Budny 4:00
R19
FROM WASTE TO WATER: AN ETHICAL APPROACH
Connor Bomba (cjb115@pitt.edu)
Direct potable water reuse is a fairly simple process that
turns useless sewage into a high quality water source. The
sewage is filtered through three separate steps to ensure the
set parameters are met. First, water is run through
microfiltration to rid the water of the impurities that are larger
in size. Next, the water goes through reverse osmosis to
remove all inorganic molecules. Finally, as a means of
disinfecting, the water is treated with hydrogen peroxide and
scanned with ultraviolet lights to rid the water of any bacteria
and microbial contamination. Water that comes through this
process is near the quality of distilled water [2]. In fact, a
sample of DPWR water was rated and received a score of six
stars. A six-star water source meets the criteria to be used in
processes like kidney dialysis. Typical drinking water from
your home has a rating of five stars [3].
The means are currently available to produce water from
sewage through the process of direct potable water reuse.
DPWR is applicable to a variety of water strained situations.
It is highly recommended for water deficient areas like Africa.
You may be wondering how communities in Africa can
afford technology like this. The truth is that it is not practical
at this point in time to install systems like DPWR in small
villages and communities. However, for cities with larger
populations or any relatively densely populated area is where
DPWR will thrive. Once more systems are integrated, a
trickle-down effect could come about; which could bring
down the costs and make a DPWR system practical for
smaller communities. Another great region to implement
these systems is in moderately drought prone areas like
California. DPWR has a limited but proven success record.
The first system was implemented in 1968 and has been
functioning soundly ever since then. Direct potable water
reuse has the ability to ease water tense areas all of the country
and the world [1].
Ideally, communities that have long and proven water
stability will start to implement direct potable water reuse
systems and harvest the recycled water. This water could then
be distributed to areas where it is in much higher need. Doing
this would benefit the environment greatly. The amount of
waste going out into the environment could be reduced
astronomically. Additionally, the benefit it would have to
people all over cannot be ignored.
INTRODUCTION: CAPITALIZING ON
HUMAN WASTE
It is no longer alarming to the public when municipalities
request for water usage cutbacks or limitations. Our nation
and global community has become accustomed to drought
situations. As a result, efforts have been ramped up to develop
new methods to get clean, potable drinking water to the
public. The most innovative and resourceful approach
developed, to date, is direct potable water reuse (DPWR).
This process takes sewage water and purifies it to the point of
near-distilled quality. Experts envision this process to solve
several water needs in the United States and globally [1].
Additionally, a new opportunity for profit could emerge from
DPWR. In this opportunity lies grave danger for ethical
mishaps.
LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD
The year is 2025. I envision working for a startup company
whose business platform is to use direct potable water reuse
as a means to produce bottled water. This company has a
brilliant business plan in place. They have established a
business agreement with several local communities
experiencing financial despair and that are equally resistant to
implementing a DPWR system.
The startup company pays these municipalities for access
to their sewage. The company then produces purified bottled
water from it, and then sells the water for a profit. This
agreement is beneficial to both parties because of the positive
economic impact. The company has created jobs and built a
business enterprise on waste products. Essentially, what was
once waste is now a money-making entity.
The company’s sales are steadily rising because of a new
educational trust and community awareness programs. The
CEO agreed that for every ten bottles of water purchased, one
bottle will be donated to communities in Africa where the
need for potable water is beyond dire. Everything in the work
place is functioning beautifully; that is until I make two
shocking revelations.
The first discovery lies with how the process in which the
water is bottled. The second discovery, which I notice
approximately six months later, is the product label has been
slightly altered for marketing purposes. These issues, to the
average person, would seem completely irrelevant; however,
an individual trained in ethical engineering practices would
quickly note the potential costly repercussions.
ADDRESSING THE ETHICAL ISSUES
This company has found itself in quite a situation. Not only
could these situations bring civil lawsuits for false claims in
advertisement, production could also be shut down by the
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [4]. As
one of the lead industrial engineers on the team, I find myself
in an ethical dilemma that cannot be ignored. I owe it to my
USING THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE
1
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2015-11-03
Connor Bomba
employer, as well as to consumers of our great product, to take
definitive action and address the ethical problems.
On the other hand, an individual could have an allergic
reaction to the mold that could be kill him.
