Budny 10:00
L18
SAFETY ISSUES IN THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: AN
ETHICAL DILEMMA
Jacob Rasko (jtr39@pitt.edu)
ETHICAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Energy is one of the most important aspects of our twenty
first century lives. It powers everything to our cell phones to
the streetlights. Nuclear power demonstrates a way to give
the world a sustainable future energy source. When nuclear
power is used in an ethically responsible way it has no
harmful side effects to the environment and is very
sustainable. In this context, Sustainability refers to the
design ensures that the use does not lead to diminished
quality of life for society [1]. However, the dangers
associated with nuclear power are staggering. Accidents
such as Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, Three Mile Island in
Pennsylvania, and recently Fukushima in Japan demonstrate
how devastating nuclear power can be. Very stringent safety
measures must be put in place due the threats nuclear power
poses. We can imagine numerous scenarios in which
engineers are faced with difficult decisions. Engineers must
consider ethics everyday when faced with difficult decisions.
ETHICAL DILEMA IN NUCLEAR ENERGY
As we move forward into the future, nuclear energy looks
more viable as a solution to our energy crisis. To operate a
nuclear power plant, nuclear fission must take place, which
is a vital but extremely dangerous process [2]. It involves
taking Uranium atoms and splitting them, which produces
very high temperatures and pressure along with the emission
of radioactive waste that can cause harm to the environment
and society surrounding the plant. It is being made safer
every year. But even if engineers built the safest nuclear
reactor, a disaster could still take place because of human
error [3]. The disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania
was due to human error and wrongful decision making that
questioned the ethics of nuclear engineering [4]. Even the
Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union was due to human
error. In his book Perspectives on Modern World History:
Chernobyl David Erik Nelson states, “An operator error
caused a power surge that blew the roof of the reactor
unit...” [5]. These situations define the struggle engineers
face every day with ethical decision-making. Nuclear
engineers can either make decisions that can have serious
ramifications on the environment and society as a whole or
be successful in building a better future for engineering [6].
status of nuclear power plants. My employer was contracted
to build a new nuclear reactor outside Washington D.C. to
provide the extra energy needed as the nations capital moves
into the future. When building the new nuclear power plant
we ran into several safety concerns with the safety
procedures that we were building into the plant. We
continued moving on with the project even though we knew
of these faults. That led to the first ethical issue of the
project. As the project concluded and the plant was set to
start operation more concerns were brought to my attention
with the way safety mechanisms were built. They were
already showing signs of faultiness and were in extreme
danger of failing even before operation commenced. At that
time the media was very focused on the nuclear plant due to
it being built so close to the nations capital. It was a symbol
of the trust society should have in nuclear power and the
symbol of the future of nuclear power. So even after being
alerted twice to safety concerns my employer continued on
with endorsing this nuclear power plant. All went as planned
when the nuclear power plant went into operating status.
Two weeks into operation, safety mechanisms started going
faulty and giving extreme warnings. I was assigned to look
into the issues with operation. I found that the warnings that
we received during the construction phase were being
confirmed. Safety containment structures, coolant systems,
and emergency backup systems were all on the verge of
failure. Even with all these signs, the plant was still
operating due to the fact it was a beacon of hope for nuclear
power. I went back to my employer and expressed my
concerns and was told to leave it out of my report and
approve the plant for continued operation. Not only as a
person but also an engineer I couldn’t handle that response. I
live nearby and had family that has been personally affect by
past nuclear power accidents. As William R. Wilson stated
in his paper Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach
Engineering Ethics, “Engineers are often required to make
ethical judgments that can significantly impact not only their
own careers but also the public at large” [7]. Within my first
year of working, I have had three ethical situations and now
I am faced with one of the most difficult ethical decisions
that can have serious effects on my career and society. To
make a sound decision I analyzed the situation I had been
put into.
REEXAMINING THE PROJECT
Scenario
As a recent college graduate, I pursued a job with a
nuclear engineering company. As a nuclear engineer, my job
responsibilities were to design, build, and ensure operating
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013/10/29
With making a decision of what to do, I went back into
every phase of this project. During the building phase of the
nuclear reactor, we consulted designs that have been
approved and certified as safe. Most of these designs are as
Jacob Rasko
old as when the color TVs was being introduced, which was
the late 60’s [8]. As the project went along more concerns
about design and safety procedures became more prevalent.
