Você está na página 1de 28

UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA

(former CITY COLLEGE OF MANILA) A.J. Villegas St., cor. C. Muoz-Palma St., Mehan Gardens, Ermita, Manila

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS


By: De Guzman, Evans Guillena, Kenneth Marcial, Fairy Jeannand Navarro, Michael Jerome Roque, Roman CO-52

September 13, 2013

Engr. Mona Earl Bayona Instructor

CASE 1 The Aberdeen Three

By: Fairy Jeannand A. Marcial


CASE: The Aberdeen Proving Ground is a U.S. Army facility where, among other things, chemical weapons are developed. The U.S. Army has used the facility to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems with a part of the facility known as the Pilot Plant, including the following: Flammable and cancer-causing substances were left in the open. Chemicals that would become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room. Drums of toxic substances were leaking.

There were chemicals everywheremisplaced, unlabeled, or poorly contained. When part of the roof collapsed, smashing several chemical drums stored below, no one cleaned up or moved the spilled substance and broken containers for weeks. When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river, state and federal investigators were summoned to investigate. They discovered that the chemical retaining dikes were in a state of disrepair and that the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corroded, resulting in chemicals leaking into the ground. On June 28, 1988, after 2 years of investigation, three chemical engineersCarl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the Aberdeen Threewere criminally indicted for illegally handling, sorting, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Although the three engineers did not

actually handle the chemicals, they were the managers with ultimate responsibility for the violations. Investigators for the Department of Justice concluded that no one above them was sufficiently aware of the problems at the Pilot Plant to be assigned responsibility for the violations. The three engineers were competent professionals who played important roles in the development of chemical weapons for the United States. William Dee, the developer of the binary chemical weapon, headed the chemical weapons development team. Robert Lentz was in charge of developing the processes that would be used to manufacture the weapons. Carl Gepp, manager of the Pilot Plant, reported to Dee and Lentz. Six months after the indictment, the Department of Justice took the three defendants to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste. William Dee was found guilty of one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on three counts each of violating the RCRA. Although each faced up to 15 years in prison and $750,000 in fines, they received sentences of 1,000 hours of community service and 3 years probation. The judge justified the relatively light sentences on the grounds of the high standing of the defendants in the community and the fact that they had already incurred enormous court costs. Because the three engineers were criminally indicted, the U.S. Army could not assist them in their legal defense. This was the first criminal conviction of federal employees under RCRA.

Case Study Analysis: I. Timeframe In 1976 congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Its purpose is to provide technical and financial assistance for the development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regulate the management of hazardous waste. September 17, 1985 acid tank leaks into Canal Creek. March 26, 1986 pilot plant shut down. June 28, 1988, Gepp, Dee, and Lentz indicted. January-February 1989, Trial of the "Aberdeen Three." And lastly May 11, 1989 "Aberdeen Three" each sentenced to 1000 hours community service and three years probation.

II.

Viewpoint Organizations and People Involved: Aberdeen Proving Ground US Army facility, which employed the following three civilians: Carl Gepp

Manager at the Pilot plant. He answered to Dee and Lentz. William Dee Developed the binary chemical weapon. He headed the chemical weapons development team.

Robert Lentz In charge of developing the processes that would be used to manufacture chemical weapons.

US Justice Department Jane Barrett - Prosecuting attorney

Chemical professionals have a clear mandate to use their unique position to protect their community and the environment. From the ACS Professional Employment Guidelines: Chemical professionals are responsible for working safely and employing all necessary safety procedures in the course of their professional duties. The employer is responsible for providing physical facilities that enable the chemical professional to work safely, comfortably and efficiently. The chemical professional and the employer should work to reduce risks to the environment.

The employer is responsible for providing appropriate information, physical facilities and equipment that enable the chemical professional to work safely, comfortably and efficiently. The chemical professional is responsible for seeking information on the safe handling of chemicals and equipment with which they work The chemical professional should inform the employer and co-workers in writing and/or verbally, as appropriate, of any immediate or potential safety or health hazards. All appropriate personnel should be trained in the proper handling of material and equipment and all pertinent safety procedures to minimize risks. The chemical professional and the employer should both work to minimize risks to the environment. The chemical professional and the employer should strive to ensure that products and processes are safe and those potential hazards to human health or the environment, including air emissions, water effluents, and discharges to land are minimized, properly identied and handled in such a way as to protect the environment. Employers should conduct appropriate environmental studies to ensure the health and safety of their workers and the surrounding community.

