write an essay about TVA Kingston spill
alaawy95
EngineeringEthicsLecture1.pptxENCH 4300 – Chemical System Design
University of Tennessee - Chattanooga
‹#›
‹#›
.
1
Outline
Day 1: What is Ethics to an Engineer?
NSPE, AIChE Codes of Ethics
Day 2: Case Studies, Common Themes
Skywalk Collapse, Challenger/Columbia Disasters, Refinery Explosion
Commonalities, What It Means for You
Day 3: Current Issues, Assignment
Problem-Solving Approach to Ethics
Flint Water Crisis, Keystone Pipeline, Kingston Spill, Southside Superfund
2
What do We Mean by Ethics?
Literal definition: “The moral principles that govern a person’s or a group’s behavior”
Professional ethics and conduct
Rules – “laws” that facilitate interaction
Behaviors – respect for colleagues and their rights
Consequences
Loss of reputation, employment, license
In the literal context, ethics can be defined as “ a body of moral principles”. Professional ethics and conduct constitutes a set of rules and behaviors which facilitates effective interaction on professional matters. In this respect, ethical rules are very much like laws or standards that govern social and professional interactions. Ethical behavior may broadly be equated with the respect for one’s colleagues, and for their rights.
Of course, ethical rules do not have the force of law. The sanctions against unethical behavior are much less formal. Unethical behavior may lead to the loss of an individual’s reputation for professional conduct or the loss of a professional engineering license.
3
Who Decides?
Not just personal preference
Codes of ethics – companies, professional societies
NSPE, AIChE, ASME, ASCE, etc.
Conflict between personal and organizational ethics
Case studies provide examples, set standards
Professional ethics are not just a personal preference established and governed by the individual engineer. Because of the importance of professional behavior, most companies and professional societies have drafted codes of ethics to which the engineers are required to commit. Overall, the codes tend to be very similar. Some of the professional societies are NSPE – National Society of Professional Engineers, ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and ASCE –American Society of Civil Engineers. Because of the subjective nature of this topic, sometimes the individual’s personal ethics may actually conflict with the organization’s code of ethics.
Consequently, there are numerous classic case studies that are used as examples for ethical decision making. Case studies also exist for role playing difficult situations. Many of these case studies are based on real situations which have resulted in loss of life, profit and respect for a company or engineer
4
NSPE Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
Perform services only in areas of their competence.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
NSPE Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Avoid deceptive acts.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
NSPE Fundamental Canons
AIChE Code of Ethics
Members of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers shall uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity their employers, their clients, and the public; striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare.
AIChE Code of Ethics
To achieve these goals, members shall:
Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional duties.
Formally advise their employers or clients (and consider further disclosure, if warranted) if they perceive that a consequence of their duties will adversely affect the present or future health or safety of their colleagues or the public.
Accept responsibility for their actions, seek and heed critical review of their work and offer objective criticism of the work of others.
AIChE Code of Ethics
To achieve these goals, members shall:
Issue statements or present information only in an objective and truthful manner.
Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, avoiding conflicts of interest and never breaching confidentiality.
Treat all colleagues and co-workers fairly and respectfully, recognizing their unique contributions and capabilities by fostering an environment of equity, diversity and inclusion
AIChE Code of Ethics
To achieve these goals, members shall:
Perform professional services only in areas of their competence.
Build their professional reputations on the merits of their services.
Continue their professional development throughout their careers, and provide opportunities for the professional development of those under their supervision.
Never tolerate harassment.
Conduct themselves in a fair, honorable and respectful manner.
Responsible Engineering
What we do matters a great deal
Public health at stake
Environmental impact
Minimal legal standards
Acknowledgement of fault when accidents occur (our role in design process)
Ensure to the public our designs are safe (“above and beyond” the call of duty)
Often times, engineers have a direct effect on the safety of the public health and the impact on the environment. The degree of safety of a design and the effect of a byproduct on the environment are major considerations in all designs decided by the engineer. Accidents from inadequate or poor design can have considerable consequences personally, professionally, financially, and socially.
