Table of Contents1 Executive Summary..........................................................................................................3

1.1 Background Information.............................................................................................3

1.2 Organizations and People Involved...........................................................................3

1.3 Problem Statement....................................................................................................4

1.4 Moral Issues..............................................................................................................4

1.5 Proposal.....................................................................................................................4

2 Discussion.........................................................................................................................5

2.1 Conceptual and Factual Issues.................................................................................5

2.2 Ethical Considerations...............................................................................................7

2.2.1 Act-Utilitarianism.................................................................................................7

2.2.2 Rule-Utilitarianism..............................................................................................8

2.2.3 Kantianism..........................................................................................................9

2.2.4 Justice Theory..................................................................................................10

2.2.5 Virtue Ethics.....................................................................................................10

2.2.6 Rights Ethics.....................................................................................................12

2.3 Workplace Responsibilities and Rights....................................................................13

2.3.1 Loyalty..............................................................................................................13

2.3.2 Responsibilities as an Engineer.......................................................................13

2.4 Social Experimentation............................................................................................15

2.5 Consequences.........................................................................................................16

2.6 What Could Have Been Done Differently? (Solutions)............................................16

2.6.1 The US Army....................................................................................................16

2.6.2 The Three Managers........................................................................................17

2.6.3 The Justice Department...................................................................................17

2.6.4 RCRA and Associations Related to Hazardous Waste....................................18

3 Conclusion......................................................................................................................18

4 References......................................................................................................................18

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Background Information1

The Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland is a US Army facility where chemical weapons

were developed. Ever since World War II, the US Army has used this facility to develop, test,

store and dispose of chemical weapons. The facility, known as the Pilot Plant, had three

managers who were also chemical engineers that were in charge of the development of

chemical weapons.

Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at the facility, which

include:

1. Flammable and cancer-causing substances left in the open.

2. Chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room.

3. Drums of toxic substances were leaking.

4. 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.

On September 17, 1985, an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a

nearby river, state and federal investigators arrived and discovered that the chemical

retaining dikes were unfit, and the system designed to contain and treat hazardous

chemicals was corroded and leaking chemicals into the ground.

1.2 Organizations and People InvolvedAberdeen Proving Grounds – US Army facility which employed the following three civilians:

Robert Lenz – A chemical engineer who was in charge of developing the processes that

would be used to manufacture chemical weapons.

William Dee – A chemical engineer who headed the chemical weapons development team.

Carl Gepp – Chemical Engineer. He answered to Dee and Lentz.

US Justice Department

Jane Barrett – Prosecuting attorney.

1 Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering, “The Aberdeen Three”, Texas A&M University, USA, August 2007.

1.3 Problem StatementWhat are the responsibilities of the three engineers, and which ones should hold precedence

over the other if they are in conflict?

Who is responsible for the hazardous activities that were being conducted in the plant?

1.4 Moral Issues1. How does the implied social contract of professionals apply to this case?

2. Does loyalty towards completing a military mission make it acceptable to neglect

public safety?

3. Is anyone ever too far removed from the outside world that they can ignore their

duties towards the safety of the public?

4. What professional responsibilities did the three engineer neglect?

5. Was the three engineers’ decision to ignore the safety of their subordinates morally

right?

6. Were the sentences dealt too lenient or too harsh?

7. Is it right to reduce the three engineers sentences because they were high standing

figures in society?

8. As an employee working in the plant who had a duty towards the three engineers,

should they reveal to the press about the hazardous working conditions in the plant?

9. Is it responsible for the US Army to leave the management of the plant solely on the

three engineers without conducting their own periodic safety checks?

10. Were the plant workers right to go to the press about safety concerns in the plant?

1.5 ProposalWe will look at these issues from an engineering ethics perspective; we will use ethical

theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, etc. to evaluate the moral decisions

made in this case.

2 Discussion

2.1 Conceptual and Factual IssuesIn order to fully understand the case, we must first clarify the conceptual and factual issues

relating to this case.