Many different safety procedures go into making a nuclear
reactor whole. The safety procedures nuclear reactors are
built with go with the concept of defense in depth [2]. The
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists states that, “Defense in
Depth refers to multiple layers of protection aimed at
reducing risks to both the public and workers” [2]. This
involves using multiple layers of protection to ensure
nothing can go wrong. In our project the three most vital
safety mechanisms we used were containment structures,
coolant systems, and emergency core cooling systems. We
were set with a sustainable budget that could make the
nuclear reactor affordable and practical. To make our budget
possible types of materials were switched out and different
manufacturing procedures were used. In hindsight, these
may have not been the best decisions but at the time there
was no indication of the effects it would have.
though I had some resources available to help with this
ethical dilemma there were still aspects of different level that
made my decision harder.
National Society of Professional Engineers Code of
Ethics for Engineers
The National Society of Professional Engineers provided
a great resource to look how the code of ethics that I abide
by related to my situation. One of the fundamental canons of
the Code of Ethics that the National Society of Professional
Engineers provides is, “Engineers should hold paramount
the safety, health, and welfare or the public” [10]. This
canon applies directly to my situation. With my decision I
am fully responsible for the safety and welfare of the
surrounding public and environment. Which is why when I
make my decision it should put into account every pro and
con of the nuclear power plant. Another two aspects of the
Code of Ethics that the National Society of Professional
Engineers states is, “Engineers shall acknowledge their
errors and shall not distort or alter facts," and "shall advise
their clients or employers when they believe a project will
not be successful” [10]. Both of these codes demonstrate my
employers' unethical decision making. If I were to decide to
go against my employer it would ruin the reputation of the
company and possibly shut it down. But I feel that if I want
to be a professional engineer, I should respect these codes of
ethics.
Safety Mechanisms
With all nuclear reactor designs there are three main
components of safety mechanisms; the containment
structure, the coolant system, and the emergency core
coolant system. Every Nuclear Reactor in the United States
is surrounded by a primary containment structure designed
to minimize the release of radioactive material into the
environment [8]. Containment Structures also contain a
steel liner that covers the inside of the structure [8]. This
extra liner acts as an extra barrier to prevent gas from
escaping through the holes that may form in the concrete
structure. Contained inside the containment structure is the
reactor core, which is secured by another safety procedure,
the coolant system. With nearly every nuclear reactor core
design, the main component of the safety procedures is the
coolant systems. Overall though, the coolant systems main
job is to keep the reactor core at optimal temperature for safe
operation of the nuclear power plant [9]. As a last resort, the
Emergency Core Cooling System provides the last defense
for the prevention of a nuclear meltdown. An ECCS
provides makeup water for the loss of coolant systems. It
must be big enough to cover the intake of the largest coolant
system pipe [9]. The Emergency Core Cooling System
ensures that a meltdown of the core does not happen. With
all these safety mechanisms in place there should never be
any issue with operating a nuclear reactor in an ethical way.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Code of
Professional Ethics
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers was
another great resource that I found very helpful in making
my decision. Since my degree is in Chemical Engineering I
found I could relate to the standards of this Institution. The
Code of Professional Ethics of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers stated that, “Engineers shall hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare, of the public in
the performance of their profession duties” [11]. The number
one priority of any engineering project should be how it
affects society. When moving forward with this project, I
felt that the cost-effectiveness of the project was put above
the welfare of society. If everyone were to put cost above
welfare, we would have extreme issues with every aspect of
our lives. Even though every code of ethics is pointing me in
the direction of making this issue public, there is one aspect
that is directing me otherwise. Another part of the Code of
Professional Ethics of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers tells us that, “Engineers shall act in a professional
matters for each employer…” [11]. This conflicts with my
viewpoints on the matter and make me question my choices.
I take pride in my job and enjoy what I do, but at the same
time is it worth me risking the safety of the public? With the
help of this Code of Professional Ethics, I am able to make
my decision more easily.
ENGINEERING CODES OF ETHICS
Throughout my difficult decision, I thought to look for
outside resources that could guide me in a better direction.
With as many issues as nuclear power has had in the past
there should be resources of solutions to this dilemma. With
some researching I found many code of ethics from different
institutions that helped my decision making process. Even
2
Jacob Rasko
THE FEAR OF NUCLEAR POWER
RESOURCES
When the public hears about nuclear power and nuclear
engineering, they are resistant and fearful of the idea. This is
due to the horrible disasters that have taken place because of
unethically sound decision-making in nuclear power plants.