When accidents occur it is the responsibility of the engineer to acknowledge his/her role in the design process. It is our responsibility to ensure to the public that our designs are safe. This may involve going above and beyond the call of duty in order to ensure the safety of a design.
12
Moral Thinking
Ethical standards are not laws
Written on basis of moral decision making
Reflect expectations of public and professionals
What shape’s an individual’s moral standards?
Experience (education, work, relationships)
Belief Systems (family, religion)
Ethical standards are not laws, and are therefore written on the basis of moral decision making. These generally reflect the expectations of the public and professionals in the engineering field. The basis for an individual’s moral standards is created and shaped from a variety of sources. Most of what we have come to expect with regards to moral standards is due to our experience in education and in the work environment. These ideas, combined with the belief systems of our families and religions, have created a standard within each of us of what is morally right and wrong.
13
Moral Problem Solving
Weighing complex considerations:
Professionalism, standards, risk management, liability, competence, truth, societal protection, trust, reliability, honesty, cost/benefit, attitude, organization, obligation, whistleblowing, regulation, and the law
Handling ethical dilemmas and making ethical decisions are very important elements of being a professional. In order to deal with dilemmas in an organized manner we need to begin thinking about the definitions of terms such as good, bad, right, and wrong. These may force difficult moral choices. There are several tests one can use to begin a discussion about the morality of a choice. Some considerations are questions of Prudence, Cost/Benefits and personal and collective Rights. Is an action justified because it serves our own best interest? If it is the most economical, is the the most moral decision? Just because a decision is legal, it is right?
One could apply the “Golden Rule” when considering the morality of a choice, “do unto others as you would have done to you”
***Information provided by the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas
14
Moral Problem Solving
Prudence
Is it justified because it is in our own best interest?
Cost / Benefit
Is the most economic decision the most moral?
Rights
Just because it is legal, is it right?
Freedom, well-being, moral, legal, laws
Golden Rule
“do unto others as you would have
done to you”
Honesty, Truth, Reliability
Accurate and complete technical knowledge
Unreliable judgement is worse than none at all
Deliberate deception
Lying
Failure to seek truth
Engineers are expected to provide accurate and complete technical knowledge to the best of their abilities. It is a common mistake for engineers to believe that providing unreliable or unjustified information is better than providing none at all. An ethical and professional engineer must be familiar with the scientific and engineering principles underlying any opinions or conclusions that he/she provides to the customer.
Likewise, an ethical engineer should never attempt to deliberately deceive the customer/client. A lie is a statement believed to be false or seriously misleading, made with the intention to deceive. Failure to seek the truth in favor of the convenience can also be considered a form of deliberate deception. Without honesty, the value of engineering services is undermined.
16
Generic Case Studies
Break up into three groups, name two team representatives
Each team will be assigned one of three case studies
Identify sections in the NSPE, AIChE codes of ethics that apply to the case, respond to the question
One team representative will recap team discussion and present the team’s prevailing conclusions
Second team representative will summarize level of consensus, dissenting opinion(s)
Case Study #1
Engineer A serves as a director of a building department in a major city. Engineer A has been concerned that as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections. Each code official member of Engineer A's staff is often required to make as many as 60 code inspections per day. Engineer A believes that there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day, particularly under the newer, more rigid code requirements for the city. These new code requirements greatly enhance and protect the public's health and safety. The code officials are caught between the responsibility to be thorough in their inspections and the city's desire to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees. Engineer A is required to sign off on all final inspection reports.
Case Study #1 (cont.)