What constitutes as “chemical hazardous waste? Were the chemicals in the Pilot Plant

hazardous?

A chemical waste is considered hazardous if it is either listed in one of the lists found in

Federal or State regulations or if it exhibits one or more of the four following characteristics:

(i) ignitable – liquids with a flash point below 60°C, (ii) corrosive – aqueous waste with a pH

less than or equal to 2 or greater or equal to 12.5, (iii) reactive – wastes that are unstable,

explosive, and capable of detonation or reacts violently with water, and (iv) toxic – chemicals

that poses a hazard to health or the environment, or contains concentrations of heavy

metals.

Chemicals in the Pilot Plant that were flammable and cancer-causing were left in the open.

Furthermore, chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room. Drums of

toxic substances were leaking and there were chemicals everywhere – misplaced, unlabeled

or poorly contained.

Were the chemicals in the plant managed according to available safety standards?

In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) came into place. According

to this Act, discarded materials must be safely disposed, and the management hazardous

waste be regulated. RCRA also implemented criminal fines for violations of the open

dumping or hazardous waste disposal guidelines.

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. All the

managers had to do was make a request for Army clean up funds but instead made no effort

to resolve the situation.

When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river, state and

federal investigators arrived and discovered that the chemical retaining dikes were unfit, and

the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corroded and leaking

chemicals into the ground.

Were the three engineers really unaware of the existence of RCRA?

Throughout the case, the three engineers maintained that they had no knowledge of RCRA.

However, all containers of hazardous chemical have labels which state that the chemicals

must be disposed of according to RCRA requirements. One possible answer is that since

they did not hold their responsibilities to the public as engineers as high on their list of

priorities, they did not bother to research existing laws and regulations that were related to

public safety.

Whether or not they really had no knowledge of the RCRA, as defendants they cannot

escape liability by claiming ignorance of the law.

Vicarious liability

It means a person is responsible for the act or omission of another even though he may not

be at fault especially between the parties of employer-employee where the employer is held

responsible for the negligent act of his employee done in the course his employment;

principal-agent where agent does an act in the course of his agency.

Therefore, according to the law although the managers did not directly handle the chemicals,

they managed those who did and therefore bore the responsibility.

Chemical Weapons

Chemical weapons (CW) are formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They are

classified as weapons of mass destruction, and have been "condemned by the civilized

world". Chemical weapons have been used in the past, and preparedness doctrine

anticipates their potential for future use. Numerous international agreements are in force with

regard to chemical weapons, and recent history has shown fatal consequences to a former

head of state for violations of such.

2.2 Ethical Considerations

2.2.1 Act-UtilitarianismWas the three engineers’ decision to ignore the safety hazards in the plant ethically correct?

The following are the consequences of their decision:

GOOD BADPeople directly involved (three engineers, plant workers, US Army, public)

- The three engineers have less work

- US Army saves money

- Plant workers are put at risk to various health risks (cancer, etc.)

- The plant may explode due to unmanaged chemicals, likely to cause deaths

- Pollution to the environment- Public safety is at risk

(contaminated rivers pose health risks)

- The engineers might lose their licenses.

- High medical costs to treat injuries.

- High legal fees if prosecuted.People indirectly involved (Government, RCRA officials, family members)

- Family members experience trauma from losing family members

- Government have to clean up the site if anything happens (explosions, etc.) which costs money

- Integrity of RCRA is tarnished if the safety hazards were not discovered.

The bad consequences of the three engineers’ decision to ignore the safety hazards in the

plant clearly outweigh the good ones. In this situation, most of the consequences are long

term. The loss of lives or injuries is likely to be permanent and chemical pollution takes a

very long time to clean, if ever, possible.

These consequences are also far reaching to people who are indirectly involved. Family

members of victims lose the breadwinner of their family, the government would incur high

costs from having to clean up the mess, and the reputation of the US Army and RCRA would

be tarnished.

