A test using fluoride established that contaminant could have flowed through the ground from a leaking pipe system at the Procter & Gamble plant into a nearby well supplying public water to parts of Nenagh, an engineering geologist told the court. A British-based consultant, Mr Jerome Keohane, who was employed by the EPA, said he carried out the test last October. He had released about 6,000 litres of liquid containing the fluoride over six hours and had recorded a 1.5 per cent recovery rate in Gortlandroe well. The amount recovered was low but not unusually so for such a test. He had concluded that a link could be made between the two locations by a contaminant.
When Mr Michael McGrath, for Procter & Gamble, disputed the finding on the basis of the amount of liquid used in the test - given evidence there was only "a gentle leak" in the plant's pipe system - Mr Keohane defended his finding. As far as possible he had re-created the ground conditions which existed on August 18th when pollution of the water supply was alleged to have occurred, he said.
Asked if he was aware there were other possible sources of contamination apart from a leaking flange and which were not the responsibility of Procter & Gamble, he said that issue was not part of his brief. He had been asked to investigate a possible connection between the inspection chamber and the well and he found a link existed.
Mr Keohane said he was aware of an EPA report referring to problems with a storm drain in the area, but this did not affect his tracer test. It was possible to do a similar test on a sewer in the vicinity, but that was not part of what he had been asked to do. Mr McGrath said that given a leak of between one and five litres an hour based on the "gentle leak" evidence, it would take more than 100 days for such liquid to leak through the aquafier to the well.
Moreover, he said, this had to be put in the context of the company's contention that the inspection chamber in question where a leak had occurred was in fact inspected during August when no effluent was found in the chamber.
While the company was alleged to have caused or permitted release of the chemical, siloxane, into the water, Mr Keohane said he had not used this substance in his tests, as using fluoride was more appropriate. It allowed for more monitoring at various points.
Earlier, Judge O'Neill ruled against the company when it claimed that the EPA prosecution had not been brought within the required six months. He said he was satisfied the EPA acted within the provision of the Local Government Water Pollution Act.
