University of Peradeniya Flint Water Crisis Technical Report

User Generated

purzvratvarre

Engineering

University of Peradeniya

Description

The work is to write a 4 page technical report on the topic "flint water crisis". The details such as my topic, format and what to include are here attached with alongside a friend's assignment sample. I need the full report done withing 12 hrs. And I need a one small paragraph about your opinion why did this happened and who is responsible following this withing 4 hrs. So the full report in 12 hrs and one para in 4 hrs. 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

From: To: Dr. Bradley Harris Date: 3/17/2019 Assignment 3 Engineering Ethics Introduction: For this assignment our group was tasked with judging the keystone XL pipe line construction in accordance to the ethics of the engineering societies, and the realities of everyday life. The ethical guidelines that will be used as a rubric are AIChE code of ethics, and the NSPE code of ethics. The Keystone Pipeline XL is an addition to the already existing Keystone Pipeline. This addition is essentially a short cut that would lessen the length of pipe the oil needs to travel through. The NSPE and AIChE code of ethics directly apply to this project because engineers are going to build and design this pipeline. While the pipeline has received a lot of political attention, it is still industrial in nature, so the code of ethics or laws of the governments involved will not be considered. The NSPE and the AIChE code of ethics are easily available online and can be found in the references section of this report. As this is not a disaster that has already happened, rather a decision being made right now in our government this report will first outline all found and thought of pros and cons to the XL pipeline with discussion and analysis, then there will be a final discussion weighing the discussed pros and cons, discussing liability should a disaster occur, analysis of the ethical dilemma, and forming a final answer, and finally a conclusion where other group members viewpoints and voting distribution will be discussed. Discussion: Background to the Arguments Associated with the Pipeline: The main arguments for the pipeline construction are centered around growing the economy and providing energy independence for the United States. An honorable and worthy goal. While the main arguments against the pipeline center around the environmental effects of the pipeline, and the general direction and atmosphere the construction of the pipeline will produce. These to poles of interest are the deciding factors on the pipeline construction, with someone’s main interest being the deciding factor on their opinion. Pros of Building the Pipeline: The purposed pipeline project will add a significant amount of jobs to the us economy. A document released by the state department environmental review said the project would create 42,000 temporary jobs and contribute 3.4 billion to the American economy. Both numbers are quite substantial and would help to improve the American economy. But most of the jobs generated by the project are temporary, such as construction or food service for the construction workers. The number of permanent jobs that would be created is stated as 35. A far less impressive number in comparison. The strengthening of the American economy claimed by supporters of the pipeline is small, and not a long-term strategy. It makes jobs quick, and then they go away. The oil industry is not a big producer of jobs as of late, from 2005 to 2010 oil companies such as ExxonMobile, Shell, and BP have laid off around 11,200 workers despite making $546 billion of profit in that time period. This shows that the oil industry is not a sufficient conduit for creating jobs and strengthening the economy. People wanting to do so should look elsewhere for the changes they desire. The United States, and most of the world, has been tied to the middle east for oil imports. One of the benefits of building the pipeline is the continued partnership with the United States and Canada for oil. Meaning energy independence from the middle east, a very desirable thing for any government. The new addition to the keystone pipeline would help create energy independence for the United States. All of this is true, but what we are looking for is energy independence. There is the argument that this can be achieved in many other ways than through stable imports of crude oil. If the United States were to start making investments into cleaner forms of energy, ones that do not need a foreign supply, energy independence can be achieved. Which makes the argument irrelevant. Add on the fact that fossil fuel is a limited resource, and that most countries and people are making steps to one day be independent of fossil fuels entirely, and the argument for the keystone pipeline fall apart. It is a short-term investment, that will help the economy for a time, but will hinder the economy in the future. Adding more infrastructure that will become obsolete, more steadfast ways of obtaining energy that will slow innovation, and more work that needs to be done in the overall scheme. If we are going to make the switch from fossil fuel to alternative energy, which by most accounts seems to be the direction the world has agreed to go, why are we still investing in old methods when we know they will become obsolete. Why not spur the coming changes? Cons of Building the Pipeline: The most important reasons for not building the pipeline center around the environmental effect of the pipeline. From very immediate environmental disasters, to long acting, but still apparent environmental effects to our economy and the livability of the planet. The proposed pipeline crosses through many endangered species migration paths or permanent habitats. A total of 23 endangered species will be affected by the construction, and continued existence, of the pipeline. If the pipeline is built the result will be much habitat loss for these endangered species. While endangering wildlife and the environment is not stated anywhere in AIChE or NSPE’s code of ethics, if you think about how fragile ecosystems are and how the damage could end up ruining the ecosystem which is a part of people’s lives and lively hoods, it falls under the tenant of not endangering the public’s health and welfare. Wildlife is a resource to the people around them, if you destroy a community’s resources you destroy the community. The impacts do not just effect wildlife, the new pipeline will be built over many rivers and water ways including the Missouri and Yellow stone rivers. As well as a massive aquifer, an environment that naturally filters water, the Ogallala aquifer is directly underneath a large stretch of the keystone pipeline expansion. This aquifer supplies drinking water to 2 million people of the United States. Any oil spill, or spill of any chemical used in the process will result in large water poisoning, environmental damage, and loss of yield to any agricultural facilities located in the area. The mixture of bitumen being pumped through these pipes is an acidic mixture, making the pipeline more likely to leak due to corrosion. Making the proposed pipeline even more worrisome. The keystone pipeline that has already been established had one leak in 2017 that let lose 210,000 gallons of oil. The