2.2.2 Rule-UtilitarianismLooking at this case from a rule-utilitarianism point of view, many codes of ethics were

breached. For example, the following codes that are taken from the American Institute of

Chemical Engineers (AIChE) were clearly violated:

1. “Chemical engineers should hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the

public and protect the environment in performance of their professional duties.”

The three chemical engineers which are professionals should have had the knowledge of the

hazardous chemical stored in the plant. They should be careful and alert with the chemical

and take all necessary safety steps to protect the workers in the plant and be concern with

the condition of the plant from time to time.

2. “Formally advise their employers/clients if they perceive that a consequence of their

duties will adversely affect the present/future health/safety of their colleagues or the

public.”

The managers of the pilot plant should have reported to their superior about the conditions of

the plant so that actions can be taken to cure it before it is too late. Carl breaks the law and

by not reporting, he commits a lie by omitting it in the report.

3. Accept responsibility for their actions, seek and heed critical review of their work/offer

objective criticism of the work of others.

They should not take environmental matters lightly and environment care as their most vital

responsibilities. They should have taken into consideration the safety of the plant and the

condition of the plant. When the chemicals spilled, actions should have been taken. They

should not store the reactive chemicals together with the knowledge they have learned.

4. Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees,

avoiding conflicts of interest and never breaching confidentiality.

"The Moral Status of Loyalty", the very definition of loyalty has so many dimensions and

interpretations that one must be extremely careful before jumping to any conclusions about

what one owe one’s company or one’s professional colleagues in situations. You are in the

best position to judge your exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency emphasizes one

final point…supervisors should be especially careful.

2.2.3 KantianismFrom a Kantianism point of view, the three engineers should only have done onto others as

he would to himself. The following analysis shows that their actions were wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Categorical Imperative (1st formulation)

Question: Can a person rely on his own judgment whether or not something is up to proper

safety standards?

Proposed rule: “We may merely rely on our own expertise rather than EPA regulation on

hazardous materials.”

Universalize rule: All engineers may rely on their own expertise rather than follow EPA

regulations on hazardous materials.

It is unlikely that Gepp et al. would approve such a rule. Consider e.g. engineers working

with nuclear waste.

Therefore, the theory is flawed. Ignoring the RCRA was a violation of ethical duty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second formulation states that we should treat others always as an end and never as a

means. The following analysis shows that the three engineers’ action is wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Categorical Imperative (2nd formulation)

The three engineers ignored the required safety measures of handling hazardous chemicals

to develop chemical weapons for the US Army. He attempted to deceive the public about the

risks involved. He treated the public as a means to an end.

End: the development, testing, storing and disposal of chemical weapons.

Means: the public who are put to risk

Therefore, what the three engineers did was wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.2.4 Justice TheoryAccording to John Rawls’ principles of justice:

1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar

liberties for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the

greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and

positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity (Difference Principle).

The first principle states that the public should be free from unwarranted state interference

with their lives. When the chemicals start to leak, it will negatively affect the lives of the

nearby public. Therefore, the mishandling of chemicals by the three engineers is wrong.

Secondly, the three engineers are in a position of higher social and economic standing.

However, their work does not raise the standard of living of people who are worst off. This

violates section 2 (a) since plant workers continue be exposed daily to safety hazards, and

the people downstream the Canal Creek has lost their clean water supply.

What about the Pilot Plant itself? The chemical wastes that it produces degrade the

environment for nearby towns and families but provide jobs for already well paid professional

such as the three engineers. By principle 2 (a) of John Rawls’ theory, the plant should not

make life better off for the people who are already well off but does nothing for those who

are already at a disadvantage. Therefore, the plant itself should be shut down.

2.2.5 Virtue EthicsVirtue ethics say that good character is central to morality. Actions are right that manifest

good character traits (virtue), and are bad that display bad character traits (vices).

A careful analysis shows us that the three managers were displaying a variety of vices

(morally undesirable habits).

