of illegal fill
R may be perceived as opposing a legally compliant project without formal standing
Testimony may be dismissed or minimized by the Board or Firm C
Testimony satisfies formal duty to report but may not result in substantive change
Duty to report environmental concerns formally, as established by BER Case 20-4
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
NSPE Canon 1 obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount
Obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information (LUST data, fill history, proximity) in public testimony
Professional Obligation III.2.d to protect the environment for future generations
Criticism of another engineer's work is ethical when offered in the public interest with professional deportment (BER Case 79-2)
Formal presentation satisfies duty to report (BER Case 20-4)
Honest differences of professional opinion may be expressed at public hearings (BER Case 63-6)
Public safety and environmental protection paramount
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
Ability to interpret and present LUST database statistics
Professional judgment on underground tank placement relative to waterways
At the public Drainage Board hearing, prior to Board vote
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.
R Testifies at Public Hearing (Action 2) → Underground Tank Proximity Risk Identified (Event 2) enters public record
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
R Testifies at Public Hearing (Action 2)
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
Underground Tank Proximity Risk Identified (Event 2) enters public record
Existence of a public hearing forum providing opportunity for testimony
LUST database data establishing quantifiable leak risk
R's prior investigative work establishing the evidentiary basis
R's volitional decision to appear and testify
R's testimony + evidentiary findings + public forum = formal introduction of risk evidence into decision-making record
R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I after Drainage Board public hearing
R's observation that tank locations were not changed during construction
R's observation that tank locations were unchanged equals R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I
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.
R's observation that tank locations were unchanged
R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
R's review of LUST database (5-year period) before R's testimony at Drainage Board hearing
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]
R's review of LUST database (5-year period)
State legislatures and regulatory bodies
State Statutes and Regulations Governing the Practice of Engineering
BER in analyzing whether Engineer H was practicing engineering without a license when testifying before the Drainage Board
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
State I Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
State I IDEM Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Database
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
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
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.
State I Legislature / State Licensing Board
State I Professional Engineering Licensure Statute
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.
State I Environmental Compliance Regulations for Waterway Protection
State I Department of Environmental Management / State Legislature
State I Environmental Regulations Governing Development Adjacent to Waterways
the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
the site was not regulated while it was filled
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.
System Error State → Case Narrative Unavailable
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
After construction begins, during R's post-approval site observation
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.
Underground Storage Tank Siting and Setback Standards
EPA, State I environmental agency, professional engineering practice norms
Regulatory and Professional Standards for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Siting Near Waterways
Underground Storage Tank Siting Standard
H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan
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
Engineer R, Engineer H, Person B (ZZZ representative)
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.
Underground Tank Proximity Risk Identified
Proposed project now formally associated with an identified contamination risk pathway; R's professional obligations to disclose are fully activated
During R's initial site investigation, concurrent with or immediately following discovery of illegal fill
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.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (State I)
NSPE, State I Engineering Licensing Board
Professional Norms Governing Reporting of Unlicensed Engineering Practice in State I
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.
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'at_risk_from', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer Client'}
{'type': 'protected_by_testimony_of', 'target': 'Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Witness'}
a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek
concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
Engineer R's post-construction observation of unchanged tank locations may prompt escalation to state environmental regulators
Failure to follow through on Person B's public promise may constitute bad faith toward the Drainage Board
Unchanged tank locations leave the environmental risk identified by R unmitigated
Complied with the Drainage Board's unconditional approval by proceeding with the approved plan
Good faith compliance with representations made to public regulatory bodies
Responsiveness to credible public safety concerns in engineering design
ZZZ (project owner) and Firm C (design firm), collectively
deliberate decision to proceed as originally designed
Complete construction according to the approved plan, maintaining operationally convenient tank placement without incurring costs or delays associated with redesign
Engineering design revision capability (Firm C)
Environmental risk assessment capability
Good faith obligation to the Drainage Board arising from Person B's public promise to consult the environmental team and consider additional measures
Obligation to re-examine plans in light of credible public safety concerns raised at the hearing (per Discussion section analysis of H's obligations)
Professional Obligation III.2.d to adhere to sustainable development principles to protect the environment (applicable to Firm C's engineers)
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.
{'type': 'Commercial development entity', 'project': 'ZZZ Truck Stop construction adjacent to creek', 'national_partnership': 'National partnership with Firm C for site engineering'}
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.
