Vidic 2:00
R18
THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
Elinor Lou (ell47@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: AN ENGINEERING
SCENARIO TO CONSIDER ETHICS
Let’s consider a scenario in which I am a new engineer
working at a nuclear power plant. There are several reasons
why a nuclear meltdown might occur. The structure of the
plant could have been poorly designed or a catastrophic and
uncontrollable event, like a heavy storm, could have damaged
the plant. However, in this case, the two resident inspectors at
the nuclear power plant have been neglecting their duties,
which are set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The nuclear reactors overheat, causing a nuclear meltdown,
sending the public into a panic. I am asked to lead the task of
containing any radiation leaks, a job that should be given to
the head engineer, who is on vacation. In addition, the power
plant releases a statement to the public that there is no danger
to the surrounding community and evacuation from the area
is unnecessary. However, I am aware of continuing problems
in the plant that could endanger the surrounding areas, and I
have discussed these concerns with other engineers who also
believe there is a threat.
In deciding what to do in this scenario, I need to consider
codes of ethics. As I walk through this scenario, I will be
frequently consulting the Code of Ethics from the National
Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the Code of
Ethics from the American Nuclear Society (ANS). However,
I will begin with a discussion of what occurs during a nuclear
meltdown.
Background Information on Nuclear Power
Nuclear power is generated most commonly through
controlled nuclear fission. The process of fission involves the
bombardment of atoms with neutrons, a method which then
causes a split in the atom’s nucleus, releasing a large amount
of energy. In practice, this process is utilized by submerging
fuel rods, which are filled with uranium pellets, in to water.
Nuclear fission of the atoms is then induced, producing heat
that transforms the water into pressurized steam. The steam
then turns a turbine which powers a generator, ultimately
creating energy [1].
Most nuclear plants will use uranium atoms in this process
simply because of the fact that they are more readily available
than other options like plutonium or thorium. However, there
are still some plants that will use plutonium or thorium atoms,
if available [1].
In nuclear fission, the very heat that is used to create
energy can also cause a dangerous meltdown. The uranium
used in nuclear fission must be overheated to successfully
generate energy from it, but this process could also melt the
containment structures in the plant. If the nuclear reactor
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013/10/29
overheats and this occurs, radiation leaks can contaminate
surrounding air, food, and water supplies, even despite
specially built safeguards [1].
ETHICAL DILEMMAS PRESENTED IN
THE SCENARIO
The Importance of Competent Training and Experience
I am first presented with an ethical dilemma in this
scenario when I am asked to help contain the radiation leaks.
There are two points that make me uncomfortable with
handling this task. First, as a relatively new engineer at the
plant, I do not feel that I have the experience to manage this
crisis like some older engineers might have. Second, this job
is normally a task managed by the head engineer, most likely
because it is a job that requires a lot of skill and expertise.
Both of these facts are points for concern because they
suggest that I am not a qualified individual to handle the
responsibility of leading the way in containing a leakage. In
the NSPE Rules of Practice, Rule 2a states that engineers are
required to “undertake assignments only when qualified by
education or experience in the specific technical fields
involved” [2]. Though there is a possibility that my education
was sufficient enough to suitably handle this situation, my
lack of experience makes me a poor candidate to be put in
charge of such an important task. It makes more sense for
someone else with both education and experience to lead in
the task of containment.
The ANS Code of Ethics has a similar requirement in rule
4 of its Practices of Professional Conduct. This states that
engineers will “perform only those services that we are
qualified by training or experience to perform” [3]. If I am to
stand by these codes, I cannot reasonably accept the task of
leading containment efforts because I do not have the
experience to perform the task.
In one of the many conversations I have had with my mom
about my future, my mother once suggested that I do not need
to be completely qualified for a job that I choose to take. She
believed that, as long as I had a background in the topic and
as long as I made an effort to learn how to do a required skill
on the job, I could claim that I was capable of doing the said
task [4].
My mom’s advice was based on the idea that I needed to
make myself look as attractive as possible to potential
employers. However, telling my employer that I am indeed
capable of doing this job breaks an important rule. Practice
number four of the ANS Code of Conduct states that, in
addition to performing only tasks that I am qualified to
perform, that I must “provide full disclosure of [my]
qualifications” [3]. I cannot lie to my employer and suggest
Elinor Lou
that I am qualified to handle this situation. In this scenario, I
should not use my mom’s advice.
Without feeling competent to handle the assignment, as
stated under the NSPE and ANS Codes of Conduct, I would
not accept the assignment. Instead, I would approach my
employer and explain to them that my lack of experience
makes me a flawed choice to lead the containment of
radiation. Though I may have certain qualifications, being a
new engineer at the plant means that there are probably many
other experienced engineers who are more capable of
conducting the containment process. I would suggest that one
of those engineers take the assignment instead. Having solved
this dilemma, I will continue on to consider other ethical
problems in the scenario.
allows me to reveal information, I can choose to object to my
employer’s statement.
