Use cases · Cost allocation
More than one source on the site. Show who caused what.
When several owners, operators or neighbours have contributed to contamination, the cleanup bill has to be split on evidence. Statvis combines a cited history of who operated where and when with chemical fingerprinting that separates sources sample by sample, to support source apportionment and a defensible allocation.
Shared sites, contested shares.
Allocation disputes are rarely about whether a site is contaminated. They're about whose contamination it is, and the answer usually needs both the history and the chemistry.
- Several parties, decades apart. Successive owners, tenants and neighbouring operations each left a mark, and their records sit in different hands.
- Plumes that overlap. Where sources mix, concentrations alone can't say who contributed what. Two parties can point at the same exceedance.
- Single ratios that mislead. One diagnostic ratio, or one chemical against one guideline, can support either side. Whole-profile evidence is harder to argue with.
- Background gets blamed on someone. Naturally occurring salts or metals can be charged to an operator unless the data shows otherwise.
Evidence for an allocation, from history and chemistry together.
Who was where, and when
Owners, operators, tenants and activities on a dated timeline, each entry cited to the document and page.
Site history →PFAS fingerprints
Hierarchical clustering groups samples by their PFAS profile, so different sources show up as different groups on the map.
Petrogenic or pyrogenic PAHs
Parent and alkylated PAH profiles, diagnostic ratios and reference comparisons in one report card per sample.
Salt: background or impact
Ionic fingerprints that separate naturally occurring salinity from an operational release.
Whole-profile comparison
UMAP places every sample by its full chemical profile, so samples from the same source fall together and outliers stand out.
Forensics →Forensic chemists on call
Scientists who can review the evidence, run the analysis and help prepare it for the matter, under a scoped statement of work.
Expert services →See it on a site with several sources.
Start with who operated where.
Statvis builds the site's history from every document, so ownership changes, tenancies, spills and remedial work line up on one dated timeline. Filter to one operator or one period and see exactly what the record attributes to them.
Separate sources, sample by sample.
Hierarchical clustering groups samples by their PFAS profile. Click a cluster to see its fingerprint and where those wells sit. When the groups line up with different operations on the map, that is evidence of more than one source.
Compare whole profiles, not single chemicals.
UMAP places every sample in 3D by its full chemical profile. Samples from the same source fall together and outliers stand out. Fixed settings mean the same data gives the same picture every time.
A PAH report card for every sample.
Parent and alkylated PAH profiles, diagnostic ratios and comparisons with reference sources come together in one report card that calls the sample petrogenic or pyrogenic and shows the evidence. Using the full profile matters: PAH compositions from different sources overlap, especially for parent compounds, so ratios alone need care (Yunker et al., 2002).
Allocation turns on who left what.
Liability rules differ by jurisdiction, but many of them come back to the same question: what did each party contribute? Two examples show how directly the evidence feeds the answer.
British Columbia
Allocation panels and minor contributors
Under the Environmental Management Act, responsible persons are absolutely, retroactively and jointly and separately liable for remediation costs (s. 47). An allocation panel can give an opinion on each person's contribution and share, considering factors such as relative contribution and the nature and toxicity of the substances (s. 49), and a director may classify a minor contributor (s. 50).
Source: Environmental Management Act, SBC 2003, c. 53, Part 4.
United States
Contribution and divisibility
CERCLA section 113(f)(1) lets a court allocate response costs among liable parties using equitable factors. In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (2009), the Supreme Court upheld apportioning one party's share at 9%, based on the share of the site its parcel covered, how long the parcel was leased compared with the whole operation, and which chemicals spilled on it.
Source: 42 U.S.C. § 9613; 556 U.S. 599 (2009).
Statvis supports source apportionment with documents and chemistry. It does not provide legal advice, and it does not make final responsible-party or allocation determinations unless that work is explicitly scoped in a statement of work. The summaries above are general information, not legal advice.
Case study · Sour gas plant closure · a midstream operator
Fingerprints in the site's own data showed what was natural.
The same fingerprinting that separates one operator's release from another's can separate a release from natural background. At a sour gas plant, salinity fingerprints across decades of historical data showed naturally occurring background, which supported adjusting the guidelines applied to the closure.
74%
less excavation: 4,500 m³ instead of 17,000 m³
<12
weeks to an approved closure plan
$2.6M
estimated savings against the original scope
Related
Other use cases
All use cases →
Take control of your contaminated sites.
Bring us one site's documents. We'll show you what's in them.