Good Case Study On Dissent About Nuclear Safety

Alison Turner, a member of the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee (PNSRC) at a nuclear power plant, finds herself in a dilemma over how she should vote on a Justification for Continued Operation (JCO). The heat exchangers in one unit have developed differential pressure and the flow of the cooling water has been degraded. Also, the heat exchangers in the second unit are operating at less than full capacity. It is assumed in the JCO that the heat exchangers will continue to operate at 95% of their initial capacity. Alison has to make a choice either to speak up against JCO and cast a negative vote or remain quiet and assent the JOC. This is a paper on morality of decision based on the deontology theory.
According to the theory of deontology, the morality of an issue is based on obligations, duties, and the claim that certain actions are inherently wrong or right regardless of the consequences. Going by this theory, Alison has an obligation and duty to ensure the safe operation of the plant without endangering the workers or the neighboring community. The heat exchangers are an optional cautionary measure to guard against a meltdown in case of an accident. The heat exchangers have been designed on a Single Failure Criteria which assumes that only one heat exchanger can malfunction at a time. Given that all the heat exchangers are operating at 5% below their rated capacity, it is not certain that one heat exchanger can support a whole unit in case of an accident.
Alison should vote against the JCO. Given the current state of heat exchangers, it is not possible to predict what would happen. A negative vote is the moral thing to do according to the deontology theory. If she approves the JCO and an accident does happen, she would regret her decision. Conversely, if an accident doesn’t occur, her conscious would be clear because she made the right decision.