Though I am a little unsure if ethical codes allow for it, I
am also leaning toward informing someone – whether it be
public authorities or the public in general – of the dangers to
the surrounding community. Part of the reason I am
considering this option is because of the reason the accident
was caused. Michael Davis of the Illinois Institute of
Technology has cited several reasons a meltdown might
occur. Amongst the most grievous of reasons is negligence
and incompetence [8]. Workers at a nuclear plant should
always treat their work with the utmost importance due to the
potential harm that could occur should they fail to do their job.
The meltdown that occurred at the plant was caused by the
negligence of inspectors. Their failure to properly do their job
makes me more inclined to let the public know about the
dangers of the meltdown. They are already complicit in
allowing the crisis to occur in the first place. Refusing to
inform the public is irresponsible and fails to take personal
responsibility.
In the song “Human” by The Killers, the lyrics question
whether a person is still human if they choose to reject virtue.
It asks, “Let me know, is your heart still beating” [9]. In other
words, part of the responsibility of being human is to take into
consideration how your choices affect other humans. By
neglecting to tell the public that there may be a danger, the
officials who made the statement are being less human and
less compassionate. However, I must continue to consult
different codes of ethics to solidify my decision.
Considering the Public’s Need to Know
The second questionable ethical situation in this meltdown
scenario is the fact that a public statement was released
reassuring people of no danger when workers inside the plant
were aware of a possible threat. There are a couple rules in
the NSPE Code of Ethics under the Rules of Practice that
should be taken into consideration. The first rule is under the
Fundamental Canon to “issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner” [5]. In other words, I am
required to be honest and to not leave out pertinent
information in public statements. Specifically, Rule 3a says
that I must be “objective and truthful in…statements” and to
“include all relevant and pertinent information” [5]. However,
I am not the one specifically making the statement; I am
simply an employee aware of the fact that the management at
my power plant is making a statement that is not entirely true
when they say that there is no danger from radiation leaks. I
need to consider more ethical rules to decide whether or not
to counter my employer’s statement.
There are some rules in the codes of ethics that conflict
and make me unsure of what to do in this case. Knowing that
there is a danger to the surrounding community, I might feel
obligated to make a public statement refuting my employer’s
statement. Rule 3b under the NSPE Code says that I “may
express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon
knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter”
[6]. It does not specifically say whether this opinion has to be
approved by my employer. A conflicting rule in the NSPE
Code of Ethics puts doubt on whether or not this course of
action is the best choice. Rule 1c says that I “shall not reveal
facts, data, or information without the prior consent of
the…employer except as authorized or required by law or this
Code [7]. Now, I am torn between two rules. One says that I
am allowed to make a public statement if it is fair and honest,
while the other says I should not betray the trust of my
employers and that I cannot reveal certain data without their
approval. However, within the rule that says I cannot reveal
this information, there is a provision that allows for the
possibility of releasing information, if the law or the Code of
Ethics is violated. If I can reasonably determine that the Code
Placing an Importance on Public Health
I need to use ethical rules to determine which is more
important: my duties to the public or to my employer. Under
the Rules of Practice in the NSPE Code of Ethics, I find that
rule 1f specifically allows the disclosure of information in
certain cases. Since the first Fundamental Cannon says that
engineers must consider the safety, health, and welfare of the
public to be extremely important [10], I can use rule 1f to help
me make a decision. Rule 1f says that if I have “knowledge of
any alleged violation of this Code” I must report it to the
appropriate professional groups and/or to public authorities if
necessary [10]. Using these specifications, I can reason that,
by not informing the public of the danger of the radiation leak,
my employers are violating the first Fundamental Canon to
consider the wellbeing of the public.
I know that there is definitely a danger that results from
radiation leaks. In the past, there have been nuclear incidents
that required evacuation due to the severity of the leak. For
example, when a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Russia
caught fire and released a small amount of radiation into the
air, at least thirty-one people died from direct radiation. At
least ten more deaths were caused by cases of thyroid cancer.
More than one hundred thousand people were evacuated from
a thirty-kilometer zone around the plant [11]. As a person
aware of past accidents that were detrimental to the
2
Elinor Lou
surrounding community, I know that similarly, in this case,
there could be a danger to the surrounding community if
exposed to direct, or indirect, radiation. Because my
employers are violating the rule to consider the health of the
public, I can inform public authorities of the problem.
This decision is further reinforced by the ANS Code of
Ethics under the first practice, which states that engineers
must “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
public and fellow workers [and] work to protect the
environment” [12]. This expands upon the rules in the NSPE
code by also including consideration of the health of the
environment and not just the health of the people who might
be affected.
Based on past nuclear accidents, I also know that a
meltdown can harm the environment. In 2011, an earthquake
and the ensuing tsunami caused damage to the Fukushima
Daiichi plant in Japan. The radiation released has tainted
hundreds of square miles. A study led by Timothy Mousseau
from the University of South Carolina began four months
after the meltdown occurred at the Fukushima plant to study
the local ecosystem and compare the expected number of
certain bird species with the actual number. The initial survey
found that the count of birds was thirty percent lower than the
predicted number based on normal conditions [13]. A similar
study of the ecosystem around the Chernobyl plant found a
reduced number and longevity of birds, diminished fertility,
smaller brains, and a higher number of significant mutations
[13].
