During your final inspection of the nuclear core containmentunit, on February 15, you discover a ten-foot-long, hairline crackin a section of the reinforced concrete floor, twenty feet fromwhere the cooling pipes enter the containment unit. (The especiallycold and snowless winter likely has caused a frost heave beneaththe foundation). The crack has either just appeared or wasoverlooked by the NRC inspectors on February 10.
The crack might be perfectly harmless, caused by normal settlingof the structure; and this is, after all, a "redundant" containmentsystem (a shell within a shell). But the crack might also signalsome kind of serious stress on the entire containment unit, whichcould damage the entry and exit cooling pipes or other vitalstructures.
You phone your boss, who is just about to leave on vacation. Hetells you, "Forget it; no problem," and hangs up.
You know that if the crack is reported, the whole start-upprocess scheduled for February 16 will be delayed indefinitely.More money will be lost; excavation, reinforcement, and furthertesting will be required, and many people with a stake in thisproject (from company executives to construction officials toshareholders) will be furious--especially if your report turns outto be a false alarm. Media coverage will be widespread. As thebearer of bad news--and bad publicity--you suspect that, even ifyou turn out to be right, your own career could be damaged by yourapparent overreaction.
On the other hand, ignoring the crack could have unforeseeableconsequences. Of course, no one would ever be able to implicateyou. The NRC has already inspected and approved the containmentunit, leaving you, your boss, and your company in the clear. Youhave very little time to decide. Start up is scheduled fortomorrow, at which time the containment system will becomeintensely radioactive.
What would you do?
Think out a course of action and justify it on the basis of theobligations, ideals, and consequences involved.
