The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has publicly announced a practice review of Calgary’s engineering processes around the challenging one-month repair of its Bearspaw South Feeder Main, a critical transmission line that carries most of the water into Calgary’s water distribution network.
The review is designed to ensure Calgary followed its obligations under the General Regulation of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, as well as APEGA’s practice standards.
While APEGA initiates practice reviews for about 10% of its some 4,600 permit holders on an annual basis, the regulator does not typically disclose that practice reviews are underway. The intense publicity around the Calgary repair, however, led APEGA to publicly announce this practice review.
“It’s really a discovery,” John Corriveau, APEGA’s deputy registrar and chief regulatory officer, told ES&E Magazine. “To really determine where or if there is an intersection between engineering and this particular incident. And that’s why we’ve announced it publicly, because of the interest in this particular incident.”
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
The latest environmental engineering news direct to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.
APEGA is the largest regulator of self-regulated professionals in Western Canada, with more than 69,000 registrants.
In an announcement of the review, APEGA said that its Practice Review Board will determine whether “unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct” contributed to the water main failure. If so, the matter will be referred to its Investigative Committee, the regulator explained. The Practice Review Board consists of at least four professional members from a variety of knowledge and experience backgrounds, and one member of the public nominated by the regulator’s council and appointed by the government.
“APEGA’s role is to regulate the practices of engineering and geoscience,” Corriveau announced in a written statement. “This includes reviewing the practices of our permit holders at regular intervals and when incidents, such as this water main break, occur. This ensures all required standards are met to protect the public interest.”
While there is no set timeline for the review, a standard practice review could take six months to complete. Given the complexity of the Calgary feeder main repair, it may be some time before it is completed.
“We’re more interested in getting that comprehensive review than setting a timeframe,” says Corriveau.
APEGA says they don’t publish findings from its practice reviews because they may include proprietary company information.
Corriveau says Calgary has been very co-operative about participating in the review in an “open and transparent manner.” He also adds that it’s rare for a review to progress to an investigation or complaint process.
“I think that speaks to the quality of engineering in the province and how it’s conducted,” he says.
If a trend emerges during general practice reviews, Corriveau says the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta may issue a practice bulletin as an educational measure for the industry.
