Restatement of the Facts
I work as a nuclear engineer in the thermal-hydraulic analysis department of a company that builds reactors. During my analysis of a power plant, I had a telephone conversation with an engineer at the Eight Mile Road nuclear power plant about an incident that had occurred at Toledo. The power plant at Toledo had experienced a small over-pressurization.
Consequently, the pressure relief valve opened in order to release steam and to reduce pressure. Unfortunately, the valve did not close, despite giving the indication that it was closed. As a result, the plant’s operator stopped high-pressure injection because of an apparent recovery of the system. However, this action was supposed to be taken only after the primary system had achieved a sub-cooled state.
Based on the data obtained from the power plant, the system was in a two-phase state. Consequently, it lacked adequate capacity to accommodate the termination of high-pressure injection. During the non-injection flow period, significant amount of fluid was lost. Nonetheless, the pressurizer continued to indicate high-pressure level.
According to the operator, the core could have uncovered with the fuel being damaged if the incident had occurred in a reactor operating at full power and significant burn-up. Having spoken to the engineer, I wrote a memo describing the situation to my boss. The boss promised to forward the memo to his superior in order to warn similar plants.
However, the memo was not forwarded since the information was not obtained through an official channel. I was advised to obtain an official memo describing the problem from the engineer at Toledo in order to continue pursuing the issue. Unfortunately, the engineer said that he could not write the memo immediately due to lack of time.
Analysis of the Situation
In this situation, my actions had potential effects on several stakeholders. These include me as an engineer, the company that I work for, the employees of the plant, the community living around the plant, and the nuclear industry. I have various types of duties to each of these stakeholders.
As an engineer in charge of thermal-hydraulic analysis, I have a duty to myself to perform my duties to the best of my abilities, as well as, to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public. To the company that I work for, I have a duty to provide information that helps in improving the design and safety standards of all nuclear reactors.
I also have a duty to the employees working at the plant at Toledo, as well as, the community living around it. In this regard, my duty is to identify potential causes of accidents and to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to address them. To the nuclear industry, I have a duty to serve the interest of the public in order to improve the image of the industry.
Given the sensitivity of the incident at Toledo, I consulted a follow engineer in my department who emphasized the importance of using official communication channels to report imminent accident cases. My colleague stated that I needed to present an official document that describes the situation at Toledo in an objective and truthful manner in order to convince my boss to act immediately.
Since I did not have an official document, I began to explore alternative courses of action, which included the following. First, I could persuade my boss to pass on the memo and to warn other plants of similar designs. In this case, I would highlight the seriousness of the problem in order to convince the boss to act immediately.
Secondly, I could persuade the engineer at Toledo to create time and write the memo immediately since averting an accident is more important than other assignments. This would enable my boss to take immediate action to prevent any accidents. Third, I could ignore my boss and forward the memo directly to other plants in order to warn them of an imminent accident.
This would enable operators of similar plants to take preventive measures in time and avoid nuclear accidents. Fourth, I could go to the plant and investigate the problem. Consequently, I would be able to prepare and submit an official report to my boss to address the situation. Finally, I could write to the industry regulator about the incident and ask for immediate action to be taken to address the problem.
The first course of action is based on the assumption that the boss would change his mind and pass on the memo by considering the seriousness of the problem. However, this might not have been the case if the boss disputed the facts about the incident. In option three, the memo would be rejected due to lack of factual material about the Toledo incident.
Besides, ignoring my boss would strain our work relationship. The fourth option would not work since investigating the incident requires a lot of time. The fifth course of action would be inappropriate since I had not exhausted all internal means of addressing the problem. Thus, I would choose option two to address the situation.
Overall Analysis of the Solution
The second course of action would be appropriate since the engineer at Toledo would provide facts about the problem to enable my boss to make the right decision. This option fulfills the ethical values of responsibility and integrity. In particular, convincing the engineer to write the memo would enable us to access facts that would enable my boss to exercise good judgment.
Additionally, the facts would enhance accountability, truthfulness, and reliability in my work as I pursue the issue. In this regard, option two would enable me to fulfill my duties to various stakeholders.
For instance, I would be able to provide my company with the correct information to facilitate improvement of safety in nuclear plants. Moreover, it would enable me to fulfill my duty of ensuring the safety of the community living around the Toledo power plant. Thus, I would convince the engineer at Toledo to write the memo immediately. If he refused, I would ask him to request one of his colleagues at the plant to write the memo.
After receiving the memo, I would make recommendations for a change in the design of nuclear plants such as the one at Toledo. The changes would ensure that faulty pressure relief valves are replaced with functioning ones (USNRC). Additionally, I would ensure that all plants have functioning indicators for pressure level and pressure relief valves.
Works Cited
Harris, Charles, Michael Pritchard and Michael Robins. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print.
Robinson, Simon, Ross Dixon and Christopher Preece. Engineering, Business and Professional Ethics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008. Print.
USNRC. Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 28 Mar. 1979. Web.