CE 480

Gilbane Gold

Synopsis

This case study is based on a video we bought from the NSPE. You really need to see the video to understand the case.

Introduction to the Case

This case was originally prepared by the National Institute for Engineering Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers. It is a fictional but highly plausible case, suggested by actual situations. You will find it easy to identify with the junior environmental engineer, David Jackson, who is caught between his desire to be a good employee and his sense of obligation as an engineer to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Although the primary ethical issue raised in the case is whistleblowing, secondary ethical issues include the obligations of engineers with respect to environmental issues, management problems having to do with honesty and trust between business and its host community, the issue of the fairness of a community towards local manufacturing plants, the problems raised for individuals and groups by the necessity for action in the face of inconclusive scientific evidence, and the relationship of law and morality.

The case takes place in the imaginary town of Gilbane. The sludge from the Gilbane sewage plant has been used for many years as a fertilizer and is sold under the name "Gilbane Gold." The revenue from the sale of Gilbane Gold enables the city to supplement its tax revenues, saving a family of four approximately $300/year in taxes. In order to protect this source of income, the town placed severe restrictions on the discharge of heavy metals into the sewage, so the sewage would be safe for use by farmers as fertilizer. The restrictions are ten times more stringent than federal regulations.

Before implementing these regulations, Gilbane had aggressively marketed itself as a city with a good business climate, offering tax abatements to industries that chose to move there. After several high-tech firms moved to the area, the more stringent regulations were enacted. Z CORP was one of the companies that moved to Gilbane. Its Gilbane plant manufactures computer components, but the plant's manufacturing process creates substantial quantities of toxic materials, primarily heavy metals. Z CORP monitors its waste discharge monthly.

Two facts about the regulations affect the resolution of the case. First, plants in Gilbane are responsible for supplying test data to the city. The data must be signed by a PE, who attests to its accuracy. The law governing effluents is flawed, however, for it only regulates effluent discharge in terms of the amount (percentage) of toxic material for a given volume of discharge, not in terms of the total quantity of contaminant. So a plant can always operate within Gilbane standards by simply increasing the volume of discharge.

Second, a newer and more sensitive (but also more expensive) test for heavy metals has been developed since the city enacted its standards. The newer test is not required by the city, and the city of Gilbane does not use it. Z CORP employees have access to the test, and it shows that the plant has apparently been slightly exceeding the allowable emissions on a number of occasions. This produces a problem for Z CORP. If it discloses the results of the new test, the city might take legal action against it. If it does not disclose the results, some of its own employees may believe it is exhibiting bad faith with the city.

The plant's junior environmental engineer, David Jackson, is a new employee. He has replaced a consultant who believes he was released because of his warnings about the discharge of toxic materials. David is concerned about Z CORP's heavy metals discharge, and his concern is further intensified when he learns that Z CORP has signed a contract that will result in a five-fold increase in the discharge of heavy metals. David finally decides to blow the whistle on the plant's discharge levels by talking to the local TV newscaster.

Cast Of Characters

Z CORP is a computer components manufacturer which discharges wastewater containing small amounts of lead and arsenic into the city sewer system.

Diane Collins: Z CORP vice president in charge of the Gilbane plant. She reports to corporate headquarters, and is the sole representative of the plant who does so. She is reported to by,

Frank Seeders: In charge of the plant operations, an engineer.

Phil Port: Manager and Head of environmental affairs, not an engineer. He is reported to by,

David Jackson: The young engineer who is the nominal protagonist in the video. He is an engineer and PE responsible for signing plant effluent reports and keeping the

plant in compliance with regulations.

Dan Martin: Z CORP. lawyer from the corporate office.

Non-Employees

Tom Richards: Environmental engineering consultant who was fired by Z CORP. He has the new test which shows the company is discharging excessive toxic waste.

He also encourages David to blow the whistle on Z CORP.

Lloyd Bremen: Former state commissioner of environmental protection, now retired and a farmer who uses Gilbane Gold on his ranch. Though he oversaw the

regulations, he now is critical of the rules regarding the testing of effluent.

