8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

1/26

1

Chapter9

EngineersandtheEnvironment

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

2/26

2

In this chapter

Three engineering codes on engineering and environment.

Reserved attitude of engineering codes towardsenvironmental issues.

Lack of consensus on how to implement protection of the

environment.Environmental laws.

How to define clean. How to set the criteria?

Trade-off between development and environmentalprotection. The Degree-of-Harm Criterion.

Philosophy of Environmental Ethics.

Professional obligations of engineers.

Minimalist Standpoint and Organizational Disobediencerelated to environmental issues.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

3/26

3

Aberdeen is a US Army facility where, among other things, chemicalweapons are developed. The US Army has used the AberdeenProving Ground to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical

weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983and 1986 revealed serious problems at the facility, known as thePilot Plant, where these engineers worked. These problemsincluded:

Flammable and cancer-causing substances left in the open.

Chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room.Drums of toxic substances were leaking.

There were chemicals everywheremisplaced, unlabeled, or poorlycontained.

When part of the roof collapsed, smashing several chemical drumsstored below, no one cleaned up or moved the spilled substance andbroken containers for weeks.

When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into anearby river, state and federal investigators arrived and discoveredthat the chemical retaining dikes were unfit, and the system

designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corrodedand leaking chemicals into the ground.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

4/26

4

On June 28, 1988, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, WilliamDee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were

criminally indicted for storing, treating, and disposing of hazardouswastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen Proving Ground inMaryland after about two years of investigation.Six months following the indictment, the Federal Government took thecase of the "Aberdeen Three" to court. Each defendant was chargedwith four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste. In 1989, thethree chemical engineers were tried and convicted of illegally storing,treating, and disposing of hazardous waste. William Dee was found

guilty on one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on threecounts each of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.Although they were not the ones who were actually performing theillegal acts, they were the managers and allowed the improper handlingof the chemicals. No one above them knew about the extent of theproblems at the Pilot Plant. They each faced up to 15 years in prisonand up to $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three yearsprobation and 1000 hours of community service. The judge based his

decision on the high standing of the defendants in the community, andthe fact they had already incurred enormous court costs. Since this wasa criminal indictment, the U.S. Army could not assist in their legaldefense.This case marked the first time that individual federal employees wereconvicted of a criminal act under the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

5/26

5

The Aberdeen Three Case

Aberdeen Proving Ground: Army site to develop, store,dispose chemical weapons.

The Pilot Plant Facility had problems as a result of improperdisposal of chemical waste.

Three chemical engineers (at senior management levels)were prosecuted for illegally handling, storing, anddisposing of hazardous wastes in violation of ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

6/26

6

Engineering and Environmental Issues

Engineers in the Aberdeen Three Case were charged ofenvironmental pollution.

Engineers have obligations with respect to environmentalissues (apart from being responsible ordinary citizens):

Projects, products, or processes designed by engineers can release

toxic wastes.

Some engineering developments flood farmlands, drain wetlands,

and destroy forests.

On the other hand engineers work on improvements toreduce/eliminate negative impact to environment.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

7/26

7

The ASCE Code (1977 through 1996)

Engineers should be committed to improving the

environment to enhance the quality oflife (section 1.f) Thiswas the first reference to environment in general (1977).

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health andwelfare of public and shall strive to comply with theprinciples of sustainable development in the performanceof their professional duties (Canon 1, as in 1996).

Further statements under Canon 1 make specificreferences to environmental issues (see p.216/208).

The ASCE Code makes recommendations as well asstating requirements for engineers in relation to theenvironment.

engineersshall -> reuquirements

engineersshould -> recommendations

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

8/26

8

The IEEE Code (1990)

to accept responsibility in making engineeringdecisions consistent with the safety, health andwelfare of the public, and to disclose promptlyfactors that might endanger the public or theenvironment (Canon 1 as revised in 1990).IEEE Code commits its members to disclosepossible threats to the public and the environment.To whom they should disclose?

To ones immediate superior? (what if the superior doesnot react positively?)

Should an engineer report such threats outside his/her

organization? (if there is no internal remedy.)Does the engineer have a right to refuse participating inprojects due to environmental concerns?IEEE Code does not address these questions.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

9/26

9

The ASME Code (1998)

Engineers shall consider environmental impact in theperformance of their professional duties (Canon 8 asrevised in 1998).

ASME Code does not require engineers to modify their designs orchange their professional work due to environmental factors.

It does not say that environmental considerations should overrideothers.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

10/26

10

Sustainable Development

The Role of the Engineer in Sustainable Development(released by ASCE)

Sustainable development is a process of change in which

the direction of investment,

the orientation of technology,

the allocation of resources, and

the development and functioning of institutions

[is directed] to meet present needs and aspirations withoutendangering the capacity of natural systems to absorb the effectsof human activities, and without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs and aspirations.

