Example B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 1. Deal with Ethical Issues

I recently acted as an expert witness in the area of wastewater treatment in a court case.
As an expert witness, I agreed to be bound by the expert witness code of conduct which
included:
1. An expert witnesss overriding duty is to assist the court impartially on
matters
relevant
to
the
expert witnesss area of expertise.
2. An expert witnesss paramount duty is to the court and not to any party to
the
proceedings
(including the person retaining the expert witness).
3. An expert witness is not an advocate for a party.
This role was different to roles that I was use to as a consulting engineer, where my
duty
was
(more
often than not) to the client who retains me and my role at times included
advocating for my clients.
The expert witness role required me to practice competently and to act with a high
degree of integrity.
At times during the project, when ethical issues arose, I reflected on the expert
witness code of conduct
and my own personal commitment to serve the community as a professional engineer
to guide my
actions.
Activities that I undertook as part of the role that were supported by this personal reflection
included:
1. Informing the court by considering the evidence presented to me objectively
and impartially,
even when this included presenting information that was not favourable to the
party that was
retaining my services;
2. Preparing my expert report in a diligent manner and seeking peer review from
other
engineers
in
my team;
3. Dealing with expert witnesses who were opposing my evidence with
fairness
and
dignity,
accepting fair criticism, even when this fairness was not reciprocated;
4. Being prepared to explain my findings and reasoning to the court under questioning;
5. Clearly informing the court during giving evidence when I did not understand
questions
that
I
was being asked, or when the question fell outside my area of expertise.

ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 4

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 2. Practise Competently

In 2008, I was involved in the design and sizing of a bioreactor and aeration system as
part of a concept
design for a new wastewater treatment plant. I had recently returned to Australia after
working as a
process engineer in the UK for a number of years. I recognised in the early stages of
the project, that the
design methods used for biological treatment plants in the UK were different to those
in use in Australia
and that I did not have sufficient experience to complete some aspects of the
biological treatment
process design.
I discussed the issue with my manager. As I was interested in developing my
knowledge and skills in this area, we agreed on a course of action that enabled me to
perform within the boundaries of my
competence and assisted me in developing my knowledge and skills in this area.
1. I undertook self-directed private study into the design of nutrient removal
activated
sludge
plants;
2. I attended formal training courses on the design of biological and
advanced
wastewater
treatment plants and the use of BIOWIN biological modelling;
3. I used my knowledge from the BIOWIN training course to develop a
biological
model
of
the
bioreactor design for the project that was reviewed by a principal engineer;
4. I completed first principle process calculations to determine the reactor size and
aeration
capacity and had these verified by another process engineer as part of a
peer review process before incorporating these items into the design
documentation.
While my skills in the design of biological treatment plants have developed, this
remains an area where I am working to develop my knowledge further. As part of my
ongoing development in this area, I have applied to undertake an online training
course in biological wastewater treatment.
As an alternative and effective way of developing my knowledge, I have recently
undertaken a number of inspections of inlet works at operating wastewater treatment
plants. (I invited a graduate engineer to join me on a number of the inspections as I
recognise the developmental value of exposing graduate engineers to operational

systems in the field).

By inspecting operational inlet works at a number of sites and discussing the day to
day plant operation with the operator, management and other process designers, I
have developed a good sense of:
1. common design faults;
2. good engineering design solutions; and
3. the practical operational items that need to be incorporated into good designs.
This knowledge will assist me in preparing the detailed design for an inlet works
on
an
upcoming
project.

ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 5

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 3. Responsibility for Engineering Activities

In 2010, I worked as the process engineer on a project that installed fluoride
dosing
facilities
at
a
number of indigenous communities in Queensland. As part of this project, I was
responsible
for
preparing the process and control specification for inclusion in the design and
construct
tender
documentation.
While it was reported to me that the conditions varied from community to community,
I was aware that in general the fluoride facilities were to be installed in remote
locations where:
1. there was a high turnover of operations staff;
2. the operations staff may be non-technical and may be required to complete
a
range
of
duties
other than operation of water and wastewater facilities;
3. there were likely to be delays in receiving replacement parts or servicing;
4. the standard of the existing treatment facilities in some locations was poor; and
5. there was a risk of communities becoming isolated due to poor wet weather access.
Through my awareness of these factors, I developed a sense of responsibility for the
decisions that I was making during the preparation of the process and control
specification. I was aware that the facilities and equipment that I was specifying
needed to operate simply, safely and reliably in these remote
locations with the available level of operator skill and attendance.
When developing the specification requirements and selecting between equipment options, I
considered what the specifications that I was drafting would mean for the operators
in these remote locations once the facilities were constructed and operating.
As part of the development of the specification:
1. I discussed key ideas and decisions informally with other colleagues;
2. I developed and sought feedback on process control items with an electrical
engineer
who
was
also working on the project; and
3. I submitted the specification for a formal internal peer review process and
made
revisions
prior
to issue.
During this development of the specification, I accepted sound suggestions and
good
ideas
and
I
defended my design decisions when I believed that they were in the best
interests of the project.

ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 6

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 4. Develop Safe and Efficient Solutions

Developing safe solutions
In 2008, I was the project manager and process engineer on a project that developed
a concept design for a new wastewater treatment plant. As part of the concept
design activities, I participated in a fullday workshop to review and assess the safety
risks of the concept design.
The risk workshop utilised the NSW WorkCover CHAIR (Construction Hazard
Assessment Implication Review) safety in design tool to review how the risks
associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed
wastewater treatment plant could be reduced or eliminated. I
participated in the workshop as a member of the CHAIR study team along with the
civil designer, and Councils wastewater managers and operational staff.
Through the workshop process we reviewed the design and identified actions that resulted
in:
1. Reducing the risk of working at heights or near excavations/pits
2. Reducing or eliminating confined spaces from the design
3. Reducing the risks associated with traffic during construction and operation
4. Reducing or eliminating manual handling tasks by providing suitable tools and
work
methods
to
assist operators
5. Providing safe access for operation and maintenance tasks including giving
consideration
to
adequate lighting, slip hazards, and suitable space for access for
maintenance tasks)
6.

Reviewing specific hazards relating the construction and commissioning

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 5. Engage with Relevant Community and Stakeholders

A recent project involved preparing the concept design and development application for a
large
wastewater treatment plant on a green-field site. I was responsible for project
management
of
the
consultancy, co-ordination of the engineering design input, and input into the
process
engineering
aspects of the project. In these roles, I was responsible for many of the design
decisions
made
during
the project.
Stakeholder activities that I undertook as part of the project included:
1. Briefing the environmental regulator to inform them of the project, the likely
environmental
impacts of plant operation and to negotiate licence conditions;
2. Engaging closely with our client and inviting their feedback to ensure that we
understood
their
requirements and that they understood the implications of design decisions;
and
3. Responding to stakeholder concerns (reported to us by our client) and
where
appropriate
modifying the design to address these concerns.
As well as engaging with appropriate stakeholders, the engineering design
decisions made by the project team also gave consideration to stakeholder
interests. For example:
1. The effluent quality standard for the new wastewater plant was selected with
consideration of
the predicted environmental impact during operation, the policy objectives of
the regulator and
the likely capital and operating costs that would be borne by the community.
2. The disinfection standard selected for treated effluent discharged to the
environment
gave
consideration to the fact that a sailing club use the receiving water for
recreational boating.
3. The disinfection standard for recycled water that is to be produced by the plant
for agricultural
irrigation was selected with reference to appropriate guidelines in consultation
with the
intended recycled water user so as to safeguard the health of both recycled
water users and the
public.

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 6. Identify, Assess and Manage Risks

My role as a consultant process engineer in the water and wastewater industry includes regular
consideration of technical, safety, project and commercial risks. My engineering activities
include the use of various established risk management processes.
1. I have used HAZOP (Hazard and Operability) risk assessments to identify safety and
process risks in
designs. In 2010, I participated in a full-day HAZOP of the process and
instrumentation diagrams of a
number of proposed chemical dosing facilities for a wastewater treatment plant. In
2011, I
participated in a two day HAZOP of proposed sodium fluoride dosing systems at a
water treatment
plant in Queensland.
2. I have used HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) risk assessments to evaluate
and
communicate process and safety risks relating to the design and operation of
wastewater
treatment
plants. In 2008, I was the facilitator for a HACCP workshop that reviewed the
proposed
monitoring
and control for a proposed wastewater treatment plant. In 2011, I presented a
HACCP review of the
monitoring and controls for an operational wastewater treatment plant and recycled water
scheme.
3. I have used a formal recycled water risk assessment approach to assess the risks of
proposed and
existing recycled water schemes (as outlined in the Australian Recycled Water
Management
Guidelines). In 2009, I participated in a risk assessment workshop for a proposed water
recycling
scheme. I have also applied this risk assessment approach to evaluate other
proposed recycled water schemes.
4. In project management roles, I have developed and implemented project risk
registers to identify
and track risks affecting project delivery or outcomes. As the project manager for a

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 7. Meet Legal and Regulatory Requirements