Dishonesty. The way that the three civilian managers misuse the truth is lying. They

overlooked the effects of the chemicals and proper storage methods even though they were

knowledgeable about them. Dishonesty is wrong due to the bad consequences. Dishonesty

would erode the confidence of the public towards engineering professionalism. Besides that,

the dishonesty of the managers to reveal unreliable information would mislead the fellow

employees. It also undermined informed decision making as the decision made based on

wrong incomplete information. On the other hand, the action of the three managers may lead

negative effects to the safety of workers exposed to hazardous and toxic chemicals.

Unreliable. Reliability is another important virtue; the concealing of facts that the hazardous

and toxic chemicals were mixed together and stored in same room without being labeled and

which were leaking into a local river is shows that they were unreliable. The three managers

didn’t show their reliability in doing proper storage method. It can be proven via the

prosecution for violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. But the three

managers still claimed that they were not aware that the plant’s storage practices were

illegal and that they did things according to accepted practices at the Pilot Plant. This actions

tarnishes the reliability of the three managers.

Irresponsible. The three managers had overlooked the maintenance of external tank which

is used to store sulfuric acid that had leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river. Their

irresponsible action had threatened the lives in the river and indirectly affecting the life of the

residents around Aberdeen. On the other hand, they put the workers in a risk that exposed

to hazardous and toxic chemicals which may cause cancers or died. The three were

ultimately responsible for how the chemicals were stored and for the maintenance of the

safety equipment. As a result, these three engineers were responsible for not being aware of

the consequences that are related to hazardous chemicals and making arrangements for

safe disposal. Moreover, they cannot be considered foreign part of the society as their acts

have a direct or indirect effect on the society itself.

In a related case, the “Leaking Waste Containers” incident2 showed common factors in the

area of acceptance of responsibilities and the effects on technical ethics. Both cases had

engineers who displayed irresponsible behavior when dealing with leaking chemical wastes.

Unfairness. Fairness is one of the important virtue values that contribute to this case of “The

Aberdeen Three” by being fair to the safety and the welfare for the environment and the

public. The three managers should think and consider about how their action will affect

others. This can be proven when they were illegally storing, treating, and disposing of

hazardous wastes. They had no idea that their action would bring the affects and influences

towards the surrounding populations and environment. The unfairness may threaten the

lives of those who are directly or indirectly involved in this case.

2 James J., (2008). “Leaking Waste Containers”, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, 2008. http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/edu/resources/csaindex/Containers.aspx [Retrieved 11 October 2010].

2.2.6 Rights EthicsFrom a rights ethics viewpoint, many rights were violated. These include:

1. Respect for the public’s rights to life

Safe products should be produced in order to protect the safety of the public. The U.S. Army

should not develop chemical weapons which definitely will harm the health of the public.

Besides, the three engineers who assigned to develop the chemical weapons should not

violate the rules of RCRA in handling, sorting and disposing of hazardous wastes.

2. Rights not to be injured

The workers in the Pilot Plant have the rights not to be injured by the working circumstances.

However, the three engineers did not take the responsibilities to clean up the chemicals that

dripped down from the leaky pipes. Moreover, they ordered the workers who had no

hazardous materials training to handle and dispose the hazardous chemicals without inform

them how to deal the materials properly. As a conclusion, these engineers are placing the

safety of workers as the lowest priority. Hence, the workers did the correct way to protect

themselves which is to the press and exposed what was going on at the Pilot Plant.

3. Rights of professional conscience (as an engineer)

As an engineer, we need to fulfill our duty and perform professionally. However, the three

engineers did not enforce the law even though they are experts in their field. They neglected

the welfare and safety of the public and the employees. Moreover, they neglected the rules

of RCRA which they should have followed. As a result, they were charged guilty but they

received relatively light sentences.