Development: economic and technical activity to meet present

requirements of people.SustainableActivity: this activity must not jeopardize theenvironment neither for today, nor for the future generations.

Sustainable Development: involves political, social and moraldimensions going beyond environment-friendly technology.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

11/26

11

Environmental Controversy

Only three engineering codes contain items ofrelevance.

ASCE seems to be more committed than IEEE andASME.

Why is concern for the environment a matter of

controversy for engineers?Two distinctions over environmental concern:Health-related concern (pollution of air or water due todischarge of carcinogens) versus non-health relatedconcern (construction of dam over farmlands).Intrinsic value versus instrumental value of nature.

Intrinsic valuethe value of nature apart from human use orappreciation (trees, rivers, animals)

Instrumental valuethe value insofar as they are used orappreciated by human beings.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

12/26

12

Environmental Controversy (cont.)

Most engineering codes already implicitly commitengineers to health-related environmental concerns(hold paramount safety, health and welfare ofpublic).

Only three engineering codes explicitly refer to non-health related concerns or the intrinsic value of theenvironment. But the interpretation of concern iscontroversial.Why the Reluctance?

For most giant corporation CEOs environmental issueshave never become top priority, actually some regard

these as nuisance draining their financial assets andhindering productivity (crisis-orientedenvironmentalmanagement). Such corporations devote minimalresources to deal with environmental regulations.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

13/26

13

Environmental Controversy (cont.)

Why the Reluctance? (cont.)A different perspective than the classical one above is cost-orientedenvironmentalmanagement. Corporations following this approach

accept governmental regulations as cost of their business althoughwithout keen commitment or any enthusiasm.

Another recent trend is enlightenedenvironmentalmanagement.Environmental-consciousness has the full support of the CEO. Itshould be noted that recent trends in Production Management

favors this approach. Agile Manufacturing Philosophy (which is

becoming a popular enterprise corporate policy) includescommitment to environmental issues.

Can we make supporting arguments in favor ofenlightened-E-M?

Making business means serving the interests of the community, hencethe requirement of being responsible towards the people.

Positive attitude towards the law and the community will be good forthe business in the long run.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

14/26

14

Environmental Controversy (cont.)

Another difficulty is the controversial definition ofclean.It is not easy to reach consensus over environmental goalsand hence regulations.

How clean is clean?

What is the appropriate working criterion or definition of clean thatcan guide responsible engineers to take care of the environmental

issues.Should the environment be perfectly clean? Is it possible?

Is the approach of Cost/Benefit acceptable for environmentalissues?

See the inadequate definition ofclean at Table10.1 (p.224/214).

Gives us an idea about how difficult it is to agree on rules andregulations to combat environmental pollution.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

15/26

15

The Law

Specific laws related to environmental issues have beenadopted quite recently (late 60s in the U.S). Until thenviolations were the subject of common law.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969).

Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970).

Clean Air Act (1970).Clean Water Act (1972).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976).

Pollution Prevention Act (1990).

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1972).

Safe Drinking Water Act (1974).

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976).

Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Act (1996).

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

16/26

16

The Court Decisions

Laws related to environmental issues have been subject ofcriticism because of enormous costs added to fulfillregulations.

International Harvester vs. Ruckelshaus Case (1973)Failing to rule Clean Air Act due to the insufficient technology.

Supreme Court overrule of OSHA Benzene decision (80).Similarly a D.C. Court reviewed a decision set by the EPA(Environmental Protection Agency) on vinyl chlorideemissions (1986).

The court declared EPA cannot set a standard for vinyl chlorideemission at levels less strict than industry have satisfied

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that employeeswould not be protected if their employers were put out ofbusiness on a case (AFL-CIO vs. Hodgson) related toasbestos (1974).How to develop reasonable criteria?

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

17/26

17

Trade-off between Development and Protection

Dilemma of Environmental Protection.Excessive regulations will hamper production (someproduction facilities can shift to other countries whereregulations are not strict).

Protection laws can put some employers out of business or

even finish some industries. Obviously this is not in thebest interests of workers and/or the public.

Any rational criterion for a clean environment must takeinto account both:

the need to protect the workers, public and the environment

as well as the need to protect the financial viability of industries on

which the welfare of people depend.Yet, the matter of trade-off can be very difficult to resolve.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

18/26

18

Balancing Wealth and Health

Strict measures of protection can severely stagnateeconomical activities.

Utilitarian Standpoint: compromise over environmentalimpact if the action produces net benefit on the overallutility function.

According to utilitarian thinking minor benefits to manymight overweigh severe harms to a few. Utilitarian

approach can justify severe damage to the environment.

Some laws and court decisions have taken action againstthis unfortunate tendency of utilitarianism.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

19/26

Degree-of-Harm Criterion

The engineers responsibility to hold paramount thehealth of the public should not be totally utilitarian.

