Pollution of a Uranium Plant

¶ … pollution of a uranium plant which is located on a 750 acre land in Paducah, Kentucky. The workers in this plant learned in the year 1999 that they had been exposed to plutonium as well as other radioactive material. The plant is known as the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant and was first owned by Union Carbide for 32 years during which most of the pollution took place. Ownership of the plant was then taken up by Lockheed Martin and Martin Marietta in the year 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. federal government then took over ownership after that till the present Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008()

Very little of the exposure to the pollution occurred during the period when the plant was owned by the U.S. federal government. Internal documents at the plant show that during the period of ownership of Martin Marietta, the owners had become extremely concerned of the damage that had occurred to the environment during this period. This led to opposition by the workers of the plant who felt that these risks should have been disclosed and that there should have been active monitoring to check whether there are any health problems that would arise as a result of the exposure. Workers also insist that since they were not informed of the risks, they did not wear sufficient protective equipment and also the levels were not investigated to establish if they presented significant risk to the health of the workers Beauchamp et al., 2008()

Among the negative effects experienced by the workers are higher rates of cancer as a result of the ionizing radiation of plutonium and pollution of ground water sources such as wells. The plutonium was recently found to have polluted an area about 1 mile away from the plant Beauchamp et al., 2008()

The U.S. federal government under the presidency of Bill Clinton announced a compensation package to the workers who were harmed by the exposure to plutonium at the plant. The workers were to receive a lump sum payment of 100,000 U.S. dollars or they were given an option to negotiate for another compensation package that would cover their medical costs, wages that were lost and job retraining. At the same time, the Department of Energy announced an allocation of 21.8 million U.S. dollars which would be spent to clean up the region Beauchamp et al., 2008()

Question 1: Should management in the plant make a full disclosure of known risks, even when the risks are believed to be insignificant?

The plants management had a role to play in disclosing the risks that they had known about even though these risks can be thought to be insignificant. When Martin Marietta realized that there was significant damage to the environment as a result of the activities of the plant, the management should have setup a work team to investigate the source of the damage in order to remove any risk factors and control them. Therefore, this was one of the failures of the administration.

Secondly, the owners of the plant had an ethical duty to make sure that the work environment under which their employees work is as suitable as possible to them in order to enable them to work productively. A safe work environment also leads to high motivation of employees, higher employee retention rates and lastly the workers become satisfied with their jobs as the organization.

Looking at the ethical theories at hand, the owners of the plant should apply the utilitarianism ethical theory which looks at the ability of the management to predict the outcome of a particular action. The management should have been well aware of the effects of exposure to plutonium. In doing so, the management would have been able to take the action which gives the greatest benefit to their workers. This would have been the provision of protective equipment to prevent the harmful effects of exposure to plutonium.

Similarly, looking at the consequentialism ethical theory, it can be seen that the actions that were taken by the administration to not disclose to the workers the presence of plutonium led to negative repercussions in terms of the compensation that had to be paid to the employees and those who suffered health problems. Therefore, the act of hiding the exposure to plutonium was not ethical since it had a negative outcome. Even though it can be thought that the risk was insignificant, disclosure to employees would have led to a better outcome.

Question 2: Did the government have the responsibility to pay the workers for the risks that they were asked to undertake as well as the health effects that resulted?

When the U.S. federal government took over ownership of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, as the new owners of the plant, they are responsible for the risks in the plant and in the management of the risks. Even though it was documented that the exposure to the risks happened at first during the time when Martin Marietta were the owners of the plant, the federal government become responsible for any actions that occurred during the time of the previous owners.

During an acquisition of a business by new owners, the new owners also take up any debts that were held by the old owners in the name of the business Robin, 2009.

In the same way, the new owners also become responsible for the actions of the old owners which in this case is the lack of disclosure regarding the exposure to plutonium. Therefore, the government has the responsibility of paying the workers for the risks as well as the health effects as a result of the exposure.

Question 3: In failing to make a full disclosure, are the plant owner and managers guilty of a moral violation? What is the moral violation, and is some form of punishment in order?

The managers of the plant as well as the plant owners are all guilty of a moral violation as a result of their actions not being ethical. Since the activities undertaken by the managers and plant owners in failing to give full disclosure was a moral violation, some form of punishment is in order so as to make sure such a moral violation does not happen again.

Though the kind of punishment that can be given to the managers and plant owners for the ethical violation varies from state to state and country to country, there is an overall acceptability that there should be punishment for the violation of ethical laws. There are various professional bodies and labor unions which institute punishment to the members of their body for ethical violations James, 2000()

In the case of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the punishment to the federal government was in terms of the compensation package that was paid to the employees of the company and the money they had to spend in the cleanup of the environment.

What issues, ideas or controversies, discussed in a more abstract way in the early readings of the chapter, appear as crucial elements in the case study #3?

One of the issues that appear is the issue of being ethical in business dealings. Another issue is the issue of organizations having to pay for the direct and indirect costs of their actions which is seen in the case of the government having to pay for compensation of workers and for cleanup of the environment. Occupational health and safety in the workplace is also another issue arising. It is important since the company or organization needs to provide a safe and healthy workplace for their employees and failure to do so usually results in sanctions which in this case are the costs the government had to incur for the lack of consideration of the occupational health and safety of the workers.

What are you likely to think about the issues raised by the case in question?

The case study gives a typical example of the case of ethics in business. It is important for a business to act in an ethical way no matter what they the case may be. This case instigates the need of businesses being ethical and to provide a safe workplace that does not in any way harm the health of the workers.

The case also brings out the issue that if a business is not ethical and does not provide a safe and healthy workplace, there are sanctions or punishments that the business must bear. These sanctions vary based on the action the business has taken and the cost of its action.

What is your own considered response to these diverse materials: does the reading of the theoretical texts at the beginning of the chapter influence your understanding of the concrete case in question; or contrary to the details of the case lead you to reassess the validity of the arguments advanced by one or more of the previous week's authors?