4. Rights to equality before the law

The three engineers claimed themselves to be part of the Army, and certain leeway could be

provided exclusively to them. Their action is immoral because everyone is equal before the

law. They are still engineers, and must follow the professional ethics as others do.

5. Rights to protect the environment

As a resident of the Earth, we have the duty to protect our environment and prevent any

pollution from happening. We should manage the hazardous waste efficiently so that

environment will not be polluted and life of living creatures will be protected. As we can see,

the three engineers did not take any effort on protecting the environment, so as the life of

living creatures. Their action is definitely immoral and they are guilty.

2.3 Workplace Responsibilities and Rights

2.3.1 LoyaltyIf the three engineers had gone public, they would have violated their prima facie duty to be

loyal to their employer. However, in this case public safety is at risk and if they had just kept

quiet, they would be violating the first canon in the ASME Code of Ethics to “hold paramount

the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duty”.

It is important to be aware that too much loyalty invites single-mindedness. The engineers

should never have single-mindedly been in pursuit of developing the chemical weapons to

the point where public safety is neglected.

Although loyalty is important, it can, in some circumstances be damaging to the company.

The three engineers did not think of the long-term side effects of his actions on the company.

What about the low-level workers in the plant? During that time, they weren’t any proper

channels for them to properly complain to the higher ups about the hazardous working

conditions in the plant. However, they should have contacted the three engineers to demand

for safer working environment and proper training on how to handle the hazardous materials.

If all else fails, these workers should have blown the whistle on the safety hazards of the

plant. This action would be justified since, (i) there were no proper channels to voice out their

concerns, (ii) the three engineers did not claim responsibility on cleaning up the waste, and

(iii) public safety was at risk.

2.3.2 Responsibilities as an EngineerAs engineers, the “Guidelines for Code of Professional Conduct” as published by the Board

of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) indicates that the three engineers have at least four

responsibilities:

1. The first responsibility is to the public: “A Registered Engineer shall at all times hold

paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.”

The three engineers should always be aware of their responsibilities towards society to

protect the public welfare. When they entered into an engineering college, they were making

an implicit social contract that involves protecting public safety. After all, the public are the

ones providing engineers, through the tax base, the means for obtaining an education and,

through legislation, the means to license and regulate themselves. In return, they have a

responsibility to protect the well-being of the public in all of their professional efforts.

However, these three engineers had placed a low priority towards protecting public safety,

and instead focused on their military mission of developing chemical weapons.

2. A second responsibility is to the environment.

The three engineers were aware of the dangers of the chemical wastes. However, they

chose to close their eyes to the truth. Similarly, in the Love Canal disaster3, a local school

board chose to ignore the effects of chemical wastes buried in the ground, and built a school

over the area despite warnings from Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation. In both

these cases, they were neglecting their responsibilities towards the environment.

The three engineers should have kept an organized and clean workspace, especially since

there were high chances of something highly dangerous happening. They should have

cleaned up all the spills immediately after they happened; it is simply unacceptable for the

chemicals to be exposed to the air, let to leak into the floor, and allowed to flow into the

Canal Creek river since that would endanger the life of underwater creatures and the

environment. The three engineers should follow all guidelines specified within government

laws. There is a duty to eliminate all potential hazards that could pollute the environment.

3. A third is to be loyal towards their employer: “A Registered Engineer shall act for

each employer of clients as faithful agent or trustee.

These three engineers have shown their loyalty towards their employer, the U.S. Army. They

have tried their best to accomplish the mission given by their employer. However, the way

that they accomplished the mission is harmful towards not only the public and environment,

but also to their employer himself. Their actions will damage the reputation of the US Army in

some circumstances. They have neglected the long-term effects of their actions towards the

company and only focus on the short-term successes.

4. A fourth responsibility is to the workers.

The U.S. Army, as the employer should always keep an eye on the development process of

chemical weapons. William Dee, as the head of chemical weapon development team should

make careful consideration and judgment of the work of his employees (manufacturing

process of weapons proposed by Robert Lentz and reports of Pilot Plant written by Carls

Gepp). Besides, these three engineers, as the person in charge of the design of Pilot Plant,

should take the responsibility to ensure the safety of their subordinates.