III.

Statement of the Problem

Even if Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three, were not the ones who were performing the illegal acts, they are the managers. They allowed their men to the improper handling, storing, treating and disposing of hazardous waste. All they have to do is to make a request for the Army clean-up funds, but they made no effort to resolve the situation. They did not notice that there is an environmental problem existed on the pilot plant.

IV.

Objectives Must conduct monthly check-up to the plant, to assure that the same problem may not be existed again. Workmen must be knowledgeable to the risks affiliate when improper handling of hazardous waste occurs Managers must be ordered only knowledgeable workmen to do the handling of hazardous wastes Chemical engineers must knew the scope of their responsibilities

V.

Area of Consideration STRENGHTS Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz are Chemical Engineers

WEAKNESSES They have no knowledge about the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) They are not aware of their responsibilities They ordered unknowledgeable workmen to handle and dispose hazardous waste

OPPORTUNITIES If they are aware of they are aware of their responsibilities and if they had knowledge about the RCRA and the risks affiliate of the improper handling of hazardous wastes, there will be no risky situation occur THREATS Their works/actions may result in damaging the environment and can cause illness to the people

VI.

Assumption If the state and federal investigators did not arrived and they will not discovered that the chemicals dikes are unfit, and the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corroded and leaking chemicals into the ground. Greater damages and risks will happen to the environment.

VII.

A.C.A (Alternative Courses of Action)

1. Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz must know their responsibilities, job descriptions. They must also do their jobs 2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act must be strictly informed and implemented specially on the places were handling of hazardous wastes occurs 3. Workmen should be knowledgeable on what are they doing 4. State and Federal investigators must always check/assure the places were proper handling of hazardous wastes are implemented

VIII.

Analysis Alternative Course of Action 1: Advantage 1. The advantage of having some knowledge on what is the job description, and what is the nature of ones job is that none will take the risks. They are the experts in their field. Alternative Course of Action 1: Disadvantages 1. Let say they have the knowledge, but they do not know when and how to apply it 2. Knowing their job description may result in reducing their flexibility 3. The Aberdeen Three may place themselves on the job description, and refuse to do other tasks not listed in the job description.

Alternative Course of Action 2: Advantage 1. Informing someone about the resource conservation and recovery act will lessen the possibility that they can make an mistake that everybody will take the risk. Informing someone is like giving them something that will help them to systematize their jobs Alternative Course of Action 1: Disadvantage 1. On the other hand, giving them information also gives pressure. They are too aware of the possibilities. They always think that they must not make a mistake hence, they arent noticing an error occurs Alternative Course of Action 3: Advantages 1. Workers or employees must have knowledge on what are they doing so that risk affiliate of their wrongdoings will be avoided 2. They can also give information to their co-workers that will smoothen their work 3. Having knowledgeable workers can increase productivity in their work Alternative Course of Action 3: Disadvantage 1. Knowledgeable workers are one of the key success factors of ones company. If they have the knowledge, and know how to apply it, they are considered as the advantage, but if they do not know how to apply their knowledge, that is the time we categorized them as the disadvantage of ones company Alternative Course of Action 4: Advantages

1. The problem can be treated immediately 2. They can give immediate solution as much as possible 3. The risk of having the problem is reduced

Alternative Course of Action 4: Disadvantage 1. For the state and federal investigators to assure that proper handling occurs in the workplace they must install items that will monitor the workers. These items are highly cost in the market. 2. Aside from having the automation monitoring, they must also need to hire people that will double check the monitoring. LEGEND: 1- Poor 2- Weak 3Average 4- Good 5Excellent

B. Matrix

FACTORS
ACCEPTANCE FLEXIBILITY EXPENSES

ACA 1 5 4 0

ACA 2 ACA 3 3 5 4 5 0 0

ACA 4 4 4 4

KNOWLEDGE SATISFACTION RELIABILITY TOTAL

5 3 5 22

5 5 5 22

5 5 5 25

5 5 5 27

IX.

Recommendations: Alternative Course of Action 1: I recommend that Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz must first find out their job description, job responsibilities for them to performed well the tasks assigned to them, and to assure nothing risky will happen again.

Alternative Course of Action 2: I also recommend that the one who manages in informing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) must conduct preliminary and final testing if the companies/workers is almost hundred percent knows it.