In 2010, I was the process engineer responsible for developing a concept
design report for the implementation of fluoride dosing at three small water
treatment plants in Queensland.
Implementation and operation of fluoride dosing in Queensland is highly regulated
by the legal
instruments in place. The project was developed and implemented to comply with
the Water
Fluoridation Act 2008 (the Act), that required fluoride be added to potable water
supplies serving
populations of greater than 1,000 and the Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008 (the
Regulation) that
specifically required the Council to add fluoride to the water supplies before the
regulatory deadline.
During the project, I prepared concept designs for the three water treatment plants that
were in
accordance with the statutory requirements of the Act, the Regulation and the Water
Fluoridation Code of Practice.
Statutory requirements of the Code of practice that I incorporated into the concept designs
included:
1. specific design criteria for the fluoridation buildings and facilities;
2. specific operational control requirements to ensure that the required fluoride
concentration
would be consistently achieved and that risk of overdosing fluoride was
minimised;
3. suitable fluoride monitoring facilities to enable the statutory monitoring and
reporting; and
4. suitable site security.
The concept designs that I developed addressed the public health and safety issues
related to fluoride handling and the potential to overdose fluoride into the drinking
water by:
1. selecting a fluoridation chemical that minimised operator handling risks and the risk
of overdose;
2. designing the fluoridation buildings to include suitable chemical handling,
chemical
delivery
and
chemical storage facilities;
3. selecting fluoridation dosing points at each site that were upstream of
existing
reservoirs,
to
provide buffering and an increased response time in the unlikely event of an

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 10. Taking Action

During 2011, I worked on secondment in a role where I was responsible for the project
management of four feasibility investigations that explored different engineering
options for extending water supply during drought conditions. To enable the
investigations to be completed within the required timeframe, the projects were
undertaken concurrently by different consultant teams.
In this role, my activities included:
1.
Discussing the project requirements with internal stakeholders and
formulating
appropriate
work packages;
2. Organising and facilitating project briefing sessions to inform prospective
consultants
of
the
project;
3. Preparing consultant briefs and invitations to submit tenders that outlined the
required
scope
of
work and other project requirements;
4. Selecting appropriate commercial conditions for the engagements (with
assistance
from
the
procurement department);
5. Reviewing consultant proposals, identifying departures, contacting referees
and
selecting
the
preferred consultant through a tender assessment process;
6. Gaining formal approval to award contracts (including preparing board papers
for
large
award
contracts);
7. Writing formal letters of engagement to confirm the consultant engagement;
8. Establishing project budgets and requesting the finance department to setup
purchase orders;
9.
Sourcing appropriate internal background information to support the
consultant
investigations
(past reports, current asset details, data);
10. Organising and facilitating project initiation meetings and organising
for
key
internal
stakeholders to attend;
11. Providing instruction to the consultant teams to direct their investigations to
meet
key
project
requirements for time and quality;
12. Responding to consultant requests for information, including sourcing

information
and
ordinating input from professionals in other departments;

co-

13. Monitoring consultant progress and tracking project budgets;

14. Providing feedback to the consultants on their performance;
15. Reviewing specialist sub-consultant briefs prior to their engagement by the principal
consultant;
16. Negotiating and approving project variations;
17. Organising key stakeholders to attend workshops where the consultants
presented
key
findings
for discussion;
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 14

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 11. Judgement

In 2010, as the project manager for a water treatment plant upgrade concept design, I was
asked for
direction on what the hydraulic design capacity of the upgraded treatment plant
should be. Deciding the
future hydraulic capacity of the water treatment plant had significant consequences in
terms of the cost
and complexity of the upgrade construction project and the ongoing production value
of the plant to
the community.

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.

In developing my response I considered the following:

1. The existing installed hydraulic capacity of 100 ML/day represented a significant
sunk
investment
that was intended to provide for future generations;
2. The site master plan that had been developed as part of the project
identified
that
the
plant
should retain the flexibility to produce 100 ML/day of treated water in the

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 12. Advanced Engineering Knowledge

