Qualified expert witness for industrial cooling water disputes in US federal and state courts — cooling tower system failures, heat exchanger fouling and corrosion damage, Legionella disease outbreak liability, and water treatment vendor contract and negligence claims.
Industrial water treatment litigation requires a witness who can explain saturation chemistry, corrosion mechanisms, and vendor program design to a judge or jury — not simply recite credentials. Jim Green brings both the technical depth and the field-operational experience that translates complex chemistry into clear testimony.
Available for plaintiff and defense engagements, subject to conflict review.
Industrial water treatment cases span a specific and technically demanding set of issues. The following areas represent the subjects on which this expert can offer qualified opinion, supported by documented field experience and technical methodology.
Whether a cooling tower water treatment program was appropriately designed and operated for the facility's makeup water quality and heat load.
Technical determination of fouling mechanisms, corrosion failure modes, and causation analysis for heat exchanger damage claims.
Evaluation of water management plan adequacy, treatment program compliance, and regulatory standard of care in Legionella-related claims.
Whether the water treatment service company's program met the industry standard of care given the facility's specific water chemistry and operating conditions.
Technical basis and methodology for deposit formation claims — the quantitative chemistry that supports or refutes causation arguments.
Whether performance specifications in water treatment service contracts were measurable, enforceable, and achievable given the facility's operating conditions.
Technical adequacy of chemical dosing systems, controller setpoints, and monitoring protocols relative to the program's stated objectives.
Root cause determination for corrosion and scaling damage — distinguishing treatment failure from equipment defects and operational factors.
Cooling water litigation involves a specialized body of technical knowledge that sits at the intersection of chemistry, thermodynamics, and process engineering. A general chemical engineer can explain corrosion mechanisms. A mechanical engineer can analyze heat transfer degradation. Neither has the specific domain expertise to explain whether a water treatment program was appropriate for a facility's actual water chemistry — which is usually the central question in dispute.
Industrial water treatment programs are designed and evaluated against water chemistry that changes continuously with makeup quality, load, and season. Whether a program was adequate requires knowing what the chemistry data actually shows, whether the inhibitor selection and dosing was appropriate for those conditions, and what the industry standard of care requires for that facility type — all three require deep domain expertise in cooling water chemistry that is not acquired through general chemical engineering or mechanical engineering practice.
Saturation indices, inhibitor residuals, corrosion coupon data, and microbiological counts tell a detailed story about system state — but only to someone trained to read them. This expert can reconstruct system chemistry from historical data records and explain to the trier of fact what the numbers mean.
A program that would be adequate for one water quality profile may be wholly inadequate for another. Evaluating appropriateness requires direct experience designing and managing programs across varied facility types — experience developed in the field, not in academia.
Standard of care in water treatment is defined by the practices of reasonably competent practitioners in the field — ASHRAE 188, ASSE 12080, CTI guidelines, and established industry norms. Understanding what the standard requires, and whether it was met, requires someone who has practiced at its frontier.
A brief call to discuss the case facts, the technical issues in dispute, and whether this expert's qualifications align with what the engagement requires. No charge for the initial consultation.
No chargeUpon engagement, documents are reviewed — water chemistry records, service reports, contracts, depositions, and prior expert reports. A retainer agreement is executed before substantive work begins.
Conflict review requiredWritten expert report prepared to applicable federal or state court rules (Rule 26 / equivalent). Available for deposition and trial testimony. Rebuttal reports available on appropriate schedule.
Plaintiff & defenseInitial consultations are available at no charge. Discuss the case, confirm technical fit, and proceed with conflict review.