{'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'Person B ZZZ Commercial Development Owner Representative'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'subject_to_approval_by', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Body'}
Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ
ZZZ Truck Stop Site Historical Fill Condition
From the time of original pre-regulatory filling through the present construction phase; persists indefinitely until fill is characterized and remediated
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
The proposed ZZZ Truck Stop construction site adjacent to the creek
Not terminated — persists through construction approval and commencement
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
ZZZ Underground Storage Tank Creek Proximity Risk
From Engineer R's review of the plans through construction completion; persists as long as tanks remain in their approved locations
Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek
Underground Storage Tank Proximity Risk State
Underground fuel storage tanks proposed and constructed in close proximity to the creek at the ZZZ Truck Stop site
Not terminated — tank locations were not changed after construction began
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
construction begins after Drainage Board hearing and approval
After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
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
source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.78
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
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
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.86
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
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
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.83
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.87
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
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
the county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place
illegal fill of the site before current environmental regulations enacted
illegal fill of the site before proposed ZZZ Truck Stop construction
illegal fill of the site before proposed truck stop construction
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
underground fuel storage tanks installation during construction of ZZZ Truck Stop
After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed [implying tanks were installed as part of construction per original plan]
underground fuel storage tanks installation
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
underground tank installation (tracked in LUST database) before Engineer R's testimony
Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Sanitary landfill / civil engineering design', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2 and Case 20-4 (analogous)'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council / MWC'}
{'type': 'peer_collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer B Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report
Engineer B Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer
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.
{'type': 'peer_collaborator', 'target': 'Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
Engineer C Resident Challenger Landfill Design
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'capacity': 'Town resident and licensed engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2'}
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.
{'type': 'community_member', 'target': 'Town'}
{'type': 'peer_challenger', 'target': 'Engineer A Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'peer_challenger', 'target': 'Engineer B Sanitary Landfill Design Engineer'}
Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound
it was ethical for C to publicly challenge the design approach adopted by A and B
Engineer H Opposing Engineer Concern Response Obligation ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
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.
Opposing Engineer Concern Response Obligation Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1.3 (objectivity and truthfulness); NSPE Code completeness of reports provision; BER Case 95-5 precedent
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.
During and immediately following Engineer R's testimony at the County Drainage Board public hearing on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
Engineer H Testimony Completeness Sustainable Development ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1.3; NSPE Code completeness of reports provision; BER Case 95-5; NSPE Code Professional Obligation III.2.d
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.
During Engineer H's testimony before the County Drainage Board on the ZZZ Truck Stop project
Engineer R Post-Drainage-Board Dismissal Escalation Constraint ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics paramount safety obligation; BER Case 20-4 precedent; BER Case 79-2 precedent
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.
Following the County Drainage Board's approval of the ZZZ Truck Stop project over Engineer R's objections
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.
Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
{'type': 'Private engineering consulting firm', 'partnership': 'National partnership with ZZZ', 'services': 'Conceptual site layout through final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater'}
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.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer'}
{'type': 'national_partner_of', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
{'type': 'presents_to', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
Engineer C / Engineer R Public Challenge of Peer Design
From R's presentation of safety concerns at the Drainage Board hearing through resolution or escalation
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
Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
Engineer R's (and historically Engineer C's) conflicting technical opinion versus Engineers A/B and Engineer H at public regulatory hearings
Not yet terminated — board approved project without requiring concerns to be addressed
engineer R's formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report
Engineer R presenting documented technical safety concerns at the Drainage Board public hearing, conflicting with Engineer H's testimony supporting the project
Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Only in State I
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
Engineer H's licensure status relative to State I, where engineering services are being performed and regulatory approval is being sought
Not terminated within the facts presented
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
Engineer H Potential Unlicensed Practice at Public Hearing
During Engineer H's testimony at the Drainage Board hearing
Engineer H's provision of verbal engineering input at the Drainage Board public hearing in a jurisdiction where H's licensure status is uncertain
Not resolved — BER notes laws vary by state and practitioners should consult governing statutes
Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked
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
Engineer R Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards
From Drainage Board approval through construction commencement and confirmation that tank locations were unchanged
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
The documented and unmitigated risk of fuel contamination to the creek from underground storage tanks on a historically filled site
the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan
Construction proceeding with tank locations unchanged after Engineer R's documented testimony and the Drainage Board's approval without requiring mitigation
Engineer R Post-Hearing Escalation Obligation
From Drainage Board's failure to require resolution of R's concerns through any escalation action R takes
Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed State
Engineer R's documented safety concerns regarding underground tank proximity and historical fill site, presented at the Drainage Board and not resolved
Not yet terminated — R retains obligation to consider escalation to state environmental regulatory agency
R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency
given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
Drainage Board approving the project without requiring Engineer H or Firm C to address R's documented safety concerns
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation Triggered For Engineer R
Engineer H Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
State I engineering licensure authorities
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
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
Engineer R Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
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.
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
Engineer R has an obligation to report H's unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
Unlicensed Practice by Engineer H in State I
From Engineer H's commencement of engineering work on the ZZZ project in State I through Engineer R's discovery and beyond
Engineer R (discovering party with reporting obligation)
Public relying on licensed engineering oversight
Unlicensed Practice by Third Party State
Engineer H's performance of engineering services and regulatory presentations in State I without holding a State I professional engineering license
Engineer R's discovery that Engineer H is not licensed in State I after H has presented the project at the Drainage Board hearing
Unverified Concern — Fill Material Characteristics
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
R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill
Engineer R's concern about the characteristics of the historical fill material and its potential to affect tank integrity and contamination pathways
Not terminated — fill material characteristics were never formally assessed within the facts presented
Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics
requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history
Engineer R's awareness of historical illegal fill combined with absence of fill material characterization data
Engineer C Public Interest Landfill Design Challenge
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.
Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound.
Upon formation of professional judgment that the design was environmentally unsound, at public proceedings regarding the landfill design
Drainage Board Override of Engineer R's Safety Judgment
From Drainage Board's approval of the project without addressing R's concerns through any escalation or resolution
Regulatory Body Override of Engineering Judgment State
Engineer R's professional judgment regarding underground tank proximity risk and site fill hazards, overridden by Drainage Board approval
Not yet terminated — escalation to state environmental regulatory agency remains an open obligation
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
Drainage Board proceeding to approve the project after R's formal presentation of safety concerns without requiring those concerns to be addressed
Engineer H Public Hearing Design Engineer
{'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']}
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.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Firm C'}
{'type': 'peer_adversarial', 'target': 'Engineer R'}
{'type': 'testimony_before', 'target': 'County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority'}
Engineer H misrepresented H's personal qualifications when testifying to the Drainage Board
Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed
Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling
Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans
Engineer H Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony Obligation
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.
During the County Drainage Board public hearing
Engineer R Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed by Drainage Board
From the Drainage Board's vote to approve the plan through construction commencement and beyond
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
Drainage Board's vote to approve the plan after acknowledging R's testimony, followed by confirmation that tank locations were not changed during construction
Objectivity Obligation Applied To Engineer R Public Testimony
County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing
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
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
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
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Fulfilled By Engineer R
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
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
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
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
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
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
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer R At Drainage Board Hearing
Waterway Creek Affected Community water quality
ZZZ Truck Stop underground fuel storage tank placement adjacent to creek
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
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
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
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
Qualification Transparency Violated By Engineer H Identification In Public Record
County Drainage Board Regulatory Body decision-making
County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing record
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
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
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
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
Qualification transparency required disclosure of licensure status; the firm name 'Firm C Engineers' implied licensed engineering practice in the jurisdiction without warranting it
Engineer H's testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical.
Engineer A Engineer B Public Safety Escalation Water Commission
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.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
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.
After formal presentations to the MWC failed to produce corrective action
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Satisfied By Engineer R
County Drainage Board Regulatory Body public hearing testimony
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
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
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.
The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer, State O (not licensed in State I)', 'employer': 'Firm C', 'specialty': 'Site engineering, grading, stormwater'}
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.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Firm C National Franchise Site Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'serves_client', 'target': 'ZZZ Truck Stop Developer'}
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
Objectivity Violated By Engineer H Selective Testimony
ZZZ Truck Stop underground fuel storage tank placement decision
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
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
Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition Violated By Engineer H
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
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
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
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.'
Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
Engineer H Testimony Evasion of Tank Leak Concerns
During and following Engineer H's testimony at the Drainage Board hearing
Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
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
Not terminated — H neither explained prior evaluation of the concern nor offered to re-examine plans
If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report
Engineer R raising documented concerns about underground tank proximity and leak risk at the public hearing, which Engineer H redirected rather than addressed
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'capacity': 'Private citizen / community member with engineering expertise', 'specialty': 'Environmental and site engineering concerns', 'escalation_path': 'State environmental regulatory agency'}
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.
{'type': 'peer_challenger', 'target': 'Engineer H'}
{'type': 'public_interest_advocate', 'target': 'Affected Community'}
R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing
Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks
Engineer H Out-of-State Licensure Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
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.
Out-of-State Practice Licensure Compliance Obligation
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.
Prior to and during the County Drainage Board public hearing
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?
Licensure Integrity Violated By Engineer H Unlicensed Practice
State I engineering licensure requirements
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
R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
Engineer H Objective Complete Reporting Drainage Board Testimony
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.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
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.
If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading.
Escalation Obligation Triggered For Engineer R Post-Construction
County Drainage Board Regulatory Body decision to approve plan
State environmental regulatory agency as potential escalation target
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
Escalation Obligation When Initial Regulatory Report Is Insufficient
Engineer H Public Hearing Testimony Completeness ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Obligation
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.
During and immediately following Engineer R's public testimony at the County Drainage Board hearing
Engineer R Public Interest Environmental Testimony ZZZ Truck Stop Drainage Board
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.
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.
At the County Drainage Board public hearing and, if unresolved, thereafter through escalation to state environmental agency
Completeness In Responsive Technical Testimony Violated By Engineer H
ZZZ Truck Stop underground fuel storage tank design
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
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
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
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.
selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion
Engineer R Fact Grounded Technical Opinion Drainage Board
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.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
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.
Firm C National Franchise Subcontractor Ethical Compliance ZZZ Truck Stop
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.
Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Obligation
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.
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.
During and following the County Drainage Board public hearing