Case4: A consulting engineering company was awarded thecontract fordesigning, preparing the specifications, and providing "fieldinspection services" (monitoring the construction) of a sewagetreatment plant being built for a small municipality. Theconstruction proceeded routinely to completion. The consultingcompany employed Engineer A, an environmental engineerexperienced in wastewater treatment, to assist in the fieldinspection. During the final commissioning of the plant,Engineer A observed that the biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) of the effluent was frequently above the acceptable limit.Engineer A contacted the design office at his engineeringcompany, and after reviewing the case with an environmentalconsultant, he soon realized that the plant had been designed foraverage flows, but several food-processing industries in themunicipality occasionally fed "slugs" of raw sewage to theplant. The biochemical oxygen demand would increase rapidlywhen one of these slugs arrived and would remain above theregulated limit for a few days, before moving back down belowthe limit. Engineer A concluded that, on days when these slugswere being processed, the plant would not meet the effluentquality standards. The specifications had been set by theengineering company's design office, which had used theaverage sewage flow estimates. He faced a serious decision, andidentified three courses of action. Should he disclose thisdeficiency to the municipality (the client), thus implicating theengineering company (his employer) as responsible for theinadequate design, or selectively sample the plant effluentbetween slug discharges, thus falsifying the true nature of theproblem, or provide “average" readings in his commissioningreport, which might be a defensible compromise?1. What is the problem here?2. What is the moral dilemma?3. What values are applicable here?4. Cades of ethics involved?5. What he should do?

Question

Case4: A consulting engineering company was awarded thecontract fordesigning, preparing the specifications, and providing &#34;fieldinspection services&#34; (monitoring the construction) of a sewagetreatment plant being built for a small municipality. Theconstruction proceeded routinely to completion. The consultingcompany employed Engineer A, an environmental engineerexperienced in wastewater treatment, to assist in the fieldinspection. During the final commissioning of the plant,Engineer A observed that the biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) of the effluent was frequently above the acceptable limit.Engineer A contacted the design office at his engineeringcompany, and after reviewing the case with an environmentalconsultant, he soon realized that the plant had been designed foraverage flows, but several food-processing industries in themunicipality occasionally fed &#34;slugs&#34; of raw sewage to theplant. The biochemical oxygen demand would increase rapidlywhen one of these slugs arrived and would remain above theregulated limit for a few days, before moving back down belowthe limit. Engineer A concluded that, on days when these slugswere being processed, the plant would not meet the effluentquality standards. The specifications had been set by theengineering company's design office, which had used theaverage sewage flow estimates. He faced a serious decision, andidentified three courses of action. Should he disclose thisdeficiency to the municipality (the client), thus implicating theengineering company (his employer) as responsible for theinadequate design, or selectively sample the plant effluentbetween slug discharges, thus falsifying the true nature of theproblem, or provide “average&#34; readings in his commissioningreport, which might be a defensible compromise?1. What is the problem here?2. What is the moral dilemma?3. What values are applicable here?4. Cades of ethics involved?5. What he should do?

Accepted Answer

Since you have posted a question with multiple sub-parts, we will solve the first three sub-parts…

1. What is the problem here? 2. What is the moral dilemma? 3. What values are applicable here?