Chapter 9
Engineers and the
Environment
1
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.
2

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.
3




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
4
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).
5
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.
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
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.
11
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 nonhealth 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.
12
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.
13
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.
14
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).
15
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)



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).



Failing to rule Clean Air Act due to the insufficient technology.
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?
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.
19
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.
20
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.
21
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).
22
Animal Liberation and Engineering Ethics

Western schools of moral philosophy is anthropocentric.
Wild life has instrumental value (see Baxter on penguins).



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.


“penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walk
about rocks... I have no interest in preserving penguins for their
own sake”
“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.
23
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. 24
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.
25
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.
26