Is a site really clean? Can you trust a Record of Site Condition?
We keep finding examples of why the Ministry of the Environment had to tighten the obligations of Qualified Persons in Regulation 153/04, the regulation that governs contaminated sites. The regulation requires a Qualified Person to certify the highest known concentrations of contaminants on a site in each Record of Site Condition. We discovered this month that even well-known consulting firms have certified questionable RSCs. An RSC that contains “false or misleading” information or certification provides no protection to the property owner: see s. 168.7 of the Environmental Protection Act.At one site, for example, the consultant (QP) knew of chlorinated solvent contamination in deep groundwater. The wells were removed, during excavation of some contaminated soil, but the groundwater was never retested. On the basis of a verification sample showing that the soil met Table 3, the QP certified that the groundwater met Table 3.
This trick is clearly improper under regulation 153/04, after January 1, 2010. For RSCs prepared before that date, wouldn’t this make them contain “false or misleading information”? What do you think?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
If the RSC was certified by a Professional Engineer, a Professional Geoscientist or limited license holder, and you believe it to contain false or misleading information, the licensing body (PEO or APGO) should be notified as they will investigate and take disciplinary action, if appropriate, and I know of instances where they have done so. If the information is wrong because the person missed something that a reasonable person would not have looked for and proper due diligence was done, then the problem is unavoidable and not much can be done. The greater concern is negligence, incompetence or intentional misreprentation. Actions by PEO and APGO in such cases are important in maintaining public faith in these professions as well as public faith in RSCs. Licensees have an obligation to protect the public and if RSCs are signed with false or misleading information, this is a serious breach of the public trust and I believe that complaints of such behaviour, provided they are well founded, should be looked on as an obligation to the public.
Thank you, Cecile. I agree that effective action by PEO and APGO in such cases is essential to maintain public faith and trust, both in the RSCs and in the Qualified Persons who certify them, and I am longing to see proof that they will.
Do you think that a professional engineer who knows this about another professional engineer is obliged to report the facts to PEO? Do you think that this obligation applies to engineers in the same firm, as well as to those in other firms? Is PEO doing anything to convey this message to its members?
thank you very much