Sample Case Studies

The four case studies which follow are taken from the CD-ROM included with your textbook. The CD-ROM contains 25 case studies (in Appendix CD-F) similar to these sample cases. The case studies illustrate applications of the Acts, Regulations, and the Codes of Ethics, and are suitable for every province or territory of Canada. All case studies are suitable for personal study or as examples in lectures.

The 25 case studies on the CD-ROM are typically presented in 4 parts:

• the statement of the case,
• the question posed to the reader (typically in the form of an ethical dilemma),
• the outcome (fictional, but based on previously-observed incidents) and
• the author’s comments concerning the lessons that may be drawn from the case.

On this website, the four sample cases are divided into two parts: After reading the statement of the question, the reader is asked to suggest an answer to the questions before linking to the outcome and author’s comments. The four sample case studies are:

Case Study 1 – Mine Safety (Case study F.2 on the CD-ROM)
Case Study 2 – Commissioning of Sewage Plant (Case study F.7)
Case Study 3 – Assisting a Non-Engineer to Practise Engineering (Case Study F.24)
Case Study 4 – Meddling or Extending Public Knowledge? (Case Study F.25)

Case Study 1 – Mine Safety
(This is Case study F2 on the CD-ROM)

Statement of the Case: Engineer A, the Chief Engineer for a long-established mine, engaged Geoscientist B to study the mine operations and to devise more efficient methods for extracting ore from the old mine. During a site inspection, the geoscientist travelled down the shaft into the drifts (tunnels) which led to the ore face. During this detailed tour of the mine, Geoscientist B observed many infractions of safety provisions: Methane detectors were missing from the deepest parts of the mine; ventilation was poor in many areas of the mine; shoring was old and appeared to be deteriorating; thick dust covered equipment and could have been a source of dangerous dust explosions. Although Geoscientist B had not been hired to examine mine safety, the geoscientist nevertheless mentioned these concerns to Engineer A, who agreed that safety was a major worry. Engineer A explained that several proposals for safety improvements had been made over the years, but the senior mine management had rejected them, citing the marginal profitability of the mine, and the fact that costly changes could cause the mine to close.

Question: If you were Engineer A or Geoscientist B, what should you do at this point?

Outcome & Author’s Comments

Case Study 2 – Commissioning of Sewage Plant
(This is Case study F7 from the CD-ROM)

Statement of the Case: A consulting engineering company was awarded the contract for designing, preparing the specifications, and “field inspection services” (monitoring the construction) of a sewage treatment plant being built for a small municipality. The construction proceeded routinely to completion. Engineer A, an environmental engineer experienced in waste water treatment, was employed by the consulting company to assist in the field inspection. During the final commissioning of the plant, Engineer A observed that the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the effluent was frequently above the acceptable limit.

Engineer A contacted the design office at his engineering company and he soon realized, after reviewing the case with an environmental consultant, that the plant had been designed for average flows, but several food-processing industries in the municipality occasionally fed “slugs” of raw sewage to the plant. The biochemical oxygen demand would increase rapidly when one of these slugs arrived, and would remain above the regulated limit for a few days, before moving back down below the limit. Engineer A concluded that, on days when these slugs were being processed, the plant would not meet the effluent quality standards. The specifications had been set by the engineering company’s design office, based on average sewage flow estimates. Engineer A was then faced with a serious decision: Should he disclose this deficiency to the municipality (the client), thus implicating the engineering company (his employer) as responsible for the inadequate design; should he selectively sample the plant effluent between slug discharges, thus falsifying the true nature of the problem; or should he, perhaps, provide “average” readings in his commissioning report, which might be a defensible compromise?

Question: What should Engineer A do in this situation?

Outcome & Author’s Comments

Case Study 3 – Assisting a Non-Engineer to Practise Engineering
(This is Case Study F.24 on the CD-ROM)

Statement of the Case: Engineer A, a consultant in process control, was hired by the manager of a manufacturing firm to assist in developing a new production line for hydrocarbon distillation, involving high temperatures and toxic chemicals. The manager introduced her to the company’s Chief Engineer B, with whom she was to work. Engineer B gave her a business card, which indicated that he was a Professional Engineer, and the sign on his office door said “Chief Engineer.” The project required Engineer A to design the new production line in conjunction with Engineer B, who would then supervise the construction and commissioning of the new line.

Engineer A worked with Engineer B for several months, designing the new production line, and gradually became aware that Engineer B lacked engineering knowledge in several basic areas. When she mentioned this to the manager privately, the manager confided that Engineer B was not actually a licensed engineer, but he had “many years” of experience, was very good at producing and selling the company’s product, and the “Chief Engineer” designation gave him credibility with customers. The manager was aware that the new line involved some dangerous components, and that was why Engineer A was hired. She was to ensure that the dangerous parts of the line were designed properly and to sign any documents that required a Professional Engineer’s qualifications. When Engineer A suggested that this was a rather unprofessional arrangement, the manager pointed out that since she was designing the equipment, no harm was being done. Moreover, if Engineer B were a Professional Engineer, the services of Engineer A probably would not be required. Although Engineer A continued to believe that this arrangement was unprofessional, she took no action to report B to the provincial Association.

Question: Should Engineer A have reported the illegal actions of “Chief Engineer” B?

Outcome & Author’s Comments

Case Study 4 – Meddling or Extending Public Knowledge?
(This is Case Study F.25 on the CD-ROM)

Statement of the Case: Geologist A was a ground-water specialist, licensed and employed as a geological consultant in several provinces. While working on a project to develop safe water wells in a remote municipality Geologist A was dismayed by several ignorant comments made by the political candidate running for election in that riding. The candidate made several rash and uninformed statements about oil-, gas-, and water-well drilling and criticized the provincial ministry responsible for monitoring these activities. Among other demands, the candidate called for the abolition of all regulations on well drilling, claiming that they caused needless delays in developing the province’s resources. Geologist A recognized these comments as absurd election rhetoric, but was amazed by the number of people who called radio talk-shows and wrote letters to the local newspaper supporting this opinion. The editor of the newspaper also wrote a stirring editorial supporting the candidate’s position.

Geologist A, although very busy with the ground-water development, nevertheless felt a professional obligation to correct these rash statements. As a professional geoscientist, with many years in this field, Geologist A wrote a polite but factual letter to the newspaper, with copies to the candidate and to the party leader, explaining that, unless well-drilling is carefully controlled, dangerous pollution of the water table can occur. Oil and gas can migrate from one stratum to another, and since drilling operations usually include the injection of various fluids, such as drilling “mud,” or salt water (to increase pressure and production) these fluids could migrate to the water table as well. Since the municipality was presently seeking to develop more ground-water sources, such pollution was not an idle or academic matter. Moreover, Geologist A concluded the letter by emphasizing that unless well sites are carefully documented, including precise locations and the collection of data from well logs, then the search for new resources would be seriously impeded. To improve the development of resources, the province should really engage more professionals to examine methods of improving the monitoring process, thus maintaining control without impeding developers.

The newspaper published the letter, and future editorials did not mention the issue again. The politicians acknowledged the receipt of Geologist A’s letter, without comment. The candidate who had proposed the reduction in drilling regulations was narrowly defeated in the election.

Question: Although Geologist A was licensed in the province on a temporary permit, he was actually a resident of another province. As a non-resident geoscientist, was it ethical of him to express an opinion on a technical topic during an election, or was he meddling?

Outcome & Author’s Comments