Case Studies

.docx

School

University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1302

Subject

English

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChiefLightning3873

ENGR 1201: Introduction to Engineering Physical Science and Engineering Department South Texas College Name: Cessar Lechuga Engineering Ethics Case Studies NSPE Code of Ethics: https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/ NSPECodeofEthicsforEngineers.pdf Read all four cases. For each case: 1) Determine the Canon(s) that correspond(s) most closely to the case. 2) Read the “Rule of Practice” which corresponds to that Canon. Develop a finding or answer to the question. 3) Write discussion notes to present the case and your conclusion. Case Study #1 FACTS: B. Wright, a principal in ABC Engineering, an environmental engineering firm, submits qualifications and a proposal to a local municipality to be considered as the consultant for the research and analysis of a former dump site which is being considered for reclamation as a wetland. The dump has been closed for many years after being used for several decades for commercial waste disposal, possibly without any regulation or control. In a meeting with B. Wright, the municipality indicates the possibility that there could be hazardous and toxic wastes encountered in the dump. Upon being awarded the contract, B. Wright is informed by the city that, as part of the contract, a confidentiality clause must be signed which precludes B. Wright from disclosing any results or information concerning the project without the city’s written permission. He signs the contract and the clause. Preliminary research by B. Wright confirms that the dump site is not closed according to the hazardous and solid waste regulations of the state. Tests of the surface soils on the site are inconclusive but reveal a possibility that very high contaminant levels of hazardous and toxic waste could, over time, become exposed at the surface, due to erosion of the cover, and even washed into a river that flows immediately adjacent to the site. The city is considering plans to build a children’s park, recreation and picnic area, bike/jogging trail, and parkway near the reclaimed areas, and the river is used for drinking water intake for cities on the other side of the river and downstream. Upon receiving the initial data, the city terminates the contract, saying that the development will be moved to another site, citing the political ramifications of revealing the findings and the economics of having to clean up the property as its reasons for not continuing. B. Wright responds that the city has a responsibility to the public to proceed to remediation, even if the development is moved elsewhere, but the city refuses and reminds B. Wright of its confidentiality clause and the legal consequences of going public with the confidential information. QUESTIONS: Question 1: Is B. Wright bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics to inform the appropriate regulatory agencies of his findings and the potential dangers to the public health and the environment? Question 2: Did B. Wright behave ethically in signing the confidentiality clause restricting him from revealing information concerning dangers to the public health and the environment, after being informed by the city that there was a possibility that the site could contain hazardous and toxic wastes? Page 1 of 6

ENGR 1201: Introduction to Engineering Physical Science and Engineering Department South Texas College CODE OF ETHICS REFERENCED: II. Rules of Practice 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. B) Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards. F) 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 DISCUSSION NOTES: B. Wright acted unethically by approving a plan that seemed a little suspicious. He did not have to sign the confidentiality clause restriction because he had first to inspect the construction place to make sure the area was safe. Before signing the contract, he had to make sure that he conformed with the standards. CONCLUSIONS: Question 1: Yes, he is. It is his responsibility to inform someone because if not, it could lead to an accident and even the death or contamination of someone Question 2: No, he did not act according to the code of ethics because they already informed him that there was a possibility of existing toxic wastes. Case Study #2 Page 2 of 6

ENGR 1201: Introduction to Engineering Physical Science and Engineering Department South Texas College FACTS: Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation. An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations. Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge in these areas. There are comprehensive training programs available for this type of work, but training funds are not available. QUESTION: Would it be appropriate for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official? CODE OF ETHICS REFERENCED: 2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with the subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. DISCUSSION NOTES: Engineering B should not even think about accepting the official request because he lacks experience in specific areas. Engineering B should immediately inform the officer that he has no training and look for a different engineer who can 100% comprehend the particular topic. Page 3 of 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help