The Aberdeen Three

1
The Aberdeen Three

• PHIL 210B Engineering and
• Computer Science Ethics
• November 16, 2009

2
Organizations and People Involved

• ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND - U.S. Army facility,
  which employed the following three civilians
• ROBERT LENTZ - Chemical Engineer.
• In charge of developing the processes that would
  be used to manufacture chemical weapons.
• WILLIAM DEE - Chemical Engineer.
• Headed the chemical weapons development team.
• CARL GEPP - Chemical Engineer.
• He answered to Dee and Lentz.

3
Events

• Since WWII, Aberdeen has been used by the US Army
  to develop, test, and dispose of chemical
  weapons.
• Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986
  revealed serious problems at the facility, known
  as the Pilot Plant, where these engineers worked.
  

4
According to one inspection

• flammable and cancer-causing substances were
  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.

5

• All the managers had to do was make a request for
  Army clean-up funds, but made no effort to
  resolve the situation.
• September 17, 1985 - Acid tank leaks into Canal
  Creek.
• 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.

6

• March 26, 1986 - Pilot Plant shut down.
• June 28, 1988 - Gepp, Dee, and Lentz indicted.

7
Additional Facts

• 1976 - Congress passed the Resource Conservation
  and Recovery Act.
• Regulated the management of facilities used for
  the disposal hazardous waste.
• RCRA implemented criminal fines for violations of
  the open dumping or hazardous waste disposal
  guidelines.

8

• The three engineers maintained that they had no
  knowledge of RCRA
• Seems unlikely
• Containers of hazardous chemicals are routinely
  labeled with warnings that chemicals must be
  disposed of according to RCRA requirements

9
Ethical Considerations

• Loyalty
• If the engineers had gone public, they would
  have violated their prima facie duty to be loyal
  to their employers.

10
NSPE Code of Conduct

• Section II.1. - Engineers shall hold paramount
  the safety, health and welfare of the public in
  the performance of their professional duties.
• Every engineering code of conduct has a similar
  clause.
• Note You need 3 clauses like this one.

11
Ethics Filter

• Natural Rights
• No one died, so there is no violation of the
  Right to Life
• However, the negligence of the three engineers
  put the health and safety of others at risk
• Workers on site
• Civilians downstream
• This violates the Right to the Security of Ones
  Person
• Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

12
Deontology, Part 2

• Kantian Universalizability
• Maxim It would be acceptable for all government
  engineers to merely rely on their own expertise,
  rather than EPA regulations on hazardous
  materials.
• Unlikely that Gepp et al. would approve such a
  maxim
• Consider, e.g., engineers working with nuclear
  waste
• Hence, they fail the universalizability test
• Ignoring the RCRA was a violation of ethical duty

13
Evaluation

• The engineers involved violated a prime
  professional obligation (as well as the law).
• Should have alerted their superiors at the first
  sign of problems.
• Each of them had the duty to know about the RCRA
  and to inform the appropriate civilian and
  military authorities of the violation.
• Given the danger to the public and workers at the
  plant, it would not have been sufficient to
  merely inform their direct supervisors.

14
Alternatives

• 1. Army Commanders
• Make it part of the job requirements that
  engineers acknowledge all relevant safety
  regulations
• Stiff individual penalties for violations

15
Alternatives (cont.)

• 2. System for Anonymous Whistle-blowing
• The subordinates involved most likely feared that
  blowing the whistle would have jeopardized their
  jobs
• A system for receiving anonymous reports of
  safety violations would have alleviated this fear