Who, in you opinion, was responsible for the Kepone incident ?

This is a case of social responsibility and the underlying question of can social

responsibility be outsourced ? The idea itself isn’t too outrageous but rarely works.

Early in the controversy around dangerous chemicals in the workplace, Allied Chemical

tried to distance itself from responsibility for dangerous emissions and spills at a supplier

in Hopewell, Va., to which it outsourced production of Kepone, a DDT-like pesticide.

Public outcry, legal suits, and congressional action eventually led to a settlement, and to

strict new industry regulations. My opinion is that there is collective responsibility in this

case. First Life Science Products should have provided safer working conditions for

employees and discarded waste in a more responsible way. The city of Hopewell was

aware of these issues when the sewage plant showed signs of trouble. These individuals

should have brought these safety issues to the forefront and not kept it quiet. And finally

Allied Chemical should have been aware of how Life Science Products worked and what

policies and procedures they were facing. Due to a lack of commitment to social

responsibility on all fronts, damages to the environment and employee’s health as well as

financial damages were enormous.

If you were to choose between TSCA and TRP which would you prefer and why ?

Richard Wagner was a division president of Allied Chemical Corporation, a

profitable company who recently saw its share of problems. After the

Kepone incident, it was Wagner's job to decide what Allied Chemical's

position would be on two issues, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

and Allied's internal Total Product Responsibility (TPR).

The TSCA was proposed by Congress to prevent problems from harmful

chemicals. All past legislation was focused on fixing problems after

they happened. The TSCA would give the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) new powers to ensure that incidents such as Kepone

would be prevented early on in the process. There were some reasons

that Allied would want to support the TSCA. Allied's reputation had be

hurt when they became involved with LSP. They had the reputation of

not caring about employees or the environment. By supporting this bill

in public they could attempt to change that image. There are, however,

reasons that Allied shouldn’t support TSCA. The chemical industry is

already strictly regulated and the TSCA would give the impression of

total government controlover the industry. Before mass-producing a

new chemical Allied would need to get permission from the EPA. This

would not only take time but also cost a great deal. The TSCA is not

specific in what powers it gives to the EPA. This could lead to situations

when the EPA interprets the law by itself and would assume "broad

powers with few restrictions". Any new technology Allied developed

would need to be reported to the EPA and divulge trade secrets.

Clearly Allied needed to support some type of mechanism to insure the

public that a Kepone incident will not happen again. Supporting the TSCA

is one way but it will have several drawbacks for the company and the

industry as a whole. For the TSCA, Wagner should keep with Allied's

current opinion and stay neutral.

Total Product Responsibility (TPR) was an internal plan made by Allied. Its

mission was to "properly discharge its legal and moral responsibility to

protect its employees, customers, the public, and the environment from

harm". This is essentially what Allied needs for giving assurance across

the chemical industry. The benefit is that TRP can be implemented by

Allied internally.

TPR would do many of the things that TSCA would but would also go

beyond in some respects by carefully scrutinizing new and existing

customers. No chemicals would be sold to companies that did not have

the knowledge to handle them. All outside contractors would be examined

even more closely and include periodic inspections. While there are some

problems with TPR they do not measure up to the problems from TSCA.

Allied should start to support TPR immediately. It needs to show the

public that they are willing to regulate themselves and not wait for the

government to protect the people and environment. Even if TSCA

passed, it is clearly important for the company to show accountability

and TPR is the way to do this. The benefits will outweigh the costs if

this internal policy is implemented.

Wagner should present that Allied should take a neutral stance on the

government’s TSCA. He should add that the company should enact TPR

immediately and advertise this fact to the news media. If TSCA should

pass, Allied should change TPR's responsibilities to interface with the

EPA.