Presented to Ma’am Asfa

Presented By Amna Sami and Hafsa Khashif

Presented on 03-01-2020
Case Study of a School with gas
leakage
Summary of the case is:

2
▹ In 1980, an elementary school was evacuated after a
gasoline leak was discovered.

▹ State officials believed that gas from a nearby storage

facility tank seeped into the groundwater.
▹ Tests indicated that a gasoline station in the area could
be the source of the spill.

▹ A map that did not indicate hydrocarbon concentrations

were present in the area of the tank

3
0
▹ Tank was located about 600 feet north of school.

▹ with a water-table elevation 8 feet higher than the

water-table elevation of the school.
▹ The gasoline station was located about 200 feet west
of the school, with a water-table elevation 2 feet
higher

▹ I was hired by the state to simulate groundwater

contaminant movement.

4
▹ Model analysis indicated that contamination leaking
from the tank could have migrated.

▹ My analysis implicated the tank, rather than the

gasoline station, as the source of contamination
▹ Tank owner accepted responsibility, and cleaned up
about 20,000 gallons.

▹ First firm lost its contract with the tank owner.

5
Dilemma

6
 “
▹ Nobody knew from where the groundwater
was being contaminated.

▹ State officials believed that facility tank

seeped into the groundwater.

7
 “
▹ Tests indicated that a gasoline station, could
be the source of the spill.
▹ The firm did the analysis.
▹ But the geographical statistics didn’t justify.

8
 “
▹ So a geological engineer was appointed.
▹ Along a firm, analysis was done again.
▹ The consultant lied, just to protect his given
statement.

9
This is a slide
title
If I was In that Place
▹ Key of virtue is character and honesty, he did
against the virtue ethics.

▹ The consultant also broke the code of ethics,

which supports the idea of integrity.

▹ The Consultant was not fair with his job, which

is wrong due to duty ethics also.

10
This is a slide
title
If I was In that Place
▹ I would have definitely stated that the facts were
true.

▹ And the statements made by consultant were

completely wrong.

▹ He should be terminated and a new consltant should

be appointed.

11
 Thanks!

Any questions?

12