Monitoring\u00a0the clean-up of a fuel oil\u00a0spill\u00a0in 2000\u00a0paid off early this year.\u00a0 The pay-back was the recent opening of a file at the Nova Scotia DOE based on records I kept that confirmed the residential property had been cleaned up.\u00a0 I was retained at the time\u00a0to\u00a0ensure\u00a0the remediation conformed to good engineering practice – peer review.<\/p>\n
(By contrast, the benefit from peer review in civil litigation\u00a0– quality control of the thoroughness and objectivity of the forensic investigation –\u00a0is immediate, rather than years later. Refs 1, 2 and 3)<\/p>\n
A DOE file\u00a0on a residential property\u00a0is normally opened after\u00a0fuel oil spills and\u00a0closed on receipt of a\u00a0report that the property has been cleaned up.\u00a0 It was missing in DOE’s files as the property owner – my client 17 years ago – learned in anticipation of selling his property.\u00a0 Buyers and sellers both want assurance that a property is clean and that comes from DOE’s files.<\/p>\n
My\u00a0client\u00a0asked\u00a0and I confirmed that I had a copy in my files of the final report by the engineering\u00a0firm who did\u00a0the remediation plus all my field notes and photographs taken during my work.<\/p>\n
Why the usual file was missing 17 years later is not so important to\u00a0my story – except to draw attention to the worth of peer review.<\/p>\n
The story began in\u00a0early 1999\u00a0when my client smelled oil in his home.\u00a0 Investigation by a consulting engineering firm at his neighbour’s property\u00a0uphill found that a 200 gallon furnace oil tank had leaked an unknown quantity of fuel oil.<\/p>\n
The firm supervised the remediation of the property.\u00a0 This involved locating and excavating the contaminated soil and removing it from the property.\u00a0 Some soil was also excavated from my client’s property.<\/p>\n
My client, a retired professional\u00a0engineer,\u00a0wasn’t so happy with the firm’s recommendations for remediating his property.\u00a0 At his request, the insurance company retained another consulting\u00a0engineering firm\u00a0to do an independent assessment – in a sense, the start of the peer review process.\u00a0 This was done and their assessment was accepted.\u00a0 The second firm then went on to\u00a0direct remediation of my client’s property.<\/p>\n
My client was still uneasy because of the two sets of consulting firms and clean up operations on adjoining residential properties.\u00a0 He retained me to monitor everything that took place on his property.<\/p>\n
Remediation of fuel oil spills is fairly\u00a0simple in most cases in the Atlantic provinces relying as it does on\u00a0the scientific method and basic engineering.\u00a0 It just looks difficult because it’s messy.\u00a0\u00a0Remediation involves:<\/p>\n
Possible locations are identified by:<\/p>\n
An analogy: Spill water on\u00a0your house floor, and in mopping it up you look where\u00a0some of it has drained\u00a0because you know the floor is almost level, but not quite –\u00a0the character of floors.\u00a0 And you\u00a0clean\u00a0it up because the floor\u00a0might be damaged\u00a0by the water if it’s not.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Peer review is checking that something has been done to an acceptable standard.\u00a0 We often associate it with\u00a0review of a report – check that it’s\u00a0well written and that the data has been\u00a0analysed\u00a0according to\u00a0scientific principles.\u00a0 It can\u00a0involve\u00a0confirming that the\u00a0forensic investigation was carried out to an acceptable standard and the data is reliable.\u00a0 Peer review can also\u00a0mean checking that something is being done properly as it’s being done – the situation at my client’s properly.<\/p>\n
“Hot tubbing”\u00a0might be thought of as\u00a0a form of mutual peer review – experts from different parties\u00a0in a civil litigation case gather round in a meeting and\u00a0review each other’s report.\u00a0 It’s\u00a0increasingly accepted as a case-expediting and cost management technique. (Ref. 4)<\/p>\n
In my case in 2000 I was on site full time to note what was done and that it conformed to good practice, to independently measure and photograph the clean-up as it progressed,\u00a0attend site meetings and report daily to my client.<\/p>\n
In general, the work was done\u00a0very well, and good records kept that saved the day 17 years later.\u00a0 There was one issue\u00a0about the need to construct a groundwater monitoring well –\u00a0a\u00a0way\u00a0of checking for oil in\u00a0groundwater over time,\u00a0oil that\u00a0we don’t want.\u00a0 This\u00a0resulted in independent investigations, reports and opinions – including my own.\u00a0 There’s always a few issues that are resolved by experienced\u00a0engineers talking.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Peer review cost my client money.\u00a0 But it would have cost him an awful\u00a0lot more money if he tried to sell his house and the word on the street was of an oil spill\u00a0on the property\u00a0and no records were available that it was cleaned up properly.<\/p>\n
It’s not too much different in civil litigation.\u00a0 A cost up front for peer review of a forensic investigation, or a much greater cost later when rebuttal of an inadequate investigation and a poorly written expert’s report is turned into a nightmare. (Refs 3 and\u00a05)<\/p>\n
References<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Monitoring\u00a0the clean-up of a fuel oil\u00a0spill\u00a0in 2000\u00a0paid off early this year.\u00a0 The pay-back was the recent opening of a file at the Nova Scotia DOE based on records I kept that confirmed the residential property had been cleaned up.\u00a0 I … Continue reading \n