ENGRI_127_Homework__7_2008 - ENGRI 127 Homework #7 Due...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ENGRI 127 Homework #7 Due April 3, 2008 I. Mere Technicality Part A: You have been assigned the position of environmental engineer for one of several local plants whose water discharges flow into a lake in a flourishing tourist area. Although all the plants are marginally profitable, they compete for the same customers. Included in your responsibilities is the monitoring of water and air discharges at your plant and the periodic preparation of reports to be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources. You have just prepared a report that indicates that the level of pollution in the plant’s water discharges slightly exceeds the legal limitations. Your supervisor, the plant manager, says you should regard the excess as a mere "technicality," and he asks you to "adjust" the data so that the plant appears to be in compliance. He says that the slight excess is not going to endanger human or fish life any more than if the plant were actually in compliance. However, he says, solving the problem would require a very heavy investment in new equipment. He explains, "We can’t afford new equipment. It might even cost a few jobs. It will set us behind our competitors. Besides the bad publicity we’d get, it might scare off some of the tourist industry, making it worse for everybody." What are your basic responsibilities as an environmental engineer in this plant? How do you think you should respond to your supervisor’s requests? What ethical questions does this case raise? Part B: Consider the same scenario as above, but from different perspectives. Look at the situation from the standpoint of: - the plant manager of the company - the chief executive officer of the company - environmental engineers from the competing companies - plant managers from the competing companies - the Department of Natural Resources - local merchants - parents of children who swim in the lake - those who fish in the lake (or eat fish from it) Do you ideas about how an environmental engineer ought to deal with a situation like this change as you take into account these different perspectives? Now, looking at the case from an "all things considered" perspective, go back to Part A and discuss what you, as environmental engineer, should do (and why).
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
II. Copycat CASE 1 Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, has worked on the design and development of improved wastewater treatment processes and equipment, which are subsequently patented. Engineer B, an environmental consultant specializing in the design of waste water treatment facilities, and his client are impressed with the new processes and equipment. However, Engineer B dislikes specifying sole source and, in fact, makes a point of encouraging competition by preparing open specifications with "or equal" clauses or by specifying a performance requirement. The primary, if not the sole, purpose of Engineer B's effort is to minimize cost by promoting competition. On this project, Engineer B prepares a performance specification for open competition but
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/19/2008 for the course ENGRI 1270 taught by Professor Callister during the Spring '08 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 5

ENGRI_127_Homework__7_2008 - ENGRI 127 Homework #7 Due...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online