Well, given the stated facts, this isn't an ethical issue. This is a supervisory management issue example. A few observations / expressions of professional opinion.
1) The firm either does not inform their new staff of the firm's review procedures (extremely poor management and professionalism) or she is woefully afraid to demand to know them.
2) Her supervisor is evidently either extremely non-communicative or not the stamping PE. Given the stated conditions, I would be out looking for a position at a new company if I were her and had heard zero feedback on my design work in two years. The "facts" stated are extremely short and inconceivable. If those are the actual conditions, they are irresponsible and unprofessional (not technically but supervisory) if the stamping PE were her immediate supervisor (not stated).
3) The design reviews may be uncovering issues but the firm has someone else correct them and not her. (The stated facts did not say if any corrections were ever actually made or if she observed design changes appearing in the final stamped plans or "product".) A poor management decision to not inform her of shortcomings or errors is possibly being made as the young design engineer will never learn if she is making mistakes and given a chance to correct her knowledge or technique if she receives no feedback. However, I have personally experienced and observed such poor process or personal feedback.
4) This could be a case of design compartmentalization for projects that can have parallel but separate design components and a process that does not provide for feedback or comparison of the designs for compatibility. Design issues could be being addressed in another design to make hers work or someone else could be correcting any of her design shortcomings. Splitting up design can create communication breaks that result in issues or not, depending on the degree of interaction of the two design components. (Your building design can be off by ten feet and the wall layout can change three times but if I design a building pad that goes 10 feet beyond the buildings exterior walls, it doesn't matter if the two designs are exact. The compatibility degree required can be a factor.) If real and serious design issues are occurring, she can expect she would be hearing about it.
5) The lack of feedback from the stamping PE could be resulting from an assumption on the stamping PE's part that someone else rather than the PE giving her feedback. It is possible the feedback is not making its way to her. Some firms have only the / a principal stamp every plan set. Some states' licensing / registration laws seem to require this using various wordings. The stamping PE sees only the clean version and not any iterations. Again, the young engineer should press for an explanation. See 6 below.
6) She apparently has not raised the issue enough at her semi-annual and / or annual reviews. She has had reason to have a discussion and is not pressing the issue. She needs to press the issue. If she asks and the firm is not forthcoming, that can be viewed as a hostile work environment and the firm can be sued.
Failure to train staff and communicate may be failings of the firm and its management staff but failing to ask for review documentation and feedback on designs is a fault of the design individual. You don't always get spoon fed feed back and not all engineering supervisors are micromanagers. However, in the stated "facts", no one has used a design that was not sealed; been demonstrated to not be familiar enough with the design to not seal it; there were no dangers to public health, safety or welfare from the designs that went out; nor were their any failures noted. She may be losing sleep but it is not for ethical reasons.
------------------------------
Bradley Novacek P.E., M.ASCE
Senior Engineer
Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------