ISSUE #1
ISSUE #2
The first issue I notice is the method with which the
product is bottled. The FDA regulates the bottled water
industry as if it is a packaged food product. Therefore,
regulations may seem to be slightly excessive, but are
necessary to ensure what the customer is consuming is safe.
However, the standards required by the FDA are less
demanding than those employed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This isn’t the only situation in
which the FDA and EPA have had any sort of collision. All
water authority lies with the EPA and similar organization at
state and local levels. In Pennsylvania, that agency is the
Department of Environmental Protection. None the less,
bottled water is regulated to high quality standards.
When inspecting the plant one day with my team, I make
an observation. At the base of the unit that dispenses the water
into the bottles, there is a substance that is not part of the
normal bottling process. Not wanting to raise an issue over
something that may be insignificant, I take note and continue
my inspection. Later, I send one of the technicians to sample
the substance in question. The technician is directed to put a
rush on the results. Four hours later the results come in. I
immediately halt production. The substance was verified as a
type of mold. I call a meeting to discuss the findings.
In the meeting, multiple scenarios are discussed with how
to recall the water that was already sent to market. However,
one major issue arose. Our biggest shipment, part of the
company’s African relief effort, has just touched down in
northern Sudan. Uncertain as to whether to distribute the
water or not, we place it on hold until we decide how to
proceed. We ask our team of scientists to conduct tests on the
effect of the mold on the human body if digested. Later, they
confirm that one in every ten thousand could expect to
become slightly ill. Symptoms include an upset stomach,
nausea, and diarrhea. Our team, not just myself, faced the
difficult decision whether or not to allow the water to be
distributed.
As I evaluate the situation, I become torn between what is
ethically correct and my obligations as an employee. The
Code of Ethics for Engineers by the National Society of
Professional Engineers clearly states in its fundamental
canons that the safety and health of the public is of highest
priorities [5]. With that thought in mind I think no further. My
decision is made. I cannot allow the water to be distributed.
Thoughts of the Sudanese people, their desperation for clean
drinking water, and how they could die if they do not receive
this shipment is beyond overwhelming.
In this situation, regardless of the final decision made, the
risk could be fatal. On one hand, if the Sudanese do not get
the water, death for a large part of the population is inevitable.
The second ethical dilemma that comes across my plate
emerges about six months after the initial issue with the
shipment of tainted water. As part of another inspection, I am
in the plant, nearing the end of the bottling process when I
pick up a bottle of water that is in the very final stages of
packaging. I retrieve a bottle of water from a case about to be
shrink-wrapped and study the bottle intently. Something is
different. Something has changed, the labeling on the bottle
had been altered.
What once read, “made in part from sewage,” now states,
“made with recycled water.” I find his change appalling. The
company has always, until this point, been about promoting
its product from a direct potable water reuse system. For me
it is important for the consumer to know the true origin of the
product. The new marketing tagline makes the product more
appealing, but less genuine to fundamentals of the company.
My response is immediate. I email my boss to inquire about
the change knowing that challenging the marketing decision
could lead to dealing with a host of consequences, including
the loss of my job.
My email to my boss touts the FDA regulations which
clearly state that bottled water must be clear about what the
source of water is and where it is located [4]. I receive a swift
response in which my superior plainly states that the change
was a directive from senior management in the company. The
marketing department, in compliance with this senior official,
has decided to make the change as a means to make the
product more appealing. Less aggressive wording would
improve the bottom line by increasing sales. They feel that
sales will soar in the third quarter if they change simply
change the wording.
The company is expanding its reach into the pacific
northwest. Since these people have no prior knowledge of our
product, they may be more likely to purchase it if it is not
disclosed that the water was derived directly from sewage.
Shocked by this statement I decide to email all the members
of senior management who were involved in the decision. My
email goes unanswered. After several days with no response,
I had no choice but to send out a company wide memo
explaining the violation and offering what I feel are some
plausible solutions.
Almost immediately, an email appears in my inbox saying
I should come to the office of the chief executive officer to
discuss the situation at hand. When I arrive, I am directed to
take a seat at en of an over-sized conference table. A team of
lawyers and the company CEO sit stoned-faced until I was
firmly planted in my chair. My heart began to race the
moment I sat down. I was quickly informed by the CEO that,
in no uncertain terms, the label on the water bottles would
remain as is. The CEO states that marketing research clearly
2
Connor Bomba
dictates that the new tagline is more appealing to the masses
and far less controversial. The team of lawyers are unaffected
by my concern that in changing the labeling, they are in
violation of federal mandates. I leave the meeting and proceed
back to my office with a litany of thoughts racing through my
mind about how to handle the situation. I am furious with how
they are choosing to handle this issue. Nonetheless, it is vital
that I remain calm and logical in evaluating the issue. Do I
dare force the issue? I refer to the Institute of Industrial
Engineers Engineering Code of Ethics for some insight on the
quandary. In the code, it states that engineers should always
be, “honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public,
their employers and clients.” [6].
