INNOVATION July-August 2015

d i sc i p l i ne and en forcemen t

material was removed from the premises and deposited at Property F, an unauthorized site, before being moved to Property G, an authorized location. Evidence submitted to the Panel indicated that although Mr. Bromley knew the material was contaminated, he intended that it be sent directly to an authorized site. The Panel therefore agreed with Mr. Bromley’s contention that he “should not be held responsible for what the shipping company did once the shipment left his site.” As Mr. Bromley had contracted to have the soil transported to an authorized location and had not known that it would be deposited at an unauthorized site, the Panel found that APEGBC had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was obligated to obtain an SRA. 2. Property B (September 2010) Mr. Bromley participated in the remediation of Property B and was consequently required to submit an NIR to bring the site into compliance with s. 54(2) of the EMA and applicable regulations. Mr. Bromley admitted he did not file an NIR for the site. The Panel therefore concluded that he had demonstrated unprofessional conduct. Mr. Bromley also transferred soil from Property B to Property F, an unauthorized location. The Panel held that APEGBC had not established on a balance of probabilities that this soil was contaminated, meaning that Mr. Bromley did not require an SRA for its relocation. 3. Property C (September & October 2010) This site was contaminated by tetrachlorethene (PERC), a carcinogenic and mutagenic dry cleaning fluid known to be dangerous to the central nervous system. Groundwater tests of samples taken from Property C revealed this substance was present in concentrations as high as 42,000 µg/L and 150,000 µg/L, far above the legal limit for tetrachlorethene, identified by Mr. Donald as 3,000 µg/L. In the opinion of the Panel, “the most egregious example of Mr. Bromley’s unprofessional conduct relates to [Property C], where he blatantly ignored the requirements for the safe handling of soil that was potentially harmful.” Mr. Bromley had been attempting to remediate the contami- nated soil at Property C, but difficult site conditions induced him to excavate the soil and transport it to Property D, where the work might be done more efficiently. The Panel found the material moved from Property C to Property D was contaminated and the receiving site was unauthorized. Consequently, as established by Mr. Donald’s testimony, Mr. Bromley was obligated to obtain an SRA to transport the soil without contravening the EMA. Mr. Bromley admitted he was aware of this requirement but chose not to comply because he knew an SRA would not be granted for the site. Therefore, the Panel concluded that in relocating the contaminated material without an SRA, Mr. Bromley engaged in unprofessional conduct. The Panel determined that Mr. Bromley demonstrated additional unprofessional conduct by transporting soil to an unauthorized site when he knew or ought to have known that the material in question was contaminated. The Panel accepted Mr. Donald’s expert opinion that, as the material from Property C contained high levels of

Disciplinary Notice – Kevin Adrian Bromley, Victoria, BC The Allegations On November 18 and 19, 2014, the Discipline Committee of APEGBC (the “Panel”) held an Inquiry into the professional conduct of Mr. Bromley. It was alleged that Mr. Bromley demonstrated unprofessional conduct with regard to his work in soil relocation by breaching the Environmental Management Act (EMA) or the Contaminated Sites Regulation . The charges against Mr. Bromley pertained to his professional services in the relocation of soil from a number of sites on several occasions. APEGBC alleged that Mr. Bromley: 1. Failed to file a Notice of Independent Remediation with the Ministry of Environment; 2. Failed to obtain a soil relocation agreement to transport contaminated soil from a site; 3. Failed to submit soil samples for a Toxic Contaminant Leachate Procedure test; 4. Knew, or ought to have known, that contaminated soil was being transported to unauthorized sites; and 5. Undertook excavation and transport of soil which he knew, or ought to have known, was contaminated by tetrachlorethene, but did not have monitoring of air vapours conducted during execution of the work to ensure workers or the public were not exposed to vapours at concentrations that may cause adverse health effects. At the discipline hearing, APEGBC called Mr. William R. Donald, P.Eng., FEC, as an expert witness. Mr. Donald provided a report of his findings to the Panel. The Panel found Mr. Bromley to have demonstrated unprofessional conduct contrary to section. 33(1)(c) of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act , and issued a Determination on Penalty and Costs dated February 24, 2015. The Panel considered the following five incidents during which Mr. Bromley was alleged to have displayed unprofessional conduct: 1. Property A (April 2010) Mr. Bromley engaged in the remediation of Property A, which required the excavation and relocation of contaminated soil from the site. Section 54(2) of the EMA stipulates that any person undertaking independent remediation of a contaminated site must, upon initiating remediation and within 90 days of completion, file a Notice of Independent Remediation (NIR). Mr. Donald testified that an NIR was required in order for Property A to comply with the EMA and Regulations. Mr. Bromley admitted that he did not file an NIR for the site, but stated he had asked a different expert consultant to do so. However, the Panel was not presented with any evidence in support of this contention. In addition, Mr. Bromley had earlier admitted he did not know that he was required to file an NIR for Property A. The Panel concluded that Mr. Bromley was required by the EMA to ensure that an NIR was filed and his failure to do so constituted unprofessional conduct. Mr. Donald testified that section 55 of the EMA requires the procurement of a soil relocation agreement (SRA) whenever contaminated soil is to be transported to an unauthorized location. During the remediation of Property A, contaminated

50

J U LY/AU G U S T 2 015

i n n o v a t i o n