The objectives of the Tri-Party Agreement, from an ethical point of view, can be ethically or morally justified if it fulfills the specifications double-effect. As indicated above, the relevance of the Hanford Site spells out the aims and objectives of the process and the circumstance is in the picture. Pumping in itself is a technical activity and it has no intrinsic malice. The intention is to reduce chances of ferrocyanide from explosion.
Emission of hazardous radioactive products in the ecosystem, again, is a good intention. The whole situation is stabilization of the tanks hence the circumstance. However, using it for the supply of nuclear weapons makes it morally uncalled for. Austin’s move and action is good, it seems. Her attempt to prevent possible dangers involving nuclear waste contamination is good. Declining to approve the plan on pumping radioactive waste from the degrading underground shell-tank is also good. Questioning the legitimacy and safety of the untrained workers is not only good but professional. From above, Austin’s intentions and course of action is in line with valid and sound morality and/or ethics.