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 H’s testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical. [However, practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.] Engineer R has an obligation to report H’s unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities. 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.

<p>Old BER cases are a rich trove of resources for engineers like R to turn to for guidance about environmental concerns and voicing these concerns publicly. In <a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/public-criticism-environmental-concerns" target="_blank">BER Case 79-2</a>, engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill. After several presentations to the town council A and B were directed to prepare a new design for the existing site at higher final contours - the new design would provide for a hill 100 feet higher than originally proposed. Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound. One of the questions the BER was asked to resolve in 1979 was if it was ethical for C to publicly challenge the design approach adopted by A and B. The BER pointed to <a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/conflicting-engineering-opinions" target="_blank">BER Case 63-6</a> where they observed “There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.” They also stated that “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.”</p> <p><a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/public-health-safety-and-welfare-3" target="_blank">BER Case 20-4</a> is particularly relevant. In this situation, engineers A and B find themselves at odds with a metropolitan water commission (MWC) that is in favor of changing the water supply source to one which A and B believe cannot be used safely before additional study and...

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, specifically a creek; the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state. 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 county surveyor corroborated R’s observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place. As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain. Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek.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. Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing.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 and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks. 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.Following up R’s presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R’s testimony. H stated th...

Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony? Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I? After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities? Note that in the public record, H is simply identified as “person H of Firm C Engineers.” 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?

<div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><div> <h2> <div class="field field--name-name field--type-string field--label-hidden field__item">I.1.</div> </h2> <div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.</p> </div> <div> <div>Subject Reference</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://www.nspe.org/categories/subject-reference-guide-code-ethics/duty-the-public" target="_blank">Duty to the Public</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"><div> <h2> <div class="field field--name-name field--type-string field--label-hidden field__item">I.3.</div> </h2> <div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.</p> </div> <div> <div>Subject Reference</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://www.nspe.org/categories/subject-reference-guide-code-ethics/public-statements-and-criticism" target="_blank">Public Statements and Criticism</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"><div> <h2> <div class="field field--name-name field--type-string field--label-hidden field__item">II.1.f.</div> </h2> <div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"><div> <h2> <div class="field field--name-name field--type-string field--label-hidden field__item">III.2.d.</div> </h2> <div> <...