Dr. Winslow Massin: Professor emeritus, Hanover University, School of Engineering.

Maria Renato: TV Reporter who does the up-close piece on Z CORP.

The Factual Issues

The factual issues that are relevant to a case are always of crucial importance. Often, however, the place of a factual issue in a moral problem is not clear. Three theses regarding the place of factual issues in a moral problem can illustrate this claim. First, many times disagreements that appear to be over moral issues turn out to be disagreements over the relevant facts. A second thesis about factual issues is that often disagreement over the facts is every bit as difficult to resolve as disagreement over moral principles. A third thesis about factual issues is that, once the factual issues are clearly isolated, moral disagreement may re-emerge on another (and more clearly defined) level. Many times it is impossible to know what the facts are, especially when they have to do with future consequences and degrees of risk and safety. Many times so-called ethical disagreements are disagreements about the facts. When the differing factual assumptions are isolated and resolved, people can often agree. And when the factual disagreements are clearly isolated, sometimes the moral issues can be more clearly formulated, and even resolved.

Questions:

(1) whether and to what extent Z CORP has violated city regulations?

(2) there is a question about the legal status of the new tests. Would courts use the old tests or the new tests in determining whether Z CORP has violated the law? The law specifies the old tests as the measure, but there might be reason to wonder what the courts would do if it were known that Z CORP was aware that it was violating the standards by the more sensitive tests.

(3) there is a question about the exact nature of the reports on discharge purity that David sends to the city each month. Does the report merely give the amount of heavy metals discharged for a given unit of effluent, or does it explicitly state that the discharge of heavy metals is of a certain amount as measured by the old test?

(4) does the consultant have ulterior motives which bias his position with respect to Z CORP.

Conceptual Issues

A conceptual issue is a matter of definition, of what we mean by a term. Getting clear about the meanings of crucial terms is an important part of responsible ethical thinking. There are several conceptual issues in the case that call for clarification. First is the flaw in the law that allows Z CORP to legally discharge more toxic materials by increasing the volume of the discharge: what is the poisoning or public endangerment level.

A second conceptual issue has to do with the question whether David is engaging in "deception" when he signs the monthly reports to the city without disclosing that newer and more sensitive tests show that Z CORP is violating city standards.

A third conceptual issue has to do with the definition of "fairness," a concept which is relevant to at least two issues in the Gilbane Gold case. There is a question whether the city of Gilbane is unfair in requiring Z CORP and other businesses to bear the full financial burden of complying with the stringent standards imposed on industrial discharges into the sewer system. There is also a question whether Z CORP is fair to David in forcing him to take the possible legal liability associated with failing to disclose the results of the new tests to the city.

Moral Issues: Relevance Problems

There are several moral issues in the case. We can point out three relevance problems and one conflict problem that David must resolve.

First, David must decide whether Z CORP is "poisoning" the sludge or "endangering" the health of those who consume the vegetables fertilized by Gilbane Gold.

Second, David must decide whether he is engaged in deception in refusing to reveal the results of the new test to the city.

David faces a third relevance problem in deciding whether principles of fairness have been violated.

Moral Issues: Conflict Problems

The results of the previous analysis strongly suggest that David cannot continue to sign reports asserting that Z CORP is in compliance with city regulations on the discharge of heavy metals.

David also has an obligation to Z CORP. He is an employee and therefore has an obligation to defend the company insofar as ethical considerations will allow.

David has an obligation to the people of Gilbane as well.

What Should David Do?

Questions for Discussion

1. In what ways does the fact that David's boss is not an engineer affect David's actions?

2. If you were David would you look to your professional society for advice on how to handle the situation?

3. Do you think Z CORP is "poisoning" the soil at present levels of discharge? What about a 500% increase?

4. Do you think David is deceiving the city if he does not reveal the results of the new test? Regardless of whether he is deceiving the city, is failing to reveal the results of the new test justified?

5. Do you think the city is treating Z CORP unfairly? Should it bear some of the expense of complying with its strict effluent standards?