Chapter 9 Engineers and the Environment

Chapter 9 Engineers and theEnvironment

In this chapter • Three engineering codes on engineering and environment. • Reserved attitude of engineering codes towards environmental 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 environmental protection. The Degree-of-Harm Criterion. • Philosophy of Environmental Ethics. • Professional obligations of engineers. • Minimalist Standpoint and Organizational Disobedience related to environmental issues.

Aberdeen is a US Army facility where, among other things, chemical weapons are developed. The US Army has used the Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at the facility, known as the Pilot Plant, where these engineers worked. These problems included: • 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 everywhere — misplaced, unlabeled, or poorly contained. • 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. • 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.

On June 28, 1988, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were criminally indicted for storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland after about two years of investigation. • Six months following the indictment, the Federal Government took the case of the "Aberdeen Three" to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste. In 1989, the three 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 three counts each of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. • Although they were not the ones who were actually performing the illegal acts, they were the managers and allowed the improper handling of the chemicals. No one above them knew about the extent of the problems at the Pilot Plant. They each faced up to 15 years in prison and up to $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three years probation and 1000 hours of community service. The judge based his decision on the high standing of the defendants in the community, and the fact they had already incurred enormous court costs. Since this was a criminal indictment, the U.S. Army could not assist in their legal defense. • This case marked the first time that individual federal employees were convicted of a criminal act under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

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 improper disposal of chemical waste. • Three chemical engineers (at senior management levels) were prosecuted for illegally handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Engineering and Environmental Issues • Engineers in the Aberdeen Three Case were charged of environmental pollution. • Engineers have obligations with respect to environmental issues (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 to reduce/eliminate negative impact to environment.

The ASCE Code (1977 through 1996) • “Engineers should be committed to improving the environment to enhance the quality of life” (section 1.f) This was the first reference to environment in general (1977). • “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties” (Canon 1, as in 1996). • Further statements under Canon 1 make specific references to environmental issues (see p.216/208). • The ASCE Code makes recommendations as well as stating requirements for engineers in relation to the environment. • “engineers shall” -> reuquirements • “engineers should” -> recommendations

The IEEE Code (1990) • “to accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment” (Canon 1 as revised in 1990). • IEEE Code commits its members to disclose possible threats to the public and the environment. To whom they should disclose? • To one’s immediate superior? (what if the superior does not 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 in projects due to environmental concerns? • IEEE Code does not address these questions.

The ASME Code (1998) • “Engineers shall consider environmental impact in the performance of their professional duties” (Canon 8 as revised in 1998). • ASME Code does not require engineers to modify their designs or change their professional work due to environmental factors. • It does not say that environmental considerations should override others.

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 without endangering the capacity of natural systems to absorb the effects of human activities, and without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and aspirations.” • Development: economic and technical activity to meet present requirements of people. • Sustainable Activity: this activity must not jeopardize the environment neither for today, nor for the future generations. • Sustainable Development: involves political, social and moral dimensions going beyond environment-friendly technology.

Environmental Controversy • Only three engineering codes contain items of relevance. • ASCE seems to be more committed than IEEE and ASME. • 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 to discharge of carcinogens) versus non-health related concern (construction of dam over farmlands). • Intrinsic value versus instrumental value of nature. • Intrinsic value—the value of nature apart from human use or appreciation (trees, rivers, animals) • Instrumental value—the value insofar as they are used or appreciated by human beings.

Environmental Controversy (cont.) • Most engineering codes already implicitly commit engineers to health-related environmental concerns (hold paramount safety, health and welfare of public). • Only three engineering codes explicitly refer to non-health related concerns or the intrinsic value of the environment. But the interpretation of concern is controversial. • Why the Reluctance? • For most giant corporation CEO’s environmental issues have never become top priority, actually some regard these as nuisance draining their financial assets and hindering productivity (crisis-oriented environmental management). Such corporations devote minimal resources to deal with environmental regulations.

Environmental Controversy (cont.) • Why the Reluctance? (cont.) • A different perspective than the classical one above is cost-oriented environmental management. Corporations following this approach accept governmental regulations as cost of their business although without keen commitment or any enthusiasm. • Another recent trend is enlightened environmental management. Environmental-consciousness has the full support of the CEO. It should be noted that recent trends in Production Management favors this approach. Agile Manufacturing Philosophy (which is becoming a popular enterprise corporate policy) includes commitment to environmental issues. • Can we make supporting arguments in favor of enlightened-E-M? • Making business means serving the interests of the community, hence the requirement of being responsible towards the people. • Positive attitude towards the law and the community will be good for the business in the long run.

