Ethical Analysis of Nuclear Engineering - Assignment Example

Ethical Analysis of Nuclear Engineering Topics Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – determine the facts of the case as accurately as possible Step 2: Define the Stakeholders - those with a vested interest in the outcome, i.e., who will be affected by your decision. Step 3: Determine Regulations and Laws applicable to the case Step4: Determine your Duties (as per Job Description, job assignments, and as a member of society) Step5: Consult with your Peers; discuss with colleagues and superiors (Get Advice) Step 6: Generate Possible Courses of Action Step 7: Evaluate Alternatives / Consequence (List Pros and Cons) Check alternatives against Professional Codes of Ethics Step 8: Select Best Course of Action (that which satisfies highest ethical value). Step 9: Implement Solution / Monitor Outcome The situation that occurred at Eight Mile Road nuclear was as a result of faulty controls. The operator followed the stipulated procedure and trusted the indicators and controls, which led him to believe that the systems in the reactor had gone back to normal. There was a possibility of an accident, which would have been as a result of the faulty indicators and controls. This is an indication of a flaw in the design of the nuclear plant, and similar plants may be facing such a possibility. Therefore, it was imperative for the management to know of the situation and probable consequences. However, the management was taking long to act, thereby putting at risk the stakeholders. An accident at a reactor with high power and significant burnup will put a number of stakeholders at risk. The stakeholders are wildlife and people living in the surrounding areas, consumers who purchase the electricity, stockholders in companies that own these nuclear plants, the engineers working at the plant and the whole nuclear community. The laws and regulations allow an engineer to notify the management of a plant any problem that may exist or arise. If the management does not take quick action, the engineer may contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to handle and rectify the problem. A possible accident can have detrimental effects on the stakeholders. As an engineer, I have a duty to the wildlife and people living around the plants for their well being. I also have a duty to consumers and stockholders, who will suffer substantial losses in the eventuality that the plants are shut down or face stringent regulations. It is my duty to identify a problem in the nuclear plants, find a solution and notify the management (Alavudeen et al. 13). Additionally, I have to uphold and follow the proposed rules and regulations of the NRC. In such a case, I will try to consult with other managers and employers at the plant and those who have been employed in the nuclear industry for years (Harris et al. 33). However, this has to be done within a limited time, given that, there is likelihood it could happen in another plant. As a result of the consultation, the following were possible actions I could consider undertaking: 1. To be patient and wait for the engineer from Eight Mile Road to obtain the memo after two months, and subsequently, give it to my boss. 2. Bring to the attention of other workers the severity of the problem, and convince them that we all approach the boss at once. This may convince the boss of the magnitude of the problem, and she may take a deeper look into the problem and its prospective consequences. In the event, this does not work; I will have to contact the NRC to correct the problem. 3. Make a decision of whether or not to contact NRC immediately and inform them of the situation, so that they can employ their resources to solve the problem. 4. Contact other nuclear plants having the same design personally and inform them of possibilities of such a situation. It is necessary to evaluate the above actions in terms of their consequences and against the Professional Code of Ethics. As an engineer, option 2 is the most logical action that I can take. It is my obligation to uphold the seniority of the boss; therefore, having the support of fellow co-workers would be the best civil way of handling the situation (Lamber& Poel 34). It may take longer than expected to convince fellow colleagues as well as convincing the boss. Time is of the essence because it is unknown when an accident is likely to occur in nuclear plants similar to the Eight Mile Road plant. In the first option, I will be upholding my duty to the management but placing the stakeholders at risk. Therefore, option 1 should be dismissed on same grounds as option 2. Option 4 may seem as a better option than options 1 and 2. However, it may take longer since it will take time to contact other plants, which puts the stakeholders at risk. In addition, some people in the other plants may not take the issue seriously, and there is no efficient monitoring mechanism to check whether or not they acted on the information. Hence, it is not the best option. This means that option 3 is the best option. The aspect of time is critical; thus, contacting NRC implies that the situation will be addressed promptly. NRC may close down these nuclear plants or impose stringent regulations, which, in turn will increase the costs on consumers and stockholders. In the long run, the plants will be saving money, given that, in the case of an accident, the plants will be closed down permanently. By going directly to NRC, it may be viewed that I am not meeting my duty of respect to the plant’s management. Contrary, I will be carrying out my obligation by submit to a group that has even more influence than management where I am employed. The option of contacting NRC is the best decision and the next step will be to find who to contact. I will use this opportunity to explain the problem and the reasons why I contacted them. Moreover, I will try to explain the severity of the situation, and how likely it would lead to an accident. Such an accident would be because of non-human error, which is caused by controls. It is evident that the cause of concern is the flaw in the design of the nuclear plant. Consequently, warning or informing other plants with similar design of an accident possibility, will not tackle the concern. NRC has the capability of getting to the root of the problem and implementing a corrective mechanism. A more dependable mechanism could be implemented to synchronize with the existing mechanism; to ensure that the operators know for certain what is going on with fluid levels and pressure in the reactor (Moaveni and Sharma 78). Work Cited Alavudeen, Jayakumaran and Kalil, Rahman. Professional Ethics and Human Values. Mumbai: Firewall Media. 2008. Print. Bowen, William. Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach. New York: Springer.2008. Print. Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, Michael. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning. 2009. Print. Moaveni and Sharma, Ishan. Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engineering. New York: Cengage Learning. 2011. Print. Poel and Royakkers, Lamber. Ethics, Technology and Engineering: An Introduction. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. 2011. Print Read More