Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Table of Contents
About this example ....................................................................................... 3
Claim 1. Deal with Ethical Issues .................................................................... 4
Claim 2. Practise Competently ....................................................................... 5
Claim 3. Responsibility for Engineering Activities ........................................... 6
Claim 4. Develop Safe and Efficient Solutions ................................................ 7
Claim 5. Engage with Relevant Community and Stakeholders ........................ 8
Claim 6. Identify, Assess and Manage Risks .................................................. 10
Claim 7. Meet Legal and Regulatory Requirements ....................................... 11
Claim 8. Communication .............................................................................. 12
Claim 9. Performance ................................................................................... 13
Claim 10. Taking Action ................................................................................ 14
Claim 11. Judgement .................................................................................... 16
Claim 12. Advanced Engineering Knowledge ................................................ 18
Claim 13. Local Engineering Knowledge ....................................................... 19
Claim 14. Problem Analysis .......................................................................... 20
Claim 15. Creativity and Innovation .............................................................. 21
Claim 16: Evaluation .................................................................................... 23
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 4
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 5
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 6
stages of the project. As the consultant project manager, I was then responsible for
incorporating these actions into the concept design or documenting actions for later
stages of the project.
Developing efficient solutions
Aeration is typically the single most energy intensive process in wastewater treatment. On a
recent
project, I undertook a review of the aeration system at a wastewater treatment plant.
The wastewater treatment plant was an oxidation ditch style activated sludge plant
that had fixed-speed surface
aerators that were controlled using a timer sequence.
Following a review of the installed aeration capacity and the estimated connected
load to the plant, I
concluded that the aeration capacity greatly exceeded the aeration requirements and
that energy was being wasted through over aeration of the activated sludge. I
recommended that the energy efficiency of the process would be greatly improved by
installing variable speed drives on the aerators and by
controlling the aeration speed using feed-back from a dissolved oxygen probe in the
activated sludge. The modifications were conservatively estimated to reduce the
power consumption costs by
approximately $25,000 per annum.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 7
4. The layout of the plant facilities and the level of noise abatement and odour
control measures
that were included in the design gave consideration to the potential impacts of
plant operation
on neighbouring residents.
5. The plant layout gave consideration to safety during construction and operation
of the treatment
plant. The need to construct (and operate from) elevated structures was avoided
by nominating
to construct the inlet works and bioreactors on a suitable existing site grade line.
The site
chemical storage facilities were located a safe distance from the operational
amenities building,
while still being in the line of site. Site facilities locations and access roads were
devised to
minimise the need for traffic movements across the site.
The wastewater plant is intended to service the community for the next forty years.
During the
design process, I was aware of the need to balance the needs of the future
population with the cost to the current community. Along with the design team, I
addressed this need for balance through the following engineering decisions:
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 8
1. Selecting a high effluent quality (5/2 TN/TP) that is likely to remain acceptable
to the regulator
over the operation life of the treatment plant in order to reduce the risk of the
regulator
enforcing a future upgrade to meet changing water quality requirements
before the end of the
intended design life;
2. Reducing the initial capital cost of the plant, by reducing the initial installed capacity
and
designing the plant with the space and connections for a future upgrade to
provide the ultimate capacity.
3. Selecting a high disinfection standard of for recycled water quality that
would enable a wide
range of reuse opportunities to be considered in the future, should
agricultural irrigation no
longer be practiced in the area.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 9
water treatment
plant upgrade in 2011, I developed a project risk register which identified risks to
the project scope,
cost and time performance. I then maintained the project risk register throughout
the project to
track and record progress on the actions that were identified to mitigate project
risks.
5. On consulting projects, I have managed commercial risks by implementing the
companys ISO 9001
accredited Quality Management System (QMS). In practice, implementing this
quality management
process includes
a. giving consideration of a range of project risks at the proposal stage
including
ability
to
provide the service, insurance requirements and commercial terms and
conditions;
b. providing suitable document control and control of design deliverables
through
the
use
of
checking and approvals.
Following the QMS results in an audit trail within the project documentation that
demonstrates how the project risks were managed.
In my experience, it is important that the key outcomes of risk assessment processes are
captured and
actioned. For the above design review risk assessment processes (HAZOP, HACCP and recycled
water risk
assessment), where possible I update the design documents to reflect the risk assessment
findings or record residual risks on the design documents. I also provide a summary of
residual actions within the design
documents for future action at later stages of the project.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 10
overdose;
4.
incorporating suitable dosing control and concentration alarms with
automatic
shutdown
and
alarm dial-out facilities to the operator on call.
