Sanchez 4:00
R03
NUCLEAR REPROCESSING: AN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE
Michael Donello (mid47@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
ETHICAL DILEMA
In this paper I aim to explore and analyze an ethical
dilemma I am faced with as a chemical engineer working for
a nuclear reprocessing plant. My position as a chemical
engineer at the plant primarily involves the research and
development of plutonium and uranium extraction processes.
The primary goal of my research is to effectively manage the
waste associated with nuclear fission with the aim of
promoting the widespread use of nuclear power. As a
thoughtful engineer, my curiosity has led me to realize that
my work, while highly beneficial in terms of efficiency and
energy production, is also highly controversial in regards to
the possibility of nuclear proliferation. In order to deal with
this ethical dilemma in an appropriate and professional
manner, I must consult my resources in order to assess,
analyze, and effectively respond to the issue at hand.
Although the aforementioned benefits sound quite
convincing, I have come to the realization that an essential
part of the picture has been left out: an ethical dilemma
involving nuclear proliferation. Specifically, my situation
deals with the proliferation of uranium and plutonium
extraction processes that I am responsible for the research and
development of. These processes, while extremely beneficial
to society, can give rise to the production of materials used to
make nuclear weapons. Such reprocessing technologies can
be extremely dangerous when in the wrong hands, running the
risk of increased nuclear terrorism [3]. As I have stressed
before, it is important to consider the benefits of these
processes; however, as a responsible engineer, I cannot be so
naïve as to ignore the fact that my work runs the risk of putting
innocent people in harm’s way.
PLUTOMIUM AND URANIUM
EXTRACTION
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
National Society of Professional Engineers
In general, nuclear reprocessing is the broad term used to
describe the process of recycling used nuclear fuel associated
with nuclear fission. Advancements in technology have made
it possible to extract uranium and other reusable elements
from spent fuel, allowing for the efficient recycling of nuclear
waste [1]. As a chemical engineer responsible for the research
and development of reprocessing methods, it is my
responsibility to enhance and improve upon current
technologies and also aid in the development of future ones.
When considering the time and effort put into the
development of such a technology, the question may rise as
to why I, as an engineer, am particularly interested in nuclear
reprocessing. In order to address this question, I will briefly
discuss both the positive and negative aspects of nuclear
fission. On the positive end of the spectrum, the process of
nuclear fission results in zero carbon dioxide emissions [2].
Unlike the process of burning fossil fuels to produce
electricity, nuclear fission has less of an impact on the
environment. In addition, it offers a cheaper solution and is
superior in the amount of electricity it can produce when
compared to the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is one
major drawback to nuclear fission: the leftover waste is highly
radioactive and serves no practical purpose. This is where
nuclear reprocessing comes into play and why I as an engineer
see the value in pursuing the advancement of extraction
processes.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2014-09-30
The proliferation of nuclear technology and material
carries along with it the possibility for the creation of weapons
of mass destruction. In assessing an ethical issue like the one
I have been faced with, I must turn to the “Code of Ethics for
Engineers” as laid out by the National Society of Professional
Engineers. I find the code of ethics to be particularly relevant
to my situation, and I will discuss in detail specific codes,
canons, and directives to better understand the ethical issues
specific to my case. As stated in section two, “Fundamental
Canons”, as an engineer I shall “Hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public” [4]. This means that the
result of my work should not in any way jeopardize the wellbeing of the public. Although I believe my work does not
directly impact the general public in a negative manner,
misuse certainly has the potential to do just that. Take for
example a situation in which a terrorist organization uses my
research or other nuclear related materials and technology to
create a weapon of mass destruction. An example involving
such a situation would be in North Korea, where weaponsgrade plutonium was produced through the use of a research
reactor and reprocessing plant. The production of the
plutonium was followed by the explosion of nuclear devices
in 2006, 2009 and 2013 [5]. Although these nuclear devices
were not used or intended to be used as weapons of mass
destruction, it is evident that the technology is available to do
so. It is also evident that weapons of mass destruction, as
implied by their name, have the potential to induce massive
amounts of destruction. Just how massive these effects are can
Michael Donello
be put into perspective when we recall events such as the
bombings of Hiroshima. Instances like these carry along with
them a whole set of ethical issues regarding the health,
welfare and safety of the public. For example, it is estimated
that about 130,000 people were killed as a result of the
bombings. In addition to those who were killed, many others
suffered from blast injuries, radiation poisoning, damage to
bone marrow and lymphatic tissue, and atomic thermal burns
[6]. In some cases, long lasting effects of the bombings could
be seen in chromosomal changes in those exposed to the
radiation as well as in pregnant women whose babies showed
high rates of infantile death and mental retardation [6].