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-29/issue9/editorial-features/battling-water-scarcity.html
[2] L. Paulson. (2014). “What is Direct Potable Reuse.” RWL
Water. (Online article). http://www.rwlwater.com/what-isdirect-potable-reuse/
[3] K. Fielding, A. Roiko. (2014). “Providing Information
Promotes Greater Public Support for Potable Recycled
Water.”
ScienceDirect.
(Online
article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=27&sid=
80aaa052-6e6d-4b90-a98cd900732752b0%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4207&bdata=JnN
pdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=97314892&db=ap
h
[4] J. Layton. (2006). “How Bottled Water Works.” How Stuff
Works.
(Online
article).
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/greenscience/bottled-water1.htm
[5] (2007). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Ethics Code).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
[6] (2009). “Engineering Code of Ethics.” Institute of
Industrial
Engineers.
(Ethics
Code).
https://www.iienet2.org/details.aspx?id=299
CONCLUSION: MY DECISION
After careful consideration I reach a decision on the
second ethical issue but remain undecided on the first. On the
second issue, I decided that that I will contact the FDA about
the violation and resign from the company. I believe laws
designed for the safety and well being of the general public
are meant to be followed. A business entity does not have the
right to interpret the law or go around the law for the benefit
of financial gain. While loyalty to an employer is an important
personal trait, loyalty to the public supersedes that of the
company. I cannot, in good conscience, be accepting of the
decision to intentionally mislead people. When mistakes are
made, the people at fault must be held accountable for their
actions.
As for the first ethical dilemma, I still remain undecided. I
feel that no matter what decision I make, it would be the
wrong one. I hope at this point in my career I would have a
wide range of colleagues and mentors who could provide their
personal input on the matter to aid in a final decision. I know
for certain though that I would consult my father on this issue.
Nearly his entire career as a geologist involved providing
water for the public. I believe the only way to make the correct
decision on this matter would be to have trusted friends who
may have been through challenging situations of their own.
Overall, this company operates outside the lines of what is
considered to be acceptable, ethical business practices. This
company is not in alignment with my personal values or
ethical views. Companies who operate in such a manner have
no place in our society; actions have consequences. It is my
belief that the company will eventually fold as a result of their
cavalier attitude toward following the letter or the law.
However, this company gave me valuable experience that will
give me an edge in any future job; and for that I thank them.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
D. Bomba. (2025, October 26). Interview.
S. Dingwall, C.E. Mills, N. Phan, et al. (2011). “Human
Health and the Biological Effects on Tritium in Drinking
Water: Prudent Policy Through Science- Addressing the
Odwac New Recommendation.” International DoseResponse
Society.
(Online
article.)
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=c
21763f4-7d86-4895-932f2a00e6d45e46%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4106&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=59192603&db=aph
S. Kolmes, R. Butkus. (2012). “Water Quality Standards: A
Scientific and Theological-Ethical Analysis.” Environment
Magazine.
(Online
article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=c
21763f4-7d86-4895-932f2a00e6d45e46%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4106&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=83182816&db=aph
R. Sandford, M. Phare. (2011). “A New Water Ethic: Three
Essential Principles Would Ensure Resilient Water
Ecosystems in Canada.” Alternative Journal. (Online article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=c
21763f4-7d86-4895-932f2a00e6d45e46%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4106&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=56676738&db=aph
(2009). “12 Steps Quality Process for Purified Water.” Nestle
Waters.
(Online
article).
http://www.nestlewaters.com/brands/water-quality/purified-water
REFERENCES:
[1] S. Gale. (2015). “Battling Water Scarcity: Direct Potable
Reuse Poised as Future of Water Recycling.” WaterWorld.
(online article).
3
Connor Bomba
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I would like to thank Ethan from the writing center for his
help and suggestions on how to improve my paper and writing
in general. Also, I would like to thank my peer advisor,
Daxton, for his suggestions on how to set up the paper.
4
Connor Bomba
5