In the concept design reports I addressed the environmental aspects of fluoride
storage and dosing by incorporating the following into the design:
1. spill containment bunds and double contained dosing lines;
2. dust exhaust and water trap facilities;
3. facilities for disposing of chemical packaging;
4. spill containment kits.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 11
Claim 8. Communication
I recently provided expert witness evidence relating to a sewage treatment plant in a
court
case.
The
role demanded a high standard of communication to both technical and nontechnical
professionals.
Throughout the project I was required to respect the confidentiality associated with
working
on
a
legal
case.
I first presented my evidence as an expert witness report. The report was written
concisely around the key issues and drew on evidence taken from over 1,000
documents provided to me to support my
views. I wrote the report for an intelligent, but non-technical audience; I explained
engineering concepts in clear English and avoided the use of jargon. On submission of
the report, I discussed the report
findings with our legal team to ensure that they understood the key points.
Following submission of the expert witness reports, the court ordered that an expert
conference be
held. At the expert conference, a colleague and I met with the two expert witnesses
from the opposing side and discussed the technical evidence. During the conference, I
lead technical discussions through
what I understood to be the key issues in dispute. For each point I listened and
considered the counterarguments presented to me and explained the reasons for my
views using evidence and my own
calculations to support my position. These conferences required composure as at
times the opposing
experts were antagonistic.
As the outcome of the expert conference, the court required a joint expert witness report to
be
prepared. Completing this required me to collaborate with the opposing expert witnesses to
jointly
prepare a report that set out what was agreed, what was disagreed and the reasons
for disagreement. The report needed to be produced in a timely fashion to meet the
deadline assigned by the court. This task included trading a number of draft reports
and holding teleconferences with the opposing expert witnesses to reach agreement
on the report wording.
As the court hearing date approached, I provided verbal briefings to the QC and his
team. During the briefings I explained the key issues and responded to questioning
by the QC.
On the hearing date, I gave evidence in the Supreme Court of NSW. The court heard expert
evidence
concurrently, meaning that all four expert witnesses appeared in the stand at the
same
time
so
that
the
QC could direct questions to any witness. I was cross-examined by the opposing QC
for
approximately
2
hours. Cross examination required me to actively listen as the questions were often
long
and
phrased
in
legal vocabulary. I responded to all questions honestly and using clear and nontechnical
English
as
far
as possible to clearly convey the key technical concepts to the judge and legal
representatives.
Following completion of this project, I received feedback from our lawyer saying that
I had presented very well in the stand.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 12
Claim 9. Performance
In January 2010, the company where I work was approached by a new client with a request
for
assistance. The council approaching us had received planning reports from two
consultants which recommended significantly different upgrade strategies for the
local wastewater treatment plant. Council requested our advice on which strategy
should be adopted and also asked us to provide an independent estimate of the
likely capital cost of the upgrade.
I was given the task of managing the project and providing input into the process
engineering aspects of
the project. As a new client with a potential wastewater treatment upgrade in the near
future, our
corporate objective was to provide a high level of service to demonstrate our
engineering capabilities.
As an initial task, I completed a technical review of the upgrades that were recommended in
each
report. I was assisted in this task by another experienced process engineer. During this
review process, it became clear to me that the two upgrade options were based on
fundamentally different assumptions and would offer significantly different levels of
performance to the plant operator.
To resolve this discrepancy, I engaged with council staff and assisted them in clearly defining
their
objectives for the treatment plant upgrade. I prepared a briefing memo for the
council staff and then held a teleconference with them to discuss key considerations
including:
1. the required treatment capacity and planning horizon;
2. the treated effluent quality objectives and the implication this may have on the
timing
of
future
upgrades;
3. the standard of recycled water quality the plant should produce and how
this
might
be
used
within the community;
4. the level of biosolids stabilisation that should be provided and how this might
impact
on
current
and future disposal options; and
5. the level of operational input and technical complexity was acceptable
given
the
available
operator resources.
For each issue I highlighted the differences in the two existing proposals before
discussing with council staff their objectives and confirming with them the
implications of their choices.
Once the council had clearly identified their objectives, I identified process
modifications to the two
upgrade proposals that would enable the key objectives to be met (for example an
additional effluent
polishing process was added to one proposal so that both options achieved similar
water quality
objectives).