I hold a PhD that was awarded based on my research-based thesis in
chemical engineering. My research was based on two original observations:
1. that the liquid-gas foams that form during the aeration of bioreactors
provide
a
very
large
surface area for mass transfer between the liquid and gas; and
2. that the mass transfer potential could be increased by applying liquid over the
upper surface of
the foam in a similar fashion to the application of reflux liquid over the packing
in a distillation
column.
Based on these observations, I proposed that a gas-liquid foam column could
provide a useful alternative gas-liquid mass transfer reactor.
During my research work, I completed a review of the leading research papers in gasliquid foams and
foam formation in bioreactors. The literature contained relatively few investigations
into gas-liquid
mass transfer using foam columns, with the majority of work focusing on gas
absorption into foams with
low liquid content (< 6% v/v). The mass transfer performance of these foams was
limited as the thin
liquid films became quickly saturated. The literature also confirmed that stable foams
were commonly
formed in biological processes and that hydrophobic cells were likely to accumulate at
the interfacial
areas within the foam. The accumulation of respiring cells at the gas-liquid interface
had been liked to
higher oxygen transfer rates.
To measure the mass transfer characteristics of a gas-liquid foam, I devised a bench-scale
foam
contactor and undertook a series of experiments where I investigated mass transfer
by
measuring
the
absorption rate of carbon dioxide into a solution of sodium carbonate and sodium
bicarbonate
buffer
solution that was stabilised with a polyglcol frother. For each experiment, I measured
a
range
of
foam
characteristics including the bubble size distribution, liquid holdup and foam liquid
drainage
rate.
From
these measurements and an understanding of the theory of mass transfer with
chemical
reaction,
I
was

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 13. Local Engineering Knowledge

During 2011, I was responsible for preparing a concept design report to support the
development
application for a new wastewater treatment plant in Queensland. I developed the
concept design in
conjunction with a fellow process engineer and principal engineer. My input into the
concept design
report included developing the design capacity and treatment objectives of the
treatment plant as well
as preparing a description of the treatment plant facilities. On reflection, these areas
of design
demonstrated my knowledge of Australian wastewater conditions and standard
industry practice.
In developing the design capacity, I applied my knowledge of Australian wastewater
catchments and standard industry practice. As part of the development of the
design capacity I:
1. reviewed the average dry weather flow (ADWF) from an existing catchment
using
standard
Australian definitions;

2. compared the catchment sewage characteristics that were available from a

monitoring
program
with my knowledge of typical sewage characteristics from other Australian
communities;
3. applied a hydraulic loading of 240 L/EP/day to new population growth (which
was
somewhat
conservative based on my knowledge of water use in other Australian
communities);
4. assigned a peak dry weather flow of 1.8 ADWF based on my knowledge
of
typical
diurnal
profiles in similar sized catchments;
5. assigned a future peak wet weather flow of 5 ADWF based on the standard
industry
practice
in
Queensland to size sewage transfer pump stations to this capacity; and
6. ensured that full treatment was provided for a flow greater than 3 ADWF prior
to
wet
weather
bypass occurring as per standard industry practice in Queensland.
In developing the treatment objectives of the plant, I applied my knowledge of the effluent
quality
standards that could be realistically achieved using the treatment technologies that
are in common use in Australia and my knowledge of the treatment requirements that
the regulator had recently specified for other regional wastewater plants.
The description of the treatment facilities that I prepared within the concept
design report also reflected local industry practice in the following ways:
1. the process train followed a standard approach that would be similar for other
Australian
BNR
plants;
2. the proposed level of redundancy for critical plant equipment followed
standard
industry
practices; and
3. the nominally selected equipment reflected standard equipment that is
installed
in
Australian
wastewater plants and is available from local distributors.
This method of deriving design capacity, the treatment requirements and the standard
technologies
used in this concept design are significantly different to those in the UK, where I had
previously worked for several years.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 19

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 14. Problem Analysis

Recently, as part of my role as an expert witness for a court case, I was asked by legal
representatives to provide an opinion of the capacity of a wastewater treatment plant
that has since been
decommissioned and demolished.
In order to provide my opinion, I first needed to clearly identify the main issues
that determine the capacity of a wastewater treatment plant. I did this by
undertaking the following activities:
1. identifying the physical details of the treatment plant such as the reactor
volume, aeration
capacity and plant operating details from the available documentation, and
where this
information was not available, making reasonable assumptions of the
capacity and operating
details based on similar treatment plants;
2. establishing what the treatment plant was required to achieve based on
the environmental
protection licence, EPA guidance documents at the time, statements made
by the original
designers and standard industry practice;
3. establishing the influent flow and load at the time from the available influent
flow
records
and
sampling data; and
4. reviewing available operational records for the plant to compare reported
performance
against
the treatment requirements.
My review of this information indicated to me that the capacity of the wastewater
treatment plant was primarily limited by capacity of the plant bioreactor.
To form an opinion of the capacity of the plant, I then completed an evaluation
of the treatment capacity of the bioreactor that included:
1. a determination of the design dry weather flow capacity and the peak wet
weather flow capacity
of the intermittent biological reactor based on first principal considerations of
the reactor
volume, cycle times and decanter operation;
2. a first principals assessment of the biomass settling capacity of the bioreactor
for
the
available
cycle settings based on the empirical Vesilind equation and standard industry
practice; and

3. an estimation of the predicted point of failure of the process under various

flow
and
load
conditions through the use of dynamic modelling of the bioreactor using
BIOWIN software.
From this analysis and an understanding of the treatment performance requirements
and
the
influent
sewage loads at the time, I was able to provide an opinion on the capacity of the
treatment plant.

ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 20

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 15. Creativity and Innovation

In my role as a consultant process engineer, I find solving engineering problems often
requires an
understanding of fundamental principles and use of the imagination. Three examples are
given below:
1. Use of DAF to defer a sewage treatment plant upgrade
Sewage treatment plant A currently fails to meet effluent quality targets for suspended
solids and
BOD. While council are committed to upgrading the treatment plant, this is not an
affordable option at this time.
As part of my role in this project, I reviewed the effluent quality results, the
condition of the existing infrastructure and councils drivers for the upgrade. On
consideration of these factors, I determined that the effluent quality could be
economically improved to the required standard by installing a
dissolved air flotation (DAF) plant to remove suspended solids from the effluent
generated by the
existing treatment process.
The installation of a DAF polishing plant will enable the sewage treatment plant
to meet effluent quality requirements, allow council to continue using existing
assets and defer the cost of the sewage treatment plant upgrade.
2. Use of membrane filtration to enable continued use of a dune disposal system
Effluent from sewage treatment plant B is disposed of using a sand dune infiltration
system.
Following years of operation, the infiltration system had failed to the extent that
disinfected treated
effluent was surcharging from a manhole. I undertook an investigation which
indicated that the
system failure was the result of an unacceptably high suspended solids
concentration in the treated
effluent.
Due to the unusual method of effluent disposal, identification of a suitable engineering
solution
required consideration first principles and the risks and consequences associated
with the potential
complete failure of effluent disposal system. Past records indicated that the dune
disposal system
had operated without accumulation of head loss at a much lower solids load, which
was calculated
to be equivalent to < 1.5 mg/L in todays flows. To meet this standard, I identified a
membrane
filtration polishing process as the preferred solution to enable continued operation

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

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

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

Claim 16: Evaluation

In 2010 and 2011, I worked as the process engineer on a project that installed
fluoride dosing facilities at a number of indigenous communities in Queensland. My
role in this project included both
determining the criteria required for design solutions and evaluating the designs and
performance of the constructed fluoridation facilities.
In the first stage of my involvement in this project, I was responsible for preparing the
process and
control specification for inclusion in the contract design and construct tender
documentation. As part of the process specification, I developed equipment
specifications that outlined acceptance criteria for the plant components within the
fluoride dosing facility and acceptance criteria for the process
performance testing of the plant following installation and commissioning.
The process equipment specifications included:
1. the required powder transfer rates of the pneumatic sodium fluoride loading
system;
2. the required dosing pump rates and pressures;
3. the accuracy requirements of the online fluoride analyser; and
4. the material requirements for dosing lines and other parts in contact
with fluoride. The process performance test criteria included:
1. the fluoride concentration that was to be achieved;
2. the sampling and analysis requirements (e.g. sample location, number
of
samples
and
timing); and
3. the acceptable deviation of sample results from the target set-point.
The specification addressed designer obligations for work health and safety by
requiring the designer to provide the required level of process control for safe
operation of a fluoride dosing plant, suitable
facilities such as bunds and dust extraction to manage associated with chemical
storage and suitable facilities for the operational staff.
In the second stage of the project I was responsible for assessing the design
submissions
received
from
the contractor against the contract requirements in the specification. In this role my
activities
included
reviewing:
the process equipment details;
the process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) and layout

drawings; and the functional description and control philosophy.

I assessed the designs against the requirement of the specification and provided
review comments to the contract project manager.
In the final stage of my involvement in this project, I evaluated a constructed fluoride
dosing plant which had been factory installed within a precast concrete building ready
for shipment to the remote site
location by witnessing factory acceptance testing.
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 23

eChartered Engineering Competency

Claims
Example
B

As part of my role in the factory acceptance testing, I completed the following:

inspection of the installed plant and evaluation against the P&ID and

construction drawings; testing of plant start-up and plant shut-down

testing of normal operation of the equipment;
testing of automatic operation and control against the functional description;
testing of the required process control and alarms required for safe operation.
I provided factory acceptance test results to the contract project manager by way of a
short report and completed test sheets

ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA

Page 24