Ethics Quiz Waste Disposal Team 8 Members Lucas

Ethics Quiz Waste Disposal Team 8 Members: Lucas Oliveira Kevin Garcia Thais Oliveira

Question 1: Scott Lewis, an engineer working for ABC, noticed leaking drums of chemical waste at the warehouse at an offsite location. He calls Tom Treehorn, head of ABC’s Division of Chemical Waste, and Tom said he will bring the leaking drums to the “home” site. Scott tells Tom that is a violation of the law. Tom replies by, basically, saying ABC can handle the situation better than off-site workers. Scott believes that Tom is serious about preventing environmental problems. Still, he knows that ABC could get into legal trouble if something goes wrong and the Environmental Protection Agency finds out. After all, he thinks, ABC is not a waste disposal facility. • What should Scott do at this point? 1. Tell Tom that he will inform Tom's superior if Tom goes ahead with his plan. 2. Tell Tom that he will not interfere with Tom's plan, but he will not help him with it either. 3. Advise Tom not to go ahead with his plan, but not interfere if Tom insists on going ahead anyway. 4. Say nothing, and help Tom with his plan. 5. Other.

Answer 1: • We chose option 5: Other. Our response is a combination of the first three options. Scott should advise and try to convince Tom not to go ahead with his plan. • If Scott doesn’t succeed and Tom goes ahead with his plan, then Scott should not help with his plan and should let Tom’s superior know and resign from the company. • Even though Tom has good intentions, it is unlawful and could cause legal problems for the company. More importantly, it could cause harm to the environment.

According to the Code of Ethics • • • Scott should inform Tom’s superior because of II-1 a: “If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. ” and the first part of II-1 f: “Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and. . . ” Scott should inform Tom’s superior and resign because of III-2 b: ”Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project. ” Scott should not help with Tom’s plan because of II-1 e: “Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. ”

Question 2: Although he isn't sure they are doing the right thing, Scott says nothing further to Tom and helps him load the leaking drums onto the truck for their return to ABC. The chemical waste is disposed of on the ABC site, with no apparent complications. In further justification of his actions Tom points out to Scott that ABC also saved a lot of money by taking care of the problem themselves rather than having to pay someone else to dispose of the chemicals. • Do you agree that they chose the proper course of action?

Answer 2: • No, we do not agree that they chose the proper course of action. ABC may have saved a lot of money by disposing the chemical waste themselves, but there is a high risk of consequences that could happen with ABC’s handling of the chemical waste. There handling of the chemical waste may become a health hazard to their surrounding community. • The proper course of action was to hire someone, who is qualified, to dispose of the chemical waste.

According to the Code of Ethics • The course of action is a violation of II-2 a: “Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. ” They are not qualified to dispose of the chemical waste. • The dispose of the chemical waste is a violation of III-2 a: “Engineers shall……work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community. ”

Question 3: After handling the situation, there were no complications. However, there is a "worst case" possible scenario. Consider the following: It is now several years later. Tom has retired and Scott is a senior engineer at another company. Tom is startled by reading that ABC is being charged with contaminating the groundwater in the surrounding community. The paper claims there is substantial evidence that ABC had for years violated the law by dumping waste materials on site. Tom is mentioned as the main person who was in charge during the years of most flagrant violation. A local group of citizens has started a class action suit against ABC. • Three weeks later Scott receives a letter requesting his appearance at a court hearing concerning the charges against ABC. What should Scott say in his testimony if asked if he was aware of any violations on the part of ABC?

Answer 3: • Scott should tell the truth in his testimony if asked if he was aware of the violations that were made by ABC. • Scott should acknowledge that he was present when ABC made the violations during his short stint with ABC.

According to the Code of Ethics • Scott should tell the truth in his testimony because of II-3 a: “Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. ” • Scott should acknowledge he was present when the violations were made because of III-1 a: “Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts. ”

References: • http: //www. eng. wayne. edu/dev/mie/courses/mejabi_courses/BE 1200/Case%20 Waste%20 Disposal. htm • https: //blackboard. wayne. edu/courses/1/BE_1200_1501_002/content/_4928760_1/code%2 0 of%20 ethics. pdf