I then provided the council with a draft report that outlined the modified options and
presented capital cost estimates for each option. Following their review of the draft
report, I held a second teleconference to discuss their feedback and to agree with
them on a recommended upgrade strategy and a capital cost estimate for the council
to use for their capital program.
Since this initial project, we have continued working with this council on their
wastewater upgrade planning activities.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 13
information
and
ordinating input from professionals in other departments;
co-
Page 14
18. Reviewing draft consultant reports to ensure that the key strategic issues were
adequately
addressed and that the solutions proposed were technically sound. This
included
co-ordinating
the review input from other professionals on issues which were outside my
area of expertise;
19. Accepting final reports, providing feedback and bringing consultancy agreements to a
close;
20. Drawing out and summarising key conclusions from each investigation for
incorporation
into
recommendations to the Board; and
21. Incorporating key outcomes into a revised drought management strategy.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 15
The existing water treatment plant had been constructed on a hydraulic grade that enabled
a peak
treatment capacity of 100 ML/day under gravity head from the raw water reservoir.
Due to limitations in the filtration capacity and hydraulic limitations on the
downstream side of the treatment plant, the plant currently operates at a peak
capacity of around 70 ML/day.
The concept design involved the construction of a dissolved air flotation (DAF) plant on the
hydraulic
grade line prior to the existing gravity filters. During design development the
consultant notified me that the additional head loss of the DAF and associated
pipework would result in the plant hydraulic capacity being permanently down rated to
70 ML/day and asked whether this was acceptable.
future;
3. A review of the hydraulics that I undertook in conjunction with a water resources
engineer
indicated that a hydraulic capacity of 100 ML/day was achievable with the proposed
DAF and
pipework at dam levels of greater than 90% (which frequently occur in the raw water
reservoir);
4. The operations group had separately requested that the plant have the
flexibility to bypass the
DAF and operate in direct filtration mode as a cost saving measure when raw
water turbidity was
low.
Based on these considerations I discussed the following proposal internally and
with the design consultant:
1. Design the DAF to operate at a peak flow of 70 ML/day, but allow suitable
site footprint and
pipework connections for the installation of additional DAF cells to enable a
total future peak
flow of 100 ML/day to be treated;
2. Plan to install the larger diameter interconnecting feed and DAF subnatant
pipework
as
part
of
the initial upgrade so as to reduce the complexity of the future upgrade to
100 ML/day;
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 16
3. Install the DAF bypass pipework that may (with additional filtration capacity)
enable the plant to
run at a peak flow of 100 ML/day by taking the 70 ML/day DAF offline and
returning direct
filtration mode.
As this solution was agreeable to both parties, I instructed the consultant to develop
the
design
on
this
basis.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 17
able to determine the interfacial area of the foam and the liquid-side mass transfer
coefficient.
My research work established that with the use of reflux liquid, stable gas-liquid foam
columns could be generated with liquid contents of 10 - 45% that offered:
1. Interfacial areas that are much higher than conventional gas-liquid
contactors, ranging from
2,100 - 3,200 m2/m3 (compared with packed columns which typically offer
areas of < 2,000
m2/m3); and
2. liquid-side mass transfer coefficients in the range of 5 10 -5 - 8 10-5 m/s
(which
are
broadly
equivalent to packed bed columns).
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 18
Page 19
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 20
of the dune
disposal system.
3. Fluoride dosing control to prevent high fluoride concentrations following filter backwash
In 2009, as part of the concept design for a sodium fluoride dosing system for a
water treatment
plant, I was required to identify a suitable fluoride dosing point and control method.
The preferred
dosing location was into the filtered water between the gravity filters and the clear
water tank. The
problem with dosing at this location was that water from the clear water tank was
used to backwash
the three gravity filters. If the filters were backwashed with fluoridated water, the
use of normal
flow-paced dosing control of fluoride into the filtered water would result in a shortterm spike in
fluoride concentration that could cause a high fluoride concentration alarm each
time a backwashed
filter returned to service.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 21
A simple solution that I identified for this issue was to stop fluoride dosing for a short period
of time
each time a backwashed filter returned to service (approximately 3 times a day). This
solution
resulted
in a short term decline in fluoride concentration in the filtered water when a filter is
returned
to
service
which represented no real health risk and still enabled the long term fluoride
concentration
targets
to
be met.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 22
Page 23
inspection of the installed plant and evaluation against the P&ID and
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA
Page 24