MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS ACCORDING TO THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS

Transcription

1 Budny 10:00) L06 MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS ACCORDING TO THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS Alyssa Srock THE ETHICAL SIDE OF ENGINEERING By definition, an engineer s main job is to build, design and maintain machinery that helps society. In doing so, engineers have a lot of things that must first be taken into consideration. It is not always as simple as making machines function, or fixing broken machinery, or even designing machinery so that it is energy efficient, or choosing the best materials to use during construction. While these things are important, and are commonly thought of as an engineer s job, there are much more difficult things that engineers have to do that many people do not consider. Engineers have to take into consideration budgets, what their employers or clients want and need, and perhaps most importantly, they must make absolutely certain that they are meeting the specifications set by the Code of Ethics for Engineers. These codes have been put into place first and foremost in the best interest of the public, to make their health, safety, and welfare the top priority [6]. Within this code there are many specifications. From rules of practice, to professional obligations, the code provides engineers with guidance when faced with tough moral decisions [8]. The code acts as a sort of handbook to making such decisions. While many companies would like to simply focus on what would make the most profit, the code of ethics makes sure that corners are not cut and safety remains the main priority. In addition to meeting this code, engineers must also meet a secondary code relative to their specific area of expertise. While engineers are obviously responsible for making many technical decisions and calculations, they also must make many tough ethical decisions. Making these decisions are an extremely important and common part of their everyday jobs. This is the kind of work that most people do not associate engineers with. However ethical problems are constantly present in engineering. When these tough situations present themselves, while there may not always be a clear right or wrong choice, it is up to the engineer to make the final call. Considering how their decisions may affect the people and surrounding area is very important. Referencing the Code of Ethics for Engineers definitely can help in making such decisions. CONCERNS WITH NUCLEAR POWER AND THE SOLUTION While nuclear power plants have always been a controversial source of power and for many caused great concern because of the possible issues dealing with nuclear waste, due to the fairly recent Fukushima Disaster of 2011 the use of nuclear power has been under greater scrutiny than ever. Immediately after the incident, the construction of many nuclear power plants was put on hold. Many locations that were planning on having a nuclear power plant built began to rethink and second guess their plans, at least until further safety precautions could be taken. Because nuclear is such a reliable source for power, it simply was not an option to discontinue using it [11]. This meant that it was now more important than ever for the companies that design nuclear power plants to find solutions to the problems which contributed to the issues caused in the past by disasters such as and similar to the one in Fukushima. Westinghouse in particular has come up with a new reactor design that includes a passive cooling system which relies only on the power of gravity, convection, and condensation to achieve a complete and safe shutdown in case of an emergency or power loss [2]. The Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactor has helped to restart construction and reassure many with concerns regarding the health, safety, and overall well-being of those living in areas around nuclear power plants. Despite the fact that Westinghouse s AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactor is by far safer than reactors of the past, and that other companies have created safer reactors as well, there are still older power plants all over the world that are not updated with the newest and safest passive safety systems. The utility companies that own these nuclear power plants take on the responsibility of making the necessary changes to them if they do not meet the new safety requirements issued after the Fukushima disaster [4]. And while many engineers have been called to look into these older plants and decide whether or not they need to be altered to ensure safety, many times the situation does not have a simple and easy solution. The engineers called to inspect and or come up with ways to improve these plants have a lot of different factors weighing in on what their final word on the matter should be. THE SCENARIO As an engineer called to inspect one of the older nuclear power plants in question, there would already be an incredible amount of things weighing on my mind. I would know that all of the factors that could influence my judgment call will need to be taken into equal and serious consideration. I will need to reflect upon how the people and environment surrounding the power plant could potentially be affected. I will also need to consider how and by when the client, in this case the utility University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering

2 company owning the plant, will be able to afford to make the necessary changes. The plant in question is in an area located somewhat near the coast. It is definitely in an area where unpredictable weather, and natural disasters must be taken into serious consideration. While the plant probably would have passed inspection before the Fukushima disaster, now it is undeniably breaking some of the newer safety codes that have been put into place since. Although natural disasters are not likely to occur in the area, weather is an extremely unpredictable factor. Should a bad storm occur, there is definitely a possibility that the plant could lose power. If this should happen, the plant s backup emergency diesel generators should come on and help the plant to reach a complete shutdown. However, if there were to be flooding, the diesel generators could become damaged, causing the reactor to not fully shut itself down. Should this happen, the plant would experience a meltdown, meaning the reactor would lose its ability to continue proper reactor cooling and water circulation. This would ultimately lead to the plant having core damage. If this were to happen, the plant would experience something very similar to that of the plant in Fukushima all because it lacks an updated passive safety system. In this case, significant amounts of radioactive material would be released [7]. After thoroughly inspecting the plant in its entirety, I have come to the conclusion that while some changes to the plant are not at this time necessary, there are some critical improvements that need to be made immediately. In my inspection it was made evident that if there would be an incident, such as a natural disaster, and the plant was harmed by it, the health and safety of the people living in proximity to the plant would definitely be at risk due to the chance that radioactive materials could be released in the event of a meltdown. Even if people could be evacuated, extensive damage would be done to the environment. After making my inspection I report all of this to the client, I fully explain and stress my concerns, as well as how important it is that the required changes are made quickly. It is soon made apparent to me that none of the repairs and alterations necessary to the plant will be made, at least not presently. The utility company simply cannot currently afford to make any changes, not even the ones recommended to be made immediately. Despite the assurances that the changes will be made as soon as possible, which should be no later than a year or two from now, I still have many doubts and concerns. DECISION MAKING AND THOUGHT PROCESS I am left with an extremely tough decision to make. While I would like to believe that the utility company will make the changes to the plant as soon as possible, it could potentially take more than two years to have enough money for the updates. The company could also not actually plan on making the changes at all. While I know some of the changes to the plant can wait longer than two years to be made, I definitely feel that there are some changes that simply should not or cannot be delayed. I am not even sure they can wait one year, let alone two or more. I also am thinking of the people that could be affected should the changes not be carried out. I need to think about whether or not these people would be in immediate danger and how great the danger exactly would be. Personally, my life would be made easier if I took the client s word and simply believed that they would do what needed to be done as soon as possible and that no harm would come to anyone in the meantime. I could either make my official report saying that my client would make the necessary changes immediately, or change my report to omit that the plant required immediate corrections. Either way would buy my client more time. However, in that situation I would be misrepresenting facts. Doing this could endanger the safety and health of many people as well as the environment. On the other hand, should I alert a higher authority, such as the governmental regulation body, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of the plant s negligence of the safety codes, the plant could end up being shut down or not running at full capacity. After looking over all of the facts, I still am unsure that I can make the right decision. I decide that in order to properly assess the situation I have to turn to the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics for Engineers as well as some of the codes set specifically for nuclear engineers. LOOKING AT THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS According to number one of the Fundamental Canons in the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics, as an engineer I must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public [8]. If I simply ignore the fact that some of the changes to the plant need to be made immediately and allow my client to wait until they have enough money to make the changes, I could be putting the public at risk. Additionally, part a. under the rules of practice, states that if engineers judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate [8]. While I may like my client, and I may hope that they can make the changes to continue the power plant s operation, if I really believe that there are some critical issues with the plant that must be corrected, and they are not going to attempt to make these corrections, I must alert an appropriate authority so as not to put any human life at risk. If I were to alter my report to say that the updates the plant needed were not immediately necessary in an attempt to allow my client more time to get the money for the updates, I would be falsifying my inspection. Not only that, but I would also be going against part a., engineers shall avoid the use 2