Clearly, a radiation leak can have detrimental effects on
the environment. Knowing this, I can be reasonably sure that
the radiation leak in the power plant I work in can harm the
environment. Under the first practice of the ANS Code of
Ethics, I must work to protect the environment.
Just like the NSPE Code of Conduct allowed for further
disclosure if any of the rules were violated, the ANS Code
also includes provisions that permit further disclosure.
Practice two under the ANS Code of Conduct states that “if
warranted, consider further disclosure, if and when we
perceive the pursuit of our professional duties might have
adverse consequences for the present or future public and
fellow worker health and safety or the environment” [14]. In
other words, if public, worker, or environmental wellbeing is
at risk, I am obligated to inform appropriate authorities of the
problem.
With many different rules in the Codes of Ethics
reinforcing the idea that I should contact other authorities
when the public wellbeing is in danger, I would definitely
decide to contact public authorities to warn them that the
surrounding area is at risk. Since my employer has failed to
inform the public of the dangers to them, I am allowed to
contact authorities to ensure the health of the surrounding
community.
CONCLUSION: WHY ETHICS ARE
IMPORTANT
Following ethical procedures for engineers working in
nuclear power plants can be vital to ensuring the safety of the
surrounding environment and community. Though the
scenario discussed throughout this paper is theoretical, it is
also a scenario that could easily exist in real life. In addition
to the meltdowns described in this paper, another famous
meltdown occurred at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
There is every possibility that another incident could occur at
a nuclear power plant that requires the consideration of many
more rules of ethics than discussed in this paper.
Throughout this scenario, I have only identified a couple
important rules of conduct. In real life, an engineer can face
many more ethical dilemmas that require a consultation of
more than just the rules I have identified. It might be a
temptation to break the rules, but as an engineer, he or she is
required to put the wellbeing of others first and to protect the
reputation and honor of the profession. A clear and defined
code of ethics allows an engineer to more reliably make
decisions that are in the best interest of employers, coworkers,
and the community. Engineers are typically people with
incredible resources to change the world, but following
ethical rules ensures that they change the world for the better.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Rich. (2013). “Nuclear Power: An Overview.” Points
of View Reference Center, EBSCOhost. (Database Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?sid=eac98e1b-039e4369-8b07ea9958055f42%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=112&bdata=
JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=23413836.
[2] NSPE. (2007). II.2.a. NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers. (Online).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[3] ANS. (2012). 4. American Nuclear Society Code of
Ethics. (Online). http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[4] H. Chen. (2013). Conversation.
[5] NSPE. (2007). II.3.a. NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers. (Online).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[6] NSPE. (2007). II.3.b. NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers. (Online).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[7] ANS. (2012). 7. American Nuclear Society Code of
Ethics. (Online). http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[8] M. Davis. (2012). “Three Nuclear Disasters and a
Hurricane: Some Reflections on Engineering Ethics.”
Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy. (Online Article).
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/50468. pp. 2-8.
3
Elinor Lou
[9] The Killers. (2008). “Human.” Song lyrics.
[10] NSPE. (2007). II.1.f. NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers. (Online).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[11] J. Pearson. (2013) “The Risks of Nuclear Power
Outweigh the Benefits.” Points of View Reference Center,
EBSCOhost. (Database Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?sid=20849d03-b21140ea-8deb946a94ec454d%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=114
[12] ANS. (2012). 1. American Nuclear Society Code of
Ethics. (Online). http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[13] J. Little. (2012) “How Has Fukushima’s Nuclear
Disaster Affected the Environment?” Audubon Magazine.
(Online Article).
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/how-hasfukushimas-nuclear-disaster-affected-environment
[14] ANS. (2012). 2. American Nuclear Society Code of
Ethics. (Online). http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
J. Pearson. (2013). “Point: Nuclear Power Plants are Safe,
Clean, and Cost Effective.” Points of View Reference
Center, EBSCOhost. (Database Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?sid=eac98e1b-039e4369-8b07ea9958055f42%40sessionmgr111&vid=3&hid=112
NRC. (2012). “Fact Sheet on Oversight of Nuclear Power
Plants.” Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (Website).
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/factsheets/oversight.html
W. Bowen. (2009). Engineering Ethics: Outline of an
Aspirational Approach. Swansea, UK: Springer London.
(Ebook). pp. 29-41.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the librarians at the Bevier
Engineering Library for their excellent advice on finding
good resources. I would also like to thank all the friends and
peers who offered support or advice when I asked for it and
my mother who I once had a conversation with that I used in
this paper. Finally, I want to thank my writing instructor,
Liberty Ferda, for the helpful feedback given on my last
writing assignment that allows me to continue to develop my
writing style and abilities.
4