The Aberdeen Three

The Aberdeen Three Case

In 1989, when three high level civilian chemical engineers and managers at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland (an army chemical weapons facility) were indicted, tried, and convicted of criminal felony after investigation showed they were illegally handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes.

This case emphasizes the role and responsibilities of professional engineer's being there to secure the safety and well being of the public and the safety of their workers as well as the impact of chemicals on the environment. It also stresses the obligation of a manager-engineer to oversee the actions of their subordinates.
All three managers were chemical engineers in charge of the development of chemical weapons. These violations occurred between 1983 and 1986 where they illegally handled, stored, and disposed of hazardous wastes in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The purpose of the act was to provide technical and financial assistance for the development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regulate the management of hazardous waste.

As professional engineers they should have known better when it comes to obeying rules and making the right judgments and in their managerial skills but they failed.
What is also very sad and unprofessional of their actions were that, all three engineers involved in the case were experts in the chemical weapons field, and Dee was responsible for developing the binary chemical weapon. The U.S. Army has used the Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at the

facility, known as the Pilot Plant, where these engineers worked. These problems included:
flammable and cancer-causing substances 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
Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at Aberdeen's "Pilot Plant," where the engineers worked but they failed to take action. Flammable and cancer-causing substances were left in the open; chemicals, lethal if mixed, were kept in the same room; and drums containing toxic substances were leaking.
When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river, state and 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. The three engineers maintained that they did not believe the plant's storage practices were illegal, and that their job description did not include responsibility for specific environmental rules. They were chemical engineers; they practiced good "engineering sense," and had never had an incident. They were just doing things the way they had always been done at the Pilot Plant.


On June 28, 1988, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were criminally indicted for storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland after about two years of investigation. Six months following the indictment, the Federal Government took the case of the "Aberdeen Three" to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste. In 1989, the three chemical engineers were tried and convicted of illegally storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste. William Dee was found guilty on one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on three counts each of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Although they were not the ones who were actually performing the illegal acts, they were the managers and allowed the improper handling of the chemicals. No one above them knew about the extent of the problems at the Pilot Plant. They each faced up to 15 years in prison and up to $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three years probation and 1000 hours of community service.
The action of the three engineers brings to mind an important question. These engineers were knowledgeable about the effects of hazardous chemicals on people and the environment (they developed chemical weapons), so why were they so seemingly unconcerned about the disposal of hazardous chemicals? It is interesting to note that even after they were convicted the three engineers showed no apparent remorse for their wrongdoing. They kept insisting that the whole case was blown out of proportion, and that they had done nothing wrong.


As engineers test designs for ever-increasing speeds, loads, capacities and the like, they must always be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare. After all, the public has provided engineers, through the tax base, the means for obtaining an education and, through legislation, the means to license and regulate themselves. In return, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of the public in all of their professional efforts. This is part of the implicit social contract all engineers have agreed to when they accepted admission to an engineering college.
The engineers were also unaware that their experiments and their handling of waste products had social impact, even though they considered themselves to be far removed from the outside world.
As students in the engineering field and future professional engineers , we should learn from the mistakes of these three expect professional engineers and do what is good for the safety and well being of the public but not to think that we are untouchable just because we have finished college and that we are above the law.

Posted by Benjamin Yaw Atsem.

References:
Harris Charles E., Pritched Michael S., Rabins Michael J.
“Engineering Ethics –Concepts and Cases”
Thompson/Wadsworth.2005: [Page 301. Case # 1 The Aberdeen Three]

Texas A&M University Engineering Ethics Cases
http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/aberdeen/aberdee1.htm
http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/ppcases/texindex/aberdeen.aspx