However, the need to consider the economic effectsof environmental regulations should not be forgotten.Hence theDegree-of-HarmCriterion:

When pollutants pose a clear and pressing threat tohuman health, they must be reduced below anyreasonable threshold of harm. Cost should not beconsidered a significant factor. Insofar as substancespose an uncertain (but possible) risk to health or whenthe threshold of danger cannot be determined,economic factors may be considered. If harm isirreversible, it should be given higher priority.

One extreme is to eliminate threat whatever its costis, because of its severe and/or irreversiblecharacteristic. 19

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

20/26

20

Degree-of-Harm Criterion (cont.)

The other extreme where the risk is small or indeterminate,cost/benefit considerations are more appropriate.

This policy can guide the engineers to fulfill theirresponsibility as environment-conscious engineers.

Case of Vivian working at Shady Chemical (violating the

degree-of-harm criterion). What should Vivian do?

Case of Bob discharging a new chemical compound toatmosphere (environmental effects not well-known).

The chemical plant of Melinda is discharging a chemical tothe river. The chemical is not regulated, but displays similarcharacteristics to other banned toxic substances. Whatshould Melinda do?

Line drawing can be useful to check degree-of-harm.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

21/26

21

Anthropocentric Approach to Env. Ethics

The environmental movement challenges:use of animals in testing consumer products.

raising of chickens, etc. in cages or confined places.

killing of whales, dolphins, sea lions.

destroying of natural habitats of animal and plant species.

draining of wetlands.

destroying wild life in nature.

flooding of farmlands.

These objections go beyond human-health related mattersand the focus is on the intrinsic value of nature.

We can distinguish the protection of non-human world as:

Animal liberation movement.The environmental movement.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

22/26

22

Anthropocentric Approach to Env. Ethics (cont.)

The separation of two movements can be questioned,nevertheless both movements have had their own waysand sometimes they might even clash:

Natural fires have renewal effect for plant life, but destructive forwild animals. Hence animal liberationists might be in conflict withenvironmentalists on the issue of combating forest fires.

Common element in both movements is that they arestrongly opposed to the anthropocentric nature of WesternEthics (anthropocentric meaning only human beings aremorally considerable).

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

23/26

23

Animal Liberation and Engineering Ethics

Western schools of moral philosophy is anthropocentric.Wild life has instrumental value (see Baxter on penguins).

penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walkabout rocks... I have no interest in preserving penguins for theirown sake

This can be challenged by the utilitarian perspective in that

the pleasure and avoidance of pain of animals is also partof the overall utility and well-being.

Singer compares discrimination against animals to racism.like racism and sexism, speciesism is arbitrary and morallyunjustifiable

Animal liberation movement has some relevance toengineering ethics:Some engineering designs and/or projects destroy the wild life.

Some products are tested on animals.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

24/26

24

Environmentalism and Engineering Ethics

Environmental Movement is much more related toengineering ethics than Animal Liberation.

The bioticcommunity of Aldo Leopold.

According to Leopold:We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to

us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we maybegin to use it with love and respect. . . . Perhaps such a shift in

values can be achieved by reappraising things unnatural, tame, and

confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free.

Yet, there is disagreement about how far the class of

morally considerable beings should extend.Relevance of non-health related concern to human welfare.

It is still debatable to formulate the intrinsic value of naturein engineering codes when human life is not at stake.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

25/26

25

Scope of Obligations to the Environment

Why should professional engineering obligations to theenvironment extend beyond factors endangering humans?

Engineers should have some obligations because they are capableof environmental degradation as well as improvement.

Engineers are essential participants in projects which canpotentially affect the environment. Their environment-conscious

attitudes will have substantial positive impact.As far as non-health related issues are concernedengineers can make their judgments based on theirpersonal moral beliefs rather than professional ethics:

Many such situations fall beyond the expertise of engineers.

Extending professional responsibility for the environment into areasnot clearly related to public health or safety might causeconsiderable problems for engineering societies.

Requiring engineers to protect the environment where humanhealth is not an issue can produce problems of the conscience forsome engineers.

8/2/2019 {o3N-ug1-Tdu}Chp9

26/26

26

Minimalist Standpoint and OrganizationalDisobedience

To formulate the professional engineeringobligations in relation to non-health related issuestwo perspectives can be adopted:

The Minimalist Stand: Engineers should be required tohold paramount human health, they should not berequired as professionals to inject non-health related

environmental concerns into their engineering work.Disobedience: Engineers should have the right toorganizational disobedience with regard toenvironmental issues, as this is required by their ownpersonal beliefs or their own interpretations of whatprofessional obligation requires.

It should be noted that the two perspectives do notnecessarily contradict each other.