The “Aberdeen

Introduction
Three”
This is a case in which the willful disregard of
standard
chemical safety, storage, and disposal rules by
three
chemical professionals resulted in the discharge
of
hazardous chemicals into the public
environment
surrounding the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in
Maryland. They were all chemical engineers
who should have been knowledgeable about the
management of the chemicals used and the
chemical waste generated. All
three were tried and convicted in 1989 of
illegally
handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous
wastes in violation of RCRA, the Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act.
 Timeline
October 1976
Congress passes resource conservation and recovery art (RCRA)

September 1985 Acid tanks leak 200 gallons into Canal Creek
Subordinate employee whistleblows to Boston sun

1986
March: Pilot plant shutdown
May : Hazard Management analysis
Federal investigation of pilot plants begins

1988 Federal investigation ends

Gepp, Dee and Lentz Indicted

1989
February: Trial
May: sentence
First of conviction of federal officials in violation of environmental laws
I. Case Introduction
Location
Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)
Pilot Plant

Three Engineers
William Dee
Robert Lentz
Carl Gepp
TRIAL
Prosecution
Criminal liability for persons who knowingly handle hazardous waste without a RCRA
permit
~ Flammable and carcinogenic substances left in open
~ Chemicals that become lethal if mixed together
~ Drums of toxic substances leaking
~ Toxic spills unattended to

Engineers Defense
~ Did not knowingly commit crime
~ Federal Employee immunity
~ Hazardous materials aren't technically “waste”
~ Environmental responsibility not in a job description

Outcome
~ Faced 15 years in prison and up to $750,000 in fines
~ Sentenced to 1000 hours community service and 3 years probition
Response
~ Pilot Plant shutdown
~ Engineers Sentence
~ No penalty for US Army, APG or subordinates

Consequence
~ Focus on environmental compliance
~ Environmental Programs
~ EPA Claims authority over army's disposal program
CASE IN LIGHT OF ETHICS
Right and duties Ethics
Rights
Publics right to safe, clean
environment
Subordinates right to safety
Duties
Engineers duty to uphold
responsibilities
Engineers duty to protect
employee
 Virtue Ethics

Vices:
Dishonesty, Incompetence, Injustice and Arrogance

The Virtuous Engineer Would:

~ request cleanup funds
~ maintain safe work environment
~ accept fault of endangering public
 Proposed Solutions
Engineers
~ Agree with sentence

APG/Subordinates
~ Loyalty to company encouraged single mindedness so ensure well
rounded working environment
~ Entablish programs to promote awareness and practice of good
engineering
~ Emphasize proper channels of management

US Army
~ Legislate laws to force army to be more involved in maintaining safety
within APG and other plants
US Government
~ Periodic Investigation of facilities
~ Proper employee training and/or integrate detailed hiring
qualification system
~ Take preventative measures to avoid issues of negligence

Colleges Of Engineering
~ More emphasis of integration of Engineering Ethics within
curriculum
 References
1) (ethics.tamu.edu, 2018)
2) (Sites.Bsys.wsu.edu, 2018)
3) (Benjamin, Lahoucine, & Bob H., 2008)
4) (Professionalism/Gepp, Dee, and Lentz,
and the leak at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
2016)
5) (Zachry, 2016)
6) (Oanh Nguyen, 2013)
7) (The "Aberdeen Three", 2018)
 THANK YOU
The Aberdeen Three by Nur Suhana, Shahirah
Amira and Izzah Amira
PNG FILE