Alternative Course of Action 3:

Third I recommend that the company must provide trainings and seminars to the workers that will give added information to them about their jobs and the tragedy it may occurs if they going to continue their wrongdoings.

Alternative Course of Action 4: Lastly I recommend that the state investigators may conduct surprise visiting to the company so that they can see if the company is following the rules of proper handling of hazardous wastes.

X.

Action Plan: Alternative Course of Action 1:

ACTIONS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE

TIME

RESOURCES
Hand-outs that discussed about the rules of RCRA Hand-outs that discussed about the scope of their jobs

SUCCESS INDICATOR

INFORMING ABOUT THE RCRA

RCRA Informer & The Aberdeen Three

Before the start of operations

AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE

INFORMING ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THEIR JOB

The Aberdeen Three and The Company Owner

Before the start of operations

MEETING WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS

The Aberdeen Three and Investigators

Before the start of operations

Contracts that Aberdeen Three agreed in the rules of Investigators

Alternative Course of Action 2:

ACTIONS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE

TIME

RESOURCES

SUCCESS INDICATOR

Conducting Seminars about the RCRA

RCRA Informer & The Company

Before the start of operations

Hand-outs that discussed about the RCRA Hand-outs that discussed about the RCRA

HIGH AVERAGE HIGH

INFORMING ABOUT THE RCRA

The Aberdeen Three and The Company Owner The Aberdeen Three, RCRA Informer & The Company

Before the start of operations

Conducting preliminary and final test to RCRA

Before the start of operations

Questionnaires that will stand if qualify to handle hazardous wastes

Alternative Course of Action 3:

ACTIONS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE

TIME

RESOURCES

SUCCESS INDICATOR

Choosing of Knowledgeable worker

The Aberdeen Three and the workmen

Before the start of operations

Resume of the workers for based purposes Hand-outs that discussed about their jobs

HIGH AVERAGE HIGH

Conducting seminars to workers

The Aberdeen Three and workmen

Before the start of operations

Conducting evaluation to the workers

The Aberdeen Three

Before the start of operations

Evaluation form that will evaluate the performance of the workers

Alternative Course of Action 4:

ACTIONS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE

TIME

RESOURCES

SUCCESS INDICATOR

Hire persons to manually check if the proper hazardous waste is implemented

The RCRA Management

Before the start of operations

Resume of the workers for based purposes

HIGH HIGH HIGH

Install Surveillance

The RCRA Management

Before the start of operations

Newest technology the can monitor all the actions of workers Evaluation form that will evaluate

Conducting evaluation to place

The RCRA Management

Middle of operations

their performance

CASE 3 Bridges

By: Kenneth N. Guillena


CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: I. Time Frame

The case occurred on August 1, 2007 in Minnesota, the I-35W Bridge collapsed during rush hour that result of 13 deaths and multitude of injuries.

II.

Viewpoint

In Minnesota there are over 1,907 bridges that must be monitored, inspected and maintain because of their structural deficiency. With the case occurred on Bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) state that older design Bridges that features unsafe to all vehicles because of the sizes and weight it cannot safely accommodate current traffic volumes. Since the I-35W Bridge constructed, it was inspected every two years for its structural concerns, on most recent conducted the inspection that cited only for the welding detail concerns. At that time the Bridge was rating of poor condition because the state allowed to operate the bridge without any load restrictions. Even there's an irregularity features in the bridge, they didn't monitor the load capacity of it, also did not make any action to fix the problem related in welding details resulting of multitude of injuries and 13 deaths.

III.

S.O.P (Statement of the Problem)

They allowed the bridge to operate without load restriction; they did not conduct any action after they did the inspection even though they already know the problem.

IV.

Objective

They must working to upgrade the bridge. All levels of government must increase the investment, change its transportation behavior and make use of the latest technology to reduce the percentage of bridge accidents in zero percent.

V.

Areas of consideration Strengths The Engineers make the bridge that lasts for 40 years. Weaknesses The Department of Transportation (D.O.T) has lack of actions in every inspection for the maintenance of the bridge.

Opportunities They have to improved the bridge to make it better and helpful to their citizens. Threats It can produce accidents because of the lack maintenance for the bridge.

VI.

Assumption (optional) There are so many technical hitches with the old design and construction of the bridge inspections so the government must have an action immediately to avoid accidents.

VII.