Drawing upon this information, this canon has made it clear
that my research on extraction processes carries along with it
ethical issues that I must take into consideration. I am now
aware that the result of my work can in fact jeopardize the
well-being of the public, which is not in direct compliance
with the code of ethics set out by the National Society of
Professional Engineers.
me to see that my research has some hefty drawbacks that
seem to outweigh the potential benefits.
Ethics in Engineering
In addition to the codes of ethics, I would like to consult
other sources to further explore the ethical issues associated
with my research. In order to do this, I think it would be
beneficial to hear what other engineers have to say about
ethics within the field of engineering. The Engineering Ethics
Blog allows me to gain some exposure to the opinions of other
engineers, and I will discuss some of the key points that are
relevant to my scenario. To start off, the most basic ethical
decision every engineer must make is the specific type of
work they want to do: their career choice. As a chemical
engineer working for a nuclear reprocessing plant, the
situation I have been put in has made it clear that both my
research and career choice are awash with ethical issues.
While my research mainly seeks to promote the widespread
use of nuclear fission, it might be worth mentioning “…that
the first application of nuclear fission was to kill thousands of
Japanese in and around the cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki…” [9]. This brings up an interesting point,
however, the authors of the blog go on to comment that in
general, “…technology is ethically neutral, it’s what human
beings do with technology that makes for good or bad
consequences” [9]. I find this to be true of my research as it
has both positive and negative aspects depending on how it is
used. I think the ethical questions tend to rise when it is used
with malevolent intentions rather than good. Despite this, I
cannot ignore the fact that nuclear fission was originally used
as a means of destruction and ruin to injure thousands of
people and destroy the environment. This piece of
information alone has left a lasting impression on me, and
once again the consultation of outside sources has led me
believe that my research has the potential to do more evil than
it does good.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
In addition to the code of ethics governing engineers as a
whole, more specific codes such as those laid out by the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers are available for
me to reference. The code states that members shall
“…protect the environment in performance of their
professional duties” [7]. In other words, at the very least, my
work should not have a negative impact on the environment,
and if at all possible, should serve to protect and preserve the
environment. I find this aspect of the canon particularly
conflicting when assessing the ethical issue because my
research has the potential to both help and hurt the
environment. For example, on the one hand, my research can
be used to effectively deal with the nuclear waste produced as
a result of nuclear fission, lessening environmental impacts.
However, on the other hand, my research has the potential to
wreak havoc on the environment when it is used to do evil. In
a study conducted by Alan Robock, a professor in the
department of environmental sciences at Rutgers University,
it was concluded that 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would
produce enough smoke to “…block sunlight, cool the planet,
and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded
human history” [8]. This would effectively set off a “nuclear
winter,” where “…it would be colder than the little ice age [in
the 17th and 18th centuries] and the change would happen
very rapidly — over the course of a few weeks” [8]. Such
implications are particularly alarming considering that the
results would have a drastic impact on growing seasons and
farming regimes, leading to a steep depletion in the food
supply [8]. Taking a step back to understand and consider
what this all means, I am able to have a better understanding
of the environmental impacts associated with nuclear
weapons. As I begin to think about the necessary course of
action, this particular code and study are beneficial in helping
Ethics Essay
Now that I have been able to effectively identify the
specific ethical issues I am dealing with, I want to delve
further down into the implications of these issues. In his
essay, “Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction”, Steven P.
Lee, a philosophy professor at Hobart and William Smith
Colleges, explores the ethical issues associated with weapons
of mass destruction, and more specifically, the ethical issues
associated with nuclear weapons. He comments that in
general, nuclear weapons tend to be much more destructive
when compared to other weapons of mass destruction. He
recognizes that “A single nuclear bomb can destroy a city...it
can create air-borne radiation that can do harm at a
considerable distance in space and time from the site of the
explosion” [10]. However, Lee also makes it clear that
“Weapons don’t kill civilians; combatants kill civilians” [10].
