Things are not all well at Positively Excellent Ltd. (P.E.L.) manufacturing. Employees have suspected for some time that there is borderline excessive exposure to workers performing the precision inspection and adjustment work associated with Line A.  Line A is housed in an older building that wasn’t designed for this work. P.E.L. previously agreed to perform limited upgrades to the building. The recently hired IH, Jack, decides to take some samples and better establish actual exposures. One of the peculiarities of the operation is that Line A, although essential to the company’s survival, only runs intermittently, somewhat seasonally, and generally for partial shifts. Jack’s initial sampling shows that some exposures marginally exceed OSHA’s permissible exposure limit. In addition, ACGIH has just proposed a much lower TLV for the offending chemical than previously existed. Jack learns that part of the upgrade package involves improving the general building ventilation systems and that Line A will receive very limited upgrades. He is also put under some significant pressure from both the division and plant managers to “not do much more” until the upgrades are in place. The division manager praises Jack for handling this situation in a “sensible” manner and protecting the interests of the company.  The chemical in question is slightly irritating to the eyes. While the use of respiratory protection obviously comes to mind, the nature of the work and the requirement of excellent vision for close tolerance work largely precludes full-facepiece respirators. Anticipating improvement and not particularly wanting to engage in a battle, Jack decides not to make an immediate issue about the current situation.  Six months later the upgrades are in place, and Jack re-samples. To his dismay the new system is not adequate to address the problem, and he sees only limited reduction in exposure levels, with occasional excessive exposures still present. Jack presents his findings and concerns to the division and plant managers. He explains that he wanted to see what the new system would do, but that the fixes are inadequate. They reply that the company has no more money to deal with this issue and that the intermittent and limited exposure is not really a problem. They instruct Jack to drop it and take no further samples.  Clearly Jack has been put in an ethical dilemma. He learns later that both the division and plant managers never intended to go further to correct the problem. Indeed, the intermittent and somewhat seasonal use of the chemicals in question has made them believe that a further costly fix is unreasonable.  Does Jack refer the matter to OSHA, thereby violating the confidentiality provisions of the code of ethics? Was Jack right to let the issue lie for six months, recognizing that exposures are infrequent and usually low, hoping that the system would be fixed by the building upgrades? Given the apparent lack of safety commitment on the part of upper management, what are Jack’s long-term options?