We are often asked by lawyers if we can determine when a chemical release occurred or help determine who is responsible for a release. This can be important in allocating responsibility for contaminated groundwater, especially when more than one party may have released the same chemical from the same or a nearby location.
To gain some insight regarding how you might go about dating a release or understanding complex groundwater conditions, we are providing a short question and answer session below with three of our senior staff with extensive experience in this area: Matthew Schroeder, M.S., Dr. Michael Sklash, P. Eng, and Dr. Khaled Chekiri, P. Eng. Their collective answers are below.
Q: What are the tools you would like in your “tool box” when you have to distinguish between a release from (potentially) various parties?
A: You have to begin with the basics, including good theoretical and practical knowledge of groundwater flow, good information of the geological conditions of the area, and a good understanding of the fate and transport of chemicals in soil and groundwater. I think we all agree that it is also helpful to have experience with specialized tools such as groundwater modelling, geophysics, and isotopes.
Q: What hands-on experience is helpful in assessing this type of groundwater contamination challenge?
A: It’s very useful to have (significant) experience in conducting groundwater investigations, interpreting groundwater flow, and understanding fate and transport of chemicals. The key is practical knowledge rather than the theoretical knowledge when assessing contamination.
Q: Is there anything else that any of you would consider as valuable?
A: Yes. Basic due diligence is valuable, too.
Q: Is there a project you worked on together that incorporates some of these tools?
A: Many years ago, we worked on a project where our client, who owned an old dormant landfill, was being accused of impacting a deep aquifer off site. We started with an informal peer review of the data and graduated to a more in-depth site characterization that included groundwater assessment, distribution of chemicals, groundwater dating, groundwater flow and transport modelling, and several other types of investigations.
Q: That seems like a lot of different tools to analyze the site conditions. Was it necessary?
A: Each assessment is different, but this is where experience is very useful. We strongly believe in using a multi-technique approach. Each method is another piece of the puzzle that is used to understand the site. Interestingly, in this case, the other party used only the electrical conductivity data. We had to convince the court of our position… and there was $100,000,000 at stake.
Q: What was the outcome?
A: The result was very favourable for our client as they won in court.
Q: Do you have any advice for someone that might be facing a similar groundwater contamination situation?
A: Don’t be quick to assume that you are responsible just because there is chemical contamination on your site or you happened to use a chemical that is now found off site. We have worked on numerous projects over the years where someone was ready to install a groundwater remediation or settle litigation until we demonstrated that they were not (entirely or at all) responsible.
Q: Do you have any closing advice?
A: Yes. As in the example above, some experts don’t use a multi-technique approach or will prefer to use the hottest technology (alone) to assess your site. Your argument will be a lot stronger if you have six reasons for your argument and the other side has one against you. If you don’t have a defensible, well-reasoned, scientific analysis, you are likely going to get clobbered in court.
If you have a question for any of our experts, you can reach them at 519-979-7300 or by email: Matthew Schroeder (mschroeder@dragun.com), Michael Sklash (msklash@dragun.com), and Khaled Chekiri (kchekiri@dragun.com).