3 of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact of the third part of the Professional Obligations of the code, engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public [8]. LOOKING AT OTHER CODES The American Nuclear Society Code of Ethics shares many of the same principles with the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. It too stresses that the safety, health, and welfare of the public be held paramount [1]. In addition the ANS Code specifies that engineers also hold the safety of fellow workers vital and work to protect the environment [1]. Should the corrections to the plant not be made, the ANS Code would be broken as well. I would be endangering fellow engineers working at the plant, as well the environment. If the plant does not reach full shut down, it will overheat and release significant amounts of radioactive material, harming the environment [3]. Similar to part of the Code of Ethics for Engineers, number three of Principles of Professional Conduct in the ANS Code states that, we act in accordance with all applicable laws and these practices, lend support to others who strive to do likewise, and report violations to appropriate authorities [1]. In addition to the American Nuclear Society s Code, all commercial nuclear power plants have embraced practices developed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. The INPO s main goal is to keep nuclear safety as the overriding priority of operation for the commercial nuclear power industry [5]. Once again, the main focus is to keep civilians safe. If there are ever any concerns about the safety of a nuclear power plant they can be raised directly to the governmental regulation body, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for ensuring the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes, as well as the inspection and enforcement of its requirements [9]. FINAL DECISION After reviewing not only the Code of Ethics for Engineers and the American Nuclear Society s Code, but also the Regulations set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and consulting my father, who works for Westinghouse, I have decided that I must involve a higher authority. If the utility company owning the plant is not going to do anything, despite the fact that I reported that some of the changes are necessary immediately, it is my responsibility to make sure someone does something to keep the safety, health, and welfare of the people and environment around the plant intact. The main goal of both the Code of Ethics for engineers and the ANS Code is to keep society safe. Storms occur all the time, sometimes with little warning. During my inspection I felt that the plant would be in danger if a strong storm were to occur. Not only that, but the plant s passive safety system was not up to code with the latest regulations [9]. Not only would I be breaking the code if I were to allow the plant to continue operation under unsafe conditions, but I would also be breaking federal law [10]. There have been federal laws in place governing the disclosure of known nuclear safety concerns [4]. This Code of Federal Regulations specifically requires me to raise concern regarding nuclear safety if I know that there is a technical problem in the plant which could affect the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition [10]. RECOMMENDATIONS TO OTHER ENGINEERS What I have learned from writing this paper, is that even though most people, including myself, usually think of an engineer s job as building and designing machines, it requires a lot more than that. For engineers, working out technical problems and calculations is sometimes just the easy part of the job. The part that no one ever considers, is making hard ethical decisions, answering the questions that do not have a simple and easy correct or incorrect answer or a clear method of finding the answer. If I had to give advice to another engineer who had to make an ethical call similar to the one in my scenario, I would tell them that it is important to look at the situation from multiple perspectives. While they have to look at it in a professional sense, as an engineer, they also need to look at it from the perspective of the people that it could potentially affect. REFERENCES [1]American Nuclear Society. "Code of Ethics." Code of Ethics. American Nuclear Society. Web. 26 Oct [2] "AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant." AP1000 PWR. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept [3] E. Wilding, Framing Ethical Acceptability: A Problem with Nuclear Waste in Canada. Science & Engineering Ethics [serial online]. June 2012;18(2): Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 27, [4] Interview with Christopher Srock (Oct ). [5] Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. "ABOUT US." INPO. Web. 25 Oct [6] J.M. Basart, & M. Serra. (2013). Engineering ethics beyond engineers' ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), doi: /s z [7] K. Price, "Ensuring Nuclear Plant Safety during Power Loss." Nuclear Plant Journal 32.4 (2014): p. 50. [8] National Society of Professional Engineers. (July 2007). Code of Ethics for Engineers. National Society of Professional Engineers. Web. October 24 3

4 [9] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "About NRC." U.S. Institute of Nuclear Regulation Commission. Web. 27 Oct Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. "ABOUT US." INPO. Web. 28 Oct [10] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Part 21 Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance. (Oct ). [11] "Why Nuclear?" Westinghouse â Nuclear. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept Nuclear ADDITIONAL SOURCES Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign. Adoption of a Safe Component. (Oct ). S. Pfotenhauer, et al. "Learning from Fukushima." Issues in Science and Technology (online article) (2012): pp National Institute for Engineering Ethics. Case 1015 An Unsettling Situation. (Oct ). National Institute for Engineering Ethics. Case 1032 Plains, Prairies, and Porsches. (Oct ). WebGuru. Honesty s Always the Best Policy. Ethics Case Studies. (Oct ) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank the librarians for not only being extremely helpful, but also extremely pleasant and encouraging when assisting me in my search for research. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my dad. His knowledge of nuclear power plants and the nuclear power industry was tremendously helpful, and his words of encouragement were equally appreciated. A big thank you is also due to my roommates, and friends, who surprisingly often reminded and helped me to stay on task. I finally would like to thank my mom and sisters, who often were able to talk me through my mental blocks, relieve my stress, and give me the moral boost to keep going. 4

5 5