Engineer A meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns. The chairman indicates that he is quite sympathetic to Engineer A's concerns and would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department. At the same time, the chairman notes that the city is seeking to encourage more businesses to relocate into the city in order to provide more jobs and a strengthened tax base. In this connection, the chairman seeks Engineer A's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be "grandfathered" under the older existing enforcement requirements and not the newer, more rigid requirements now in effect. Engineer A agrees to concur with the chairman's proposal, and the chairman issues the order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department, which Engineer A believes the city desperately needs.
Case Study #1 (cont.)
Was it ethical for Engineer A to agree to concur with the chairman’s proposal given the facts?
Case Study #2
Engineer A is retained by the state to perform certain feasibility studies relating to a possible highway spur. The state is considering the possibility of constructing the highway spur through an area that is adjacent to a residential community in which Engineer A's residence is located. After learning of the proposed location for the spur, Engineer A discloses to the state the fact that his residential property may be affected by the new spur and fully discloses the potential conflict with the state. The state does not object to Engineer A's performing the work. Engineer A proceeds with his feasibility study and ultimately recommends that the spur be constructed. The highway spur is constructed.
Case Study #2 (cont.)
Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform the feasibility study despite the fact that his land may be affected thereby?
Case Study #3
Engineer A is employed by a computer manufacturing company. She was responsible for the design of certain computer equipment several years ago. She signed off on the drawings for the equipment at that time. Although Engineer A's design was properly prepared, the equipment manufacturing process was faulty and, as a result, the equipment became too costly and suffered mechanical breakdown. The manufacturing division made a number of recommended modifications to her design that it believed would help reduce costs in the manufacturing process. Engineer A's analysis of the manufacturing division's recommendations revealed that they would reduce the reliability of the product and greatly increase the downstream costs to the company through warranty claims. Engineer A's supervisor, who is not an engineer, asks Engineer A to sign off on the changes for the new computer equipment. There is nothing to suggest that the equipment would pose a danger to the public health and safety. Engineer A raises her concerns to her supervisor but nevertheless agrees to sign off on the changes without further protest.
Case Study #3 (cont.)
Did Engineer A fulfill her ethical obligation by signing off on the changes without further action?
Case Study Activity
Break up into three groups, name two team representatives (different from last class)
Each team will be assigned one of three case studies, responsible for your own research
Consider the following questions: How could this have been prevented? Who was responsible? What further actions should be taken by responsible party now?
One team representative will recap team discussion and present the team’s prevailing conclusions
Second team representative will summarize level of consensus, dissenting opinion(s)
#1: Hyatt Skywalk Collapse
On July 17, 1981, two suspended walkways in the Hyatt Regency Kansas City collapsed during a party
116 people were killed, 214 injured
Original design was adequate
#2: Challenger Explosion
On Jan 28, 1986, space shuttle destroyed in an explosion of the orbiter’s main tanks
Seven astronauts died
Physical case – failure of an elastomeric O-ring in one of the solid rocket boosters
#3: Columbia Disintegration
On Feb 1, 2003, space shuttle disintegrated upon re-entry over Texas
Seven astronauts killed
Piece of insulating foam broke off 82 seconds into launch, struck left wing and created a hole in the wing’s leading edge
#4: BP Refinery Explosion
On March 23, 2005, an explosion at BP Texas City refinery killed 15, injured 170.
During startup, flammable liquid hydrocarbons overflowed, formed cloud, ignited by idling diesel pickup truck
Commonalities?
Inadequate non-technical communications, thought patterns
“Go fever,” channeled comms, narrow thinking
Unsteady-state operation
Role of senior engineer/manager/faculty advisor
Maintain positive, open team culture
There are consequences to stifling dissent and open conversation, bending truth to advantage
What Does This Mean for You?
Do your homework
Understand the situation, relevant law, your thinking
Be certain of reasoning, environment, facts
Understand the consequences of your thinking and plan of action
Act now? Later? Do nothing? Leave now?
Your professional reputation is all you own
What Does This Mean for You?