3 Cameron London, “The Legacy of Love Canal”, Urban Education Partnership, USA, 1999.

However, in fact, none of them mentioned above do their duty to protect their employees.

Employees were working under conditions where chemicals were dripping down from leaky

pipes above them. Employees who had no hazardous materials training were ordered to

handle and dispose of chemicals of which they had little or no knowledge. Whether or not

there were rules for the training of employees who would be handing hazardous materials,

the three engineers had a responsibility to those employees to inform them of what they

were dealing with and how to handle the waste materials properly.

2.4 Social ExperimentationThe development, testing, storing and disposal of chemical substances are similar to

experimentation. There are uncertainties in how the chemicals will react, and how the

processes of disposing the waste could go wrong.

The three engineers should have had a constant awareness of the experimental nature of

the plant, imaginative forecasting of its possible side effects, and reasonable effort to monitor

them. However, they were unaware that their experiments and their handling of the waste

products had social impact. They thought that since they were in a military base, and that

they were secluded from the outside world, it was okay to ignore the possible dangers

towards the public. However, no matter how far a person feels removed from society, he still

has an effect on it, even if it is an indirect one. This is clearly evident when sulfuric acid

leaked into the Canal Creek. The water in the river was contaminated, and the people

downstream that relied on the water from the river were affected.

Furthermore, the engineers should not have lost perspective of the wider context of their

activities. Although they were on a military mission to manage the plant, they were still

professional engineers that should have held paramount the safety of the public above all

else. According to the NSPE code of ethics, an engineer should hold paramount the safety,

health and welfare of the public. Every major engineering code of ethics reminds engineers

of the importance of their responsibility to keep the safety and well being of the public at the

top of their list of priorities. Their duties towards the public should hold precedence over their

duties towards their mission since this case involves public safety.

From Kant theory: “Moral beliefs and attitudes should be held on the basis of critical

reflection rather than passive adoption of the particular convention of one’s society or

profession.” The actions of the three engineers were of their own conduct and principles,

which means that they should be morally autonomous. However, they did not develop a

critical and questioning attitude about the adequacy of their plants’ lack of safety measures.

The three engineers should have had a better sense of understanding “accountability” as

being culpable and blameworthy for misdeeds. Instead, they maintained that they were not

doing anything illegal, and that their job description did not include responsibility for specific

environmental rules. They were not willing to provide morally cogent reasons for their

conduct when called upon to do so.

The three engineers, who were under the authority of the military, had abandoned their

personal accountability. This was because their submission to authority created a narrow

sense of accountability. They insisted that they were good engineers because they did their

job, and never had an incident.

2.5 ConsequencesAfter two years of investigation, the federal government charged each of the Aberdeen three

with four counts of illegal storing and disposal of waste. Though they did not actually commit

this crime, no one above them knew of these acts, giving the responsibilities to them. They

faced 15 years of prison and almost a million dollars in fines. They were lucky and got three

years of probation and 1000 hours of community service.

An attempt was made by the defendants to have the case dismissed because:

a) Defendants are protected from this criminal prosecution on the grounds of sovereign

immunity.

b) The indictment fails to show the defendants are ‘persons’ who can be prosecuted

under the act.

c) The constitution prohibits the U.S attorney from prosecuting since the violations

alleged ‘occurred on a federal enclave over which Congress exercise exclusive

jurisdiction.’

2.6 What Could Have Been Done Differently? (Solutions)

2.6.1 The US ArmyAccording to The Army Regulations (MICOMR), the goal of the Army’s environmental

program is the attainment and compliance to the maximum extent possible as related to the

mission of the U.S. Army. Mitigation of environmental conditions to the maximum extend

practical is an absolute requirement. The Army’s emphasis is on waste minimization and

recycling. An important part of compliance with the environmental regulations and recycling

is played by Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO).

