For over forty years, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which is the largest utility company in California, dumped Hexavalent chromium chemical in their unlined ponds. The exposed chemical had adverse effects on the people as well as animals because of the inherent carcinogen. The latter was capable of causing cancer to the people who used tapped water. The chemicals spread to different cities in California. The current paper addresses various ethical issues allied to the case of PG&E and its inappropriate chemical disposal to the environment.
If ethics has one prime directive, in this case, this would be interference with social development because the company pollutes the environment. The lab tests conducted by the environmental working groups detected the hexavalent chromium in the tap water tested. It was due to the disposal of the carcinogen in the areas around the American cities. Indeed, water samples collected from different cities exhibited the presence of the carcinogen, which was higher than the percentage proposed by regulators in California (Ewg.org, 2016). The presence of a carcinogen in the water also increases the risks allied to gastrointestinal tumors and the presence of the metal is equally dangerous to a human being. Accordingly, the ethical issue raised in this case is failure to consider sustainability. Ethics requires firms to take care of the environment as well as ensure that their products are produced with the aim of protecting the well-being of all living things and protection of the environment.
The professional responsibilities neglected in this case include the failure of the PG&E Company to implement strategies of handling the issue of Hexavalent chromium, which have contaminated the tap waters despite its adverse effects to the public (Ewg.org, 2016.). The company also failed by disposing the chemical in their unlined ponds without considering the effects it would have to the public. Ethically, the management of the company is supposed to ensure that they adhere to codes and standards of producing their products. Therefore, they are supposed to ensure that the environment is free from agents that cause the cancer. Additionally, it would be imperative for the company to work towards minimizing the rate of chemical exposure. It would reduce the level of carcinogen in the tapped water.
PG&E should have handled the case differently. The company should have disposed the carcinogen substance in safe places rather than disposing it in unlined ponds. By disposing the chemical in unlined pond, the management of the company neglected their duty of ensuring that the environment is protected against pollution (Ewg.org, 2016). The company has the moral responsibility to ensure that its activities does not cause any harm to the surrounding environment as well as human beings. Additionally, it is morally expected to ensure that it works towards ascertaining that the workers and stakeholders are protected as well as enjoy being part of the company.
Some engineering disasters are considered ethical while others are not considered ethical. Some of the disasters are ethical because the professionals involved take an initiative of ensuring that the disaster is in control. However, some of the disasters become over board and overcome the strategies laid to fight the disaster. Some of the disasters are also encountered as engineers push to expound the boundaries of scientific exploration and invention. Such great achievement are at times accompanied with unfortunate and terrible failures likely to cause disasters. The engineers are, however, able to learn and get experience through such issues. However, some disasters are not ethical at all. Disasters that result from negligence of the involved party are not ethical. For instance, in this case, the company should have prevented the disposal of the chemical into the pond. Disasters that result from failure of the people in charge to act appropriately are also not ethical.
Engineering standards are sets of technical rules, definitions, guidelines, and instructions that offer comparable and consistent results. The standards are used in engineering to ensure that items are produced uniformly. It offers interchangeability of items. More so, standards reduce the uncertainty of the expected results. Standards also guarantee that facilities and items constructed and designed following safety operations. Indeed, some of standards are referred to as codes. There are also standards, which have not been enforced by law that serve as guidelines for most engineers (ASME Standards & Certification, n.d)
My understanding of the term cradle to the grave thinking for an engineer is the act of considering the effects of the products manufactured during their disposal or use stage. It is undeniably true that many products result to various effects while still in use. Right from the extraction of the raw material needed to produce the material up to the time the product is disposed to the environment. During that phase, there is a lot that takes place, such as manufacturing utilization of water and energy, emissions and waste, transportation effects, actual utilizations as well as the ultimate disposal that lend that makes the products no-longer useful. That process is what is known as cradle to grave because the product is no longer useful.
References
ASME Standards & Certification. (n.d.). Examples of use of codes and standards in mechanical engineering and other fields. Retrieved from https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/AboutASME/Who%20We%20Are/Standards_and_Certification/ASME_Codes_and_Standards-Examples_of_Use_for_Mechanical_Engineering_Students.pdf
Ewg.org. (2016). Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water | EWG. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/research/chromium6-in-tap-water
