Ethical case study

Case 1 Aberdeen Three

INTRODUCTION

On June 28, 1988, three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert
Lentz, or now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were accused for storing, treating, and
disposing of hazardous wastes improperly thus lead to violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground in Maryland. RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
highlighted issues on providing 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. Aberdeen is a U.S. Army facility where chemical weapons are developed.

DISCUSSION

Further inspection on the facility had exposed several serious problem such as improper
method of storing and handling hazardous chemical. The main concern in this case was the
action done by the engineers to deal with the problem because they have the knowledge and
was given responsibility to take in charge of anything happen in that facility. As a competent
engineers it is a compulsory to have the knowledge about the effects of hazardous chemicals
on people and the environment. Surprisingly even after those engineers were convicted they
showed no apparent remorse for their irresponsible act, instead of confessing their guilty they
rather making excuse that they have no knowledge of RCRA and they believe what they do is
very noble as they serve for their country.

To understand the responsibility of an engineer, some key elements of the professional

responsibilities of an engineer should be examined. This will be done from two perspectives
which is the implicit social contract between engineers and society, and the guidance of the
codes of ethics of professional societies.
 As an engineer, a person must always taking consideration on whatever decision they
make. As example any improvement such as increasing the speed of the process, increasing the
load or capacities of a process, the engineer should predict the outcome of that decision which
will it require more hazardous chemical used to speed up the process or will the process emit
unwanted pollution to the environment, will it harm the person who operates the process. This
are the things that should not be neglected. They must always be aware of their obligation to
society to protect public welfare. By gaining the license to operate the facility it was considered
as a responsibility for them to obey the rules by applying safer engineering approach in any
action they take professionally. In this case those engineer prioritize their military mission
heavily instead of considering the effect to the worker and also society outside the facility.
Every major engineering code of ethics reminds engineers about the importance of their
responsibility to keep the safety and well being of the public at the top of their list of priorities.
Although it is good to be loyal for the company, in some circumstances it may be damaging
the company reputation if the employee does not think about the long–term effects of their
action. It is good to be goal oriented minded but don’t be too rigid or single-mindedness. It
doesn’t mean to reach the company there will be no reason to taking consideration on other
responsibilities.

Although it might seems not a big issues to experimenting with hazardous chemical
inside the facility because logically the facility should be far enough from the residential area.
But sometime things happen. By executing the experiment there will always be a potential
where there will be waste product resulting from the experiment and this are the cause that
might influencing the bad impact to the society where the waste product was not handled
properly. From this case it was found that there is a leaking of sulfuric acid into nearby river.
Further investigation discovered that the chemical retaining dikes were in a state of disrepair
and that the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemical was corroded, resulting
in chemicals leaking into the ground. This prove that no matter how far an engineers feel
isolated form the society, he still has an effect on it, even if it is an indirect one. Even though
the facility was located in military base, it still need to follow RCRA guidelines, regardless of
its military mission.

Not just responsibilities to society in general but responsibility to subordinates also

need to be consider and often overlooked. Employee were working under unsafe conditions
where chemicals were dripping down from leaky pipes above them, and in violation of RCRA
rules. Employees who had no hazardous materials training were ordered to handle and dispose
of chemicals about 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.

Those three engineers convicted in this case were well aware of how dangerous it might
be if the chemical they used were exposed to society, yet they allowed their unfounded feelings
of separation from the outside world and their misguided loyalty to their military mission to
lessen the importance they placed on their responsibility to society as engineers.

CONCLUSION

As a competent engineer, we should understand our responsibility towards the society

and the environment. Following the regulation was not just to prevent from being penalized
but also for the sake of saving other people lives. We need to understand that in chemical
industry a lot of potential hazard risk and accident would easily occur because of just small
mistakes. That is why we need to think before we act and negligence in from small issue to big
issues need to be avoid.