Why then, didn’t the US Army conduct inspections, enforcement, assessment of

performance, and investigations? They should have:

1. Regularly made inspections on the site and inspected all activities in the facilities until

the problems are corrected.

2. Make it a part of the job requirements that engineers acknowledge all relevant safety

regulations.

3. Impose stiffer individual penalties for violations.

The subordinates involved in the plant most likely feared that blowing the whistle would have

jeopardized their jobs. To alleviate this fear, the Army should have set up a system for

receiving anonymous reports of safety violations.

2.6.2 The Three ManagersThe engineering code requirements as applied to environmentally ethical behavior mandates

conduct in the range of “reasonable care”. The three engineers should consider those at risk

of harm from any given activity. The following steps should have been taken to provide

protection to those affected:

1. Alerted their superiors at the first sign of problems.

2. Be informed about the RCRA.

3. Inform appropriate civilian and military authorities of the violation. Given the danger

to public and the workers at the plant it would not have been sufficient to merely

inform their direct supervisors.

2.6.3 The Justice DepartmentAccording the virtue ethics, we should be fair towards everyone. Although the three

engineers were high standing figures in society, they should be treated just like everyone

else. These three engineers were experts in their field, and if they can’t be expected to follow

the law, then who can?

Yet these three engineers received relatively light sentences (1,000 hours of community

service and 3 years probation). This judgment is an inadequate compensation to the severe

problems that they had caused. Firstly, they neglected their responsibilities to protect the

welfare of the public, environment and workers. Secondly, they violated the RCRA on the

management procedures of handling of hazardous wastes. Thirdly, they claimed themselves

to be innocent and tried to neglect their responsibilities due to ignorance of the RCRA. From

these factors, we can conclude that these engineers are selfish, irresponsible and unethical.

Adequate judgment should have been made (e.g., 15 years in prison and $750,000 in fines).

Furthermore, they should have lost their licenses to practice as engineers.

2.6.4 RCRA and Associations Related to Hazardous WasteThe RCRA and different chemical committees should have:

1. Made follow-up visits to verify the level of the procedures at the Aberdeen facilities.

2. Conduct refresher workshops to educate engineers on environmental regulations.

3. Step up regulations by taking a comprehensive approach and monitoring hazards at their

source (RCRA’s regulations at the time were insufficient).

4. Test different adjustments regarding the level of regulation that was supposed to ensure

the safety of the public.

5. Take a more focused approach to avoid the omission of relevant industrial parties.

3 Conclusion“The Aberdeen Three” case highlights some of the common problems that are associated

with engineering practices. They are, lack of engineering communication skills, lack of being

familiar with environment regulation, and poor government inspection.

As engineers, it is our responsibility to be aware and well informed of all the possible side

effects of our work. If public safety is ever at risk, we should always put the duty of protecting

the public as our highest priority even if it means being disloyal to our employers.

Proper enforcement of regulations from all parties (e.g. the RCRA, the US Army, the

Government, etc.) is important to ensure that everyone involved will follow proper guidelines.

Furthermore, everyone should be subjected to the same laws and punishments regardless

of where they are (e.g. in a military base), what their standings are in society, and how direct

or indirectly involved they are.

4 References1 Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering, (2007). “The

Aberdeen Three”, Texas A&M University, USA.

2 James J., (2008). “Leaking Waste Containers”, National Academy of Engineering.

http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/edu/resources/csaindex/Containers.aspx

[Retrieved 11 October 2010].

3 Cameron L., (1999). “The Legacy of Love Canal”, Urban Education Partnership, USA

4 Charles E., Michael S., et al., (2005), “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases”.

Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.

5 Ahmed, M., “Ethics of Neglecting Professional Responsibility”, Colorado School of

Mines: McBride Honor Program Chemical Engineering.

6 Research Paper help

7 https://www.homeworkping.com/ 8