INNOVATION July-August 2015

The Panel also agreed with Mr. Donald’s expert opinion that Mr. Bromley needed an SRA to relocate contaminated soil to Property E, an unauthorized site, and decided that his failure to obtain one was a further example of unprofessional conduct. Finally, Mr. Bromley was found to have demonstrated unprofessional conduct in transporting soil to an unauthorized location when he knew or ought to have known that the soil in question was contaminated. The Decision on Penalty and Costs In making its decision on penalty, the Panel was guided by the need to protect the public, deter the sort of unprofessional conduct displayed in this matter, and rehabilitate Mr. Bromley. The Panel determined that Mr. Bromley’s APEGBC membership should be suspended for 18 months, beginning on February 24, 2015. The Panel also decided that Mr. Bromley must undergo a general practice review and, if deemed necessary by the Practice Review Committee, a technical practice review. All reviews initiated must be completed before Mr. Bromley is reinstated at the conclusion of his 18-month suspension. The cost of all reviews is to be borne by Mr. Bromley. In addition, the Panel stipulated that Mr. Bromley must complete the Law and Ethics Program and pass APEGBC’s Professional Practice Exam before he is reinstated following his suspension. The Panel determined that should Mr. Bromley be reinstated, for a period of 12 months he shall not practice professional engineering except under the supervision of another engineer who is an APEGBC member (the “Supervisor”). At the end of this 12-month term, the Supervisor shall provide the Discipline Committee with a written opinion as to whether Mr. Bromley requires continuing supervision and for how long. All costs of the supervision shall be borne by Mr. Bromley. Mr. Bromley is to pay APEGBC $35,179 for legal, investigatory and inquiry costs. If any of the above conditions are not satisfied, Mr. Bromley will be suspended until such time as the situation is rectified and they are all met. Towards the end of the hearing, Mr. Bromley orally advised the Panel of his intent to resign his APEGBC membership. Mr. Bromley subsequently confirmed his resignation. v Disciplinary Notice – Anthony (Tony) Sze Tong Yam, P.Eng., Vancouver, BC Two separate Notices of Inquiry were issued to Mr. Yam regarding his failure to provide documents to APEGBC’s Investigation Committee and the Practice Review Committee. In advance of the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Yam provided all of the required information and documentation to each committee. In lieu of proceeding to a disciplinary inquiry, Mr. Yam signed a Consent Order dated April 16, 2015, admitting that he contravened sections 30(4) and 44 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act as set out in the Notices of Inquiry. In addition, Mr. Yam agreed to the following disposition: 1. He will receive a reprimand; and 2. He will pay a fine to APEGBC in the amount of $5,000. v

tetrachlorethene, it may be classified as a suspected hazardous waste. Mr. Bromley was consequently required to submit soil samples for a Toxic Contaminant Leachate Procedure (TCLP) test and in the opinion of the Panel his failure to do so constitutes unprofessional conduct. In addition, Mr. Donald stated that when a remediation project involves a dangerous substance such as tetrachlorethene, “a health and safety plan is necessary to ensure that site workers and the public near the site and potentially exposed to the chemical, are protected from adverse effects.” Mr. Donald also noted that “monitoring of air quality is necessary.” Mr. Bromley’s testimony made clear that although he recognized the potential danger, he did not conduct any such monitoring. The Panel concluded that this was a further demonstration of unprofessional conduct. 4. Property A (October 2010) Mr. Bromley’s work on this occasion involved the excavation and relocation of soil contaminated with metals from Property A to Property D. The Panel determined that Mr. Bromley was required to ensure that an NIR was submitted for Property A to comply with the EMA and applicable regulations. Mr. Bromley admitted that a new NIR had not been filed for the site but contended that a separate expert consultant should have seen to this task. However, no evidence supporting Mr. Bromley’s assertion he had asked the consultant to file an NIR was presented to the Panel. The Panel therefore concluded that Mr. Bromley had demonstrated unprofessional conduct in failing to ensure the submission of an NIR. The Panel also determined that, pursuant to the EMA, Mr. Bromley was required to obtain an SRA to ship the contaminated soil from Property A to Property D, an unauthorized site. Mr. Bromley’s relocation of this material without an SRA constituted unprofessional conduct. The Panel also held that Mr. Bromley engaged in unprofessional conduct by transporting soil that he knew or ought to have known was contaminated to an unauthorized site. Finally, based on analysis of the soil, the Panel agreed that it might be classified as a hazardous waste and may therefore have required a TCLP test. Failure to initiate the test demonstrated further unprofessional conduct. 5. Property D (October, November 2010) At this unauthorized site, Mr. Bromley engaged in the remediation of soil stockpiles from Property C. Mr. Bromley also shipped soil from Property D to Property E, another unauthorized location. Section 54(2) of the EMA requires that an NIR be filed for the “independent remediation of a contaminated site” such as Property D. Although Mr. Bromley admitted he did not submit an NIR for the premises, he argued that an error by his technician resulted in the material ending up at Property D rather than the authorized site he intended to use. However, the Panel did not accept “that an error or misunderstanding on the part of a subordinate relieves Mr. Bromley from the responsibility of meeting his legal obligation under legislation.” F failing to ensure that an NIR was filed demonstrated unprofessional conduct.

51

J U LY/AU G U S T 2 015

i n n o v a t i o n