Most every disaster that occurs with nuclear power is
because someone made an unethical decision or mistake.
Moving into the future and with this current project and
ethical dilemma, I feel the ability to stand my ground on
ethical decision-making. It gives me the confidence to stand
up in an ethical way, so nuclear power can develop a good
reputation in society as a whole.
[1] D. Michelfelder, S. A. Jones. “Sustaining Engineering
Codes of Ethics for the Twenty-First Century.” (2011).
Academic
Search
Premier.
(Online
Article).
100.1007/s/11948-011-9310-2
[2] D. Kim, J. Kang. “Where nuclear safety and security
meet.” (2012). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (Online
Article). 10.1177/0096340211433021
[3] D. A. Miller. (2010). Nuclear Energy. Farmington Hills,
MI: Greenhaven Press. (Print Book). Pp. 16-109
[4] M. W. Martin, R. Schinzinger. (2010). Introduction to
Engineering Ethics. New York: Mcgraw-Hill High
Education. (Print Book). pp. 114-128
[5] D. E. Nelson. (2010). Perspectives on Modern World
History: Chernobyl. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomas Gale.
(Print Book). pp. 1-17
[6] J. M. Basart, M. Serra. “Engineering Ethics Beyond
Engineers’ Ethics.” (2011). Academic Search Premier.
(Online Article). 10/1007/s11948-011-0293-z
[7] W. R. Wilson. “Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach
Engineering Ethics.” (2011). Academic Search Premier.
(Online Article). 10.1007/s11948-011-9337-4
[8] J. P. Argyriou. (2012). Nuclear Power Plants. New
York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Print Book). pp. 1-23
[9] “Danger Zone.” (2013). Academic Search Premier.
(Online
Article).
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph
&AN=87878293&site=ehost-live
[10]National Society of Professional Engineers. “Code of
Ethics for Engineers.” (2007). (Online Article).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[11] American Institute of Chemical Engineers. “Code of
Professional
Ethics.”
(2013).
(Online
Article).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
ETHICAL DECISION
After consulting many different resources and analyzing
the situation, I decided that I could not go on with being a
Professional Engineer if I didn’t stop this plant from
operating. The Code of Ethics from the National Society of
Professional Engineers and the Code of Ethics of American
Institute of Chemical Engineers demonstrated four reasons
why I have to make the right ethical decision. By making the
right ethical decision in this situation I can be a responsible
and heroic engineer [6]. Even though I would be terminated
from my current place of employment, I feel that in the
interest of society and the future of nuclear power I have no
choice in my decision. If I would ignore this situation and let
the plant operate as usual, the damages it could cause could
be devastating. Also, if it were to become public that I let
this happen my reputation as a professional engineer would
be tarnished if not ruined. As a result I brought these issues
to light in the public. Even though Mike Martin and Ronald
Schinzinger stated in there book Introduction to Engineering
Ethics that, “Whistle-Blowing is a lonely, unrewarded, and
fraught with peril and most suffer an unhappy fate” [4]. I
still feel that in the interest of society, it has to be brought to
the attention of all. By reporting the operating nature of this
plant to the American Nuclear Society and other government
outlets I have no regrets with my decision. This will let the
nuclear power plant be redesigned and operate in a better
way that keeps society safe and supplies them with a
sustainable energy source. Even though this plant has failed
to demonstrate a way to have sustainable and ethically safe
nuclear power, it doesn’t mean that it cannot or will not be a
part of our future developments. Nuclear power will always
be a great option for an ethical engineering company to
pursue in the future. I hope that future engineers may follow
my lead and make the right ethical decision when faced with
this type of situation.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
R.A. Burgess, M. Davis, M. A. Dyrud, J. R. Hekert, R. D.
Hollander, L. Newton, M. S. Pritchard, P. A. Vesilind.
“Engineering Ethics: Looking Back, Looking Forward.”
Academic
Search
Premier.
(Online
Article).
10.1007/s11948-012-9374-7
(2013). “Grand Challenges for Engineering." (Online
Video).
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspx
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my parents for their unwavering
support for me throughout my first semester at college. I also
would like to thank my friend Jenna for pulling an all nighter
with me to get this paper done. Dr. Budny also should be
thanked for his inspiration to stay in Engineering even
though it will beat you down every day.
3