A.C.A (Alternative Course of Action) A.C.A 1: The government use good quality of equipment so they made better bridges to avoid accident.

CASE 5 Cartex

By: Navarro
CASE:

Michael

Jerome

O.

Ben is assigned by his employer, Cartex, to work on an improvement to an ultrasonic rangefinding device. While working on the improvement, he gets an idea for a modification of the equipment that might be applicable to military submarines. If this is successful, it could be worth a lot of money to his company. However, Ben is a pacifist and does not want to contribute in any way to the development of military hardware. So Ben neither develops the idea himself nor mentions it to anybody else in the company. Ben has signed an agreement that all inventions he produces on the job are the property of the company, but he does not believe the agreement applies to his situation because (1) his idea is not developed and (2) his superiors know of his antimilitary sentiments. Yet he wonders if he is ethically right in concealing his idea from his employers. An interesting historical precedent: Leonardo Da Vinci recorded in his

journal that he had discovered how to make a vessel that can move about underwater a kind of submarine. However, he refused to share this idea with others on the grounds that he feared it would be used for immoral purposes. I do not publish or divulge on account of the evil nature of men who would practice assassinations at the bottom of the seas, by breaking the ships in their lowest parts and sinking them together with the crews who are in them.

Case Study Analysis: I. Time Frame This happens when Ben has been assigned by his employer Cartex to work for the improvement of an ultrasonic range-finding device. II. Viewpoint Ben He is a company employee that is working under military for the development of their strategy. He have a brilliant idea about it but he considers two (2) factors, the following are:

1. His idea is not developed or tested 2. His superior knows of his antimilitary sentiments because he is a pacifist III. Statement of the problem Ben doesn't want to share his idea to his supervisor or co-employee about improving the military devices because it can be use in the wrong way so it might endanger innocent people. IV. Objective('s) Ben must have trust to the military. And he must share his idea to the military so they can improve their strategy and devices if they will encounter terrorist in future. V. Areas of Consideration Strengths Ben came up with a great idea about improving the military devices and strategies. He stands for what he believes and that's against violence.

Weaknesses

Ben doesn't trust the military forces for his idea even though he is a employee of a company that is under military.

Opportunities If his ideas became successful, Ben and his company will gain a lot of money. The military forces will gain the increase of effectiveness for their devices and strategy. Threats If Ben's idea was put up in the wrong hands it can cause danger to innocent people.

VI.

Assumption If Ben will give his ideas to the military he must come up with a counter plan so that even the military uses his idea to evildoings he can assure for the less casualties.

VII.

A.C.A.(Alternative Courses of Action) A.C.A. 1:

The military first must do something to gain Ben's trust so that they can use his ideas to improve the military devices and they must not show any single interest for using his ideas in wrong doing. A.C.A. 2: Offer Ben to have more salary other than the one in the contract so that Ben will cooperate in improving the military devices. VIII. Analysis A.C.A. 1: Advantage If the military gain trust of Ben little by little then, in the near event Ben can share his ideas to the military for their devices. A.C.A. 1: Disadvantage If they have to gain the trust of Ben little by little they must be patient of that cause it will take long to gain trust. A.C.A. 2: Advantage Ben will help the military because of the high offer of money to him.

A.C.A. 2: Disadvantage Ben will think that the military is eager to get his idea for evildoing because of paying more than what is in the contract.

B. Matrix

Factors
Acceptability E fficiency E xpense Flexibility S atisfaction S trength T O T A L

A.C.A.1
4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2

A.C.A. 2
3 4 5 3 3 3 2 1

LEGEND: IX. Recommendation Ben must cooperate to the military in the sake of his fellow countrymen against terrorist. If the idea of Ben is used to do evil works he must have a counter plan about it because 1. Poor 2. Weak 3. Average 4. Good 5. Excellent

he is the one invented the device so he is the only one who knows the weakness of it. By following the A.C.A.1 and Ben see that the military has a good intension in using his inventions eventually Ben is the one who will reach to them for his ideas.

X.

Action Plan Action Persons Responsible Time Resources Any ideas that can help the effectiveness of the military force Success Indicator

Developing the device

Ben and its Company

Start of contract until finishing it

High

Quality assurance of the device

Engineers

Yearly

Standard measure to know that the device is still working Ideas that can counter the first idea (if the device is used in wrong doings)

High

Counter measure for the device (Optional)

Ben and its Company

After the improve device is complete

Average