Decide course of action
Safety net, backup plan
Support system
Execute plan methodically
Do not rush
Implement backup plan, if necessary
Problem-Solving Approach
State the Problem
Get the Facts
Defend Viewpoints
Formulate Opinion
Qualify Recommendation
The problem solving method developed here is from the book What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys.
Various types of professionals, including engineers, often express significant differences of opinion when faced with cases requiring an ethical solution. The objective of these next few slides is to provide a framework for reconciling differences of opinion as we address the question, “what is the right thing to do?” in circumstances involving ethical issues in the engineering profession.
***The problem solving method developed here is from the book What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys.
The problem solving model developed here involves five steps. It is a systematic approach to moral deliberation that is designed for groups of individuals, but can be used by individuals with some minor adjustments. As seen from the figure, the steps for problem solving in engineering ethics include: (read slide)
33
State the Problem
Clearly define exact nature of ethical problem or dilemma.
Need to be clear so that we can anticipate the kind of solution that is required.
Want to provide an answer that is relevant to the interests at stake.
The first step of the problem solving method is to “State the Problem”.
At this stage, one should clearly define the exact nature of the ethical problem or dilemma.
It is extremely important that the problem is clear and understandable to all so we can anticipate the kind of solution that is required.
The goal is to provide an answer that is relevant to the interest at stake.
34
Get the Facts
Want to make an informed decision.
Must possess and understand the relevant facts.
Must make clear any interpretations of factual matters or the values that underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.
The second step is to “Get the facts.” In order to make an informed and conscientious decision, we must possess and understand all the relevant facts. Difficulties occur when there are problems with interpretation of factual matters or the values that underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.
35
Competing Moral Viewpoints
Critically assess the strengths
and weaknesses of competing moral viewpoints
Begin by identifying what we believe to be the most compelling reason for the course of action
We must be able to justify the course of action
The 3rd step is to “identify and defend competing moral viewpoints”. We must assess the strengths and weaknesses of competing viewpoints as carefully and critically as possible. We begin by identifying what we believe to be the most compelling reason for the various courses of action. It is not enough to just identify and list why we think a course of action is right or wrong. We must also be able to justify them as well.
36
Formulate an Opinion
As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved
Decide which of the plausible viewpoints is the most compelling
The committee approach (voting) is advantageous because the decision is representative of the general public
The 4th step is to “formulate an opinion”. As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved. We must decide which of the plausible viewpoints is the most compelling. If a single individual conducts this problem solving process, it would simply be a personal estimation that is clearly very subjective. The committee approach can be very advantageous because we can expect the decision to be representative of the general public.
37
Qualify the Opinions
Committees must qualify the recommendations they make by describing the level of consensus that was received
Should include the voting distribution and any dissenting opinions
Finally, committees must qualify the opinions and recommendations that they make by describing the level of consensus that was received. This should include the voting distribution and any dissenting opinions.
38
Ethics Assignment
Break up into four groups; each group assigned a specific case study to discuss amongst their group
Use the problem-solving approach to ethics outlined in class
Summarize the case study in 2-4 pages using the outline provided on UTC Learn
See instructor with questions
Flint Water Crisis
In 2014, drinking water source for city of Flint, MI changed from Lake Huron and Detroit River to Flint River.
Lead contamination in water supply, exposing over 100,000 residents.
Photo credit (bottom): Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press
Keystone Pipeline
Oil pipeline system in Canada and United States, commissioned in 2010
Planned fourth phase, Keystone XL, remains blocked amid environmental and other concerns
Photo credit (bottom): Stephen Melkisethian/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
TVA Kingston Spill
On Dec 22, 2018, an ash dike ruptured at a solid waste containment area, releasing 1.1 billion US gallons of coal fly ash slurry
Covered up to 300 acres, damaging homes and nearby waterways.
Southside Superfund Site
In 2011, EPA was contacted by TDEC regarding elevated blood lead level in Chattanooga residents
In 2011 and 2012, number of properties tested for lead in soil, with soil removed from 84 properties