This further emphasizes the point I presented earlier which
2
Michael Donello
has helped me to understand that the ethical issues I am faced
with are dependent upon what my research is used for. From
this information, I am able conclude that my specific research
as a chemical engineer should not be considered ethically
questionable; it is those who misuse my research to inflict
harm on others who give rise to the ethical dilemmas and
questions.
engineers should take into consideration the future effects of
their work. That is why I think it is truly important for
engineers to take steps similar to mine when assessing and
evaluating an ethical dilemma to understand the power they
hold and the gravity of the decisions they make.
FINAL THOUGHTS
[1] L. Lerner. (2012). “Nuclear fuel recycling could offer
plentiful
energy.”
Argonne.
(online
article).
http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-couldoffer-plentiful-energy
[2] J. Burgess. (2013). “10 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power.”
Discovery. (online article).
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10pros-cons-nuclear-power.htm pp. 2,5
[3] “Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty and
Expensive.” Union of Concerned Scientists. (online article).
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/making-nuclearpower-safer/handling-nuclear-waste/nuclearreprocessing.html#.VERWKmp0wqM
[4] (2007). “Code of Ethics for Engineers” National Society
of
Professional
Engineers.
(online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[5] (2011). “Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies.” World
Nuclear Association. (online article) http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/NonProliferation/Appendices/Nuclear-Proliferation-CaseStudies/
[6] “Destructive Effects.” Atomic Bomb Museum. (online
article). http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml
[7] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers. (online article).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[8] E. Harrell. (2009). “Regional Nuclear War and the
Environment.”
Time
Magazine.
(online
article).
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,0
0.html
[9] (2008). “Ethics of Career Choice: Nuclear Engineering.”
Engineering
Ethics
Blog.
(online
blog).
http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/ethicsof-career-choice-nuclear.html
[10] S. P. Lee. (2009). “Ethics and Weapons of Mass
Destruction.” 1st ed., Ed. Cambridge University Press. (essay)
pp. 3,6
REFERENCES
Putting it All Together
After a considerable amount of thought and research
regarding the underlying ethical issues of my work, I find that
I have an overall better understanding of the types of ethical
dilemmas that I might be faced with as an engineer. My
consultation of outside sources, including various codes of
ethics, has led me to believe that while my research does not
directly have a negative impact on the general public, I cannot
simply disregard that the possibility to inflict harm on others
still exists. As a responsible engineer, I understand that I must
hold myself, and my work to the highest possible standards,
and in doing so, I am able to see that the benefits of research
on plutonium and uranium extraction processes tend to be
negated by the severe consequences that can arise from the
misuse of the technology. This has led me to arrive at the
conclusion that although the intended purpose of my research
is beneficial to society as whole, after serious consideration, I
cannot continue with my research knowing the malevolent
applications of my work. I feel it is unethical for me as both
an individual and as an engineer to dedicate my time to
something that carries such great risks.
My Advice
Future engineers should take my experience and use it as
a reference if they find themselves in a situation similar to
mine. In assessing and evaluating an ethical dilemma,
engineers should reference the code of ethics set out by the
National Society of Professional Engineers in addition to the
code of ethics specific to their field of work. It is important to
note while their specific scenario might vary from mine, there
are basic principles all engineers should adhere to when
evaluating an ethical situation. Above all else, engineers
should ensure their work benefits society as a whole and does
not jeopardize the well-being of the public or impact the
environment in a negative manner. After taking all of these
things into consideration, it should be relatively clear what is
morally and ethically acceptable not only in the context of
engineering, but as a responsible member of society. As
engineers, we are given the task of solving the problems that
plague society on a daily basis; however, by simply ignoring
the relevant ethical issues associated with our work, we run
the risk of creating problems much larger in scale. Rather than
basing their decisions solely on the immediate benefits,
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. (2006).
“Weapons for Life.” National Academy of Engineering.
(online article). http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/5273.aspx.
p.1
A. Kurzok, G. Hund. “Beyond compliance: Integrating
nonproliferation into corporate sustainability.” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists. (article). DOI:10.1177/0096340213485946
3
Michael Donello
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the librarians and my writing
instructor for helping me clarify my topic and get the
necessary information needed for the completion of this
assignment. I would also like to thank the fellow engineers on
my floor for their continued support throughout the duration
of this assignment.
4