pipeline was evaluated by members of the Environmental Resources Management (ERM) agency was tasked with assessing the pipelines safety and other related concerns. Later it was found that this agency and others that had been contracted to evaluate the project have had workers who worked for TransCanada Corp the company behind the Keystone pipeline, including the persons who evaluated the pipeline. This is a conflict of interest, and should have been stated when the company was contracted. A statement about the conflict of interest should have been made, and this should be seen as a deceptive act. Some of the arguments for the pipeline state that the pipeline is safe, they are equipped with monitoring sensors that send data to satellites every 5 seconds. But if that is the case, how did the 210,000 gallon spill occur? Can this pipeline really be thought of as safe with the known environmental and public health consequences? Any spill from the pipeline would also be worse than a spill from any other oil source. As most oil clean up methods rely on the fact that oil floats on water. Oil sand is denser than water and sinks, making the outcome of any spill occurring much worse for the environment. There are massive public health and safety problems with building the Keystone pipeline XL. To be able to enter and operate in any UTC engineering lab we are required to take a lab safety course and pass a safety exam. During the course we were taught to think of risk on a twoaxis chart. With consequence associated if accident occurs on once axis, and likelihood of accident happening on the other. A similar graph is shown below. While this graph is not exactly applicable to the conversation we’re having it does bring up a good point. If there is such high consequence of a failure from this pipeline should we even consider it? Any oil leaked by the pipe over the aquifer will no doubt ably poison many peoples drinking water. Even if the likelihood is said to be low, the consequences of just one spill are massive. Both the AIChE and NSPE ethical code have for the first rule to hold paramount the safety and health of the public. The risk associated with the pipeline does not hold the public’s safety paramount, it is an afterthought. Aside from the safety issues of the actual pipe, the Keystone pipeline construction would be detrimental to communities and societies even if the pipeline worked perfect all the time. During the refinement of oil sand roughly 17% more carbon emissions are generated. While that isn’t a problem in itself, there has been increasing studies on the effect of climate change brought about by carbon emissions and other green house gasses. These studies show that as the climate warms, there will be more severe weather, more hurricanes, more floods, more droughts. “Superstorm Sandy alone caused an estimated $80 billion in damage. The drought that affected 80% of US farmland last summer destroyed a quarter of the US corn crop and did at least $20 billion damage to the economy”. The damages of climate change are real and growing. If the decision goes to build the Keystone XL that will only further root us in fossil fuel. Causing more climate change, meaning more damage to people’s finances and wellbeing. The good for the economy is essentially canceled out if not over run by the negative effects of associated climate change. While the keystone pipeline is not directly responsible for all of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change, it still maters. It will set up an infrastructure for using this less efficient, dirty fuel. Paving the way for more and more of this oil sand to be used. Ultimately making the American people less likely to change. It’s not enough to simply think of the right way to do something and then tell others to do it, in order for people to change you have to make the right decision the most convenient and easy decision. Building the Keystone XL pipeline will only lead to an increased dependency on fossil fuels, which will lead to more environmental damage and lower quality of life for the United States. Conclusion: After consideration of all the arguments for and against the Keystone XL pipeline, it was decided that the pipeline should not be built. There will be too many adverse effects on the environment from the construction of the pipeline and too much risk associated with the new pipeline due to the location of the pipeline track over the aquifers. If any damage were to occur to wildlife or the public, the associations that should be liable are the TransCanada Corp for building the pipeline and Environmental Resources Management for determining the pipeline to be safe. The liable associations are liable to fix any environmental harm they cause, any peoples livelihood they interfered with, and any damages caused to the people living in the areas affected by the aquifers. References: https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipelineentail.html https://opinionfront.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-project-pros-cons-facts https://cpb-use1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/0/841/files/2014/11/20111003_oilpipeline_map.jpg https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/usgs-ogallala-aquifer-waterquality-currently-acceptable/article_f9a83f7a-5f6b-5ede-b666-db3b9ea593e7.html https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&v ed=2ahUKEwi7x9b37ozhAhXomOAKHWJ0CvcQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpee kin.co%2Frisk-management-table-template%2Frisk-assessment-management-table-template-forresume-high-school-student-work-health-andsafety%2F&psig=AOvVaw05cq5Q3VDXMcm_5MUtXSOy&ust=1553038894558786 Due Date: Thursday February 13th, 2020 In 2-4 pages (12 pt font, Times New Roman, Single Space), summarize the case study discussed amongst your group in class using the outline provided below. I. Introduction Discuss the groups, organizations, societies, and bodies that provide ethical guidelines for the relevant project area or occupation area (AICHE, NSPE, etc). Mention any publications or means of access to the guidelines. II. Discussion Discuss the group's answers to the following questions: 1) How could this have been prevented? 2) Who was fesponsible? 3) What further actions should the responsible party take now? Use the problem-solving approach to engineering ethics to analyze the ethical dilemma. State the problem and provide relevant facts. Discuss the opposing viewpoints proposed by the group. III. Conclusions State the prevailing viewpoint agreed upon by the group. What was the voting distribution? What were the dissenting opinions? . . . . . 1) How could this be have been prevented? Lazy Avoidance Moved the blame Should have treated water better Used water from a different place Racism? 2) Who was responsible? Health and safety Broken procedures? Corrupt government False information 3) What further actions should the responsible party take now • Replacing damaged pipes Water level standards Health programs Public information . . . . Flint Water Crisis In 2014, drinking water source for city of FmE ME changed from Lake Turoni and Detroit River to Flm River Lead contammation in water supply, exposing over 100.000 residents. WATER ir
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
4 pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi, find the attached paper.

