Question

During your final inspection of the nuclear core containment unit, on February 15, you discover a ten-foot-long, hairline crack in a section of the reinforced concrete floor, twenty feet from where the cooling pipes enter the containment unit. (The especially cold and snowless winter likely has caused a frost heave beneath the foundation). The crack has either just appeared or was overlooked by the NRC inspectors on February 10.

The crack might be perfectly harmless, caused by normal settling of the structure; and this is, after all, a "redundant" containment system (a shell within a shell). But the crack might also signal some kind of serious stress on the entire containment unit, which could damage the entry and exit cooling pipes or other vital structures.

You phone your boss, who is just about to leave on vacation. He tells you, "Forget it; no problem," and hangs up.

You know that if the crack is reported, the whole start-up process scheduled for February 16 will be delayed indefinitely. More money will be lost; excavation, reinforcement, and further testing will be required, and many people with a stake in this project (from company executives to construction officials to shareholders) will be furious--especially if your report turns out to be a false alarm. Media coverage will be widespread. As the bearer of bad news--and bad publicity--you suspect that, even if you turn out to be right, your own career could be damaged by your apparent overreaction.

On the other hand, ignoring the crack could have unforeseeable consequences. Of course, no one would ever be able to implicate you. The NRC has already inspected and approved the containment unit, leaving you, your boss, and your company in the clear. You have very little time to decide. Start up is scheduled for tomorrow, at which time the containment system will become intensely radioactive.

What would you do?
Think out a course of action and justify it on the basis of the obligations, ideals, and consequences involved.

Answer 1

PLEASE LIKE THIS ANSWER, IT HELPS ME A LOT. THANK YOU!!!

EXPLANATION:

This case creates a moral dilemma in which my short-term personal interests as a strategic planner, the interests of my company and its shareholders clash with the long-term interest of the public and other stakeholders such as the government. I found in his case a weakness in the nuclear system which may have adverse long-term implications but it can not be established with certainty that they will occur. My moral obligation as a structural engineer and my professional responsibility, but even though this crack had a detrimental effect, I am unable to emphasize this mistake.

I 'm sure if I disclose this it would affect the company, its employees and shareholders. But given this confusion, it's against the moral values and my professional obligation to conceal this crack because if my apprehensions might turn out to be real, otherwise this crack will lead to negative outcomes that can destroy both life and property. This will have negative effects for the company and all its stakeholders and will also lead to a negative image for the nuclear industry. I shall therefore report this matter to the higher authorities in this situation as it is my moral and professional duty.