Environmental Controversy (cont.) • Another difficulty is the controversial definition of clean. • It is not easy to reach consensus over environmental goals and hence regulations. • How clean is clean? • What is the appropriate working criterion or definition of clean that can 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 environmental issues? • See the inadequate definition of clean at Table10.1 (p.224/214). Gives us an idea about how difficult it is to agree on rules and regulations to combat environmental pollution.

The Law • Specific laws related to environmental issues have been adopted quite recently (late 60s in the U.S). Until then violations 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).

The Court Decisions • Laws related to environmental issues have been subject of criticism because of enormous costs added to fulfill regulations. • 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 chloride emissions (1986). • The court declared EPA cannot set a standard for vinyl chloride emission at levels less strict than industry have satisfied • D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that “employees would not be protected if their employers were put out of business” on a case (AFL-CIO vs. Hodgson) related to asbestos (1974). • How to develop reasonable criteria?

Trade-off between Development and Protection • Dilemma of Environmental Protection. • Excessive regulations will hamper production (some production facilities can shift to other countries where regulations are not strict). • Protection laws can put some employers out of business or even finish some industries. Obviously this is not in the best interests of workers and/or the public. • Any rational criterion for a clean environment must take into 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.

Balancing Wealth and Health • Strict measures of protection can severely stagnate economical activities. • Utilitarian Standpoint: compromise over environmental impact if the action produces net benefit on the overall utility function. • According to utilitarian thinking minor benefits to many might overweigh severe harms to a few. Utilitarian approach can justify severe damage to the environment. • Some laws and court decisions have taken action against this unfortunate tendency of utilitarianism.

Degree-of-Harm Criterion • The engineer’s responsibility to hold paramount the health of the public should not be totally utilitarian. • However, the need to consider the economic effects of environmental regulations should not be forgotten. • Hence the Degree-of-Harm Criterion: • “When pollutants pose a clear and pressing threat to human health, they must be reduced below any reasonable threshold of harm. Cost should not be considered a significant factor. Insofar as substances pose an uncertain (but possible) risk to health or when the threshold of danger cannot be determined, economic factors may be considered. If harm is irreversible, it should be given higher priority.” • One extreme is to eliminate threat whatever its cost is, because of its severe and/or irreversible characteristic.

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 their responsibility 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 to atmosphere (environmental effects not well-known). • The chemical plant of Melinda is discharging a chemical to the river. The chemical is not regulated, but displays similar characteristics to other banned toxic substances. What should Melinda do? • Line drawing can be useful to check degree-of-harm.

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 matters and 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.

Anthropocentric Approach to Env. Ethics (cont.) • The separation of two movements can be questioned, nevertheless both movements have had their own ways and sometimes they might even clash: • Natural fires have renewal effect for plant life, but destructive for wild animals. Hence animal liberationists might be in conflict with environmentalists on the issue of combating forest fires. • Common element in both movements is that they are strongly opposed to the anthropocentric nature of Western Ethics (anthropocentric meaning only human beings are morally considerable).

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 walk about rocks... I have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake” • This can be challenged by the utilitarian perspective in that the pleasure and avoidance of pain of animals is also part of the overall utility and well-being. • Singer compares discrimination against animals to racism. • “like racism and sexism, speciesism is arbitrary and morally unjustifiable” • Animal liberation movement has some relevance to engineering ethics: • Some engineering designs and/or projects destroy the wild life. • Some products are tested on animals.

Environmentalism and Engineering Ethics • Environmental Movement is much more related to engineering ethics than Animal Liberation. • The biotic community 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 may begin 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 nature in engineering codes when human life is not at stake.

Scope of Obligations to the Environment • Why should professional engineering obligations to the environment extend beyond factors endangering humans? • Engineers should have some obligations because they are capable of environmental degradation as well as improvement. • Engineers are essential participants in projects which can potentially affect the environment. Their environment-conscious attitudes will have substantial positive impact. • As far as non-health related issues are concerned engineers can make their judgments based on their personal moral beliefs rather than professional ethics: • Many such situations fall beyond the expertise of engineers. • Extending professional responsibility for the environment into areas not clearly related to public health or safety might cause considerable problems for engineering societies. • Requiring engineers to protect the environment where human health is not an issue can produce problems of the conscience for some engineers.

Minimalist Standpoint and Organizational Disobedience • To formulate the professional engineering obligations in relation to non-health related issues two perspectives can be adopted: • The Minimalist Stand: Engineers should be required to hold paramount human health, they should not be required as professionals to inject non-health related environmental concerns into their engineering work. • Disobedience: Engineers should have the right to organizational disobedience with regard to environmental issues, as this is required by their own personal beliefs or their own interpretations of what professional obligation requires. • It should be noted that the two perspectives do not necessarily contradict each other.

Chapter 9 Engineers and the Environment