FLINT WATER CRISIS

1

Flint Water Crisis
Name
Institution
Date

Authors Note

FLINT WATER CRISIS

2

Introduction
The ability to supply portable water to residents is a key characteristics that defines a
successful society. Technological advancements have made it possible for the rapid delivery of
water to millions of people in a densely populated area. Over 26 million people in the United
States depend on tap water from community water systems. Most communities in the U.S. get
water from large municipal water suppliers. 82% of the U.S. population gets water from 8% of
community water systems. Community systems are considered to be highly effective in
distributing a health-promoting substance at one to a community. They are also extremely
efficient in distributing poison. The Flint Water Crisis is among the greatest public failures to a
modern water supply. The crisis highlights several regulatory failures relating to federal drinking
water regulation as well as the failure to interpret and enforce the regulations. The regulatory
failure led to dangerous exposure to unsafe drinking water. Most of the affected people lived in
were poor racial minorities. The trend of hazardous drinking water tends to recur in such
communities.
Discussion
The water crisis started in 2014 when the supply of water to the city was switched from
the Detroit system to the Flint River to save cost. The inability to treat and test water adequately
contributed to the major quality and health issues among the residents of Flint. The government
officials chronically ignored, overlooked and discounted the problems even as numerous
complaints were made by Flint residents (Baum, Bartram & Hrudey, 2016). The residents
complained of discolored, foul-smelling and off-tasting piped water in their homes for 18
months. The resultant effect of the unsafe water to the residents included hair loss, skin rashes,
and itchy skin. According to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, the inadequate response of
the government on the Flint Crisis was due to systematic racism (Masten, Davies & Mcelmurry,
2016). Research studies indicate that contaminated water adversely affects the health of the
children by tripling the incidence of elevated levels of lead in the blood.
The water problem was common in Flint before the occurrence of the crisis. Many local
industries have been disposing of waste in the river for over a century. The city waste
management plant deposited sewage into the river. Urban and agricultural runoff and toxins from
leaching landfills also found their way into the river. The water crisis erupted due to the need to
cut costs since the city was cash-strapped and shouldered a $25 billion deficit. A tragic decision
was made in 2013 to put an end to the provision of piped treated water from Detroit in favor of a
cheaper option (Pieper, Tang & Edwards, 2017). The residents of Flint temporarily received
water from the Flint ...


Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags